Pop psychology has not exactly had a great track record, and I don't see why we should give credence to Haidt just because his "research" aligns with our priors...
He's a psychologist proper at NYU, not some random journalist.
Psychology as a whole has suffered a reputational crisis.
You should listen to his claims and evaluate them independently, since they directly address your request for evidence.
Finally, the knocking of "pop science" books really grinds my gears. They are not inherently bad just because they are geared for a mass market. Technical subjects have layers of depth, and there is value in a high-level overview of some field.
> He's a psychologist proper at NYU, not some random journalist.
> Psychology as a whole has suffered a reputational crisis.
Given the latter I don't see how the former makes his claims more credible?
> You should listen to his claims and evaluate them independently, since they directly address your request for evidence.
I am familiar with his work, and find the quality of his evidence indistinguishable for the myriad of other pop psych just-so-stories that this forum generally shits on.
> Finally, the knocking of "pop science" books really grinds my gears. They are not inherently bad just because they are geared for a mass market. Technical subjects have layers of depth, and there is value in a high-level overview of some field.
To be clear, I knocked "Pop psychology" not "pop science". Most pop science books are distillations of research for mass audiences. Most "Pop psychology" books are philosophy disguised as science.
EDIT: And to be clear, I have no reason to be particularly skeptical of Haidt. I just think that the incentives for a psychologist who is writing for a mass audience lead them to choose the most simple and attention grabbing narrative possible, and map any evidence they can find back to that narrative and disregard the rest.
