4 ms·
> I assert that you should not pick a side. Instead, you should look at how you can add to and learn from the data. Haidt is sufficiently convinced by the exis
by PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> I assert that you should not pick a side. Instead, you should look at how you can add to and learn from the data.
Haidt is sufficiently convinced by the existing data that he feels strongly that what is called for is action, not more data collection (or perhaps, action alongside more data collection).
You are apparently not as convinced as Haidt. That's OK, but you need to consider the perspective of someone who feels that we've already established what is happening with sufficient confidence that we need to move onto action.
And as Haidt says: what is the cost if the skeptics are wrong vs. if the alarm ringers are wrong?
- taeric 4y agoYeah, but I can say we should agree with his proposals without "picking his side." We probably should take a lot of the actions he is proposing. But we should not dismiss the "other side" while doing so. Edit: I see I should not have said "the data" in what to learn from. Rather, I am arguing that we can and should learn from both sides here. For things that are more actionable, taking the actions will let us learn even more. But, and this is huge, it could be that taking these actions does nothing. The "do something" attitude that is prevalent in all society is often wrong. Particularly about what should be done.