5 ms·

Idk what the point of research like is. I mean like, duh? I would be surprised if they claimed negative news DIDNT affect mental health struggles. Instead the

Idk what the point of research like is. I mean like, duh? I would be surprised if they claimed negative news DIDNT affect mental health struggles. Instead the far more interesting questions seems to be: in a world where negative news is becoming more common and prevalent, how do we face the reality of the world without destroying our own mental health in the process. The naive takeaway from this article would be "just stay away from negative news" which is even reinforced by this little plugin they made. But this simply accelerates the fragmentation we have seen in society, for how can you ever have empathy with others if you refuse to appreciate the suffering of anybody but yourself and what immediately affects you? Maybe instead of sticking our heads in the sand, we should be taking this as a wakeup call that us trying to solve these problems will help not just our planet, but our own mental health and will be necessary to have a healthy populace going into the future.

techfeathers 2y ago
I mean most research is trying to figure out things we think are intuitive, but I actually find it somewhat interestingly. It says negative content, not news, so I wonder how this compares to say heavy metal or horror movies where people may use negative offline content in a way that may help process negative emotions.
- MantisShrimp90 2y ago
  I mean, fair enough, I'll give you the point. Your point about the horror movies is a good perspective as well and as a philosophy graduate I love your reframing. But I also think we both know how most people are going to take this so it feels hard to revel in these fun, but small little questions.
  - techfeathers 2y ago
    I’m actually sort of interested in the contrast. I think you’re right, that it is sort of obvious that doomscrolling news is bad for mental health, and it’s a sad change.
lolinder 2y ago
> how can you ever have empathy with others if you refuse to appreciate the suffering of anybody but yourself and what immediately affects you? Anecdotally, I have not observed an increase in empathy from people who immerse themselves in negative news about faraway places. There's sometimes an increase in the performance of empathy—you'll see them bemoan the various crises, you'll see them wonder aloud how anyone can go about their lives while ${STUFF} is happening—but I haven't observed an increase in their ability to actually be empathetic to the perspectives and needs of people closer to home. If anything it's the opposite: the more immersed someone is in tragedies and crises on the other side of the planet, the more aggressive and thoughtless they are in response to hot topics locally. Instead of slowing down and developing empathy for those who disagree with them, they lash out. It's like being immersed in extreme crises they can't control causes them to perceive their local crises as more severe than they actually are and triggers fight or flight, which actually stands in the way of empathy.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Dunbar's Number[1] could potentially be playing a role. When you're already so preoccupied caring about people on the other side of the planet, you literally have no cares left to give around you. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
- MantisShrimp90 2y ago
  It's.... A nuanced and good point. What you are suggesting is that there is a locality dimension here which is interesting and probably points to an important consideration. Even the follow up insight about agency and that the problem is we feel less able to solve these things is good. But I think that an over-emphasis on local events makes one less able to understand and deal with the things in their own lives as well. It leads to a sort of purposeful ignorance where we don't want to learn what is going on in the world so we are surprised when the consequences become relevant to us. If you don't know whats going on in Ukraine, you're going to be confused when your local Ukrainian friend is upset because a family member got killed
Dalewyn 2y ago
>how do we face the reality of the world The same way humanity has always done it: Get out of your house/apartment and go for a walk. Talk with people actually in and around your life. Touch grass, as the youngsters these days like to say. Reality is the physical world immediately around you.
- MantisShrimp90 2y ago
  Walk that thought through to the end. Because it's become a popular sentiment even on this platform which is interesting. If what you're saying is true, the internet itself is toxic to mental health, and the only sane thing to do is to keep away from it at all costs, as you suggest. However, we are on a hacker news, an overwhelmingly technical message board. Are we all just modern poison pushers then? Is the very nature of what we do somehow toxic to the flourishing of human life? I don't think so. I want to see a more critical analysis of what in particular is driving mental health outcomes down. Don't mistake this for me saying there is nothing to do. I was in support of the ban on social media in schools for example. But as modern people who use technology regularly to live our lives, surely atleast we understand it is more nuanced than just "use the computer less"
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    The beauty and horror of the internet is that we can access all the information; the internet provides us information from everywhere. Meanwhile, there is scientific theory to suggest that our mental capacity to handle information is ultimately finite; for example, Dunbar's Number[1] and the Paradox of Choice[2]. This means unfettered use of the internet can lead to information overload. In addition, because information from the internet most likely concerns things far away[3], you quite literally have no fucks left to give to concerns local and actually relevant to you (see: Dunbar's Number[1]). The answer is, of course, the same as everything else we consume: In moderation. Use the internet in moderation. Too much internet is bad for you just like too much water or oxygen is bad for you. Stop doomscrolling through sensation after sensation and running your brain literally dry of mental fuel; instead, get out into your reality and live. Touch grass, because that grass is more relevant to you than whatever the fuck the Sensation Industrial Complex is peddling onto you via the internet. Kneejerking as you suggest ("keep away at all costs") is, well, kneejerking and doesn't actually look at the problem. >what in particular is driving mental health outcomes down. When you subject yourself to an endless onslaught of sensational negative "news", the logical conclusion is you end up depressed and mentally ill. You are what you consume, this includes non-tangibles like information. This has actually been pointed out since long before even the internet[4], because "journalism" has always preferred sensational hit pieces that pull on viewers/readers' emotional purse strings since they garner more revenue. The internet enabling easier distribution of and access to information simply exacerbated this problem. Good news isn't good business. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice [3]: War in Ukraine! Uprising in Syria! Oppression in China! Congress in turmoil! The EV revolution in Scandinavia! Here's what King Charles had for dinner! [4]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10001-if-you-don-t-read-the-newspaper-you-re-uninformed-if-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10001-if-you-don-t-read-the...
zakki 2y ago
I guess it happens because only small part of world population stay away from negative news. If most population stay away from negative news, I believe the news outlet will change their news tone.
- MantisShrimp90 2y ago
  An interesting point. Allot of ink has been spilled around whether or not we are inherently drawn to negative news or if the ecosystems themselves condition us to seek negative news. You're correct that if negative news was less profitable then they would push less. But that is exactly the problem is that the content itself just seems to attract more eyeballs and even those outlets that want to be better are stuck in the same engagement arms race as all the rest.
slumberlust 2y ago
> Idk what the point of research like is. I mean like, duh? I would be surprised if they claimed negative news DIDNT affect mental health struggles. It's still important to repeat and reaffirm studies. External factors are always changing and even if those factors were static, repeated studies strengthen the science.
- MantisShrimp90 2y ago
  Okay fine yes. The proper and disciplined answer spoken by someone who appreciates the act of conducting science. To make the point much more precise. From a philosophical perspective, while reaffirming existing knowledge is good and necessary for the continued advancement of scientific inquiry and the strengthening of knowledge of course, I would rather argue that the scope of the knowledge is too small. Scientists are so terrified of being accused of going out of bounds of what can easily and reproducibly be quantified, that they end up proving near tautology and it leaves one questioning if this was worth all the time and money for research. I guess I'm becoming a pragmatist as I age and feel a necessary part of knowledge is application. If scientific knowledge is not being used to improve the world, im not sure if it was worth the time and money. I know this isn't how universities see it. But I feel that while the authorities on knowledge have become ever-more timid in what they are willing to prove and say, grifters and intellectual charlatans take advantage of the gap and tell people all forms of pseudo-science and dogma which is eaten up by the public because there isn't really an authoritative story to counter many times.

techfeathers 2y ago

I mean most research is trying to figure out things we think are intuitive, but I actually find it somewhat interestingly. It says negative content, not news, so I wonder how this compares to say heavy metal or horror movies where people may use negative offline content in a way that may help process negative emotions.

MantisShrimp90 2y ago
I mean, fair enough, I'll give you the point. Your point about the horror movies is a good perspective as well and as a philosophy graduate I love your reframing. But I also think we both know how most people are going to take this so it feels hard to revel in these fun, but small little questions.
- techfeathers 2y ago
  I’m actually sort of interested in the contrast. I think you’re right, that it is sort of obvious that doomscrolling news is bad for mental health, and it’s a sad change.

lolinder 2y ago

> how can you ever have empathy with others if you refuse to appreciate the suffering of anybody but yourself and what immediately affects you? Anecdotally, I have not observed an increase in empathy from people who immerse themselves in negative news about faraway places. There's sometimes an increase in the performance of empathy—you'll see them bemoan the various crises, you'll see them wonder aloud how anyone can go about their lives while ${STUFF} is happening—but I haven't observed an increase in their ability to actually be empathetic to the perspectives and needs of people closer to home. If anything it's the opposite: the more immersed someone is in tragedies and crises on the other side of the planet, the more aggressive and thoughtless they are in response to hot topics locally. Instead of slowing down and developing empathy for those who disagree with them, they lash out. It's like being immersed in extreme crises they can't control causes them to perceive their local crises as more severe than they actually are and triggers fight or flight, which actually stands in the way of empathy.

Dalewyn 2y ago
Dunbar's Number[1] could potentially be playing a role. When you're already so preoccupied caring about people on the other side of the planet, you literally have no cares left to give around you. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
MantisShrimp90 2y ago
It's.... A nuanced and good point. What you are suggesting is that there is a locality dimension here which is interesting and probably points to an important consideration. Even the follow up insight about agency and that the problem is we feel less able to solve these things is good. But I think that an over-emphasis on local events makes one less able to understand and deal with the things in their own lives as well. It leads to a sort of purposeful ignorance where we don't want to learn what is going on in the world so we are surprised when the consequences become relevant to us. If you don't know whats going on in Ukraine, you're going to be confused when your local Ukrainian friend is upset because a family member got killed

Dalewyn 2y ago

>how do we face the reality of the world The same way humanity has always done it: Get out of your house/apartment and go for a walk. Talk with people actually in and around your life. Touch grass, as the youngsters these days like to say. Reality is the physical world immediately around you.

MantisShrimp90 2y ago
Walk that thought through to the end. Because it's become a popular sentiment even on this platform which is interesting. If what you're saying is true, the internet itself is toxic to mental health, and the only sane thing to do is to keep away from it at all costs, as you suggest. However, we are on a hacker news, an overwhelmingly technical message board. Are we all just modern poison pushers then? Is the very nature of what we do somehow toxic to the flourishing of human life? I don't think so. I want to see a more critical analysis of what in particular is driving mental health outcomes down. Don't mistake this for me saying there is nothing to do. I was in support of the ban on social media in schools for example. But as modern people who use technology regularly to live our lives, surely atleast we understand it is more nuanced than just "use the computer less"
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  The beauty and horror of the internet is that we can access all the information; the internet provides us information from everywhere. Meanwhile, there is scientific theory to suggest that our mental capacity to handle information is ultimately finite; for example, Dunbar's Number[1] and the Paradox of Choice[2]. This means unfettered use of the internet can lead to information overload. In addition, because information from the internet most likely concerns things far away[3], you quite literally have no fucks left to give to concerns local and actually relevant to you (see: Dunbar's Number[1]). The answer is, of course, the same as everything else we consume: In moderation. Use the internet in moderation. Too much internet is bad for you just like too much water or oxygen is bad for you. Stop doomscrolling through sensation after sensation and running your brain literally dry of mental fuel; instead, get out into your reality and live. Touch grass, because that grass is more relevant to you than whatever the fuck the Sensation Industrial Complex is peddling onto you via the internet. Kneejerking as you suggest ("keep away at all costs") is, well, kneejerking and doesn't actually look at the problem. >what in particular is driving mental health outcomes down. When you subject yourself to an endless onslaught of sensational negative "news", the logical conclusion is you end up depressed and mentally ill. You are what you consume, this includes non-tangibles like information. This has actually been pointed out since long before even the internet[4], because "journalism" has always preferred sensational hit pieces that pull on viewers/readers' emotional purse strings since they garner more revenue. The internet enabling easier distribution of and access to information simply exacerbated this problem. Good news isn't good business. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice [3]: War in Ukraine! Uprising in Syria! Oppression in China! Congress in turmoil! The EV revolution in Scandinavia! Here's what King Charles had for dinner! [4]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10001-if-you-don-t-read-the-newspaper-you-re-uninformed-if-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10001-if-you-don-t-read-the...

zakki 2y ago

I guess it happens because only small part of world population stay away from negative news. If most population stay away from negative news, I believe the news outlet will change their news tone.

MantisShrimp90 2y ago
An interesting point. Allot of ink has been spilled around whether or not we are inherently drawn to negative news or if the ecosystems themselves condition us to seek negative news. You're correct that if negative news was less profitable then they would push less. But that is exactly the problem is that the content itself just seems to attract more eyeballs and even those outlets that want to be better are stuck in the same engagement arms race as all the rest.

slumberlust 2y ago

> Idk what the point of research like is. I mean like, duh? I would be surprised if they claimed negative news DIDNT affect mental health struggles. It's still important to repeat and reaffirm studies. External factors are always changing and even if those factors were static, repeated studies strengthen the science.

MantisShrimp90 2y ago
Okay fine yes. The proper and disciplined answer spoken by someone who appreciates the act of conducting science. To make the point much more precise. From a philosophical perspective, while reaffirming existing knowledge is good and necessary for the continued advancement of scientific inquiry and the strengthening of knowledge of course, I would rather argue that the scope of the knowledge is too small. Scientists are so terrified of being accused of going out of bounds of what can easily and reproducibly be quantified, that they end up proving near tautology and it leaves one questioning if this was worth all the time and money for research. I guess I'm becoming a pragmatist as I age and feel a necessary part of knowledge is application. If scientific knowledge is not being used to improve the world, im not sure if it was worth the time and money. I know this isn't how universities see it. But I feel that while the authorities on knowledge have become ever-more timid in what they are willing to prove and say, grifters and intellectual charlatans take advantage of the gap and tell people all forms of pseudo-science and dogma which is eaten up by the public because there isn't really an authoritative story to counter many times.