Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

jonathanhaidt.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 689 posts

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#661

Post by somethoughts »

prawn wrote: post #585
jrumbut wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In another thread I mentioned the need for organized (in the sense of same place, same time) unstructured activity. Gather at the basketball court, if practice or a game break out that's good, if not that's OK. It seems like everyone wins in that scenario, it's healthy but playful and low stress while accommodating parents' need for scheduling. Is such a thing common? I don't hear about it much.

How different is this from most out of school care? When we've had our kids in what here is called OSHC (out of school hours care or similar), it's been pretty free-form and vaguely supervised. Some kids do art, some muck around on the oval, some roam in nature play (with a supervisor in the general area), some watch a movie. I guess you're talking about a little bit more organisation - today, muck around with racque…

I think the challenge is that these programs phase out by middle school even though they should really continue to mid-high school. Really people just need a nice space to study, learn, grow, etc.

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#662

Post by mixmastamyk »

mulmen wrote: post #652
mixmastamyk wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things are chosen via looks, athleticism, and charisma in person. Not planned each morning via internet points, right?

No? If the communication can happen in person it can happen online. There was no shortage of gossip on MSN Messenger when I was in school. If social media is as important to these kids as it sounds then follower count or posting style may be as important as athleticism and charisma.

Putting BigTech profits before child welfare, nice. Another look at the linked piece may be in order?

At one time, everyone thought smoking was important as well, to fit in. Now we know better.

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#663

Post by Nasrudith »

warner25 wrote: post #643
RheingoldRiver wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is: Give her anonymous social media (& general internet safety tips), i.e. reddit or maybe some special-interest discords. Sounds like interacting with strangers on the internet is a lot better than your friends. Help her decide what to subscribe to based on her interests. I was about that age when I started posting on anonymous boards, and I wrote terrible group fanfictions, talked about how great the Lor…

This is interesting to me (I'm also a PhD student with research interests related to privacy and anonymity). Yesterday I was thinking something similar about the distinction, in terms of negative mental health effects, between places like HN where most of us are pseudonymous (if not anonymous) and places like Facebook, Instagram, etc. where your real persona is more of a factor and is usually tied to real photos of y…

Personally I see real name policies as a 'simple, easy, and wrong' solution to a complex problem. It was relatively reasonable thing to try, it seemed like it is a straightforward way to get people to behave. But in practice people quadruple-down and toxicity becomes a part of their identity instead of blowing off steam or a side hobby, and openly changing their mind means losing face.

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#664

Post by colinsane »

belorn wrote: post #405
lsy wrote: post #185

I think it's somewhat important to ask why this effect is more observable for girls than for boys, and Haidt does not seem to really reflect on that. Social media in and of itself is really just an accelerant for the particular set of social expectations we stack on girls and women around appearance and how that relates to self-worth. Boys have more capacity to transcend social media's focus on image and beauty by fi…

It is a very interesting aspect of all this kind of discussion that when any problem exist for girls and women, the problem is described as being caused by an external force. When ever a problem exist for boys and men, the problem is described as an internal force within the boys and men themselves. As long I have seen those topics on HN it never fails to display this cultural view about men and women. Men not gradua…

i overall agree with this comment, but i do hear a lot about how “men’s role in society is changing”, and “why do we have so many un(der)employed men: because of the degradation of their role as exclusive breadwinner to a family” (i.e. fewer men having children, more women joining the workforce). those are external forces acting on men.

flipping both axes, there’s also the perception that women today “choose to” have fewer kids, and focus instead on self-directed fulfillment. that’s the internal framing you speak of, ignoring that the ability to have this choice meaningfully sits atop a bunch of external societal change over the last century.

so… i’m not really sure how these framings get selected for that perception you and i have in the end. is it just a tendency to “glass half-empty” it? maybe coupled with the incentives of outlets which most prominently discuss these things? i can’t say i’ve spoken much about these topics with a co-ed crowd IRL.

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#665

Post by dadrian »

deely3 wrote: post #608
dadrian wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every section ends with a summary of the research discussed, and the last section discards some alternative theories and ends with the thesis of the article. Why can't people read the article in question? Is this not something we learn at uni, or even high school?

Just to be sure, you did read the article, and you did checked the studies, yes? Because if you did actually read the studies then you will find that all these studies provide correlation but without casuation.

The entire article is explaining how, when viewed in totality, the series of studies showing correlation results in causation.

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#666

Post by prawn »

somethoughts wrote: post #661
prawn wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How different is this from most out of school care? When we've had our kids in what here is called OSHC (out of school hours care or similar), it's been pretty free-form and vaguely supervised. Some kids do art, some muck around on the oval, some roam in nature play (with a supervisor in the general area), some watch a movie. I guess you're talking about a little bit more organisation - today, muck around with racque…

I think the challenge is that these programs phase out by middle school even though they should really continue to mid-high school. Really people just need a nice space to study, learn, grow, etc.

That's true. By that age, kids can be disruptive and unmanageable. You'd need a far more engaging and hands-on program, that would be a lot more expensive to administer.

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#667

Post by belorn »

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #410
hn92726819 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you. However, it seems you say > You are wrong But also: > Many more people would find it offensive ... Is somehow a result of femaleness tout-court But the person you're replying to seems to be saying that if there is some ingrained female-related cause, it couldn't be discussed today. How does the second thing I quoted from you not directly agree with the comment you…

Because the implication of their argument is biological causation , which is pure conjecture on their part. On the other hand, the entire posted article goes at length to study the social impact of social media for young people and young girls in particular and routinely references the heightened effect of the hyper focus on bodies for young girls. Their comment is just a naked assertion. Would people find it offensi…

It is fairly common that biological causation is suggested or suspected when dealing with a difference in outcomes along gender lines. Sex hormones as an factor for behavior is usual one of the first suspect, especially if the difference is found around or after puberty. There are historically a huge number of studies done on testosterone to demonstrate this leap done by both researcher and public opinion.

That said, much of those studies where later found to be mostly wrong, and testosterone tend to be a bad predictor and a very weak influence on behavior. It seems more that hormones have a stronger influence on shaping culture than it has on shaping behavior.

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#669

Post by JenrHywy »

sibeliuss wrote: post #559
zarkov99 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 13 year old who just got a phone. I do not think things are as hopeless as you seem to believe. My daughter mocks social media (including my own use of it) and, so far, wants no part of it. That is, I think, largely because her mother and I have been educating her since she could use a computer on how stupid and vapid social media is. As far as I know, none of her friends has any social media accounts either…

I don't mean to dismiss your trust here, but this attitude is simply denial.

I don't know about that. I have teenagers (boys, though) who has no interest in social medial or alcohol. In many ways they're far more sensible than I was at their age.

Re: Social media is a cause, not a correlate, of mental illness in teen girls

#670

Post by andrei_says_ »

prawn wrote: post #532
andrei_says_ wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS has excellent parental control tools, down to time allowance on per app level. Of course a decision to use restriction would ideally be one made together with the child so that they can truly consent.

My oldest is 10 and oldest daughter is 8, so we're approaching this challenge. We've talked to them in a broad sense about the issue, but your post made me realise that tackling it together is worth a shot. e.g., lots of talk about what the issue is, and what opportunities there are to address it. And then work together to devise a strategy. Not just them saying to peers "My parents say I'm not allowed to do x."

> Not just them saying to peers "My parents say I'm not allowed to do x."

Yes, that's the core of it. Working together on facing the issue while supporting increasing the agency of the child.

Anything forced onto them is just an external force to deal with. A decision made together, with own interest and long-term vision in consideration, with rules derived from these goals, are a very different thing.

One trains the child to submit + secretly subvert, the other nurtures trust and trains collaboration, openness, iteration etc.

Post reply on HN