Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness • Hacker News Board

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

#561

Post by dctoedt » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 7:18 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #516

plorg wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You’re incorrect. Only a quarter of the country even identifies as “liberal.” Support for same sex marriage is over 70%. That is because science in the 1990s established the biological basis of sexual orientation. There was a concerted educational campaign about that in the 2000s, including Lady Gaga’s song “Born that Way” in 2011. The following statement from the American Psychological Association is quoted prominen…

> And it means that you’re doing what you’re programmed to do, and not deliberately thumbing your nose at society’s conventions.

Perhaps what you call nose-thumbing is in fact "doing what you're programmed to do" by genetics and upbringing.

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

#562

Post by Brusco_RF » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 7:30 PM UTC

tstrimple wrote: post #443

Brusco_RF wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The fact that Nestle still exists should be proof enough for anyone that it literally doesn't matter how horrible a large corporation is. There is no activism route to correcting these companies behavior. Only legislation with teeth will work. That we'll all collectively decide to stop doing business with bad companies is nothing but a libertarian fantasy.

Is there a shortage of Nestle competitors ? The fact that people still buy Nestle tells you how much the masses actually care about Nestle's behavior, in dollar terms. ie, less than the savings that Nestle presents.

Using legislation "with teeth" to force something that the masses don't want is autocracy, not democracy.

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

#563

Post by MichaelZuo » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #558

MichaelZuo wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nearly half of all possible human actions puts one at risk for mental health issues, to varying degrees, so that doesn't seem like a sufficient justification for intentionally addicting oneself.

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

#564

Post by wizofaus » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 8:12 PM UTC

revelio wrote: post #552

wizofaus wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't ignore the reality that even many streams of Christianity regularly insisted on certain perfectly natural behaviours being "sinful" and worthy of eternal punishment in hell. That surely must have had some effect on the mental health of believers, but there's no real evidence our collective mental health has improved now that the majority of us no longer buy into any sort of doctrine of being born as sinful and needing to plead to supernatural beings for forgiveness etc. So I'm struggling to see how the possibility that a percentage of modern-day young adults may have occasional feelings of guilt about their lifestyle knowing it's making some small contribution toward long term ecological deterioration could be significantly impacting mental health. What's arguably more concerning is those (both individuals and businesses) who make token gestures towards behaviour changes that claim to be for the sake of the planet etc. as though it gives them some sort of moral superiority, especially given there's little genuine analysis done as to whether the changes really are of any net benefit. It may give some artificial boost in sense of self-worth and short term improvement in mental health to the gesture-makers but is at best a distraction from what's really needed.

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

#565

Post by wizofaus » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #459

Paul-Craft wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the most environmentally aware people around me pretty much just eat less meat, but they haven't actually changed their ways. So I don't expect the average F150 driving steak eater to suddenly start changing their ways. What do you expect people in general to do? Granted, driving an F150 is not an environmentally friendly activity, but suppose they all cut their "carbon footprint" [0] by 50%. How much would th…

>The answer is actually "not much." It turns out that 70% of greenhouse emissions have come from ~100 corporations Read the source carefully. This is not what the BBC or the original paper [1] said. This is a meme that came from tabloids and Reddit. What it does say is that top 100 fossil fuel producers, produce fossil fuels that cause 70% of greenhouse gasses. Obviously, you aren't going to dig for and refine oil in…

Fossil fuel corporations will have to "conspire" to reduce production though, unless they can conspire to come up with some way of extracting said fuels and allowing them to be used without the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The massive amount of capital investment that currently goes into producing fossil fuels needs to start being directed towards producing energy in a manner compatible with maintaining a habitable planet, and it's hard to see that happening until we collectively agree that it's not reasonable to profit from fossil fuel extraction and combustion. And yes, the governments of countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Russia are absolutely critical to that effort - until there's a real sense such governments are prepared to prepared to make radical changes in how their economies function then there's little the rest of us can do to alter the trajectory of global emissions. On that basis as an individual I'm happy to make lifestyle changes that may happen to also reduce my overall ecological footprint but at least bring some other benefit (driving less being the obvious one - even if it somehow caused more carbon emissions, the upsides of spending less time sitting in traffic are way too numerable to dismiss).

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

#566

Post by hinkley » Thu, Apr 20, 2023, 9:51 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #476

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…

> So your "friends" in essence, force you to use these platforms. If you don't you will be treated as a social outcast, a pariah. It makes you wonder what these "friends" really are in the first place. I think this is truthy, but I abandoned social media a long time ago and my experience is different. At first, I lost touch with a lot of people and my world became small. After some time people found me (I still run a…

Maybe the real equation is that if the shallow, judgemental connection is made available, people will reach for it because it's easy, and palatable, like junk food. But sooner or later they need a real meal and wouldn't you rather be that occasional quality interaction rather than the quantity interaction?

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

#567

Post by jeremyjh » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 1:13 AM UTC

revelio wrote: post #536

jeremyjh wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is special about the year 2012 in regard to these fears?

Most of the graphs he shows actually inflect earlier, around 2010 or so. This is around the time the media to start systematically hardening its line on all things climate, and the "great awokening" that started flooding the news with claims the world was dominated by systemic hate and -isms. The two are related, both being ideological in nature.

Oh that’s a neat theory. Is there any data to support it or should I just listen to a fat white man screaming on talk radio?

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

#568

Post by therealdrag0 » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 6:02 AM UTC

max51 wrote: post #363

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…

>Case in point, my son and his friends have a small discord server. And they play minecraft on a shared server. This not the same as scrolling TikTok / Instagram. But it's a degree of independence somewhat away from parental eyes. I think not enough people here are understanding the distinction between a communication tool (eg. discord), doom-scrolling platform like tiktok, and video games. A discord server can be ve…

Yep. Even for video games in my teens I created and led a clan. It was very social and constructive for me.

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

#569

Post by watwut » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 7:47 AM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #249

watwut wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being centrist IS a political position. The one that status quo is good and those who challenge it are doing something inherently wrong.

Wait, what? Centrism makes it easier to propose changes to the status quo, because most effective and feasible improvements to the status quo are essentially orthogonal wrt. the whole left vs. right political spectrum.

First, actual real world political spectrum is not even on the neat left right scale.

Second, the actual role centrist do is to actively work against improvements. They do not say "I think it is infeasible, but good luck". They say "trying to do this is wrong".

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

#570

Post by watwut » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 7:51 AM UTC

spacephysics wrote: post #359

watwut wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 impr…

> 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.

And it is, frankly, idiotic to have that authority put on parent who spend least time with the kid. While making parent who spend most time with the kid helpless.

> 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.

Frankly, bullshit. Single parents households are not universally worst across cultures. And the "being incarcerated unjustly" implies way bigger stress factors in play then just single motherhood.

And for that matter, money being injected into those communities so that you don't have single mothers working two jobs would actually do good. Or so that people are simply not desperate and stressed. Do you even listen to yourself?