Recent criticisms of Haidt & Rausch are based on the mistaken notion that the application of a random effects model would somehow contradict their findings.
Frankly, kick me off this site as you wish, but I lost confidence in David Stein as a statistical analyst after he bought Jean Twenge's primitive nonsense that "the massive gap between the frequencies of (fatal) overdoses and depression" refuted the notion that parental addiction explained teen mental health problems.
Does Stein understand that overdose DEATHS are just the iceberg tip of the grownup drug/alcohol crisis teens face in their homes? Well, try this. SAMHSA reports that drug/alcohol hospital emergency cases among ages 25-64 skyrocketed from 2.8 million in 2010 to over 5 million in 2022 -- yes MILLION! -- exactly the period teen's depression and anxiety increased. Even if only half those 25-64 drug/alcohol abusers have connections to teens as parents, parents' partners, relatives, etc., that is a huge number and increase.
Further, yes, while Stein occasionally mentions that parents' abuses and addictions might have something to do with teens' troubles, and that social media has little (actually, nothing) provable to do with teens' suicides, he keeps implying some kind of connection in emotional terms while allying with Haidt when it counts.
Finally, all his present re-analysis of Ferguson accomplishes from a larger, policy-informing standpoint is that social media is a trivial influence on teens' mental health, even if his most hypothesis-serving assumptions are credited. After all the hullaballoo Stein raises here, his most anti-social-media/mental-health "corrected" finding is d=0.17, compared to Haidt-Rausch's d=0.20, and Ferguson's d=0.08. That's nothing. All lie below even the minimal d-statistic threshold for "small."
The CDC's 2023 ABES, inexplicably delayed until this fall, finally offers more specific questions on these topics lacking in all previous studies. If it shows that social media is the huge culprit in teens' poor mental health, suicide attempt, self harm, major risks, etc., I'll be the first admit that. If, however, it shows parental abuses, drug/alcohol troubles, etc., are the big factors, then I'd hope honest analysts would demand that Haidt, Murthy, et al, end their disgraceful silence on these issues and drop their baseless social media panic. Squabbling over whether social media is a tiny negative, tiny positive, or non-existent factor in teenage mental health (recent, better-designed studies indicate more complex, positive effects) may delight political and media loudmouths, but it is wasting serious scientists' time and threatening teens with harmful repressions.
Frankly, kick me off this site as you wish, but I lost confidence in David Stein as a statistical analyst after he bought Jean Twenge's primitive nonsense that "the massive gap between the frequencies of (fatal) overdoses and depression" refuted the notion that parental addiction explained teen mental health problems.
Does Stein understand that overdose DEATHS are just the iceberg tip of the grownup drug/alcohol crisis teens face in their homes? Well, try this. SAMHSA reports that drug/alcohol hospital emergency cases among ages 25-64 skyrocketed from 2.8 million in 2010 to over 5 million in 2022 -- yes MILLION! -- exactly the period teen's depression and anxiety increased. Even if only half those 25-64 drug/alcohol abusers have connections to teens as parents, parents' partners, relatives, etc., that is a huge number and increase.
Further, yes, while Stein occasionally mentions that parents' abuses and addictions might have something to do with teens' troubles, and that social media has little (actually, nothing) provable to do with teens' suicides, he keeps implying some kind of connection in emotional terms while allying with Haidt when it counts.
Finally, all his present re-analysis of Ferguson accomplishes from a larger, policy-informing standpoint is that social media is a trivial influence on teens' mental health, even if his most hypothesis-serving assumptions are credited. After all the hullaballoo Stein raises here, his most anti-social-media/mental-health "corrected" finding is d=0.17, compared to Haidt-Rausch's d=0.20, and Ferguson's d=0.08. That's nothing. All lie below even the minimal d-statistic threshold for "small."
The CDC's 2023 ABES, inexplicably delayed until this fall, finally offers more specific questions on these topics lacking in all previous studies. If it shows that social media is the huge culprit in teens' poor mental health, suicide attempt, self harm, major risks, etc., I'll be the first admit that. If, however, it shows parental abuses, drug/alcohol troubles, etc., are the big factors, then I'd hope honest analysts would demand that Haidt, Murthy, et al, end their disgraceful silence on these issues and drop their baseless social media panic. Squabbling over whether social media is a tiny negative, tiny positive, or non-existent factor in teenage mental health (recent, better-designed studies indicate more complex, positive effects) may delight political and media loudmouths, but it is wasting serious scientists' time and threatening teens with harmful repressions.