As a layperson who doesn't understand psychology but is interested in science and peace, I felt that Ferguson's article (this HN post) was much less directed at a person (as opposed to the person's work or theories put forward) and more professional, versus the linked blog post -- so I tend to believe the former.
Even a simple sentence like, "Ferguson did both of these things and his findings thus do not “undermine” our causal claims; he failed to accurately test our causal claims," comes across as scathing compared to the paper.
Humans commonly engage in deceptive rhetoric, and tone is one of the methods they use. Often, the individual may not even be doing it with substantial intention.
Wordplay is another, and there is plenty of it in this HN thread.
The scientific argument originates from a human, and science has well demonstrated that human perception is untrustworthy (this thread offers plenty of evidence, but that tends to be categorized as "just X", so the ubiquitousness of the problem can never be realized...aka: there "is no evidence" that what I say is true).
Science uses a watered down but more ~practical form of epistemology, for example equating the knowledge of scientists with all of reality (There is no evidence [that I know of]). Some disciplines (military) use special language to circumvent this problem, at least sometimes.
There is what is true, and then there is the human experience of it, and scientists like most other humans mix the two up regularly. Doing otherwise is "pedantic", and is strongly culturally discouraged.
That's an interesting point, doesn't this depend on the expertise of the audience? I'm not a psych expert, so if I'm unwilling to go back to school to interpret both sides "perfectly" then I'd be unsuccessful judging both sides on their factual/scientific merit. I only have other tools to choose from, ie. my personal experience, reading skills, being a (hopefully good) judge of character, etc.
I argue it's relatively scathing, because Haidt's wording is much more dramatic, negative, and more aimed at a person than Ferguson's wording is. By "facts" I assume you mean claims, no?
I'm not sure how tone would be irrelevant; similar to what a sibling commenter said, tone conveys quite a bit of information. It seems unwise or "dumb" to ignore that, because we're still humans talking to each other, even if it's bits over a wire, and we're working together in good faith to learn and solve problems, aren't we?
Sorry what exactly does his tone, whatever it may be, convey about whether or not the study in question was done well? I know it's difficult for some people but if you want to do science you have to focus on the facts. This tactic of mentioning the tone ("scathing") has only one purpose in a scientific discussion and that is to throw chaff into the air and derail the conversation with nonsense. Other examples of this are: you pronounced a name wrong! that's not my pronoun! "othering"! racisnogynism!
What they said on "If Books Could Kill" is an extremely thorough trouncing of Haidt's narrative and the methodologies of the researches he utilized in that book.
The summary is this:
The uptick is adequately explained by changes to mandatory reporting requirements for screening questions of mental health for teenagers from Obamacare and increased access to healthcare for those teenagers.
So mental illness rose steeply in girls and not so much in boys since 2012, and more in liberals than conservatives, since 2012 and this is adequately explained by increased reporting requirements?
Refutes is a strong word. This is an ongoing debate and it’s not clear to me Haidt is on the right side of it. The Studies Show did a great episode on this, but unfortunately it’s paywalled. However, the show notes are public and link to the relevant back and forth if folks want to make up their own minds. https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/paid-only-episode-12-jon...
I'm not sure if anyone is ever going to "refute" much in this tussle
or that this can really be called a "debate", But there's an ugliness
to it and the casualty is science.
I'm not old enough to remember doctors appearing in TV adverts
claiming the health benefits of smoking. But I do remember those 1980s
green-washing campaigns from Shell and Esso (Exxon) showing animals
frolicking through the wonderful planet oil and gas were creating. I
also remember all the plastic recycling campaigns that turned out to
be rotten hoax.
Let's face it science gets used and tossed aside these days. Seeing
research papers that flat-out contradict each other every week is
tiring. All I want to say is that this utterly devalues science to see
such disingenuous conflict, and to know that at least one side is
making stuff up. It's going the same way as political debate and is an
embarrassment to everyone who participates and believes in science.
Obviously there is emotion on all sides. And there is surely a
humongous pot of money on one side. But I think where this is
heading... it's classic Sirkov style full-spectrum disinformation,
funding both sides and designed to undermine the very belief in
scientific research itself.
It benefits the anti-rationalists and nihilists who can say, "you know
what.. fuck science, I'm just going to assert what I like based on my
emotion alone!" That tends to favour the might-is-right crowd and the
shrill angry mob.
I did keto but people don't need to do that if they eat good quality nutrient-dense foods. Preferably organic and locally-grown, and prioritizing healthy fats, proteins, and complex carbs and avoiding at all costs processed food. I can't stress enough how much modern food manufacturers are poisoning us.
To maybe add a helpful analogy. Some meditative states aren't very different that an intense dose of psychedelics. Not to mention the person is "dosed" without expecting it.
If it's done unsupervised or without a support system such as a guide or teacher, the experience can be traumatic.
Meditation and therapy aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, for people who have traumas, I would say both are necessary. Very few meditation teachers are trained in handling a psychological crisis and mental break downs happen often in retreats and self-led practice.
Meditation helps me be with what is and remember that I’m ok.
Therapy helps me permanently untangle the thoughts and feelings that lead to distress in the first place.
They both complement each other and provide benefits that can’t be found in either alone. Meditation seems universally useful. Therapy somewhat less so, but still a powerful tool. If you’re not dealing with trauma, a good friend/mentor can provide the same feedback.
The jhanas were describes in the suttas. You can verify it yourself. Leigh Brasington has a lot of resources making them more accessible, https://www.lionsroar.com/entering-the-jhanas/.
I would agree that the jhanas are hallucinations and initially not subtle whatsoever. By repeated exploration of the jhanas you learn that the states are wholly dependent on many things not under your control. Application of these states in real life is a whole different animal compared to simply being able to access them as well.
* Edit: If you do decide to dive in, the first jhana can be very disorienting. It's definitely a good idea seek help in integrating the experience. Feel free to message me, and I can help or at least point you in the right direction!
There are "attainments" or maps. A lot of teachers don't communicate them since it can be a bit of a trap, since striving to reach an attainments can prevent you from reaching it.
More contemporary dharma teachers have been willing to go into it. The jhanas is one such map.
As an intermediary step simply being able to stay with your breath for an hour while still being aware/not falling asleep is a good goal.
Is there a way to filter simple gamified education tools vs the type of tools you allude to? I understand not wanting to dox yourself, but as a new parent it's difficult to vet education tools before my child is already enrolled and using potentially poor education tools.
Yeah. For that part peer pressure can be important. When your closest friends make a habit of pointing out your issues then it can be easier to seek help because you know your friends support you.
