Thanks for responding Maarten. I didn’t want to draw out individual posts and authors because it isn’t ultimately relevant. My criticism is not to individuals, but to the system in our profession that drives this behavior (including my own). And no, thought leaders are not good evidence :) But at least you were one of the few who actually added references to something else.

Would the message of your post have been different when you would’ve used (better) evidence? Or when you would’ve been more explicit about what kind of evidence you’re drawing this conclusion from?

Like you, I suspect that evidence-based pieces will be more nuanced. I also expect that when authors are purposefully explicit about the quality of their evidence, they are less likely to make strong claims. Because the evidence is probably more nuanced in nearly all cases. And doesn’t that make our content more realistic too? In the real world, things are bound to be murky and nuanced — not black and white.

I agree that my sample could’ve been biased. But since I was explicit about my evidence and my method, you can query me on that. This is a much better discussion (at least for me) than one where we are merely exchanging opinions. Furthermore, I am happy to repeat the procedure I used here and expand it to the last 50 posts of several professional platforms, regardless of how bold their claims are. Would you expect we find more references to evidence?

My point is not so much that all posts need to use evidence. It is that it should be clear to readers what evidence the author is using to support claims. Is it just personal experience? Is it objective data? Something else? There is a place for opinion pieces too, as long as authors are clear about that.