Haidt does not fully understand the primary flaws of a 2019 paper by Orben & Przybylski and misinforms readers about its contents when attempting to use it to bolster his social media arguments.
David, thanks as always for your extremely careful analyses of my writing.
In this case, it seems that your primary critique of me is that I was not critical enough of O&P. I did not want to accuse them of any kind of misconduct. I'm sure they can offer a defense of each of the 6 analytical moves (although I think the inclusion of emotional responses as moderators is probably not defensible). In any case, while you have caught some errors in my writing, such as not seeing that they used median coefficients rather than averages, I think you agree with me on the main conclusion, which is that their demonstration of essentially zero relationship is not valid. If we agree on that, then I do not think that what I wrote was "severely misleading" to readers. What do you think?
I made it clear above, repeatedly, that the O&P assertions were invalid and that the O&P paper has no scientific merit.
The "severely misleading" part in your post was the notion that social media was an *exception* in the O&P paper, with a much stronger O&P coefficient than other digital media and not subject to the potato and glasses ridicule.
I see no justification for omitting the actual O&P coefficients and the fact that the MCS coef for SM was weaker than for glasses. Readers will have to decide for themselves if this was severely misleading in context; in my opinion it was.
I think you get a bit blinded at times in your effort to see evidence of social media (especially Instagram) being *exceptionally* harmful. One problem is that this in turn can mislead readers about potential dangers of other screen uses by adolescents.
Thanks in part to your constructive criticism of my work, i have expanded my focus, in the book, to be about the "phone based childhood" more broadly, rather than focusing on social media as much as i did 2 years ago.
That is the most encouraging response -- at least in my view -- that a critic can receive.
I am a blunt critic, sometimes a harsh critic, but I never aim to be cruel nor to critique just to enjoy criticism (a lot of the time writing critiques is actually quite an arduous task). What matters to me is to have at least some impact that leads to a better understanding of issues that truly matter, be it the mental health of both girls *and* boys, be it the intricacies of the youth suicide rise, or be it a realistic and nuanced view of social media and digital technologies.
BTW, I wish I've have had more time to critique some of your opponents, but given limited time I figured I need to concentrate on issues most crucial to your book project, and that meant your own views.
I hope your book turns out great and I look forward to critiquing you (and your opponents!) in the future.
David, thanks as always for your extremely careful analyses of my writing.
In this case, it seems that your primary critique of me is that I was not critical enough of O&P. I did not want to accuse them of any kind of misconduct. I'm sure they can offer a defense of each of the 6 analytical moves (although I think the inclusion of emotional responses as moderators is probably not defensible). In any case, while you have caught some errors in my writing, such as not seeing that they used median coefficients rather than averages, I think you agree with me on the main conclusion, which is that their demonstration of essentially zero relationship is not valid. If we agree on that, then I do not think that what I wrote was "severely misleading" to readers. What do you think?
Dear Jon,
I made it clear above, repeatedly, that the O&P assertions were invalid and that the O&P paper has no scientific merit.
The "severely misleading" part in your post was the notion that social media was an *exception* in the O&P paper, with a much stronger O&P coefficient than other digital media and not subject to the potato and glasses ridicule.
I see no justification for omitting the actual O&P coefficients and the fact that the MCS coef for SM was weaker than for glasses. Readers will have to decide for themselves if this was severely misleading in context; in my opinion it was.
I think you get a bit blinded at times in your effort to see evidence of social media (especially Instagram) being *exceptionally* harmful. One problem is that this in turn can mislead readers about potential dangers of other screen uses by adolescents.
thanks for this clarification.
Thanks in part to your constructive criticism of my work, i have expanded my focus, in the book, to be about the "phone based childhood" more broadly, rather than focusing on social media as much as i did 2 years ago.
That is the most encouraging response -- at least in my view -- that a critic can receive.
I am a blunt critic, sometimes a harsh critic, but I never aim to be cruel nor to critique just to enjoy criticism (a lot of the time writing critiques is actually quite an arduous task). What matters to me is to have at least some impact that leads to a better understanding of issues that truly matter, be it the mental health of both girls *and* boys, be it the intricacies of the youth suicide rise, or be it a realistic and nuanced view of social media and digital technologies.
BTW, I wish I've have had more time to critique some of your opponents, but given limited time I figured I need to concentrate on issues most crucial to your book project, and that meant your own views.
I hope your book turns out great and I look forward to critiquing you (and your opponents!) in the future.