Bravo! Thank you for your persistence on this topic.
I understand that it’s the nature of academia (and possibly also the nature of denial?), and that it is better to have more and more evidence, but part of me also rolls my eyes at your opponents in this debate. We’re not talking about marginal benefits of one formula brand vs another, we’re talking a Gutenberg level revolution in how we think and relate to the world and each other - and yet still some people play dumb and think it can’t possibly be a big deal. Thank you for having the patience to continue engaging the holdouts!
this argument—trying to convince people of the toxicity of smartphones + social media + constant internet access—reminds me most of when i was younger and trying to help some of my friends get over drug addiction.
you can almost see the brains squirming in any and every direction to avoid facing the truth!
I'm just grateful for 2 things that mattered in my life. 1. My boys (born in 1995 and 1998) never really got into social media. 2. I was able to do without and stay home with them 24/7 so I never felt guilty about saying no.
Same for me as a dad. My kids born 97 and 98, never saw social media as a thing and was very protective about their personal life. The where in to playing online games of course, bu they involved me, and we even played together. But I having a new family now, with a teen step daughter, and she's struggling, with Snap and Tik-Tok as a main factor, so the problem is indeed there. I was born 63 so long before mobile phones or internet... I have to say it was better, sorry!
I realize you didn't say this was your situation and maybe it isn't but what you say prompts the question of what's the tradeoff between minimizing social media and kids not having unsupervised time.
I wish I knew. I honestly don't. I knew you weren't talking about me, I just see a pattern in this area with kids. As a teenager before the rise of social media, I had a rough time, even as someone that didn't get picked on. I can't imagine the pressure these girls have now.
Software and smartphones are designed to be addictive -- the goal, as I understand it, is to increase usage. I've been meaning to fully read, "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products." This concept is slightly terrifying and based on psychology. Sadly, there wasn't foresight to see the negative consequences that this type of product development would have.
Those people tend to be like some of my family members. Both parents work full-time, are really tired when they get home, and feel guilty saying no. My two year old niece had some form of entertainment in her face by the time she was 2 years old. It's how they went to dinners, gatherings, and now how they entertain their children. It's probably really hard to solve this problem because when all the kids have it, how do we say no?
I think mental health providers on the frontlines would probably have a great deal to weigh in on this topic. The major downside is that anecdotal evidence is widely dismissed.
The book "Dopamine Nation" by Dr. Anna Lembke (a practicing psychiatrist) weighs in heavily on the correlation between social media and poor mental health. She would find absolutely nothing about this substack post surprising other than the fact that we're only just now waking up to the major issues at stake here.
I agree, I really want to see a compendium of qualitative takes from frontline mental health providers, so we can get a finer-grained understanding of what's going on.
This is a good idea. We are trying to compile as much research as possible — qualitative and quantitative. If you find any qualitative studies from mental health providers, please add them to our google doc. That would be of huge help
Summer camp seems like it could be less of an uphill battle than getting an entire school to go device-free. If it proves effective then the private sector can expand the program quickly in response to parent demand.
Plenty of people condemn Zuck. Condemning Zuck hasn't changed much. If we have a better understanding of the mechanism of harm, that may suggest other possible solutions beyond generic condemnation.
I think all research could be improved by considering the experiences and insights of practitioners. Some researchers do this via open review of study design, analysis and conclusions.
Its easier to accept the popular rebuttal from most of the media that this is all just conspiracy theory and get back to one's own personal life and it's challenges than to take a deep and serious look at the issues slowly eroding society. The meme of boiling frogs is most apt to what's been going on because it started out slow and light and once that first generation that was slightly dumbed down had kids those pushing this in public education increased the intensity with each successive generation. The ONLY reason they were exposed was because if covids forcing remote learning. This was a major miscalculation by those pushing it all from the dumbing down and sexual perversion of kids to the controlled demolition of the economy. We can thank covid for providing parents a look at what is actually going on at the schools.
At my kids' public school system, yes indeed the school district was promoting social media use by the kids. In around 2012 they actively recruited their own middle and high school students to subscribe to their new twitter page so they could get to 1,000 followers. And a brochure for parents they still use gives a green light designation to twitter instagram and facebook for social media platforms. And in 2017 there were at least 3 bomb threats made by young middle school students via twitter. And yet they still have that brochure available in the front office.
The word phrase "Social media' appears no where in the post. Since you don't seem to be aware of this, not everything that happens on the internet is social media. The various systems like zoom used for remote learning are not social media. Was every teacher using remote learning? Of ours not. Some taught in states that respected people rights and didn't try to self-imprison everyone via lockdowns. Yes some of it is parental related especially those parents who were the first millennials in that generation and who now have school aged kids. They were indoctrinated and b/c of that teh school can be more aggressively harmful towards those woke parents kids just as we see with drag queen story time where most parents are early millennials.
Yes it did start before covid. I only said covid and the use of remote learning exposed what was already going on.
To be precise, there was a rampant shift in depression and mental troubles starting in 2010. It definitely is a parental problem no matter which way you slice it, but Covid lockdowns definitely contributed to more kids online longer, a fear imposed at young ages for 3 years, and it has provided a good look into what wasn't happening at many schools, which was learning.
This is a very important topic and thank you Jon Haidt for covering it. But please don’t forget, in the first place, you need to educate yourself and not children. Kids should be kids. Most family problems are born in the parents mindset of not being ready to take on certain responsibilities that come with children. Start with yourself and your kids will be just fine! Good luck to everyone and be more attentive to your children, spend time with them and communicate! Ask about their experiences, and not only think about your own.
Yes, of course, I agree with you, the outside world also has an influence. But we need to be a good example for them so they can look at us and say, "Yes, that's the kind of person I want to be."
The writer Freddie deBoer has examined the trend of "mental health chic" in social media extensively. where influencers adopt a mental illness as a centrally defining characteristic and use that as the basis for attracting followers. His fear was that it not only romanticized mental illness but set up echo chambers that were ripe for the spread of social contagion. I have to wonder if there is a correlation between adverse mental health outcomes in girls versus the type of social media they are consuming.
There's certainly a pattern that I've noticed in clients who discuss their social media usage and MI as a kind of label to almost ... excuse (?) behaviors, rather than do the work. Often, they will refute there is a connection, which if you look at it from an addiction standpoint, denial makes sense. I don't know if there is a correlation difference between types of SMS, but there may be a trackable correlation of what is being currently discussed and determining increased reporting of the issue (depression on Facebook vs. anxiety on Instagram). Default Friend on Substack has written in regards to this topic overall.
deBoer observed that some users seemed to consider their mental illness to be a central component of their identity. The natural consequence I think is that it makes treatment problematic: is the "problem" with you or with society at large that seems intent on rejecting you?
From a technical standpoint monitoring what groups/sites/etc. are visited from a smart phone is a pretty trivial exercise. In a hypothetical trial would you see the same rates of depression/anxiety among "spoonies" versus Kpop fans? I can't help but wonder.
When absolutely every aspect of social capital and standing is now defined exclusively by “identity”, and mental illness is clearly being caused by participating in the dominant social arena, it’s so clear it’s painful.
(TLDR: exhibiting mental illness now defines “cool” for a major cohort.)
It is not only cool, it’s mandatory to exhibit some sort of mental illness/“trauma”/identification/whatever. Identity games have become so ingrained, especially in younger culture, they ironically have NO authentic identity.
They pick from the absurd “lunch menu” columns to construct today’s basket of descriptors. They’re so busy spinning around in their heads, they have no time, energy or ability to actually live in the world and develop an authentic personal truth.
Yes. They are all gazing at their own navels. How did we get here? Why so much self-centeredness and entitlement? I have my own theories, but what do others say?
I often think of what the Ukrainians are going through right now. I guarantee you Ukrainian teens aren’t sitting around choosing their pronoun of the day. IMO, American teens are relatively prosperous and entitled. They have the luxury of choosing from the buffet of identities and disorders and demanding accommodations and attention.
I also think, if you continue to dig deeper for a root cause, you will find the breakdown of the institutions that previously anchored young people and gave them meaning and a sense of belonging: family and church.
“Seemed to consider their mental illness to be a central component of their identity”. This is such an interesting point. If one identifies primarily by their mental illness, then there must be pressure not to overcome that illness. It reminds me of years-old anecdotes from people who were obese and then lost a great deal of weight. Not only did they struggle with no longer fulfilling the role of “the fat one” (who was often also “the funny one”) in their social circle but also were subtly rejected by their social circle for the same reason. One person’s identity change required a remapping of the relationships in the group, so there was definite pressure not to change.
I would tend to agree to your first point, and don't have much of an opinion on your second observation.
"...is the "problem" with you or with society at large that seems intent on rejecting you?"
That's a tough one to answer. I liken it to the adage about insanity doing the same thing over and over. Either you get to a point where you can't stand the situation that you're in any longer and come to the realization that something must change, or you don't and you stay stuck, perpetually.
The increase in mental disorders can also be attributed to the political and ideological indoctrination the public education system has been doing to kids instead of educating them. The human mind is designed to work in a logical way where up is up and down is down and 1+1=2. In order to follow the political ideology commonly referred to as woke requires one to maintain numerous conflicting and contradicting beliefs simultaneously and the mind is not designed to do that. Thus the indoctrination process can effectively break the minds of these young and impressionable kids who's minds are still developing. To deal with these conflicting beliefs the mind develops one or more disorders from depression to multiple personality. I fear we are looking at a dark future over the next few decades as a plurality if not more of these indoctrinated persons become adults who are incapable of being functionally productive persons and instead must be institutionalized lest they tear the system down for all of us
NOTE: I had to update several typos. Thank god there's an edit button b/c it seems no matter how hard you try to spell everything correctly auto-correct seems to have a passion for screwing with your words like changing "in" to "I'd". As I was typing this it changed " in " to " 'n " and I know it did this because the " ' " is no where near the " I " on the keyboard
Yes. I'm talking about conflicting beliefs where in one scenario the user believes A is true but in another A is false. Example: Only white people can be racist because racism requires power & privelge when the fact is that's not what racism is. In the racism example they've justified their conflicting belief about racism by adding the qualifier that racism requires power & privelge. It's not limited to just the woke either but for the woke it is a deeply rooted belief meaning they genuinely believe what they are saying where someone is a trialists knows they're making excuses. For as long as we've had political p[arties we've had trialists who call out corruption when the other party does X but if someone in their own party does X the trialists finds some way of excusing it. For the majority of the woke they really truly believe what they are saying.
Interesting point. Suggests there is almost a sort of "demand characteristic" in the responses to survey questions, as if the more socially desirable response is to indicate one has had emotional difficulties.. That, in turn, suggests that the trends reported by CDC, and relayed here by Haidt, are somewhat exaggerated. Not *illusory*, but perhaps less extreme than the line graphs convey. On the other hand, is imagined "me too" distress on the part of young women distressing to them, where worrying about emotional distress can *cause* emotional distress.
Maybe the self reported metrics are inflated but the increase in more dependable objective measures (suicides, hospitalization sure to self harm) are reason enough for deep concern.
So, just speaking from layman’s experience, 6-7 years ago (in college) I certainly noticed a bit of “the social desirability of being stressed out,” among my peers. At the same time, other more objective measures: suicides, the number of kids going to mental health counseling, people having breakdowns, panic attacks, etc. was also going through the roof. I think social desirability plays a role, but it’s probably only one of many factors.
It seems very plausible! I’m familiar with what he and Default Friend and others have written on the topic (although I haven’t read everything they’ve written). Seems like there might be two different variables: time on social media AND content/what is being done during that time. Each might have their own effect on mental health.
That would certainly make for an interesting read. I'm not a researcher, but if it could be designed, even if the outcome isn't what you think it might be, the results might be illuminating. I think the time on SMS has been documented to an extent -- increased rates would mean less time in real-world interaction. Wish I could find it now, but I remember reading a study that came out circa 2010-2011 about how increased usage of computers decreased the ability to read facial expressions accurately. We can only suppose what the effects are in the long-term at this point.
This article dropped just after I finished reading a book review of The Geography Of Madness on another substack and it made me wonder: what if this epidemic of mental disorders in the demographic most susceptible to social contagion is the result of social media amplifying the mental illness awareness and acceptance campaigns that have proliferated in the last few years?
Basically, knowledge of mental disorders might be an infohazard for many teenage girls and other susceptible people.
You bring up such an important point. I definitely believe there is much truth in this concept. I have many co workers and friends with daughters in the age range of 14-22. Over the past few years they have been telling me about how their daughters are constantly being asked about and assessed for mental health abnormalities throughout their regular daily life as a high school and college student. These frequent assessments and focus on psychological symptoms, now being referred to as mental illness of some sort or another , eventually convinces them that they indeed meet the diagnostic criteria for these illnesses. Next thing you know they have got themselves believing that they will be crippled by this and then can’t move forward with their life in a normal way. It just seems that completely normal developmental struggles are now medicalized and diagnosed as an illness.
Fascinating. I wonder if there's a feedback loop of increased awareness -> increased diagnosis -> increased awareness. Of course the psychologist profession is incentivized to turn a blind eye to any such feedback loop, since it increases demand for their services.
What I find missing from these discussions is the “content” of social media. If kids are being fed a toxic stew of bad ideas about themselves, others, and the nature of humans and society, perhaps the message is indeed at least as important as the medium.
Absolutely agree. That should be clear from the studies that included all screen time, not just social media. Yet those studies found no correlation between screen time and mental health issues.
Time spent interacting with any screen reduces social connectivity and increases isolation. Surely no one would claim that watching Netflix is generally a group activity. The correlation emerged only when the studies were specific to social media.
It’s the message, not the medium. Social media is reflecting underlying problems in our culture, not causing them.
Social media is certainly the problem, but its because of how ingrained adverse cultural trends are ON the platforms. Like he mentioned, seeing hyper tuned models living the good life on some yacht in Aruba had a bigger body image impact than just regular photos on instagram. The medium is only the problem BECAUSE it incentivizes people to tpost the most addicting content possible, to trap the youth onto their platforms and generate ad revenue. You'd be hard pressed to find a kid addicted to Khan Academy as compared to Youtube.
To elaborate on your point, the medium facilitates the messages. Like how Twitter fuels mob mentality — it's ingrained in the platform's design. Everything on that website encourages you to get sucked into the drama, because that's what keeps you on the app for longer and that's what makes Twitter money.
Andrew, I don’t disagree that the medium and the message are entangled together. But if it’s true that they can’t be disentangled, how can it be empirically proven that social media is the causal factor?
Clearly a blank page cannot be considered media. The blank page becomes a medium that can have an effect once something is written on it. We don’t claim that the existence of books causes societal problems (at least we didn’t used to!) But the words written in books can sometimes change the world.
I believe the simple maxim “Ideas have consequences” is the explanation for what we see happening in young people. It’s not the books, it’s what’s written in them.
I think a part of the problem is…human. It’s the immediate propulsion of an often thoughtless or cruel thought, image or message jettisoned to an entire school body, or to hundreds or thousands of anonymous consumers.
"perhaps the message is indeed at least as important as the medium."
There's another factor we should also consider (if we are going to be scientific about this) which is the mechanism. The explosion in mental health issues not only mirrors the explosion in social media/ smart phone use, but also the explosion in microwave radiation pollution from wifi, smartphones, cell towers etc.
To put it in perspective... for the entire history of the human race there was essentially zero microwave radiation. Microwaves are not native to planet Earth. Wireless technology using microwaves only became a consumer product around mid 90's and wifi only appeared around 2000. The real explosion in wifi and smartphones occurred around 2005 onwards. Teenagers today are the first generation in human history to have ever experienced this amount of microwave pollution and to have experienced it at such a young age - ie during their fragile developmental years. Young people (ie small people) are known to be more sensitive to microwaves, and females are more sensitive than males. All of this correlates very well with the studies on mental health declines.
Millions of NON-teens and NON-social media addicts also suffer terribly from depression, anxiety, mood swings, fatigue and brain fog as a result of prolonged exposure to wireless technology. Even cell tower installers report depression and moods swings from microwave exposure that is bad enough for them to leave the job. How much time do you think working class men in their 40's spend on Tik Tok or Instagram?
"Microwaves are not native to planet Earth" reveals a stunning lack of basic science. knowlege. "Microwave" just means electromagnetic radiation of a specified frequency. Only difference between MW and light is the wavelength, which corelates with the amount of energy the radiation carries. Short wavelengths (like gamma rays or even UV) can generally cause damage to living tissue because they are high energy. Long waves (radio and microwaves) have much less. Obviously, microwaves can cook things, but only at high field intensities and close exposure to the source. EM decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so we probably don't need to worry about cell towers, whereas I would use a headphone/earbud for the cell phone and not put any emitter of radiatiion close to my brain or heart.
""Microwave" just means electromagnetic radiation of a specified frequency."
Yes. There is no need to use the word 'just' though. Microwave frequencies are non-native to Earth (natural background levels are effectively zero) and they are toxic to biological life. And provably so. This makes sense given that biological life never evolved to handle them.
Studies going back to at least the 1970's show dozens if not hundreds of different ways microwaves disrupt normal biological function, from cognitive impairment to sperm damage to cancers to depression and anxiety to heart arrhythmias (all at levels well below thermal). Much of the early studies were carried out by the military. The only studies which show microwaves to be safe (or more accurately 'no evidence of harm') are the studies paid for by the wireless industry itself. And yes, the effect of wireless industry funding on study findings has been well studied and the results are predictable: you get what you pay for.
Thankfully, anyone can conduct their own experiments with ease. Even a simple live blood analysis under a cheap light microscope will show red blood cells ruined by exposure to ordinary wifi (blood stacking/ rouleux, bottlecapping, degraded and broken cell membranes etc). This finding alone should get wireless devices banned from all public spaces (and this is now starting to happen).
In dozens of countries wifi has already been removed from schools because it's making the children sick. The demise of wireless technology has already begun. At the same time the industry (and industry-loyal politicians and scientists) continue to claim it's safe and it's going to be the foundation for all infrastructure in the future (IoT, IoB). Meanwhile insurers won't touch wireless tech with a barge pole and the wireless industry warns its shareholders to brace for a tsunami of health related lawsuits.
The reason for this disconnect (no pun intended) is that the industry AND most consumers are still hopelessly addicted to the God-like powers that wireless tech offers them. Techy, nerdy types (they types to frequent online science forums and blogs etc) tend to be especially protective of wireless tech and in complete denial of the science.
And by 'science' I mean an accurate reflection of observable reality. Real world observations must always define scientific descriptions of reality. What you are trying to do is make reality conform to your scientific description of it, a description which we might call 'scientific dogma' but which is closer to 'wireless industry dogma'.
The wireless industry has ALWAYS known that microwaves are toxic. That's why they define 'safety' only in terms of thermal effects (which require excessive power), completely ignoring the dozens of non thermal biological effects which are caused at the lower power settings used by wireless devices and infrastructure.
The only way wireless tech can declare itself safe is to falsely claim there are no effects other than thermal, therefore all power settings below thermal must be safe by definition and there's no need to study their effects.
If you want to look at some of the non-thermal effects on humans and other biological life I included some links further down in this same thread in response to another commenter.
Sure thing ... let's start with some 'canaries in the coal mine'. Insects and birds can't be deluded or obsessed about wireless. Their rapid demise points to microwave poisoning. The evidence is beyond overwhelming at this stage (just read the first paper below). The fact that it is completely ignored or dismissed is also a big red flag. When you read these papers ask yourself why there is not even a peep from the media, environmental charities, politicians or celebrity environmentalists. Not even a "Hey guys, maybe we should look into this".... (this also applies to the effects on people too).
5G Cell Towers Cause Massive Insect Decline on the Greek island of Samos
Note how in the above study the storks that were nearest to cell towers laid no eggs, couldn't get it together to even build nests (they kept dropping sticks) and they spent most of the time either fighting with each other or staring blankly into space. That's basically modern society in a nutshell!
A German study finds 76% decline of insect biomass over the last 27 years (since consumer wireless devices became widespread). Significantly the study finds no links to climate or pesticides.
Here's a recent tribunal from the UK which ordered a school to remove wifi so a student could return to the classroom. It contains many links to scientific studies at the bottom (much easier than me linking them all here). Significantly the tribunal ruled against the UK health service which still insists wireless is safe. The ruling is also precedent setting. France has already banned wifi in primary schools. Many countries have also started to remove wifi from schools.
Here's a child testifying to the effects of school wifi. Note she mentions terrible anxiety (a common symptom) and that 7 doctors failing to diagnose her (doctors get zero training in EMF even though humans are just as much electrical beings as much as we are chemical beings). There are many testimonies like this floating about on the internet.
Here's a report by 16:9 on wifi in schools - very good journalism for a mainstream media channel (a rare exception). They also do a blind study showing heart palpitations. Note also in the YT comment section people reporting it gives them depression etc. A lot of the evidence for depression, anxiety etc is anecdotal because the scientific / medical community is still very much in denial and under the control of the wireless / telecoms industry. But there is just so much anecdotal evidence and all of it is consistent. The same story over and over...
Here's a tragic story of a schoolgirl who hanged herself after being forced to endure wifi. This article from 2015 is a perfect example of the arrogant and unscientific way mainstream science dismisses the topic by reflex action (although this is slowly changing as more cases are fought and won). What's maddening is that many of the arguments used to dismiss it are valid... yes, the mind can trigger phantom symptoms, yes, diagnosis is often complicated by multiple factors, yes, there are many charlatans out there promoting all sorts of bogus products and services. But the same is true for ANY medical condition. Children reporting EHS should neither be 'believed' OR 'dismissed'. They should just be taken seriously and tested scientifically.
Thank you! You are unique among researchers in taking a forceful stance and demonstrating that social media use truly is poisonous. I have witnessed first-hand how girls who have grown up in healthy homes, connected to nature, and a healthy sense of self, can fall into the abyss of depression and self harm because of the soul-killing endless scroll of fraudulent bodies and faces. Our daughter did not have a phone until she was 16 -and you point out clearly that abstinence amidst a sea of social media users can be just as isolating. We have found that there is hope for a healthy outcome, although it must be won by teenagers themselves. If group of committed teenagers reject this poison in unison, growing their real life relationships through face to face conversations, common physical activities, and time spent together outdoors, etc. they have a fighting chance to evade the harms that befall so many of their cohort. See my article "TikTok brain cure with three ingredients" for more .https://humanitasfamily.substack.com/p/tiktok-brain-cure-with-three-ingredients.
Good post, especially the point about how we should look beyond dose effects. One thought to add: "Boys are doing badly too, but their rates of depression and anxiety are not as high." But their rates of suicide are about four times as high, as are their rates of drug overdose. Women and girls are more likely to express distress in culturally recognized idioms of abnormality in need of treatment -- in traditional societies, spiritual possession, in modern societies, eating disorders, depression, etc. Males are more likely to turn straight to violence and reckless behavior.
This is a really important point, and it would have been more accurate to include the suicide and drug overdose stats as well, in tandem with rates of anxiety and depression.
Check out our Boys google doc, which we will be posting about soon.
Please comment: We would love your feedback and thoughts.
Agree, I would like to look at the boys data as well because boys clearly are struggling as much, if perhaps in different ways. Thanks Zach for adding that doc.
Thank you for pointing out the different suicide rates. The most recent data from the CDC in 2020 reported total suicides for females 15-24 years of age was 1,203 and for males 15-24 years of age was 4,859. Males had a suicide rate greater than four times the rate for female in the 15-24 year age group.
'Long-time listener, first-time caller'. Jonathan, I've been following your work on this topic for a few years now and regularly refer to your google docs to stay up to date on where this is. Commenting to say thank you for a couple of things:
1. Making the work you're doing so public, available to be scrutinised, and open to reactions and criticism. It must vastly improve the progress we make on this topic.
2. Showing progression in terms of how researchers who once stood on opposite sides of an issue are being drawn together because of objective views of the data. (Would love to know if Andy P is moving in your direction too, as Amy Orben appears to be.)
3. While I'm a (lapsed) academic researcher, I love how gently you guide readers through the literature review you've done in a way that makes everything so accessible and understandable.
There is so much work involved in what you're doing. Your methodical, analytical, scientific approach without hyperbole is so very much appreciated.
Would love to see you address they 'why' around this (my bias is along a self-determination theory perspective, where social media provides a thin level of need satisfaction - in the same way pringles provide a thin level of hunger satisfaction), and also what parents can do while we wait/agitate for change at a policy level (that may never come).
I would like to second all the sentiments of this post in thanking JH for a presentation that is both rigorous and accessible - at least to academics. My first impulse was to share this with some friends and family so they could see what quantitative methodology in the social sciences looks like - so they understand me better! But I hesitate. I realized from the essay the critical importance of science journalism and look forward to how it’s covered.
We know that, over the past 150 years since anyone began tracking it, that age at menarche has been declining. It occurs earlier in developed nations than developing ones, and within nations earlier among those in higher socioeconomic groups than lower ones, leading many to infer that it is connected to nutritional levels. But reaching some milestone in physical maturity is not equivalent to reaching psychological milestones. One has to wonder if there are synergistic effects of aggregate nudging towards earlier maturation and whatever impact electronic media may have on the developing young adolescent and tween. Despite a number of happy years in limbic function research, I prefer not to view physical maturation or hormones as a "cause" of anything. Rather, they provide a context within which social experience is framed/perceived by the individual and those around them. If your body and your phone "tells" you you're older than you feel and are ready for, that has to be unsettling. No less so than having a baby at 17, or having a health issue force you to retire at 53.
Pick up any textbook on adolescent development and you can see the graph charting the steady decrease in age at menarche (first tracked in Scandinavian countries). I would expect it has pretty much reach asymptote by now, and that we won't end up seeing Grade 2 girls needing pads, so it's not "frightening". But we tend to overlook how things have changed over the last century or so and mistake how things are now with how they have always been. Handheld instant communication devices aren't the only things that have changed since our great-great-grandparents' time.
Feb 22, 2023·edited Feb 22, 2023Liked by Jon Haidt
Here's an interesting quantitative connection: If causal, the r=0.2 correlation in Orben & Przybylski's own data would *fully explain* explain the 50% increase in teen girl depression. You can see that with some back-of-the envelope calculations and the simplest possible assumptions https://chris-said.io/2022/05/10/social-media-and-teen-depression/. Unfortunately, many social scientists haven't made that quantitative connection and continue to view those correlations as "small".
Of course, the correlation may not be fully causal, but as Jonathan said it is plausible that network effects make up for the rest.
The misuse of statistics by Orben & Przybylski is outright cartoonish, and yet their nonsense is published in prestigious journals and parroted by dozens of respectable psychologists.
Note that Orben & Przybylski made their 'variation' conclusion based on squaring Spearman's rank correlation, not Pearson's correlation. The entire paper is a joke.
Note also that Orben & Przybylski controlled for everything imaginable in their attempt to attenuate correlations with digital tech but failed to control for sex and age. And yet their monstrosity of bad science got published in Nature Human Behavior.
P. S. One issue: your model presumes deterministic effects of social media time, which of course is not realistic (and which is yet another reason why 'squared r' arguments are problematic, to put it kindly, in much of social science).
So your work is excellent as a counter-example of the Orben & Przybylski nonsense, but it is still not a fully realistic model of social media effects. You need to incorporate stochastic effects for that.
I understand that, but "percent of variance" is just not the metric that policymakers should care about. Instead, they should care about how much more depression is created. You can get a rough estimate of that with a simple model (see blog post above).
Correct. But "caring", and effective intervention, do little if one misattributes (or at least disproportionately attributes) causation.
I take the view that public policy, drafted in response or reaction to current or recent events, is generally poor policy. It's often poor because it views undesired outcomes through the narrow lens OF recent events/changes, and has a hard time thinking beyond that narrow context, and subset of sources of causation. That's not to say no government or enterprise has any responsibility to respond when things run aground. Of course they do. But they always need to take a few steps back, and think in bigger and broader terms about how we got to where we are, and what it would take to get to where we want to be.
Very interesting, thank you. I understand that the questions are focused on teens, but I wondered what happens when these teenage girls become adults? Do the mental ill health symptoms persist, even if social media use goes down as they settle into adult life and begin families etc?
I am one of those teenage girls who became an adult - I had three suicide attempts in my teens largely due to social media, and now that I'm 29 I've been unemployed for three years and can't get hired anywhere. Deemed overqualified for low wage work, but apparently too underqualified to get so much as a callback on an application. I have two college degrees and have been working on a master's degree. I tried to remove social media from my life after my teenage years in order to get through college, and it was lovely and I thrived. My mental health healed, I was happy and confident. But pretty quickly after graduating I discovered that not having a life on social media is effectively social death, because all 'real opportunities' - for those of us whose parents don't have a network themselves - happens on or due to social media. I feel completely stymied in my ability to start my career or even a family.
Some girl: I am so sorry to hear this. This is a very powerful statement of the bind that so many young women are in: damned if they do, damned if they dont'. Would it be OK with you if I quote this response in my next post, responding to the comments? Thanks,
That's very interesting. Thank you you for sharing that. Your point about the effects of the parents network is an important point often missing from these discussions. And I wonder to what extent detachment from parent networks is a function of rapid social network evolution as well as social network engagement on the part of parents causing their proximate networks to become thin.
Thank you very much. I am looking forward to reading it. Can't say how much I appreciate this and similar communities. Substack has created something that gives enough space for real communication and nuance... it's a place where you don't just get a snappy headline or an attention grabber, but you get some real information to think about. Another question for you (and of course no need to reply - just food for thought)... I wonder if anyone has asked about what kind of role of THIS kind of long-form social media (vs. the more click-baity twitter type) plays in mental health among young people. I'd bet it isn't correlated with negative outcomes... in spite of the "like" button!
I work in mental health, specifically with kids/teens. I cannot overstate how much I appreciate the work you do (not to mention Twenge and the the dozens/hundreds of other researchers working in this subject area). One question I have: How much does a smartphone's ability to distract, in general, influence a young person's capacity for distress tolerance and coping? We have a toddler. In several parenting/childhood development texts, there is a broad recommendation to not "swoop in" when a young child is struggling and immediately distract him/her away from their distress. If a toy is frustrating them, the idea-as-I-understand-it goes, we should allow them to experience that frustration for some amount of time before offering assistance. It would be less helpful to that child in the long-term if I were to immediately interrupt their experience of frustration by offering a different toy, or a snack, or to scoop the kid up and hug them, etc. This makes sense to me. At some point, we have to learn that the daily variety of frustration and disappointment are hard, but not fatal, and we CAN tolerate those emotions, experience them and come out the other end alive, eventually learning to respond in ways that are adaptive and healthy. My initial question is inspired by the overall very low capacity for distress tolerance I see in the kids I work with, regardless of demographics or specific life experiences. To me, it would make sense that by having a phone in your pocket at a young age, any moment of distress, worry, boredom, etc. is extremely easy to interrupt. You can instantly distract yourself away from those less-than-pleasant emotions. But as we know, that technique does not work well forever. Eventually, we have to pay the piper, so to speak, and reckon with that stockpile of emotions that we are consistently distracting ourselves away from acknowledging (I have done this as an adult, frankly). All of that said: I don't know if this idea rings true to researchers who work more closely in this field, let alone if there are specific studies on this topic. Haha, I don't even know if a study focused on this question is even feasible, such is my limited experience in the world of research. Anyway, thanks again and I will continue to follow your writing and work for the duration of my career in mental health!
>Each girl might be worse off quitting Instagram even though all girls would be better off if everyone quit.
How about a "device-free" summer camp? Let teens have fun with other teens in nature, without any devices to distract them. That could help overcome the collective action problem.
I think randomly assigning kids to such a camp could be a powerful way to test the hypotheses advanced in this article. It lasts all summer, so it should address the immediate discomfort from going "cold turkey". And you spend all your time with other young people who are also free from their devices, so that should help with the network effects problem. If experimental results from the camp are good, it should be easy to scale up as an effective mental health treatment for young people, or (for themed summer camps) an extracurricular learning environment of the sort you can put on your college application.
Helicopter parents can call the main camp hotline (instead of their child's personal phone) if they want to make sure their kid is OK. Or put an old-fashioned land line in every cabin and tell kids they can call parents before going to sleep.
I'll bet we get more traction out of summer camps than shaking our fists at tech companies, at least. Let the tech companies and the summer camp companies battle it out for themselves ;-)
Great idea! Elsewhere I suggest a similar (more drastic) idea, for charter schools…device free public schools and homes using school/parental support and coordination.
Great article! I have a question: How do we know that there isn't some bicausal nature to this relationship; that depressed and anxious teens turn to social media more often, not that the latter causes the former necessarily?
Great question, one argument against this would be that depressions are on the rise since social media was introduced. If it would only draw depressed teens to it than the total number or percentage shouldn't go up.
Not the OP but have a similar hunch. I'm not sure how that works as an argument against it being bicausal? Being causal in both directions doesn't rule the original hypothesis out, it just muddles how we can evaluate the effect. Meanwhile there's a lot of possible factors for why depression is on the rise over the last few decades.
I think the comparison with drinking is apt, plenty turn to booze in times of listlessness or depression, it probably doesn't help much.
If every young person or teen I saw didn’t have their head down looking at their phone, I’d say you have a point. How many people out there would say differently? We see this everywhere and basically with everyone.
This is great. To help readers evaluate the studies, in the absence of a formal synthesis, it would be really helpful to have a spreadsheet with things like:
--if correlational, were important covariates included?
--were results reported without unexpected covariates?
--was the study hypothesis/analysis preregistered?
Then we could more easily see if the studies that find effects are high quality overall (and perhaps better quality than those that don't find effects). Otherwise, it's possible that publication bias is a factor, particularly in the case of experiments because failing to find an effect could happen for uninteresting reasons.
This is a really great idea. Unfortunately, we just don't have the time to do this but would be thrilled if someone would like to take this on as a project.
Bravo! Thank you for your persistence on this topic.
I understand that it’s the nature of academia (and possibly also the nature of denial?), and that it is better to have more and more evidence, but part of me also rolls my eyes at your opponents in this debate. We’re not talking about marginal benefits of one formula brand vs another, we’re talking a Gutenberg level revolution in how we think and relate to the world and each other - and yet still some people play dumb and think it can’t possibly be a big deal. Thank you for having the patience to continue engaging the holdouts!
this argument—trying to convince people of the toxicity of smartphones + social media + constant internet access—reminds me most of when i was younger and trying to help some of my friends get over drug addiction.
you can almost see the brains squirming in any and every direction to avoid facing the truth!
I'm just grateful for 2 things that mattered in my life. 1. My boys (born in 1995 and 1998) never really got into social media. 2. I was able to do without and stay home with them 24/7 so I never felt guilty about saying no.
Same for me as a dad. My kids born 97 and 98, never saw social media as a thing and was very protective about their personal life. The where in to playing online games of course, bu they involved me, and we even played together. But I having a new family now, with a teen step daughter, and she's struggling, with Snap and Tik-Tok as a main factor, so the problem is indeed there. I was born 63 so long before mobile phones or internet... I have to say it was better, sorry!
I realize you didn't say this was your situation and maybe it isn't but what you say prompts the question of what's the tradeoff between minimizing social media and kids not having unsupervised time.
I wish I knew. I honestly don't. I knew you weren't talking about me, I just see a pattern in this area with kids. As a teenager before the rise of social media, I had a rough time, even as someone that didn't get picked on. I can't imagine the pressure these girls have now.
Software and smartphones are designed to be addictive -- the goal, as I understand it, is to increase usage. I've been meaning to fully read, "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products." This concept is slightly terrifying and based on psychology. Sadly, there wasn't foresight to see the negative consequences that this type of product development would have.
Yes 🙌
Those people tend to be like some of my family members. Both parents work full-time, are really tired when they get home, and feel guilty saying no. My two year old niece had some form of entertainment in her face by the time she was 2 years old. It's how they went to dinners, gatherings, and now how they entertain their children. It's probably really hard to solve this problem because when all the kids have it, how do we say no?
I think mental health providers on the frontlines would probably have a great deal to weigh in on this topic. The major downside is that anecdotal evidence is widely dismissed.
The book "Dopamine Nation" by Dr. Anna Lembke (a practicing psychiatrist) weighs in heavily on the correlation between social media and poor mental health. She would find absolutely nothing about this substack post surprising other than the fact that we're only just now waking up to the major issues at stake here.
I agree, I really want to see a compendium of qualitative takes from frontline mental health providers, so we can get a finer-grained understanding of what's going on.
Hey Joe and Rachael,
This is a good idea. We are trying to compile as much research as possible — qualitative and quantitative. If you find any qualitative studies from mental health providers, please add them to our google doc. That would be of huge help
Here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-olnkPyWcgF5BiAtBEy0/edit
Or here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1diMvsMeRphUH7E6D1d_J7R6WbDdgnzFHDHPx9HXzR5o/edit
I wonder if the "device-free summer camp" idea would be a worthwhile addition to the "The Rewiring Childhood Hypothesis" section in the Google Doc
https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic/comment/13022301
Summer camp seems like it could be less of an uphill battle than getting an entire school to go device-free. If it proves effective then the private sector can expand the program quickly in response to parent demand.
We don't need finer grain. The truth is there. Common sense and a beating heart is what we need now.
Money is motivating Zuck and the rest of the Internet, not goodness, not value as a positive force.
No number will convince someone who is scared of an alternative future.
Plenty of people condemn Zuck. Condemning Zuck hasn't changed much. If we have a better understanding of the mechanism of harm, that may suggest other possible solutions beyond generic condemnation.
I think all research could be improved by considering the experiences and insights of practitioners. Some researchers do this via open review of study design, analysis and conclusions.
Sorry, Trish, normally I work with trees so they don't have parents who can talk. Of course, you're right. And patients themselves as well.
Its easier to accept the popular rebuttal from most of the media that this is all just conspiracy theory and get back to one's own personal life and it's challenges than to take a deep and serious look at the issues slowly eroding society. The meme of boiling frogs is most apt to what's been going on because it started out slow and light and once that first generation that was slightly dumbed down had kids those pushing this in public education increased the intensity with each successive generation. The ONLY reason they were exposed was because if covids forcing remote learning. This was a major miscalculation by those pushing it all from the dumbing down and sexual perversion of kids to the controlled demolition of the economy. We can thank covid for providing parents a look at what is actually going on at the schools.
Are you suggesting that teachers are universally using social media in schools? They’re not.
This is a parenting issue, not an educational system one.
Not to forget, this all started well before Covid was ever on the scene.
At my kids' public school system, yes indeed the school district was promoting social media use by the kids. In around 2012 they actively recruited their own middle and high school students to subscribe to their new twitter page so they could get to 1,000 followers. And a brochure for parents they still use gives a green light designation to twitter instagram and facebook for social media platforms. And in 2017 there were at least 3 bomb threats made by young middle school students via twitter. And yet they still have that brochure available in the front office.
The word phrase "Social media' appears no where in the post. Since you don't seem to be aware of this, not everything that happens on the internet is social media. The various systems like zoom used for remote learning are not social media. Was every teacher using remote learning? Of ours not. Some taught in states that respected people rights and didn't try to self-imprison everyone via lockdowns. Yes some of it is parental related especially those parents who were the first millennials in that generation and who now have school aged kids. They were indoctrinated and b/c of that teh school can be more aggressively harmful towards those woke parents kids just as we see with drag queen story time where most parents are early millennials.
Yes it did start before covid. I only said covid and the use of remote learning exposed what was already going on.
To be precise, there was a rampant shift in depression and mental troubles starting in 2010. It definitely is a parental problem no matter which way you slice it, but Covid lockdowns definitely contributed to more kids online longer, a fear imposed at young ages for 3 years, and it has provided a good look into what wasn't happening at many schools, which was learning.
You just explained all in such perfect detail. Nail on head.
🔥🔥🫰❤️
This is a very important topic and thank you Jon Haidt for covering it. But please don’t forget, in the first place, you need to educate yourself and not children. Kids should be kids. Most family problems are born in the parents mindset of not being ready to take on certain responsibilities that come with children. Start with yourself and your kids will be just fine! Good luck to everyone and be more attentive to your children, spend time with them and communicate! Ask about their experiences, and not only think about your own.
Don't forget to tie your shoes everyone. Make sure to get good sleep and exercise too. Look I'm helping.
❤️❤️
Yes, of course, I agree with you, the outside world also has an influence. But we need to be a good example for them so they can look at us and say, "Yes, that's the kind of person I want to be."
Your answers are too simplistic. Do you have teenagers?
That will not happen with the Woke teaching. They believe, if I don't agree with your attitude and actions, I will woke you out.
The writer Freddie deBoer has examined the trend of "mental health chic" in social media extensively. where influencers adopt a mental illness as a centrally defining characteristic and use that as the basis for attracting followers. His fear was that it not only romanticized mental illness but set up echo chambers that were ripe for the spread of social contagion. I have to wonder if there is a correlation between adverse mental health outcomes in girls versus the type of social media they are consuming.
There's certainly a pattern that I've noticed in clients who discuss their social media usage and MI as a kind of label to almost ... excuse (?) behaviors, rather than do the work. Often, they will refute there is a connection, which if you look at it from an addiction standpoint, denial makes sense. I don't know if there is a correlation difference between types of SMS, but there may be a trackable correlation of what is being currently discussed and determining increased reporting of the issue (depression on Facebook vs. anxiety on Instagram). Default Friend on Substack has written in regards to this topic overall.
deBoer observed that some users seemed to consider their mental illness to be a central component of their identity. The natural consequence I think is that it makes treatment problematic: is the "problem" with you or with society at large that seems intent on rejecting you?
From a technical standpoint monitoring what groups/sites/etc. are visited from a smart phone is a pretty trivial exercise. In a hypothetical trial would you see the same rates of depression/anxiety among "spoonies" versus Kpop fans? I can't help but wonder.
When absolutely every aspect of social capital and standing is now defined exclusively by “identity”, and mental illness is clearly being caused by participating in the dominant social arena, it’s so clear it’s painful.
(TLDR: exhibiting mental illness now defines “cool” for a major cohort.)
Which makes me wonder how many of these teens are *actually* depressed and anxious? It's cool to say you're depressed.
It is not only cool, it’s mandatory to exhibit some sort of mental illness/“trauma”/identification/whatever. Identity games have become so ingrained, especially in younger culture, they ironically have NO authentic identity.
They pick from the absurd “lunch menu” columns to construct today’s basket of descriptors. They’re so busy spinning around in their heads, they have no time, energy or ability to actually live in the world and develop an authentic personal truth.
Yes. They are all gazing at their own navels. How did we get here? Why so much self-centeredness and entitlement? I have my own theories, but what do others say?
I often think of what the Ukrainians are going through right now. I guarantee you Ukrainian teens aren’t sitting around choosing their pronoun of the day. IMO, American teens are relatively prosperous and entitled. They have the luxury of choosing from the buffet of identities and disorders and demanding accommodations and attention.
I also think, if you continue to dig deeper for a root cause, you will find the breakdown of the institutions that previously anchored young people and gave them meaning and a sense of belonging: family and church.
Seems like that in itself is a mental illness.
“Seemed to consider their mental illness to be a central component of their identity”. This is such an interesting point. If one identifies primarily by their mental illness, then there must be pressure not to overcome that illness. It reminds me of years-old anecdotes from people who were obese and then lost a great deal of weight. Not only did they struggle with no longer fulfilling the role of “the fat one” (who was often also “the funny one”) in their social circle but also were subtly rejected by their social circle for the same reason. One person’s identity change required a remapping of the relationships in the group, so there was definite pressure not to change.
I would tend to agree to your first point, and don't have much of an opinion on your second observation.
"...is the "problem" with you or with society at large that seems intent on rejecting you?"
That's a tough one to answer. I liken it to the adage about insanity doing the same thing over and over. Either you get to a point where you can't stand the situation that you're in any longer and come to the realization that something must change, or you don't and you stay stuck, perpetually.
The increase in mental disorders can also be attributed to the political and ideological indoctrination the public education system has been doing to kids instead of educating them. The human mind is designed to work in a logical way where up is up and down is down and 1+1=2. In order to follow the political ideology commonly referred to as woke requires one to maintain numerous conflicting and contradicting beliefs simultaneously and the mind is not designed to do that. Thus the indoctrination process can effectively break the minds of these young and impressionable kids who's minds are still developing. To deal with these conflicting beliefs the mind develops one or more disorders from depression to multiple personality. I fear we are looking at a dark future over the next few decades as a plurality if not more of these indoctrinated persons become adults who are incapable of being functionally productive persons and instead must be institutionalized lest they tear the system down for all of us
NOTE: I had to update several typos. Thank god there's an edit button b/c it seems no matter how hard you try to spell everything correctly auto-correct seems to have a passion for screwing with your words like changing "in" to "I'd". As I was typing this it changed " in " to " 'n " and I know it did this because the " ' " is no where near the " I " on the keyboard
Are you talking about rationalization to accommodate cognitive dissonance created by carrying conflicting frameworks of how reality works?
Yes. I'm talking about conflicting beliefs where in one scenario the user believes A is true but in another A is false. Example: Only white people can be racist because racism requires power & privelge when the fact is that's not what racism is. In the racism example they've justified their conflicting belief about racism by adding the qualifier that racism requires power & privelge. It's not limited to just the woke either but for the woke it is a deeply rooted belief meaning they genuinely believe what they are saying where someone is a trialists knows they're making excuses. For as long as we've had political p[arties we've had trialists who call out corruption when the other party does X but if someone in their own party does X the trialists finds some way of excusing it. For the majority of the woke they really truly believe what they are saying.
Interesting point. Suggests there is almost a sort of "demand characteristic" in the responses to survey questions, as if the more socially desirable response is to indicate one has had emotional difficulties.. That, in turn, suggests that the trends reported by CDC, and relayed here by Haidt, are somewhat exaggerated. Not *illusory*, but perhaps less extreme than the line graphs convey. On the other hand, is imagined "me too" distress on the part of young women distressing to them, where worrying about emotional distress can *cause* emotional distress.
Maybe the self reported metrics are inflated but the increase in more dependable objective measures (suicides, hospitalization sure to self harm) are reason enough for deep concern.
Excellent point.
No. Stop thinking about the scale. Imagine (or go read) about one kid who was bullied online into suicidal ideation or worse.
Just watch Emily in Paris and consider: 0 kids can measure up to Emily or Gabrielle.
So, just speaking from layman’s experience, 6-7 years ago (in college) I certainly noticed a bit of “the social desirability of being stressed out,” among my peers. At the same time, other more objective measures: suicides, the number of kids going to mental health counseling, people having breakdowns, panic attacks, etc. was also going through the roof. I think social desirability plays a role, but it’s probably only one of many factors.
It seems very plausible! I’m familiar with what he and Default Friend and others have written on the topic (although I haven’t read everything they’ve written). Seems like there might be two different variables: time on social media AND content/what is being done during that time. Each might have their own effect on mental health.
That would certainly make for an interesting read. I'm not a researcher, but if it could be designed, even if the outcome isn't what you think it might be, the results might be illuminating. I think the time on SMS has been documented to an extent -- increased rates would mean less time in real-world interaction. Wish I could find it now, but I remember reading a study that came out circa 2010-2011 about how increased usage of computers decreased the ability to read facial expressions accurately. We can only suppose what the effects are in the long-term at this point.
Imagine a study like that done post-Covid with kids who were at impressionable ages whilst we were mostly all masking.
I'm sorry to hear that has been your experience. I can't really weigh in, but I hope in the longterm things pan out more positively.
This article dropped just after I finished reading a book review of The Geography Of Madness on another substack and it made me wonder: what if this epidemic of mental disorders in the demographic most susceptible to social contagion is the result of social media amplifying the mental illness awareness and acceptance campaigns that have proliferated in the last few years?
Basically, knowledge of mental disorders might be an infohazard for many teenage girls and other susceptible people.
You bring up such an important point. I definitely believe there is much truth in this concept. I have many co workers and friends with daughters in the age range of 14-22. Over the past few years they have been telling me about how their daughters are constantly being asked about and assessed for mental health abnormalities throughout their regular daily life as a high school and college student. These frequent assessments and focus on psychological symptoms, now being referred to as mental illness of some sort or another , eventually convinces them that they indeed meet the diagnostic criteria for these illnesses. Next thing you know they have got themselves believing that they will be crippled by this and then can’t move forward with their life in a normal way. It just seems that completely normal developmental struggles are now medicalized and diagnosed as an illness.
Fascinating. I wonder if there's a feedback loop of increased awareness -> increased diagnosis -> increased awareness. Of course the psychologist profession is incentivized to turn a blind eye to any such feedback loop, since it increases demand for their services.
What I find missing from these discussions is the “content” of social media. If kids are being fed a toxic stew of bad ideas about themselves, others, and the nature of humans and society, perhaps the message is indeed at least as important as the medium.
Absolutely agree. That should be clear from the studies that included all screen time, not just social media. Yet those studies found no correlation between screen time and mental health issues.
Time spent interacting with any screen reduces social connectivity and increases isolation. Surely no one would claim that watching Netflix is generally a group activity. The correlation emerged only when the studies were specific to social media.
It’s the message, not the medium. Social media is reflecting underlying problems in our culture, not causing them.
I believe what Jon is proving here is that it is the medium. The medium is the problem. The medium is the message. The two cannot be disentangled.
Social media is certainly the problem, but its because of how ingrained adverse cultural trends are ON the platforms. Like he mentioned, seeing hyper tuned models living the good life on some yacht in Aruba had a bigger body image impact than just regular photos on instagram. The medium is only the problem BECAUSE it incentivizes people to tpost the most addicting content possible, to trap the youth onto their platforms and generate ad revenue. You'd be hard pressed to find a kid addicted to Khan Academy as compared to Youtube.
To elaborate on your point, the medium facilitates the messages. Like how Twitter fuels mob mentality — it's ingrained in the platform's design. Everything on that website encourages you to get sucked into the drama, because that's what keeps you on the app for longer and that's what makes Twitter money.
Andrew, I don’t disagree that the medium and the message are entangled together. But if it’s true that they can’t be disentangled, how can it be empirically proven that social media is the causal factor?
Clearly a blank page cannot be considered media. The blank page becomes a medium that can have an effect once something is written on it. We don’t claim that the existence of books causes societal problems (at least we didn’t used to!) But the words written in books can sometimes change the world.
I believe the simple maxim “Ideas have consequences” is the explanation for what we see happening in young people. It’s not the books, it’s what’s written in them.
I think a part of the problem is…human. It’s the immediate propulsion of an often thoughtless or cruel thought, image or message jettisoned to an entire school body, or to hundreds or thousands of anonymous consumers.
A megaphone, a microphone, an amplifier. It's the message being broadcast that matters.
"perhaps the message is indeed at least as important as the medium."
There's another factor we should also consider (if we are going to be scientific about this) which is the mechanism. The explosion in mental health issues not only mirrors the explosion in social media/ smart phone use, but also the explosion in microwave radiation pollution from wifi, smartphones, cell towers etc.
To put it in perspective... for the entire history of the human race there was essentially zero microwave radiation. Microwaves are not native to planet Earth. Wireless technology using microwaves only became a consumer product around mid 90's and wifi only appeared around 2000. The real explosion in wifi and smartphones occurred around 2005 onwards. Teenagers today are the first generation in human history to have ever experienced this amount of microwave pollution and to have experienced it at such a young age - ie during their fragile developmental years. Young people (ie small people) are known to be more sensitive to microwaves, and females are more sensitive than males. All of this correlates very well with the studies on mental health declines.
Millions of NON-teens and NON-social media addicts also suffer terribly from depression, anxiety, mood swings, fatigue and brain fog as a result of prolonged exposure to wireless technology. Even cell tower installers report depression and moods swings from microwave exposure that is bad enough for them to leave the job. How much time do you think working class men in their 40's spend on Tik Tok or Instagram?
"Microwaves are not native to planet Earth" reveals a stunning lack of basic science. knowlege. "Microwave" just means electromagnetic radiation of a specified frequency. Only difference between MW and light is the wavelength, which corelates with the amount of energy the radiation carries. Short wavelengths (like gamma rays or even UV) can generally cause damage to living tissue because they are high energy. Long waves (radio and microwaves) have much less. Obviously, microwaves can cook things, but only at high field intensities and close exposure to the source. EM decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so we probably don't need to worry about cell towers, whereas I would use a headphone/earbud for the cell phone and not put any emitter of radiatiion close to my brain or heart.
""Microwave" just means electromagnetic radiation of a specified frequency."
Yes. There is no need to use the word 'just' though. Microwave frequencies are non-native to Earth (natural background levels are effectively zero) and they are toxic to biological life. And provably so. This makes sense given that biological life never evolved to handle them.
Studies going back to at least the 1970's show dozens if not hundreds of different ways microwaves disrupt normal biological function, from cognitive impairment to sperm damage to cancers to depression and anxiety to heart arrhythmias (all at levels well below thermal). Much of the early studies were carried out by the military. The only studies which show microwaves to be safe (or more accurately 'no evidence of harm') are the studies paid for by the wireless industry itself. And yes, the effect of wireless industry funding on study findings has been well studied and the results are predictable: you get what you pay for.
Thankfully, anyone can conduct their own experiments with ease. Even a simple live blood analysis under a cheap light microscope will show red blood cells ruined by exposure to ordinary wifi (blood stacking/ rouleux, bottlecapping, degraded and broken cell membranes etc). This finding alone should get wireless devices banned from all public spaces (and this is now starting to happen).
In dozens of countries wifi has already been removed from schools because it's making the children sick. The demise of wireless technology has already begun. At the same time the industry (and industry-loyal politicians and scientists) continue to claim it's safe and it's going to be the foundation for all infrastructure in the future (IoT, IoB). Meanwhile insurers won't touch wireless tech with a barge pole and the wireless industry warns its shareholders to brace for a tsunami of health related lawsuits.
The reason for this disconnect (no pun intended) is that the industry AND most consumers are still hopelessly addicted to the God-like powers that wireless tech offers them. Techy, nerdy types (they types to frequent online science forums and blogs etc) tend to be especially protective of wireless tech and in complete denial of the science.
And by 'science' I mean an accurate reflection of observable reality. Real world observations must always define scientific descriptions of reality. What you are trying to do is make reality conform to your scientific description of it, a description which we might call 'scientific dogma' but which is closer to 'wireless industry dogma'.
The wireless industry has ALWAYS known that microwaves are toxic. That's why they define 'safety' only in terms of thermal effects (which require excessive power), completely ignoring the dozens of non thermal biological effects which are caused at the lower power settings used by wireless devices and infrastructure.
The only way wireless tech can declare itself safe is to falsely claim there are no effects other than thermal, therefore all power settings below thermal must be safe by definition and there's no need to study their effects.
If you want to look at some of the non-thermal effects on humans and other biological life I included some links further down in this same thread in response to another commenter.
This is interesting. Can you point to a study or two?
Sure thing ... let's start with some 'canaries in the coal mine'. Insects and birds can't be deluded or obsessed about wireless. Their rapid demise points to microwave poisoning. The evidence is beyond overwhelming at this stage (just read the first paper below). The fact that it is completely ignored or dismissed is also a big red flag. When you read these papers ask yourself why there is not even a peep from the media, environmental charities, politicians or celebrity environmentalists. Not even a "Hey guys, maybe we should look into this".... (this also applies to the effects on people too).
5G Cell Towers Cause Massive Insect Decline on the Greek island of Samos
https://safetechinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/5G-causes-massive-insect-declines-on-Samos.pdf
Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts on a Population of White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) – Alfonso Balmori
http://www.summagallicana.it/lessico/e/elettrosmog/Balmori%201%20Possible%20Effects%202005.pdf
Note how in the above study the storks that were nearest to cell towers laid no eggs, couldn't get it together to even build nests (they kept dropping sticks) and they spent most of the time either fighting with each other or staring blankly into space. That's basically modern society in a nutshell!
A German study finds 76% decline of insect biomass over the last 27 years (since consumer wireless devices became widespread). Significantly the study finds no links to climate or pesticides.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
OK, so now onto humans....
Here's a recent tribunal from the UK which ordered a school to remove wifi so a student could return to the classroom. It contains many links to scientific studies at the bottom (much easier than me linking them all here). Significantly the tribunal ruled against the UK health service which still insists wireless is safe. The ruling is also precedent setting. France has already banned wifi in primary schools. Many countries have also started to remove wifi from schools.
https://phiremedical.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/phire-2022-press-release-hm-courts-and-tribunals-service-ehcp-for-uk-child-with-ehs.pdf
Here's a child testifying to the effects of school wifi. Note she mentions terrible anxiety (a common symptom) and that 7 doctors failing to diagnose her (doctors get zero training in EMF even though humans are just as much electrical beings as much as we are chemical beings). There are many testimonies like this floating about on the internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQugpEcxLDY
Here's a report by 16:9 on wifi in schools - very good journalism for a mainstream media channel (a rare exception). They also do a blind study showing heart palpitations. Note also in the YT comment section people reporting it gives them depression etc. A lot of the evidence for depression, anxiety etc is anecdotal because the scientific / medical community is still very much in denial and under the control of the wireless / telecoms industry. But there is just so much anecdotal evidence and all of it is consistent. The same story over and over...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2I
Here's a tragic story of a schoolgirl who hanged herself after being forced to endure wifi. This article from 2015 is a perfect example of the arrogant and unscientific way mainstream science dismisses the topic by reflex action (although this is slowly changing as more cases are fought and won). What's maddening is that many of the arguments used to dismiss it are valid... yes, the mind can trigger phantom symptoms, yes, diagnosis is often complicated by multiple factors, yes, there are many charlatans out there promoting all sorts of bogus products and services. But the same is true for ANY medical condition. Children reporting EHS should neither be 'believed' OR 'dismissed'. They should just be taken seriously and tested scientifically.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-and-wifi-allergies-bogus-diagnoses-with-tragic-real-world-consequences/
Invisible Threat - a documentary about EHS people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP2sdCOr2II
Hopefully that's enough to get started! :)
Thank you for all this! I will check it out!
Thank you! You are unique among researchers in taking a forceful stance and demonstrating that social media use truly is poisonous. I have witnessed first-hand how girls who have grown up in healthy homes, connected to nature, and a healthy sense of self, can fall into the abyss of depression and self harm because of the soul-killing endless scroll of fraudulent bodies and faces. Our daughter did not have a phone until she was 16 -and you point out clearly that abstinence amidst a sea of social media users can be just as isolating. We have found that there is hope for a healthy outcome, although it must be won by teenagers themselves. If group of committed teenagers reject this poison in unison, growing their real life relationships through face to face conversations, common physical activities, and time spent together outdoors, etc. they have a fighting chance to evade the harms that befall so many of their cohort. See my article "TikTok brain cure with three ingredients" for more .https://humanitasfamily.substack.com/p/tiktok-brain-cure-with-three-ingredients.
Great article!
Good post, especially the point about how we should look beyond dose effects. One thought to add: "Boys are doing badly too, but their rates of depression and anxiety are not as high." But their rates of suicide are about four times as high, as are their rates of drug overdose. Women and girls are more likely to express distress in culturally recognized idioms of abnormality in need of treatment -- in traditional societies, spiritual possession, in modern societies, eating disorders, depression, etc. Males are more likely to turn straight to violence and reckless behavior.
Hey Jason,
This is a really important point, and it would have been more accurate to include the suicide and drug overdose stats as well, in tandem with rates of anxiety and depression.
Check out our Boys google doc, which we will be posting about soon.
Please comment: We would love your feedback and thoughts.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fcio_tkbnNkmCi1nsHGiTLinFqdLJJlAtCzmec-Ss4s/edit
Agree, I would like to look at the boys data as well because boys clearly are struggling as much, if perhaps in different ways. Thanks Zach for adding that doc.
Thank you for pointing out the different suicide rates. The most recent data from the CDC in 2020 reported total suicides for females 15-24 years of age was 1,203 and for males 15-24 years of age was 4,859. Males had a suicide rate greater than four times the rate for female in the 15-24 year age group.
'Long-time listener, first-time caller'. Jonathan, I've been following your work on this topic for a few years now and regularly refer to your google docs to stay up to date on where this is. Commenting to say thank you for a couple of things:
1. Making the work you're doing so public, available to be scrutinised, and open to reactions and criticism. It must vastly improve the progress we make on this topic.
2. Showing progression in terms of how researchers who once stood on opposite sides of an issue are being drawn together because of objective views of the data. (Would love to know if Andy P is moving in your direction too, as Amy Orben appears to be.)
3. While I'm a (lapsed) academic researcher, I love how gently you guide readers through the literature review you've done in a way that makes everything so accessible and understandable.
There is so much work involved in what you're doing. Your methodical, analytical, scientific approach without hyperbole is so very much appreciated.
Would love to see you address they 'why' around this (my bias is along a self-determination theory perspective, where social media provides a thin level of need satisfaction - in the same way pringles provide a thin level of hunger satisfaction), and also what parents can do while we wait/agitate for change at a policy level (that may never come).
thank you! i will be addressing the why. especially in the book.
I would like to second all the sentiments of this post in thanking JH for a presentation that is both rigorous and accessible - at least to academics. My first impulse was to share this with some friends and family so they could see what quantitative methodology in the social sciences looks like - so they understand me better! But I hesitate. I realized from the essay the critical importance of science journalism and look forward to how it’s covered.
Mmm... Pringles...
:-)
We know that, over the past 150 years since anyone began tracking it, that age at menarche has been declining. It occurs earlier in developed nations than developing ones, and within nations earlier among those in higher socioeconomic groups than lower ones, leading many to infer that it is connected to nutritional levels. But reaching some milestone in physical maturity is not equivalent to reaching psychological milestones. One has to wonder if there are synergistic effects of aggregate nudging towards earlier maturation and whatever impact electronic media may have on the developing young adolescent and tween. Despite a number of happy years in limbic function research, I prefer not to view physical maturation or hormones as a "cause" of anything. Rather, they provide a context within which social experience is framed/perceived by the individual and those around them. If your body and your phone "tells" you you're older than you feel and are ready for, that has to be unsettling. No less so than having a baby at 17, or having a health issue force you to retire at 53.
Woah, I had never thought of that possibility. I hope you're wrong, because that is genuinely frightening.
Pick up any textbook on adolescent development and you can see the graph charting the steady decrease in age at menarche (first tracked in Scandinavian countries). I would expect it has pretty much reach asymptote by now, and that we won't end up seeing Grade 2 girls needing pads, so it's not "frightening". But we tend to overlook how things have changed over the last century or so and mistake how things are now with how they have always been. Handheld instant communication devices aren't the only things that have changed since our great-great-grandparents' time.
Ah, sorry, it was late when I read your comment and I misinterpreted what you said. My bad!
I just hope you weren't up late because of your phone! 😉
Here's an interesting quantitative connection: If causal, the r=0.2 correlation in Orben & Przybylski's own data would *fully explain* explain the 50% increase in teen girl depression. You can see that with some back-of-the envelope calculations and the simplest possible assumptions https://chris-said.io/2022/05/10/social-media-and-teen-depression/. Unfortunately, many social scientists haven't made that quantitative connection and continue to view those correlations as "small".
Of course, the correlation may not be fully causal, but as Jonathan said it is plausible that network effects make up for the rest.
Hey Chris, we discuss your blog post in our newest post: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/responses-to-comments-social-media
Thanks Chris, i had forgotten about this marvelous post. I just added it in to appendix 8.10 of the main social media doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-olnkPyWcgF5BiAtBEy0/edit#
The misuse of statistics by Orben & Przybylski is outright cartoonish, and yet their nonsense is published in prestigious journals and parroted by dozens of respectable psychologists.
Note that Orben & Przybylski made their 'variation' conclusion based on squaring Spearman's rank correlation, not Pearson's correlation. The entire paper is a joke.
Note also that Orben & Przybylski controlled for everything imaginable in their attempt to attenuate correlations with digital tech but failed to control for sex and age. And yet their monstrosity of bad science got published in Nature Human Behavior.
P. S. One issue: your model presumes deterministic effects of social media time, which of course is not realistic (and which is yet another reason why 'squared r' arguments are problematic, to put it kindly, in much of social science).
So your work is excellent as a counter-example of the Orben & Przybylski nonsense, but it is still not a fully realistic model of social media effects. You need to incorporate stochastic effects for that.
An r-value of .2 IS "small" and only predicts 4% of variance. That's not nothing, but it sure as heck isn't a BIG effect.
I understand that, but "percent of variance" is just not the metric that policymakers should care about. Instead, they should care about how much more depression is created. You can get a rough estimate of that with a simple model (see blog post above).
Correct. But "caring", and effective intervention, do little if one misattributes (or at least disproportionately attributes) causation.
I take the view that public policy, drafted in response or reaction to current or recent events, is generally poor policy. It's often poor because it views undesired outcomes through the narrow lens OF recent events/changes, and has a hard time thinking beyond that narrow context, and subset of sources of causation. That's not to say no government or enterprise has any responsibility to respond when things run aground. Of course they do. But they always need to take a few steps back, and think in bigger and broader terms about how we got to where we are, and what it would take to get to where we want to be.
Hey Mark, Chris, and David. Thanks for this insightful discussion. We respond in our most recent post: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/responses-to-comments-social-media
Very interesting, thank you. I understand that the questions are focused on teens, but I wondered what happens when these teenage girls become adults? Do the mental ill health symptoms persist, even if social media use goes down as they settle into adult life and begin families etc?
I am one of those teenage girls who became an adult - I had three suicide attempts in my teens largely due to social media, and now that I'm 29 I've been unemployed for three years and can't get hired anywhere. Deemed overqualified for low wage work, but apparently too underqualified to get so much as a callback on an application. I have two college degrees and have been working on a master's degree. I tried to remove social media from my life after my teenage years in order to get through college, and it was lovely and I thrived. My mental health healed, I was happy and confident. But pretty quickly after graduating I discovered that not having a life on social media is effectively social death, because all 'real opportunities' - for those of us whose parents don't have a network themselves - happens on or due to social media. I feel completely stymied in my ability to start my career or even a family.
Some girl: I am so sorry to hear this. This is a very powerful statement of the bind that so many young women are in: damned if they do, damned if they dont'. Would it be OK with you if I quote this response in my next post, responding to the comments? Thanks,
Jon
That's very interesting. Thank you you for sharing that. Your point about the effects of the parents network is an important point often missing from these discussions. And I wonder to what extent detachment from parent networks is a function of rapid social network evolution as well as social network engagement on the part of parents causing their proximate networks to become thin.
Hi Amber, thanks for this comment. we respond to your question in our most recent post: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/responses-to-comments-social-media
Thank you very much. I am looking forward to reading it. Can't say how much I appreciate this and similar communities. Substack has created something that gives enough space for real communication and nuance... it's a place where you don't just get a snappy headline or an attention grabber, but you get some real information to think about. Another question for you (and of course no need to reply - just food for thought)... I wonder if anyone has asked about what kind of role of THIS kind of long-form social media (vs. the more click-baity twitter type) plays in mental health among young people. I'd bet it isn't correlated with negative outcomes... in spite of the "like" button!
I work in mental health, specifically with kids/teens. I cannot overstate how much I appreciate the work you do (not to mention Twenge and the the dozens/hundreds of other researchers working in this subject area). One question I have: How much does a smartphone's ability to distract, in general, influence a young person's capacity for distress tolerance and coping? We have a toddler. In several parenting/childhood development texts, there is a broad recommendation to not "swoop in" when a young child is struggling and immediately distract him/her away from their distress. If a toy is frustrating them, the idea-as-I-understand-it goes, we should allow them to experience that frustration for some amount of time before offering assistance. It would be less helpful to that child in the long-term if I were to immediately interrupt their experience of frustration by offering a different toy, or a snack, or to scoop the kid up and hug them, etc. This makes sense to me. At some point, we have to learn that the daily variety of frustration and disappointment are hard, but not fatal, and we CAN tolerate those emotions, experience them and come out the other end alive, eventually learning to respond in ways that are adaptive and healthy. My initial question is inspired by the overall very low capacity for distress tolerance I see in the kids I work with, regardless of demographics or specific life experiences. To me, it would make sense that by having a phone in your pocket at a young age, any moment of distress, worry, boredom, etc. is extremely easy to interrupt. You can instantly distract yourself away from those less-than-pleasant emotions. But as we know, that technique does not work well forever. Eventually, we have to pay the piper, so to speak, and reckon with that stockpile of emotions that we are consistently distracting ourselves away from acknowledging (I have done this as an adult, frankly). All of that said: I don't know if this idea rings true to researchers who work more closely in this field, let alone if there are specific studies on this topic. Haha, I don't even know if a study focused on this question is even feasible, such is my limited experience in the world of research. Anyway, thanks again and I will continue to follow your writing and work for the duration of my career in mental health!
>Each girl might be worse off quitting Instagram even though all girls would be better off if everyone quit.
How about a "device-free" summer camp? Let teens have fun with other teens in nature, without any devices to distract them. That could help overcome the collective action problem.
I think randomly assigning kids to such a camp could be a powerful way to test the hypotheses advanced in this article. It lasts all summer, so it should address the immediate discomfort from going "cold turkey". And you spend all your time with other young people who are also free from their devices, so that should help with the network effects problem. If experimental results from the camp are good, it should be easy to scale up as an effective mental health treatment for young people, or (for themed summer camps) an extracurricular learning environment of the sort you can put on your college application.
Helicopter parents can call the main camp hotline (instead of their child's personal phone) if they want to make sure their kid is OK. Or put an old-fashioned land line in every cabin and tell kids they can call parents before going to sleep.
I'll bet we get more traction out of summer camps than shaking our fists at tech companies, at least. Let the tech companies and the summer camp companies battle it out for themselves ;-)
Great idea! Elsewhere I suggest a similar (more drastic) idea, for charter schools…device free public schools and homes using school/parental support and coordination.
Yeah sounds good. I'm assuming that testing it out as a summer program can build support for something more drastic.
Yes! Haha. I’ll bet a lot of parents would be all for it though.
Great article! I have a question: How do we know that there isn't some bicausal nature to this relationship; that depressed and anxious teens turn to social media more often, not that the latter causes the former necessarily?
Great question, one argument against this would be that depressions are on the rise since social media was introduced. If it would only draw depressed teens to it than the total number or percentage shouldn't go up.
just my two cents.
Not the OP but have a similar hunch. I'm not sure how that works as an argument against it being bicausal? Being causal in both directions doesn't rule the original hypothesis out, it just muddles how we can evaluate the effect. Meanwhile there's a lot of possible factors for why depression is on the rise over the last few decades.
I think the comparison with drinking is apt, plenty turn to booze in times of listlessness or depression, it probably doesn't help much.
Hi Sam this is a great question and we respond to this in our most recent post: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/responses-to-comments-social-media
If every young person or teen I saw didn’t have their head down looking at their phone, I’d say you have a point. How many people out there would say differently? We see this everywhere and basically with everyone.
This is great. To help readers evaluate the studies, in the absence of a formal synthesis, it would be really helpful to have a spreadsheet with things like:
--sample size (or cell size)
--study design (correlational, experimental, etc.)
--experimental manipulation (if applicable)
--control condition (active or passive)
--effect size
--p value
--if correlational, were important covariates included?
--were results reported without unexpected covariates?
--was the study hypothesis/analysis preregistered?
Then we could more easily see if the studies that find effects are high quality overall (and perhaps better quality than those that don't find effects). Otherwise, it's possible that publication bias is a factor, particularly in the case of experiments because failing to find an effect could happen for uninteresting reasons.
Hi Anon,
This is a really great idea. Unfortunately, we just don't have the time to do this but would be thrilled if someone would like to take this on as a project.
Nonetheless, we do discuss effect sizes in our most recent post: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/responses-to-comments-social-media
I feel like I should say something that adds to the conversation, but... all I can think is... "well, duh!!"
"We are now 11 years into the largest epidemic of teen mental illness on record."
Yeah.... that's what happens when you glorify mental illness. This much should have been obvious a long time ago.
Its certainly hard to go a day without seeing or hearing the words anxiety/depression