are all popular social science books stupid? is this one?

[skolem_hull]

Just saw James Fowler on Colbert talking about social networks (Connected), and he made a claim about there being a causal relationship between Colbert gaining weight and a friend of a friend of Colbert gaining weight.

I was glad to see in the New York Times Book Review that in the book he actually makes a case that the relationship really is

Comments

[ruta_skadi]

I'm a little confused as to what, specifically, you're taking issue with here: the review, for not challenging one of the points that the book makes? Or the book, that you have not read, for making one particular point?

Being a former social science major, I definitely agree with you on the popular media perception bit. People tend to take social science results with a little more "hype" than they do physical science results: being about human behavior, it's taken more personally. It's also a little easier for media outlets (such as the NYT) to simplify in what can often be incorrect terms.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing how Fowler makes the case for causality. Social science is often so much about correlation that I sometimes forget that it's possible to go the extra mile and find a causal relationship (or lack thereof).

[skolem_hull]

This is what I send when I was silly enough to reply by text message on the way to Benjamin's party:

Taking issue (1) with the reviewer for assuming he's right without giving any impression of having thought about it, and (2) (to a somewhat smaller extent) with the author for presenting the causal claim on TV without calling attention to the fact that he has evidence for causation, not just correlation. (As you say, it's easy to forget that it's actually possible to find a causal relationship. And so often people make causal claims when they only have correlation. So I think he should call attention to the fact that he's not doing that.)