761–770 of 937 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the destigmatisation happened in 2012? I think it happened much earlier than that.
I think it is an ongoing process that accelerated over the past 10 or so years. There are still many people who stigmatize mental health issues and view mental health services skeptically at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both are protecting from anything outside of one's comfort zone. What's next, shout down politicians you don't agree with? That's not how democratical societies work.
Or it's merely intolerance of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
People underestimate the change that took place between 2008 and 2012 with ubiquitous phone usage. All of a sudden we all started staring at these devices for several hours a day. We never leave this thing. The resulting impact on our mental state cannot be overstated.
But when I use my phone for 5 hours in a day my brain is done. I am now working really hard to set boundaries with my phone and limit usage. Because I have a feeling I will look back when my time comes and feel like I wasted great years looking at stupid garbage.
There are some great creators on youtube and other platforms but the suggested videos may suck you in.
causes are a mix: smartphones, social media, doomscrolling habits, carbon climate crisis (and its dire implications). and the rise of the so-called Woke/DEI propaganda cult in academia. all add up
There could be a much easier explanation. Life in the past wasn't much easier, in fact, it was much harder and crazier. But no one really cared measuring the problem and it appeared it did not exist.
Thus, it might not just be a measurement problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree. Folks in the 60’s thru 80’s expected global nuclear annihilation with some probability.
There was also concern over population explosion back then ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb ). But talking about population has become quite the taboo. Utterly unacceptable to restrict reproduction, but it's cool to take people's transport/heating/protein away to save the planet?
More like not necessary anymore, since birthrates tend do decline by themself in more afluent countries, once sex is decoupled from reproduction and children are not the primary retirement plan anymore. "Helping poor countries" is just easier to sell than "We must make them stop having babies".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s very little doubt that social media is hard to use in a positive way these days, and very little doubt that a race to the bottom on all our worst impulses is a big part of that. But the causal arrow is trickier. The exact time period over which social media has become front and center in daily life is the same period of time in which we’ve watched financial crisis (massive net wealth transfer to the richest)…
> massive net wealth transfer to the richest Those rich people created the wealth. Wealth was not "transferred" to Bill Gates, for example. Gates created products. He then sold these products to people, who believed those products were worth the money they paid for them - i.e. it was an equal value trade. That is how Gates made money. It wasn't a transfer. Theft, taxes, donations, subsidies and welfare are examples o…
No he didn't. His employees did. The transfer of wealth was from the employees of Microsoft to Bill Gates by means of information asymmetry: Bill Gates knows what his employees are worth (i.e. the value they create, on average), but they don't. So he pays them what they'll accept and keeps the surplus.
But if you're not convinced, consider the cartel behavior of major SV employers when it comes to "poaching"[1] and "noncompete" agreements[2]. These suppress salaries, with the goal of funnelling more money to the C-suite and shareholders instead.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the destigmatisation happened in 2012? I think it happened much earlier than that.
I think it is an ongoing process that accelerated over the past 10 or so years. There are still many people who stigmatize mental health issues and view mental health services skeptically at best.
Minor mistake: > a rise from 5% to 15% is a 300% increase, relative to the anchor point No, it's a 200% increase. (It's 300% of what it used to be, which is a 200% increase on top of the original 100%.)
Yes, colloquial language has that pernicious habit of mixing up additive and multiplicative growth. One of my pet peeves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK working hours (especially working hours per household as women work more) have increased. No one has the time for community. Schools have also deteriorated and kids are put under a lot of pressure to achieve academically. I opted mine out.
Housing costs have increased, daycare is shooting through the roof, and everyone seems to be working harder to scrape by, at least in the US. Daycare in particular is quite painful; there are high standards, but government subsidy is so low that simultaneously parents cannot afford it and programs cannot afford to staff adequately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's addressed in the post. There is some of that, but there are similar increases in hospitalisation for self-harm, which wouldn't be affected by an increase in awareness of mental illness.
That assumes people aren’t induced towards self harm due to an increased awareness? If you believe suicide or self harm are common (and valid/acceptable) solutions to your issue, would you not be more likely to do so?
The poster you replied to seemed to be looking for evidence that shows X was actually increasing by looking at an increase in reporting that wouldn't be solely caused by awareness of X and thus had to be because of an actual increase of X. To this end, your argument that the awareness of X is causing an actual increase of X would be one possible reason X is increasing, but that wasn't relevant to the previous poster's point, at least from my reading of it.