Jonathan Haidt blames teenage depression, anxiety on smartphones, social media(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Jonathan Haidt blames teenage depression, anxiety on smartphones, social media
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/jonathan-haidt-wants-you-to-take-away-your-kids-phone
173 comments
This push for tech abstinence will end much like sex abstinence. Instead of "wait until you're an adult" we should instead be teaching our child good habits. The issue is of course that most adults don't have good habits for children to modle either.
My daughter has had access to a tablet since she was 12 months old. She's 5 currently, but she's not a tablet zombie as I so commonly see reported of toddlers with free access to phones. Just yesterday, my daughter freely, without my intervention, put away her tablet to play with a child who happened into the room we were in. She never touched it again until we were bad into the car and begged me to leave and play with her new friend outside instead of ask for another set of headphones for the friend.
This is the result of my international teaching of my daughter about how we interact with devices. As someone who grew up with the internet in elementary school, I feel extremely confident, I can keep this up even as my preschooler turns into a kid into a teen.
I just think it's a shame that I'm surrounded by parents with intention of teaching her kids about how to responsibly use their devices or they want to deny their kid access at all like somehow their child will magically manifest all the skills they need to deal with infinite stroll once they turn 18.
My daughter has had access to a tablet since she was 12 months old. She's 5 currently, but she's not a tablet zombie as I so commonly see reported of toddlers with free access to phones. Just yesterday, my daughter freely, without my intervention, put away her tablet to play with a child who happened into the room we were in. She never touched it again until we were bad into the car and begged me to leave and play with her new friend outside instead of ask for another set of headphones for the friend.
This is the result of my international teaching of my daughter about how we interact with devices. As someone who grew up with the internet in elementary school, I feel extremely confident, I can keep this up even as my preschooler turns into a kid into a teen.
I just think it's a shame that I'm surrounded by parents with intention of teaching her kids about how to responsibly use their devices or they want to deny their kid access at all like somehow their child will magically manifest all the skills they need to deal with infinite stroll once they turn 18.
Hadiat's views aren't as different as you might think. He distinguishes between tech and social media specifically. He thinks tech and the internet are great for kids. However, he thinks that social media before developing meatspace social skills is very damaging, especially for teen girls.
I think his takes are pretty accurate.
I think his takes are pretty accurate.
He actually says what you're arguing for is akin to saying we should give kids a bit of nicotine earlier on so they know how to smoke before they're adults and won't be as affected by it then.
That’s why I remain in favor of the 21 drinking age. By the time you turn 21 you’ve had several years of drinking experience and can handle it responsibly
If you switch nicotine out for a different socially acceptable drug – alcohol – and suddenly that's not so unreasonable. It's long been argued that the US model of "no alcohol until you're 21" followed by full (and largely unsupervised) access to as much alcohol as you can afford leads to more young adult problems with alcohol than something more akin to various western European cultures where some small degree of supervised alcohol consumption before being legally allowed to buy and consume unlimited amounts.
I see this a lot where "${thing} is bad" leads to people saying "we should stop letting people have ${thing}" and trying to raise kids as if ${thing} doesn't exist or as if they can choose to not be addicted / influenced by ${thing}, regardless of how realistic that is. Pick your vice, sex, drugs, guns, rock and roll, pop music, movies, TV, the internet at large, social media, communism, capitalism, socialism, fascism, power tools, knives, etc. And it seems to me, more often than not, heavily "abstinence only" treatment of ${thing} results in far more harm than in trying to model ways to healthily deal with the fact that ${thing} exists and may vary well be something you have to deal with.
I think of it like an immune system response. Your body needs to encounter pathogens in order to learn how to deal with them. Sure it would be ideal if you never ever got sick at all. But since that's basically impossible, and we know that trying to do that often results in unintended side effects, it's better instead to teach people (and their immune systems) how to deal with things. People get taught to wash their hands, cover their mouths, and immune systems get vaccines, and exposure to pathogens by not keeping our kids in hermetically sealed environments. Should you go out an intentionally get your kid sick? No, generally speaking you shouldn't. But that's exactly the goal of a vaccine. Get your body a little sick, so that it's better prepared to deal with the real thing when it gets there. Or see also chicken pox parties (though I don't know if that's still a thing or even recommended anymore)
I see this a lot where "${thing} is bad" leads to people saying "we should stop letting people have ${thing}" and trying to raise kids as if ${thing} doesn't exist or as if they can choose to not be addicted / influenced by ${thing}, regardless of how realistic that is. Pick your vice, sex, drugs, guns, rock and roll, pop music, movies, TV, the internet at large, social media, communism, capitalism, socialism, fascism, power tools, knives, etc. And it seems to me, more often than not, heavily "abstinence only" treatment of ${thing} results in far more harm than in trying to model ways to healthily deal with the fact that ${thing} exists and may vary well be something you have to deal with.
I think of it like an immune system response. Your body needs to encounter pathogens in order to learn how to deal with them. Sure it would be ideal if you never ever got sick at all. But since that's basically impossible, and we know that trying to do that often results in unintended side effects, it's better instead to teach people (and their immune systems) how to deal with things. People get taught to wash their hands, cover their mouths, and immune systems get vaccines, and exposure to pathogens by not keeping our kids in hermetically sealed environments. Should you go out an intentionally get your kid sick? No, generally speaking you shouldn't. But that's exactly the goal of a vaccine. Get your body a little sick, so that it's better prepared to deal with the real thing when it gets there. Or see also chicken pox parties (though I don't know if that's still a thing or even recommended anymore)
I didn't find anything in the article about nicotine, but that sounds like a ridiculous comparison. Nicotine-processing skills aren't generally required for a successful life these days and in the future.
> that sounds like a ridiculous comparison
So you assume social media is required for a successful life? I bet there were people that would have argued in the ‘50s and ‘60s that the social aspect of smoking was helpful to having a successful life back then too. Never mind the cancer and all being popular with your peers is what’s important.
So you assume social media is required for a successful life? I bet there were people that would have argued in the ‘50s and ‘60s that the social aspect of smoking was helpful to having a successful life back then too. Never mind the cancer and all being popular with your peers is what’s important.
> So you assume social media is required for a successful life?
No, nothing in my post assumed or even suggested that. Recall the discussion was whether smartphones and tablets have any more utility than nicotine. Let's forget social media for a moment, then, since it's a red herring here. I can, and do, capably use both devices without needing to use social media.
Yes, being able to use a smartphone or tablet is likely required for many successful careers, and likely more in the future. If someone looking for a job can only use a phone or tablet as well as my grandma can use a mouse, that unfortunately rules out some career options. The story is the same for me: Had I no access to computers or technology until I was an adult, I would have a totally different career path and life. Not sure I'd be as happy in that case as I am now.
I don't like how "devices" are replacing full-fledged computers (maybe it's the old man in me), but that only portends more hardship for people handicapped in "on-device computing".
No, nothing in my post assumed or even suggested that. Recall the discussion was whether smartphones and tablets have any more utility than nicotine. Let's forget social media for a moment, then, since it's a red herring here. I can, and do, capably use both devices without needing to use social media.
Yes, being able to use a smartphone or tablet is likely required for many successful careers, and likely more in the future. If someone looking for a job can only use a phone or tablet as well as my grandma can use a mouse, that unfortunately rules out some career options. The story is the same for me: Had I no access to computers or technology until I was an adult, I would have a totally different career path and life. Not sure I'd be as happy in that case as I am now.
I don't like how "devices" are replacing full-fledged computers (maybe it's the old man in me), but that only portends more hardship for people handicapped in "on-device computing".
The article was about social media rotting kids brains and devices being the path to that rotten apple…so remove the path. The other comment made the comparison that tobacco use doesn’t work in small bites either. You made the successful life skills connection, so it’s not a huge leap of assumption to see that you were connecting social media usage to those successful life skills.
I merely made the further connection that smoking had a social connection too and was yet another rotten thing we did to ourselves and kids once upon a time.
Frankly, I’d also suggest to your point that devices, computer, and coding skills are going to be less important in the future. I think coding and SW dev will become less and less a human endeavor and more a product of AI practically eliminating the vocation, but that’s not what this thread is about and I am sure not what folks on HN will want to hear. People will also manage to figure out how to utilize the tech of their time, they won’t need to be exposed to it as children. I know I wasn’t, and my nearly 90 year old mother manages to use a smartphone and tablet just fine and she didn’t even have indoor plumbing when she grew up.
I merely made the further connection that smoking had a social connection too and was yet another rotten thing we did to ourselves and kids once upon a time.
Frankly, I’d also suggest to your point that devices, computer, and coding skills are going to be less important in the future. I think coding and SW dev will become less and less a human endeavor and more a product of AI practically eliminating the vocation, but that’s not what this thread is about and I am sure not what folks on HN will want to hear. People will also manage to figure out how to utilize the tech of their time, they won’t need to be exposed to it as children. I know I wasn’t, and my nearly 90 year old mother manages to use a smartphone and tablet just fine and she didn’t even have indoor plumbing when she grew up.
The thread I responded to was a story about a child using a tablet, and a reply saying that particular story was "akin" to children consuming nicotine. Neither contained any mention of social media.
I can, and do, capably use both tablets (and smartphones!) without needing to use social media, and we have no indication that the child in question used social media. So, let's forget social media for a moment, then, since it's a red herring here. Let's return to topic: whether the story of child tablet usage which spawned this thread is "akin to" child nicotine consumption.
I appreciate your point about deep computer knowledge being less useful as HCI approaches a conversation, and can see that being a possible future as well.
I can, and do, capably use both tablets (and smartphones!) without needing to use social media, and we have no indication that the child in question used social media. So, let's forget social media for a moment, then, since it's a red herring here. Let's return to topic: whether the story of child tablet usage which spawned this thread is "akin to" child nicotine consumption.
I appreciate your point about deep computer knowledge being less useful as HCI approaches a conversation, and can see that being a possible future as well.
I wouldn't be as dismissive as you.
Even at the height of smoking, around half of the population were nonsmokers.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cig...
How many high school kids don't have a smartphone, especially outside the poorest areas? One in thirty?
Socially, it is very different being part of half of the population, and a tiny minority of the population, doubly so if it restricts your communication capabilities and you are left out of all common activities of your peers.
The situation can be fixed, but a critical mass of people willing to change their current ways must gather and be willing to sacrifice some efficiency and comfort for the sake of personal contact.
Even at the height of smoking, around half of the population were nonsmokers.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cig...
How many high school kids don't have a smartphone, especially outside the poorest areas? One in thirty?
Socially, it is very different being part of half of the population, and a tiny minority of the population, doubly so if it restricts your communication capabilities and you are left out of all common activities of your peers.
The situation can be fixed, but a critical mass of people willing to change their current ways must gather and be willing to sacrifice some efficiency and comfort for the sake of personal contact.
Not being dismissive, but if 1 kid in 30 doesn’t smoke, but 29 do, that doesn’t make smoking any less dangerous.
> akin
I was very much going to take a similar approach to help train a child to know what the right behavior is. I have four children and it turns out they're all very different in terms of varying amounts of self control. I can definitely with my second one to use it at appropriate times but my oldest is way too impulsive and doesn't have the self control to exercise good behaviors (this isn't just a smartphone problem).
I'm in the same boat...2 kids. The one who always wants a tablet also always want snacks and candy. Any good resources on curbing this before it gets worse?
I would suggest approaching the impulsive kid as a trainer might approach a dog. Determine what the motivation is, and then use that as leverage to get the behavior that you want (and which is better for the child). So, if you want them to practice reading, offer the tablet or candy as a reward for a certain amount of time or, perhaps better, a certain realistic goal. You haven't mentioned anything about ages or other personality characteristics, which has a big influence on this sort of approach, so take with a big grain of salt.
I love my kids more than life, but I find a lot of dog training stuff crosses over very well. I taught them "come" command from an early age - and they know to come immediately, without question. The idea being if they are in a dangerous situation, like in the middle of a street or about to be hit by a bike or something, that this is how I will get them out of it. I don't use the command very often, but damn if those kids don't come running! It makes me feel so much safer.
I love my kids more than life, but I find a lot of dog training stuff crosses over very well. I taught them "come" command from an early age - and they know to come immediately, without question. The idea being if they are in a dangerous situation, like in the middle of a street or about to be hit by a bike or something, that this is how I will get them out of it. I don't use the command very often, but damn if those kids don't come running! It makes me feel so much safer.
I really believe having two rescue dogs (with their own issues) before having kids was a really good intro on how to set expectations and build up patience.
This is dead on. I find, however, that you have to be careful about revealing your secret, at least in so many words. I had (more or less) the following interaction with a parent we see occasionally:
Them: "How'd you get $oneYearOld to do $that?"
Me: [Explains]
Them: "That's clever"
Me (unguardedly): "Yeah, it's basically like dog-training - [more or less what you said]."
Them: [Dirty look]
A year on I don't think they've started another conversation with me. Lol. I have the "bad parent" rep, but everyone likes our kid, so I really, really don't care.
[Edit: It's all positive reinforcement, mind. I'm not yelling or beating the kid, or anything like that. The objection is to a mental association between the child and an animal. My wife initially had the same.
Them: "How'd you get $oneYearOld to do $that?"
Me: [Explains]
Them: "That's clever"
Me (unguardedly): "Yeah, it's basically like dog-training - [more or less what you said]."
Them: [Dirty look]
A year on I don't think they've started another conversation with me. Lol. I have the "bad parent" rep, but everyone likes our kid, so I really, really don't care.
[Edit: It's all positive reinforcement, mind. I'm not yelling or beating the kid, or anything like that. The objection is to a mental association between the child and an animal. My wife initially had the same.
How old are they? You might just be able to cut those things out of their life...a week or two of pain but then they might forget about it
They are 5 and 7.
> we should be teaching our child good habits
If it’s parents and teachers vs legions of well-funded PhDs at Meta and TikTok, I know who I would bet on winning…
If it’s parents and teachers vs legions of well-funded PhDs at Meta and TikTok, I know who I would bet on winning…
It's still about good habits and modelling good behavior.
Millions of dollars of research goes into making Doritos and Coca Cola hyper palatable yet it's been 5 years since I tasted either of them.
It's more holistic than just telling your kids to not eat Doritos. You have to inculcate skills and decision making. Such as the ability to cook delicious food. The ability to meal plan and shop accordingly. If you have no idea how to cook, no cultural norms about eating out only once in a while as a treat rather than a habit, then when you're hungry you'll jump for the packet of chips.
Unfortunately not only are we slowly forgetting these skills, we also come up with galaxy brained theories about why that's a good thing.
Millions of dollars of research goes into making Doritos and Coca Cola hyper palatable yet it's been 5 years since I tasted either of them.
It's more holistic than just telling your kids to not eat Doritos. You have to inculcate skills and decision making. Such as the ability to cook delicious food. The ability to meal plan and shop accordingly. If you have no idea how to cook, no cultural norms about eating out only once in a while as a treat rather than a habit, then when you're hungry you'll jump for the packet of chips.
Unfortunately not only are we slowly forgetting these skills, we also come up with galaxy brained theories about why that's a good thing.
> This is the result of my [intentional] teaching
This is a key part. As a parent it’s hard to distinguish between parent guidance and the way the kid would be even without our intervention. In any case, Haidt’s argument is one of public health. The claim is that many/most parents don’t know how to provide that teaching even if they were of a mind to be intentional about parenting.
> like somehow their child will magically manifest all the skills they need to deal . . . once they turn 18
There are so many things like this. Fortunately one’s offspring need not get cut off at 18. The challenge is progressively cutting apron strings so any particular threshold isn’t a cliff.
This is a key part. As a parent it’s hard to distinguish between parent guidance and the way the kid would be even without our intervention. In any case, Haidt’s argument is one of public health. The claim is that many/most parents don’t know how to provide that teaching even if they were of a mind to be intentional about parenting.
> like somehow their child will magically manifest all the skills they need to deal . . . once they turn 18
There are so many things like this. Fortunately one’s offspring need not get cut off at 18. The challenge is progressively cutting apron strings so any particular threshold isn’t a cliff.
What qualifies as good habits for a tween using TikTok or instagram, and is it actually reasonable to expect their developing brains to be able to carry out instructions regarding limiting their usage of highly-addictive platforms?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I guess my observation is that most parents, even competent ones, fail to get this right and end up with phone or tablet addicted children. Maybe there is some approach that teaches them a better way, but I wonder if avoiding devices entirely is a less risky path if you aren’t confident in your ability to teach them how to use devices.
> This is the result of my international teaching of my daughter about how we interact with devices.
Do you mean like exposure to how different cultures live with technology?
> This is the result of my international teaching of my daughter about how we interact with devices.
Do you mean like exposure to how different cultures live with technology?
There's an assumption lurking here that I feel needs to be dragged out into the open. This entire line of reasoning assumes that there is something teachable that would circumvent screen addiction, with a secondary assumption that kids are programmable and will accept whatever instruction is provided regardless of competing inputs. This seems questionable that a child can be armed to compete against a couple decades of psyops research by some of the best funded private organizations on the planet.
I don't see anything good coming from depriving teens of their freedom of speech as a scapegoat for mental health problems that are caused by other factors in the first place.
The problem is with a society where we deprive minors of their freedom and independence because we refuse to pay for basic public safety and basic public transportation. Instead, we make helicopter parenting into the norm and then blame the one domain (the internet) where they are capable of experiencing some freedom for the problems caused by a lack of freedom. If we actually want to fix the youth mental health problem, we need to ensure that kids can safely go outside and play or go places without parents having to follow them 24/7 like they could in past generations.
The problem is with a society where we deprive minors of their freedom and independence because we refuse to pay for basic public safety and basic public transportation. Instead, we make helicopter parenting into the norm and then blame the one domain (the internet) where they are capable of experiencing some freedom for the problems caused by a lack of freedom. If we actually want to fix the youth mental health problem, we need to ensure that kids can safely go outside and play or go places without parents having to follow them 24/7 like they could in past generations.
> we need to ensure that kids can safely go outside and play or go places without parents having to follow them 24/7 like they could in past generations.
Where in the world is it unsafe for children to play outside? As far as I can see children don't play outside simply because they are not encouraged to.
Where in the world is it unsafe for children to play outside? As far as I can see children don't play outside simply because they are not encouraged to.
My impression has been that it is common in the US for jerks to call the cops and/or CPS if they see kids playing outside without an adult around. A couple examples:
https://www.nydailynews.com/2014/09/17/neighbor-calls-cops-c...
https://reason.com/2023/03/09/teaneck-new-jersey-arrest-kids...
https://www.nydailynews.com/2014/09/17/neighbor-calls-cops-c...
https://reason.com/2023/03/09/teaneck-new-jersey-arrest-kids...
Ah, I had the wrong kind of unsafe in mind.
>This is the result of my international teaching of my daughter about how we interact with devices.
No. It's the result of you having time to spend with her instead of working 2 or 3 back-breaking jobs like many parents have to, and her having a safe and stable material livelihood so she doesn't constantly desire escape.
No. It's the result of you having time to spend with her instead of working 2 or 3 back-breaking jobs like many parents have to, and her having a safe and stable material livelihood so she doesn't constantly desire escape.
They could just be lucky, and have a kid with that kind of attitude (on top of the things you mentioned). I've seen a number of stable families (at least outwardly) around school/work whose kids are glued to the damn things.
What really makes me sad is when I'm at a restaurant or shop or similar and there is a parent with a small child getting restless and they pacify them by sticking a phone with Youtube in their face.
What really makes me sad is when I'm at a restaurant or shop or similar and there is a parent with a small child getting restless and they pacify them by sticking a phone with Youtube in their face.
My point is that they are wrong about which parts of their good parenting are causing the good outcome, which is important because if I'm right then we should understand the problem more as a failure of society than a failure of parenting.
Of course anyone can be a bad parent, but being a good parent might require having a certain amount of material security and wealth. Not such a crazy idea if you think about it.
Of course anyone can be a bad parent, but being a good parent might require having a certain amount of material security and wealth. Not such a crazy idea if you think about it.
It’s a correlation to be sure. But also inter-generational family habits, like inculcation values of meriting good habits, e.g. discipline. Some families like that basic history.
You're being down voted but you're right.
You need a support system to be able to model good behavior. If you barely have energy to make it to bed at night then you definitely won't have energy to entertain a hyperactive toddler. Things like having grandparents help raise kids and spend time with them instead of turning on YouTube can help.
You need a support system to be able to model good behavior. If you barely have energy to make it to bed at night then you definitely won't have energy to entertain a hyperactive toddler. Things like having grandparents help raise kids and spend time with them instead of turning on YouTube can help.
If I had children when I wanted to (which I am still saving up to do) then their grandparents would still be working full time.
The only problem is that his methodology is no better than lining up time-series data and finding spurious correlations[1]. If we did this with any other problem, we would be happy to point out the problem with this approach.
Nutritional studies have more scientific rigor than what Haidt is hocking and we're happy to point out standards of evidence. All I'm asking is that we don't alter our standard of evidence simply because we agree with the conclusion. It's bad science and a bad way of making decisions.
RCT advocates should have easy pickings here.
1. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Nutritional studies have more scientific rigor than what Haidt is hocking and we're happy to point out standards of evidence. All I'm asking is that we don't alter our standard of evidence simply because we agree with the conclusion. It's bad science and a bad way of making decisions.
RCT advocates should have easy pickings here.
1. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
That's not true.
1. Haid has evidence from randomized experiments with kids.
2. There are natural experiments caused by different regional adoption rates of high-speed internet.
3. When the effect size of harm correlates with the frequency of use in population, that's more than time series and spurious-correlations.
Social Media and Mental Health: A Collaborative Review https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-...
1. Haid has evidence from randomized experiments with kids.
2. There are natural experiments caused by different regional adoption rates of high-speed internet.
3. When the effect size of harm correlates with the frequency of use in population, that's more than time series and spurious-correlations.
Social Media and Mental Health: A Collaborative Review https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-...
Mike Masnick has written a review of Haidt's book, and it's a nice rebuttal to each of these arguments.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p...
One of the points he makes -- and that I don't see much discussed when it comes to Haidt's work -- is that Haidt's prescriptions for a solution are dangerous. If Haidt is wrong, one of the most unsettling consequences of relying on his solutions is that we stop looking for the real causes of any degradation in childhood mental health. Even if he's right, his solutions will have all sorts of unintended consequences, including loss of privacy on the internet, lack of access by children to resources that are in fact helpful to their mental health, and violations of various legal and constitutional human rights frameworks.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p...
One of the points he makes -- and that I don't see much discussed when it comes to Haidt's work -- is that Haidt's prescriptions for a solution are dangerous. If Haidt is wrong, one of the most unsettling consequences of relying on his solutions is that we stop looking for the real causes of any degradation in childhood mental health. Even if he's right, his solutions will have all sorts of unintended consequences, including loss of privacy on the internet, lack of access by children to resources that are in fact helpful to their mental health, and violations of various legal and constitutional human rights frameworks.
You need only about one year (or maybe one semesters) of schools experimenting with his solution to see if it works. Some schools are already doing it, so there is data soon.
It's not possible to blind the experiment's test subjects. Again, all I'm asking for is the level of critique to be comparable to the strength of the claims. We are eager to critique lower stakes claims, but for some reason Haidt typically gets a pass here. All I'm asking for is consistency.
I'm not sure how to put this, but effect size and causation are different things. It's a category mistake to compare.
I'm not sure how to put this, but effect size and causation are different things. It's a category mistake to compare.
> It's not possible to blind the experiment's test subjects.
It's not necessary. Randomized experiment is good enough. So are natural experiments.
It's not necessary. Randomized experiment is good enough. So are natural experiments.
It's risk times consequences. The risk assessment might not be up to scientific standards, but the consequences are big.
Also, it's not just about statistics, in this case we have a pretty intuitive grasp on the mechanics at play, they are not far fetched.
Also, it's not just about statistics, in this case we have a pretty intuitive grasp on the mechanics at play, they are not far fetched.
Risks have to be based in reality. Our greatest reality check is the scientific process.
We can make up risks endlessly, see the AI-as-an-existential-threat debate. It simply is not grounded in reality. All I'm asking is transparency. People make non-scientific claims and conclusions all the time. Folks just need to be honest that this is what they're doing so they aren't fooling themselves and others.
We can make up risks endlessly, see the AI-as-an-existential-threat debate. It simply is not grounded in reality. All I'm asking is transparency. People make non-scientific claims and conclusions all the time. Folks just need to be honest that this is what they're doing so they aren't fooling themselves and others.
Haidt's rebuttal to your argument of spurious correlation:
https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-based-childhood-cause-epi...
https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-based-childhood-cause-epi...
> Alcott and colleagues (2020) randomly assigned 2743 adults.
I stopped there. We're talking specifically about teenage depression and the cited study is adults. If Haidt wants us to take results from one subgroup and apply it to another, he has to provide evidence. That's how this process works.
I stopped there. We're talking specifically about teenage depression and the cited study is adults. If Haidt wants us to take results from one subgroup and apply it to another, he has to provide evidence. That's how this process works.
This is weirdly uncharitable. Why would you stop there when there's 22 experimental studies[1] and the majority of the article left to read?
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-...
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-...
> If Haidt wants us to take results from one subgroup and apply it to another, he has to provide evidence. That's how this process works.
Perhaps considering where he does so, further in the article which you stopped reading.
Perhaps considering where he does so, further in the article which you stopped reading.
You conveniently stopped reading at the first cite, before he provided more experimental evidence.
Because he has no intention of being convinced by data that goes against his beliefs, which is an ego based anti scientific stance.
I'm much more interested in the rhetorical device, "I stopped reading at X and couldn't take anything after that seriously." It looks like I have some more learning to do before employing it successfully.
I tend to think that these are more symptoms than causes. And the disease is that we just put way too much pressure on youth. You need to work hard for your whole youth to get into a good school, then work hard there to get a good job, then work hard for the rest of your life. One serious mistake (these days this might just be the wrong comment) and it's all over. A subset of your peers will take great pleasure in cancelling you for clout points. You also need to have great extracurriculars in order to get into the good school, you need to have a fulfilling social life, you need to be good at relationships and get experience while you're young. You need to stay fit and active, yet also pick a lucrative field that generally ends up with you sitting in a chair all day. All this while evidently the world is ending in a few years due to climate, you're constantly being told that one of the political parties seeks to destroy the world, you're constantly being shat on due to your skin color no matter who you are, housing is completely out of reach, enemy nations constantly circle the west looking for blood, etc.
There's too much stuff and for me personally, the only solution has been to let most of it go, to try to care about as little of it as possible. I'm happier now than I've ever been. But students often have no choice but to care since this stuff affects their futures so much, and it results in insane amounts of depression and anxiety, the same sort I certainly experienced before I had a plan more figured out.
There's too much stuff and for me personally, the only solution has been to let most of it go, to try to care about as little of it as possible. I'm happier now than I've ever been. But students often have no choice but to care since this stuff affects their futures so much, and it results in insane amounts of depression and anxiety, the same sort I certainly experienced before I had a plan more figured out.
> We expect market mechanisms to matter. So if you hurt your customers, they’re not likely to come back. But this is a market failure because the kids are not the customers. The kids aren’t giving Facebook money. The kids are the product. Their attention is the product. The customers are the advertisers. So we have a market failure.
I’m not for more regulation or big government. But I find this difficult to argue with.
Their customers do not care about damage done, and the people being damaged mostly have no idea.
I’m not for more regulation or big government. But I find this difficult to argue with.
Their customers do not care about damage done, and the people being damaged mostly have no idea.
This is the problem that often gets overlooked in these "tech is bad" discussions. It's not the tech itself. It's not the concept of social media.
The problem is when every aspect of tech is corrupted to maximize ad impressions (and this goes beyond social media - the vast majority of consumer technology is chasing "engagement").
Regulating away this disgrace of a business model and tech will become much more sane & safe, including for children.
The problem is when every aspect of tech is corrupted to maximize ad impressions (and this goes beyond social media - the vast majority of consumer technology is chasing "engagement").
Regulating away this disgrace of a business model and tech will become much more sane & safe, including for children.
Not just ads, the whole model is rotten! It should cause bankruptcy through fines to run a company which harvests your data and piecemeals features at tiered pricing (and worse: subscription) to maximize yield from you like you're a soybean plant in a crop! This is a game of brinksmanship between companies and [apparent] customers these days!
We fix this by mandating all subscription services at least show you the Present Value of a perpetuity at the cashflow of the subscription on checkout (discounted at the highest US bond yield); ideally they must also offer to the customer the option to instead pay that Present Value in lieu of the recurring subscription charge (but also, when the customer quits the company must return the difference of the perpetuity and the annuity representing the whole period in the subscription).
We fix this by mandating all subscription services at least show you the Present Value of a perpetuity at the cashflow of the subscription on checkout (discounted at the highest US bond yield); ideally they must also offer to the customer the option to instead pay that Present Value in lieu of the recurring subscription charge (but also, when the customer quits the company must return the difference of the perpetuity and the annuity representing the whole period in the subscription).
My problem with the line of thinking is that you are addressing a today problem, But not thinking long enough about the problem you’re about to create.
The market, the amount of money we’re talking about, the amount of influence that is a hand… It’s not going to go away because we passed a regulation or two.
I don’t think there is any solution. I certainly don’t think that one solution would come from government. However, a multi approach explaining what these companies are doing, and some regulation and some pressure put on their actual customers, the advertisers, might move the needle.
The market, the amount of money we’re talking about, the amount of influence that is a hand… It’s not going to go away because we passed a regulation or two.
I don’t think there is any solution. I certainly don’t think that one solution would come from government. However, a multi approach explaining what these companies are doing, and some regulation and some pressure put on their actual customers, the advertisers, might move the needle.
The social media I use today is primarily content oriented (reddit for entertainment, HN for eng news, occasional tiktok for funny videos with my wife). I left Facebook behind about 10 years ago, and left Twitter when it was morphed into whatever it is now.
As a parent of two children, we will hold off on social networking media for a long time most likely. Content can be valuable, and our children largely use their devices for content interests (YouTube) and creation (various apps and games like Minecraft).
I would love to see studies that better explain the effects of these habits as they relate to the "networking" part of social networks and media. I'd argue right now that my LinkedIn consumption is probably more harmful than my TikTok consumption, in terms of depression.
As a parent of two children, we will hold off on social networking media for a long time most likely. Content can be valuable, and our children largely use their devices for content interests (YouTube) and creation (various apps and games like Minecraft).
I would love to see studies that better explain the effects of these habits as they relate to the "networking" part of social networks and media. I'd argue right now that my LinkedIn consumption is probably more harmful than my TikTok consumption, in terms of depression.
Let them have old Nokias. Calls and texts only. Inexpensive (not a theft magnet), durable, long battery life.
No social media (or online gaming even?) until at least 16, if not 18 or 21, seems entirely reasonable given how much it messes with the heads of full-grown adults.
No social media (or online gaming even?) until at least 16, if not 18 or 21, seems entirely reasonable given how much it messes with the heads of full-grown adults.
We’re finally about to the point that our kids kinda need something. Payphones don’t exist anymore, after all.
We’re planing on a shared Nokia at first, maybe separate ones as they get older.
We figure if they want a smartphone, they can have one when they can pay for both the phone and the data line themselves. If they can hold down a part-time job they might be responsible enough for it. If it matters that much to them, they’ll do what they need to get it. If not… guess it wasn’t that important.
We’re planing on a shared Nokia at first, maybe separate ones as they get older.
We figure if they want a smartphone, they can have one when they can pay for both the phone and the data line themselves. If they can hold down a part-time job they might be responsible enough for it. If it matters that much to them, they’ll do what they need to get it. If not… guess it wasn’t that important.
A cellular Apple Watch seems like a decent possibility. Has anyone tried this?
Has phone, messages, weather, location sharing, ability to google basic stuff. But very, very hard to use compulsively. You can even add things such as instagram apps but they're just not that compelling in a small format.
Has phone, messages, weather, location sharing, ability to google basic stuff. But very, very hard to use compulsively. You can even add things such as instagram apps but they're just not that compelling in a small format.
Still has to be tied to a phone, right? Or can they operate without ever being connected to a phone, now?
The problem with older phones is an interminable deluge of fake robocalls and soliciting text messages which make them practically unusable. Smart phones can filter these out but come with a different flavors of cancer
Some carriers offer services that do a pretty good job of filtering these out.
You can also set it up so that incoming calls are whitelisted or something like that on just about every phone.
You can also set it up so that incoming calls are whitelisted or something like that on just about every phone.
>You can also set it up so that incoming calls are whitelisted or something like that on just about every phone.
Nope. You get a blacklist as a basic feature, but a whitelist has to be installed (on Android). I use Silence (single Android profile) or Yet Another Call Blocker (multi Android profile) [both on F-Droid]. I add * to the blacklist then set the ignore/skip for numbers in contacts setting. You literally cannot make my phone ring without being added to my contacts.
This should have been the standardest of standard features for years, which is just another example of Out To Get You games companies play on retail customers (another example of a set of standard features which should be ubiquitous is the Privacy.com cards: every bank or credit card company should offer the same virtual cards and control features but practically none do: screw you Mr. Customer buy the upgrade/DLC/"Pro edition!").
Nope. You get a blacklist as a basic feature, but a whitelist has to be installed (on Android). I use Silence (single Android profile) or Yet Another Call Blocker (multi Android profile) [both on F-Droid]. I add * to the blacklist then set the ignore/skip for numbers in contacts setting. You literally cannot make my phone ring without being added to my contacts.
This should have been the standardest of standard features for years, which is just another example of Out To Get You games companies play on retail customers (another example of a set of standard features which should be ubiquitous is the Privacy.com cards: every bank or credit card company should offer the same virtual cards and control features but practically none do: screw you Mr. Customer buy the upgrade/DLC/"Pro edition!").
I'd like to see DMCA rolled back in a way that it is almost legally encouraged to break security systems on products, in order to maximize either more owner control or maximize performance left on the table and is physically there (even in code) but is otherwise locked out in software.
In my wet dreams: gone will be the days of one assembly line, one physical object, many grades of product performance dependent on '''licensing''' codes and such. You don't want the customer to have heated seats? Don't ship the heated seats! Don't like that the customer is hacking your software/firmware to enable those features, and sharing the modifications (just the steps to mod, like a diff patch)? Tough cookies mate, actually here's a 20%-of-last-year-gross-revenue fine for anticompetitive and anticustomer sovereignty business practices. Pray we don't seize all assets and liquidate you, next time you try this trick again.
Imagine if companies had to treat customers like a defendant has to treat Your Honor in a courtroom, or they get boycotted and fined to bankruptcy... that would be niiice. :^)
In my wet dreams: gone will be the days of one assembly line, one physical object, many grades of product performance dependent on '''licensing''' codes and such. You don't want the customer to have heated seats? Don't ship the heated seats! Don't like that the customer is hacking your software/firmware to enable those features, and sharing the modifications (just the steps to mod, like a diff patch)? Tough cookies mate, actually here's a 20%-of-last-year-gross-revenue fine for anticompetitive and anticustomer sovereignty business practices. Pray we don't seize all assets and liquidate you, next time you try this trick again.
Imagine if companies had to treat customers like a defendant has to treat Your Honor in a courtroom, or they get boycotted and fined to bankruptcy... that would be niiice. :^)
I know a couple who are teachers, elementary and high school. They said the students are always on their phones, with earbuds, but trying to get them to stop can be dangerous. Students get aggressive and sometimes violent when teachers try to enforce decorum and attention.
I think banning phones in schools is an urgent need, at the very least.
I think banning phones in schools is an urgent need, at the very least.
It’s deeply weird to me that we couldn’t have a Walkman, pager, game boy, portable tv, or small camera in class without it getting taken away if it was spotted, but now we’re like “yeah sure they can have a combo device that’s all of those, why not?”
It was Tamagotchis that got taken away in my school, but I agree.
It's because of Columbine. Parents demanded to be allowed to reach their children anytime.
I was in iirc junior high when that happened. Cell phones were banned through high school, nonetheless. I think by the very end they were allowed but only in lockers, never to be seen, and they better never make a sound, mostly as an accommodation for sports kids who’d be around for practice and such after school was out. It didn’t become normal until after smartphones, some time in the 20-teens.
Students have always done whatever they could to get their own way. Once we took away basically all the power that teachers had, the students just had to put their foot down to get their own way.
I get that a lot of the "power" that teachers had was inappropriate, just as spanking, but now they often can't even call the parents and have the child sent home. If you can't do anything about a student disobeying the rules, what can you do?
It's not the teachers' fault, and expecting them to fix the situation is pointless.
I get that a lot of the "power" that teachers had was inappropriate, just as spanking, but now they often can't even call the parents and have the child sent home. If you can't do anything about a student disobeying the rules, what can you do?
It's not the teachers' fault, and expecting them to fix the situation is pointless.
Around a century ago, after a lot of pressure due to people hurting themselves and their families by over-consuming liquor, the USA passed the 18th amendment.
I'm told that at least some of the campaigners were originally aiming for just liquor, not all alcohol.
I won't be surprised if history repeats, and some chunk of the world bans all social media (including forums like this one) despite the majority of the harm being concentrated into specific social networks and the strong drive that led to it being a thing in the first place.
I'm told that at least some of the campaigners were originally aiming for just liquor, not all alcohol.
I won't be surprised if history repeats, and some chunk of the world bans all social media (including forums like this one) despite the majority of the harm being concentrated into specific social networks and the strong drive that led to it being a thing in the first place.
Maybe a dumb idea, but can schools use jamming or shielding?
Not without breaking several laws, and potentially putting people in danger - how do you call 911 in an emergency if the school is in a signal blackout?
Landlines, voip, panic buttons. People made calls to 911 before the iPhone was invented.
When I was in school every single classroom was wired for landlines and Ethernet. You can also set up your wifi networks in ways that limit certain things and not others.
When I was in school every single classroom was wired for landlines and Ethernet. You can also set up your wifi networks in ways that limit certain things and not others.
> When I was in school every single classroom was wired for landlines and Ethernet.
Alright, but they're not wired now. Neither are bathrooms, cafeterias, hallways, or other place where someone might have a stroke, a heart attack, a seizure. And unfortunately, gunmen in school are a thing, and if you're a teacher, scrambling for the wall-phone while you can hear gunshots in the next room over is significantly more difficult than reaching into your pocket for your phone.
Alright, but they're not wired now. Neither are bathrooms, cafeterias, hallways, or other place where someone might have a stroke, a heart attack, a seizure. And unfortunately, gunmen in school are a thing, and if you're a teacher, scrambling for the wall-phone while you can hear gunshots in the next room over is significantly more difficult than reaching into your pocket for your phone.
Maybe some kind of smart network could only allow 911 calls through, and no data?
If phones in schools really are bad for kids, it seems like we could probably sort out some of these objections?
If phones in schools really are bad for kids, it seems like we could probably sort out some of these objections?
Shielding is probably bad and expensive, but is it illegal?
That's jamming, not shielding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
I have long thought that there should be a network protocol that would achieve that in practice, but which would let emergency calls through.
Transponders that could be deployed in settings such as schools, hospitals and movie theatres to tell devices to enter a limited mode. Support for the protocol would be compulsory.
But I would think that the telecom industry does not want that.
But I would think that the telecom industry does not want that.
Phones have offline content and wired headphones exist.
People adapt
People adapt
Forget all the Khan Academies of the world, let kids be bored on TI-83s and learn programming the ol' fashioned way!
Are the adaptations healthier?
This is a great interview, but I’m not sure why the submission’s title was changed. Article is actually titled as follows:
> Jonathan Haidt Wants You to Take Away Your Kid’s Phone
The part where Haidt discusses “market failure” for tech companies is interesting and suggests society needs totally different laws to manage big tech (including social media).
I also thought this particular answer from Haidt’s interview was interesting, about what may happen to Gen Z:
> The brain is literally rewiring, literally in the sense that neurons are seeking each other out. Neurons are fading away if they’re not used, synapses are forming or fading away. That happens very rapidly in the first couple of years of life, then it slows down. But in puberty it speeds up. So puberty is a time of really important rewiring, and traditional societies would give young people some guidance into how you make the transition to adulthood. We don’t do that. We give them an iPhone and an iPad and we say, “Here, we’re going to let you be guided into adulthood by a bunch of random people on the Internet chosen by algorithm for their extremity—that’s how you’re going to rewire your brain.”
> So it is possible that there are lasting effects and that Gen Z, for the rest of their lives, will be more anxious and fragile. That is possible—we just don’t know. But the optimistic thing I can say is that there’s a lot they can do to make themselves better quickly.
> I teach a course at N.Y.U. Stern called Flourishing. It’s an undergraduate positive-psychology course. And one of the most important things I do with the class is to go through their notifications with them. Two hundred to five hundred a day is typically how many the students get. And I say, “Turn off notifications for everything except for five apps. If you could only keep on five apps, like Uber—you surely want to keep on Uber and Lyft because you need to know, Is the car coming or not? But do you need an update from the New York Times or from The New Yorker or anybody else?”
> Jonathan Haidt Wants You to Take Away Your Kid’s Phone
The part where Haidt discusses “market failure” for tech companies is interesting and suggests society needs totally different laws to manage big tech (including social media).
I also thought this particular answer from Haidt’s interview was interesting, about what may happen to Gen Z:
> The brain is literally rewiring, literally in the sense that neurons are seeking each other out. Neurons are fading away if they’re not used, synapses are forming or fading away. That happens very rapidly in the first couple of years of life, then it slows down. But in puberty it speeds up. So puberty is a time of really important rewiring, and traditional societies would give young people some guidance into how you make the transition to adulthood. We don’t do that. We give them an iPhone and an iPad and we say, “Here, we’re going to let you be guided into adulthood by a bunch of random people on the Internet chosen by algorithm for their extremity—that’s how you’re going to rewire your brain.”
> So it is possible that there are lasting effects and that Gen Z, for the rest of their lives, will be more anxious and fragile. That is possible—we just don’t know. But the optimistic thing I can say is that there’s a lot they can do to make themselves better quickly.
> I teach a course at N.Y.U. Stern called Flourishing. It’s an undergraduate positive-psychology course. And one of the most important things I do with the class is to go through their notifications with them. Two hundred to five hundred a day is typically how many the students get. And I say, “Turn off notifications for everything except for five apps. If you could only keep on five apps, like Uber—you surely want to keep on Uber and Lyft because you need to know, Is the car coming or not? But do you need an update from the New York Times or from The New Yorker or anybody else?”
I submitted with original title, per HN guidelines.
But "unless it is misleading or linkbait"
Correct. The full guideline is "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In this case the original title is linkbait, so we changed it.
In this case the original title is linkbait, so we changed it.
No problem, and we appreciate your moderation.
However, this wasn't an obvious case of "linkbait" and it's from the New Yorker, a respectable publication known for its evenhandedness and scrupulous fact-checking. And the original title is accurate as stated. Jonathan Haidt really does want parents to take their kids smartphones away.
However, this wasn't an obvious case of "linkbait" and it's from the New Yorker, a respectable publication known for its evenhandedness and scrupulous fact-checking. And the original title is accurate as stated. Jonathan Haidt really does want parents to take their kids smartphones away.
I agree, it wasn't an obvious case - more of a borderline call - you didn't do anything wrong, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying that.
Why do you need Uber or Lyft notifications? You could gasp leave the app open and otherwise be present in the world while waiting for a ride instead of opening some other doomscrolling app.
How are you more present in the world if you've got the app open and are watching it for information, instead of waiting for a quiet "ding" or a vibration in your pocket?
By checking what the car you’re waiting for looks like and its license plate number and then watching for cars.
I can’t remember the last time I hadn’t already found my ride by the time the phone noticed it was there.
I can’t remember the last time I hadn’t already found my ride by the time the phone noticed it was there.
The anxiety and depression sets in when the realization comes that there is an ocean between seeing somebody doing something cool on social media, and BE the person doing something cool in real life.
You can only be a spectator for so long, "monkey see, monkey do", except when you see something on social media that you deem interesting becomes impossible to do it within a short timeframe, so the lack of action makes us feel like something is missing.
Just like drugs tapering a good starting point would be to focus on social media content that is actionable.
You can only be a spectator for so long, "monkey see, monkey do", except when you see something on social media that you deem interesting becomes impossible to do it within a short timeframe, so the lack of action makes us feel like something is missing.
Just like drugs tapering a good starting point would be to focus on social media content that is actionable.
I don't know, before 2008 economy seemed to be better.
Now costs of life constantly increase, I'm not sure about maintaining my level of life, as politicians see taxation as the ultimate solution to any problem whatsoever.
Also, witnessing government calling lock-downs and effectively imprisoning me for undisclosed time without any way of earning any money is disheartening. Why struggle?
Haidt cherry picks his data to illegitimately blame social media.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3428496/figure/...
The data is clear that this mental health crisis started in the late 90s. Before social media even existed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3428496/figure/...
The data is clear that this mental health crisis started in the late 90s. Before social media even existed.
Haidt is a brilliant thinker who I believe has accurately diagnosed the cause of the symptoms.
The problem with Haidt isn't with his diagnosis, but his recommended course of treatment. Haidt is a member of the camp that believes age-gating is the solution - the kind that involves users being compelled to perform facial scans or upload government-issued photo ID, which are both HUGE invasions of privacy.
The problem with Haidt isn't with his diagnosis, but his recommended course of treatment. Haidt is a member of the camp that believes age-gating is the solution - the kind that involves users being compelled to perform facial scans or upload government-issued photo ID, which are both HUGE invasions of privacy.
Interesting. Do you have sources of him recommending those specific solutions? I’m curious to read his rationale.
Yes, I do! Haidt himself discussed this in depth in an interview he did with Nick Gillespie from Reason a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ssJbKE55rY
47:30 is where they start diving into policy proposals
47:30 is where they start diving into policy proposals
Haidt offers up a low expectation parenting trick, just a one-time easy harmonic 'no socials for kids' from them and if it fails like ever other attempt then we make the state make us sing in key.
The way he feigns much difficulty to understand the baby & the steak argument is very revealing. Responsible kids deserve the chance to have fun and be taught by elders where the line of too risky play is. When he seems so indifferent to the slippery slope of the state picking up all the slack for the parents it can easily be taken for the main aim of his work.
The way he feigns much difficulty to understand the baby & the steak argument is very revealing. Responsible kids deserve the chance to have fun and be taught by elders where the line of too risky play is. When he seems so indifferent to the slippery slope of the state picking up all the slack for the parents it can easily be taken for the main aim of his work.
Why should software/internet be treated differently? Tons of things are age gated, why is this particular thing off limits?
We shouldn't prevent children from working in factories because that might be a privacy violation!
We shouldn't prevent children from working in factories because that might be a privacy violation!
When you want to buy alcohol, you show a cashier your ID, you pay and you leave. There is not a digital record of your ID being used to purchase alcohol at that exact location at that exact time.
The problem isn't with the idea of keeping kids off social media, it's with the infringement of privacy that necessarily comes with one of the only ways society has figured out to effectively enforce that policy.
"We shouldn't prevent children from working in factories because that might be a privacy violation!" is an emotionally-charged straw-man of my argument. Please calm down and argue against the argument I'm actually making, not the much weaker argument that you wish I was making.
The problem isn't with the idea of keeping kids off social media, it's with the infringement of privacy that necessarily comes with one of the only ways society has figured out to effectively enforce that policy.
"We shouldn't prevent children from working in factories because that might be a privacy violation!" is an emotionally-charged straw-man of my argument. Please calm down and argue against the argument I'm actually making, not the much weaker argument that you wish I was making.
> There is not a digital record of your ID being used to purchase alcohol at that exact location at that exact time.
Are you sure about that?
Even so, there's no reason age verification online couldn't work similarly.
Are you sure about that?
Even so, there's no reason age verification online couldn't work similarly.
>> There is not a digital record of your ID being used to purchase alcohol at that exact location at that exact time.
>Are you sure about that?
Yes. I am certain that the middle aged woman who half-glanced at my driver's license for 2 seconds 3 months ago did not memorize my driver's license number and enter it into the computerized list of all driver's license numbers displayed by customers who paid in cash and left on a bicycle without any kind of identifying plates, before proceeding to remember me as a customer and not ask for the ID anymore.
I'm not asserting there's no record of any kind of me being there - the cashier can attest to as much. What I'm so confident of is that I can do this and know with 100% certainty that my ID (ssn, drivers license number) did not get stored as a digital record, such as the database entry correlating to that purchase on that day at that time in that store.
The reason this cannot work similarly online is that the user has no way of knowing with certainty that their identifying information (IP address, facial scan data, photo of driver's license) is not being stored, whereas I do know with absolute certainty that my identifying information is not being stored for the purchases I do not want being tied to me in a database.
>Are you sure about that?
Yes. I am certain that the middle aged woman who half-glanced at my driver's license for 2 seconds 3 months ago did not memorize my driver's license number and enter it into the computerized list of all driver's license numbers displayed by customers who paid in cash and left on a bicycle without any kind of identifying plates, before proceeding to remember me as a customer and not ask for the ID anymore.
I'm not asserting there's no record of any kind of me being there - the cashier can attest to as much. What I'm so confident of is that I can do this and know with 100% certainty that my ID (ssn, drivers license number) did not get stored as a digital record, such as the database entry correlating to that purchase on that day at that time in that store.
The reason this cannot work similarly online is that the user has no way of knowing with certainty that their identifying information (IP address, facial scan data, photo of driver's license) is not being stored, whereas I do know with absolute certainty that my identifying information is not being stored for the purchases I do not want being tied to me in a database.
I've had the cashier scan my license for verification.
I know which stores that happens at and which it doesn't happen at, still making it my choice whether or not I consent to my ID being in that DB.
The CWT episode where Haidt spoke to Tyler on this was one of the more heated ones recently. Recommended, get some popcorn.
https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-a...
https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-a...
Yeah, Tyler normally plays softball with guests, albeit with interesting questions.
He really did a lot of pushing back on this one, and it was really interesting to see their different approaches. Haidt really seemed focus on finding common ground with Tyler personally, while Tyler was far more interested in challenging hadiat's position.
Ultimately, I felt they were talking about different points. Tyler thought that it was on net positive on average, or at least will be in the global long run. Haidt was talking about worsening outcomes for a subset of the population, and perhaps the average today.
My priors lead me to agree with basically both of them in their own domains. I think social media today is increasing harm and dropping the mean outcome, but also increasing the performance for children who successfully navigate it. I think long-term, culture will evolve to develop better habits around social media.
I did however think that Tyler's hypothesis that AI will curate people's social media feed to free up time was simply dumb. I think it entirely ignores why most people use social media, which is both an escape and an addiction. It's like suggesting that people will spend less time drinking and drunk if we provide everyone with High proof alcohol for free. They aren't drinking it for the calories.
He really did a lot of pushing back on this one, and it was really interesting to see their different approaches. Haidt really seemed focus on finding common ground with Tyler personally, while Tyler was far more interested in challenging hadiat's position.
Ultimately, I felt they were talking about different points. Tyler thought that it was on net positive on average, or at least will be in the global long run. Haidt was talking about worsening outcomes for a subset of the population, and perhaps the average today.
My priors lead me to agree with basically both of them in their own domains. I think social media today is increasing harm and dropping the mean outcome, but also increasing the performance for children who successfully navigate it. I think long-term, culture will evolve to develop better habits around social media.
I did however think that Tyler's hypothesis that AI will curate people's social media feed to free up time was simply dumb. I think it entirely ignores why most people use social media, which is both an escape and an addiction. It's like suggesting that people will spend less time drinking and drunk if we provide everyone with High proof alcohol for free. They aren't drinking it for the calories.
Well worth a listen. Cowen’s dander was up as if he were a regular HN contributor.
[deleted]
I blame the crushing anxiety of a bleak economic outlook personally
Is this economic pessimism supported by data?
Online, I see lots of complaints about rent burden, but it barely increased from 25%->27% from 2001-2024 [a].
Median wages are growing faster than inflation, too. The easiest numbers to pull up are Wolfram Alpha's [1]:
CPI (2001-2022): +68% (+2.5%/yr)
Median wage (2001-2022): $27060 -> $46310 (2.6%/yr)
Mean wage (2001-2022): $34020 -> $61900 (2.9%/yr)
Bottom 10% wage (2001-2022): $14070 -> $27340 (3.2%/yr)
I think there was a temporary spike in rent burden [2] [3] which quickly reversed [4].
It generated lots of headlines, but nobody paid attention to the decline.
[a] https://cre.moodysanalytics.com//app/uploads/2024/02/image-1... , from [4]
[1] eg: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=median+US+wage+2022
[2] https://www.moodysanalytics.com/about-us/press-releases/2023...
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DP04ACS006037
[4] https://cre.moodysanalytics.com/insights/market-insights/q4-...
EDIT: A commenter below led me to the following stat: 32% of American adults can't afford a $500 expense with their savings (Table 12): https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-economic-we...
Online, I see lots of complaints about rent burden, but it barely increased from 25%->27% from 2001-2024 [a].
Median wages are growing faster than inflation, too. The easiest numbers to pull up are Wolfram Alpha's [1]:
CPI (2001-2022): +68% (+2.5%/yr)
Median wage (2001-2022): $27060 -> $46310 (2.6%/yr)
Mean wage (2001-2022): $34020 -> $61900 (2.9%/yr)
Bottom 10% wage (2001-2022): $14070 -> $27340 (3.2%/yr)
I think there was a temporary spike in rent burden [2] [3] which quickly reversed [4].
It generated lots of headlines, but nobody paid attention to the decline.
[a] https://cre.moodysanalytics.com//app/uploads/2024/02/image-1... , from [4]
[1] eg: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=median+US+wage+2022
[2] https://www.moodysanalytics.com/about-us/press-releases/2023...
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DP04ACS006037
[4] https://cre.moodysanalytics.com/insights/market-insights/q4-...
EDIT: A commenter below led me to the following stat: 32% of American adults can't afford a $500 expense with their savings (Table 12): https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-economic-we...
Good info. Yeah I think a lot of the grief centers on housing costs and, most acutely, consumer inflation.
What's mysterious about the inflation to me is that there's very little discussion exploring an inflation rationale that links it to record corporate profits and a record raging bull market.
That lack of emphasis reads political to me. The people being most harmed by increased consumer prices are generally not the ones who are most benefiting from them.
What's mysterious about the inflation to me is that there's very little discussion exploring an inflation rationale that links it to record corporate profits and a record raging bull market.
That lack of emphasis reads political to me. The people being most harmed by increased consumer prices are generally not the ones who are most benefiting from them.
"When workers get pay increases, they think it's their own work; when they see inflation, they think that's bad policy" - Dean Baker
I think both wages & prices around the time of covid, and it's easy to manufacture dissent over this (due to the above quote).
I think both wages & prices around the time of covid, and it's easy to manufacture dissent over this (due to the above quote).
I'm not referring to policy as much as actual economic activity and firm behavior, including pricing.
It's true that prices and wages increased through COVID, but I don't believe the full explanation is quite so neat. For instance, this article lays out some additional details.[0]
Essentially, commodity pricing and other production inputs have stabilized, however, companies are charging their customers higher prices and enhancing their margins.
This is yielding record corporate profits and helping to fuel the bull market while consumers end up eating the resulting inflation. Yet, there's relatively little discussion about it when the issue of inflation is raised.
[0] https://archive.is/ZTkw3
It's true that prices and wages increased through COVID, but I don't believe the full explanation is quite so neat. For instance, this article lays out some additional details.[0]
Essentially, commodity pricing and other production inputs have stabilized, however, companies are charging their customers higher prices and enhancing their margins.
This is yielding record corporate profits and helping to fuel the bull market while consumers end up eating the resulting inflation. Yet, there's relatively little discussion about it when the issue of inflation is raised.
[0] https://archive.is/ZTkw3
Why do they have a bleak outlook?
The broader economy is strong, and their long term employment prospects are excellent, with many people leaving the workforce and productivity gains increasing overall wealth.
The broader economy is strong, and their long term employment prospects are excellent, with many people leaving the workforce and productivity gains increasing overall wealth.
The negative economic sentiment is very common and IMO entirely manufactured because it sells. Actual economic data is excellent. It kinda makes Haidt's point. Traditional media clearly isn't helping either though.
I can see being concerned about the spiraling cost of housing, but that's a problem with a relatively straightforward solution.
Housing is definitely an issue. The obvious solution to that are probably my biggest policy issue. That said, homeownership rates in the US are close to an all-time high.
And it's a problem that predominates literally every other aspect of one's life, and one's children's lives. Discussing it as though it's just one little exception is not just out of touch; it's practically insanity.
GDP is not a meaningful measurement unless you somehow believe in nonsense trickle-down economics of the most extreme degree.
But inflation-adjusted median & 10th percentile wages have grown L20yrs, (per my other comment in the thread), right?
Sounds meaningful for the 10th percentile, but what about everybody else? I assume this is supposed to be a joke?
Can you provide a single metric that's bad right now? Employment is close to a record high, PPP median income is up. Housing cost isn't great, but homeownership rates are still as high as ever. It's mostly vibes that are down.
Edit: the parent also called out median comp being up. Again, the persistence of the negative vibes without any actual data reinforces how the media now negatively impacts everyone's attitudes and ultimately mental health
Edit: the parent also called out median comp being up. Again, the persistence of the negative vibes without any actual data reinforces how the media now negatively impacts everyone's attitudes and ultimately mental health
It does seem that US COLA-wages are growing more slowly than Europe (though better than Canada), while our stock market outperforms. So one could make a claim that more profits should go to labor, rather than capital.
Some numbers (all the usual "mean-vs-median" caveats apply, though IME it rarely changes much):
France mean wages (2001-2022): 41706/26275 = 1.59 (2.2%/yr)
France CPI (2001-2022): 108.74/80.39 = 1.35 (1.4%/yr)
GB mean weekly wages (2001-2022): 599/321 = 1.87 (3.0%/yr!)
GB CPI: 114.6/73.5 (2001-2022): = 1.56 (2.14%/yr)
Canada mean wages (2001-2022): 14,176.4/10,405.1 = 1.36 (1.5%/yr)
Canada CPI (2001-2022): 146.3/96.8 = 1.51 (2.0%/yr)
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/time...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/416204/average-annual-wa...
Some numbers (all the usual "mean-vs-median" caveats apply, though IME it rarely changes much):
France mean wages (2001-2022): 41706/26275 = 1.59 (2.2%/yr)
France CPI (2001-2022): 108.74/80.39 = 1.35 (1.4%/yr)
GB mean weekly wages (2001-2022): 599/321 = 1.87 (3.0%/yr!)
GB CPI: 114.6/73.5 (2001-2022): = 1.56 (2.14%/yr)
Canada mean wages (2001-2022): 14,176.4/10,405.1 = 1.36 (1.5%/yr)
Canada CPI (2001-2022): 146.3/96.8 = 1.51 (2.0%/yr)
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/time...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/416204/average-annual-wa...
Things are still getting better though. One can be jealous that too little gets shared, but it's looking up for everyone. This is great!
How much do you expect to trickle down? Everyone with a retirement account benefits. How is that nonsense?
Some is expected to trickle. But denying trickle down economics means denying that helping the rich is an effective way to help the poor.
What do you mean by helping the rich?
Well, less than half of American households have money in their retirement account. And even for people with significant funds in their retirement accounts, that money will not be readily accessible (without penalty) for, on average, two decades or more.
You can withdraw from a Roth IRA penalty-free after holding for 5 years.
My guess: Negativity makes great clickbait & political propaganda.
I agree the numbers look great -- Added stats in a sibling comment above.
I agree the numbers look great -- Added stats in a sibling comment above.
[deleted]
Something like 30% of 30-year-olds still live with their parents. Almost 40% of American adults cannot afford a $400 emergency expense. People are suffering and you're indifferent because you exist in a different class.
I'm not clear on how you're linking the stats (which are, BTW, off by about 20%) you just posted to the state of the economy. Can you clarify?
40% of people not saving $400 doesn't mean the economy is bad. It could mean they don't know how to save the money they're earning. Perhaps something else is wrong.
40% of people not saving $400 doesn't mean the economy is bad. It could mean they don't know how to save the money they're earning. Perhaps something else is wrong.
> One-in-three U.S. adults ages 18 to 34 live in their parents’ home, according to U.S. Census Bureau data from 2021.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-...
> Nearly 4 in 10 Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense
https://fortune.com/2023/05/23/inflation-economy-consumer-fi...
> What a $400 emergency expense tells us about the economy
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2021/what-a-400-dolla...
And the master of them all:
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-...
> Nearly 4 in 10 Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense
https://fortune.com/2023/05/23/inflation-economy-consumer-fi...
> What a $400 emergency expense tells us about the economy
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2021/what-a-400-dolla...
And the master of them all:
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Appreciate the reply. For the curious, here's a source for the emergency expenses number (32% can't afford a $500 expense with their savings per Table 12): https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2023-economic-we...
Notice that really only 13% of households can’t absolutely afford a $400 dollar expense, and the difference between the 32% for $500 vs the 40% for $400
> Sixty-eight percent of adults said they could pay an expense of at least $500 using only their current savings (table 12). This is a somewhat larger share than the 63 percent of adults who said they would pay an unexpected $400 expense with cash or the equivalent, suggesting that some people do choose to pay with other methods, even if they have cash savings available to them.
> Sixty-eight percent of adults said they could pay an expense of at least $500 using only their current savings (table 12). This is a somewhat larger share than the 63 percent of adults who said they would pay an unexpected $400 expense with cash or the equivalent, suggesting that some people do choose to pay with other methods, even if they have cash savings available to them.
[deleted]
I don't understand this thinking, civilization has never been richer. With the advancements we had in the last 150 years in tech/medicine/etc it's never been so easier to live and enjoy life. Even a poor person in my lousy eastern europe country lives so much better than kings lived 150 years ago. Where does this anxiety comes from?
From the media. Even if there's nothing objectively bad to worry about, the media is compelled to find something that people would rather watch than other channels. They "spin" things or invent them wholesale, just to maintain their paychecks.
We have it better than ever before in basically everything. But the media can't just report that, they have to find things that "need" improving and present them as dire straits.
Children, since they haven't learned to filter it out yet, feel that as soul-crushing dread. And since it's nothing they can do anything about, they feel helpless.
We have it better than ever before in basically everything. But the media can't just report that, they have to find things that "need" improving and present them as dire straits.
Children, since they haven't learned to filter it out yet, feel that as soul-crushing dread. And since it's nothing they can do anything about, they feel helpless.
If the economy is so strong, why does the media need to resort to such desperate measures for attention? Like, shouldn't they also be reaping profits and such from the healthy economy, and as such not have to be forced into this grubby practice of manufacturing dissatisfaction?
What a strange argument. No matter the economical situation, companies will still want to maximize profits. In the case of the media, drawing the most attention, which results in depressing doomsaying, regardless of reality
So are you saying that, no matter what, the media will always have this tendency? Like we are doomed as humanity to be forever ill informed and drawn towards pessimism?
If that is so, then why even complain or feel bad about this stuff? Like all this discourse feels pretty futile if you don't even believe a different state of affairs is possible...
If that is so, then why even complain or feel bad about this stuff? Like all this discourse feels pretty futile if you don't even believe a different state of affairs is possible...
It will have that tendency, unless something else corrects for that behavior, such as people constantly calling them out on it.
Crime will always exist, too, but we don't stop fighting that, either. It's part of life that we fight against bad things, even if we can't possibly eliminate that bad thing permanently.
On the brighter side of things, the internet has provided people to more information than ever before, and cell phones have put that information in their pocket. People can and do look up things all the time and inform themselves.
Crime will always exist, too, but we don't stop fighting that, either. It's part of life that we fight against bad things, even if we can't possibly eliminate that bad thing permanently.
On the brighter side of things, the internet has provided people to more information than ever before, and cell phones have put that information in their pocket. People can and do look up things all the time and inform themselves.
If you truly believe this is the situation, I just don't understand how you can also think that constantly calling them out does anything at all. Its not doing much right now at least.
All you end up doing from this point of view is reinforce the very pessimism you are arguing against by posing this entire aspect of our society as forever broken
Also, is it not "the media" anymore when I inform myself on the internet? Where is the line there?
All you end up doing from this point of view is reinforce the very pessimism you are arguing against by posing this entire aspect of our society as forever broken
Also, is it not "the media" anymore when I inform myself on the internet? Where is the line there?
That’s not the whole picture.
Most of western civilization is in severe danger of collapsing into fascist dictatorships or being taken over by same, egged on by truly deranged billionaires who somehow don’t think it will negatively affect them. Antivax hysteria is bringing back mid-20th century disease. Climate change appears to be accelerating on the worst-case side. Militarized police departments. Racial injustice has always been with us in the USA, but now it’s been made visible to everyone, and it’s very clear that some people — who were supposed to be the good guys — not only don’t care, but actively support it. Multiple state governments are now encouraging book banning and child labor. Do we need to mention women’s healthcare?
And you, old person, are saying “you have it better than I had it in 1970’s jfc” — that’s true for some values of “you” and “I”, but you’re completely missing the point.
Most of western civilization is in severe danger of collapsing into fascist dictatorships or being taken over by same, egged on by truly deranged billionaires who somehow don’t think it will negatively affect them. Antivax hysteria is bringing back mid-20th century disease. Climate change appears to be accelerating on the worst-case side. Militarized police departments. Racial injustice has always been with us in the USA, but now it’s been made visible to everyone, and it’s very clear that some people — who were supposed to be the good guys — not only don’t care, but actively support it. Multiple state governments are now encouraging book banning and child labor. Do we need to mention women’s healthcare?
And you, old person, are saying “you have it better than I had it in 1970’s jfc” — that’s true for some values of “you” and “I”, but you’re completely missing the point.
Housing costs. Aside from housing, Gen Z are materially better off in every other way. They earn higher real incomes than previous generations at the same stage in their life.
Being a poor urban worker in modern day has a lot of advantages over being a subsistence farmer in a community of 90% subsistence farmers in history. And yet, it has a lot of disadvantages and existential dread as well.
As the parent of kids spanning an age range through imminent high-school graduate, I can assure you there's not much thought given to a "bleak economic outlook" among my kids or their peers.
Now, it's possible—probably likely—that I'm in an economic bubble, but these same kids do suffer from other anxieties and would likely fit the studies.
Now, it's possible—probably likely—that I'm in an economic bubble, but these same kids do suffer from other anxieties and would likely fit the studies.
In my teenage years, I couldn't care less about 'economic outlook'. Because I rarely paid much attention to the news, and when I did, it was usually fairly balanced BBC content, not hyper-partisan hyperbole/clickbait.
Teenagers should be more focused on discovering their hobbies and interests alongside their education, finding some positive goals for their lives. But social media is telling them that WW3/climate-pocalypse/Trumpageddon is coming within months/years. They'll either be thinking 'why bother?' or 'we need a revolution!'. Neither of which are good for them.
Teenagers should be more focused on discovering their hobbies and interests alongside their education, finding some positive goals for their lives. But social media is telling them that WW3/climate-pocalypse/Trumpageddon is coming within months/years. They'll either be thinking 'why bother?' or 'we need a revolution!'. Neither of which are good for them.
You obviously didn't grow up poor, because if you did you'd realize how impossible that is to do when you are. Your parents are working 2 or 3 jobs and won't be home until you're almost asleep so you have to take the bus home; no afterschool activities or time with friends. That one thing alone selects the friends you can choose from. The well-to-do kids all hang out with each other because they have parental support that puts them in healthy environments they can relate to. You're speaking from a place with a lot of privilege.
I've interpreted this argument as a type of cope from leftist types who want to use their phones a bunch and not feel guilty (or alternatively, they have no opinion about phones and just want to use this as a springboard for a political jab)
[deleted]
[deleted]
depression existed before smartphones, but now everyone can record viral tiktoks lamenting their depression for views/engagement while other depressed people consume it
Worse than that, there's sites where they can discuss suicide and get advice on methods. Now maybe adults should be free to discuss these things, but it's certainly something that young people should be protected from.
The alt.suicide.holiday FAQ has existed for a very long time.
USENET was generally known to and read only by adults. That doesn't apply to youth today like machine-gun-cadence, trivially accessible, algo-driven audiovisual content on Facebook, Youtube, Tiktok etc. Is.
Because back then mostly adults were online. But besides that, the FAQ is also a web site.
Obviously nothing to do with declining living standards and social atomisation.
must be the phones.
must be the phones.
Social atomization arises from a lack of social connections.
Not too far a stretch to see how our device / social media time might contribute to a breakdown in deep social connections.
Not too far a stretch to see how our device / social media time might contribute to a breakdown in deep social connections.
There are multiple factors at play, phones being one of them.
https://archive.ph/cCpHU