This review seemed rather vitriolic and contributes - in mood at least - to the angry and graceless culture of unforgiveness that seems to dominate some online discourse.
I don't know how fair it is on his current work and I was never a fan of Hari's own pre-reveal sanctimoniousness and obviously some would claim there is an ironic justice in this sort of thing
Personally though I find it all really unpleasant and would prefer a critique that assumed a good faith attempt by Hari to undertake his life's second chapter with more integrity.
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.
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.
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.
I always thought he had a strange way of being interviewed where he cites sources and studies for almost everything he says. I thought this was commendable at the time rather than putting a thin veneer on other peoples ideas. Maybe it was due to the past accusation of plagiarism.
I think it is a response to the accusations of plagiarism and quote fabrication. When he was trying to reclaim respectability he released a companion website to Chasing the Scream that had extensive transcriptions and audio excerpts of source interviews for all direct quotes in the book [0]. It went way beyond what the vast majority of authors do, but it would be nice to see more of that sort of thing in the publishing industry.
The review is simply too salty - exactly what you'll expect from an academic. Unless you want to read academic papers all your life - there's space for such books just like there's space for poetry or even the bible for heaven's sake.
> then reinvented himself as a non-fiction author and highly successful TED Talk speaker.
Unsure how much of prestige it is these days to be a TED speaker. I lost respect to them long ago, and stopped listening to their talks once I realize how much they filter, so you are never going to be sure whether you watch piece that is neutral, or some form of hit-piece or one-sided rant. Just recently they decided to remove Theranos' COE Elizabeth Holmes speech; it was a great talk, even given by person that (years later) been found guilty of fraud.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that if you create a bullhorn for interesting people, don't start being politically correct; otherwise you may lose credibility. And audience.
I don't know how fair it is on his current work and I was never a fan of Hari's own pre-reveal sanctimoniousness and obviously some would claim there is an ironic justice in this sort of thing
Personally though I find it all really unpleasant and would prefer a critique that assumed a good faith attempt by Hari to undertake his life's second chapter with more integrity.