I'll respond by email with an invitation to read and critique chapters from The Anxious Generation, which i must turn in august 7, but can revise after that.
a few points briefly here:
on causality: i addressed a lot of this in my post about the critics,
who focus only on the dose response model, and who think that a correlation of r = .15 is small, when in fact even if that was all there was, it could explain a big increase in depression in a population, e.g.,
on social media being common before 2012: yes, but:
1) it was not very viral and was much less harmful before the intro of the like and retweet buttons, 2009.
2) before smartphones, kids could not be on it all day long; so that only starts around 2010.
3) instagram is uniquely harmful to girls, and that only gets popular 2012.
on suicide and boys: you are right that we have said little, bcause we were figuring it out. But now we have a chapter on boys in the book, and Zach has a series of posts on suicide that will begin soon; we'd love to get your comments on them.
Thanks for the reply. We will discuss causality soon in public and private, but just let me note here that my concerns have NOTHING to do with the NONSENSE about correlations being too weak to matter. I've been quite vocal on this over the years.
It is not accurate to imply, however, that Said's educational demo can be a substitute for a model of your theory. For one, it would predict a massive rise in depression long before 2012. There are other problems, such as the normal distribution and deterministic effects. It's a nice visual counter-example to the 'r is too small' silliness but not a model validating your social media theory. I think Said himself would agree on this.
Your other points are speculations designed to evade a simpler explanation: it is the proliferation of smartphones, with their ability to interfere with sleep and social life, that has led to increases in loneliness/sadness/depression.
I should add that my thesis is not "social media" in isolation. It is "smartphones and social media" which ushered in the "phone based childhood" which caused "the great rewiring of childhood." My story is NOT a dose-response, individual level story.
"There is one giant, obvious, international, and gendered cause: Social media."
It is the one factor whose spectacular rise has had no effect on depression rates of girls for 8 years (2003-2011), and one that has had no effect on online bullying rates after 2012 while its (supposed) additional rise was (supposedly) demolishing the mental health of girls.
Well-said overall as usual. Haidt's proposed drastic and likely very dangerous measures are at best a band-aid solution in search of a problem, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Thank you David!
I'll respond by email with an invitation to read and critique chapters from The Anxious Generation, which i must turn in august 7, but can revise after that.
a few points briefly here:
on causality: i addressed a lot of this in my post about the critics,
https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong
who focus only on the dose response model, and who think that a correlation of r = .15 is small, when in fact even if that was all there was, it could explain a big increase in depression in a population, e.g.,
https://chris-said.io/2022/05/10/social-media-and-teen-depression/
on social media being common before 2012: yes, but:
1) it was not very viral and was much less harmful before the intro of the like and retweet buttons, 2009.
2) before smartphones, kids could not be on it all day long; so that only starts around 2010.
3) instagram is uniquely harmful to girls, and that only gets popular 2012.
on suicide and boys: you are right that we have said little, bcause we were figuring it out. But now we have a chapter on boys in the book, and Zach has a series of posts on suicide that will begin soon; we'd love to get your comments on them.
more by email,
and thank you,
jon
Dear Jon,
Thanks for the reply. We will discuss causality soon in public and private, but just let me note here that my concerns have NOTHING to do with the NONSENSE about correlations being too weak to matter. I've been quite vocal on this over the years.
It is not accurate to imply, however, that Said's educational demo can be a substitute for a model of your theory. For one, it would predict a massive rise in depression long before 2012. There are other problems, such as the normal distribution and deterministic effects. It's a nice visual counter-example to the 'r is too small' silliness but not a model validating your social media theory. I think Said himself would agree on this.
Your other points are speculations designed to evade a simpler explanation: it is the proliferation of smartphones, with their ability to interfere with sleep and social life, that has led to increases in loneliness/sadness/depression.
- David
I should add that my thesis is not "social media" in isolation. It is "smartphones and social media" which ushered in the "phone based childhood" which caused "the great rewiring of childhood." My story is NOT a dose-response, individual level story.
Jon, your emphasis is clearly on social media:
"There is one giant, obvious, international, and gendered cause: Social media."
It is the one factor whose spectacular rise has had no effect on depression rates of girls for 8 years (2003-2011), and one that has had no effect on online bullying rates after 2012 while its (supposed) additional rise was (supposedly) demolishing the mental health of girls.
Something doesn't add up.
Well-said overall as usual. Haidt's proposed drastic and likely very dangerous measures are at best a band-aid solution in search of a problem, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Can you guys do a Substack Letter series? https://read.substack.com/p/letters