From Blog Post to Peer Reviewed Academic Article - "Haidt's Mirage" Demands a Response

What started out as a long Twitter post and then became the inaugural post on this blog is now officially a (freely available) published article in the academic journal Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science (formerly the Journal of Abnormal Psychology).

Plus, I’ve just received notice from the APA that the article was selected to receive the special recognition of “Editor’s Choice,” which, according to the email, “represent the best science in each area of our discipline, reflecting science that is exceptionally important, impactful, and deserves additional visibility for the whole field.” This is a tremendous honor and, more importantly, reinforces how crucial it is for researchers in this field—especially those with large platforms—to clearly and transparently articulate their causal models of the data generating process.

It’s been nearly six months since I originally wrote the Twitter post. Jon Haidt, as well as his lead researcher

Zach Rausch

, have been aware of this critique and have indicated to me that they intend to respond. But I’m starting to think they never will.

I believe that Haidt and Rausch have done the calculation and arrived at the conclusion that they have more to lose than to gain by responding to this critique. Responding would require them to clearly articulate their theory of the causal system into testable statistical models. But Haidt and Rausch prefer to shroud their theories in vague, post-hoc, narrative-driven verbal theories that are frequently changing and often incoherent with prior instantiations.

Translating their theory into a testable causal model creates too much exposure for Haidt and Rausch. What if the model they present is put to the test and shown to be woefully inadequate and/or wrong? Will people still see them as experts on this important and popular topic?

No, it’s easier and safer to continue hiding behind the vague, verbal theories. They provide the most cover; the most wiggle room; the most opportunity. You can still seem right to the general public even if you’re possibly wrong. You can still obfuscate and play the motte-and-bailey game. You can continue publishing op-eds in popular outlets.

I genuinely hope I’m wrong about all this. But I doubt it.