[masonium]

That's not anywhere close to the author's core argument. I'll let the author speak for themselves:

    'They also are both good examples of a kind of fake social science, whereby you simply make unsubstantiated observations about human beings that confirm things people already believe, and the reader’s pre-existing feelings (their pre-judgments or “prejudices” if you will) are doing the work that evidence should be doing. I would argue that this kind of writing is extremely common and that we need to watch out for it because, if we share the prejudices of the author, we will end up believing things that may be totally untrue, and we will think we have read a good argument when we have in fact just been told that we were right all along.'

Robinson does note that the respective authors' fame, in some ways, insulates them from realizing the vacuousness of their prose:

    'Incredibly, Graham says that he had nine people review and give comments on his essay before he published it, including Yale sociologist Nicholas Christakis. Apparently not one of those people asked Graham “What the hell are you talking about? What is this referring to? Could you please buttress this with some examples?”'

But the vast majority of the articles is dedicated to explaining why the essays are poorly-argued and poorly-sourced, without appeals to the authors' notoriety.

[phnofive]

Disproving their points is secondary to the argument made by the author, which is rhetorical - don’t listen to pseudointelligence just because it comes from the ‘Very Smart’ (using the author’s sarcastic phrasing here).

It’s not as though the subjects didn’t put forward thoughtful arguments, but the author doesn’t agree and so goes on to say that their arguments are vacuous and the subjects are vacuous, which is an extraordinary leap.

[masonium]

Robinson argues that two particular pieces of work are poorly structured logically and insufficiently backed by evidence. He posits a particular source for how these arguments were constructed in the first place (that the authors mistake the assertion of their worldview for evidence of that worldview), and says that this is something the 'Very Smart' can get away with essentially because they allow themselves or are allowed by others to rest on their (earned or unearned) laurels:

    'A lot of time in college is spent teaching students that they cannot simply expound their theories of the world without reference to any scholarly literature. But once you have your credentials, and have made your way into an intellectual sinecure, whether in academia, media, or as a rich guru whose opinions are valued because people think the rich are smart, you no longer need to follow the rules.'

I can't argue for the Mead article (it was behind a paywall and was retracted ten days after its publication date: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-020-00496-1... ), but I think Robinson demonstrates this pretty well for the PG essay. As he notes:

    'I want to draw your attention to what is common between these two pieces of writing, because while most of us will probably wave away an essay like Mead’s, the actual *reasoning* in Graham’s is no better.' (original emphasis)

I don't think Robinson makes a claim that the subjects of the articles are vacuous. In the PG case, he claims that the subjects aren't even specified:

    'It’s hard to know what Graham is even talking about most of the time. What ideas does he think are not being debated? What restrictions have been put in place? What are some examples of things that are being affected by the inability to pursue certain lines of thinking? Which norms have eroded and in which institutions and to what degree and what consequences are imposed for Thinking The Forbidden Thoughts? How are we to evaluate whether there has been a loss to intellectual discourse without understanding what has been lost?'