[JasonFruit]

From this article, it doesn't sound like Hari's books are anything unusual: most topical, with-the-times popular non-fiction is poorly sourced and relies on assertions instead of scholarly or scientific studies — and that's fine! It's okay to have an idea, think about it hard, and write about it, even if you can't prove that your thesis reflects reality. It's better and more worthy of respect if you can, of course, but what Hari's doing right now isn't wrongdoing; it's just expressing opinions that many people find interesting and insightful.

There's certainly nothing to justify the title of this article, at any rate.

[halo]

I agree there’s nothing inherently wrong with non-experts, typically journalists, expressing opinions, perspectives, and anecdotes in long-form, especially on topical subjects.

I just wish there was an easy way to find and separate it from actual and more rigorous scientific and expert-driven non-fiction. They often look similar at first glance but there’s a world of difference between, say, Kahneman and Gladwell.

[prionassembly]

> Kahneman and Gladwell.

Eh, that's not all. There's a long lineage of accomplished people going cuckoo. And Nobel prizes appear to be an amplifying factor, from Shockley and Pauling to Mullis and Krugman.