8 ms·

Anxious Generation – How Safetyism and Social Media Are Damaging the Kids

119 points by munyak 2y ago

anon291 2y ago
The point about the parks rings so true to me. We have a playground near us that was built in the 50s-ish and the slide is probably 12-15ft high, with just a ladder. The swings are about the same height and you can swing pretty high. Honestly, even as an adult it's a bit thrilling to go down the slide. You can imagine what it must be for kids. Meanwhile, the brand new park near my parents: the slides top out at like 6 feet. The swings are made so they don't swing high. There's absolutely zero risk of falling. No monkey bars, etc. Very sad
- Tao3300 2y ago
  Heh, the park they just built near me has a pretty tall slide, but there's a series of platforms in an enclosed structure you use to ascend it, so you can't just fall off a ladder. Kids are thankfully still kids though, and every now and then some kid climbs the outer structure and gets stuck. The smaller slides are big tubes, and to discourage kids climbing on top of the tube, they installed these big shield wall things... which make them even more fun to climb.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  The really stupid thing is that they make toddler swings (with basket seats) lower than normal swings. Why?? Do these people not understand physics? How is it that professional swing manufacturers have never actually pushed a toddler on a swing??
- supportengineer 2y ago
  I remember an article posted here years ago, there is an optimal amount of danger for playgrounds.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  I wonder how much of it is "think of the children!" and how much is "think of the litigation!"
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  There’s good reasons, spinal and head trauma.
  - anon291 2y ago
    I mean as a society we have to choose between head trauma and suicide / stunted growth. That's a choice we make. This is the same zero-tolerance idiocy that made the COVID response so messy with so many unintended consequences. Policy is about balance, and realizing nothing is perfect.
    - theGnuMe 2y ago
      Whatever man, go make stuff up and believe whatever you want.
financltravsty 2y ago
One of many factors. Another is the dissolution of community and intimate time spent with other people (especially outside one's demographic) leading to what is basically insanity: thoughts and behaviors with no external "sanity check" or stop-gap (like an older more mature person mentoring a younger one to correct maladaptive thoughts and behaviors or even to just protect them from the onslaught of bad-faith actors). Those older are also to blame for not taking a greater part in preventing this; but seeing as it's so widespread, there are most likely more systemic, societal-wide issues at play.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  It’s called everyone not wanting to risk being sued.
  - herpdyderp 2y ago
    or getting shot, or accidentally allowing a crazy person into your life
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    I am trying now to think of a single decision I made differently because I was worried about being sued and I am coming up empty. I'm also trying to think of anyone I know that was in fact sued and I am also coming up empty.
- anon291 2y ago
  decline of third spaces due to suburbanization, urban decay, and decline of religious participation. Of course, it's going to get much much worse due to COVID. I wouldn't be surprised if the change in death rate due to the COVID lockdowns (which drives kids to screens to an even greater degree than anything here) dwarves the number of seniors lost to COVID itself. At the end of the day, I think time will vindicate the anti-lockdowners and indict those calling for strict lockdowns. It's a major social contagion, and I don't think one we can easily stop.
  - financltravsty 2y ago
renewiltord 2y ago
It's not on them and perhaps not even on the parents. A lot of this may be from others. An example is a recent case in GGP of a coyote biting a child. Animal control culled three coyotes. Seems reasonable to me. Mankind has defended its children from the wild for millennia. Our children have explored and we've defended them when they stepped into danger. But there are certainly those who believe that children should not explore bushes in a park https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1dt16au/well_it_looks_like_theyre_killing_the_coyotes_in/lb6ejm3/ https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1dt16au/well_...
Hizonner 2y ago
Don't panic over that! Panic over this!
- electrodank 2y ago
  Climate change is your fault for placing the thing into blue bin instead of the gray bin!
V__ 2y ago
> For example, nowadays, parents expect their children to be free to go and do groceries alone or play outside without adult supervision only at around the age of 10 to 12 (if not even higher). Except, parents nowadays can get arrested for even less. [1] [1] https://reason.com/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-his-yard-cps-t/ https://reason.com/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-his-... > The kids are growing up playing with their phones rather than playing outside with other kids, learning the ropes of, well—life. With suburbia and car centric infrastructure expanding, where are they even supposed to play?
- anon291 2y ago
  States need to adopt safe harbor clauses for parents. A particular part of a town / city being unsafe for kids should not be seen as the parents' problem, but an indictment of bad city planning, services, and management. EDIT: Also this story is insane. Who sees a neighbor kid playing in their yard and calls the police? I'm going to generalize here and speak about my fellow conservatives (because Florida is a solid red state at this point), but I've noticed many have little interest in actually living in a conservative way. In the 'olden days' people would just invite the kid in because -- you know -- you knew your neighbors and thought they were good people (or at least tolerable people). Nowadays, it seems everybody just ignores their neighbors and minds their own business. Not that it's only conservatives who do this (far from it; it seems systemic). Imagine calling the police on your neighbor's kid! EDIT 2: From the article: "The authorities claim he had no access to water or shelter". Again... can you imagine being a kid in your own neighborhood and not being fairly certain that, if you needed it, one of your neighbors would give you WATER? I know all the kids on my block and regularly invite them over to play with our kids if we're all outside, and have no compunction giving them water? For goodness' sake, the person phoning the police should have been arrested for not undertaking the most basic neighborly duties to a child.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    > I'm going to generalize here and speak about my fellow conservatives That's not generalizing because you don't know which category the person is from. What you did was fabricate a scapegoat using your imagination. There are plenty of valid reasons to let the police handle a legal dispute involving a child.
westurner 2y ago
Does anxiety correlate to inflammatory ultra-processed diets? Is there an incentive to self-report anxiety?
- solarmist 2y ago
  How does this connect to the article at all?
  - westurner 2y ago
    There is an epidemiological uptick in anxiety diagnosis rate; hence the article title: "Anxious Generation." Is that due to broader trends in public health like lack of exercise and poor diet, specifically inflammatory foods like ultra-processed foods, exposure to food packaging, plastics, waterproofing chemicals, or other environmental contaminants? What correlations in social research and human behavior can we identify? Is there an increase in anxiety diagnoses in states with medical discounts for anxiety treatments?
gvedem 2y ago
one thing the author touches on that I'm curious about-- > academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method I always see this bandied about as axiomatic, but I'm really curious if: a. this pertains outside of "softer" subjects and and the liberal arts b. this isn't a case of overblown media coverage of the occasional "how dare you say XYZ". I'm a little skeptical of it because I know SV types love to pooh pooh academia, but I went to a devotedly conservative college (and a decade ago) so I'm hoping to hear from someone with recent experience and a lack of that implicit contempt for formal education. obviously the pro-Palestinian protests exposed some serious issues with respect to speech on campus, but I'm more curious about the typical daily experience of students. are the morality police really so widespread, or is it overrepresented and limited to individual overzealous types and colleges like Oberlin with a reputation for such?
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  How about stick to the subject: kids. Not college-age adolescents or adults. Personally, I think it all goes back to Hitler /s
  - gvedem 2y ago
    I'm not really sure why you think I should stick to the subject or what the point of your Hitler "joke" is supposed to be.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      > why you think I should stick to the subject umm ... because you made a "reply" to a post about kids, but it wasn't about kids. Do you need this explained further?
- drewrv 2y ago
  Even if colleges are more censorious these days (which I’m skeptical of), I struggle to think of any institution in American life more open minded than colleges. Mainstream media acts as a hive mind. Businesses do not host speakers critical of their operations. Silicon Valley VCs are among the most fragile minds out there.
AlbertCory 2y ago
There IS a movement countering this trend: https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-free-range-parenting-1095057 https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-free-range-parenting-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting
random9749832 2y ago
>Kids also become overprotected in other ways, such as not hearing other views or not being able to handle opposing views. No wonder academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method. I wonder how much the scientific method went into coming to that conclusion. Also if anything we are way too exposed to other people's views. Before you could speak to someone random and there was a much higher chance that their opinions were unique because they weren't the next person who binges on r/all. We had many more forums and less recommendation algorithms driving what we consume. Now you overhear people talking about something you just saw the other day online in public all the time. It is similar to how globalisation is making everywhere feel the same whereas in the past people had completely distinct cultures from one country to the next.
- twelfthnight 2y ago
  Agreed that the argument "overprotection leads to lack of free speech in academia" is tenuous. That said, I do wonder if we all _are_ being protected from opposing views these days. Like, we come across the opposing views but usually in a filtered / characature form on Social Media/Fox News/MSNBC. It's actually kinda hard to find stuff without spin in my experience. EDIT My hypothesis is that's it's just cheaper to create speculative / opinion based journalism rather than real investigation. Since the former gets enough clicks, there's not a strong financial reason to create good journalism.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    It's always been hard to find things without spin. The only difference now is the range of different spin styles available. Every niche worldview has an online community.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      And then we've come half-cycle into the exact opposite fact from the one on the post that created this thread. All it too was 3 comments. I wonder what is really happening, because both statements sound true to me.
willsmith72 2y ago
i'm glad research and publications like these are coming out, and they only seem to be getting more popular/picked up by the media (Podcast Center for Humane Technology?) is there going to be such an increase in momentum here that we actually see a change in 5-10 years? if younger millenials and now gen z are the ones taking the brunt of the impact, and are now becoming more aware of it, surely the societal/political movements will continue to gather pace. is it just a matter of how well the social media companies can manipulate politicians/general populations perceptions of their own lives to prevent any kind of change? to me a huge shift feels crucial and inevitable, but i know this perspective isn't common amongst my friends, especially those out of tech
mouselett 2y ago
I just started reading the book this morning. I go to Hacker News and this is the top post. Either I have a third eye, or this is nothing more than a coincidence. This is also my first comment here, so apologies if I accidentally break a site rule.
- layer8 2y ago
  You can take a guess on the average frequency that this currently #8 bestselling book on Amazon is getting picked up by an HN reader.
RVuRnvbM2e 2y ago
[flagged]
- supportengineer 2y ago
  I know a number of people who choose not to pay attention to this world, specifically for the benefit of their mental health.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Like Cypher said while enjoying that juicy Matrix generated steak: "Ignorance is bliss".
  - electrodank 2y ago
    That “attention to the market dynamics debt” will catch up to them, just as it has caught up to all the working adults who are unable to afford living expenses in their cities because they spent their 20s partying rather than investing and looking to get ahead/stay ahead of these things. Anyone in their 30s saying “I’d like to have children but I can’t afford it” has been asleep at the wheel of a global change that has been unfolding in a relatively obvious way. I’m not saying it’s good or bad - everyone’s free to make their own life choices, I’m saying it is what it is and TANSTAAFL.
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      There's some survivorship bias in that. Not every adult who gave up partying and focused on career and investing, ended up very well off. Sometimes it just doesn't work out and then you sacrificed the most fun years of your life for nothing leaving you depressed and unhappy. Not saying you should or shouldn't, I'm saying while there's no free lunch there's also no guaranteed lunch big either. For example here in socialist parts of Western Europe working hard is a scam since you don't end up more wealthy than those who just coast and do the bare minimum expecting the state to provide for them while you'll be the one paying for it with more taxes. Sometimes a simple and fun life with less money can be more rewarding than a life of stress and money
paulpauper 2y ago
"kids are overcoddled yet exposed to potentially harmful content with smartphones" which is it then?
- crummy 2y ago
  Overcoddled in the physical world.
  - paulpauper 2y ago
    it's more like 'kids should do and believe what i want them to' if he were being honest. the smartphone is irrelevant
    - crummy 2y ago
      That seems like the opposite of what he's suggesting? I think he's saying that, in the physical world at least, kids should do and believe whatever they want, independently from their parents.
SnorkelTan 2y ago
I also remember reading somewhere the frequency of mass shootings pre-2008-2010 decreased dramatically with the rise of social media. Right around the time Facebook use became ubiquitous. I was trying to find the source, but couldn't. I think it was a graph from Wikipedia.
A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
As a parent, I have some mixed feelings about this. I absolutely want my kid to be independent and self-reliant ( and so far, unfortunately, I seem to be getting my wish ), but a lot depends on the kid you have. For example, mine is way too trusting towards strangers ( the way I used to be I suppose ) so I need to correct for that. As for school and academia, doesn't it ( with exceptions in actual science ) select for conformity and obedience? It was already pretty bad when I finishing my MBA so I have no idea how bad it has gotten.
- dlivingston 2y ago
  > mine is way too trusting towards strangers ( the way I used to be I suppose ) so I need to correct for that. Why does it need to be corrected? Most people are decent and trustworthy. Odds of something nefarious happening are extremely low.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    I will paraphrase a truism: statistics are irrelevant to the affected individual. Looking back at my own childhood, I recognize that things could have turned out very differently partially because I was fairly free range. But lets say that I buy that world-view ( I don't ). How would you define odds of something nefarious happening? I am asking as we are already experiencing a heavy dose of 'do not trust your eyes and ears -- everything is awesome.. on paper'. I might be setting you up a bit, but I am genuinely curious how you perceive the current situation.
croemer 2y ago
I'm critical of Jonathan Haidt for a few reasons: 1. He's presenting himself as an expert on a topic far from his research expertise. His background per Wikipedia: "Haidt's main scientific contributions come from the psychological field of moral foundations theory, which attempts to explain the evolutionary origins of human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, gut feelings rather than logic and reason." This has nothing to do with developmental and clinical psychology/psychiatry. He's way out of his depth here. 2. He's part of the "intellectual dark web", a group of people who seek out fame with a particular audience niche, and prioritize that over truth. 3. I feel he's trying to please the audience and get out bestsellers, making the same mistakes he accuses others of making, e.g. lack of scientific rigor/open mindedness. Example: maybe Smartphones aren't that bad. Sure, they have a big impact, but it could be positive and negative. To make the book a bestseller, it pays to focus on the negatives.
- paulpauper 2y ago
  the evidence he cites is weak. it goes back only 12 years is not long enough to establish causality
- adamors 2y ago
  But he is presenting his arguments based on research data, not just pulling stuff out of nowhere. I have the book and started reading it, so far it doesn’t seem farfetched or made up at all, he does cite his sources.
  - croemer 2y ago
    Is he though? I haven't read the book, but the blog provides very bad arguments based on fallacies. Maybe it misrepresents the book. I don't know. But it's clear that this is not Prof Haidt's topic of expertise as a scientist. In scientific questions I would want a review on the question of impact of social media on mental health to be done by an expert on teen mental health. Not a socially conservative moral philosopher turned bestseller popsci author.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  Of all its "members", Jon Haidt was the least voluntarily grouped in with the rest of the IDW. If he was ever a member -- not that that should be damning -- it wouldve been nearly a decade ago. The IDW has not been relevant for half a decadd. He's also a bog standard Progressive politically. Also, his focus is on human social relationships and how they affect society. The article is well within his realm of experise. You are just attacking a man dedicated to promoting peace and well being in personal and intrasocietal relationships because you clearly have a political axe to grind -- and you dont even have the right target.
croemer 2y ago
> In those days, you'd be spending too much time in front of your screen, and the worst that could happen was you'd worsen your eyesight, end up somewhat socially inept, or even get a job in the industry once you grew up. Social ineptness of nerds is not because they spend time in front of computers. It's much more the other way round: those with a predisposition to ineptitude like computers. Is there any _scientific_ evidence rather than folklore/gut feeling backing up the sentence above?
- croemer 2y ago
  I love academics complaining about lack of free speech while exercising said right. They seem to confuse right to free speech with freedom from criticism.
  - jjoonathan 2y ago
    Academics? Almost all of the free speech complaints I see these days come from the right, from people who would feel insulted if you called them an academic.
    - croemer 2y ago
      How do you define academic? For me it's essentially a synonym of a research scientist at a university. And that definition clearly fits Haidt. >Jonathan David Haidt is an American social psychologist and author. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business. Also, the title makes it obvious that he is no expert on mental illness. He's a business school professor.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  Both are probably creating an anti-synergy in this scenario. The person that's socially inept will likely spend more time alone/with their PC then if this outlet didn't exist, and that will inevitable further hamper their social skills
- RVuRnvbM2e 2y ago
  Developing social skills just takes motivation and practice. This is well established. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28054797/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28054797/
reify 2y ago
I totally agree. I have seen the changes working with children for over 20 years. The mass media have a huge impact on parent's over protection of their children. The media claims, which are untrue, that we live in a society with a rapist, a child abductor and paedophile in every street will no doubtedly have a chilling effect on parenting. Schools also play a massive role in this by perpetuating this myth. Every school in Surrey UK where I live have huge 8-10 feet high fences all around the school to prevent unwanted innocent passersby looking at the children playing and more scarily, to prevent those rapists, child abductors and paedophiles living in every street from entering the school grounds. Children are living in prisons, constantly monitored by CCTV. The panopticon designs of the buildings and environment. What does this say to the children living in this protected environment? It says; this is a very frightening place to be, there are dangerous predators who might abduct you. No wonder then that children are presenting with acute anxiety disorders. This is most probably why parents allow their children to have carte blache when it comes to internet access. When I was a child in the 60's I roamed the streets from morning until night. I went home when I got hungry. Most children I knew had the same experience. Are there more paedophiles living in the world today compared to 100 years ago? I doubt it. One very strange phenomenon is that 95% of all child abuse happens in the family home by close family members and not by some stranger lurking in the shadows.
- ozarker 2y ago
  Look at the sex offender registry in your area
  - tavavex 2y ago
    I can't, and that's a good thing. The US having criminal records that can be accessed by anyone is very strange, and something that no other first-world country (that I know of) does to this extent. What purpose does it serve? To absolutely guarantee that people who already served their punishment can never re-integrate into society? To act as Google Search for socially acceptable murder targets for anyone who's inclined? Were Americans actually at a greater danger before the internet because they lacked this information?
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
> One of these forces is unfettered access to social media. I think we should reframe this to make it a bit more clear who the enemy is: We're allowing ad companies unfettered access to our kids. It's not communicating with their friends that's a problem, it's using a medium that is incentivized to encourage poor dopamine hygiene. These platforms are designed to harm their users because unhealthy users are more profitable than healthy users.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Too many peoples' salaries here depend on them not understanding that. The most prestigious jobs here are often considered to be FAANG, two of which are the biggest ad companies on the planet. It's just depressing really.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    There are others that wouldn't take a FAANG job on principle. We may not be a majority, but there are more of us here than there are anywhere else.
- hackinthebochs 2y ago
  Ads aren't the problem. Ad companies go out of their way to ensure their ads don't exceed the cultural average in terms of content and messaging. The problem with social media is the content kids are being fed. Communicating with their friends isn't the problem, its that they are consuming content not just from their friends, and their friends are also being influenced by content outside of their social bubble. It's the wide connectivity and the foreign ideologies that come with it.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I think it's more specific than that. You're right that the advertiser using the platform to target an ad isn't exclusively problematic. Also problematic is the person who uses the platform in a targeted way to shape the global narrative according to some agenda they have. There's something antisocial about seeking influence over people who don't know you. In some sense perhaps the attention economy that arises from this scenario is inescapable. But we have a lot of gray area between whether we make it something to be encouraged or whether we make it something to be mitigated. If I had kids, I'd rather they use social media that aims to connect people with their friends without giving anyone a megaphone or a lever to influence the big picture narratives in flux at any given moment. As far as I'm aware, such media are in short supply. And as software folk it is we who should be doing the supplying.
superkuh 2y ago
If it were 1900 they'd blame newspapers for "damaging" kids. If it were 1930 they'd blame radio. If it were 1950 it'd be television. If it were 1980 it'd be video games. What all of these have in common is being completely bogus.
- jjoonathan 2y ago
  If it were 400BCE they'd blame writing this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves - Plato, quoting Socrates
- bbarn 2y ago
  I don't think this is quite the same. Newspapers were largely uninteresting to kids, and if anything would have helped literacy at that time which was still a struggle. Early radio and TVs were often family bonding time, as households had only one. Video games kickstarted computer literacy for an entire generation. This is a targeted exploitation-driven market now that has been so much more refined by technology that it's beyond addictive. It's also targeted in a way none of those other things could have been to a specific individual to double down on that.
  - superkuh 2y ago
    >beyond addictive No, it's not addictive. That word has a meaning and it does not apply to this context. The DSM V has addressed the "social media" and "video game" concepts re: addiction with committees multiple times and every time it's very clear from the science: there is no addiction. And no, personal anecdotes do not overturn this. You might use the word "disorder" like the DSM V's grandfathered in "gambling disorder". But it is not an addiction. The idea of "addiction" in the context of stimuli from screens and speakers is a meme with no more basis than slenderman. Huge popular awareness but completely made up.
tasty_freeze 2y ago
I'm not hiding anything by saying I'm on the left of the political spectrum. There is always a danger when criticizing aspects of capitalism that I don't understand capitalism or hate America, or want to live under communism. Anyway... It irks me endlessly that many of the complaints about how the world is turning to crap has, at its root, capitalism. You think movies and TV are peddling filth? It sells. Think social media is corrupting our minds with disinformation? They are making lots of money at it. The news is constantly pushing stories about you you and/or your kids are in peril. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying we need to get rid of capitalism. My point is look at the root causes and incentives, rather than blaming weak-minded liberals for having an agenda to ruin the country.
- electrodank 2y ago
  You’re saying the purpose of a system is what it does. We can all agree to that. Now what?
  - tasty_freeze 2y ago
    You turned what I said into a mindless tautology. That isn't advancing the conversation. Can you restate your point more constructively such that I can respond to it?
- literallycancer 2y ago
  People's preferences are the root, not the mechanism used to satisfy them.
tarr11 2y ago
I am interested in how scientists can isolate the increase in mental health problems from the more sophisticated diagnoses that we have now. How do we know there is more mental health problems (a “bad” thing) vs more mental health problems are diagnosed and treated (a “good” thing)?
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  What do you mean by "more sophisticated diagnoses"?
wellthisisgreat 2y ago
My god seeing “kids are X these days” narrative on HN as anything but as an object of ridicule is upsetting
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
srid 2y ago
Safetyism in particular is the main culprit: From "How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?": https://archive.ph/jVOl3 https://archive.ph/jVOl3 > In a book entitled “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Mr Lukianoff and a social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, posit that overprotective parenting in the shadow of the war on terrorism and the great recession led to “safetyism”, a belief that safety, including emotional safety, trumps all other practical and moral concerns. Its bounds grew to require disinviting disfavoured campus speakers (see chart 1), protesting about disagreeable readings and regulating the speech of fellow students.
cassepipe 2y ago
"No wonder academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method." I was interested by what I was reading until I came across this sentence which really put me off. I doubt that academia is the opposite of free speech and the scientific method. I am sure there is good criticism to be said about academia in your country but such broad statements serve no purpose and only signal ideology.

119 points by munyak 2y ago

The point about the parks rings so true to me. We have a playground near us that was built in the 50s-ish and the slide is probably 12-15ft high, with just a ladder. The swings are about the same height and you can swing pretty high. Honestly, even as an adult it's a bit thrilling to go down the slide. You can imagine what it must be for kids. Meanwhile, the brand new park near my parents: the slides top out at like 6 feet. The swings are made so they don't swing high. There's absolutely zero risk of falling. No monkey bars, etc. Very sad

Tao3300 2y ago
Heh, the park they just built near me has a pretty tall slide, but there's a series of platforms in an enclosed structure you use to ascend it, so you can't just fall off a ladder. Kids are thankfully still kids though, and every now and then some kid climbs the outer structure and gets stuck. The smaller slides are big tubes, and to discourage kids climbing on top of the tube, they installed these big shield wall things... which make them even more fun to climb.
IshKebab 2y ago
The really stupid thing is that they make toddler swings (with basket seats) lower than normal swings. Why?? Do these people not understand physics? How is it that professional swing manufacturers have never actually pushed a toddler on a swing??
supportengineer 2y ago
I remember an article posted here years ago, there is an optimal amount of danger for playgrounds.
Workaccount2 2y ago
I wonder how much of it is "think of the children!" and how much is "think of the litigation!"
theGnuMe 2y ago
There’s good reasons, spinal and head trauma.
- anon291 2y ago
  I mean as a society we have to choose between head trauma and suicide / stunted growth. That's a choice we make. This is the same zero-tolerance idiocy that made the COVID response so messy with so many unintended consequences. Policy is about balance, and realizing nothing is perfect.
  - theGnuMe 2y ago
    Whatever man, go make stuff up and believe whatever you want.

financltravsty 2y ago

One of many factors. Another is the dissolution of community and intimate time spent with other people (especially outside one's demographic) leading to what is basically insanity: thoughts and behaviors with no external "sanity check" or stop-gap (like an older more mature person mentoring a younger one to correct maladaptive thoughts and behaviors or even to just protect them from the onslaught of bad-faith actors). Those older are also to blame for not taking a greater part in preventing this; but seeing as it's so widespread, there are most likely more systemic, societal-wide issues at play.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
It’s called everyone not wanting to risk being sued.
- herpdyderp 2y ago
  or getting shot, or accidentally allowing a crazy person into your life
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  I am trying now to think of a single decision I made differently because I was worried about being sued and I am coming up empty. I'm also trying to think of anyone I know that was in fact sued and I am also coming up empty.
anon291 2y ago
decline of third spaces due to suburbanization, urban decay, and decline of religious participation. Of course, it's going to get much much worse due to COVID. I wouldn't be surprised if the change in death rate due to the COVID lockdowns (which drives kids to screens to an even greater degree than anything here) dwarves the number of seniors lost to COVID itself. At the end of the day, I think time will vindicate the anti-lockdowners and indict those calling for strict lockdowns. It's a major social contagion, and I don't think one we can easily stop.
- financltravsty 2y ago

renewiltord 2y ago

It's not on them and perhaps not even on the parents. A lot of this may be from others. An example is a recent case in GGP of a coyote biting a child. Animal control culled three coyotes. Seems reasonable to me. Mankind has defended its children from the wild for millennia. Our children have explored and we've defended them when they stepped into danger. But there are certainly those who believe that children should not explore bushes in a park https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1dt16au/well_it_looks_like_theyre_killing_the_coyotes_in/lb6ejm3/ https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1dt16au/well_...

Hizonner 2y ago

Don't panic over that! Panic over this!

electrodank 2y ago
Climate change is your fault for placing the thing into blue bin instead of the gray bin!

V__ 2y ago

> For example, nowadays, parents expect their children to be free to go and do groceries alone or play outside without adult supervision only at around the age of 10 to 12 (if not even higher). Except, parents nowadays can get arrested for even less. [1] [1] https://reason.com/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-his-yard-cps-t/ https://reason.com/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-his-... > The kids are growing up playing with their phones rather than playing outside with other kids, learning the ropes of, well—life. With suburbia and car centric infrastructure expanding, where are they even supposed to play?

anon291 2y ago
States need to adopt safe harbor clauses for parents. A particular part of a town / city being unsafe for kids should not be seen as the parents' problem, but an indictment of bad city planning, services, and management. EDIT: Also this story is insane. Who sees a neighbor kid playing in their yard and calls the police? I'm going to generalize here and speak about my fellow conservatives (because Florida is a solid red state at this point), but I've noticed many have little interest in actually living in a conservative way. In the 'olden days' people would just invite the kid in because -- you know -- you knew your neighbors and thought they were good people (or at least tolerable people). Nowadays, it seems everybody just ignores their neighbors and minds their own business. Not that it's only conservatives who do this (far from it; it seems systemic). Imagine calling the police on your neighbor's kid! EDIT 2: From the article: "The authorities claim he had no access to water or shelter". Again... can you imagine being a kid in your own neighborhood and not being fairly certain that, if you needed it, one of your neighbors would give you WATER? I know all the kids on my block and regularly invite them over to play with our kids if we're all outside, and have no compunction giving them water? For goodness' sake, the person phoning the police should have been arrested for not undertaking the most basic neighborly duties to a child.
- gosub100 2y ago
  > I'm going to generalize here and speak about my fellow conservatives That's not generalizing because you don't know which category the person is from. What you did was fabricate a scapegoat using your imagination. There are plenty of valid reasons to let the police handle a legal dispute involving a child.

westurner 2y ago

Does anxiety correlate to inflammatory ultra-processed diets? Is there an incentive to self-report anxiety?

solarmist 2y ago
How does this connect to the article at all?
- westurner 2y ago
  There is an epidemiological uptick in anxiety diagnosis rate; hence the article title: "Anxious Generation." Is that due to broader trends in public health like lack of exercise and poor diet, specifically inflammatory foods like ultra-processed foods, exposure to food packaging, plastics, waterproofing chemicals, or other environmental contaminants? What correlations in social research and human behavior can we identify? Is there an increase in anxiety diagnoses in states with medical discounts for anxiety treatments?

gvedem 2y ago

one thing the author touches on that I'm curious about-- > academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method I always see this bandied about as axiomatic, but I'm really curious if: a. this pertains outside of "softer" subjects and and the liberal arts b. this isn't a case of overblown media coverage of the occasional "how dare you say XYZ". I'm a little skeptical of it because I know SV types love to pooh pooh academia, but I went to a devotedly conservative college (and a decade ago) so I'm hoping to hear from someone with recent experience and a lack of that implicit contempt for formal education. obviously the pro-Palestinian protests exposed some serious issues with respect to speech on campus, but I'm more curious about the typical daily experience of students. are the morality police really so widespread, or is it overrepresented and limited to individual overzealous types and colleges like Oberlin with a reputation for such?

AlbertCory 2y ago
How about stick to the subject: kids. Not college-age adolescents or adults. Personally, I think it all goes back to Hitler /s
- gvedem 2y ago
  I'm not really sure why you think I should stick to the subject or what the point of your Hitler "joke" is supposed to be.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    > why you think I should stick to the subject umm ... because you made a "reply" to a post about kids, but it wasn't about kids. Do you need this explained further?
drewrv 2y ago
Even if colleges are more censorious these days (which I’m skeptical of), I struggle to think of any institution in American life more open minded than colleges. Mainstream media acts as a hive mind. Businesses do not host speakers critical of their operations. Silicon Valley VCs are among the most fragile minds out there.

AlbertCory 2y ago

There IS a movement countering this trend: https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-free-range-parenting-1095057 https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-free-range-parenting-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting

random9749832 2y ago

>Kids also become overprotected in other ways, such as not hearing other views or not being able to handle opposing views. No wonder academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method. I wonder how much the scientific method went into coming to that conclusion. Also if anything we are way too exposed to other people's views. Before you could speak to someone random and there was a much higher chance that their opinions were unique because they weren't the next person who binges on r/all. We had many more forums and less recommendation algorithms driving what we consume. Now you overhear people talking about something you just saw the other day online in public all the time. It is similar to how globalisation is making everywhere feel the same whereas in the past people had completely distinct cultures from one country to the next.

twelfthnight 2y ago
Agreed that the argument "overprotection leads to lack of free speech in academia" is tenuous. That said, I do wonder if we all _are_ being protected from opposing views these days. Like, we come across the opposing views but usually in a filtered / characature form on Social Media/Fox News/MSNBC. It's actually kinda hard to find stuff without spin in my experience. EDIT My hypothesis is that's it's just cheaper to create speculative / opinion based journalism rather than real investigation. Since the former gets enough clicks, there's not a strong financial reason to create good journalism.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  It's always been hard to find things without spin. The only difference now is the range of different spin styles available. Every niche worldview has an online community.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    And then we've come half-cycle into the exact opposite fact from the one on the post that created this thread. All it too was 3 comments. I wonder what is really happening, because both statements sound true to me.

willsmith72 2y ago

i'm glad research and publications like these are coming out, and they only seem to be getting more popular/picked up by the media (Podcast Center for Humane Technology?) is there going to be such an increase in momentum here that we actually see a change in 5-10 years? if younger millenials and now gen z are the ones taking the brunt of the impact, and are now becoming more aware of it, surely the societal/political movements will continue to gather pace. is it just a matter of how well the social media companies can manipulate politicians/general populations perceptions of their own lives to prevent any kind of change? to me a huge shift feels crucial and inevitable, but i know this perspective isn't common amongst my friends, especially those out of tech

mouselett 2y ago

I just started reading the book this morning. I go to Hacker News and this is the top post. Either I have a third eye, or this is nothing more than a coincidence. This is also my first comment here, so apologies if I accidentally break a site rule.

layer8 2y ago
You can take a guess on the average frequency that this currently #8 bestselling book on Amazon is getting picked up by an HN reader.

RVuRnvbM2e 2y ago

[flagged]

supportengineer 2y ago
I know a number of people who choose not to pay attention to this world, specifically for the benefit of their mental health.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Like Cypher said while enjoying that juicy Matrix generated steak: "Ignorance is bliss".
- electrodank 2y ago
  That “attention to the market dynamics debt” will catch up to them, just as it has caught up to all the working adults who are unable to afford living expenses in their cities because they spent their 20s partying rather than investing and looking to get ahead/stay ahead of these things. Anyone in their 30s saying “I’d like to have children but I can’t afford it” has been asleep at the wheel of a global change that has been unfolding in a relatively obvious way. I’m not saying it’s good or bad - everyone’s free to make their own life choices, I’m saying it is what it is and TANSTAAFL.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    There's some survivorship bias in that. Not every adult who gave up partying and focused on career and investing, ended up very well off. Sometimes it just doesn't work out and then you sacrificed the most fun years of your life for nothing leaving you depressed and unhappy. Not saying you should or shouldn't, I'm saying while there's no free lunch there's also no guaranteed lunch big either. For example here in socialist parts of Western Europe working hard is a scam since you don't end up more wealthy than those who just coast and do the bare minimum expecting the state to provide for them while you'll be the one paying for it with more taxes. Sometimes a simple and fun life with less money can be more rewarding than a life of stress and money

paulpauper 2y ago

"kids are overcoddled yet exposed to potentially harmful content with smartphones" which is it then?

crummy 2y ago
Overcoddled in the physical world.
- paulpauper 2y ago
  it's more like 'kids should do and believe what i want them to' if he were being honest. the smartphone is irrelevant
  - crummy 2y ago
    That seems like the opposite of what he's suggesting? I think he's saying that, in the physical world at least, kids should do and believe whatever they want, independently from their parents.

SnorkelTan 2y ago

I also remember reading somewhere the frequency of mass shootings pre-2008-2010 decreased dramatically with the rise of social media. Right around the time Facebook use became ubiquitous. I was trying to find the source, but couldn't. I think it was a graph from Wikipedia.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

As a parent, I have some mixed feelings about this. I absolutely want my kid to be independent and self-reliant ( and so far, unfortunately, I seem to be getting my wish ), but a lot depends on the kid you have. For example, mine is way too trusting towards strangers ( the way I used to be I suppose ) so I need to correct for that. As for school and academia, doesn't it ( with exceptions in actual science ) select for conformity and obedience? It was already pretty bad when I finishing my MBA so I have no idea how bad it has gotten.

dlivingston 2y ago
> mine is way too trusting towards strangers ( the way I used to be I suppose ) so I need to correct for that. Why does it need to be corrected? Most people are decent and trustworthy. Odds of something nefarious happening are extremely low.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  I will paraphrase a truism: statistics are irrelevant to the affected individual. Looking back at my own childhood, I recognize that things could have turned out very differently partially because I was fairly free range. But lets say that I buy that world-view ( I don't ). How would you define odds of something nefarious happening? I am asking as we are already experiencing a heavy dose of 'do not trust your eyes and ears -- everything is awesome.. on paper'. I might be setting you up a bit, but I am genuinely curious how you perceive the current situation.

croemer 2y ago

I'm critical of Jonathan Haidt for a few reasons: 1. He's presenting himself as an expert on a topic far from his research expertise. His background per Wikipedia: "Haidt's main scientific contributions come from the psychological field of moral foundations theory, which attempts to explain the evolutionary origins of human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, gut feelings rather than logic and reason." This has nothing to do with developmental and clinical psychology/psychiatry. He's way out of his depth here. 2. He's part of the "intellectual dark web", a group of people who seek out fame with a particular audience niche, and prioritize that over truth. 3. I feel he's trying to please the audience and get out bestsellers, making the same mistakes he accuses others of making, e.g. lack of scientific rigor/open mindedness. Example: maybe Smartphones aren't that bad. Sure, they have a big impact, but it could be positive and negative. To make the book a bestseller, it pays to focus on the negatives.

paulpauper 2y ago
the evidence he cites is weak. it goes back only 12 years is not long enough to establish causality
adamors 2y ago
But he is presenting his arguments based on research data, not just pulling stuff out of nowhere. I have the book and started reading it, so far it doesn’t seem farfetched or made up at all, he does cite his sources.
- croemer 2y ago
  Is he though? I haven't read the book, but the blog provides very bad arguments based on fallacies. Maybe it misrepresents the book. I don't know. But it's clear that this is not Prof Haidt's topic of expertise as a scientist. In scientific questions I would want a review on the question of impact of social media on mental health to be done by an expert on teen mental health. Not a socially conservative moral philosopher turned bestseller popsci author.
dingnuts 2y ago
Of all its "members", Jon Haidt was the least voluntarily grouped in with the rest of the IDW. If he was ever a member -- not that that should be damning -- it wouldve been nearly a decade ago. The IDW has not been relevant for half a decadd. He's also a bog standard Progressive politically. Also, his focus is on human social relationships and how they affect society. The article is well within his realm of experise. You are just attacking a man dedicated to promoting peace and well being in personal and intrasocietal relationships because you clearly have a political axe to grind -- and you dont even have the right target.

croemer 2y ago

> In those days, you'd be spending too much time in front of your screen, and the worst that could happen was you'd worsen your eyesight, end up somewhat socially inept, or even get a job in the industry once you grew up. Social ineptness of nerds is not because they spend time in front of computers. It's much more the other way round: those with a predisposition to ineptitude like computers. Is there any _scientific_ evidence rather than folklore/gut feeling backing up the sentence above?

croemer 2y ago
I love academics complaining about lack of free speech while exercising said right. They seem to confuse right to free speech with freedom from criticism.
- jjoonathan 2y ago
  Academics? Almost all of the free speech complaints I see these days come from the right, from people who would feel insulted if you called them an academic.
  - croemer 2y ago
    How do you define academic? For me it's essentially a synonym of a research scientist at a university. And that definition clearly fits Haidt. >Jonathan David Haidt is an American social psychologist and author. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business. Also, the title makes it obvious that he is no expert on mental illness. He's a business school professor.
ffsm8 2y ago
Both are probably creating an anti-synergy in this scenario. The person that's socially inept will likely spend more time alone/with their PC then if this outlet didn't exist, and that will inevitable further hamper their social skills
RVuRnvbM2e 2y ago
Developing social skills just takes motivation and practice. This is well established. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28054797/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28054797/

reify 2y ago

I totally agree. I have seen the changes working with children for over 20 years. The mass media have a huge impact on parent's over protection of their children. The media claims, which are untrue, that we live in a society with a rapist, a child abductor and paedophile in every street will no doubtedly have a chilling effect on parenting. Schools also play a massive role in this by perpetuating this myth. Every school in Surrey UK where I live have huge 8-10 feet high fences all around the school to prevent unwanted innocent passersby looking at the children playing and more scarily, to prevent those rapists, child abductors and paedophiles living in every street from entering the school grounds. Children are living in prisons, constantly monitored by CCTV. The panopticon designs of the buildings and environment. What does this say to the children living in this protected environment? It says; this is a very frightening place to be, there are dangerous predators who might abduct you. No wonder then that children are presenting with acute anxiety disorders. This is most probably why parents allow their children to have carte blache when it comes to internet access. When I was a child in the 60's I roamed the streets from morning until night. I went home when I got hungry. Most children I knew had the same experience. Are there more paedophiles living in the world today compared to 100 years ago? I doubt it. One very strange phenomenon is that 95% of all child abuse happens in the family home by close family members and not by some stranger lurking in the shadows.

ozarker 2y ago
Look at the sex offender registry in your area
- tavavex 2y ago
  I can't, and that's a good thing. The US having criminal records that can be accessed by anyone is very strange, and something that no other first-world country (that I know of) does to this extent. What purpose does it serve? To absolutely guarantee that people who already served their punishment can never re-integrate into society? To act as Google Search for socially acceptable murder targets for anyone who's inclined? Were Americans actually at a greater danger before the internet because they lacked this information?

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

> One of these forces is unfettered access to social media. I think we should reframe this to make it a bit more clear who the enemy is: We're allowing ad companies unfettered access to our kids. It's not communicating with their friends that's a problem, it's using a medium that is incentivized to encourage poor dopamine hygiene. These platforms are designed to harm their users because unhealthy users are more profitable than healthy users.

silverquiet 2y ago
Too many peoples' salaries here depend on them not understanding that. The most prestigious jobs here are often considered to be FAANG, two of which are the biggest ad companies on the planet. It's just depressing really.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  There are others that wouldn't take a FAANG job on principle. We may not be a majority, but there are more of us here than there are anywhere else.
hackinthebochs 2y ago
Ads aren't the problem. Ad companies go out of their way to ensure their ads don't exceed the cultural average in terms of content and messaging. The problem with social media is the content kids are being fed. Communicating with their friends isn't the problem, its that they are consuming content not just from their friends, and their friends are also being influenced by content outside of their social bubble. It's the wide connectivity and the foreign ideologies that come with it.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  I think it's more specific than that. You're right that the advertiser using the platform to target an ad isn't exclusively problematic. Also problematic is the person who uses the platform in a targeted way to shape the global narrative according to some agenda they have. There's something antisocial about seeking influence over people who don't know you. In some sense perhaps the attention economy that arises from this scenario is inescapable. But we have a lot of gray area between whether we make it something to be encouraged or whether we make it something to be mitigated. If I had kids, I'd rather they use social media that aims to connect people with their friends without giving anyone a megaphone or a lever to influence the big picture narratives in flux at any given moment. As far as I'm aware, such media are in short supply. And as software folk it is we who should be doing the supplying.

superkuh 2y ago

If it were 1900 they'd blame newspapers for "damaging" kids. If it were 1930 they'd blame radio. If it were 1950 it'd be television. If it were 1980 it'd be video games. What all of these have in common is being completely bogus.

jjoonathan 2y ago
If it were 400BCE they'd blame writing this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves - Plato, quoting Socrates
bbarn 2y ago
I don't think this is quite the same. Newspapers were largely uninteresting to kids, and if anything would have helped literacy at that time which was still a struggle. Early radio and TVs were often family bonding time, as households had only one. Video games kickstarted computer literacy for an entire generation. This is a targeted exploitation-driven market now that has been so much more refined by technology that it's beyond addictive. It's also targeted in a way none of those other things could have been to a specific individual to double down on that.
- superkuh 2y ago
  >beyond addictive No, it's not addictive. That word has a meaning and it does not apply to this context. The DSM V has addressed the "social media" and "video game" concepts re: addiction with committees multiple times and every time it's very clear from the science: there is no addiction. And no, personal anecdotes do not overturn this. You might use the word "disorder" like the DSM V's grandfathered in "gambling disorder". But it is not an addiction. The idea of "addiction" in the context of stimuli from screens and speakers is a meme with no more basis than slenderman. Huge popular awareness but completely made up.

tasty_freeze 2y ago

I'm not hiding anything by saying I'm on the left of the political spectrum. There is always a danger when criticizing aspects of capitalism that I don't understand capitalism or hate America, or want to live under communism. Anyway... It irks me endlessly that many of the complaints about how the world is turning to crap has, at its root, capitalism. You think movies and TV are peddling filth? It sells. Think social media is corrupting our minds with disinformation? They are making lots of money at it. The news is constantly pushing stories about you you and/or your kids are in peril. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying we need to get rid of capitalism. My point is look at the root causes and incentives, rather than blaming weak-minded liberals for having an agenda to ruin the country.

electrodank 2y ago
You’re saying the purpose of a system is what it does. We can all agree to that. Now what?
- tasty_freeze 2y ago
  You turned what I said into a mindless tautology. That isn't advancing the conversation. Can you restate your point more constructively such that I can respond to it?
literallycancer 2y ago
People's preferences are the root, not the mechanism used to satisfy them.

tarr11 2y ago

I am interested in how scientists can isolate the increase in mental health problems from the more sophisticated diagnoses that we have now. How do we know there is more mental health problems (a “bad” thing) vs more mental health problems are diagnosed and treated (a “good” thing)?

theGnuMe 2y ago
What do you mean by "more sophisticated diagnoses"?

wellthisisgreat 2y ago

My god seeing “kids are X these days” narrative on HN as anything but as an object of ridicule is upsetting

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

srid 2y ago

Safetyism in particular is the main culprit: From "How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?": https://archive.ph/jVOl3 https://archive.ph/jVOl3 > In a book entitled “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Mr Lukianoff and a social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, posit that overprotective parenting in the shadow of the war on terrorism and the great recession led to “safetyism”, a belief that safety, including emotional safety, trumps all other practical and moral concerns. Its bounds grew to require disinviting disfavoured campus speakers (see chart 1), protesting about disagreeable readings and regulating the speech of fellow students.

cassepipe 2y ago

"No wonder academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method." I was interested by what I was reading until I came across this sentence which really put me off. I doubt that academia is the opposite of free speech and the scientific method. I am sure there is good criticism to be said about academia in your country but such broad statements serve no purpose and only signal ideology.