Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by kuschku » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:02 PM UTC

mafro wrote: post #71

kuschku wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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?

I'm saying that social media didn't cause the fears, but that social media ended the millenia of social pressure to just accept everything the way it is.

Cities once did the same, by increasing the population density you could hang out with people that had the same thoughts you did. But many countries successfully ended that through suburbanisation, isolating people once again.

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

#122

Post by kuschku » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:03 PM UTC

bluescrn wrote: post #95

kuschku wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If children/teens weren't exposed to so much online doom-mongering, they would be finding things to live for rather than fearing the future. Even if the world is a bit shit, there's still plenty of opportunities for love, family, friendship, art, music, sport, and plenty more. Maybe even working towards solving one of the big problems we face, whether that's through science/tech or politics/economics?

It's exactly this "we didn't start the fire" mentality that caused the situation we're in.

If you want the world to change, you need to do that. You can't just wait for it to happen.

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

#123

Post by williamcotton » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:04 PM UTC

How many of Haidt’s critics have large enough followings on social media that they are familiar with the sweet taste of upvotes?

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

#124

Post by bradleyjg » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:05 PM UTC

rjmunro wrote: post #120

bradleyjg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter really is the worst. At least the other platforms have some good mixed in with the bad. It is nice to stay vaguely connected to people in a sort-of holiday card way. Twitter has nothing to redeem it. Even in communities where there’s attempts at substantive conversation the medium makes a horrible mess to follow.

I think it depends on who you follow (which filter bubble you are in). Try unfollowing everyone who is not an actual personal friend (or use a pinned list to see only their tweets).

I have Facebook and Instagram for that, depending on the age of the friend.

On Twitter these same people are much more likely to post a hot take than pictures of their kids or pets. The platform draws out toxicity even in otherwise easygoing people.

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

#125

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:05 PM UTC

somedude895 wrote: post #68

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…

You're never going to get people to not compare themselves with their peers. Comparing yourself through media like magazines etc has been the case for at least 50 years. The teen mental health epidemic has really started in 2012 is what Haidt is talking about.

This. Exposure matters.

Before social media and smartphones came together exposure was infrequent. Now it's nearly constant. It's like the difference between going to a restaurant where smoking is allowed and living with a chain-smoker.

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

#126

Post by throwaway9191aa » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:05 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #45

Starting to get to the age where my oldest daughter is demanding access to social media because all her friends are using it. Surprised more parents aren’t aware of the harms.

I'm just moving into this phase as well. The same parents that said it was ridiculous kids have phones, are now getting their kids phones. I've heard that not having a phone is essentially like knowing the whole school is invited to party, except you. I'm really not sure what to do.

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

#127

Post by hudsonjr » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:06 PM UTC

brandall10 wrote: post #103

rqtwteye wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think social media amplified trends that were there before. I remember when I came to the US in 2000 it was pretty fashionable to say “I am angry” all the time. And the hatred at politicians was pretty pronounced too. And the cable news was already spreading fear and anger. Personally I think modern media starting with cable TV allowed hatemongers to easily reach large groups. The internet just made it much worse.…

24 hour cable news, where news became entertainment, definitely sowed the seeds of this. There is a great movie from the 70s called Network that predicted the slide of society in this direction.

Yes once upon a time 24-hour news meant 25 or 30 different news stories covered in a an our. Now it seems like 5 or less stories in a day, and most of it is panels and "experts" spouting vitriol.

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

#128

Post by Nowado » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:06 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #63

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…

> 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. That sentiment is only valid for a specific world demographic, I’d say Western people under 40 years of age (which also greatly matches this forum’s users, I would say). But as Eastern European guy in my early 40s I certainly do not match that “doom” feeling, and loo…

Which matches the topic of the article, right?

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

#129

Post by azangru » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:06 PM UTC

psychphysic wrote: post #21

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. T…

> Everyone's in a gang and god help you if you aren't everyone will have a go at you.

Don't you have to be sufficiently active or prominent on the social media to be attacked?

(Yes, I remember the example of some hapless lady who tweeted "hope I won't get aids" before departing to Africa. I don't know how active she had been on twitter, or how typical the subsequent annihilation of her is.)

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

#130

Post by Gordonjcp » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:07 PM UTC

n4r9 wrote: post #85

hasmolo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's like saying there's nothing wrong with giving thalidomide to pregnant women, because pregnant women have always taken herbal supplements. The obvious difference is that newspapers contain a relatively small amount of information packaged in a non-interactive, non-targeted, and less mind-absorbing format. People don't read newspapers for the dopamine hit, but for lack of something else to do.

> That's like saying there's nothing wrong with giving thalidomide to pregnant women, because pregnant women have always taken herbal supplements.

Your analogy is better than you think, because in fact there isn't anything wrong with giving pregnant women thalidomide at all!

You just have to not do it within a very carefully defined range of time within pregnancy, but before and after that it's as safe as milk.

Turns out, the same process that makes thalidomide horribly teratogenic also makes it an absolutely first-rate cancer drug with few side-effects even in pregnancy.