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

521–530 of 580 posts

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

#521

Post by zdragnar »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #465
kaibee wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we let preteens buy and drink alcohol at school, under the logic that for some of them, the fun/socializing benefits will outweigh the downsides? While this would be funny for a while, I don't think its a good idea.

No and I cannot for the life of me see where this question grows logically out of things I've said.

To be fair, you did respond to a comment about smoking cigarettes by saying that water can also be bad. I've never actually heard anyone compare the two before. This whole thread is becoming nonsensical.

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

#522

Post by burnished »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #509
burnished wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like "and no one does, we've been searching, by the by if you have a theory drop us a line". If you've got good theories maybe drop them a line? I don't see how your edit meaningfully moves the dialogue - lets say I agree with you and it is a matter of lucid law that poor parenting is a necessary component for subsequent harm to occur w.r.t social media use - whats your point? Does that mean that no harm is occu…

More like "and no one does, we've been searching, by the by if you have a theory drop us a line". I honestly do not see where it says that. More like "We don't like it that you are dismissing our ideas and we want to argue that it costs little to act on our ideas and we don't like it that you are trying to hold us to such a high level of proof. It's like a criminal trial here, come on, that's not fair. We should be a…

Why are you writing that way, so diminishing and belittling? They make that argument very plainly and clearly precisely so you can disagree with it in a clear and concise fashion, but your tact here is to rephrase it with an insulting tone.

You seem to be reading in a lot of negative intent from a person who has given people who disagree with him, 'the skeptics', ample platform and what appears to be eminently fair treatment.

Also this is the specific quote I am referring to, I won't fault you for missing it but it is a very clear invitation.

>If you can think of an alternative theory that fits the timing, international reach, and gendered nature of the epidemic as neatly as the SSM theory, please put it in the comments. Zach and I maintain a Google doc that collects such theories, along with studies that support or contradict each theory. While some of them may well be contributing to the changes in the USA, none so far can explain the relatively synchronous international timing.

I can't really account for the rest of your grievances - they don't sound outlandish but I'm not sure what they have to do with TFA which appears to do a great job of citing sources. Unless you are accusing this person in particular of ripping you off? I don't doubt that you could have sparked usage of that phrase but it is hardly a new idea or phrase even. I read your blog post* and there isn't an intersection between any of the ideas in that and in TFA. The phrase itself seems too nebulous to cite? And now that I check it doesnt appear to be in use in TFA at all? Im having a hard time understanding this actually, is your position that people have been failing to cite you and the evidence is that a phrase you used became more popular?

*that was nice, I hope you aren't taking a lack of 'traction and engagement' as a verdict on quality

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

#523

Post by throwaway2037 »

screye wrote: post #167
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…

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…

What city?

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

#524

Post by throwaway2037 »

Glyptodon wrote: post #307

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…

    anyone who uses the iPad as a babysitter is a terrible parent IMO
Do you include a draw/colouring/painting app? That seems OK to me. It is a digital form of colouring books.

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

#525

Post by throwaway2037 »

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…

AGW: Anthropogenic global warming?

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

#526

Post by [deleted] »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #376
throwaway9191aa wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's definitely a coordination problem. While all the kids might be better off without access to social media, the one kid who doesn't when everybody else does gets a significant alienation downside, probably more than cancelling out the benefits.

[deleted]

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

#527

Post by DoreenMichele »

burnished wrote: post #522
DoreenMichele wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like "and no one does, we've been searching, by the by if you have a theory drop us a line". I honestly do not see where it says that. More like "We don't like it that you are dismissing our ideas and we want to argue that it costs little to act on our ideas and we don't like it that you are trying to hold us to such a high level of proof. It's like a criminal trial here, come on, that's not fair. We should be a…

Why are you writing that way, so diminishing and belittling? They make that argument very plainly and clearly precisely so you can disagree with it in a clear and concise fashion, but your tact here is to rephrase it with an insulting tone. You seem to be reading in a lot of negative intent from a person who has given people who disagree with him, 'the skeptics', ample platform and what appears to be eminently fair t…

A. Thank you for quoting the exact point where they say that. I'm very seriously handicapped, including serious eyesight issues. I looked and couldn't find it.

B. I hang out on HN for my own purposes. It's part of how I occupy myself.*

I long ago gave up on being taken seriously here or given any fucking respect. I'm a woman. I'm dirt poor and handicapped and HN is a networking fail for me and I get nothing but shit from people for trying to sort my problems and figure out how to make my life work while other people have no problem making money here, making friends, promoting their work, etc.

I've stopped posting my work here because no one but me ever posts my writing, that piece that made the front page made not one thin dime while everyone tells me "Quit your bitching and get a real job."

I applied for a real job. They took my incomplete application with a decade-old resume seriously because I was so much more qualified than other candidates, then hired someone else who proceeded to steal my ideas and go out of his way to make sure I couldn't earn a living locally though he is literally being paid to help locals like me succeed financially.

I'm a writer by trade. It's something I can do in spite of my handicap.

People on the internet do not want to pay writers for their work. They don't want to tip, support your Patreon, hire you as a freelancer etc. HN has spent years telling me that writing simply doesn't pay and I'm crazy and stupid to think it should while simultaneously bitching about how journalism is going to hell. God forbid you should point out that there might be a connection between their desire for slave labor from writers and the lack of quality writing out there.

C. I really don't feel it is appropriate for you to tell me I can't simply disagree with them in a comment on an online forum and must instead come up with an alternate theory and do their job for them and write them and spoon feed them a better answer or shut up.

Their hypothesis does not hold water. No one is paying me to fix their problems for them and I urgently need more income.

I only continue to write in spite of getting no money and nothing but contempt from people because I remain seriously handicapped and it's part of how I occupy myself though at this point I just wish I had not been born into this shit world where it's apparently not allowed for me to make my life work for some damn reason.

Please kindly walk the fuck away from this stupid, pointless argument where if I respond to the points laid out, I'm somehow wrong and if I don't that will just be taken as evidence I don't have a point.

I have a point. It doesn't matter. No one wants to hear it.

I don't have the right bits between my legs and I don't have the right degrees and blah blah blah, which means being right about something is one of the most offensive things I can possibly do. It might make some well-paid man look like a fool and we can't have that.

Please chalk this up to the lunatic rantings of a pathetic loser with no life and just stop. Because it's really ugly stuff to dismiss me and everything that's happened to me and then act like I should just politely let that dismissal stand unchallenged.

* https://writepay.blogspot.com/2020/07/my-occupation.html

Wrong link. Oops. Updated.

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

#528

Post by DoreenMichele »

zdragnar wrote: post #521
DoreenMichele wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No and I cannot for the life of me see where this question grows logically out of things I've said.

To be fair, you did respond to a comment about smoking cigarettes by saying that water can also be bad. I've never actually heard anyone compare the two before. This whole thread is becoming nonsensical.

I was responding to this:

If you take young minds which are stressed and unfulfilled, and give them a device which provides short dopamine bursts at the expense of finding actual fulfillment, you get depression.

If there is a non sequitur, it's you randomly bringing up cigarettes and cancer.

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

#529

Post by KingMob »

standardUser wrote: post #205

> In social media research, we focus on “how much social media did a person consume?” and we plan our experiments accordingly...Most don’t even distinguish between platforms, as if Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, and TikTok are just different kinds of liquor. This is the problem I have with studies of "social media". It's like saying "the internet" causes problem, or "computers". These are overly broad categories and…

The author agrees, but says many of the studies his critics point to were combining all computer use into generic "screen time".

If true, the research hasn't even focused heavily enough on "social media" combined, much less drilled down into different sites/apps/usage patterns.

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

#530

Post by stametseater »

walrus01 wrote: post #79
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?

What's funny is that it's the baby boomer generation that created the concept of giving out participation awards to their kids and overly helicopter parenting them, and then 25, 30 years later complains "all these young people are so coddled and soft and wants recognition for the smallest thing!"

A 'generation' isn't a person, it's a massive slice of population. It would be very bizarre if they all had consistent beliefs.

There's no shortage of boomers who've been ridiculing participation trophies from the day they first became aware of them.

Post reply on HN