> Similarly, when the Polish-American philosopher Alfred Korzybski said “The map is not the territory,” he was reminding us that in science, we make simple abstract models to help us understand complex things, but then we sometimes forget we’ve done the simplification, and we treat the model as if it was reality.
I think this is a very useful criticism for the subject as a whole.
The very term, "social media" is incredibly broad. That doesn't mean it's useless: but we should recognize that it contains a lot of diverse context. If there is a cause of mental illness, what would that look like contextually?
The introduction of smart phones and social media can provide a long list of answers to that question. Which of those answers is more or less significant?
None of this is to say we shouldn't be concerned about the effect that social media and smart phones have on mental health. What's important here is what we choose to do about it.
Do we promote a different type of social platform? Current social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are infamous for promoting unhealthy behavior. What kinds of alternative behavior would be healthy?
Do we encourage parents to limit their childrens' social media time or invade their childrens' privacy? The internet is a significant attack surface for bullying and assault, but is it wise for parents to simply take its place?
Do we encourage parents to take away mobile devices, and reinforce traditional face-to-face social activity? Social with who, and where?
It's abundantly clear that social media and smart phones have caused a significant change in our society. We can do better than blindly react to that change.
I would argue that the most powerful tool of the human mind is objectivity. The more we learn about how social media and smart phones change our society, the better equipped we will be to direct that change to our benefit.