Live data from Hacker News

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

jonathanhaidt.substack.com

251–260 of 580 posts

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

#251
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be worth considering other crises and their impact on teen mental health. I grew up in the UK in the 80s during two crises. First, it was the Cold War and there was a very real risk of nuclear Armageddon; we were all aware of it because it was all over the media. Second, it was the height of IRA bombing campaign in the UK and we heard of children our age being blown to bits while out shopping with their pare…

I think these examples reinforce my point: both the Troubles and the Cold War felt (and ultimately were) resolvable, while climate change (in the popular conception) feels fundamentally unresolvable. The former were also fundamentally social concerns, with avenues for social activism; the latter contains social concerns but is fundamentally a global coordination problem that’s roughly equivalent to achieving world pe…

The Cold War absolutely did not feel resolvable at the time. The popular conception was that of present day North Korea cranked up to 100; there were crazy people in Moscow, they had thousands of nukes pointed at the rest of the world, and they’d successfully set up a system to prevent sanity from being restored. (In Russia, my understanding is that they generally saw it as a story of capitalists who could not stand to let a worker’s movement survive; in the rest of the Warsaw Pact, they saw it as a permanent system where the country must remain communist because the Red Army will invade otherwise.)

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

#252
post #70

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…

No one really talks about it but I think it is a symptom of bad parenting. How many times have people sat their kid down and explained these Hollywood types are not the average looking person?

Do you have children? How old are they? Do you actually believe that "sitting your kid down and explaining XXX" to them is likely to cause substantive changes in what are fundamentally deeply non-cognitive takes on the world?

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

#253
We need to improve our emotional intelligence by talking about emotions and feelings to become more resilient. We as a society are emotionally immature and let others manipulate us and cede power to them because we are scared of our true selves.

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

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And in order to compete with the other channels, news started becoming more and more sensationalist. Those channels contributed to the moral panics behind "Stranger Danger" and "Satanic Ritual Abuse", which resulted in parents becoming overprotective towards their children, stunting their development. When these children grew up into adults, they carried this "safetyist" worldview with them, where freedom is traded f…

> And in order to compete with the other channels, news started becoming more and more sensationalist.

I fear the same pattern repeating with Patreon-powered journalism and Substack.

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

#255
I wonder how much of the negative aspects of social media are due to the gamification of it as well as the algorithms that boost certain types of content.

For example, if Twitter had no algorithm, didn't show you the number of views on your post, didn't show you the number of likes on your posts or retweets, and you just used it to post funny memes, interesting articles, and life updates to your followers if it would still have the same negative impacts that it does today.

I also wonder what a social media site would look like if the only way to follow someone, was if they gave you a QR code that was generated on their phone. That way most of the people that followed you would only be people you've met in real life. The QR code could expire in like 5 minutes to prevent people from just posting it somewhere to get follows. It would be much more private, and much slower paced, and people couldn't see any of your posts without following you.

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

#256

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.…

It's like a societal autoimmune disease - when there's not a real, immediate event to react to, something has to be found to fill the airtime that is compelling enough to keep people watching and reacting, and social media has the added "benefit" of finding that filler algorithmically.

I think that when people are angry, they are more open to suggestion if you do it right. So this is a way to make people more receptive to buying a particular product or subscription, or to supporting a political cause, etc., if you don't make them angry about something first and do nothing else different, you get less conversions. And of all the different ways to improve in this kind of metric, the make-people-angry method one is relatively easy and requires relatively less competence.

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

#257
post #94

I think it's the total visibility that's causing mental illness. There is no space where you can be with your friends, screw up, and not have it become known to everyone in your peer group. There's little space to make mistakes. No space to be yourself. You are under the watchful gaze of your friends, i.e. peer surveillance, nearly all of the time. Which induces stifling conformity. Everything's under constant scruti…

If this is the case, is this reflected in the suicide rate of small, nosy towns? Small towns are notorious for everyone knowing everyone else’s business.

Suicide rates do go up the lower the population density. I can't say it's attributable to this dynamic, though.

> suicide rates increase as population density decreases and an area becomes more rural.

https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/disparities-in-suicide.htm...

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

#258
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> creating a safe environment where they can learn the needed skills that can help them in that situation. He literally wrote a book calling for Universities to stop creating "safe spaces".

Haidt considers safe spaces to be a step too far beyond "don't throw them to the lions". You can disagree with that, but please do understand and represent his position accurately.

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

#259
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.

> The younger generation were raised with media that spread obvious untruths such as conspiracy theories, pseudoscience

Except that talk radio is way older than that, and it was the same kind of content.

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

#260
post #230

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.

Yeah, that seems completely absurd. If the experiments are rigorous enough, and the p value is low enough, you should be able to trust the results, no matter how small the effect is.

If, for example, research shows that social media use increases one's risk of depression by, say, between 32% and 34%, with p can only show a 1/3 rise in risk, rather than a 3x rise?

That's not skepticism. That's dogma.

Post reply on HN