I read this article and was completely blown away (validated, even). Then I read the comments and was fascinated to see that a majority of the comments were some variation of “yeah, but what about…?” I’m a 38 year old female and have the (somewhat unique) vantage point of having been a freshman in college when Facebook launched. So in many ways I feel as though my sense of self was solidified before the overwhelming presence of social media, but was young enough when it came about, to also be able to speak on its effects. That being said, I agreed with everything in this article. It made perfect sense to me. I am currently someone who has deleted all social media apps from her phone, because my mental health was in the toilet, and can say with complete conviction that NOT engaging in social media has had an extremely positive impact on my mental health. Interestingly, months later my husband decided to remove Instagram from his phone as well. I found my husband’s experience compelling because he, the lucky soul, is extremely even-keeled and does not suffer from depression or compare himself to others on social media; and yet, even he reported (after the requisite week or so passed, as noted in the article) improved mental health, habits and an increased feeling of self worth. He noted that, during moments of down time, he was now engaging in more “present” activities that ultimately made him feel better about himself, instead of endless exercising his thumbs. So all this is to say, if someone like my sturdy husband can immediately notice a benefit from abstaining from social media…there’s really something to this. Of course it is much more nuanced than that, but I’ve already typed way too much 😅
Becca, this is a really interesting comment. Thanks so much for sharing it. The only social media platform where I've ever been highly active was Twitter. At first, I kind of loved it, and it found it professionally useful. Eventually, though, I would lapse into "doomscrolling" and just burn time and energy for no return. After reading Cal Newport's "Digital Minimalism," I did a version of what he had some others do: take all the discretionary apps off my phone for a month, and then at the end of the month only add back what I really missed. Twitter never returned. Taking a break just emphasized how small a part of life it is, but how unduly large it feels when you're immersed in it. Anyway, glad to hear that you and your husband made changes that helped! And, by the way, there's no such thing as typing too much around here;)
Here in France, mobile phones are not allowed in schools (the government banned them in 2018) and teachers can and will confiscate them. Even with occasional stealth usage, that’s still a good chunk of the day that students are not on their phones. As Jon points out, kids actually appreciate having guardrails as long as they apply to everyone.
Renita, thanks again! I just met the head of one school here where they actually have a sort of social contract in which families are all supposed to disconnect from the internet at a certain time at night. I was surprised that would work, but she said the siblings all tell on each other if they violate, and apparently in general they like it! I had no idea about the ban in France, so thank you very much for alerting me to it. And your point reminds me of this paper about social media as a "collective trap" https://www.nber.org/papers/w31771
Hi Michele, thanks for this note. I was present during a (small-scale) school shooting in the cafeteria when I was a high school student, so have long been interested in this topic. There's no change in school shootings that coincides with the phenomena that Jon is talking about, and certainly not an international change, which is a key factor. School shootings are largely an American phenomenon, and the rise in anxiety and depression is not. (As an aside, school mass shootings have not become more common, but they have indeed become more deadly.) In any case, these are hypotheses that Haidt and others have examined in detail, but they cannot explain the international trends. That doesn't mean it's necessarily social media, but we have to look for hypotheses that make sense for the international trends. I think your larger point, though, that we shouldn't dispense with investigating other hypotheses, is an important one.
David, thanks for this excellent, in-depth interview with Jonathan. I have been eagerly awaiting the release of this book, as it delves deeply into the issues my husband and I have been writing about as well. As a parent, I am hopeful that the solid research and offered solutions will open a pathway to restore a healthier,more independent, relational,and reality-based childhood. Thanks again!
Ruth, my pleasure! I really like your phrase – "reality-based childhood." That actually strikes me in a way that even play-based childhood didn't. And now I'm eager to check out your writing.
Thanks David :) Some of the archived pieces that might be of interest are now paywalled, but I'd be happy to offer you a complementary subscription if you are interested. My husband and I are currently working on a book "The Making of UnMachine Minds", which will build on the writings in both of our Substacks. These are some of our posts that resonate with Haidt's writing:
The 3Rs of Unmachining: Guideposts for an Age of Technological Upheaval
As an adult I have issues resisting the dopamine hit of many parts of the internet. It is definitely affecting developing brains and it starts young. I am a pediatrician and there is evidence that increased screen time is a factor in reducing the speed of speech development in young kids. And by my own observation I have noticed how so many kids and parents do not get off there phone even during a doctors visit unless asked.
Wow, that's really interesting — that even the parents will be glued to their phone at a visit. Are they reasonable, at least, when asked to stop? (Not that you should have to do that, of course.) And as for the internet, your comment reminded me of a part in Gloria Mark's book, Attention Span, about how the architecture of the internet is modeled after our brains, which makes it difficult to stop jumping from one thing to another once you get going. Thanks for this comment, Monica, and for your work.
Hey David, great post, as always.. honestly, for me this one falls into the bracket of 'really interesting, important and I'm glad such clever people are writing and educating on the topic but it's a little out of my intellectual reach so I'm grateful to be educated on the topic but not motivated to add the book to my ever growing reading list' if that makes sense! And that's in no way meant as a negative comment, in fact, it's something I love about this newsletter (touching on interesting, important topics that I don't come across every day or have opportunity to investigate further) ps I just saw the news that the legend Daniel Kahneman has left us. His book, Thinking, Fast and Slow had a big impact on me, I think he was just the most incredible mind I have come across and I know that you are a big fan and had that chapter title in Range 'Learning, Fast and Slow' as a reference to his great work. May he rest in peace.
Ha, I don't take that as a negative comment at all! In fact, I think you summarized a major mission of this newsletter (for me as well as readers), to touch on interesting things that may then be left behind. ...Indeed, the Kahneman news is sad. I think in addition to being a brilliant thinker, he was also a true class act, who set a tone that I wish more brilliant thinkers aspired to. I got to spend a small amount of time with him, and I'm very grateful for it. And I'm glad you picked on the tribute embedded in that chapter title. He's a thinker I'm proud to copy even in that minuscule way.
In the past, Jon’s work has seemed well-reasoned and also intentionally provocative. As I’ve read his substack leading up to the book and this interview, it seems like his tone has shifted away from killing sacred cows to raising alarm. I don’t know if you see the same thing, but I am glad to have someone of his intellectual caliber owning this topic.
Hey Jeff, I completely agree with that assessment. I think Jon is really hoping to build a movement that leads to changes in both regulations and norms this time around, so he's gearing up to more actively try to lead some change. I think he realizes it's going to be very tough, in part because of the potential "collective traps" situation of social media, in which individuals may want to change their usage, but suffer unless everyone else does the same. Interesting paper on that, in case you're intrigued: https://www.nber.org/papers/w31771 ... but, bottom line, I think your read is spot on.
I’m kind of confused about the impact that social media has had on kids. I was talking to a mental health professional about this topic recently and this person told me there has always been a crisis in mental health amongst teenagers. Supposedly in the 1990s there was a spike in suicides among teens and throughout the 2000s. This professional told me suicides among teens go up and down and there is always some one waiting to blame the latest technology for these spikes. Supposedly in the 19th century adults thought bicycles were bad for kids mental health.
Go back far enough, and there was a scare that books would mean kids wouldn't remember anything anymore! I think you're touching on why this issue is so difficult to parse, and also why I wanted Jon to talk at length so his hypothesis is pretty clear. In the book, he shares data that does make the current moment look more like a discontinuity than a fluctuation or continuation of a trend. But of course life is multifactorial. Some of the stats he cites in the book are pretty stark, though. If I recall, there was more than a doubling of the suicide rate among early teens from about 2008 or 2010 over the next decade. But it had been going down before that, so was rising from a lower base. I know for sure that anxiety has increased steadily among young people since long before social media (Gerd Gigerenzer writes about this briefly in his book Risk Savvy, I think citing the work of Generations author Jean Twenge), so Jon is arguing here that this was a jump unlike anything we've ever seen. Regarding blaming the latest technology, on the one hand, I think of course we blame anything new and scary. On the other hand, it's possible a new and scary thing actually is part of the cause, and the blaming leads us to do something about it? Although, again, books... ...John, really appreciate this thoughtful comment, and I'm still mulling a lot of this over.
Thanks for this response David. That's nice to know, he always came across really well, and very humble in any interviews I heard or watched him in. It doesn't cost anything to be nice! It's good that you spent some time with him in person. I was interested to see that Gerd Gigerenzer had been a critic of some of his work. Hopefully it was just an intellectual disagreement. Ps how is the journey of book writing going for you? Hopefully you can enjoy it to a degree and not only have the related stress! Probably a nice distraction to work on an unrelated newsletter topic!
That's exactly what we all need !My version of reality is just that a version.Exchange helps us all to see.It's fun to see this take place with my daughter and her partner as they plan the future for our new granddaughter.Thet are working hard on listening.Nice to see.
I'm rarely certain what someone means with an "LOL." But if the suggestion is that lead exposure is a nonsensical hypothesis, why? I think, as Jon clearly does too, that there is no dispositive evidence for some of this stuff, but it's well known that mass lead exposure (primarily from car exhaust) had some cognitive impact on a wide swath of Gen X. Thanks for reading Roberto.
What I meant was, of all the factors affecting behaviour and cognitive ability (or at least, contemporary measurement of cognitive ability), it seems to me that lead exposure is well within any possible margins of error. Not to mention that as far as I could see, that lead exposure data was derived from a U.S.-only study, and it’s a very big world. Of all the many, many factors that may or may not influence cognition, across all “generations”, that just seemed very arbitrarily chosen.
I appreciate that you 1) reply to every commenter (I assume), and 2) reply without the reflexive rage that seems to be woven into the fabric of modern social media discourse, hahaha!
Also, of course, I appreciate your writing, and the brain behind it!
I don't get to respond to them all every time now, but I do read them all, and try to respond to many. (And I do get to all of them on some posts). And I do that because these comments have been the wonderful surprise of having a newsletter. Whether or not I disagree with someone here, every interaction (with very few exceptions) has at least been pleasant and often thoughtful and provided me with new things to consider. Before this, I was in a "never read the comments" frame of mind. So anything I can do to encourage this space to keep being how it is, I like to do some of it. And as far as reflexive rage, I take that as the ultimate compliment. At this point in the history of online discourse, I think it's arguably more important the tone that one sets than whether they are factually right or wrong. ...Plus, I'm positive I'm wrong about many things, just not sure what they are yet;)
Heh, yes, I also love Donald Rumsfeld’s (not his invention, of course) “known unknowns”. And yes also to tone. Setting the tone is vital to liveability in workplaces, schools and family/home environment. Probably like you, I have seen it done badly, and well, in all those environments.
Most interesting to me, as my kids march through their teenage years, and my friends’ kids do the same, is to observe how many parents apparently have no idea how to parent. And either abdicate responsibility to teachers, or simply give up and hope things will turn out okay. As is true in so many areas of life, the decay of the extended family unit (generations living together, still somewhat prevalent here in Asia, and “village” living, with de facto communal child rearing) seems to me to have reduced (dramatically) the amount of guidance that new parents can tap into …
Fascinating. The bit on the optimal injuries not being 0 reminds me of a basketball coach I had who told us we should never end a game with 0 fouls because it meant we weren't aggressive enough offensively. The data here really validates my anecdotal experience teaching middle schoolers. I can hardly think of any instances in which social media (and phones in general) have made a positive impact on any of my students. I can't remember if I've asked you this before, but have you thought about how you'll parent with regards to social media? It seems like it will risk social downsides if a kid isn't on it, but boy it seems to risk so much more if they are. Also, and this is becoming my favorite question after the Dr. Mark Q&A, are you changing any of your habits because of this book? From what you've said in the past it seems like you have a pretty minimalist (s/o Cal!) approach to social media already, so I imagine there might not be too much.
I half-jokingly told me wife that we have to except an infinitesimally smaller chance that our kid gets kidnapped in return for him being able to have some independence and a much larger chance that he develops well. When I mention that to Jon, he says, with a completely straight face: "Yeah I find that doesn't go over so well with mothers." ...made me chuckle. In any case, I most certainly have thought about parenting and social media. I'm not sure what the best approach is, in part because of he "collective traps" problem (https://www.nber.org/papers/w31771). I do intend to delay a smart phone, though, and early to start talking to my son about the unreality of social media, but probably more importantly just in general how to recognize things that are attractive but not good for you. That's what happened with me and social media. I was quite active on Twitter at one point, and now I have an account, but haven't posted anything this year. I don't want to say that I was addicted, but I was, at a certain point, checking it a lot, and interacting with people, and often arguing. My first step was to make a no-arguing-on-Twitter policy, and eventually I progressed to abandoning it altogether. Even a few months off is a reminder of how small a part of life it is. But when you're immersed in it, it feels large. In any case, I'm definitely spending time thinking about it in relation to parenting, but because I don't think I can foresee how important (or not) it will be to my kid (despite my hopes), I'm trying to keep some flexibility in my thinking. Right now I'm more focused on the letting him take some risks side of things, since social media isn't yet a concern. Although I recently declined to signed a permission slip for a field trip to a bank, because the slip indicated that it would have the right, in perpetuity to use the image of any of the kids on social media. And I'm thinking, even I haven't posted a picture of my kid online — and not because he isn't hilarious and adorable — so if anybody is doing that, it's going to be me! ... In terms of changes from the book, the biggest one for me has been encouraging a bit more risk even if I think there's a reasonable chance of injury. And I expect there will be an injury at some point (although he's quite risk averse as a basline) but that's ok and hopefully it won't be too major. And also in encouraging other parents to do the same.
This makes a lot of sense, and I'm so glad some academics has coined the term "collective trap" for an idea that I could articulate but couldn't name. I admire that Twitter policy, and your point about realizing how small of a part of life it is reminds me of a quote Brad Stulberg had in The Practice of Groundedness: "What is important doesn't necessarily get our attention, but what gets our attention becomes important."
Lots of respect for actually reading the permission slip haha. When you name what it said in the way you just did, it is a pretty wild thing to sign away.
Every new parent should read Jon's work.
Agreed, Don. Even if they disagree, I think it makes for important discussion.
I read this article and was completely blown away (validated, even). Then I read the comments and was fascinated to see that a majority of the comments were some variation of “yeah, but what about…?” I’m a 38 year old female and have the (somewhat unique) vantage point of having been a freshman in college when Facebook launched. So in many ways I feel as though my sense of self was solidified before the overwhelming presence of social media, but was young enough when it came about, to also be able to speak on its effects. That being said, I agreed with everything in this article. It made perfect sense to me. I am currently someone who has deleted all social media apps from her phone, because my mental health was in the toilet, and can say with complete conviction that NOT engaging in social media has had an extremely positive impact on my mental health. Interestingly, months later my husband decided to remove Instagram from his phone as well. I found my husband’s experience compelling because he, the lucky soul, is extremely even-keeled and does not suffer from depression or compare himself to others on social media; and yet, even he reported (after the requisite week or so passed, as noted in the article) improved mental health, habits and an increased feeling of self worth. He noted that, during moments of down time, he was now engaging in more “present” activities that ultimately made him feel better about himself, instead of endless exercising his thumbs. So all this is to say, if someone like my sturdy husband can immediately notice a benefit from abstaining from social media…there’s really something to this. Of course it is much more nuanced than that, but I’ve already typed way too much 😅
Becca, this is a really interesting comment. Thanks so much for sharing it. The only social media platform where I've ever been highly active was Twitter. At first, I kind of loved it, and it found it professionally useful. Eventually, though, I would lapse into "doomscrolling" and just burn time and energy for no return. After reading Cal Newport's "Digital Minimalism," I did a version of what he had some others do: take all the discretionary apps off my phone for a month, and then at the end of the month only add back what I really missed. Twitter never returned. Taking a break just emphasized how small a part of life it is, but how unduly large it feels when you're immersed in it. Anyway, glad to hear that you and your husband made changes that helped! And, by the way, there's no such thing as typing too much around here;)
Here in France, mobile phones are not allowed in schools (the government banned them in 2018) and teachers can and will confiscate them. Even with occasional stealth usage, that’s still a good chunk of the day that students are not on their phones. As Jon points out, kids actually appreciate having guardrails as long as they apply to everyone.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2019/08/30/the-mobile-phone-ban-in-french-schools-one-year-on-would-it-work-elsewhere/
Renita, thanks again! I just met the head of one school here where they actually have a sort of social contract in which families are all supposed to disconnect from the internet at a certain time at night. I was surprised that would work, but she said the siblings all tell on each other if they violate, and apparently in general they like it! I had no idea about the ban in France, so thank you very much for alerting me to it. And your point reminds me of this paper about social media as a "collective trap" https://www.nber.org/papers/w31771
Lol, sibling enforcement for the win!
As a Gen X parent of Gen Z teens...I am baffled that there is no discussion of school shootings. Lockdown drills. Kids dying in school.
No discussion of bullying.
Did anyone...talk to teenagers?
Hi Michele, thanks for this note. I was present during a (small-scale) school shooting in the cafeteria when I was a high school student, so have long been interested in this topic. There's no change in school shootings that coincides with the phenomena that Jon is talking about, and certainly not an international change, which is a key factor. School shootings are largely an American phenomenon, and the rise in anxiety and depression is not. (As an aside, school mass shootings have not become more common, but they have indeed become more deadly.) In any case, these are hypotheses that Haidt and others have examined in detail, but they cannot explain the international trends. That doesn't mean it's necessarily social media, but we have to look for hypotheses that make sense for the international trends. I think your larger point, though, that we shouldn't dispense with investigating other hypotheses, is an important one.
David, thanks for this excellent, in-depth interview with Jonathan. I have been eagerly awaiting the release of this book, as it delves deeply into the issues my husband and I have been writing about as well. As a parent, I am hopeful that the solid research and offered solutions will open a pathway to restore a healthier,more independent, relational,and reality-based childhood. Thanks again!
Ruth, my pleasure! I really like your phrase – "reality-based childhood." That actually strikes me in a way that even play-based childhood didn't. And now I'm eager to check out your writing.
Thanks David :) Some of the archived pieces that might be of interest are now paywalled, but I'd be happy to offer you a complementary subscription if you are interested. My husband and I are currently working on a book "The Making of UnMachine Minds", which will build on the writings in both of our Substacks. These are some of our posts that resonate with Haidt's writing:
The 3Rs of Unmachining: Guideposts for an Age of Technological Upheaval
https://schooloftheunconformed.substack.com/p/the-3rs-of-unmachining-guideposts,
Sowing Anachronism: How to be weird in public, and private https://schooloftheunconformed.substack.com/p/sowing-anachronism-how-to-be-weird
The Hollow Boys, and Girls: Restoring Risk, Efficacy, and the Small Triumphs of Life https://schooloftheunconformed.substack.com/cp/140551590
As an adult I have issues resisting the dopamine hit of many parts of the internet. It is definitely affecting developing brains and it starts young. I am a pediatrician and there is evidence that increased screen time is a factor in reducing the speed of speech development in young kids. And by my own observation I have noticed how so many kids and parents do not get off there phone even during a doctors visit unless asked.
Wow, that's really interesting — that even the parents will be glued to their phone at a visit. Are they reasonable, at least, when asked to stop? (Not that you should have to do that, of course.) And as for the internet, your comment reminded me of a part in Gloria Mark's book, Attention Span, about how the architecture of the internet is modeled after our brains, which makes it difficult to stop jumping from one thing to another once you get going. Thanks for this comment, Monica, and for your work.
Hey David, great post, as always.. honestly, for me this one falls into the bracket of 'really interesting, important and I'm glad such clever people are writing and educating on the topic but it's a little out of my intellectual reach so I'm grateful to be educated on the topic but not motivated to add the book to my ever growing reading list' if that makes sense! And that's in no way meant as a negative comment, in fact, it's something I love about this newsletter (touching on interesting, important topics that I don't come across every day or have opportunity to investigate further) ps I just saw the news that the legend Daniel Kahneman has left us. His book, Thinking, Fast and Slow had a big impact on me, I think he was just the most incredible mind I have come across and I know that you are a big fan and had that chapter title in Range 'Learning, Fast and Slow' as a reference to his great work. May he rest in peace.
Ha, I don't take that as a negative comment at all! In fact, I think you summarized a major mission of this newsletter (for me as well as readers), to touch on interesting things that may then be left behind. ...Indeed, the Kahneman news is sad. I think in addition to being a brilliant thinker, he was also a true class act, who set a tone that I wish more brilliant thinkers aspired to. I got to spend a small amount of time with him, and I'm very grateful for it. And I'm glad you picked on the tribute embedded in that chapter title. He's a thinker I'm proud to copy even in that minuscule way.
In the past, Jon’s work has seemed well-reasoned and also intentionally provocative. As I’ve read his substack leading up to the book and this interview, it seems like his tone has shifted away from killing sacred cows to raising alarm. I don’t know if you see the same thing, but I am glad to have someone of his intellectual caliber owning this topic.
Hey Jeff, I completely agree with that assessment. I think Jon is really hoping to build a movement that leads to changes in both regulations and norms this time around, so he's gearing up to more actively try to lead some change. I think he realizes it's going to be very tough, in part because of the potential "collective traps" situation of social media, in which individuals may want to change their usage, but suffer unless everyone else does the same. Interesting paper on that, in case you're intrigued: https://www.nber.org/papers/w31771 ... but, bottom line, I think your read is spot on.
I’m kind of confused about the impact that social media has had on kids. I was talking to a mental health professional about this topic recently and this person told me there has always been a crisis in mental health amongst teenagers. Supposedly in the 1990s there was a spike in suicides among teens and throughout the 2000s. This professional told me suicides among teens go up and down and there is always some one waiting to blame the latest technology for these spikes. Supposedly in the 19th century adults thought bicycles were bad for kids mental health.
Go back far enough, and there was a scare that books would mean kids wouldn't remember anything anymore! I think you're touching on why this issue is so difficult to parse, and also why I wanted Jon to talk at length so his hypothesis is pretty clear. In the book, he shares data that does make the current moment look more like a discontinuity than a fluctuation or continuation of a trend. But of course life is multifactorial. Some of the stats he cites in the book are pretty stark, though. If I recall, there was more than a doubling of the suicide rate among early teens from about 2008 or 2010 over the next decade. But it had been going down before that, so was rising from a lower base. I know for sure that anxiety has increased steadily among young people since long before social media (Gerd Gigerenzer writes about this briefly in his book Risk Savvy, I think citing the work of Generations author Jean Twenge), so Jon is arguing here that this was a jump unlike anything we've ever seen. Regarding blaming the latest technology, on the one hand, I think of course we blame anything new and scary. On the other hand, it's possible a new and scary thing actually is part of the cause, and the blaming leads us to do something about it? Although, again, books... ...John, really appreciate this thoughtful comment, and I'm still mulling a lot of this over.
Thanks for this response David. That's nice to know, he always came across really well, and very humble in any interviews I heard or watched him in. It doesn't cost anything to be nice! It's good that you spent some time with him in person. I was interested to see that Gerd Gigerenzer had been a critic of some of his work. Hopefully it was just an intellectual disagreement. Ps how is the journey of book writing going for you? Hopefully you can enjoy it to a degree and not only have the related stress! Probably a nice distraction to work on an unrelated newsletter topic!
https://open.substack.com/pub/hoisttheblackflag/p/what-does-not-kill-mehurts-my-feelings?r=26wsm2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
That's exactly what we all need !My version of reality is just that a version.Exchange helps us all to see.It's fun to see this take place with my daughter and her partner as they plan the future for our new granddaughter.Thet are working hard on listening.Nice to see.
Gen X and lead exposure, LOL.
I'm rarely certain what someone means with an "LOL." But if the suggestion is that lead exposure is a nonsensical hypothesis, why? I think, as Jon clearly does too, that there is no dispositive evidence for some of this stuff, but it's well known that mass lead exposure (primarily from car exhaust) had some cognitive impact on a wide swath of Gen X. Thanks for reading Roberto.
lol used to mean “lots of love” when I was a kid , my mom would sew tags in my clothes she made with lol
What I meant was, of all the factors affecting behaviour and cognitive ability (or at least, contemporary measurement of cognitive ability), it seems to me that lead exposure is well within any possible margins of error. Not to mention that as far as I could see, that lead exposure data was derived from a U.S.-only study, and it’s a very big world. Of all the many, many factors that may or may not influence cognition, across all “generations”, that just seemed very arbitrarily chosen.
Fair point. Thanks for explaining Roberto.
I appreciate that you 1) reply to every commenter (I assume), and 2) reply without the reflexive rage that seems to be woven into the fabric of modern social media discourse, hahaha!
Also, of course, I appreciate your writing, and the brain behind it!
I don't get to respond to them all every time now, but I do read them all, and try to respond to many. (And I do get to all of them on some posts). And I do that because these comments have been the wonderful surprise of having a newsletter. Whether or not I disagree with someone here, every interaction (with very few exceptions) has at least been pleasant and often thoughtful and provided me with new things to consider. Before this, I was in a "never read the comments" frame of mind. So anything I can do to encourage this space to keep being how it is, I like to do some of it. And as far as reflexive rage, I take that as the ultimate compliment. At this point in the history of online discourse, I think it's arguably more important the tone that one sets than whether they are factually right or wrong. ...Plus, I'm positive I'm wrong about many things, just not sure what they are yet;)
Heh, yes, I also love Donald Rumsfeld’s (not his invention, of course) “known unknowns”. And yes also to tone. Setting the tone is vital to liveability in workplaces, schools and family/home environment. Probably like you, I have seen it done badly, and well, in all those environments.
Most interesting to me, as my kids march through their teenage years, and my friends’ kids do the same, is to observe how many parents apparently have no idea how to parent. And either abdicate responsibility to teachers, or simply give up and hope things will turn out okay. As is true in so many areas of life, the decay of the extended family unit (generations living together, still somewhat prevalent here in Asia, and “village” living, with de facto communal child rearing) seems to me to have reduced (dramatically) the amount of guidance that new parents can tap into …
Hi David - thanks (as always) for writing:
On a similar topic, Noah Smith (among others) has written on how phone use may be driving down standardized test scores around the world:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/at-least-five-interesting-things-e3b
Here are some links to Haidt's and others academic writing on the topic of your article as well:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140197121000853
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-023-01800-y
Take care!
Fascinating. The bit on the optimal injuries not being 0 reminds me of a basketball coach I had who told us we should never end a game with 0 fouls because it meant we weren't aggressive enough offensively. The data here really validates my anecdotal experience teaching middle schoolers. I can hardly think of any instances in which social media (and phones in general) have made a positive impact on any of my students. I can't remember if I've asked you this before, but have you thought about how you'll parent with regards to social media? It seems like it will risk social downsides if a kid isn't on it, but boy it seems to risk so much more if they are. Also, and this is becoming my favorite question after the Dr. Mark Q&A, are you changing any of your habits because of this book? From what you've said in the past it seems like you have a pretty minimalist (s/o Cal!) approach to social media already, so I imagine there might not be too much.
I half-jokingly told me wife that we have to except an infinitesimally smaller chance that our kid gets kidnapped in return for him being able to have some independence and a much larger chance that he develops well. When I mention that to Jon, he says, with a completely straight face: "Yeah I find that doesn't go over so well with mothers." ...made me chuckle. In any case, I most certainly have thought about parenting and social media. I'm not sure what the best approach is, in part because of he "collective traps" problem (https://www.nber.org/papers/w31771). I do intend to delay a smart phone, though, and early to start talking to my son about the unreality of social media, but probably more importantly just in general how to recognize things that are attractive but not good for you. That's what happened with me and social media. I was quite active on Twitter at one point, and now I have an account, but haven't posted anything this year. I don't want to say that I was addicted, but I was, at a certain point, checking it a lot, and interacting with people, and often arguing. My first step was to make a no-arguing-on-Twitter policy, and eventually I progressed to abandoning it altogether. Even a few months off is a reminder of how small a part of life it is. But when you're immersed in it, it feels large. In any case, I'm definitely spending time thinking about it in relation to parenting, but because I don't think I can foresee how important (or not) it will be to my kid (despite my hopes), I'm trying to keep some flexibility in my thinking. Right now I'm more focused on the letting him take some risks side of things, since social media isn't yet a concern. Although I recently declined to signed a permission slip for a field trip to a bank, because the slip indicated that it would have the right, in perpetuity to use the image of any of the kids on social media. And I'm thinking, even I haven't posted a picture of my kid online — and not because he isn't hilarious and adorable — so if anybody is doing that, it's going to be me! ... In terms of changes from the book, the biggest one for me has been encouraging a bit more risk even if I think there's a reasonable chance of injury. And I expect there will be an injury at some point (although he's quite risk averse as a basline) but that's ok and hopefully it won't be too major. And also in encouraging other parents to do the same.
This makes a lot of sense, and I'm so glad some academics has coined the term "collective trap" for an idea that I could articulate but couldn't name. I admire that Twitter policy, and your point about realizing how small of a part of life it is reminds me of a quote Brad Stulberg had in The Practice of Groundedness: "What is important doesn't necessarily get our attention, but what gets our attention becomes important."
Lots of respect for actually reading the permission slip haha. When you name what it said in the way you just did, it is a pretty wild thing to sign away.
Fascinating, thank you.
Yo Henry! Great to see you here. Thanks for reading, and would love to catch up sometime