So, potentially I guess, the ideas are not his own? Are the ideas important? Are the issues he raises in the book real (even if he's not the first or only person to raise them)? Are they worth thinking about? Or shall we just shoot the messenger because he has not always been beyond reproach?
Plagiarism is wrong. It is basically both lying and theft. I don't see how where he lives matters.
Still, I wonder if you feel you feel the kind of tension and inability to focus your attention that he discusses in the podcast (I haven't read his book). If you do, I wonder what you think about the sources of distraction he mentions, and the sort of corrective changes in attitude he suggests.
Do you mean distraction in the sense of ignoring what's happening in your own backyard distraction ? Or distraction in the sense of putting a peice of paper on a child's face to cover for your incompetence distraction?
I disagree with Angela’s post suggesting Johann is a plagiarist, fabulist & grifter. Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
I disagree with Angela’s post suggesting Johann is a plagiarist, fabulist & grifter. Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
The issue is that he misrepresents research and still borders on making stuff up. Also presents fairly well known concepts as an amazing discovery he just made.
He sounds exactly like Jordan Peterson in that regard! Spouting traditionalist societal values as if he'd made new discoveries about how to thrive in a disgusting world.
Peterson is sometimes just stating what the psychology research actually shows (which often doesn’t align with left-wing consensus ideas - for example most of the pay gap is due to different preferences, not sexism), sometimes presenting his own weird Jung inspired ideas. Hari is far more of a grifter than Peterson because he just makes shit up and misrepresents studies. He’s a great example of why TED Talks are mostly bullshit and make you less informed. Because they’re optimised for creating the illusion of some amazing insight, when you’d be much better off reading a literature review or a book written by someone who cares about truth.
But it's nothing new, and when he writes books about it, he makes it seem like they're his own ideas.
The main problem with all of psychiatry is that it's not a "science" per say, it's founded on opinions, and how far from culturally accepted norms any given behaviour is. It never systematically addresses causation, and only makes grand pronouncements.
If one lives in a Muslim society, perform Muslim to succeed.
If one lives in a Christian society, perform Christian to succeed.
Behaviours can appear true, they can appear "universal" giving the illusion they're biological, but psychiatrists offer nothing palpable.
Nothing he says is qualifies as new. Everything he says, literally everything, is a rehash of 100s before him. But his voice breaks and it makes people bleed for him ;)
I disagree with Angela’s post suggesting Johann is a plagiarist, fabulist & grifter. Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
Funny... I was able to trancend the character assassination (provided without evidence, mind you) and was actually able to focus long enough to conclude that I think he is absolutely bang on. Every conversation should be focused on learning something of value, first, without reaching for the 'cancel' stamp!
I disagree with Angela’s post suggesting Johann is a plagiarist, fabulist & grifter. Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
For an inspiring talk on the roots of the issue, you might want to listen to what the great mindfulness teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, who just passed away at age 95, has to say about why people use whatever distractions we can to fill the emptiness.
THANK YOU This is all I need to know about a lying cheating scum bag , probably cheated his way through college as well ""In 2011, Hari was suspended from The Independent, and then resigned, after admitting to plagiarism and making pejorative edits to the Wikipedia pages about journalists who had criticised his conduct.[1]"" typical
Yikes, that's a long list of wrongdoings! I didn't know him, but as soon as he started vaunting the endless virtues of living in Provincetown, my flags started rising. Example of #alternaternativeFacts from the "left".
Sorry, but this seemed quite lightweight and mundane to me. I turned it off after about 10 minutes. Maybe I should have given it more time to see if anything new or thought-provoking would be revealed.
What I’d really like to see/hear is an expose on Big Pharma, a very timely issue. Surely someone has written a book on this that is worthy of being featured here.
Thanks for all your offerings, Tara. They are much appreciated!
To each their own, but I would have difficulty setting aside time to read a non-fiction author guilty of plagiarism in the past. Maybe they're intelligent or charismatic or maybe even reformed, but they're integrity is in question. They've cheated and lied on a grand scale. When there are so many fair minded researchers and authors out there discussing these topics in good faith without that cloud over their head, I choose to spend my time elsewhere.
Hari’s reputation management strategists have tried to focus on the plagiarism but it also seems that he was inventing stuff. There are some anecdotes in the new book that seem a little bit too good to be true, and in addition he pretends that certain papers are way more significant than they are, citing a small n study as definitive, pretending one paper shows that using multiple devices is unambiguously bad when it doesn’t really show that, etc
That was awesome and I couldn’t agree more. 3 months sounds challenging, but introspective. I did 3 months with out cafeeine, new challenge 3 months with out caffeine or a smart phone go!
Johann Hari is a plagiarist, fabulist and grifter. Sad that you have fallen for his BS
So, potentially I guess, the ideas are not his own? Are the ideas important? Are the issues he raises in the book real (even if he's not the first or only person to raise them)? Are they worth thinking about? Or shall we just shoot the messenger because he has not always been beyond reproach?
We should expect better of a "journalist" who lives in a province where The Dirty can serve The Clean margaritas but can't sit with them and drink it.
Plagiarism is wrong. It is basically both lying and theft. I don't see how where he lives matters.
Still, I wonder if you feel you feel the kind of tension and inability to focus your attention that he discusses in the podcast (I haven't read his book). If you do, I wonder what you think about the sources of distraction he mentions, and the sort of corrective changes in attitude he suggests.
Do you mean distraction in the sense of ignoring what's happening in your own backyard distraction ? Or distraction in the sense of putting a peice of paper on a child's face to cover for your incompetence distraction?
I disagree with Angela’s post suggesting Johann is a plagiarist, fabulist & grifter. Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
Jan 26 - Johann Hari. Stolen Focus
OK Johann
Don't forget to buy my book! Also, did you know I invented journalism in the early 19th century but was too busy freeing slaves to mention it?
or utterly fabricated.
I disagree with Angela’s post suggesting Johann is a plagiarist, fabulist & grifter. Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
Jan 26 - Johann Hari. Stolen Focus
The issue is that he misrepresents research and still borders on making stuff up. Also presents fairly well known concepts as an amazing discovery he just made.
He sounds exactly like Jordan Peterson in that regard! Spouting traditionalist societal values as if he'd made new discoveries about how to thrive in a disgusting world.
Peterson is sometimes just stating what the psychology research actually shows (which often doesn’t align with left-wing consensus ideas - for example most of the pay gap is due to different preferences, not sexism), sometimes presenting his own weird Jung inspired ideas. Hari is far more of a grifter than Peterson because he just makes shit up and misrepresents studies. He’s a great example of why TED Talks are mostly bullshit and make you less informed. Because they’re optimised for creating the illusion of some amazing insight, when you’d be much better off reading a literature review or a book written by someone who cares about truth.
But it's nothing new, and when he writes books about it, he makes it seem like they're his own ideas.
The main problem with all of psychiatry is that it's not a "science" per say, it's founded on opinions, and how far from culturally accepted norms any given behaviour is. It never systematically addresses causation, and only makes grand pronouncements.
If one lives in a Muslim society, perform Muslim to succeed.
If one lives in a Christian society, perform Christian to succeed.
Behaviours can appear true, they can appear "universal" giving the illusion they're biological, but psychiatrists offer nothing palpable.
It’s better to base your beliefs on a general view of the peer-reviewed literature as a whole rather than what “resonates” with you.
Nothing he says is qualifies as new. Everything he says, literally everything, is a rehash of 100s before him. But his voice breaks and it makes people bleed for him ;)
I disagree with Angela’s post suggesting Johann is a plagiarist, fabulist & grifter. Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
Jan 26 - Johann Hari. Stolen Focus
Funny... I was able to trancend the character assassination (provided without evidence, mind you) and was actually able to focus long enough to conclude that I think he is absolutely bang on. Every conversation should be focused on learning something of value, first, without reaching for the 'cancel' stamp!
I disagree with Angela’s post suggesting Johann is a plagiarist, fabulist & grifter. Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
Jan 26 - Johann Hari. Stolen Focus
Having read Johann's entire book I do not see how he is a plagiarist. He traveled the world to collect the information he uses in this book. He names the people he interviewed and credited them for the information. There are 37 pages of end notes where you can see his references, background and explanatory material. He does not claim what is in the book are his own ideas. He writes very well. I found this book incredibly informative and came out in the end with very useful information.
Wow, tough crowd tonight!
For an inspiring talk on the roots of the issue, you might want to listen to what the great mindfulness teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, who just passed away at age 95, has to say about why people use whatever distractions we can to fill the emptiness.
https://youtu.be/HD6l2jKwT6k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari
THANK YOU This is all I need to know about a lying cheating scum bag , probably cheated his way through college as well ""In 2011, Hari was suspended from The Independent, and then resigned, after admitting to plagiarism and making pejorative edits to the Wikipedia pages about journalists who had criticised his conduct.[1]"" typical
Yikes, that's a long list of wrongdoings! I didn't know him, but as soon as he started vaunting the endless virtues of living in Provincetown, my flags started rising. Example of #alternaternativeFacts from the "left".
Sorry, but this seemed quite lightweight and mundane to me. I turned it off after about 10 minutes. Maybe I should have given it more time to see if anything new or thought-provoking would be revealed.
What I’d really like to see/hear is an expose on Big Pharma, a very timely issue. Surely someone has written a book on this that is worthy of being featured here.
Thanks for all your offerings, Tara. They are much appreciated!
To each their own, but I would have difficulty setting aside time to read a non-fiction author guilty of plagiarism in the past. Maybe they're intelligent or charismatic or maybe even reformed, but they're integrity is in question. They've cheated and lied on a grand scale. When there are so many fair minded researchers and authors out there discussing these topics in good faith without that cloud over their head, I choose to spend my time elsewhere.
Hari’s reputation management strategists have tried to focus on the plagiarism but it also seems that he was inventing stuff. There are some anecdotes in the new book that seem a little bit too good to be true, and in addition he pretends that certain papers are way more significant than they are, citing a small n study as definitive, pretending one paper shows that using multiple devices is unambiguously bad when it doesn’t really show that, etc
That was awesome and I couldn’t agree more. 3 months sounds challenging, but introspective. I did 3 months with out cafeeine, new challenge 3 months with out caffeine or a smart phone go!
Great book...what was it about again?
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/
Thank you Tara. That was interesting. I look forward to reading Johann's book.
Great interview - what’s wrong with Angela?
Dear Tara, would it be possible to have a transcript to read (for people who less visual ?) Ta Raymond