Live data from Hacker News

The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

afterbabel.com

911–920 of 937 posts

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#911
post #806

A spiritual void, a loss of social cohesion, isolation, alienation, a loss of a culture that reinforces ways of life that enable flourishing, radical individualism. The decline of traditional religious faith in the West. The sexual revolution and its dreadful distortion of human sexuality. The culture of consumerism and the worship of desire and appetite divorced from reason and one's objective good. So what's a smel…

So, to piss off as many religious people as possible.... A couple of goat herder psychologist a couple of millennia ago figured out if you told people they had a purpose things in general worked better. The particular problem is they made up a whole bunch of shit and when the sciences in general came around, people when "wow, religion is a bunch of controlling bullshit". Now, I will say that religion is only mostly a…

Religious flamewar isn't allowed on HN, so please don't do this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#912
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better in the sense that you didn’t learn to just passively consume from a screen and learned to be independent. I’m not convinced that parents becoming involved to the extent they are is actually a net positive. Kids don’t learn to be on their own, to think without a computer or their parents, and have every minute of their day mapped out.

> Kids don’t learn to be on their own, to think without a computer or their parents, and have every minute of their day mapped out. I get what point you're trying to make, but while (especially) the lack of a father seems logically good for independence, overall the increase of absent fathers has had disastrous effects.

I definitely think kids need fathers around (I am a father myself and still debating the level of involvement that is useful or not). I’m just talking about the somewhat unavailable father of the 50s vs. parents of today who flip flop between micromanaging and having their kid stare at a video of Ms.Rachel instead of letting them have downtime and play on their own outside of a very protected area, not sure which is really worse developmentally

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#913
post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic to me that "safetyism" is mixed in with screen time because it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas. For example, every middle school teacher in the country knows about Andrew Tate through their students.

You're conflating many many things, and between university and middle school (ages 10-14) children, also conflating the huge difference between them theoretically having "access to" ideas or people, versus getting recommended that several times an hour by online recommender systems, feed from friends etc. I think you're quite aware there are severely different legal considerations on content access to under-13s, 13-1…

I didn't conflate those things, the article did. I pointed out that in my original comment. But I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say; it seems like you're agreeing with me.

As for legal considerations, it doesn't appear to matter that much.

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you didn't carry it with you everywhere. It blows my mind that my kids will never know what it's like to wait for a bus with nothing else to do.

I barely remember what it was like waiting for the bus with nothing else to do. But I remember vividly what it was like that the school bully was next to me waiting for the bus with nothing else to do. Hope my kids don't have to know what thats like. My point is not that smartphones and social media are great things. But I agree with OP that they are just filling a gap created by something else. It is still possible…

When I see people say things like this I just think perhaps you were never taught to stand up for yourself.

bullies don't stop being bullies when you graduate high school, they just change tactics.

There comes a point where adults need to step in, but that isn't immediately because someone decided to pick on someone else. Learning to stand up for yourself is as much of a life skill as anything else.

I moved a lot as a kid and after a while I recognized a pattern. I'd move, someone would decide I was an easy target, I'd get into a fist fight, then everyone would leave me alone.

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#915
I think that we like to look at social media as a cause for problems rather than an affect that worsens said problem Personally as a young person this is 100% due to the hyper vigilance in the news and the rise of helicopter parents, also due to the fact that we are stunting teenagers development by not letting them be y'know TEENAGERS. The hyper vigilance in the news has lead to children being forced to stay inside, which in turn leads to higher social media use, which can worsen overall mental health if not used properly.

Also, I understand the concerns with self diagnosis and "mental illness is quirky" but I don't think it's just that simple, self diagnosis exists because celebrities and mainstream media has put forth mental illnesses and diagnosis as some kind of solution to sadness and minor anxieties, rather than an actual problem with somebody's mental state. Meanwhile people with actual issues have been sidelined, it's not a badge of honour in the sense but a meaningless title to those who don't actually struggle with such issues.

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you didn't carry it with you everywhere. It blows my mind that my kids will never know what it's like to wait for a bus with nothing else to do.

I barely remember what it was like waiting for the bus with nothing else to do. But I remember vividly what it was like that the school bully was next to me waiting for the bus with nothing else to do. Hope my kids don't have to know what thats like. My point is not that smartphones and social media are great things. But I agree with OP that they are just filling a gap created by something else. It is still possible…

oddly enough, I just came across this youtube short that pretty succinctly describes my opinion on the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lwgeqX5tKcs

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#917
post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating many many things, and between university and middle school (ages 10-14) children, also conflating the huge difference between them theoretically having "access to" ideas or people, versus getting recommended that several times an hour by online recommender systems, feed from friends etc. I think you're quite aware there are severely different legal considerations on content access to under-13s, 13-1…

I didn't conflate those things, the article did. I pointed out that in my original comment. But I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say; it seems like you're agreeing with me. As for legal considerations, it doesn't appear to matter that much.

I disagreed emphatically with claiming "it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas."

Most children online consume media and follow recommendations, ads and friend feeds, rather than intentionally searching for topics in a structured and coherent way. Doomscrolling, bingeing, mindless zombie mode, whatever. We may not like it but you're aware that's the way it actually is.

As for legal considerations, it does matter: they define/limit the ability of YT, FB, TT et al. to build a profile and blend recommendations, ads and organic content. More so for under-18s and under-13s, more so where there are privacy laws (GDPR). If the US actually passed meaningful privacy laws this would have more effect.

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#918
post #905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many (if not 99%) of silenced speakers were not nazis. Unless everything right of X is nazi and everything left is commie. Which is bullshit. The „influential group“ refers to „consequences“ like making people loose their jobs after spamming their employers for controversial (at best) speech. Protest is fine. But preventing speech is fine. Do you want to stay outside of a meeting room with a banner? Cool. Do you want…

I agree they don't have to Nazis. > Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? Nobody is prevented from speaking. It's never been easier in the history of the world to get your message out. But again, nobody is required to have a forum to speak and I'm not required to give that forum directly or indirectly. I can also use my speech to convince others to not provide that forum. > spamming their employers That'…

When a group of people sets up a speaker and another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking.

Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. Especially if they cleanly separate political and professional lives.

Few years ago we had an ex-politician fired from stocking shelves in a supermarket. Arguably dude did have some contraversial opinions in his heyday. But he left the politics long ago and was trying to make a fair living. Then his opponents from the other far- side tracked him down and „informed“ the employer about the dude's past.

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#919
post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree they don't have to Nazis. > Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? Nobody is prevented from speaking. It's never been easier in the history of the world to get your message out. But again, nobody is required to have a forum to speak and I'm not required to give that forum directly or indirectly. I can also use my speech to convince others to not provide that forum. > spamming their employers That'…

When a group of people sets up a speaker and another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. Especially if they cleanly separate political and professional lives. Few years ago we had an ex-politician fired from stocking shelves in a supermarket. Arguably dude did have some contraversial opinions i…

> another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking.

How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed?

> Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line.

You can hold whatever political views you want. But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. One might want to change the law so short people can't vote -- so they broadcast that view far and wide to make that consequence happen. But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change.

The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused.

Re: The teen mental illness epidemic is international (2023)

#920
post #35

Do teens have much to look forward to? Climate change is already causing severe weather events, which are very likely to ramp quickly. Careers are a thing of the past, and it seems like no matter how hard you work you'll never "get ahead" and will be lucky not to spend your life living paycheck to paycheck. Life expectancy has gone down, markedly. Debt is up. New wars.

I’m amazed that I had to read so many comments complaining about social media before I hit this one. How have so few failed to consider the idea that young people might be correctly anxious and worried about the future which looks, in many ways, pretty grim.

You're absolutely right - they're correctly anxious because the future LOOKS grim.

But the world has always been pretty grim: For most of humanity your existence was focused on sustenance. Then, once starving was taken care of, of not dying of some preventable disease. The privilege of self-actualization and even having to consider what the future of the earth could be is relatively new. We can certainly then look at the 50's and say well that was prosperity, and even ignoring the unique economic circumstances of the aftermath of the deadliest war in human history, everyone who grew up in this "prosperity" certainly wasn't very optimistic about the world. They were constantly living under the terror of global nuclear annihilation.

Except...they weren't. AHA, and here we come to the truth: To survive, and because doom gloom and anxiety were not to be tolerated, everyone bought into the propaganda. People did "duck and cover" drills and expected to survive a nuclear blast. People genuinely believed (in the West, and in the East) that eventually their side would prevail, and there'd be nothing to worry about.

People built, people invested in the future, because they HAD to. And then did the hard work of arms talks, detente, etc.

What am I trying to say? I think every generation had the right to be CORRECTLY anxious about the future being pretty grim. And this generation is the first one that is being told that it's valid to feel anxiety and to not just stifle away feelings.

And yet....I can't help but wonder if the only way humanity can get itself out of trouble is actually with some blind and empty optimism. Climate Doomerism is even infecting the left, and sites like this. "Why should I have children if the world is going to melt? Why should I reduce my carbon footprint if Exxon won't?" (btw. your carbon footprint stimulates demand for fossil fuel products that Exxon then provides. anyways)

To fix giant humanity-scale problems you must believe and have an optimistic outlook on the future of humanity. That doesn't mean sticking your head in the sand sand saying "everything will turn out fine", but it does mean saying "Yes, we CAN decarbonize. Yes we CAN create a more fair and equitable world for all. Yes we CAN maintain balance with our ecosystems and not wipe our species or every other one out."

And the teenagers need to hear it cuz buddy THEY'RE the ones who have to do it. It doesn't matter if it's hard. WHAT OTHER CHOICE DO YOU HAVE. Well, I suppose Suicide is one answer. I suppose I have heard that when depressed people kill themselves it's because the pain of existence is worse. I never understood it. I care too much about my mortality. I don't believe it. I think the increase in THOSE numbers is just based on more accurate reporting. I don't think teens are killing themselves because they're anxious about the economy or climate change.

Of course it's not the teens that should be held responsible for finding that optimism. It needs to be generated and nurtured by the adults around them, and in the media. And I don't mean consumerist influencer optimism, I mean people like Carl Sagan and Neil de Grasse Tyson, and educators, and influencers who can get people truly excited about changing the world for the better.

We must all do our part, especially if you're educated and prosperous. Have a child. Raise them well. Inspire them. Challenge them to be hopeful about the future, and being a part of shaping it.

Post reply on HN