3 ms·

Thanks for your comment. This article is based on the actual state of knowledge in social sciences, and you can find all the references (as links) all over the

Thanks for your comment. This article is based on the actual state of knowledge in social sciences, and you can find all the references (as links) all over the article. If you have doubts or questions on a specific subject discussed in the article, I would be glad to provide sources. By the way, I will add a "Sources & references" section that is missing. Thanks again.

X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
To be fair it looks like there are a number of valid thing sources here, but at least to me it didn't feel very cohesive and there are a lot of terms that have been coopted by self help books and other sources that I don't find trust worthy. For instance as soon as I see "tipping point" I think of malcom gladwells book which falls into puesdoscience a number of times. [1] It's entirely possible with some different framing and dealing with one sections that are supported by different research in different articles I wouldn't have had that reaction. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point#Scientific https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point#Scientific
- kvrichard 7y ago
  Thanks for your feedback. I better understand your point. Specifically about the term "tipping point" I used it in its general meaning. Beyond the legitimate criticisms on Gladwell's use of the concept in his book, it is known in behavioral science and more specifically in when we talk about behavioral contagion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_contagion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_contagion) as the "inflection point" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point) which is what I'm referring to as a "tipping point" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology)). But I agree that this could be confusing. I'll add this precision to my article. For the rest of your remark: the point of this article is to make readers realize the importance of context on people's decision-making process. This is no pseudo-science as it is standard knowledge in social sciences, backed up with years of scientific studies and publications. For sure, many scientific concepts have been reused (and altered) by personal development and pseudo-science movements. But this doesn't cancel the scientific validity of such concepts. How many times can we read about “quantum physic” in pseudo-science articles (i.e. https://elemental.medium.com/the-human-body-can-heal-in-astonishing-ways-cc0dc32d862b https://elemental.medium.com/the-human-body-can-heal-in-asto...). Does it make quantum physic a pseudo-science? Fortunately, no. The difference here is that not only the concept is well-supported but also the method and technic used for its application. Perhaps, my article is not well written, which I can concede (always learning and improving). Anyway, thanks for helping me improve it.

X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago

To be fair it looks like there are a number of valid thing sources here, but at least to me it didn't feel very cohesive and there are a lot of terms that have been coopted by self help books and other sources that I don't find trust worthy. For instance as soon as I see "tipping point" I think of malcom gladwells book which falls into puesdoscience a number of times. [1] It's entirely possible with some different framing and dealing with one sections that are supported by different research in different articles I wouldn't have had that reaction. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point#Scientific https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point#Scientific

kvrichard 7y ago
Thanks for your feedback. I better understand your point. Specifically about the term "tipping point" I used it in its general meaning. Beyond the legitimate criticisms on Gladwell's use of the concept in his book, it is known in behavioral science and more specifically in when we talk about behavioral contagion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_contagion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_contagion) as the "inflection point" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point) which is what I'm referring to as a "tipping point" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology)). But I agree that this could be confusing. I'll add this precision to my article. For the rest of your remark: the point of this article is to make readers realize the importance of context on people's decision-making process. This is no pseudo-science as it is standard knowledge in social sciences, backed up with years of scientific studies and publications. For sure, many scientific concepts have been reused (and altered) by personal development and pseudo-science movements. But this doesn't cancel the scientific validity of such concepts. How many times can we read about “quantum physic” in pseudo-science articles (i.e. https://elemental.medium.com/the-human-body-can-heal-in-astonishing-ways-cc0dc32d862b https://elemental.medium.com/the-human-body-can-heal-in-asto...). Does it make quantum physic a pseudo-science? Fortunately, no. The difference here is that not only the concept is well-supported but also the method and technic used for its application. Perhaps, my article is not well written, which I can concede (always learning and improving). Anyway, thanks for helping me improve it.