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

261–270 of 580 posts

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

#261

Post by muyuu »

discreteevent wrote: post #197
muyuu wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a powerful combination of safetyism and concentration in urban and suburban areas that has pushed the American political compass strongly towards collectivistic priorities this generation. Basically a strong "europeisation" in metropolitan America. Perhaps extortionate real estate prices and telework will put some counterbalance to it, but I don't expect this trend to buckle during my lifetime.

What has this got to do with collectivism? People can collectively decide to do whatever they want. Germany collectively decide to have risky playgrounds for kids. Sweden collectively decided not to lock down hard for covid. It sounds to me like America could do with collectively standing up against these channels and rejecting the rubbish they are peddling.

That is not why I meant by collectivism. Deciding things collectively just means you have organs of government.

By collectivistic priorities I simply meant that given trade offs between individual and collective orders of priority, the collective takes priority, often at the expense of individual rights.

America has traditionally had classical liberal ideals of individualism, as laid out by Locke, Rousseau and Franklin chiefly, and later others. What we've seen in the last few decades is a stronger alignment with continental European mainstream thought and politics. Perhaps because cities and demographics have pushed things in that direction. But I think safetyism is also a strong component.

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

#262

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

zozbot234 wrote: post #249
watwut wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The most effective improvements are frequently a disjoint set relative to the most feasible ones.

Centrism focuses on feasibility, and on incrementalism. The possibility that We're Just Doing It Wrong isn't a part of that worldview, and so should it turn out that we are, in fact, doing it wrong, centrism will never address it.

Put differently, centrism is philosophically equivalent to a local minimum/maximum from which any significant change makes things worse than the status quo (and legitimately so). This metric fails to note that there are better minima/maxima that are reachable, but only if things get worse for (hopefully a short) period of time.

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

#263

Post by 1827162 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #259
1827162 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I'm likely wrong there....

As a side note, one important change in the modern times is the ability to cross check information from a wide range of sources easily.

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

#264

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

watwut wrote: post #235
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very uncharitable interpretation. If anything, parent is saying that staying engaged and not giving up just because an issue came up, is a positive, valuable and, most importantly, not passive at all. In other words, if you can't even deal with the problem you received, how are you even begin to 'improve things' overall? You can't even handle your own circumstance to a reasonable degree. It is easy to gener…

> This is a very uncharitable interpretation. If anything, parent is saying that staying engaged and not giving up just because an issue came up, is a positive, valuable and, most importantly, not passive at all. In other words, if you can't even deal with the problem you received, how are you even begin to 'improve things' overall? It is not uncharitable interpretation. It is exactly what it means. What the cultures…

Parent statement:

>> 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.

Response:

> Is having a dad and a mom so bad that you cannot accept those positive outcomes ( and I can easily grant there are bad ones as well )?

Statement:

Response:

Is it uncharitable though? I maintain it is a valid interpretation.

You explicitly said gender essentialism[1] explains why mothers can't seem to get the same results ( "they are not empowered enough" without actually explaining what would that entail I might add so you may want to expand on it a little ) and I simply followed that thread out of sheer curiosity of your frame of mind and responded with a clear counter which suggests that positive outcomes seem to be common to family units that are not, lets call them 'unstructured'.

It is possible I am misreading you. What are you saying, exactly?

How so? It seems the few studies that were done support that notion[2]. Granted, it is not enough to simply have two parents. They need to be engaged, stable, have decent income so there are other factors at play, but I will boil it down to something really simple. Raising valuable members of society is hard work ; having kids is not that hard in abstract. It is doubly as hard for one person, because there is no one to share that burden with.

There is also some empirical data suggesting otherwise including amount of parents, who stay in otherwise 'bad' unions for the sake of the children suggesting rather instinctive understanding that it is not exactly a 'one man job'. Now, that is being countered by individualistic nature of US, but that is a separate conversation in itself.

In either case, you may want to expand on your thought process to convince me. Right now I don't really see an argument.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_essentialism [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553416/

late edit:

I somehow managed to miss it. Can you elaborate a little further on this? I am genuinely curious about examples of such cultures.

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

#265

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

frostburg wrote: post #146
somedude895 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is determining the details of what should be allowed As far as I understand all Haidt calls for is to remove the boundaries that have been established over the past couple of decades, or what selectivity are you hinting at here that are part of that supposed plan to shape society?

Apparently social media is a step too far but other things that he likes should be common again. He might not even be specifically wrong about some practices being harmful, but the given arguments are weak and incidentally they map to a certain kind of reactionary wishlish. More generally, the discourse tends to boil down to "I was spanked and I turned out fine!".

I don't think that fairly represents Haidt's position at all.

Yes, there is an inconsistency in his writing regarding why social media specifically is something we should protect children from. But Haidt is not suggesting that a return to a corporal punishment regime, or anything like it, is desirable. His concerns are things like free play, independent movement, negative (not only positive) interactions and so on.

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

#266

Post by rayiner »

dtauzell wrote: post #211
peanutcrisis wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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",…

The reaction became a chain reaction and now the details don't matter and the "dogma" could be anything. For example, singing the sone "Rainbowland" at an elementary school concert is now considered pushing some dogma of shaming on kids.

[flagged]

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

#267

Post by molotovh »

taeric wrote: post #243
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…

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 ma…

Note that in your example, it's not the athletes that are being toxic (usually), it's the spectators.

It's common for sports fans to say things like, "we're playing Los Angeles next week" or "we picked up so-and-so in the draft" when there's really no "we" about it. The speaker is not involved in the action in any way other than as one observing it. But using that language makes them feel included in something bigger. And sometimes the brain starts to believe you really ARE part of that bigger thing, and you start taking actions to reinforce that belief.

(And I want it noted that I'm very much including myself in this assessment. This is not some "nerds > jocks" kind of thing. As an American football fan myself, I've made a conscious effort to stop saying "we" specifically because this has started to bother me.)

So no, participating in sports isn't unhealthy. Succumbing to the delusion of participation as a spectator, that's what becomes unhealthy.

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

#268

Post by moi2388 »

I don’t think you should listen to what psychologists say; even with their own studies at least 2 out of 3 times it cannot even be reproduced. Let alone something they didnt design a study for..

As far a common sense goes; social comparison and depression have already very well known links, and social media is purely social comparisons, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to think social media might have an effect on depression incidence or severity.

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

#269

Post by ModernMech »

rayiner wrote: post #140
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…

> 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 middle. You can start by pulling back from the obvious rhetorical flourishes.…

Some major headlines in Florida recently:

  "Florida Republicans Take Aim at Gender-Affirming Care, Drag Shows... [The bill] would treat parents as abusers for allowing medical care to children, and cracks down on parenting harder even than Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s notorious anti-trans child executive order." [1]

  "Florida lawmakers approve death penalty in child rapes, sending bill to governor... The Florida Senate on Tuesday passed a bill that would allow the death penalty for people who commit sexual batteries on children under age 12, sending the issue to Gov. Ron DeSantis." [2]

  "Florida to allow death penalty with 8-4 jury vote instead of unanimously... If the Republican governor signs the bill into law, Florida prosecutors trying capital felony cases would need to convince only two-thirds of the 12-member jury that someone who is convicted deserves the death penalty, rather than a unanimous decision by a jury." [3]
I'm sorry, but we are able to connect dots. DeSantis looks like a fascist to many of us outside looking in. I mean, you couldn't be more transparent about building a legal framework for the state-sponsored execution of LGBTQ people. They're doing it right out in the open, and you're telling us that we should just maybe consider that the parents are concerned about what the liberals are teaching their kids about sex. Well then why are they busy passing laws making it easier to put LGBTQ people to death? You can make sure your kids are taught whatever you want without making the death penalty a 8/4 decision. You can do that without making being trans or providing trans healthcare a capital offence.

This is just like the Dobbs decision. When that landed, you had assured us it was a great thing because it meant the states could finally decide once and for all their local norms based on local politics. Well here we are now and there's a nationwide ban on abortion medicine because of an ideologue federal judge with a religious bent, writing laws from the bench, who decided he didn't like it, so we all have to abide by that. People who live in communities that support these medications will be affected, and we were assured by conservatives on the court (and their supporters) that this situation would not come to pass.

So really, I can't stand any more predications about what restraint the right will use with these laws. Any loophole in there will be used as such. Omissions and vague language aren't an oversight in lawmaking, they are tools which allow for the unequal enforcement of those laws in whatever way the executive (Ron DeSantis) prefers.

We cannot give Florida the benefit of the doubt that they aren't currently laying the edifices for genocide because a man like Ron DeSantis would never aspire to exact that kind of revenge on his enemies. Please. The man oozes petty authoritarianism. He is a walking narcissistic injury, and he's proven (though his Disney debacle) he is willing to use his power and his office to exact personal revenge against political opponents. He's not fooling anyone, and any calls to "please let's all give everyone the benefit of the doubt" doesn't pass the laugh test when he's lowering the threshold for the death penalty.

[1] https://www.advocate.com/politics/florida-republicans-transg...

[2] https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-death-p...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-allow-death-penalty...

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

#270

Post by mensetmanusman »

throwaway9191aa wrote: post #126
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.

Maybe we give-in with clear boundaries and regular check-ins?

Give-in and Check-in support group :)

Post reply on HN