4 ms·

The article promises evidence, but it starts by repeating the premise half a dozen times, then offering correlations and loose theories. If there was evidence i

The article promises evidence, but it starts by repeating the premise half a dozen times, then offering correlations and loose theories. If there was evidence in there, I missed it. Maybe there was. But even if there was this was a badly formatted article. Why can't people succinctly describe their thesis and then have a nice outline for the fine details on the proof? Is this not something we learn at uni, or even high school?

politician 4y ago
Ask ChatGPT to summarize the article for you?
- grunmble 4y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 4y ago
I think he's trying to simplify it for a general audience, vs putting out an academic paper that might be discussed and nodded over, only to be misrepresented or over-simplified in health/science reporting and largely ignored. I don't fully agree with his argument and have said so before (briefly, I think it overlooks other major contextual factors like increasing international violence and political polarization that are less obvious but just as deadly). Nevertheless I think his argument is worth examining because mass networking is resulting in huge social changes but many of these seem to be making most of us less happy.
- xbar 4y ago
  I am completely convinced that international violence does not now, nor has it ever, caused much depression in US-based 12-year-old girls. Further, I find the notion that it is was an increasing trend from 2010 to 2022 compared with 2001 to 2010 is maximally revisionist. Same for political polarization (sidebar: the notion that political polarization is an "other...factor" outside of social media seems poorly considered.)
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    You seem bent on having an argument. I think the post-9/11 atmosphere of the US being at war and the polarization that semi-independently ramped up over the same period are both important background factors, which themselves were amplified by social media and network interconnectivity. Public discourse has become more violent and confrontational over that time vs 25 years ago, and I think there is some relationship between depression and the tone of public discourse.
    - cubefox 4y ago
      This seems all highly irrelevant for teen girls.
  - watwut 4y ago
    There was no coup in 2001
    - xbar 4y ago
      That's true. Nor has there been one since. But there was a major terror attack after a controversial election where the victor had half-a-million fewer votes than the loser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Then there was a war. And CNN became a thing 24 hours a day. And then a 2nd war. And then there was a Great Recession, blamed entirely on one party or the other, depending on whom you asked.
dadrian 4y ago
Every section ends with a summary of the research discussed, and the last section discards some alternative theories and ends with the thesis of the article. Why can't people read the article in question? Is this not something we learn at uni, or even high school?
- deely3 4y ago
  Just to be sure, you did read the article, and you did checked the studies, yes? Because if you did actually read the studies then you will find that all these studies provide correlation but without casuation.
  - dadrian 4y ago
    The entire article is explaining how, when viewed in totality, the series of studies showing correlation results in causation.
timerol 4y ago
It's a literature review, and no social science question is replicated 100% of the time. But here's the main question and answer: > 5. Question 3A: Do Experiments Using Random Assignment Show a Causal Effect of Social Media Use on Mental Health? > These experiments provide direct evidence that social media—particularly Instagram—is a cause, not just a correlate, of bad mental health, especially in teen girls and young women. As for the thesis, it is succinctly described in the title: > Social Media is a Major Cause of the Mental Illness Epidemic in Teen Girls.
marcosdumay 4y ago
If you go into the evidence sections, there are many links to articles with evidence there. The structure on this article is the standard academic one, adapted to a less formal style. The authors first succinctly describe their findings so you can know if you want to read the article at all. Then they fully describe their findings, like you seem to want, and only then they talk about the evidence and how it was gathered.
hbrn 4y ago
Correlation is evidence. You might be asking for a proof, but proving causation for historical events is nearly impossible. Overwhelming amount of correlation is as good as it gets. For example if you can see the same trends in other regions where inflection point strongly correlates with social networks entering the market (i.e. being launched/unbanned/localized).

politician 4y ago

Ask ChatGPT to summarize the article for you?

grunmble 4y ago
[flagged]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 4y ago

I think he's trying to simplify it for a general audience, vs putting out an academic paper that might be discussed and nodded over, only to be misrepresented or over-simplified in health/science reporting and largely ignored. I don't fully agree with his argument and have said so before (briefly, I think it overlooks other major contextual factors like increasing international violence and political polarization that are less obvious but just as deadly). Nevertheless I think his argument is worth examining because mass networking is resulting in huge social changes but many of these seem to be making most of us less happy.

xbar 4y ago
I am completely convinced that international violence does not now, nor has it ever, caused much depression in US-based 12-year-old girls. Further, I find the notion that it is was an increasing trend from 2010 to 2022 compared with 2001 to 2010 is maximally revisionist. Same for political polarization (sidebar: the notion that political polarization is an "other...factor" outside of social media seems poorly considered.)
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  You seem bent on having an argument. I think the post-9/11 atmosphere of the US being at war and the polarization that semi-independently ramped up over the same period are both important background factors, which themselves were amplified by social media and network interconnectivity. Public discourse has become more violent and confrontational over that time vs 25 years ago, and I think there is some relationship between depression and the tone of public discourse.
  - cubefox 4y ago
    This seems all highly irrelevant for teen girls.
- watwut 4y ago
  There was no coup in 2001
  - xbar 4y ago
    That's true. Nor has there been one since. But there was a major terror attack after a controversial election where the victor had half-a-million fewer votes than the loser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Then there was a war. And CNN became a thing 24 hours a day. And then a 2nd war. And then there was a Great Recession, blamed entirely on one party or the other, depending on whom you asked.

dadrian 4y ago

Every section ends with a summary of the research discussed, and the last section discards some alternative theories and ends with the thesis of the article. Why can't people read the article in question? Is this not something we learn at uni, or even high school?

deely3 4y ago
Just to be sure, you did read the article, and you did checked the studies, yes? Because if you did actually read the studies then you will find that all these studies provide correlation but without casuation.
- dadrian 4y ago
  The entire article is explaining how, when viewed in totality, the series of studies showing correlation results in causation.

timerol 4y ago

It's a literature review, and no social science question is replicated 100% of the time. But here's the main question and answer: > 5. Question 3A: Do Experiments Using Random Assignment Show a Causal Effect of Social Media Use on Mental Health? > These experiments provide direct evidence that social media—particularly Instagram—is a cause, not just a correlate, of bad mental health, especially in teen girls and young women. As for the thesis, it is succinctly described in the title: > Social Media is a Major Cause of the Mental Illness Epidemic in Teen Girls.

marcosdumay 4y ago

If you go into the evidence sections, there are many links to articles with evidence there. The structure on this article is the standard academic one, adapted to a less formal style. The authors first succinctly describe their findings so you can know if you want to read the article at all. Then they fully describe their findings, like you seem to want, and only then they talk about the evidence and how it was gathered.

hbrn 4y ago

Correlation is evidence. You might be asking for a proof, but proving causation for historical events is nearly impossible. Overwhelming amount of correlation is as good as it gets. For example if you can see the same trends in other regions where inflection point strongly correlates with social networks entering the market (i.e. being launched/unbanned/localized).