Name me someone who has a great track record when it comes to such topics. The criticism cited in Wikipedia is totally unsubstantiated.

> For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost.

While I doubt it's a boost in anything but productivity, the negatives are simply too great to ignore.

As someone who's read all of his books and experienced the generations being studied I'd say he's been spot on and is extremely knowledgeable. One study that does not propose alternative views and cites "selling a lot of books" comes off to me as someone with an agenda. No thanks.

> For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost.

Exactly. The educational system needs to be reformed to exalt and celebrate the minority boosted AI, and quickly shuttle those harmed into the trash. Our North Star needs to be AI technology and the returns of investors who support it. Everything else, including human beings, are unimportant and expendable. Tech first!

Haidt is first on my personal list of "people who don't really know what they're talking about but who I nonetheless mostly agree with." The "If Books Could Kill" show did a good episode about some of his works that indicate he has a fairly nonrigorous methodology and implements some iffy statistical controls to support what is probably a pre-conceived viewpoint. He doesn't have the best reputation in the academic space he operates within.

That being said, this stuff is hard to study, and I have no doubt that things like social media and AI are bad for a developing brain even if you can't arrive at a statistically satisfying conclusion. I can tell that this shit is bad for me, and I'm a fully grown man.

Wikipedia is fair to cite Odgers's review. But the nature of the available evidence means that Odgers would be overstating her case to say that Haidt's theory is conclusively wrong, and Haidt would be overstating his case if he claimed to be conclusively right.

You see, the effect on social media on socialization has two parts. The first is the direct effect on an individual caused by their own use of social media. The second is the effect on an individual's social environment when everyone around them is on social media. The first effect is difficult but basically feasible to study. The second effect is downright wicked. So dismissing evidence that hints at the second effect as being "mere correlation that disappears under scrutiny" is not valid reasoning when your process of scrutiny focuses on the first effect.

In social science you have to accept reasoning from incomplete data. You won't always have the answers. I don't think Haidt really stands above or below his peers in any category except notoriety. Of course anyone who has worked with scientists knows to be a little suspicious of a researcher who seems to enjoy being in the public eye. But as the public eye, we're still stuck with them.