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

321–330 of 580 posts

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

#321

Post by taeric »

prox wrote: post #317
taeric wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly, I used to have the same view of sports. Growing up where I did, it was common for folks to be fanatical on their local college sports team. Such that they get mean to folks from their "rival" schools and are generally trash talking to everyone else. It was so bad, that I certainly thought that was how you were supposed to be. Pick a side and be aggressive to the opponents when watching the game. Goal was to ma…

The general mechanism is always the same : in-group vs out-group. My tribe is humane, your tribe is evil beyond compare. The exploit is emotional reactivity, get your in-group gaslighted so they are on permanent rage.

Interestingly, I don't think that is "correct" use of gaslighted. It sounds right metaphorically, as you are "igniting" them in a way that "lighting a gas source" would go. However, gaslighting is to sow doubt and confusion in people's self thoughts. I /think/ you could use this to the same end, but I think the initial was specifically not evoking a sense a rage, but one of dependence.

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

#322

Post by JamesBarney »

freejazz wrote: post #314
rayiner wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Conservatives are all for letting parents take their kids to churches where people play with snakes and speak in tongues, and you are actually pearl clutching over a man wearing a dress?

And most liberals would be just as upset if a public school or library hosted one of those events.

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

#323

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

This part seems deeply questionable to me:

> Congress should raise the age of “internet adulthood” from the current 13 (which was set in 1998 before we knew what the internet would become) to 16, and enforce it by mandating that the platforms use age verification procedures, a variety of which already exist

Yes, age verification procedures exist, but I don't know of any that are actually effective without also being privacy/security nightmares. Haidt's analysis of "what damage is done" seems to assume an idealized implementation that never incorrectly flags an adult or causes a leak of personal information.

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

#324

Post by stametseater »

scythe wrote: post #288
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?

Being exposed to adversity at 1 PM in the classroom is fundamentally different from being exposed to adversity at 11:30 PM laying in bed. One of those is much closer to the ancestral environment the human mind is naturally equipped to deal with.

I don't understand what you mean. The ancestral environment is one in which danger comes at night; that's when the tigers come for you. That's why people are afraid of the dark, why even grown men run up their basement stairs after turning off the lights. Monsters in the dark will nip at your heels; that's what our genes tell us. But in the modern context, a child who's facing real adversity (not monsters under their bed) at night has serious problems with their home-life which they'll be poorly equipped to deal with.

Daytime problems for kids are usually problems with other kids and teachers, but those kinds of problems are much easier for kids to deal with alone. Particularly if their home situation is stable.

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

#325

Post by rayiner »

plorg wrote: post #286
rayiner wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What about drag shows is inappropriate, for what ages, and what intervention would you consider reasonable to prevent the harm of children? Plenty of drag shows are designed to be family-friendly, and generally parents can just not bring their kids to things that they don't think are appropriate for them. In any case, the way you write about self expression (and the Matt Walsh-level unseriousness of describing drag s…

[flagged]

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

#326

Post by 1827162 »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #284
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…

You can always just delete your account. Granted, that's easier for me to say as an adult than it would be for your average peer-pressured teenager. But that's where parents can help. I think eventually, teens will see social media as "uncool" in the same way as they see smoking cigarettes as "uncool" (in some countries). It takes a lot of social propagandizing to popularize that idea, but we did it with cigarettes a…

I think the pendulum will swing towards that way eventually. It's cyclical. Once the novelty of social media wears away, as it has done already, and the harms start being worse than the benefits.

However not being on social media can have real-world consequences in the classroom, the child could be treated as an outcast and mocked or bullied for it.

There is a middle ground, which is to use a pseudonym and ensure anonymity. You can then selectively disclose this pseudonym to people you trust. It might be safer for the children that way and also make it more difficult for adult authority figures to interfere with their lives.

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

#327

Post by Draiken »

klooney wrote: post #213
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 100 corporations thing is silly. They aren't out there polluting for the fun of it, they're making stuff for people and organizations. If people and governments and companies stop buying gas, the pollution on Chevron's ledger for oil extraction and refining will plummet as they get stuck with smaller markets like plastic manufacturing. Those dastardly 100 corporations are emitting to make stuff for you.

But there are many ways to make all of this stuff. Many times there are better ways and less harmful ways, but those are basically always less profitable.

This is capitalism and the one and only objective is profit. It's never going to be working towards having a sustainable world, getting better stuff, getting less useless stuff, etc.

We don't need half the stupid stuff that's being sold to us and we keep buying it because that's how the system is setup.

So yes, they aren't polluting for the fun of it. They are doing so for the profit of a few.

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

#328

Post by prox »

taeric wrote: post #321
prox wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general mechanism is always the same : in-group vs out-group. My tribe is humane, your tribe is evil beyond compare. The exploit is emotional reactivity, get your in-group gaslighted so they are on permanent rage.

Interestingly, I don't think that is "correct" use of gaslighted. It sounds right metaphorically, as you are "igniting" them in a way that "lighting a gas source" would go. However, gaslighting is to sow doubt and confusion in people's self thoughts. I /think/ you could use this to the same end, but I think the initial was specifically not evoking a sense a rage, but one of dependence.

Yeah, you are right. I think the mechanism, to start an outrage vs the perceived outgroup is indeed the same. Once ignited lots of people don’t change their stance, unless you score high on self-reflection perhaps.

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

#329

Post by asdff »

rqtwteye wrote: post #83
psychphysic wrote: post #21

It's quite hard for me to judge this topic because I am so thoroughly convinced that social media is toxic for mental health. I think unfortunately it has become pervasive enough that you can't avoid experiencing it's toxic influence. There has been a complete loss in any interest in meeting a middle ground and like the use of stocks in medieval times the concept of cancellation is much more power than any reality. T…

I think social media amplified trends that were there before. I remember when I came to the US in 2000 it was pretty fashionable to say “I am angry” all the time. And the hatred at politicians was pretty pronounced too. And the cable news was already spreading fear and anger. Personally I think modern media starting with cable TV allowed hatemongers to easily reach large groups. The internet just made it much worse.…

This phenomenon social media is tapping into is far older than cable news. Tent revival preachers tapping into xenophobia and hate on supposed moral grounds date back well over 100 years. I'd expect you have similar feverish preaching by some charismatic leaders who don't believe a lick of their own creed their sheep flock to since we first had enough language to actually think in these terms. Good luck finding a counter for something that seems to be wired into our nature.

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

#330

Post by Jerrrry »

Decabytes wrote: post #255

I wonder how much of the negative aspects of social media are due to the gamification of it as well as the algorithms that boost certain types of content. For example, if Twitter had no algorithm, didn't show you the number of views on your post, didn't show you the number of likes on your posts or retweets, and you just used it to post funny memes, interesting articles, and life updates to your followers if it would…

>QR code that was generated on their phone

this gets brought up a lot, often paired with GPS/other sensor matching and with a flavor of PGP-first thinking, web of trust, etc.

The protocol only allows interaction with other people that have swapped keys or been "vouched", depending on the multi-sig requirements baked into the protocol.

With the correct marketing scheme, this could take off, ironically being fueled by FOMO/exclusionary social pressure and meme pressure.

Post reply on HN