Rather than schools and legislators to set the standards of phone parenting, I suggest religion. Look what religion does for another hard-to-control area of life: diet. Jews are able to keep kosher. Muslims eat Halal. And Lutherans show their devotion to God by taking perfectly good food and turning it into casseroles. Laws can curb behavior, but they don't change the heart. To really change a culture, you need a belief that a deity cares about your child's phone use.
(Oh and Religion also impacts believers' substance use, suicide attempts, and sexual behaviors. . . governments wish they had that kind of influence)
I am one of those casserole-makers, and by god it works some kind of magic! Less about the food, more about the community that is cultivated around the table on which it sits...
Public schools cannot become the place where religious standards are taught and enforced. But your general point is a good one. I've long been puzzled why Mr Haidt believes Babel is a good metaphor to describe this problem, but none of his solutions return to that Story.
Jonathan, these "foundational norms" are what is needed to establish a new normal for a healthy childhood. As you noted, with a major push from parents, phone-free schools could move toward becoming a reality. On School of the Unconformed, many parents are reaching out to ask for support in helping their teens navigate the mire of devices. Some have joined a Postman Pledge group which supports their kids and teens in making real-life connections. While these are few and far between, your continued effort to raise awareness of the detrimental effects of social media and digital dependence, there is hope that parents will feel encouraged to push against the digital deluge. Thanks for your crucial work!
I watched this video of the One Voice Children's Choir last night, and felt inspired to write a piece about how the Zoomers are going to be a great generation. We've had anxious generations before, and they've been great generations. I think it's time for Zoomers to see their strengths, and for all the rest of us to see their strengths:
Adults could lead by example and once disconnecting from their devices actually connect with their children. We do not talk and smile with each other, I miss that on a soul level.
I applaud this idea. It's really sad what's happening to this generation of children. I know they are anxious, depressed, hopeless, suicidal, and, ironically, the loneliest generation, despite the "connectivity" that those phones claim to provide. Thank you!
There are disadvantages to a child not having a phone. Accepting that those are a more than worthwhile price to pay is an excellent first step. It will be more difficult to reach a child, but not impossible. This can be inconvenient or, rarely, really problematic. It’s still worth it for a child’s long term mental health.
If we're going for wide-scale societal change to reduce the anxiety of the alpha generation, maybe we could give them some hope for a future where they can afford to feed and house their children, can access timely and effective medical care regardless of income, and for the planet to still able to support life for their grandchildren. Absolutely, support them to unplug and be present and mindful, but we also need to give them hope that the real world is a place worth being present in.
I think Obama did a great job with making affordable medical care available. I’m also not convinced they’re hopeless. This seems opinionated and miopic compared to Haidt’s data insights.
Jon, thanks for your insight, which I have found so helpful over the years since I read The Righteous Mind. This makes me wonder how effectively I have straddled the phone fence as a parent. Time will tell.
But it raise the question in my mind about the effect of smartphones on adults. Yes, many of us had childhoods rooted in the kind of play you advocate, but don't we also find the phones addictive? And how do they contribute not just to the isolation that many adults seem to experience (ref the Surgeon General writing a report on lonleliness as a public health crisis), but to the extreme individualism that seems to be overwhelming political life, at least at the national level? I would be very interested in your thoughts on that.
Thank you for your work. If you are not the most, and rightfully so, cited researcher on these topics I don't know who is. You (and co-authors) have been the most influential voices for my own understanding. So I offer an example, not of phone use but of safety-ism, from that unique social experiment that is Canada:
Traveling there, my wife and I went to a hot spring in the mountains, very neat and organized with two pools, abut 5 feet at the deepest, dressing rooms, showers, etc.
At each of the relatively small pools a safety guard was posted, always standing, always attentive. In the brief time we were there, these safety guards occupied themselves by:
- going over and tapping a woman lying quietly, head resting above water on the pool edge, with her eyes closed - calling out: “are you OK?!” Which up until this moment the woman had been, quite obviously.
- barking a command to not be climbing to a child hanging on to a railing leading into the water. The railing was away from any hard surfaces, about three feet above water at this point, and the kid was basically playing in his parents laps, as they were monitoring, surrounding and supporting him.
- barking instructions at a girl to zip up her safety vest correctly. The girl was completely surrounded by her parents and siblings, was having a good time splashing around and staying above water very capably.
The joy-kill effect of this unnecessarily interventionist approach was visible on all faces.
We were also treated to a lengthy and noisy safety training session where new staff leaned how to deal with the absolutely worst possible scenarios (spinal injury in the most guarded pool in the world, for example) in the most dramatically staged fashion - which apparently could not be scheduled so as to not interfere with paying consumers desire to, you know, just relax. Safety first.
Regulating is a good thing. But I don’t agree with prohibiting something without providing any alternatives. TikTok and other similar platforms are time-consuming tools, and probably they’re damaging the progress and mental health of children. But, they can be also good tools. I see lots of people in my life who are gaining skills through YouTube and earning their lives. Also, I saw lots of short educational videos on TikTok. Maybe the exclusively educational version of TikTok might be offered as an alternative. Also, instead and limiting the usage of smartphones, why don’t we offer them phone-like ebook devices like Boox Palma? In general, alternatives should always be provided, to change mass behavior, I believe.
Thank you, Jonathan, for your cordial inclusion of me in your posts. But it is now time to take the issues you raise of teenage mental health, exploding parent-age drug-alcohol abuse, and larger global issues affecting teenagers seriously and stop fixating on cellphones and social media. We have solid, consistent evidence across multiple surveys and multivariate analyses that taken in full context, social media is associated with at most 1% of teens' mental health and none of suicide-attempt increases. Your and colleagues such as Jean Twenge's rationales that tiny correlations explain mass causations simply are not credible. A social media effect of 1% does not begin to explain rises of 12-17 points in teens' self-reported poor mental health and sadness, and none of suicidality. I concede that my alternative factor, parents' exploding drug-alcohol abuse (29,000 overdose deaths among ages 30-64 in 2000; 112,000 in 2022) and CDC-surveyed violent and emotional abuses victimizing more than half of teens -- though much more compelling explanations for 17% of teens' depression -- are also inadequate to explain recent increases. We have no explanation for two-thirds of teens' depression and suicide attempts, and that advises caution, not sweeping age-based banishments of millions of teens from social media. The CDC survey showing abused, depressed, and suicide-attempting teens (including those under age 16) are far more likely to use social media to obtain medical and mental health services -- and that social media is not a factor in teen suicidality once parental abuses are controlled -- should give us pause in the stampede to ban younger teens from social media and smartphones based on "studies" that don't even include these variables. We may be doing real harm by our complete failure to include parent/family factors not even surveyed at present. At this point, we can conclude that parent/household-adult abuses are factors explaining a small part of teens' depression; social media and phones explain just about nothing; and we have no clue what is driving the larger increase in teen troubles until we better refine our surveys and studies.
Well-said as usual, Mike. You always have had a knack for pouring cold water over every moral panic one could name since you first began your illustrious writing career long ago.
I continue to wonder whether social media is truly a causal factor or whether it reflects changes in societal political, ideological, and moral perspectives. The changes you point to in mental health also seem to track the rise of the left’s control over major communications and intellectual institutions. In this context, social media is primarily reflecting the rise in the Left’s institutional power and control over communications. As you point out, the greatest change in mental health is among teenage and young women who have embraced the left’s new woke agenda.
Millennial here. I witnessed a gen z neighbor in the 90s grow up being walked on a leash. Like a dog. His mom took him for walks down the street on a leash attached to his clothing. Hope you are okay, Warner!
I am curious why you chose the age of 16. Is there psychological data to support that age, or is it mainly a concession to those who might think an older age is too radical a change?
Call me a cranky middle-aged man, but I would chose 25 as the cut-off age!
Wow. So in other words, 18-24 year olds will literally be old enough to get married, but too young to post their wedding on Facebook or any other social media? That's pretty odious and illiberal, not to mention ageist. Any age limit would be arbitrary, but anything higher than 18 (i.e. the current legal age of majority) is even more arbitrary.
If there were credible evidence from a series of robust psychological studies that routine social media use by 18-24-year-olds substantially increased suicide, mental illness, and depression, would you change your mind?
I was merely asking Haidt why he chose age 16 instead of some other age.
My point about 25 was more of a joke, but it may well be supported by the social science research on the detrimental effects of social media use on youth. We should not dismiss it without looking at the evidence first.
We have age cut-offs for different things (none are an example of ageism):
Any reason why you’re not including the horrific diet of these children in your analysis? Seems any strategy that does not include it won’t stand a chance of moving the needle in a meaningful way.
Thank you, Dr. Haidt, for your efforts on behalf of children. While I have none I fret for my nieces and nephews.
I simply look to my own experience; if social media feels like it fries MY brain, what is it doing to children?
Thanks again!
Vehemently seconded
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/how-does-emf-affect-children
Rather than schools and legislators to set the standards of phone parenting, I suggest religion. Look what religion does for another hard-to-control area of life: diet. Jews are able to keep kosher. Muslims eat Halal. And Lutherans show their devotion to God by taking perfectly good food and turning it into casseroles. Laws can curb behavior, but they don't change the heart. To really change a culture, you need a belief that a deity cares about your child's phone use.
(Oh and Religion also impacts believers' substance use, suicide attempts, and sexual behaviors. . . governments wish they had that kind of influence)
I love the line about Lutherans and casseroles, but don’t you mean “hotdish”? 😂
Well, yes. It's technically "hotdish," but not everyone speaks Lutheran so I translated it to an analogous word from Secular English.
I am one of those casserole-makers, and by god it works some kind of magic! Less about the food, more about the community that is cultivated around the table on which it sits...
Absolutely "Less about the food, more about the community...." even if the food isn't all that great.
Public schools cannot become the place where religious standards are taught and enforced. But your general point is a good one. I've long been puzzled why Mr Haidt believes Babel is a good metaphor to describe this problem, but none of his solutions return to that Story.
https://outofbabel.substack.com/p/uniquely-stupid
Jonathan, these "foundational norms" are what is needed to establish a new normal for a healthy childhood. As you noted, with a major push from parents, phone-free schools could move toward becoming a reality. On School of the Unconformed, many parents are reaching out to ask for support in helping their teens navigate the mire of devices. Some have joined a Postman Pledge group which supports their kids and teens in making real-life connections. While these are few and far between, your continued effort to raise awareness of the detrimental effects of social media and digital dependence, there is hope that parents will feel encouraged to push against the digital deluge. Thanks for your crucial work!
I watched this video of the One Voice Children's Choir last night, and felt inspired to write a piece about how the Zoomers are going to be a great generation. We've had anxious generations before, and they've been great generations. I think it's time for Zoomers to see their strengths, and for all the rest of us to see their strengths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNfQfloAKfg
https://mikegoodenowweber.substack.com/p/hey-zoomers-youre-going-to-be-a-great
Adults could lead by example and once disconnecting from their devices actually connect with their children. We do not talk and smile with each other, I miss that on a soul level.
BINGO. They hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. And young people can detect hypocrisy a mile away.
I applaud this idea. It's really sad what's happening to this generation of children. I know they are anxious, depressed, hopeless, suicidal, and, ironically, the loneliest generation, despite the "connectivity" that those phones claim to provide. Thank you!
There are disadvantages to a child not having a phone. Accepting that those are a more than worthwhile price to pay is an excellent first step. It will be more difficult to reach a child, but not impossible. This can be inconvenient or, rarely, really problematic. It’s still worth it for a child’s long term mental health.
If we're going for wide-scale societal change to reduce the anxiety of the alpha generation, maybe we could give them some hope for a future where they can afford to feed and house their children, can access timely and effective medical care regardless of income, and for the planet to still able to support life for their grandchildren. Absolutely, support them to unplug and be present and mindful, but we also need to give them hope that the real world is a place worth being present in.
This is the best comment of the 50 some odd ones I’ve read...
I think Obama did a great job with making affordable medical care available. I’m also not convinced they’re hopeless. This seems opinionated and miopic compared to Haidt’s data insights.
Amen
It's not just in America; Canadian schools are adopting it as well.
Having grown-up in the pre-Internet era, I long for it precisely because of the ills that now exist in relation to phones in particular.
Jon, thanks for your insight, which I have found so helpful over the years since I read The Righteous Mind. This makes me wonder how effectively I have straddled the phone fence as a parent. Time will tell.
But it raise the question in my mind about the effect of smartphones on adults. Yes, many of us had childhoods rooted in the kind of play you advocate, but don't we also find the phones addictive? And how do they contribute not just to the isolation that many adults seem to experience (ref the Surgeon General writing a report on lonleliness as a public health crisis), but to the extreme individualism that seems to be overwhelming political life, at least at the national level? I would be very interested in your thoughts on that.
Thank you for your work. If you are not the most, and rightfully so, cited researcher on these topics I don't know who is. You (and co-authors) have been the most influential voices for my own understanding. So I offer an example, not of phone use but of safety-ism, from that unique social experiment that is Canada:
Traveling there, my wife and I went to a hot spring in the mountains, very neat and organized with two pools, abut 5 feet at the deepest, dressing rooms, showers, etc.
At each of the relatively small pools a safety guard was posted, always standing, always attentive. In the brief time we were there, these safety guards occupied themselves by:
- going over and tapping a woman lying quietly, head resting above water on the pool edge, with her eyes closed - calling out: “are you OK?!” Which up until this moment the woman had been, quite obviously.
- barking a command to not be climbing to a child hanging on to a railing leading into the water. The railing was away from any hard surfaces, about three feet above water at this point, and the kid was basically playing in his parents laps, as they were monitoring, surrounding and supporting him.
- barking instructions at a girl to zip up her safety vest correctly. The girl was completely surrounded by her parents and siblings, was having a good time splashing around and staying above water very capably.
The joy-kill effect of this unnecessarily interventionist approach was visible on all faces.
We were also treated to a lengthy and noisy safety training session where new staff leaned how to deal with the absolutely worst possible scenarios (spinal injury in the most guarded pool in the world, for example) in the most dramatically staged fashion - which apparently could not be scheduled so as to not interfere with paying consumers desire to, you know, just relax. Safety first.
Canada is so safe Canadians will live to a ripe, miserable unadventurous, old age.
No, they'll all be legally euthanized the minute they experience discomfort 😒
True
Regulating is a good thing. But I don’t agree with prohibiting something without providing any alternatives. TikTok and other similar platforms are time-consuming tools, and probably they’re damaging the progress and mental health of children. But, they can be also good tools. I see lots of people in my life who are gaining skills through YouTube and earning their lives. Also, I saw lots of short educational videos on TikTok. Maybe the exclusively educational version of TikTok might be offered as an alternative. Also, instead and limiting the usage of smartphones, why don’t we offer them phone-like ebook devices like Boox Palma? In general, alternatives should always be provided, to change mass behavior, I believe.
Thank you, Jonathan, for your cordial inclusion of me in your posts. But it is now time to take the issues you raise of teenage mental health, exploding parent-age drug-alcohol abuse, and larger global issues affecting teenagers seriously and stop fixating on cellphones and social media. We have solid, consistent evidence across multiple surveys and multivariate analyses that taken in full context, social media is associated with at most 1% of teens' mental health and none of suicide-attempt increases. Your and colleagues such as Jean Twenge's rationales that tiny correlations explain mass causations simply are not credible. A social media effect of 1% does not begin to explain rises of 12-17 points in teens' self-reported poor mental health and sadness, and none of suicidality. I concede that my alternative factor, parents' exploding drug-alcohol abuse (29,000 overdose deaths among ages 30-64 in 2000; 112,000 in 2022) and CDC-surveyed violent and emotional abuses victimizing more than half of teens -- though much more compelling explanations for 17% of teens' depression -- are also inadequate to explain recent increases. We have no explanation for two-thirds of teens' depression and suicide attempts, and that advises caution, not sweeping age-based banishments of millions of teens from social media. The CDC survey showing abused, depressed, and suicide-attempting teens (including those under age 16) are far more likely to use social media to obtain medical and mental health services -- and that social media is not a factor in teen suicidality once parental abuses are controlled -- should give us pause in the stampede to ban younger teens from social media and smartphones based on "studies" that don't even include these variables. We may be doing real harm by our complete failure to include parent/family factors not even surveyed at present. At this point, we can conclude that parent/household-adult abuses are factors explaining a small part of teens' depression; social media and phones explain just about nothing; and we have no clue what is driving the larger increase in teen troubles until we better refine our surveys and studies.
Well-said as usual, Mike. You always have had a knack for pouring cold water over every moral panic one could name since you first began your illustrious writing career long ago.
I continue to wonder whether social media is truly a causal factor or whether it reflects changes in societal political, ideological, and moral perspectives. The changes you point to in mental health also seem to track the rise of the left’s control over major communications and intellectual institutions. In this context, social media is primarily reflecting the rise in the Left’s institutional power and control over communications. As you point out, the greatest change in mental health is among teenage and young women who have embraced the left’s new woke agenda.
Millennial here. I witnessed a gen z neighbor in the 90s grow up being walked on a leash. Like a dog. His mom took him for walks down the street on a leash attached to his clothing. Hope you are okay, Warner!
I support your proposal.
I am curious why you chose the age of 16. Is there psychological data to support that age, or is it mainly a concession to those who might think an older age is too radical a change?
Call me a cranky middle-aged man, but I would chose 25 as the cut-off age!
Wow. So in other words, 18-24 year olds will literally be old enough to get married, but too young to post their wedding on Facebook or any other social media? That's pretty odious and illiberal, not to mention ageist. Any age limit would be arbitrary, but anything higher than 18 (i.e. the current legal age of majority) is even more arbitrary.
Be VERY careful what you wish for!
If there were credible evidence from a series of robust psychological studies that routine social media use by 18-24-year-olds substantially increased suicide, mental illness, and depression, would you change your mind?
Take it easy.
I was merely asking Haidt why he chose age 16 instead of some other age.
My point about 25 was more of a joke, but it may well be supported by the social science research on the detrimental effects of social media use on youth. We should not dismiss it without looking at the evidence first.
We have age cut-offs for different things (none are an example of ageism):
Driving (typically 16)
Voting (18, but it used to be 21)
Drinking alcohol (21)
Owning firearms (21)
Sexual Consent (varies between 16 and 18)
Surgery (varies widely by state)
etc
Any reason why you’re not including the horrific diet of these children in your analysis? Seems any strategy that does not include it won’t stand a chance of moving the needle in a meaningful way.