3 ms·
The causal link to social media is presented very simply in the article, but I suspect that's mainly because the article is not about diagnosis, but about the p
by CognitiveLens 3y ago
The causal link to social media is presented very simply in the article, but I suspect that's mainly because the article is not about diagnosis, but about the prevalence of the pattern.
There is a lot of data to support the social media effect specifically (some referenced in the linked articles from Twenge), and I suspect the next few posts from Rausch will dive in more deeply, so it's not right to claim that they're jumping to convenient answers - these aren't casual bloggers sharing their reckons.
edit: actually there's a heap of related writing on that site, e.g. https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epi...
- throwup238 3y agoNot only is there a lot more content on the blog about the topic but Haidt and Rausch have several public Google docs where they keep an ongoing list of evidence for and against their hypotheses. Every time one of their articles gets discussed on HN (which happens at least once a month at this point) the discussion goes in circles about evidence and causality without engaging the meat of the content. HN just doesn’t have any mechanism to promote long term discussions about this topic.
- B56b 3y agoIt seems inevitable for online discussions of a topic this large to be completely unproductive. It's broad enough that everyone's favorite societal ill can be blamed, yet virtually no one reads Haidt's research explaining why other explanations are insufficient.