Talk:Tristan Harris

A little editing needed
There are some strange bits on the page that may be trolling; the description of Apture and subtext about the film. If the Time 100 claim is true, worth adding in the body. (I don't see this year added yet on-wiki). – SJ + 19:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, the Apture description was definitely trolling. And I removed this line:
 * Harris was not a member of this lab, though he claimed to be so in The Social Dilemma

The second clause is unsourced, perhaps inferred from an earlier rev of the cite (see the editor's correction at the end). The first needs rewriting so it's not confusing. Per the cite, the prof seems to have been an active advisor, which seems more relevant than having taken a class. – SJ + 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello SJ. Thank you for bringing up the lab membership claim. The source directly states that Harris was not a member of the lab. This was important enough for Fogg to tell to a journalist. I don't know where you get the "active advisor" datum, but even if there was some active advising, that is very different than working in the PTL. These affiliations are important in academia. Does that make sense? I doubt Harris was trying to mislead people, but we shouldn't perpetuate a misremembrance of an affiliation. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, it seems pretty clear that Mr. Harris does intend to mislead people regarding his background and credentials. For example he has stated, as in the The Social Dilemma, that he was a member of the lab, which Dr. Fogg has noted is false.  Mr. Harris, also, does not hold a masters degree as he dropped out in his second semester.  He's called himself a product philosopher and ethicist, though he has literally never taken a philosophy course in his career, ever.  These are false claims that Mr. Harris has repeated on numerous occasions apparently to garner credibility.  In fact it was so bad that Dr. Fogg had to correct Mr. Harris' continued inaccurate representation of the one (there was only one) course that Mr. Harris even enrolled to national publications, such as the Atlantic.  The very reason people are having difficulty detailing Mr. Harris' credentials are precisely because of his lies regarding his education and credentials.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4B:300:5480:1D29:AA3A:700A:A362 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be some confusion. Does the source mention a claim in the film? I only see "An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated" lab membership; elsewhere in the piece Fogg clarifies this + mentions advising. At any rate no such claim is made in the brief treatment of the film in this article, so the sentence is confusing. – SJ + 04:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is in the other source cited for that sentence, 2018. It repeats the "he joined the Persuasive Technology Lab" claim from the film. We can also cite the film itself. I don't think this is WP:SYNTHESIS because we're just repeating the content from these sources, right? Maybe it is WP:UNDUE, though as I said, this sort of affiliation is quite important in academia. Jmill1806 (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It does seem a bit undue -- the early life section doesn't say anything about magic, even though that seems to come up in every talk, but gives 2 sentences to this. (I found a script of the film; it seems a passing mention.) The mention of Insta founders seems like similarly undue inclusion of trivia.
 * How's this alternative para? – SJ +  01:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "He was raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, and took an early interest in amateur magic. He studied computer science at Stanford University and began a master's degree in psychology there, dropping out in 2007. "
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I would prefer to include both the magic and BJ Fogg information, but your approach is reasonable. Feel free to edit it to that alternative or something similar. Jmill1806 (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ++, Updated for now. If other RS's mention those things as significant that could provide the context to add them. – SJ +  20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I looked up this page because I was wondering what Tristan Harris's background as an ethicist was, so the above conversation is very relevant. Given all of this, is it fair to call him a "technology ethicist"? Is "evangelist for ethics in technology" perhaps more accurate? To me, "ethicist" does suggest an educational background in philosophy or some qualification in that subject. This confusion was actually what led me to look him up on Wikipedia in the first place, and my assumption when his headline was "technology ethicist" that some educational background would be referenced. I don't want to go ahead and edit, but am interested in the discussion if anyone is still watching this page. As I think about it more, I'm not even sure evangelist for ethics is accurate - "evangelist for regulation of big tech companies"? 3rdspace (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)