1. He's presenting himself as an expert on a topic far from his research expertise. His background per Wikipedia: "Haidt's main scientific contributions come from the psychological field of moral foundations theory, which attempts to explain the evolutionary origins of human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, gut feelings rather than logic and reason." This has nothing to do with developmental and clinical psychology/psychiatry. He's way out of his depth here.
2. He's part of the "intellectual dark web", a group of people who seek out fame with a particular audience niche, and prioritize that over truth.
3. I feel he's trying to please the audience and get out bestsellers, making the same mistakes he accuses others of making, e.g. lack of scientific rigor/open mindedness. Example: maybe Smartphones aren't that bad. Sure, they have a big impact, but it could be positive and negative. To make the book a bestseller, it pays to focus on the negatives.
Going back a few generations there were similar panics over books, radio, tv, video games, the internet and now social media.
You can sort of ask yourself this question on the 'tech' side of things. How often do you use reddit or hacker news? These sites are MVPs for information addiction.
But he is presenting his arguments based on research data, not just pulling stuff out of nowhere. I have the book and started reading it, so far it doesn’t seem farfetched or made up at all, he does cite his sources.
Is he though? I haven't read the book, but the blog provides very bad arguments based on fallacies. Maybe it misrepresents the book. I don't know.
But it's clear that this is not Prof Haidt's topic of expertise as a scientist. In scientific questions I would want a review on the question of impact of social media on mental health to be done by an expert on teen mental health. Not a socially conservative moral philosopher turned bestseller popsci author.
Of all its "members", Jon Haidt was the least voluntarily grouped in with the rest of the IDW. If he was ever a member -- not that that should be damning -- it wouldve been nearly a decade ago. The IDW has not been relevant for half a decadd. He's also a bog standard Progressive politically.
Also, his focus is on human social relationships and how they affect society. The article is well within his realm of experise. You are just attacking a man dedicated to promoting peace and well being in personal and intrasocietal relationships because you clearly have a political axe to grind -- and you dont even have the right target.
Are you sure we are talking about the same book? The subtitle is "How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness"
The people who diagnose, treat and study mental illness are psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. Haidt is neither. Epidemics are studied by epidemiologists.
He's a moral/social psychologist. Sure he can talk about social relations and peer pressure.
Whether or not he promotes peace and well being has no bearing on the scientific merit of his claims.
1. He's presenting himself as an expert on a topic far from his research expertise. His background per Wikipedia: "Haidt's main scientific contributions come from the psychological field of moral foundations theory, which attempts to explain the evolutionary origins of human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, gut feelings rather than logic and reason." This has nothing to do with developmental and clinical psychology/psychiatry. He's way out of his depth here.
2. He's part of the "intellectual dark web", a group of people who seek out fame with a particular audience niche, and prioritize that over truth.
3. I feel he's trying to please the audience and get out bestsellers, making the same mistakes he accuses others of making, e.g. lack of scientific rigor/open mindedness. Example: maybe Smartphones aren't that bad. Sure, they have a big impact, but it could be positive and negative. To make the book a bestseller, it pays to focus on the negatives.