> Haidt presents datasets that are very short. The graphs begin in 2004. Teens have been depressed for a lot longer than 20 years. It's hard to know what the na

> Haidt presents datasets that are very short. The graphs begin in 2004. Teens have been depressed for a lot longer than 20 years. It's hard to know what the natural variance of this statistic is given just his article I'm not talking about depression, but self-harm. Yes the graph starts in 2004, and then we see a 188% increase in self-harm among girls, after being basically stable for at least 6 years. That's pretty dramatic. > Current overall suicide levels aren't anything special, even though they've been going up for decades (watch out for the non-linear X axis). Even supposing I accept that suicide rate hasn't changed much, a stable suicide rate with increasing self-harm rate still qualifies as a mental health crisis. You keep focusing on suicide when the self-harm rate among girls was 20 times higher than their suicide rate when it was stable 2004-2010, but is now 72 times higher. That's clearly a problem. > The other unrelated issue is that if you look at his graphs, self harm and suicides started going up in 2007, not 2012 as he claims. That is not correct. The graph clearly shows that 2007 was at or slightly below 2004 levels. You can also see a slight increase from 2006 to 2007, and then a ~25% decline in 2008, then another ~10% decline in 2009, then a return to the 2007 levels in 2010. After 2010, you can see increases past historic levels, and 2012 you see a very sharp increase. (edit: I'm talking about Figure 2 at the link, just so we're on the same page) That might be a coincidence, but it's not completely arbitrary as you're implying.