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

351–360 of 580 posts

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

#351

Post by asdff »

woodruffw wrote: post #100
js8 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a personal anecdote: I have family members, mostly younger ones (and I’m in my mid-20s), who are extremely anxious about climate change. They’ve sought mental health services because of their worries. I don’t think that’s particularly unique. I agree that it is absolutely not the only factor, which is the point I was attempting to make with a “weaker” version of Haidt’s argument.

I wonder if all the doom and gloom with everything is because people don't really understand statistics nor history. Sure, living through the climate catastrophe won't be comfortable, but given most of human history, living in that future is still a far better hand than all of your ancestors. Say you were born cesarean, are diabetic, broke your arm, had your wisdom teeth removed, got your colorectal cancer cleared up with the immune checkpoint inhibitor, got a covid vaccine then caught it and shrugged it off. Any other point of history you'd be dead 6x over at least with that medical history. That's something to celebrate.

Plus I think there is a bias over maintaining the status quo of the earth. Sure, pollution isn't great, but that's from a squandered opportunity of destroying natural resources before coming up with a sustainable way to use them indefinitely. Species go extinct, but for better or worse, that's how previously occupied niches are now exposed for rapid adaptive evolution of what is left over, and how we evolved to be who we are today. We are adding energy into the atmosphere, so if anything the life system will work even faster than before. Will we adjust? Who knows, but if you are on team planet earth it really doesn't matter. Life will find a way. Whether humans make it or not should be irrelevant, considering you have distant relatives who weren't human and only became human due to selective pressures from the environment at the time. We should expect to change when the environment does, dramatically even, as fighting that change amounts to fighting a march to a thermodynamic equilibrium. Consider we also have the head and shoulders advantage of any other species driving a climate change on earth previously (there were many, great oxygenation event, azolla event, and others), of actually being globally aware of climate change.

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

#352

Post by max51 »

Decabytes wrote: post #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…

what made the original facebook so great is that it was

1) semi-exclusive (ei. your parents weren't on it)

2) The content you saw on your feed was 100% things that your direct friends manually typed or shared with you. No recommended posts from strangers, no corporate pages, no ads, no games, no articles from groups that you follow to keep up with the local news (eg. HOAs, local politicians, news station), no posts from extended family members that you accepted as friends out of peer pressure, etc.

Trying to grow and become that one-stop-shop for everything the internet has to offer is what ruined it. Having your mom, your 7 yr old cousin and the local shops on the same platform as young adults is more profitable for facebook, but it doesn't make it better for the users.

The only platforms that have kept their reputations over the years are those with leaders that knew how to say no to ideas that compromises the great/unique aspects of the platform in exchange for a larger quarterly profit.

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

#353

Post by freejazz »

msla wrote: post #337
rayiner wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Drag shows involve violating social norms as a form of voluntary self expression. Such rejection of social norms should not be granted state sanction by hosting such events in public libraries. Mere assertion. Not an argument. The supposed arguments against drag queen story time are either unserious hand-wringing about supposed harms coming from drag, a form of art older than modern gender roles, or simple threats…

rayiner is clearly just expressing their own personal distaste for non-passing trans individuals. Is Rayiner checking the genitals of everyone that interacts with children, or is Rayiner just implicitly assuming their sex based upon their gender expression??

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

#354

Post by tssva »

LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #39
raxxorraxor wrote: post #16

> girls who spend more than 4 hours a day on social media have two to three times the rate of depression as girls who spend an hour or less. Not that it proves anything, but the converse argument, that depressed girls spend more time on social media or online in general, should also be examined. If the data could support this thesis to a similar degree, there is no conclusive statement about social media really induc…

Something has to be behind the seemingly coordinated rise in depression among children globally, that's the leading indicator he's using to assess the problem. His argument is that it can't be anything other than social media. You're making the case in the micro scale: what is one person's relationship with depression and social media, and he's arguing in the macro scale. Something has caused depression to spike in c…

The child mental health industrial complex which started in the 2000's and has boomed over the last decade as parents have been bombarded with the message that they need to rush their kids off to a therapist at the slightest sign of normal teenage angst or they are bad parents. Schools have bought into this and participate in the messaging. Once under "treatment" kids are repeatedly told they have anxiety and/or depression which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. What would have been normal teenage angst which in most cases resolves itself quickly now becomes a long-term issue of course requiring more therapy. This drives even more kids to think they have anxiety and/or depression because their friends have it.

Lately I have started to see push back among my teenage daughter's friends' parents as they have realized that their kids have actually gotten quite worse since starting therapy. Many have started pulling their kids from therapy and quickly seen their kids mental state improve.

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

#355

Post by robocat »

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…

Most sports reduce discrimination and division, I think.

Side-tracking people into unimportant (sports) in-group versus out-group is really good at improving cohesion between important group differences. For example a Mexican and an American rooting for the same team, so they have their sport in common, which helps them be closer to each other.

Sports can be divisive between countries. Then again it is interesting to watch New Zealand support Australians against the English (background - there is usually strong sports rivalry between NZ and Oz since we are neighbours). A bit of win and lose on that one.

The most popular sports tend to be cross-class too - which is good. Of course there are sports that tend to be class oriented in some countries e.g. polo, soccer, athletics. FYI golf and skiing are not particularly class oriented within New Zealand: even 30 foot yacht racing can have a mixture of millionaires, factory workers, professionals and petrol attendants (we are weird down here).

Just a theory of mine.

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

#356

Post by fknorangesite »

msla wrote: post #337
rayiner wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Drag shows involve violating social norms as a form of voluntary self expression. Such rejection of social norms should not be granted state sanction by hosting such events in public libraries. Mere assertion. Not an argument. The supposed arguments against drag queen story time are either unserious hand-wringing about supposed harms coming from drag, a form of art older than modern gender roles, or simple threats…

> and I'm now confused.

So is rayiner, I think.

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

#357

Post by bitcoin_anon »

woodruffw wrote: post #100
js8 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a personal anecdote: I have family members, mostly younger ones (and I’m in my mid-20s), who are extremely anxious about climate change. They’ve sought mental health services because of their worries. I don’t think that’s particularly unique. I agree that it is absolutely not the only factor, which is the point I was attempting to make with a “weaker” version of Haidt’s argument.

Isn't this a social media problem as well? Climate change is a hot topic on social media. When we are frequently exposed to doom-porn, we tend to develop a bleak outlook.

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

#358

Post by DrThunder »

moab wrote: post #274
DrThunder wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not even remotely true (re: the need to use LinkedIn). Just quit.

It's not remotely true??? You're just off-base with that statement. A ton of companies look there and recruit through that site. Yeah you don't HAVE to use it but you're putting yourself at a disadvantage if you don't.

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

#359

Post by spacephysics »

watwut wrote: post #78
spacephysics wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Anti” coddling to me is rejecting the notion of participation trophies, emphasizing in a healthy way losing and winning. Pushing through discomfort and, god forbid, seeking out discomfort. Being OK and perhaps wanting discomfort. Knowing that discomfort is 9/10 a healthy stress that builds you. Not playing the victim. Taking responsibility for your circumstances, no matter how shit of a hand you were dealt. Yeah it…

> Not playing the victim. Taking responsibility for your circumstances, no matter how shit of a hand you were dealt. Basically, gaslight yourself into believing that other peoples actions are your fault? Sometimes you are in fact a victim of something, no matter how uncomfortable that thought makes Haidt feel. > Sometimes things suck, and sometimes things are sad, and that’s okay. Common notion in many cultures is yo…

> Basically, gaslight yourself…

No, it’s empowerment to make change to improve yourself and not wallow in it. Life’s unfair, everyone has their own circumstances with which to grow from. Unfortunately some have much worse to grow from. But staying stagnant and not taking the first step will keep you in that state.

> Effectively be passive…

Not at all what I mean. You should try to improve things, but during such improvement the work might suck and that’s okay. That’s what people mean when they say something is hard.

> Gender essentialism…

There’s a multitude of studies that show if a feminine and masculine role are not present cohesively in a child’s life, they do not grow up in the best situation.

I never mentioned threat, but there has to be an authoritarian aspect of parenting. You cannot have cookies before bedtime, no matter how loud you’re going to cry. Benevolence is desired, but having both parents be pushovers sets the child up for drastic failure. This does not imply abuse. It’s called socializing a kid.

Single parent households on both sides of the equation are horrible. Yes people persevere, but much of the issues we see in inner city are due to single mothers and men leaving their family or being incarcerated unjustly. No amount of money injected into those communities counters this.

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

#360

Post by spacephysics »

frostburg wrote: post #134
cmilton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most would agree that more is better than fewer caretakers. This works well when families are located close geographically, but not so much when spread out. I would also argue, why does the community automatically bear the responsibility for a decision made by two?

They also pay taxes for schools etc. - we're talking about society-wide outcomes. Personally I have no intention of reproducing and even think that a managed but very significant reduction in population would alleviate a lot of issues, but this doesn't mean that I want existing children to be mistreated.

My view of life and society drastically changed for me once kids were in the picture.

With all due respect, Given that you’re on the path to population control and all that’s implied with that, I find it difficult in myself to take what you say seriously.

Post reply on HN