3 ms·

No, not particularly, (although I would need to see more to know if the first claim is true) and what you just did is just a couple of sentences. I just don't

No, not particularly, (although I would need to see more to know if the first claim is true) and what you just did is just a couple of sentences. I just don't like it when people link to potentially-polemics to be waded through, rather than do what you did in your most recent comment. If you disagree with that, fair enough, but I didn't anticipate that that preference would be an emotive topic for you. Apologies for any upset caused in that regard.

ceejayoz 2y ago
I'm simply a bit baffled at someone meeting a comment saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques". I found the article easy to skim, with well-linked sources throughout. Again, it already contained exactly what you were asking for.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques". That would indeed be baffling, but did not happen here.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
  As someone who hasn't researched to this topic at all, and therefore has no dog in this race, I don't like when people link to something and say "this guy says I am right." That goes to both linking the book in the first place and it's refutation. I especially dislike when people post the names of books on these types of topics because these are really topics that need to be treated academically, while popular books try to persuade you to their opinion for 400 pages while leaving out or rewording fair criticisms. I would much rather read 150 pages from 3 articles published in reputable journals than 400 pages of a biased viewpoint. I should note that academics can also be biased but 1) they are less free than book authors to make things up 2) you can read multiple opinions 3) they do not use as much rhetoric as book authors. Basically, the name of a book is not an argument or a discussion. Posting the argument(s) of the book is much better, whether accompanied to a link to the book or not. The way I would have preferred the discussion to have been had would to be something like "Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so. Specifically Haidt notes that/ claims that x factor caused y result." If the only thing you can mention about the book is the conclusion, ie. that social media causes depression, then there may be little substance to the book. This is part of why academic journals have book reviews. Similarly, "read my link that refutes your book" is not helpful as it now requires me to read the book (which, as explained above, I don't want to do) and the refutation. It ends up just as people trading links without having an actual discussion. So I agree that it would be better to just post the relevant point(s) directly by both sides.

ceejayoz 2y ago

I'm simply a bit baffled at someone meeting a comment saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques". I found the article easy to skim, with well-linked sources throughout. Again, it already contained exactly what you were asking for.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques". That would indeed be baffling, but did not happen here.
fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
As someone who hasn't researched to this topic at all, and therefore has no dog in this race, I don't like when people link to something and say "this guy says I am right." That goes to both linking the book in the first place and it's refutation. I especially dislike when people post the names of books on these types of topics because these are really topics that need to be treated academically, while popular books try to persuade you to their opinion for 400 pages while leaving out or rewording fair criticisms. I would much rather read 150 pages from 3 articles published in reputable journals than 400 pages of a biased viewpoint. I should note that academics can also be biased but 1) they are less free than book authors to make things up 2) you can read multiple opinions 3) they do not use as much rhetoric as book authors. Basically, the name of a book is not an argument or a discussion. Posting the argument(s) of the book is much better, whether accompanied to a link to the book or not. The way I would have preferred the discussion to have been had would to be something like "Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so. Specifically Haidt notes that/ claims that x factor caused y result." If the only thing you can mention about the book is the conclusion, ie. that social media causes depression, then there may be little substance to the book. This is part of why academic journals have book reviews. Similarly, "read my link that refutes your book" is not helpful as it now requires me to read the book (which, as explained above, I don't want to do) and the refutation. It ends up just as people trading links without having an actual discussion. So I agree that it would be better to just post the relevant point(s) directly by both sides.