Kids who get smartphones earlier become adults with worse mental health

I see kids aimlessly scrolling in Spotify, just because they like seeing all covers scrolling by... Hence, while social media are way worse, we should not underestimate a smartphone UI can be addictive in itself.

No, you cannot conclude that. You say "surely existed before the introduction of smartphones", but you are also saying that the smartphones have introduced something that did not existed. If it's the case, it means that "new things can be introduced". You still need to prove the real mechanism that really modify the mental health and that is really specific to smartphones. For all we know, plenty of other things were introduced amongst the same time. For example, maybe in a parallel universe where everything is identical but smartphones were not introduced, you would have exactly the same depression curve, because, I don't know, the real source is the social media and people without smartphone will access it on laptop, or because the real source is disillusion from prospects as that generation has noticed they will never have a life as easy as their parents (which was not the case in the past either).

To be clear, it is 100% possible that it is the smartphone, but you cannot "scientifically conclude" it's the smartphone, not with the data that we have. It's not even a question of p-value, the problem is that this conclusion is too much driven by "it feels logical to me" and confirmation bias, rather than honestly trying to drive a conclusion from observations.

> Climate change has actual quality data and science behind it, so it is nothing alike.

I don't disagree, but

> I prefer that large societal decisions not be made based upon imagination

with that attitude, no decision can ever be taken. Social sciences can't produce the evidence you need. It's correlations all the way.

But also:

* Not acting is also taking a decision, because social media isn't going to stop any time soon. How's there evidence for just letting things continue?

* How is stopping children (until, say, 18) a large societal decision? That's just minor. There isn't even a risk involved. Children didn't have social media until 10-15 years ago at all. Did that stump their progress or something?

> Social media is a reason.

Exactly. Social media is accessible through smartphones, laptop, any connected device.

If the reason is social media, then talking about smartphones in itself is really a mistake: they would not have existed, the same phenomenon would have happened too.

> globalization, which has been going on for 50 years, suddenly led to mental health issues only 10 years ago for no discernable reason we can see

Globalization is not something "that has been going on for 50 years", it is something that is always evolving and that have different impact in time.

Globalization in the 2010 was VERY DIFFERENT from globalization in the 1990. For example, in the 90's, more conservative / pro-market political parties was presenting it as a good thing. In the 2010, globalization suddenly started to be this "thing that no one really want to happen but is happening anyway", even by the pro-market people. It changed way people see themselves, they start to feel powerless. It affects parents and therefore children, it affects social media, it affects popular cultures, movies, ... In the 2010, there was a real change in mentality, globally, about the fact that the globalization may drive us towards the wall.

(even South Park went from "climate change is overstated" to "man-bear-pig is real, but what can we do anyway", which shows in a particular US example how the media mentality shifted from "we are in control and everything is fine" to "in fact, we are powerless". And even in SP, the man-bear-pig example is just one example, there are others where "unfair ending" becoming more and more prevalent)

Also, social media existed since ages too, before the crisis you talk about, and yet, you mention it in your equation.

> if you think nebulous, indirect third order effects of globalization are more plausible than direct first and second order effects from a device kids have in their hands for 16 hours a day.

And I cannot take you seriously if you are thinking that complex social phenomenon is as simple as adding or removing a technological gadget. In fact, you say it yourself that the tool itself is not the reason, you are talking about social media.

> If you had read the other ones, as you claim, then you know he had other researchers gathering the same data from other nations across the globe which all showed the same trends, and they've been writing their own articles on those.

I have read them, and I have also read other articles showing how those trends in these articles have been cherry-picked. I think the difference between you and me is that you've read only Haidt, so obviously, when Haidt says "it's funny, people in US speak english as a first language, but this trend also exist all over the world, let's take some random countries: england, australia, india, south africa", it sounds logical and true.

(ps: I'm not saying Haidt is lying, I'd rather think he thought of an attractive theory and then started seeing the things that confirm it and started finding excuse to conclude that the things that does not confirm it should be considered as irrelevant)

> This is such bullshit. Everybody's first job is shit.

I'm not talking about starter jobs flipping burgers and the likes. I'm talking about lifetime earning perspectives and permanently dampened careers, which has been proven to be significantly lower for those graduating in an economic downturn [1]. And hell, it's basic math. If you get 5% raises each year, and you start from 20k, you'll be at a markedly lower end after 20 years than if you entered at 30k.

> Housing is expensive, yes. The idea of having roommates to split the bills is unfathomable though.

Having to have roommates to make rent while working full time is a sign of a failed housing market. It used to be the case in the 90s that a man by the age of 25-30 could own a house, a car for himself, a car for their spouse, said spouse not working, and two kids on a single middle-class income. This hasn't been possible for the last twenty years.

> If anything, the kids get disillusioned by the prospect of work itself. Why bother when some annoying loudmouth is showing off his mansions and exotic cars he bought with money he earned being annoying on YouTube? Anything short of being a professional influencer is unacceptable.

Prominent idiots flashing their wealth in an annoying way has been a thing long before influencers.

Young people just don't want to work anymore for shit wages in 60+ hour bullshit jobs while the profit stays at the employer. Offer them actually attractive work conditions (instead of fruit baskets) and meaningful work and they will come and work.

[1] https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/recessi...