Haidt's quote leaves out the following explanation: > That doesn't mean I only believe in 3–1 or greater effects. If you can show any 3–1 effect, then I'm prep

Haidt's quote leaves out the following explanation: > That doesn't mean I only believe in 3–1 or greater effects. If you can show any 3–1 effect, then I'm prepared to consider lower odds ratios. If teenage girls with heavy social media use are three times as likely to be in the experimental group for depression 12 months later than otherwise similar teenage girls that don't use social media, then I'm prepared to look at evidence that light social media use has a 1.2 odds ratio, or that the odds ratio for suicide attempts is 1.4. But without a 3–1 odds ratio as a foundation, it's my experience that looking at any random data can produce plenty of lesser odds ratios, which seldom stand up. I found this a little confusing, but I think what Brown is saying is that if all of the effects found in an area of research (not a single study) are small, it's probably not a real phenomenon.