3 ms·

That's not true. 1. Haid has evidence from randomized experiments with kids. 2. There are natural experiments caused by different regional adoption rates of h

by nabla9 3y ago

That's not true. 1. Haid has evidence from randomized experiments with kids. 2. There are natural experiments caused by different regional adoption rates of high-speed internet. 3. When the effect size of harm correlates with the frequency of use in population, that's more than time series and spurious-correlations. Social Media and Mental Health: A Collaborative Review https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-olnkPyWcgF5BiAtBEy0/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-...

kelseyfrog 3y ago
It's not possible to blind the experiment's test subjects. Again, all I'm asking for is the level of critique to be comparable to the strength of the claims. We are eager to critique lower stakes claims, but for some reason Haidt typically gets a pass here. All I'm asking for is consistency. I'm not sure how to put this, but effect size and causation are different things. It's a category mistake to compare.
- nabla9 3y ago
  > It's not possible to blind the experiment's test subjects. It's not necessary. Randomized experiment is good enough. So are natural experiments.
timmytokyo 3y ago
Mike Masnick has written a review of Haidt's book, and it's a nice rebuttal to each of these arguments. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-parent https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p... One of the points he makes -- and that I don't see much discussed when it comes to Haidt's work -- is that Haidt's prescriptions for a solution are dangerous. If Haidt is wrong, one of the most unsettling consequences of relying on his solutions is that we stop looking for the real causes of any degradation in childhood mental health. Even if he's right, his solutions will have all sorts of unintended consequences, including loss of privacy on the internet, lack of access by children to resources that are in fact helpful to their mental health, and violations of various legal and constitutional human rights frameworks.
- nabla9 3y ago
  You need only about one year (or maybe one semesters) of schools experimenting with his solution to see if it works. Some schools are already doing it, so there is data soon.

by nabla9 3y ago

kelseyfrog 3y ago

It's not possible to blind the experiment's test subjects. Again, all I'm asking for is the level of critique to be comparable to the strength of the claims. We are eager to critique lower stakes claims, but for some reason Haidt typically gets a pass here. All I'm asking for is consistency. I'm not sure how to put this, but effect size and causation are different things. It's a category mistake to compare.

nabla9 3y ago
> It's not possible to blind the experiment's test subjects. It's not necessary. Randomized experiment is good enough. So are natural experiments.

timmytokyo 3y ago

Mike Masnick has written a review of Haidt's book, and it's a nice rebuttal to each of these arguments. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-parent https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p... One of the points he makes -- and that I don't see much discussed when it comes to Haidt's work -- is that Haidt's prescriptions for a solution are dangerous. If Haidt is wrong, one of the most unsettling consequences of relying on his solutions is that we stop looking for the real causes of any degradation in childhood mental health. Even if he's right, his solutions will have all sorts of unintended consequences, including loss of privacy on the internet, lack of access by children to resources that are in fact helpful to their mental health, and violations of various legal and constitutional human rights frameworks.

nabla9 3y ago
You need only about one year (or maybe one semesters) of schools experimenting with his solution to see if it works. Some schools are already doing it, so there is data soon.