this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024

241 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37796 readers

246 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

241

Young people were becoming more anxious long before social media, and we should not be fixated on simplistic explanations that reduce the issue to technical variables, researcher says (theconversation.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by tardigrada@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Thanks to bestselling authors like Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge, the public has become increasingly aware of the rapid rise in mental health issues among younger people [...] Their warnings about the destructive impact of social media have had an effect, reflected not least in a wave of schools across Europe banning smartphones.

While it’s good to draw attention to the rising rates of depression and anxiety, there’s a risk of becoming fixated on simplistic explanations that reduce the issue to technical variables like “screen time”.

[...]

A hallmark of Twenge and Haidt’s arguments is their use of trend lines for various types of psychological distress, showing increases after 2012, which Haidt calls the start of the “great rewiring” when smartphones became widespread. This method has been criticised for overemphasising correlations that may say little about causality.

[...]

Numerous academics [...] have pointed to factors such as an increasing intolerance for uncertainty in modernity, a fixation – both individual and collective – on avoiding risk, intensifying feelings of meaninglessness in work and life more broadly and rising national inequality accompanied by growing status anxiety. However, it’s important to emphasise that social science has so far failed to provide definitive answers.

[...]

It seems unlikely that the political and social challenges we face wouldn’t influence our wellbeing. Reducing the issue to isolated variables [such as the use of smartphones], where the solution might appear to be to introduce a new policy (like banning smartphones) follows a technocratic logic that could turn good health into a matter for experts.

The risk with this approach is that society as a whole is excluded from the analysis. Another risk is that politics is drained of meaning. If political questions such as structural discrimination, economic precarity, exposure to violence and opioid use are not regarded as shaping our wellbeing, what motivation remains for taking action on these matters?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.org 76 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I'll be honest, I really do not like how we're getting hammered for our risk-aversion.

"Don't do [risky behavior with bad consequences], otherwise [bad thing will happen]! And don't give into peer pressure telling you you have to do [bad thing]!" is what I was taught in school and by my parents.

I listened instead of rebelling. This made sense to me, and besides a lot of the risky behaviors held no appeal for me anyways.

OMGWTFBBQ THE YOUNG GENERATION IS RISK-AVERSE :((((

I'll keep living this way, thanks.

If they are talking about more calculated risks that we kind of need people to take, like people starting small businesses, I feel like people will always be taking that kind of risk. If they are talking about just "basic safety" risks like people not wearing seatbelts in cars, driving drunk, it's good that that kind of risk is becoming unpopular. Whatever part of society is dependent on us taking that kind of risk can adapt or die. And if they are sad about lifestyle type risky behavior, neither good nor bad, stuff like bungee-jumping off cliffs, I have no words for older generations believing living a quiet, straight-edge life is a problem and wanting us to change that.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 12 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

When was the last time you brought/did something without checking an online review? Got into a conversation with a complete stranger? Left the house without a phone?

I think that's the kind of risk they are talking about.

[–] Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.org 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I buy groceries without checking a review, try local activities without checking reviews, etc.—I'm not exactly paralyzed. But something that costs a decent chunk of money I am absolutely checking a review and I don't think that is wrong to do. The trouble with checking reviews nowadays is how easy they are to fake, how easy it is to get a genuine negative review deleted on certain sites, how a person who has it out for a small business owner can flood them with untrue negative reviews, how often they are gamed in some way such that it does not reflect the true quality of the thing…

Conversations with strangers… I'll be honest that's a hard one because I'm not good at social cues and I don't want to think I'm having a nice conversation when the other half is composing a OH MY GOD STUPID FUCKING EXTROVERTS THE WORLD HATES INTROVERTS CAN'T THEY TELL I DON'T WANT TO TALK story in their head about me (being extroverted and having autism where you suck at social cues and know you suck at social cues is not a fun combination). I learned this behavior after seeing people express annoyance about strangers talking to them. Some things are obvious, like if you're occupied with a book, but nowadays who isn't occupied on their phone? I have had plenty of situations where I was on my phone but would have loved if someone started conversation with me—but I might be an anomaly so I just keep following the social rule of "occupied = don't talk". If I'm in a space where I think someone is open to socialization I am much more likely to initiate conversation—like a party or something. I'm not afraid of "sorry, not interested," but I am afraid of "yeah I'm cool with you" (actually no I'm not but I'll never tell you I have a problem with you until I blow up about it 6 months later).

I like quick and easy access to 911 or a locksmith's number in case I leave the house and lock myself out and cannot find the spare key but there are other reasons I leave the house with a phone than risk aversion/insurance for screwups I have committed before—for directions, or because it's nice to have a thing that staves away boredom if I know I'll probably be sitting in a line for 30 minutes, or because I have a digital wallet on there that is easier to carry around than my real wallet…

The issue with those metrics is how many other things can motivate those behaviors besides being scared of everything, or factors that make what might be an unreasonable fear for most people actually reasonable for you (for example, a phobia of bees suddenly becomes a lot more reasonable if you are deathly allergic, live near them, and aren't good at recognizing their hives/are accident-prone), but I do get the core of what you are saying. A generation who is more anxious about basic everyday things, which is definitely not good.

Although with checking reviews specifically, I'd argue that given how many times companies lower quality, change stuff, pull the rug out from under you in the name of profit, people have more and more cause to try to verify they are getting something decent when they would not have done so in the past. The more you hear of people getting screwed over, naturally the more you'll check to make sure you are not getting screwed too. This increased risk aversion is entirely rational in my opinion.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I live on Staten Island. Used to be that I'd hear chatter on the ferry every day. I would have a nice chat almost daily, and a serious conversation a couple of times a month. These days it's mostly silent and those who do talk came on the boat together. Otherwise, everyone is staring at the phone.

[–] SurpriZe@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So what would be the solution you think?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There are gradients to risk-aversion, and that's certainly on the low end of the spectrum. But also, those same parents were the ones who were actively rebelling in the 90s or in the 60s and 70s, in some cases for very good causes that were worth risking injury or even a chance of getting shot.

We need those people, now more than ever. And despite it being a natural personality trait, risk-aversion is more pervasive than ever. We risk losing our freedoms to people with far more power than us, because we collectively decided that it's too risk-averse to fight.

We are frogs boiling in water, unwilling to fix our situation, because there's a risk of injury or death.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The thing is, it's not the fear of injury or death, it's the fact that people have forgotten the idea of public engagement.

There was a story a while back about a Georgia family who got in real legal trouble for letting a 10 year old wander about in their own neighborhood.

I used to ride my bike all over town and I'd see gangs of kids doing the same. I was in Jersey City, NJ a while back and was surprised by the sight of elementary school age kids out alone.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.org 9 points 3 weeks ago

Injury is a lot easier to risk if you won't be charged more than your entire net worth for treatment. If you haven't experienced the misery of medical debt, and know how others live with it, it's absolutely terrifying to think about having to live with, all because you tried to do something good.

I like to try to help others but I am selfish enough to admit I'd never run myself into debt or risk my life for someone else. I always respect those willing to do what I'm not.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 3 weeks ago

I look as it less being blame and more trying to understand the issue.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 62 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

It's capitalism coupled with access to education.

You get more anxious when you're super educated about how badly you're getting fucked by capitalism and have zero power to change it!

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

I suspect this is part of it, but I also suspect that it's even little things like more people living in dense cities and spending less time in serene nature.

The rise in near sightedness is tied to kids not spending enough time outdoors literally just focusing on things far in the distance, it seems to me that it would be more surprising if there weren't also related mental health consequences.

[–] InevitableList@beehaw.org 16 points 3 weeks ago

Actually near nearsightedness is due to brightness levels being much indoors rather than focal points. Even on cloudy days it's much brighter outdoors. There's also evidence that natural light has a calming effect on people.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 12 points 3 weeks ago

It was common for kids to have a day without being watched by parents in dense cities a generation ago.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

cities aren't bad, gtfo with that suburban propaganda

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Here on Lemmy, most problems are simply caused by capitalism. Period. It's all you need to know.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

It's not just lemmy but anywhere that reasonable people have an accurate perception of reality.

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, and you don't need to think on your own. Whatever the problem is, the cause is always the same. No mistake possible.

[–] Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.org 14 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I just want people to be happy and to not get exploited. As far as I know, people have been exploited under both capitalism and communism. I am not sure if it's inherent to either economic structure, if there are safe guardrails you can put on either to make them not harmful, if it's not inherent to the economic structure and what matters is also what other government type is happening alongside that economic structure, etc. Something that really doesn't help is that often, if you grow up with one structure, you're also taught the other one is a virus of evil that no good human being would ever support. Well, maybe a misguided one, but nobody good and smart who thinks for themselves.

It would be nice to see a civil discussion with people actually trying to figure out which one is best and least harmful, because as an outsider looking in all I see is

"capitalism is the problem"

"no it's not, also you're not a free thinker"

Is everyone coming in here with some prior knowledge I don't have? Is there somewhere where people have tried to have this civil discussion that I could look at where it stayed civil?

I do think one thing I can certainly say is that there are people who lived under communism who worked hard and tried their best and still suffered in poverty under it and wanted out. And there are people who lived under capitalism who worked hard and tried their best and still suffered in poverty under it and wanted out.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Economic systems are mostly about incentives. What are people incentivised to do by receiving the most reward.

Capitalism incentivises destroying competition, creating monopolies, expanding the wealth gap, donating to ineffective charities for tax breaks, paying employees as little as possible to protect profits, lobbying congress for no labor protections, and filling the media with nonsense to distract from all this.

Communism makes it so, in principle, you have no reason to overwork yourself, other than if you enjoy what you are doing.

At least that is my understanding.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Communism makes it so, in principle, you have no reason to overwork yourself, other than if you enjoy what you are doing.

"In principle" is doing all of the work in this sentence. In practice, communism is nothing more than a dictatorship, dressed in fancy idealism. We've seen this lesson repeated over and over and over and over again during the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Communism doesn't work. It will never work. It's not realistic, and it doesn't factor human nature and social instincts. At. All.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago

Nor does capitalism if I understand things correctly.

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Communism makes it so, in principle, you have no reason to overwork yourself

In reality, people in Communist countries didn't give a crap about their work, because there were no actual incentives whatsoever, thinking for yourself was discouraged, showing initiative was heavily penalized, there was no competition to force anyone to improve what they were doing, there was barely any chance to advance (unless you were an apparatchik willing to literally go over bodies), no chance whatsoever to influence where the country as a whole or even your local community was heading towards. On top of that, you still had to overwork yourself if some fancy five year plan needed at least some real results to go with the made-up numbers (or at least pretend to be doing so, provided your country's ruling party has mellowed a little, shackled off Stalinism/Maoism, but not actually tackled the rampant corruption yet [none of them ever did]).

The idea - in theory - was that e.g. a factory or farm was owned "by the people", but to the people themselves it just felt that they and their labor were being exploited by an overbearing state and its faceless bureaucrats, similar to how they were previously being exploited by capitalist or feudal owners of the means of production. Importantly however, there were barely any niches in this system, unlike in capitalist or feudal systems, for some equally determined and lucky individuals to build up something for themselves. The most you could actually hope for is retreat into the private sphere and be left alone there, even though you knew that there were at least some informers among your closest family members and friends.

Seriously, have you ever actually seen footage from a factory in a Communist country? A few minutes of that should tell anyone what a terrible idea this whole thing is. Here's an example: https://youtu.be/emoF0EFxjjA?t=339 Compare this to a capitalist factory from the exact same time: https://youtu.be/cVabxDEJPgM It's not just the lack of modern tools and machinery, but also the organization, work ethos, even things as simple as making the workplace nicely lit, clean and safe.

For each of the countless flaws of capitalism, Communism has ten more, usually far more serious ones too. From exploitation to environmental destruction, it was all worse. These issues remain unsolved equations to this day, because almost every one of them has as its defining variable humans, these greedy creatures who are simply not suitable creatures for this kind of system. Maybe capitalism works better, because it not only rewards this greed, but actually uses it as a mechanism to force the system and its participants to constantly reinvent themselves. Not always in good ways, perhaps not even most of the time, but at least there is change happening.

I find it honestly perplexing that Communism is still being brought up by people who consider themselves smart as some kind of viable alternative, even though we've seen it fail again and again in the real world, every single time. It has never worked, ever. Yes, I'm sure they were all not real Communists. You would be one though if you were in charge though and because you would be, it would actually work this time. Maybe this time it can be actually done for real, with AI or quantum computers or something.

If this comes off as a bit abrasive, I apologize. Not my intention and perhaps due to a particularly unpleasant interaction I've just had with another user on this site. It's mostly an expression of frustration in regards to anyone who is bringing Communism up in any context other than crimes against humanity.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You wrote a lot, and apologies, but I didn't read it all. Communism is an economic theory. Most of your examples are government misconduct, which happens both under communism and capitalism.

I don't think either are a good system and would like us to work past the need for capital at all.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

Any ethos that includes the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot possibly call itself only a "economic theory". Reducing it to that kind of category alone is inherently dishonest.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 11 points 3 weeks ago

Is there somewhere where people have tried to have this civil discussion that I could look at where it stayed civil?

I find that place can be here, with some liberal blocking of asshats.

I was surprised how much thoughtless angry contrarianess was from the same accounts over and over, once I started blocking them.

[–] InevitableList@beehaw.org 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Communist governments took power in poor countries and had to endure 'primitive accumulation' before they could start building a socialist economy. At best they created workers states where employment and basic services were guaranteed to all.

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Communist governments took power in poor countries and had to endure 'primitive accumulation' before they could start building a socialist economy. At best they created workers' states where employment and basic services were guaranteed to all.

Where was that?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Poor countries like Germany? Germany is perhaps the perfect example of the differences between the two systems and which one actually worked out better for its people.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 5 points 3 weeks ago

I am not sure if it's inherent to either economic structure

Has little to do with the economic structure and everything to do with the fact that shitty humans are shitty, have always been shitty, and likely will continue to be shitty. And the shittiest among us are the ones that seek power.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

The fact that you think that's sarcasm is troubling.

Name a social problem, and I will tell you how it's definitely and sanely-proven to be caused by capitalism.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 weeks ago

It doesn't help when you have to share the planet with people who have the same power as you and are half as intelligent, who actually enjoy getting fucked by capitalism.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 weeks ago

I remember when the rise in anxiety was blamed on the cold war.

[–] astro_ray@piefed.social 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

yeah. I have had anxiety issues long before I had access to internet.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 17 points 3 weeks ago

It's been clear from Gen X onwards that we'll have a worse life than our parents, of course you'll get anxious about it. You can probably plot this on the same chart that shows the rise of income inequality.

[–] Dirac@lemmy.today 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Correlation may not equal causation, but causation equals causation, and social media has caused enough documented strife among young people to make me question who bankrolled this research group.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 13 points 3 weeks ago

make me question who bankrolled this research group.

Yeah. This reads a lot like "well known harmful but profitable product not as harmful as previously understood". I've seen that headline a lot of times over the years, and rarely was it honest.

[–] Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 15 points 3 weeks ago

I don't really have much to go off of other than my own experiences, but I don't think social media caused me more anxiety than normal except for one exception. During the beginning and early years of the pandemic, reddit usage did sometimes cause me more anxiety. Especially when people were hateful/disregarded other people.

Otherwise, the main things that cause me anxiety are a lack of community + a lack of third spaces. Feeling like I have no purpose other than being a cog in a machine/wealth disparity/alienation from my labour. Governments that don't care for the people they're supposed to serve. A general feeling of not being able to get ahead in life.

That's been the major cause of anxiety for me for the past 12 years

I think it really depends on how people are using the internet/ social media. I'm sure we all use it differently, and it might cause more or less anxiety.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 13 points 3 weeks ago

Its capitalism

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago

Now I might be an old disillusioned fart but nope, social media hasn't changed a thing... for me. The anxiety, depression, and anger was already there, full force, in the 80s and 90s. I mean come on listen to Punk and Grunge. Coincides pretty well with the rise of Neoliberalism and New Labour, wait why did I use the same term twice. It's at the tail wave of boomers having had their revolution and subsequently declaring the end of history.

What differs though is that (yeah I'm going to do it) the young'uns who never experienced life without the internet, worse, without a smartphone or tablet, don't even go to fucking concerts any more where they could touch some grass and get laid. Also media competency falls off drastically again I think somewhere in the middle of gen Z.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 11 points 3 weeks ago

On the one hand I can believe that people are getting more anxious because things are getting more bleak and it's an op to get the whole thing blamed on social media.

On the other hand, it also feels like an op from social media companies to insist that their algorithms aren't preying on people.

[–] araneae@beehaw.org 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

However, it’s important to emphasise that social science has so far failed to provide definitive answers.

Yeah thats traditionally not the job of the social sciences or science in general.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Buh we gotta ban TikTok!!! Block kids from the internet!!! As long as they're completely unaware of reality, we can force them to be happy.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago

I've been trying, but it's tough. Is there a book club or something where we can share tips?

(I'm kidding. Instead I've settled for making sure they experience the great movies, books and videogames.)

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 4 points 3 weeks ago

Do you think you're getting anything close to reality from TikTok?

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 4 points 3 weeks ago

As someone who does not use TikTok, what reality am I unaware of?

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 9 points 3 weeks ago

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

i actually found a video yesterday that summarizes my thoughts on this very well:

Social Media isn't the problem, Life is.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments