3 ms·
Wow. I both respect this post, while being annoyed at its direction. It is very respectful in the intro, by explicitly not trying to be attacks against the cr
by taeric 4y ago
Wow. I both respect this post, while being annoyed at its direction. It is very respectful in the intro, by explicitly not trying to be attacks against the critics. However, it then is entreating the readers to pick a side for most of the rest.
I assert that you should not pick a side. Instead, you should look at how you can add to and learn from the data. Odds are high that both sides have some points that are worth picking up, such that picking a side is almost certainly shutting you out of some good ideas.
My personal push would be to say that claiming mental health became a problem in 2010s is absurd. It has long been a problem, as evidenced by such easy examples as Columbine. Before that, it was likely a largely local problem. In that you didn't hear about the kids that were having trouble, but they were there.
Does this contradict the assertions of the troubles of social media? I don't think so. Just don't think you have shielded your kids from all modern sources of mental ill by simply keeping them away from social media.
This is like thinking that drinking coffee or wine is de facto healthy for you. Likely, the health benefits are as much on what you were not drinking instead. Such that, keeping kids from social media by keeping them engaged with others around them is likely a net positive. By how much of that is keeping them engaged in a participatory way, versus keeping them apart? Such that, if you can get them engaging with things in a healthy way, you can make everyone in that area healthier. You can see this with online groups that are healthy. Yes, there will be some level of banning, as we all have capacities. But the healthy crowds engage. They don't just shout down. Even when they have to deal with people shouting, attempts are made to moderate.
- YuukiRey 4y agoBut the author isn't arguing that mental health only became a problem in 2010, if I understand your post correctly. They're claiming it became more of a problem because of social media use, particularly among girls, no? If by "Columbine" you're referring to the shooting, then that's only a US thing and doesn't apply to other countries.
- taeric 4y agoRight, and in that I can mostly get behind. Again, I don't think the researcher is wrong. I think it is wrong to "pick a side" and only buy in to that. You are right that I was referring to the shooting. But you will have to tell me why that isn't a mental health thing. Do I think it is also a gun control issue? Certainly, but even without the guns, those kids were still very mentally unstable. And growing up in that time, I knew many mentally unstable people. Luckily, they didn't have access to guns. Similar statement could be about social media. Before 2010s, they didn't have access to social media. My assertion would be that they were likely still there. Now, is mental illness contagious? I'd wager that is probable. But I don't know for sure. And I'm going to guess you need evidence and an open mind to both "sides" presented in this post to progress to an answer.
- YuukiRey 4y agoI could definitely imagine that shootings and the subsequent drills have a negative effect on children's mood. What I meant was that this effect would be limited to the US, whereas the data presented in his articles seems to often cover a much larger part of the world.
- taeric 4y agoApologies, I meant that the negative moods and mental instability predating these events. I am open to the idea that they could be getting exacerbated by them. It is odd now that I have kids. I have no doubt I will change thoughts as years go by. In ways that I can't fully understand, yet. The way that anxiety clearly hits some of my family more than others is hard not to see.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago> I assert that you should not pick a side. Instead, you should look at how you can add to and learn from the data. Haidt is sufficiently convinced by the existing data that he feels strongly that what is called for is action, not more data collection (or perhaps, action alongside more data collection). You are apparently not as convinced as Haidt. That's OK, but you need to consider the perspective of someone who feels that we've already established what is happening with sufficient confidence that we need to move onto action. And as Haidt says: what is the cost if the skeptics are wrong vs. if the alarm ringers are wrong?
- taeric 4y agoYeah, but I can say we should agree with his proposals without "picking his side." We probably should take a lot of the actions he is proposing. But we should not dismiss the "other side" while doing so. Edit: I see I should not have said "the data" in what to learn from. Rather, I am arguing that we can and should learn from both sides here. For things that are more actionable, taking the actions will let us learn even more. But, and this is huge, it could be that taking these actions does nothing. The "do something" attitude that is prevalent in all society is often wrong. Particularly about what should be done.