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

551–560 of 580 posts

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

#551

Post by Veen »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #437
Veen wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be worth considering other crises and their impact on teen mental health. I grew up in the UK in the 80s during two crises. First, it was the Cold War and there was a very real risk of nuclear Armageddon; we were all aware of it because it was all over the media. Second, it was the height of IRA bombing campaign in the UK and we heard of children our age being blown to bits while out shopping with their pare…

But you also had Samantha Fox singing "Touch me now!" while surrendering to the spirits of the night ;->

Yes, but The Sun was banned in my family, so we only "benefited" from her music.

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

#552

Post by revelio »

wizofaus wrote: post #538
revelio wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't the same. Climate change activism states that you - yes you - are a bad person for not radically changing your lifestyle. Those changes may not even be achievable, but that doesn't change your moral culpability. Through your wanton lust for warm homes and nice red meat you destroy the world leaving nothing for the children. It's an incredibly moralized story. The other examples you name are different. IRA…

Many religions make a far stronger moral argument about our failures as individuals, and yet arguably have far less influence over young minds than they have in the past. I can't say I've seen any evidence that teenagers (including my own) are especially burdened with any personal sense of guilt over their lifestyle and its contributions towards ecological damage. Whereas I'd certainly accept there is a sense of pess…

They explicitly don't! Christianity is very clear that whilst everyone is born into sin, Jesus died to cleanse us of that sin and God is forgiving of sinners who repent. In the Christological religions at least, there is always a way back to the good path. You may have to pray for forgiveness, or do a confession. But you can do it. In climatological religion, there is no way to the good path no matter what you do.

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

#553

Post by red-iron-pine »

yodsanklai wrote: post #452
libraryatnight wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I left facebook a long time ago because it just felt like low value interaction. None of my friends on there were people I actually spent time with, and the whole thing seemed to just bring out the worst sides of people. I never specifically experienced the peer surveillance you describe, but I believe it's real or that social media has made people believe it's real (to a degree worthy of concern) I think what I'm tr…

> the whole thing seemed to just bring out the worst sides of people I wonder if it's still the case though. It's been years I haven't seen anyone arguing on my quiet feed. Maybe people have learned? or just deserted it? Nowadays, the really toxic place is Twitter, orders of magnitude worse than FB has even been in my opinion.

Twitter is easy to sign up for, doesn't really require any sort of actual human details, and runs entirely on essentially short text blurbs that are easy to automate, scan, parse, and track.

Retweets, ratios, and bog-standard sentiment analysis also give immediate feedback as to success of a tweet. Real easy to tweak a bot to produce content, or to game the system -- and that's before GPT-4.

Facebook at least requires you to pretend you're a real person with a real face and real friends.

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

#554

Post by nullfield »

revelio wrote: post #533
BlueTemplar wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my perhaps anecdotal experience, the risk of getting a virus from a crack is and was hugely overblown. And we now know that copy protection came with malware too, most infamously with Sony's SecuROM (same group also seems to have made Denuvo).

Only if you define any driver as "malware". SecuROM didn't actually come with malware in the way normal people define it, it was just described that way by salty pirates.

Eh. If it messed with the regular optical drive’s drivers, hooked privileged kernel functions, and generally (just like modern things like EAC) introduced holes the size a semi truck could drive through, it qualified as malware. No intent to pirate anything needed.

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

#555

Post by joenot443 »

frostburg wrote: post #32
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…

I mean in general; I assume you're aware of the jokes on how ancient complaints about the newer generations being weak, disrespectful et. are. I don't see how Haidt identifying as a centrist has any bearing on anything; the idea that "centrism" is apolitical is also untenable.

I think that's a pretty shaky place to build your foundation. If past generations have been wrong about the younger generation, does that mean we're doomed to be wrong forever? It's nice to imagine that every generation will be a total improvement over the last, but I don't think that's an axiom I can get behind.

As far as centrism goes, you're totally right, it's a political ideology like all the others. What I was trying to point out though is that despite being a very vocal American social critic, he's staunchly deciding _not_ to take a public position on American politics. Despite this, I've seen people on either side of the aisle still accuse him of shilling for the other side, a take I've found super exhausting. I'm not in total endorsement of all of Haidt's research or methodologies, but I do think he's operating from a place of scientific earnestness and honesty. Framing him as politically motivated is inaccurate.

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

#556

Post by joenot443 »

seattle_spring wrote: post #490
kelseyfrog wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We must have read different articles. What I read amount to special pleading where the author confuses scientific and judicial epistemology, doesn't do a literature review, and comes cross as hopelessly naive.

Jonathan Haidt is one of those psychology "gurus" like Jordan Peterson. You're right to read his stuff with an enormous amount of skepticism.

It sounds like you just connected two people you personally disagree with who are otherwise really nothing alike. Why don't you expand?

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

#557

Post by red-iron-pine »

bmelton wrote: post #546
hgsgm wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that? Most people don't have the energy to keep track of people they disagreed with once in the past.

If I ask 100 people who Gary Johnson is, most of them will remember him as "The Aleppo guy." If I type "Gary Johnson" into Google (even incognito), the first auto-complete is "Gary Johnson Aleppo." Nevermind that he's an accomplished politician, mountain climber, author, etc., he's broadly defined by his one big public gaffe. Howard Dean's political career was ruined and is largely defined by one poorly timed on-air…

> Howard Dean's political career was ruined and is largely defined by one poorly timed on-air scream after it was mocked by late night comedy hosts.

Amazing to think that Donald Trump could make gaff after gaff and still, inexplicably, be considered electable. Dean made one dumbass howl and got shit-canned. MSM in action.

Also, a shame about Fatty Arbuckle, dude even got an apology from the court but still got his career ruined.

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

#558

Post by OkayPhysicist »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #463
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That seems more like an upside if their 'peers' are indeed so easily addicted. It seems preferable to be alienated from such a coordinated network of addicts.

Humans are social creatures. Loneliness due to be alienated from your peers puts you at risk for mental health issues, potentially more so than the social media you alienated yourself from your peers to avoid. Hence the coordination problem.

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

#559

Post by notvplez »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #527
burnished wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For what it's worth: as a fellow parent and handicapped of sorts - thankfully from a corner of the world with a better social safety net than you seem to "enjoy" over there - I always get tremendous value out of reading your posts. I'm pretty handle-blind on this site, so your name is one of the few that stands out, not only because of your excellent writing style but just as much your against the grain-views that quite frankly helps _a lot_ in keeping my "stupid Americans"-bias in check. Thank you!

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

#560

Post by codegeek »

mkaic wrote: post #486
codegeek wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to contradict your point (which I agree with!), but I as someone who was recently an American teenager I think you might be happy to know that me and my friends used to quite enjoy going to the park and playing on the swingsets! Though we were certainly the exception, not the rule.

Good to hear. I would love to see more of it.
Post reply on HN