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

301–310 of 580 posts

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

#301

Post by [deleted] »

MandieD wrote: post #119
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.…

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.

[deleted]

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

#302

Post by 1827162 »

simiones wrote: post #295
1827162 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears to me that fears over catastrophic climate change are yet another moral panic. Amplified by social media this time. As with other moral panics (e.g. child abductions, pedophilia), the problem exists, but is blown way out of proportion by the media. In reality, I believe there of course will be changes in the weather patterns due to a relatively small increase in temperature, but it's not going to be the en…

> I kind of intuitively know this, and mostly disregard the opinions of those saying that there is impending doom. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truthiness > It will be interesting to see if I'm right about it or not, over the coming decades... You are wrong. No need to wait, the effects are already starting to be visible.

It's the same intuition that tells me something's wrong when I read things that end up being conspiracy theories or pseudoscience.

I trust it, because for me, it seems to have a track record of being correct in the end.

Well everyone has the right to their own opinions, and I might be completely wrong.

And I have every right to be a heretic, and not subscribe to things I think might be orthodoxies. That might be arising from bandwagon effects and social conformity. Which is what I suspect when it comes to climate change doomsaying.

And that's strictly my own opinion only, which can be simply disregarded by other people. But it still adds to the discussion. And such things can be proven wrong too, which might strengthen the case for catastrophic climate change actually happening?

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

#303

Post by oatmeal1 »

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.

The definition of collectivism you are using is incorrect.

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

#304

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#305

Post by dlivingston »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #199
kuschku wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds like you could make an argument that cities make people depressed as well then. I wonder if population density is a driving force for depression, both online and offline. I'd buy that. I find cities miserable.

As a personal anecdote, I moved from rural New Mexico to a highly populated New England county and my baseline anxiety level noticeably increased.

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

#306

Post by dumpsterlid »

nooron wrote: post #293
rayiner wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The idea that drag shows mock trans women would surprise a lot of trans women drag performers. It’s not an unheard of position for trans women but it is not the norm.

[dead]

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

#307

Post by Glyptodon »

I have mixed thoughts about this.

I think there are at least two or more factors and social media is a part of it, but it doesn't operate in a vacuum.

The reason I think this is that there seems to be a small minority of people who have the skills and mental models to use social media as a tool without adverse impact, as a well as another minority of people who seem to be able to remain distanced or minimal users of social media, without adverse impact.

These two groups seem to suggest that some kind of key missing life skill when combined with a need for social connection leaves people uniquely vulnerable to problems with social media.

My somewhat clueless guess about this is that people aren't situated to understand distance, authenticity, and relationships sufficiently. Maybe part of the problem is that many people are so socially starved of authentic and healthy loving relationships of all kinds in their lives, that many people can both know this but still be vulnerable. In some sense, maybe vulnerability rises because social media is a poor but just good enough placebo for loneliness?

I am also convinced that poor parenting compounds whatever is going on. Anyone who puts their 5th grader on Facebook or similar is a terrible parent IMO. Just the same as anyone who uses the iPad as a babysitter is a terrible parent IMO. But I suspect in many cases poor parenting is an artifact of parents who feel so trapped in unstable lives that hey can't feel stable or devote time comfortably to their kids. So maybe yet another factor.

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

#308

Post by mehlmao »

dbrueck wrote: post #299
mehlmao wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if effectively 0% of people hold extremist views (and I think that is a low number), they also commit outsized acts of violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_nightclub_sho... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting You'll also note that mainstream conservatives refused to condemn the Colorado Springs shooting and there has been no change in the rhetoric that encouraged it.

> Even if effectively 0% of people hold extremist views (and I think that is a low number), they also commit outsized acts of violence. Sure, that's true. But it's always been true and, AFAICT, will always be true. But they are such a tiny number of the total population that they aren't the gatekeepers to progress on big social issues. There is a tendency today to give people like that the spotlight and to paint ever…

Again, there is not middle ground between existence and extermination.

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

#309

Post by adamrezich »

js8 wrote: post #59
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…

Although personally I am very concerned about AGW, I think the dismissals that talking about climate change is causing some "existential crisis" among young people are BS. Whenever I hear that theory, it's always an armchair hypothesis. But you could actually go and ask young girls what they are anxious about and how they deal with it. I think proponents of that theory, if they want to dismiss social media effects on…

I have seen posters on this very website claim that they will not be having children as a direct result of the information they have received about climate change.

of course, it's difficult to determine how much of that is ex post facto reasoning as justification for a decision that was already made for completely different reasons…

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

#310

Post by smolder »

watwut wrote: post #87
joenot443 wrote: post #20

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.

I don't think centrism means believing the status quo is good. Good and bad are on a different axis from left to right. A centrist can believe in a great need for improvement that doesn't involve raising or lowering taxes, expanding or reducing government budget, etc. Corruption and regulatory capture and bad foreign policy and such aren't things solved by moving left or right, generally.
Post reply on HN