Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the inevitable conclusions of stranger danger and car-based suburbanization. When people only access the world via car and avoid walking around, they never build familiarity with their own neighborhood. All locations worth stepping out of the car for, are miles away and behind security gates. Low density also means that 1 stranger can actually do damage, unlike dense areas where there are at least a few stran…
Suburbs and cars already existed 60 years ago, and that was before cell phones for coordinating meetups.
Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
511–520 of 580 posts
Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 depr…
Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect it is improbable, because an honest, undeniable belief that you lack free will would drive someone stark raving mad. It would represent a fundamental phase change in the way an individual interacts with the world, which I would wager would be antithetical to effective transmission of the belief. Far more dangerous would be the 90% mark, where understanding of psychological determinism advances to a point wh…
I don't believe in free will. I haven't really for about 20 years or so. However, I act as if I do, as I've always done. It's a habit I choose not to break. Changing to act as I believe would be too much for me to handle. I would need to rethink pretty much everything I do. It's a completely different set of axioms in every domain of human knowledge, ethics, behaviour and interaction. I don't think I'm raving mad, bu…
Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's not a strong argument to say "what could it be other than X? therefore, X" > What could it be? Sense of community is gone. Trust is at an all-time low. Traditional social institutions and scaffolding that held society together are gone. Families are more broken apart than ever. It's an entire regime change, and we're still operating with our old instincts/hardware, which expects to be raised in a village by a la…
Granting all of that to be true (though I think it could be argued otherwise), those things started happening long before the sharp rise in depression among teen girls.
Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#515Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
The premise for broad acceptance of trans rights, just as it is for gay rights, is the scientific fact that prenatal endocrine exposure controls sexual orientation and people’s feelings about what gender they are: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97801... . It’s not at all “ill-defined” it’s the scientific premise behind saying that someone is born transgender as opposed to choosing to be transg…
I guarantee you that people who support the rights of trans people to be trans people are not doing so contingent on there being some kind of purely biological basis. Most people probably don't even know there is a proposed biological mechanism. In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity,…
The following statement from the American Psychological Association is quoted prominently in Obergefell:
“Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17.
The Human Rights Campaign defines sexual orientation as: “Sexual Orientation: An inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people.
> In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity, sexuality, or other identifiers like skin color or disability, because it suggests that their value is arrived at only reluctantly and it is on them to prove they should be treated like anyone else.
Your conclusion only follows if you begin with an individualistic humanist perspective. Most people in the world, and probably a plurality in America, believe in natural order, not individual choice. Virtue is doing what you’re supposed to do; vice is acting contrary to nature’s or God’s plan. Conformity is pro-social; non-conformity is anti-social. Consequently, it’s extremely significant whether that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate. It means God made you that way. And it means that you’re doing what you’re programmed to do, and not deliberately thumbing your nose at society’s conventions.
Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Not disagreeing with your statements, but the key question in the research is why did depression spike in children worldwide _after 2012_. At various points in my lifetime there have been reasons to be sad about the world - but what changed in 2012 that predominantly appears to affect teenage girls, and has been observed in several countries globally?
In all serious, 2012-2013 coincides with 1/3 and 1/2 of the American population's owning a smartphone. Maybe that has something to do with it?
Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> What we can agree on, however, is that God (or the pre-natal endocrine environment, if you prefer) makes certain people different, and that those people should be able to participate in social institutions like marriage consistent with their biology. I mean, no, we can't agree on that restrictive phrasing. Even to the extent we might agree that biological differences might sometimes be socially relevant, there is n…
Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#519As 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…
Maybe a little off-topic, but I think both choices made by your kid are good if not the best.
Discord is relatively a private place with specific usage (chat and game). The social pressure it creates should be far less than what's been created by a "proper" public-publishing social media network such as TikTok or Instagram. On top of that, a small friend circle might have natural tendency to guard against outsiders.
On the Minecraft side, assuming it's just a server where your kid and his friends play on, then it should have the same effect as a small friend circle. Which means far less unexpected attack (less chance of generating hate) while keeping the benefit of sharing their creations/creativity with others.
Of course, you still have to know your kid and his friend to ensure the safety of the entire circle. But that's far more controllable than just letting your kid free-playing on TikTok Instagram etc (and get hurt by a total stranger who don't gives a damn care).
Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
So?
It might be simply putting a book quote as a response came across as passive aggressive. The reference is to the Virgin Suicides. The doctor can’t believe that Cecilia would slash her wrists because he can’t comprehend that she would have experienced real or perceived distress at her age. To which she responds with the quote above. I’m suggesting that it’s very easy to be dismissive of teenage problems as trivial or…
Okay that sounds reasonable, but how does that relate to my prior comment?