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

Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

jonathanhaidt.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 580 posts

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#21

Post by psychphysic »

It's quite hard for me to judge this topic because I am so thoroughly convinced that social media is toxic for mental health.

I think unfortunately it has become pervasive enough that you can't avoid experiencing it's toxic influence.

There has been a complete loss in any interest in meeting a middle ground and like the use of stocks in medieval times the concept of cancellation is much more power than any reality.

Twitter show cases this best, it's prison politics in web form. Everyone's in a gang and god help you if you aren't everyone will have a go at you.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#23

Post by bigbacaloa »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #16

> girls who spend more than 4 hours a day on social media have two to three times the rate of depression as girls who spend an hour or less. Not that it proves anything, but the converse argument, that depressed girls spend more time on social media or online in general, should also be examined. If the data could support this thesis to a similar degree, there is no conclusive statement about social media really induc…

The converse argument is far more plausible.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#24

Post by etrautmann »

ThomPete wrote: post #12
woodruffw wrote: post #5

Just to levy a single criticism among several: I find Haidt’s rebuttal of the climate change hypothesis unconvincing: fears around climate change are not “energizing” in the way that prior crises are, in a significant part because public sentiment around climate change is that we’re already doomed in a way that isn’t really possible with social crises. Similarly: I don’t think most teenage girls were voraciously read…

Climate change is now climate catastrophism. It's unfortunately many times more doomer today than ever. And while climate itself is not energizing, "doing something about it to save the world' is because it's simple even if it's in-effective. A phenomena like Greta Thunberg wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for that. And wind and solar and tesla and other avenue that doesn't really do anything other than let us waste…

Sorry what? How do renewable energy sources not do anything? The problem is multifaceted abs requires advances in many areas. A thousand partial solutions. Absolutism and cynicism aren’t helpful.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#25

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

woodruffw wrote: post #5

Just to levy a single criticism among several: I find Haidt’s rebuttal of the climate change hypothesis unconvincing: fears around climate change are not “energizing” in the way that prior crises are, in a significant part because public sentiment around climate change is that we’re already doomed in a way that isn’t really possible with social crises. Similarly: I don’t think most teenage girls were voraciously read…

The whole activism thing doesent do a lot anymore, since the social plaza belongs to cooperate and the state, and activism was shown to be easy exhaustable compared to the endurance of lobbyism aka cooperate activism. Future frustrated voices will turn straight to violence and skip this unproducitve state of affairs.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#26

Post by frostburg »

spacephysics wrote: post #19
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #3

Does he ever address the inconsistency of warning for years about "coddling" young people too much then suddenly pivoting into "social media is making our kids mentally unwell". Shouldn't it toughen them up? How does his proposed coddling differ from the bad coddling?

“Anti” coddling to me is rejecting the notion of participation trophies, emphasizing in a healthy way losing and winning. Pushing through discomfort and, god forbid, seeking out discomfort. Being OK and perhaps wanting discomfort. Knowing that discomfort is 9/10 a healthy stress that builds you. Not playing the victim. Taking responsibility for your circumstances, no matter how shit of a hand you were dealt. Yeah it…

Your model of a nuclear "stable household" is very recent, very untested compared to standard practice during most of human history and societes. Putting is on a pedestal without any quantitative evidence isn't wise.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#27

Post by pawelmurias »

frostburg wrote: post #14
ThomPete wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't his argument that coldding weakens the young? And wouldn't that make it consistent with the social media claims?

I think that coddling weakens middle aged social psychologists.

Psychologists are notoriously ridden with mental illness. As they rarely gather enough hard evidence for evidence, if the overall mental state of the population their research turns into complete bullshit.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#28

Post by MrYellowP »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #3

Does he ever address the inconsistency of warning for years about "coddling" young people too much then suddenly pivoting into "social media is making our kids mentally unwell". Shouldn't it toughen them up? How does his proposed coddling differ from the bad coddling?

You make no sense.

"Coddling up" is about preventing them from making experiences which form and harden their characters.

You'd know, if you weren't coddled up yourself, as evidenced by your lack of understanding of what you're actually talking about.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#29

Post by voldacar »

frostburg wrote: post #10
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #3

Does he ever address the inconsistency of warning for years about "coddling" young people too much then suddenly pivoting into "social media is making our kids mentally unwell". Shouldn't it toughen them up? How does his proposed coddling differ from the bad coddling?

The "coddling" one has always been a bad faith argument; a post hoc rationalization for political goals.

What political objective is accomplished by not coddling children?

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#30

Post by etrautmann »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #16

> girls who spend more than 4 hours a day on social media have two to three times the rate of depression as girls who spend an hour or less. Not that it proves anything, but the converse argument, that depressed girls spend more time on social media or online in general, should also be examined. If the data could support this thesis to a similar degree, there is no conclusive statement about social media really induc…

Or the two are linked via feedback such that social media makes depression worse and both are causally linked. It doesn’t have to be a one-way relationship.
Post reply on HN