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

71–80 of 580 posts

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

#71

Post by mafro »

kuschku wrote: post #49
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something has to be behind the seemingly coordinated rise in depression among children globally, that's the leading indicator he's using to assess the problem. His argument is that it can't be anything other than social media. You're making the case in the micro scale: what is one person's relationship with depression and social media, and he's arguing in the macro scale. Something has caused depression to spike in c…

[flagged]

Not disagreeing with your statements, but the key question in the research is why did depression spike in children worldwide _after 2012_.

At various points in my lifetime there have been reasons to be sad about the world - but what changed in 2012 that predominantly appears to affect teenage girls, and has been observed in several countries globally?

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

#72

Post by raxxorraxor »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #36
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…

> I am always ready to yell at the cloud for that. Yell at the cloud? Nicely done.

No, I am just German and this is a language disability.

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

#73

Post by Entinel »

watwut wrote: post #69
iamerroragent wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but how are we supposed to get teen girls not to compare themselves to the looks of global stars? This existed before social media. At best I can see it being a catalyst here and so sure limit or ban social media (at least for under 18s ~ 25s, whatever we agree on is a developed adult brain). Lowering the percentage of teens with mental health issues is a good thing. However that doesn't stop teens from comparin…

Well for one, it would require interest in teen girls that goes beyond "I need a talking point for culture war that I am currently waging".

What culture war specifically?

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

#74

Post by js8 »

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?

As others have explained, there is a middle ground. You won't make people tougher by throwing them to lions, but by creating a safe environment where they can learn the needed skills that can help them in that situation.

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

#75

Post by frostburg »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #65
frostburg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assuming you mean nuclear family as having two married parents, and not also that these parents are geographically isolated: Lots of quantitative evidence that having two committed parents means healthier kids (IQ, emotionally, physically, etc.)

I've answered this in another reply to the same post, please refer to that; that wasn't my point.

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

#76

Post by lr4444lr »

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?

It's not inconsistent. Social media feeds distortion, and has no conquerable obstacle. "Toughening up" means facing reasonable challenges - they are not equipped yet to habdle algorithmically designed cocaine.

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

#77

Post by donkeyd »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #25
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.

> the social plaza belongs to cooperate and the state

I think it's too easy to just blame corporations and governments for this. They are definitely part in this, but a large part of lack of activism around climate change is also the people themselves who don't want to change. The Netherlands is a great example where, in recent elections, nearly half of votes went to political parties that want to reduce response to climate change and other environmental issues.

For many people its easy to be activist when the problem is clear and present and the solution has little to no impact on daily life. With climate change neither are true. Except for the occasional headline of extreme weather, daily life continues, so the problem isn't obvious to everyone. Also, actually doing something about it takes effort/investment from everyone, not just government and corporations. It requires us to travel less, consume less, be more aware of what we consume and so on. It requires us to drive smaller cars, live in smaller and better insulated homes and become less individually oriented and pay more for our clothing. Most people don't want this, they want to continue buying cheap clothing from Primark and fly to NYC for the weekend.

I'm personally in the 'given up hope' boat. Even the most environmentally aware people around me pretty much just eat less meat, but they haven't actually changed their ways. So I don't expect the average F150 driving steak eater to suddenly start changing their ways. Maybe generational change is possible, but even that would have to be a coordinated effort and I don't see that happening either.

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

#78

Post by watwut »

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…

> Not playing the victim. Taking responsibility for your circumstances, no matter how shit of a hand you were dealt.

Basically, gaslight yourself into believing that other peoples actions are your fault? Sometimes you are in fact a victim of something, no matter how uncomfortable that thought makes Haidt feel.

> Sometimes things suck, and sometimes things are sad, and that’s okay. Common notion in many cultures is you can’t know happiness without sadness, light without darkness, etc.

Effectively, be passive. Do not try to improve things.

> A stable household which has a motherly figure there to provide you warmth, protection, and love. A fatherly figure that provides structure, pushes you when you have room to do better, and sees potential in you and sets you up for success.

And we are back to gender essentialism, where moms are not empowered to provide structure making them dependent on father in work for it. And dad has a role of threat that comes home after being absent whole day just to punish you for mistakes during the day.

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

#79

Post by walrus01 »

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?

What's funny is that it's the baby boomer generation that created the concept of giving out participation awards to their kids and overly helicopter parenting them, and then 25, 30 years later complains "all these young people are so coddled and soft and wants recognition for the smallest thing!"

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

#80

Post by AlexandrB »

hasmolo wrote: post #57
mawadev wrote: post #40

It is truly remarkable to which great lengths people go to justify their unhealthy relationship with social media. It is nearly the same as telling an alcoholic they have an alcohol problem and then hearing excuse after excuse and re-framing and mental gymnastics to jump around the elephant in the room. I'm glad write-ups like this one are a thing. Maybe our parents were indeed right when they told us we are glued to…

this glued to devices meme is tired. look at a picture of folks on public transport from before phones. note that _everyone_ is reading a newspaper or magazine. i know it seems crazy, but humans reading information is a constant in public, and the only reason you didn't see more of it in the past is that you were part of the group consuming media, while also assigning intellectual value to the fact that a periodical…

Newspapers and magazines didn't microtarget their audience or have endless streams of content. This is like saying "look at all the people riding horses in old pictures, cars can't be that bad".

That's not even getting into the level of corporate surveillance social media and online advertising have brought us.

Post reply on HN