Live data from Hacker News

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

jonathanhaidt.substack.com

241–250 of 580 posts

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

#241
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?

Perhaps if they were narrowly focused on religion? It seems to work for the Amish and other intensely devout groups.

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

#242

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…

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.…

I mean, there was anger at politicians, but it was mostly "all politicians are corrupt". I certainly don't remember people saying "I am angry" all the time. I wonder if this was a coastal thing (e.g., the 'Occupy' movement seemed angry in a way that I couldn't relate to having lived my whole life in the midwest) and social media amplified it and spread it across the country?

I do recall online discourse being a lot angrier and less civil (not merely "more critical", but a lot more personal attacks, hateful generalizations, caricatures, etc). It was no longer "politicians are bad", nor even "the other side's politicians are bad", but increasingly "Americans on the other side are the enemy". And of course, conservatives were slow to adopt social media, so (as I recall) this was mostly liberals and progressives punching at conservatives who were still trying to be more buttoned up and play by the old rules, but as they increasingly came online and encountered the new incivility directed towards them (and the incivilizing force of social media itself acting upon them), I think it caused a lot of latent anger to accumulate until they finally embraced incivility in the form of Donald Trump (to be clear, this is a very abridged version of a very complex topic).

> I just wonder how we can get out of this. My main observations are only from the US but the thinking that there are “others” who can’t be understood or talked to but need to eliminated is quite deeply ingrained in a lot of people.

My hope is that the next generation will see the pointless harm caused by our hate/rage addiction and reject it, and maybe even regard it like an addictive substance (perhaps encouraging people to avoid social media, set up resources for addicted people, regulate social media companies, etc).

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

#243

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…

Oddly, I used to have the same view of sports. Growing up where I did, it was common for folks to be fanatical on their local college sports team. Such that they get mean to folks from their "rival" schools and are generally trash talking to everyone else. It was so bad, that I certainly thought that was how you were supposed to be. Pick a side and be aggressive to the opponents when watching the game. Goal was to make them do worse, so that your team would do better. It even makes sense in that regard.

However, that is ridiculously unhealthy. And it easily bleeds into other aspects of life. Heaven help you when you go watch some middle school team sometime, parents are being terrible to their kids. Worse to other's kids.

Does this mean sports are unhealthy, though? I'm convinced, right now, that that is definitely not the case. But I can also easily claim we tend to have unhealthy relationships with these topics.

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

#244

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…

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.…

> 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.

I'd posit it goes even further back to shortwave radio. Cable TV, internet forums, and later social media made discoverability easier - but the mass-media bile wa already present for a very long time.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, LinkedIn takes the cake in that regard. If you wanna feel full on narcissism and a bunch of meaningless fake posts with people trying appear as something they're not... LinkedIn is the place to be.

LinkedIn and Nextdoor are the two worst social platforms around, it's the worst kind of horrible, a sort of superficial rage and invasiveness, a complete disregard for others as human beings. Say what you will about Twitter, but at least the insults there are direct and tend to stay exclusive to Twitter - as opposed to neighbors convincing each other of the worst or your ability to land a job being sabotaged because…

Yep, at least there are some posts on Twitter that occasionally make me laugh. LinkedIn just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and you almost have to use it nowadays.

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, LinkedIn takes the cake in that regard. If you wanna feel full on narcissism and a bunch of meaningless fake posts with people trying appear as something they're not... LinkedIn is the place to be.

Linkedin is the only social media which has ever been of any tangible benefit to me, though. It makes getting jobs trivially easy, and I only have to login once every few years.

This almost makes it worse. It's like you're expected to use it to get a job now.

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

#247
post #234

Wow. I both respect this post, while being annoyed at its direction. It is very respectful in the intro, by explicitly not trying to be attacks against the critics. However, it then is entreating the readers to pick a side for most of the rest. I assert that you should not pick a side. Instead, you should look at how you can add to and learn from the data. Odds are high that both sides have some points that are worth…

But the author isn't arguing that mental health only became a problem in 2010, if I understand your post correctly. They're claiming it became more of a problem because of social media use, particularly among girls, no? If by "Columbine" you're referring to the shooting, then that's only a US thing and doesn't apply to other countries.

Right, and in that I can mostly get behind. Again, I don't think the researcher is wrong. I think it is wrong to "pick a side" and only buy in to that.

You are right that I was referring to the shooting. But you will have to tell me why that isn't a mental health thing. Do I think it is also a gun control issue? Certainly, but even without the guns, those kids were still very mentally unstable. And growing up in that time, I knew many mentally unstable people. Luckily, they didn't have access to guns.

Similar statement could be about social media. Before 2010s, they didn't have access to social media. My assertion would be that they were likely still there.

Now, is mental illness contagious? I'd wager that is probable. But I don't know for sure. And I'm going to guess you need evidence and an open mind to both "sides" presented in this post to progress to an answer.

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

#249
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ll have to be more specific. What political goals do you think are being accomplished here? For 11 years now Haidt has very deliberately identified as a centrist, partially because folks like yourself unfamiliar with his work find habit in dismissing his research as being politically motivated. Just because a researchers findings don’t align with YOUR politics doesn’t make the research itself politically motivate…

Being centrist IS a political position. The one that status quo is good and those who challenge it are doing something inherently wrong.

Wait, what? Centrism makes it easier to propose changes to the status quo, because most effective and feasible improvements to the status quo are essentially orthogonal wrt. the whole left vs. right political spectrum.

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

#250
post #234

Wow. I both respect this post, while being annoyed at its direction. It is very respectful in the intro, by explicitly not trying to be attacks against the critics. However, it then is entreating the readers to pick a side for most of the rest. I assert that you should not pick a side. Instead, you should look at how you can add to and learn from the data. Odds are high that both sides have some points that are worth…

> I assert that you should not pick a side. Instead, you should look at how you can add to and learn from the data.

Haidt is sufficiently convinced by the existing data that he feels strongly that what is called for is action, not more data collection (or perhaps, action alongside more data collection).

You are apparently not as convinced as Haidt. That's OK, but you need to consider the perspective of someone who feels that we've already established what is happening with sufficient confidence that we need to move onto action.

And as Haidt says: what is the cost if the skeptics are wrong vs. if the alarm ringers are wrong?

Post reply on HN