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

221–230 of 580 posts

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

#221

Post by taeric »

throwaway2847 wrote: post #137
azangru wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Definitely not, if you reply to a sufficiently famous person in a way they dislike there's always a risk they'll (in)directly turn their followers against you.

I mean... this would happen in any place where you get to sound off against someone famous. Right?

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

azangru wrote: post #129
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.)

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by taeric »

1827162 wrote: post #116
creshal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe our parents were indeed right when they told us we are glued to our devices and should go touch grass. And yet, their generation seems to be the most addicted these days, and the most unhinged when it comes to following conspiracy theories.

Likely because that generation was raised to believe everything they were told, starting from an early age with school, religion, then with television and newspapers, etc. The younger generation were raised with media that spread obvious untruths such as conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, etc. and they learned to think more critically about what they are reading.

I'm probably over indexing on it, but the nocebo effect did not begin and end with a generation. People are remarkably influenced by what they are told. Even if they know it is unlikely or not true.

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

#224

Post by rayiner »

peanutcrisis wrote: post #172
msla wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been a complete loss in any interest in meeting a middle ground There's no middle ground between wanting to kill someone and wanting to let them live in peace. If a person thinks someone is a born child molester (a "groomer" in the modern Newspeak) and that person thinks the punishment for child molestation is death (as is fashionable in Florida of late) there's no way they can meet that person in the mid…

A contra-narrative to your point is that there exist a minority of people who hold very specific and very dogmatic views about gender. These people are pushing their views through the education system (I do not know the extent of it, just that it exists), and seemingly without the consent of parents (i.e., social transitions without informing parents). While I deeply disagree and detest the use of the term "groomer",…

[flagged]

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

#225

Post by oh_sigh »

azangru wrote: post #129
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.)

Nope - look at the central park bird watcher/dog incident or the SA aids lady as you mention - both of them I guess had a social media presence, but it was along the lines of 50 followers, probably just the people they were friends with in real life.

But also being in a gang doesn't even protect you. Lots of intragang cancellations, if the gang seems you to hold the wrong values for the gang. Eg Lena dunham

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

#226

Post by 908B64B197 »

iamerroragent wrote: post #55
knallfrosch wrote: post #11

Kudos to Mr Haidt. I wouldn't have the patience to explain over and over again why being addicted to your phone and comparing your looks to global superstars makes girls lonely and depressed. People will argue over percentage points of an r-value instead of simply asking three girls whether using Instagram four hours a day makes them happy.

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…

> However that doesn't stop teens from comparing their looks to their peers, adults they know, and obviously global media (magazines, billboards, films, music, etc; what 'successful' women look like on cable news). How are the underlying cause for these negative feelings going to be addressed?

Is it such a bad thing that they compare themselves to their peers?

In 2018 "obesity prevalence was [...] 21.2% among 12- to 19-year-olds." [1] according to the CDC. That's one out of 5 being obese, not just overweight. And it has more than tripled since the 70's [2]. I have to wonder if it's related. A lot of teenagers are bombarded with images of their peers' perfectly healthy bodies that, quite simply, won't match what they see in the mirror. The solution? Ban mirrors.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_15_16/obe...

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

#227

Post by AndyMcConachie »

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…

Your comment reminded me of the five general narratives we regularly tell ourselves about technology.

1) Technology is bad

2) Technology is good

3) Technology causes social change (tech determinism)

4) Social forces shape technology (social constructivism)

5) Technology is an accelerant

Essentially all stories of technology and society fall into one of these narratives. The most rare is #5, yet as you argue in this case, it is probably the most realistic. Haidt should be aware of these and I also don't understand why he is going with #3.

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

#228

Post by oh_sigh »

creshal wrote: post #56
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…

> Maybe our parents were indeed right when they told us we are glued to our devices and should go touch grass. And yet, their generation seems to be the most addicted these days, and the most unhinged when it comes to following conspiracy theories.

Not according to this:

Social media, gen z wins: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1314973/global-daily-tim...

Phones in general, millennials win: https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/which-generation-....

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

#229

Post by paganel »

Nowado wrote: post #128
paganel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I was contesting OP's point of view which was implying that everyone is on board with the climate doomerism, I hadn't read the article.

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

#230

Post by amluto »

One of cited objections is absurd:

> I don't trust any area of research where the odds ratios are below 3.

Then what’s the point of researching even slightly more subtle effects? This person might as well start smoking: they wouldn’t trust any amount of evidence that smoking causes cardiovascular disease — the odds ratio seems to be 2.

Post reply on HN