If social media is uniquely beneficial to adolescents in marginalized communities, we might expect to see their rates of anxiety and depression increase less than those of other groups. But we don’t.
Sad to see the spikes across the board in 2020. That was the year lockdowns (not COVID) destroyed children's mental health and caused learning loss, which many have not recovered from. Never forget that Fauci, Weingarten, and Democrat teachers' unions kept schools closed in poor urban districts the longest, over a year after Sweden and Florida demonstrated schools could be opened safely.
Don't let them gaslight you. It would be interesting to see this adolescent depression data across length of school closures. Given the opening statements that liberals have worse mental health, it may be strongly correlated with areas that kept kids out of school the longest. DEI/ESG/HR commissars make education and healthcare cost more with worse results: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/fire-dei-esg-hr-commissar-administrative-bloat
And it’s pretty easy to figure out why liberals, as you suggest have worse mental health, they don’t have their heads in the sand. They understand science and climate change, they care greatly about all life other than themselves and our sustainable future. It is very depressing to watch 1/2 of the country support a possible leader who has absolutely no decent character nor integrity.
You have demonstrated the exact ways that leftists have buried their heads in the sand. "Science" is a weaponized word to follow leftist dogmas around fear. The data shows COVID had a 99.9%+ recovery rate for healthy children and CO2 has minimal effect on climate, which has always been changing. climate-related harm is at record lows thanks to advancements in technology driven by energy abundance through cheap fossil fuels. Big Pharma and ESG corporations thank you for your loyalty.
Don't believe your lying eyes. It is depressing to watch half the country support a president who is clearly senile and whose character includes wishing the unvaccinated a winter of death, lying about the vax stopping transmission, refusing to acknowledge the granddaughter that is son fathered with a stripper during his crack addictions, and escalating towards World War 3.
How are you defining vitriol? Facts that contradict your narrative? You stated non-liberals have their heads in the sand, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
The science of what Liberals and Conservatives care most about shows a curious reversal between them: arranged in concentric circles, Liberals say they care most about things that are furthest from their lives and over which they have the least control, like climate and "all life". Conservatives say they care the most about things closest to themselves like family, friends, & community, and the life nearest them that they can actually help in meaningful ways. I've noticed the truth of that science in my own life, both in my own behavior as a Conservative and how Liberals I've known cared to spend their time & thoughts.
Well we never dealt with & still don’t the rate of teen deaths in automobile accidents, so maybe we just don’t like dealing with things that may involve curtailing the economy and our selfish adult lifestyles.
Teens die disproportionately in car accidents in part because they lack experience, and partly because their brain's frontal lobes, which control things like judgement, don't finish developing until around 21. We could stop them from driving until they're 21, but they aren't going to like that not to mention it being economically crippling. And they still wouldn't have the driving experience, they'd just start getting it at a later age. Since by definition, all teens are being raised & supported by adults, how is that selfish? We pour our time, love, & money into them, and wisdom when they'll accept it.
A "blip"? 2 years of remote learning had a huge huge impact on mental health among many other things such as learning loss. Extended School closure was based on the stupid 6ft distance rule that now Fauci admits to not being rooted in science (the science 1/2 the country believes in btw). He couldn't even source that rule. so calling it a blip is almost the same as saying it didn't really happen.
The article seemed to be referencing a long period of time and looking for more than incidental, yes, short term, occurrences. Why can humans not look at our existence here for what it really is, a blip in the larger picture of the earths timeline.
I always feel like there's a huge piece variable that is ignored in the focus on social media and smart phones and the effects on teen mental health: What kind of content is being consumed, how does that content vary across different teen demographics, and are there any correlations with difference in mental health among these groups. For example, what do conservative or religious teens look at on Instagram and TikTok vs non-religious and liberal kids? Are the conservative boys following their favorite baseball or basketball players and using social media to keep up with scores, trades, and recruiting? How does this compare to girls who follow accounts constantly talking about the failings and injustices of the world and Instagram therapists telling them everything is a symptom of trauma and adhd? Or an LGBT youth following accounts that are telling them just the opposite of all the improvements being made for them, because good news gets fewer clicks and less revenue than fear and anger. For an in-depth look at what trans youth are consuming online in their communities and the negative mental health effects it could have, read Eliza Mondegreen's substack.
Another piece of this is porn consumption. LGBT youth have higher rates of porn consumption (I think the highest of all groups of teens measured if I'm reading the article below correctly) yet somehow, just like with social media, high rates of porn consumption for this demographic is somehow supposed to have a positive effect despite the mental health numbers not reflecting that and the negative effects it has on every other teen demographic.
This is such an interesting question to me too. For example, Tumblr obviously has serious faults and its own toxicity but if you are good about cultivating your dash (who you follow) and don’t hesitate to unfollow or even block people who are posting stuff you don’t like, it does have its positives. (Things also got better after the porn ban a few years ago, despite the meltdowns.) I flatter myself that I’m pretty good about blocking out the toxicity and utterly bizarre takes, and stay for the art posting and classic literature meta while laughing at the Christian in-jokes, but I’m in my twenties. It’s more difficult to ask for discretion from teenagers.
(And don’t get me wrong, there are some truly strange ideas that are developed by people who are terminally online… as there is for many other platforms. I usually just block weirdos (and the bots, ugh).)
Anyways my point here is that yeah, I do think there is some aspect of nuance missing in what exactly is the type of content the person is looking at or interested in. But it’s very difficult to be on a social media site and be completely removed from harmful content.
An observation from a parent on the front lines. When I read that LGBT teens were positively impacted by social media in contrast to other groups, I immediately realized that statistic is not as it seems. Many people not close to this issue, who haven’t seen it with their own eyes, believe the usually unspoken assumption that anyone who identifies as transgender has some kind of immutable internal unobservable characteristic that makes them that way. In recent years there has been a lot of evidence that this is not so - an over 5000% increase in natal girls seeking transgender medicalization in the U.K. over a ten year period, the fact that over 40% of those have been diagnosed with autism, and the almost complete reversal of the demographics, from nearly all natal males to approximately 80% females. Inborn characteristics don’t behave that way. Take a look at social media sites like Tumblr and you can see that there are people who, for whatever reason, are targeting vulnerable young people and convincing them that the answer to all their problems is that they were born in the wrong body. In some cases there may also be kids who identify as gay or “queer” (however you define that) who may not actually be same-sex attracted but are being influenced by this community. Of course these kids will say that social media improved their lives, even as their mental health has observably deteriorated since the discovery of their new identity. You can’t rely on self-reported answers from people who are actively under the influence of a cult-like community. I assure you my daughter would tell you how great social media is and how it connected her with others like her and helped her find her true self. As her parent I watched her go from a happy, confident, friendly, hard-working, academically successful girl to a depressed, friendless, family-hating, self-harming, academically failing, political rhetoric-spewing, victimized, “gay boy”, under the influence of social media. I am not aware of a single young person who spent significant time on Tumblr who did not eventually decide they were transgender or non-binary. Not one. So I reject the notion that social media is uniquely positive for LGBT youth. Many of them are not actually same-sex attracted and would not identify as LGBT if it weren’t for social media. I am aware this is a controversial opinion but I urge you to keep an open mind and listen to someone who used to think much as you probably do, but whose eyes have been opened to the true nature of this after watching it unfold before my eyes. It’s not what you’ve been told.
Well idk looks like your no better. You insinuated that Republicans have their head in the sand by saying Democrats don't and then insinuated that Republicans don't understand science by saying Democrats do. Call me crazy but I would consider that a little "vitriol"
I look forward to the day we no longer debate whether social media is a replacement for a vibrant childhood with engaged friendships and physical activity and sufficient rest. (Didn't we once believe cigarettes were good for digestion?) I'm more interested in how we've let the soil many modern kids are rooted in lack the nutrients they need to grow. Too many are withering like neglected houseplants - yes social media gives off light but its artificial light.
As someone raised in an extremely rural area slow to get connectivity, it wasn’t all koolaid & skittles even back then. I believe there were still similar issues surrounding childhood and just as many as there are now. I believe it was just a matter of suicide not really being an option in most kids minds. It happened, but the stigma and repercussions to family kept it in check until we went off to college. Several kids I grew up with in the 70’s finally pulled the switch after high school.
Isn't is Ginny? I currently live in a National Scenic Area in the Pacific Northwest and did a gorgeous Sunday morning hike a few hours ago with incredible vistas of the Columbia River, wild flowers and bald eagles. So many of the couples that I passed were both on their phones while hiking and not looking at the beauty around them let alone connecting with each other. #insidious
That sounds like a gorgeous hike. I took my kids and dog out this morning for a walk along the creek, skipped rocks, listened to hawks, left the phone in the car. It’s a luxury to unplug.
I’ve encountered that a lot on my nature walks, too, folks with their eyes glued to a screen. Kudos to them for getting outside, at least…? Baby steps.
Your ideal of a “vibrant childhood with engaged friendships, physical activity and sufficient rest” is a fantasy. Social media isn’t replacing it - it was already gone, if it ever existed outside of the movies. Social media has replaced watching television all afternoon.
I have been reading a very insightful book called Exurbia Now by David Masciotra. He describes the loss of play-centered childhood as a three act tragedy. Act I started in the 60’s with the gradual loss of local community due in large part to the wide spread use of TV for entertainment which led to less social interaction and a loss of trust, since we didn’t really know our neighbors anymore. Act II really took off in the 90’s when we began “locking up” our children out of irrational fears that something “bad” would happen to them. This coincided with even more ways for children to be entertained in isolation: personal computers, video games, and the internet. Act III began in 2010 with the arrival of the phone-based childhood: smartphones, high speed internet, and highly addictive social media. I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s and roamed the neighborhood with the pack, but I also spent plenty of time watching TV. I had a great childhood. I had my daughters in the 90’s and although I wanted them to have the same experience I had as a child, it just wasn’t possible. There was no pack. Parents weren’t letting their kids roam freely anymore. Well, there were some boys in our neighborhood who were allowed to roam, but girls? No way! We’ve raised our girls to fear the outside. We just wanted to keep them safe, but did we do the right thing? I’m not going to put the entire blame on social media for the rise in depression, anxiety and suicide, although I don’t like it very much. It has filled a void of our own making.
I personally know kids with that life and I was lucky to have it as a child and now have it as an adult - it isn't a total fantasy but it has become less common than ever.
You’re mixing individual experiences with broad social trends. Yes, some kids in the 70s, 80s, and 90s grew up with a community of friends, pickup baseball in the vacant lot, and attentive parents. There are kids today who have that (if we substitute organized sports for pickup games). But don’t forget that plenty of kids back then grew up in front of the TV, just like plenty of kids today are glued to social media.
I agree Caroline - I got stuck on your description of that childhood as a fantasy as it does exist just not broadly. (As I sit here in my small rural town I just watched a half dozen tween boys walk past my house with baseball gear heading for the little league field to practice/play.) They don't know how good they have it.
Yes, I see how my word choice distracted from the main point, which is that I don’t think any serious person is arguing that a phone-centered childhood is better than an in-person-play-based childhood. It’s more that the free play childhood had already disappeared when parents became gripped with abduction fears (~80s/90s). Smartphones and social media came on the scene after that. Now, school and extracurriculars and everything else are all structured around the assumption that your child has access to a smartphone, so it’s nearly impossible to prohibit access outright, and once access is granted, it’s very hard to meter usage. So for most of us, the alternative to “social media childhood” isn’t an idyllic, frolic-in-the-woods childhood, but a “sit in the apartment alone because you’re cut off from modern communication” childhood.
Why no data on adults or people in other countries?
I would expect trends to reflect, first and foremost: how often, how intensively their purported mental health is assessed. A psychiatrist friend from college told me decades ago in her opinion, her colleagues': Generalized Anxiety Disorder could be diagnosed in over 2/3 of our population. If you cannot soundly dispute this, your entire agenda crumbles to bits IMO. Or worse.
"It seems unlikely that the negative impacts of Trump’s presidency on Black or Hispanic Americans are the cause, given the increases began around 2012 when Obama was about to be elected to a second term."
The way that sentence is phrased implies that "negative impacts" on Blacks & Hispanics due to the Trump presidency are a given. Yet unemployment for both races reached historic lows under Trump, and as they realize today how much better things were under his admin than since, polls are showing them switching to supporting Trump in massive numbers. Therefore that sentence begs an explanation to demonstrate that it's more than just a kneejerk Liberal assumption.
Today's youth has been 'taught' since early ages how bad this country is and that they are victim of intolerance by whomever is in any position of authority - with the exception of teachers. The constant drumbeat of negativism has got to impact young people of all communities.
While all the sub population analysis does seem to support the conclusion that depression increased for all young people regardless of demographic characteristics. However, the graph comparing LGB to straight youth is curious. LGB youth have much higher rates of depression than straight youth, moreover it rose steadily over the period. But the graph seems to show straight youth depression rising and than flattening. Is this an artifact of how the graph is designed or does this suggest that whatever was driving the rise in depression affected LGB youth much more than straight youth? Given this if we controlled for sexual orientation how would that affect the other demographic analyses?
I think Figure 6 is incorrect, YRBS data per sexual contacts indicates it should be great increases 2017->2019->2021 for all subgroups. Twenge said she'll look into it once back from traveling, so there may be a correction.
The correction would not change the conclusion, in fact the corrected data would support it much better as far as I can see.
"It seems unlikely that the negative impacts of Trump’s presidency on Black or Hispanic Americans are the cause..." Could you specify which negative aspects? This is a scientific article. Why would you make overt political statements with zero evidence to back them up? "Everybody knows Orange Man Bad," is not a valid argument.
Yes, I believe all these startling statistics about social media and teen depression. Here is a question: Is anyone studying the impact of messaging apps (texting, group texting apps, WhatsApp, GroupMe, etc)? How are these smartphone features affecting teenage depression? My own children don’t spend as much time in person with friends (partially because of geographical distance) but they are all on group chats and messages. These seem to be helpful - especially given that we have moved across the country in the last five years. Are messaging apps helpful or harmful? Is anyone studying that? What are they saying?
You should be able to observe in your own personal life and make a change. I can tell you that face to face communication is superior to communicating through text. It's better to have people in person than group chats, but also real life to have a variety of both.
At the end of The Anxious Geberation, Haidt references a substack article, “why were religious conservatives less affected by the great rewiring?” I have been unable to find said article. Can you direct me accordingly?
There is another reality facing all of us besides smartphones and social media, though these will accentuate the other reality. It is a rising awareness of living in a negative and frightening environment, or dystopia. Polls which reflect a loss of trust in society, its institutions, relationships, and the future are a reflection of this awareness.
Sad to see the spikes across the board in 2020. That was the year lockdowns (not COVID) destroyed children's mental health and caused learning loss, which many have not recovered from. Never forget that Fauci, Weingarten, and Democrat teachers' unions kept schools closed in poor urban districts the longest, over a year after Sweden and Florida demonstrated schools could be opened safely.
Don't let them gaslight you. It would be interesting to see this adolescent depression data across length of school closures. Given the opening statements that liberals have worse mental health, it may be strongly correlated with areas that kept kids out of school the longest. DEI/ESG/HR commissars make education and healthcare cost more with worse results: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/fire-dei-esg-hr-commissar-administrative-bloat
And it’s pretty easy to figure out why liberals, as you suggest have worse mental health, they don’t have their heads in the sand. They understand science and climate change, they care greatly about all life other than themselves and our sustainable future. It is very depressing to watch 1/2 of the country support a possible leader who has absolutely no decent character nor integrity.
You have demonstrated the exact ways that leftists have buried their heads in the sand. "Science" is a weaponized word to follow leftist dogmas around fear. The data shows COVID had a 99.9%+ recovery rate for healthy children and CO2 has minimal effect on climate, which has always been changing. climate-related harm is at record lows thanks to advancements in technology driven by energy abundance through cheap fossil fuels. Big Pharma and ESG corporations thank you for your loyalty.
Don't believe your lying eyes. It is depressing to watch half the country support a president who is clearly senile and whose character includes wishing the unvaccinated a winter of death, lying about the vax stopping transmission, refusing to acknowledge the granddaughter that is son fathered with a stripper during his crack addictions, and escalating towards World War 3.
Yep
I joined this forum because I thought the discussions would have less vitriol and more decency. I was obviously misinformed.
How are you defining vitriol? Facts that contradict your narrative? You stated non-liberals have their heads in the sand, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
The science of what Liberals and Conservatives care most about shows a curious reversal between them: arranged in concentric circles, Liberals say they care most about things that are furthest from their lives and over which they have the least control, like climate and "all life". Conservatives say they care the most about things closest to themselves like family, friends, & community, and the life nearest them that they can actually help in meaningful ways. I've noticed the truth of that science in my own life, both in my own behavior as a Conservative and how Liberals I've known cared to spend their time & thoughts.
Isn't that kind of thinking sorta turning the cart around backwards and then putting it before a horse with blinders.
Totally.
Well we never dealt with & still don’t the rate of teen deaths in automobile accidents, so maybe we just don’t like dealing with things that may involve curtailing the economy and our selfish adult lifestyles.
Teens die disproportionately in car accidents in part because they lack experience, and partly because their brain's frontal lobes, which control things like judgement, don't finish developing until around 21. We could stop them from driving until they're 21, but they aren't going to like that not to mention it being economically crippling. And they still wouldn't have the driving experience, they'd just start getting it at a later age. Since by definition, all teens are being raised & supported by adults, how is that selfish? We pour our time, love, & money into them, and wisdom when they'll accept it.
That is one blip that just extended already rapidly rising rates. Focus on the entire picture to find honest answers, not just political blame.
A "blip"? 2 years of remote learning had a huge huge impact on mental health among many other things such as learning loss. Extended School closure was based on the stupid 6ft distance rule that now Fauci admits to not being rooted in science (the science 1/2 the country believes in btw). He couldn't even source that rule. so calling it a blip is almost the same as saying it didn't really happen.
The article seemed to be referencing a long period of time and looking for more than incidental, yes, short term, occurrences. Why can humans not look at our existence here for what it really is, a blip in the larger picture of the earths timeline.
2020 showed a spike, not a blip.
I always feel like there's a huge piece variable that is ignored in the focus on social media and smart phones and the effects on teen mental health: What kind of content is being consumed, how does that content vary across different teen demographics, and are there any correlations with difference in mental health among these groups. For example, what do conservative or religious teens look at on Instagram and TikTok vs non-religious and liberal kids? Are the conservative boys following their favorite baseball or basketball players and using social media to keep up with scores, trades, and recruiting? How does this compare to girls who follow accounts constantly talking about the failings and injustices of the world and Instagram therapists telling them everything is a symptom of trauma and adhd? Or an LGBT youth following accounts that are telling them just the opposite of all the improvements being made for them, because good news gets fewer clicks and less revenue than fear and anger. For an in-depth look at what trans youth are consuming online in their communities and the negative mental health effects it could have, read Eliza Mondegreen's substack.
Another piece of this is porn consumption. LGBT youth have higher rates of porn consumption (I think the highest of all groups of teens measured if I'm reading the article below correctly) yet somehow, just like with social media, high rates of porn consumption for this demographic is somehow supposed to have a positive effect despite the mental health numbers not reflecting that and the negative effects it has on every other teen demographic.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/mental-health/3806794-most-teenagers-exposed-to-online-pornography-by-age-13-survey/mlite/?nxs-test=mlite
This is such an interesting question to me too. For example, Tumblr obviously has serious faults and its own toxicity but if you are good about cultivating your dash (who you follow) and don’t hesitate to unfollow or even block people who are posting stuff you don’t like, it does have its positives. (Things also got better after the porn ban a few years ago, despite the meltdowns.) I flatter myself that I’m pretty good about blocking out the toxicity and utterly bizarre takes, and stay for the art posting and classic literature meta while laughing at the Christian in-jokes, but I’m in my twenties. It’s more difficult to ask for discretion from teenagers.
(And don’t get me wrong, there are some truly strange ideas that are developed by people who are terminally online… as there is for many other platforms. I usually just block weirdos (and the bots, ugh).)
Anyways my point here is that yeah, I do think there is some aspect of nuance missing in what exactly is the type of content the person is looking at or interested in. But it’s very difficult to be on a social media site and be completely removed from harmful content.
An observation from a parent on the front lines. When I read that LGBT teens were positively impacted by social media in contrast to other groups, I immediately realized that statistic is not as it seems. Many people not close to this issue, who haven’t seen it with their own eyes, believe the usually unspoken assumption that anyone who identifies as transgender has some kind of immutable internal unobservable characteristic that makes them that way. In recent years there has been a lot of evidence that this is not so - an over 5000% increase in natal girls seeking transgender medicalization in the U.K. over a ten year period, the fact that over 40% of those have been diagnosed with autism, and the almost complete reversal of the demographics, from nearly all natal males to approximately 80% females. Inborn characteristics don’t behave that way. Take a look at social media sites like Tumblr and you can see that there are people who, for whatever reason, are targeting vulnerable young people and convincing them that the answer to all their problems is that they were born in the wrong body. In some cases there may also be kids who identify as gay or “queer” (however you define that) who may not actually be same-sex attracted but are being influenced by this community. Of course these kids will say that social media improved their lives, even as their mental health has observably deteriorated since the discovery of their new identity. You can’t rely on self-reported answers from people who are actively under the influence of a cult-like community. I assure you my daughter would tell you how great social media is and how it connected her with others like her and helped her find her true self. As her parent I watched her go from a happy, confident, friendly, hard-working, academically successful girl to a depressed, friendless, family-hating, self-harming, academically failing, political rhetoric-spewing, victimized, “gay boy”, under the influence of social media. I am not aware of a single young person who spent significant time on Tumblr who did not eventually decide they were transgender or non-binary. Not one. So I reject the notion that social media is uniquely positive for LGBT youth. Many of them are not actually same-sex attracted and would not identify as LGBT if it weren’t for social media. I am aware this is a controversial opinion but I urge you to keep an open mind and listen to someone who used to think much as you probably do, but whose eyes have been opened to the true nature of this after watching it unfold before my eyes. It’s not what you’ve been told.
🙏
Well idk looks like your no better. You insinuated that Republicans have their head in the sand by saying Democrats don't and then insinuated that Republicans don't understand science by saying Democrats do. Call me crazy but I would consider that a little "vitriol"
I look forward to the day we no longer debate whether social media is a replacement for a vibrant childhood with engaged friendships and physical activity and sufficient rest. (Didn't we once believe cigarettes were good for digestion?) I'm more interested in how we've let the soil many modern kids are rooted in lack the nutrients they need to grow. Too many are withering like neglected houseplants - yes social media gives off light but its artificial light.
As someone raised in an extremely rural area slow to get connectivity, it wasn’t all koolaid & skittles even back then. I believe there were still similar issues surrounding childhood and just as many as there are now. I believe it was just a matter of suicide not really being an option in most kids minds. It happened, but the stigma and repercussions to family kept it in check until we went off to college. Several kids I grew up with in the 70’s finally pulled the switch after high school.
Well said. As a millennial who grew up alongside the Internet becoming a more and more insidious presence, this concept is a no-brainer.
Isn't is Ginny? I currently live in a National Scenic Area in the Pacific Northwest and did a gorgeous Sunday morning hike a few hours ago with incredible vistas of the Columbia River, wild flowers and bald eagles. So many of the couples that I passed were both on their phones while hiking and not looking at the beauty around them let alone connecting with each other. #insidious
That sounds like a gorgeous hike. I took my kids and dog out this morning for a walk along the creek, skipped rocks, listened to hawks, left the phone in the car. It’s a luxury to unplug.
I’ve encountered that a lot on my nature walks, too, folks with their eyes glued to a screen. Kudos to them for getting outside, at least…? Baby steps.
Your ideal of a “vibrant childhood with engaged friendships, physical activity and sufficient rest” is a fantasy. Social media isn’t replacing it - it was already gone, if it ever existed outside of the movies. Social media has replaced watching television all afternoon.
I have been reading a very insightful book called Exurbia Now by David Masciotra. He describes the loss of play-centered childhood as a three act tragedy. Act I started in the 60’s with the gradual loss of local community due in large part to the wide spread use of TV for entertainment which led to less social interaction and a loss of trust, since we didn’t really know our neighbors anymore. Act II really took off in the 90’s when we began “locking up” our children out of irrational fears that something “bad” would happen to them. This coincided with even more ways for children to be entertained in isolation: personal computers, video games, and the internet. Act III began in 2010 with the arrival of the phone-based childhood: smartphones, high speed internet, and highly addictive social media. I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s and roamed the neighborhood with the pack, but I also spent plenty of time watching TV. I had a great childhood. I had my daughters in the 90’s and although I wanted them to have the same experience I had as a child, it just wasn’t possible. There was no pack. Parents weren’t letting their kids roam freely anymore. Well, there were some boys in our neighborhood who were allowed to roam, but girls? No way! We’ve raised our girls to fear the outside. We just wanted to keep them safe, but did we do the right thing? I’m not going to put the entire blame on social media for the rise in depression, anxiety and suicide, although I don’t like it very much. It has filled a void of our own making.
I personally know kids with that life and I was lucky to have it as a child and now have it as an adult - it isn't a total fantasy but it has become less common than ever.
You’re mixing individual experiences with broad social trends. Yes, some kids in the 70s, 80s, and 90s grew up with a community of friends, pickup baseball in the vacant lot, and attentive parents. There are kids today who have that (if we substitute organized sports for pickup games). But don’t forget that plenty of kids back then grew up in front of the TV, just like plenty of kids today are glued to social media.
I agree Caroline - I got stuck on your description of that childhood as a fantasy as it does exist just not broadly. (As I sit here in my small rural town I just watched a half dozen tween boys walk past my house with baseball gear heading for the little league field to practice/play.) They don't know how good they have it.
Yes, I see how my word choice distracted from the main point, which is that I don’t think any serious person is arguing that a phone-centered childhood is better than an in-person-play-based childhood. It’s more that the free play childhood had already disappeared when parents became gripped with abduction fears (~80s/90s). Smartphones and social media came on the scene after that. Now, school and extracurriculars and everything else are all structured around the assumption that your child has access to a smartphone, so it’s nearly impossible to prohibit access outright, and once access is granted, it’s very hard to meter usage. So for most of us, the alternative to “social media childhood” isn’t an idyllic, frolic-in-the-woods childhood, but a “sit in the apartment alone because you’re cut off from modern communication” childhood.
Why no data on adults or people in other countries?
I would expect trends to reflect, first and foremost: how often, how intensively their purported mental health is assessed. A psychiatrist friend from college told me decades ago in her opinion, her colleagues': Generalized Anxiety Disorder could be diagnosed in over 2/3 of our population. If you cannot soundly dispute this, your entire agenda crumbles to bits IMO. Or worse.
"It seems unlikely that the negative impacts of Trump’s presidency on Black or Hispanic Americans are the cause, given the increases began around 2012 when Obama was about to be elected to a second term."
The way that sentence is phrased implies that "negative impacts" on Blacks & Hispanics due to the Trump presidency are a given. Yet unemployment for both races reached historic lows under Trump, and as they realize today how much better things were under his admin than since, polls are showing them switching to supporting Trump in massive numbers. Therefore that sentence begs an explanation to demonstrate that it's more than just a kneejerk Liberal assumption.
Today's youth has been 'taught' since early ages how bad this country is and that they are victim of intolerance by whomever is in any position of authority - with the exception of teachers. The constant drumbeat of negativism has got to impact young people of all communities.
While all the sub population analysis does seem to support the conclusion that depression increased for all young people regardless of demographic characteristics. However, the graph comparing LGB to straight youth is curious. LGB youth have much higher rates of depression than straight youth, moreover it rose steadily over the period. But the graph seems to show straight youth depression rising and than flattening. Is this an artifact of how the graph is designed or does this suggest that whatever was driving the rise in depression affected LGB youth much more than straight youth? Given this if we controlled for sexual orientation how would that affect the other demographic analyses?
I think Figure 6 is incorrect, YRBS data per sexual contacts indicates it should be great increases 2017->2019->2021 for all subgroups. Twenge said she'll look into it once back from traveling, so there may be a correction.
The correction would not change the conclusion, in fact the corrected data would support it much better as far as I can see.
No demographic can withstand the effects of radiofrequency.
Social media addiction = wireless radiation
"It seems unlikely that the negative impacts of Trump’s presidency on Black or Hispanic Americans are the cause..." Could you specify which negative aspects? This is a scientific article. Why would you make overt political statements with zero evidence to back them up? "Everybody knows Orange Man Bad," is not a valid argument.
Yes, I believe all these startling statistics about social media and teen depression. Here is a question: Is anyone studying the impact of messaging apps (texting, group texting apps, WhatsApp, GroupMe, etc)? How are these smartphone features affecting teenage depression? My own children don’t spend as much time in person with friends (partially because of geographical distance) but they are all on group chats and messages. These seem to be helpful - especially given that we have moved across the country in the last five years. Are messaging apps helpful or harmful? Is anyone studying that? What are they saying?
You should be able to observe in your own personal life and make a change. I can tell you that face to face communication is superior to communicating through text. It's better to have people in person than group chats, but also real life to have a variety of both.
I wonder what accounts for the glaring disparity in depression rates between boys and girls. Somebody should ask a feminist about this.
At the end of The Anxious Geberation, Haidt references a substack article, “why were religious conservatives less affected by the great rewiring?” I have been unable to find said article. Can you direct me accordingly?
There is another reality facing all of us besides smartphones and social media, though these will accentuate the other reality. It is a rising awareness of living in a negative and frightening environment, or dystopia. Polls which reflect a loss of trust in society, its institutions, relationships, and the future are a reflection of this awareness.
Wow very interesting breakdown per groups 😮