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

391–400 of 580 posts

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

#391

Post by UncleOxidant »

rqtwteye wrote: post #83
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…

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

And let's not forget AM radio.

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

#392

Post by bmelton »

asdff wrote: post #340
1827162 wrote: 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…

I don't think this is unique to social media. Try dressing different from the norm in the 1990s before people even had cellphones in class and you'd definitely end up ostracized. It would be even worse because there's no way to find people who might be different like you, unlike today where there are forums and other websites.

> Try dressing different from the norm in the 1990s before people even had cellphones in class and you'd definitely end up ostracized

I think that's a part of OP's point. After that, if you wanted, you could go away to college and buy normal clothes and reinvent yourself completely.

Nowadays, if you're a person who agrees for whatever reason is a shitheel, you're that same shitheel forever, and the inertia required to overcome that is greater.

You're right in the sense that the internet also allows to find sympathetic others, but that doesn't shake the stigma, merely exposes it to more people. (Which has the added benefit of contributing to polarization.)

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

#393

Post by taeric »

robocat wrote: post #355
taeric wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm still mostly inline that anything that gets people engaging together will increase their willingness to do so. If that is playing a sport, that works.

I'm less enthusiastic about a lot of the big corporate push into many sports. Not just at large, but in the reach out to youth. Happy for my kids to get involved with sports at the local level. Annoyed at how much effort seems to go into funneling local assets into marketing that larger organizations clearly could be getting elsewise.

That said, I'm almost socialist enough to have a crap ton of completely incoherent ideas about how those that are succeeding should be doing their best to make sure those that aren't could. With no obligations attached.

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

#394

Post by taeric »

YuukiRey wrote: post #380
taeric wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I could definitely imagine that shootings and the subsequent drills have a negative effect on children's mood. What I meant was that this effect would be limited to the US, whereas the data presented in his articles seems to often cover a much larger part of the world.

Apologies, I meant that the negative moods and mental instability predating these events. I am open to the idea that they could be getting exacerbated by them. It is odd now that I have kids. I have no doubt I will change thoughts as years go by. In ways that I can't fully understand, yet. The way that anxiety clearly hits some of my family more than others is hard not to see.

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

#395

Post by saltcured »

taeric wrote: post #294
molotovh wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ish. Trash talking is a huge thing in sports. Similarly many prudish administrators go out of their way to punish the players for celebrations and such. Edit: And I'm curious how this relates to the topic at hand. Not that I think it is unrelated, but specifically how. We seem to be in rather strong agreement that it is the relationship with a thing that is unhealthy, with regards to sports. Why or how would that be…

The connection I see is something like "imaginary tribalism". The members of an audience form a one-sided sense of belonging that distorts their behaviors.

The mechanism seems to be the "media" part. All the promotional content is blasted out at scale in a way that triggers this false or amplified sense of social engagement. It's not the social part of social media that hurts, so much as the media platform part that enables so many promoters to thrive.

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

#396

Post by TchoBeer »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #227
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…

Your comment reminded me of the five general narratives we regularly tell ourselves about technology. 1) Technology is bad 2) Technology is good 3) Technology causes social change (tech determinism) 4) Social forces shape technology (social constructivism) 5) Technology is an accelerant Essentially all stories of technology and society fall into one of these narratives. The most rare is #5, yet as you argue in this c…

all of these could be true simultaneously.

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

#397

Post by dang »

MrYellowP wrote: post #28
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #3

Does he ever address the inconsistency of warning for years about "coddling" young people too much then suddenly pivoting into "social media is making our kids mentally unwell". Shouldn't it toughen them up? How does his proposed coddling differ from the bad coddling?

You make no sense. "Coddling up" is about preventing them from making experiences which form and harden their characters. You'd know, if you weren't coddled up yourself, as evidenced by your lack of understanding of what you're actually talking about.

Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this, please.

We've had to warn you at least once before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30472537) about breaking the site guidelines. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

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

#398

Post by CamArchibald »

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…

[dead]

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

#399

Post by codegeek »

softwaredoug wrote: post #113

As a parent. It's a hard topic. And not black and white. For the 10+ crowd, the days of kids roaming the streets, finding their friends and playing are gone. I think the causes for this are complicated, and social media (and screens) are just one part of the puzzle. Consider a few things: 1. The percentage of households with kids has gradually declined over time, while the percentage of retirees has gone up. So you j…

Great points. I was just in Spain (Madrid) and noticed teenagers playing in parks and even on swings etc along with small children. I never see that in American parks, never. I don't know the mental happiness of teenagers in Spain/Madrid in general but my wife and I thought it was interesting.

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

#400

Post by Brusco_RF »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #219
klooney wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 100 corporations thing is silly. They aren't out there polluting for the fun of it, they're making stuff for people and organizations. If people and governments and companies stop buying gas, the pollution on Chevron's ledger for oil extraction and refining will plummet as they get stuck with smaller markets like plastic manufacturing. Those dastardly 100 corporations are emitting to make stuff for you.

They're making stuff for people who get no input into how that stuff is made, much of which they can't just stop consuming.

Of course people have an input. You can buy it from someone else who makes it a different way, or not at all.
Post reply on HN