3 ms·

> A recent Oxford Internet Institute study also found there was “little association” between social media use and mental health in teenagers. I thought bbc use

> A recent Oxford Internet Institute study also found there was “little association” between social media use and mental health in teenagers. I thought bbc used to be a credible news source. When did they stop being so?

FlyingSaucer 5y ago
The name of the actual study is 'There Is No Evidence That Associations Between Adolescents’ Digital Technology Engagement and Mental Health Problems Have Increased'[1]. I also personally feel like its incorrect based on my own experience, but the OII for now says that there is 'little evidence', although 'drawing firm conclusions about changes in their associations with mental health may be premature' [1]-https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702621994549 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702621994549
martin_a 5y ago
This seems to be some kind of mistake, yes. Having a look at what younger relatives are doing for likes and how important recognition and appreciation by friends in social media is for them, I find it hard to believe that there's "little association" when things don't go as planned.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Having a look at what younger relatives are doing for likes and how important recognition and appreciation by friends in social media is for them, I find it hard to believe that there's "little association" when things don't go as planned. But...that’s how older generations have always responded to what younger people do for social approval, and older people interpreting what they see that way as a precipitous decline since their own youth is one of the oldest clichés possibly as old as civilization. > I find it hard to believe that there's "little association" when things don't go as planned. Maybe, but maybe that is just as true independent of digital engagement.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >But...that’s how older generations have always responded to what younger people do for social approval That's a combination of (a) a relatively modern myth ("It was always that way"), (b) a cherry-picking from millenia for instances where that did happen (which wasn't "always" - many periods, even for centuries on end, had almost no change between generations regarding lifestyles. For some rural places that was even true for millenia.). (c) from the cherry-picked cases where it did happen, ignoring the subset that it was also a totally valid criticism (e.g. in the decline of golden-era Athens or the fall of Rome, or the Weimar Republic), when the change in culture and attitudes eventually killed the community/city/republic.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > many periods, even for centuries on end, had almost no change between generations regarding lifestyles Many of the instances where we have records of this being a recurring complaint of adults toward the youth were in those times of little apparent lifestyle change; part of that ia that the distance of our perspective probably minimizes changes that were perceived as significant in the local context, but a bigger part is that, while objective changes in lifestyle or technology can provide something to tie the complaint to, the main driver of the complaint is not the change in society but the change in the observer’s position and perspective within society.
  - martin_a 5y ago
    As already written in the other comment: I find this result hard to believe because I think the offline experiences former generations had, would transer to online generations, too. But yes, the youth is always terrible. I've read that in the Hagakure, but I think it has already been mentioned/been a "fact" in ancient Greece, too. ;-)
- coddle-hark 5y ago
  Young people have pretty much always optimised for the recognition and appreciation of their friends though. It’s just more visible to adults now, which is probably a good thing.
  - martin_a 5y ago
    Totally, yes. Just thought about how badly I wanted to be one of the cool kids in school. Failed terribly in doing that, and I also know how terrible I felt about that. That's why I'm wondering when the whole "seeking for appreciation"-thing has moved from real life to Instagram (kind of), are there no bad feelings, feelings of rejection and failure involved, when my new post doesn't get the likes I'm looking for?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > It’s just more visible to adults now Its always been visible to adults and has been a perennial complaint of adults about the youth.
  - have_faith 5y ago
    The big difference is opportunity time. Previously you had occasional opportunities to impress your peers and evaluate their lives against yours giving you gaps to work between. Those gaps now no longer exist. The information and comparison is 24/7 and real time. I think comparisons to previous generations as being equal in goals vastly over simplifies vast differences in the landscape they operate in.
Moodles 5y ago
I can’t tell if it’s the BBC or perhaps just me getting older (and wiser, or dumber depending on your perspective) but I’d say the BBC has got worse over the last 5 years or so. It’s usually not factually incorrect, but I’ve definitely noticed the story selection and emotive language choice doesn’t seem neutral to me. I can tolerate non-neutral news outlets I guess, but what I dislike is one that purports to be neutral and takes tax payer money for it.
- e17 5y ago
  It's the BBC that is getting dumber, not you my friend. I check in with the headlines every now and then and every time it's either government propaganda or bullshit Love Island celebrity nonsense.
  - headmelted 5y ago
    Also, why are we being forced to subsidize EastEnders? Whats the public benefit from that rubbish? CBeebies, CBBC - cool. Public benefit makes sense. BBC Science and Documentaries - Public benefit. Fully justifiable. EastEnders - Pay money to make other people less intelligent or we’ll fine you.
    - rsgrn 5y ago
      I've never thought of EastEnders from that perspective. I don't disagree. In theory, it could be used as a method of creating awareness and discussion of important life topics in a real life like familiar setting. And you can sort of see how they try to do that... but the need to have some new dramatic event every six weeks overshadows it.
      - headmelted 5y ago
        And that’s the issue. It’s only a lifelike setting if your life is like that of a Jeremy Kyle victim (who’s lives are likely not like they are depicted at all). Give us money against your will to pay for things you don’t agree with or we’ll take away your access to live media from everyone else too. Now whether or not they can carry out the threats they’re notorious for or not, I’m just saying if it walks like an extortionist and quacks like an extortionist..
nvilcins 5y ago
The title of the BBC article [1] that references the study: > Teens, tech and mental health: Oxford study finds no link What the study actually says, according to the same article: > We couldn't tell the difference between social-media impact and mental health in 2010 and 2019, [..] > [..] the connection is not getting stronger. Hence, the title is an obvious lie. (likely to get more clicks, push a certain agenda, or both) Having a title contradicting the contents of the article has become extremely common these days. Unfortunately, it's also very common for people to only read the headlines (does anyone know the stats on this?), and I'm sure media outlets are fully aware of that. Hence, I would argue that articles with titles like these should be classified the same was as false information, and fought against accordingly. It's not enough to "clarify" the meaning in the article, when the title - the false claim - is all what most people take away (and disseminate further). [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56970368 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56970368
dna_polymerase 5y ago
I'd argue that the BBC got the study wrong. The authors state: > "Our main goal was to investigate how associations between adolescents’ technology use and mental health had changed over time." And conclude: > "Although we found little evidence suggesting that technology is becoming more harmful over time, [..]" There is no need for social media to become more harmful over time to it being bad enough already. The title of the study (There Is No Evidence That Associations Between Adolescents’ Digital Technology Engagement and Mental Health Problems Have Increased) gives away the constraint really. Yes, okay it did not become worse, but it might be harmful from the beginning.

FlyingSaucer 5y ago

The name of the actual study is 'There Is No Evidence That Associations Between Adolescents’ Digital Technology Engagement and Mental Health Problems Have Increased'[1]. I also personally feel like its incorrect based on my own experience, but the OII for now says that there is 'little evidence', although 'drawing firm conclusions about changes in their associations with mental health may be premature' [1]-https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702621994549 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702621994549

martin_a 5y ago

This seems to be some kind of mistake, yes. Having a look at what younger relatives are doing for likes and how important recognition and appreciation by friends in social media is for them, I find it hard to believe that there's "little association" when things don't go as planned.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Having a look at what younger relatives are doing for likes and how important recognition and appreciation by friends in social media is for them, I find it hard to believe that there's "little association" when things don't go as planned. But...that’s how older generations have always responded to what younger people do for social approval, and older people interpreting what they see that way as a precipitous decline since their own youth is one of the oldest clichés possibly as old as civilization. > I find it hard to believe that there's "little association" when things don't go as planned. Maybe, but maybe that is just as true independent of digital engagement.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >But...that’s how older generations have always responded to what younger people do for social approval That's a combination of (a) a relatively modern myth ("It was always that way"), (b) a cherry-picking from millenia for instances where that did happen (which wasn't "always" - many periods, even for centuries on end, had almost no change between generations regarding lifestyles. For some rural places that was even true for millenia.). (c) from the cherry-picked cases where it did happen, ignoring the subset that it was also a totally valid criticism (e.g. in the decline of golden-era Athens or the fall of Rome, or the Weimar Republic), when the change in culture and attitudes eventually killed the community/city/republic.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > many periods, even for centuries on end, had almost no change between generations regarding lifestyles Many of the instances where we have records of this being a recurring complaint of adults toward the youth were in those times of little apparent lifestyle change; part of that ia that the distance of our perspective probably minimizes changes that were perceived as significant in the local context, but a bigger part is that, while objective changes in lifestyle or technology can provide something to tie the complaint to, the main driver of the complaint is not the change in society but the change in the observer’s position and perspective within society.
- martin_a 5y ago
  As already written in the other comment: I find this result hard to believe because I think the offline experiences former generations had, would transer to online generations, too. But yes, the youth is always terrible. I've read that in the Hagakure, but I think it has already been mentioned/been a "fact" in ancient Greece, too. ;-)
coddle-hark 5y ago
Young people have pretty much always optimised for the recognition and appreciation of their friends though. It’s just more visible to adults now, which is probably a good thing.
- martin_a 5y ago
  Totally, yes. Just thought about how badly I wanted to be one of the cool kids in school. Failed terribly in doing that, and I also know how terrible I felt about that. That's why I'm wondering when the whole "seeking for appreciation"-thing has moved from real life to Instagram (kind of), are there no bad feelings, feelings of rejection and failure involved, when my new post doesn't get the likes I'm looking for?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It’s just more visible to adults now Its always been visible to adults and has been a perennial complaint of adults about the youth.
- have_faith 5y ago
  The big difference is opportunity time. Previously you had occasional opportunities to impress your peers and evaluate their lives against yours giving you gaps to work between. Those gaps now no longer exist. The information and comparison is 24/7 and real time. I think comparisons to previous generations as being equal in goals vastly over simplifies vast differences in the landscape they operate in.

Moodles 5y ago

I can’t tell if it’s the BBC or perhaps just me getting older (and wiser, or dumber depending on your perspective) but I’d say the BBC has got worse over the last 5 years or so. It’s usually not factually incorrect, but I’ve definitely noticed the story selection and emotive language choice doesn’t seem neutral to me. I can tolerate non-neutral news outlets I guess, but what I dislike is one that purports to be neutral and takes tax payer money for it.

e17 5y ago
It's the BBC that is getting dumber, not you my friend. I check in with the headlines every now and then and every time it's either government propaganda or bullshit Love Island celebrity nonsense.
- headmelted 5y ago
  Also, why are we being forced to subsidize EastEnders? Whats the public benefit from that rubbish? CBeebies, CBBC - cool. Public benefit makes sense. BBC Science and Documentaries - Public benefit. Fully justifiable. EastEnders - Pay money to make other people less intelligent or we’ll fine you.
  - rsgrn 5y ago
    I've never thought of EastEnders from that perspective. I don't disagree. In theory, it could be used as a method of creating awareness and discussion of important life topics in a real life like familiar setting. And you can sort of see how they try to do that... but the need to have some new dramatic event every six weeks overshadows it.
    - headmelted 5y ago
      And that’s the issue. It’s only a lifelike setting if your life is like that of a Jeremy Kyle victim (who’s lives are likely not like they are depicted at all). Give us money against your will to pay for things you don’t agree with or we’ll take away your access to live media from everyone else too. Now whether or not they can carry out the threats they’re notorious for or not, I’m just saying if it walks like an extortionist and quacks like an extortionist..

nvilcins 5y ago

The title of the BBC article [1] that references the study: > Teens, tech and mental health: Oxford study finds no link What the study actually says, according to the same article: > We couldn't tell the difference between social-media impact and mental health in 2010 and 2019, [..] > [..] the connection is not getting stronger. Hence, the title is an obvious lie. (likely to get more clicks, push a certain agenda, or both) Having a title contradicting the contents of the article has become extremely common these days. Unfortunately, it's also very common for people to only read the headlines (does anyone know the stats on this?), and I'm sure media outlets are fully aware of that. Hence, I would argue that articles with titles like these should be classified the same was as false information, and fought against accordingly. It's not enough to "clarify" the meaning in the article, when the title - the false claim - is all what most people take away (and disseminate further). [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56970368 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56970368

dna_polymerase 5y ago

I'd argue that the BBC got the study wrong. The authors state: > "Our main goal was to investigate how associations between adolescents’ technology use and mental health had changed over time." And conclude: > "Although we found little evidence suggesting that technology is becoming more harmful over time, [..]" There is no need for social media to become more harmful over time to it being bad enough already. The title of the study (There Is No Evidence That Associations Between Adolescents’ Digital Technology Engagement and Mental Health Problems Have Increased) gives away the constraint really. Yes, okay it did not become worse, but it might be harmful from the beginning.