I've never heard of Haidt as a p-hacker. A friend of mine is an acquitance of his, which made me assume that Haidt was more in the Bayesian camp. But it's good

I've never heard of Haidt as a p-hacker. A friend of mine is an acquitance of his, which made me assume that Haidt was more in the Bayesian camp. But it's good to view social sciences sceptically. Their theories don't offer much in terms of truth. It's best if they keep their theoretical judgement to themselves, and see where the research takes them. Psychological and sociological theories are not a good basis for policy. The data don't lie, though. Now, there may be issues with the way it was gathered and whathaveyounot, but Haidt isn't exactly the first to observe a large increase in mental health issues. As a matter of fact, the papers have been mentioning it for years by now, as have the health organizations. The correlation from the article can almost not be denied. It's like climate change: you can try to find an alternative explanation (which will bring you into the exact same problems the psychological research you criticize is facing), but until then, we must be cautious. The fact that you don't like messenger is simply not enough to ignore the message.