Last week I read two posts on LinkedIn that I think about every day. The first was an essay extolling the virtues of social science. The argument went like this: As social scientists, we seek to find the truth. When we are proven wrong, we accept it and move on, so in the end the truth will prevail. Society will benefit as we get better and better at treating mental illness.
There are many problems with this argument, but let’s put them aside and look at the functions that LinkedIn serves for social scientists. So far this year I have paid little attention Shortly after LinkedIn launched in 2003. At the time, LinkedIn was mostly used to find jobs, and I hadn’t been on the open market in decades. That changed when I recently left academia, so I joined LinkedIn.
I was waiting for people to find jobs on that old professional networking site. Yes, this job search function remains, but there is more to LinkedIn than before (like the idea I mentioned above). What surprises me the most is the deep interconnectedness of social and professional networks. Many users post content and comments on a daily basis, with extended discussions involving a large number of others, often with socially familiar words (nothing positive about this, of course, but that’s for another day).
The combination of social media and professional networking
I’m sure it’s a mix social networks working with a professional network is nothing new to anyone but me, but the contrast between twenty years ago and now is instructive. Like all social networks, LinkedIn curates its content. As users visit other people’s ads, reviews, and postings, they tend to see more of what they like and less of what they don’t like. They build their networks by adding contacts, and many praise their colleagues with various emoticons. Likes, celebrates, supports, loves, etc. In this way, LinkedIn is just like Facebook, Instagram or TikTok.
Among other activities, users post their own journal articles, write comments, and repost others’ articles that agree with or reflect well on their work. Because LinkedIn is curated, users are more likely to see scholarly content with which they agree and align with their own views, creating echo chambers that elevate selected perspectives and minimize others, not a recipe for unbiased or dispassionate thinking.
This brings me to the self-promotion that is a natural consequence of modern social media. At least from what I’ve read, hyperbole and exaggeration are the norm on LinkedIn. In the past week alone, I’ve read about “scientific breakthroughs,” “game-changing therapies,” “profoundly innovative technologies,” “landmarks,” and “tipping points” in mental illness research. addictionschizophrenia, autismand nexttraumatic stress disorder.
False impressions and the reality of scientific achievements
What can an intelligent but non-socialist reader glean from these descriptions? If every week brings scientific breakthroughs, game-changing therapies, innovative technologies and breakthroughs in research, shouldn’t we have a cure for mental illness by now, or at least come close to a cure? However, the objective “reality” is that we are no better at treating many mental health problems than we were 50 years ago, despite a few bright spots.
How does social science fit in with the argument about carelessness and the pursuit of truth, and the notion that society benefits as we get better and better at treating mental illness?
The second LinkedIn post was about my faith in science all week, which is at an all-time low. The author laid the blame squarely on political motives cynicismbased on an article in the public domain. I have no doubts politics contributes, but we must examine our endless promises of breakthroughs, innovations, and cures that never materialize. In the future, over-promising and under-delivering is not the way to win public trust. To the extent that the truth of the “Big T” exists and can be discovered, exaggerating the importance and implications of our work is not the way to get there.
