I've found that many people resist the smart phone theory because it would mean examining their own cellphone habits. It's hard to ask addicts to be impartial about their addictions.
A smartphone likely has an even more powerful effect due to another, earlier change: full time group daycare in early life (newborns)-- which only began in late 1980s and rapidly worked its way up to a third of kids. Emotional self regulation, internal locus of control, agency, sense of self are developed in toddlerhood via modeling, in relationship. Relational intimacy & trust (attachment) with your mom is later a great shield from the slings and arrows of bullies, etc. (Dr Gordon Neufeld's "place to cry.") Kids w this ballast can deal with painful experiences, including adolescence, in pro-social ways.
Indeed, Gen X were famous for being latchkey kids, of course, but at least they still (usually) had Mom around during infancy and early childhood when it is most crucial of all.
The teen that I know with the most issues with anxiety wasn't allowed to have social media or a smartphone for several years after she started having severe issues. Her family had overprotected her so much that she thought it was normal that a 14yo go to bed at 7:30 and not be allowed to play with neighbors because they were gifted. Then she started a large private high school and had a mental collapse that she's never recovered.
The real elephant in the room is that the *adults* are NOT alright. Anyone who thinks that arbitrary age gating and other such band-aids are on philosophically stable ground will soon find themselves eating crow. So if we really want to solve this all-ages collective action problem, how about we officially declare a state of emergency and quarantine all social media for "just two weeks". Also have a smartphone buyback program like they do for guns. I am only half-joking about that.
(As for phone-free schools, fine. And how about phone-free workplaces as well?)
Of course, those are not permanent solutions, only enough to break the spell that Big Tech has over We the People. We actually need to FIX the internet for good. We need to throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom by passing comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages, and especially banning surveillance advertising. We need to audit the algorithms and make them public. We need to rein in the deliberately addictive features and "frictionless sharing" of these platforms. And of course, we need to go antitrust on Big Tech as well. Yesterday.
To the adults in the room: the life you save may very well be your own.
You're right that's not verbatim. What she writes is: "considerable reforms to these platforms are required, given how much time young people spend on them. Many of Haidt’s solutions for parents, adolescents, educators and big technology firms are reasonable, including stricter content-moderation policies and requiring companies to take user age into account when designing platforms and algorithms." So I probably should have written instead that she acknowledges teens spend a lot of time on social media and thus the platforms should be better regulated.
What really needs to be done is to pass comprehensive digital privacy legislation for all ages and ban surveillance advertising first before doing anything else. That would throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom for good, as Big Tech would be forced to go on the DuckDuckGo model, which would take away the biggest incentive for deliberately creating and sustaining addiction. Also audit the algorithms and make them public. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And changing the share button "Stop at two hops" would stop the problem of "frictionless sharing" of outrage and harmful content as well.
How about simply paying people of all ages to delete their social media accounts, or deactivate them for a certain amount of time? IIRC Haidt, Rausch. and/or Twenge had noted that many people would do it for $50 or less. Additionally, a smartphone buyback program similar to what they do with guns would also be a good idea.
As a girldad with a 5, 13, and 16 year old daughters, I have firsthand evidence of how not just social media, but screen time in general contribute to their feelings of numbness, depression, anxiety, a crippling FOMO, subtle comparison traps, toxic beauty culture, over sexualized content, and general feelings of a rudderless rudder in life.
I very much appreciate this piece. As a parent to a tween and a teen and observer of many friends whose teens are seriously struggling, I see Jonathan's Haidt's call to action as a much needed wake-up call that seems to be the right message at the right time. I work for one of the aligned organizations that he brought together last week on a Zoom call (you linked to the page - thank you!) and we are all seeing a huge influx of interest in our content and we are getting calls from school leaders asking for our help who a year ago felt luke warm to say it mildly about our recommendation to create a cell-phone free school policy. Am very much hoping in the process of all of this that the grown-ups re-examine their own relationships to smartphones and devices too.
BINGO. Imagine if wages had kept up with productivity since the early 1970s. Minimum wage would be well into the $20s/hour by now But instead, the oligarchs took nearly all of the gains of that productivity. If that doesn't make the reader feel RIPPED OFF, check your pulse 'cause you might be dead!
Food, drink, and toiletries is $400/wk/person? By whose calculation? My family of 3 is right around the median income for our state, in a middling cost-of-living area, and we don’t spend anywhere near $1200/wk on food, drink, and toiletries.
Those numbers have to have been cooked. Not only has inflation been understated for decades now (see Shadowstats.com), but the cost of living has risen unevenly, with things like rent, healthcare, and college tuition greatly outpacing the general price level. Also wages have lagged greatly behind productivity gains as well, at least wages at the bottom and middle, while skyrocketing at the top. If minimum wage had kept up with productivity since 1968, for example, it would be well into the $20s/hour by now. But the oligarchs at the top took nearly all of the gains for themselves. If that doesn't make the reader feel RIPPED OFF, check your pulse 'cause you might be dead!
It's worth mentioning, for sure, but if you look at the income graph, you see that kids with higher income seem even worse off. Which is probably due to: parents earning well but constantly on their phones for work, away a lot, and more access to tech due to better wealth in the home, etc.
I've found that many people resist the smart phone theory because it would mean examining their own cellphone habits. It's hard to ask addicts to be impartial about their addictions.
Indeed. The adults are NOT alright, it seems. THAT is the real elephant in the room.
A smartphone likely has an even more powerful effect due to another, earlier change: full time group daycare in early life (newborns)-- which only began in late 1980s and rapidly worked its way up to a third of kids. Emotional self regulation, internal locus of control, agency, sense of self are developed in toddlerhood via modeling, in relationship. Relational intimacy & trust (attachment) with your mom is later a great shield from the slings and arrows of bullies, etc. (Dr Gordon Neufeld's "place to cry.") Kids w this ballast can deal with painful experiences, including adolescence, in pro-social ways.
Indeed, Gen X were famous for being latchkey kids, of course, but at least they still (usually) had Mom around during infancy and early childhood when it is most crucial of all.
Thank you for responding to Odgers, the data speaks clearly on this one.
The teen that I know with the most issues with anxiety wasn't allowed to have social media or a smartphone for several years after she started having severe issues. Her family had overprotected her so much that she thought it was normal that a 14yo go to bed at 7:30 and not be allowed to play with neighbors because they were gifted. Then she started a large private high school and had a mental collapse that she's never recovered.
The real elephant in the room is that the *adults* are NOT alright. Anyone who thinks that arbitrary age gating and other such band-aids are on philosophically stable ground will soon find themselves eating crow. So if we really want to solve this all-ages collective action problem, how about we officially declare a state of emergency and quarantine all social media for "just two weeks". Also have a smartphone buyback program like they do for guns. I am only half-joking about that.
(As for phone-free schools, fine. And how about phone-free workplaces as well?)
Of course, those are not permanent solutions, only enough to break the spell that Big Tech has over We the People. We actually need to FIX the internet for good. We need to throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom by passing comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages, and especially banning surveillance advertising. We need to audit the algorithms and make them public. We need to rein in the deliberately addictive features and "frictionless sharing" of these platforms. And of course, we need to go antitrust on Big Tech as well. Yesterday.
To the adults in the room: the life you save may very well be your own.
(Mic drop)
Is it really true that "Odgers acknowledges that teens spend too much time on social media"?
I do not see anything in the review when she admits it is excessive. Did I miss something?
You're right that's not verbatim. What she writes is: "considerable reforms to these platforms are required, given how much time young people spend on them. Many of Haidt’s solutions for parents, adolescents, educators and big technology firms are reasonable, including stricter content-moderation policies and requiring companies to take user age into account when designing platforms and algorithms." So I probably should have written instead that she acknowledges teens spend a lot of time on social media and thus the platforms should be better regulated.
What really needs to be done is to pass comprehensive digital privacy legislation for all ages and ban surveillance advertising first before doing anything else. That would throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom for good, as Big Tech would be forced to go on the DuckDuckGo model, which would take away the biggest incentive for deliberately creating and sustaining addiction. Also audit the algorithms and make them public. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And changing the share button "Stop at two hops" would stop the problem of "frictionless sharing" of outrage and harmful content as well.
How about simply paying people of all ages to delete their social media accounts, or deactivate them for a certain amount of time? IIRC Haidt, Rausch. and/or Twenge had noted that many people would do it for $50 or less. Additionally, a smartphone buyback program similar to what they do with guns would also be a good idea.
If you really want to fix the internet, do this first and instead:
https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-online-harms
How do you respond to this one?
https://www.cityam.com/lets-be-honest-social-media-isnt-driving-a-teen-mental-health-crisis/
As a girldad with a 5, 13, and 16 year old daughters, I have firsthand evidence of how not just social media, but screen time in general contribute to their feelings of numbness, depression, anxiety, a crippling FOMO, subtle comparison traps, toxic beauty culture, over sexualized content, and general feelings of a rudderless rudder in life.
I very much appreciate this piece. As a parent to a tween and a teen and observer of many friends whose teens are seriously struggling, I see Jonathan's Haidt's call to action as a much needed wake-up call that seems to be the right message at the right time. I work for one of the aligned organizations that he brought together last week on a Zoom call (you linked to the page - thank you!) and we are all seeing a huge influx of interest in our content and we are getting calls from school leaders asking for our help who a year ago felt luke warm to say it mildly about our recommendation to create a cell-phone free school policy. Am very much hoping in the process of all of this that the grown-ups re-examine their own relationships to smartphones and devices too.
BINGO. Imagine if wages had kept up with productivity since the early 1970s. Minimum wage would be well into the $20s/hour by now But instead, the oligarchs took nearly all of the gains of that productivity. If that doesn't make the reader feel RIPPED OFF, check your pulse 'cause you might be dead!
Food, drink, and toiletries is $400/wk/person? By whose calculation? My family of 3 is right around the median income for our state, in a middling cost-of-living area, and we don’t spend anywhere near $1200/wk on food, drink, and toiletries.
I agree there's a lot of negativity among Gen Z, but the "higher costs of living vs lower wages" idea just isn't true. Median incomes **adjusted for inflation** are at all-time highs for younger adults. See 25- to 34-year-olds in Table P10 here: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-people.html
As for global warming, why would that cause loneliness? That's not at all clear. Yet teen loneliness is up around the world.
Those numbers have to have been cooked. Not only has inflation been understated for decades now (see Shadowstats.com), but the cost of living has risen unevenly, with things like rent, healthcare, and college tuition greatly outpacing the general price level. Also wages have lagged greatly behind productivity gains as well, at least wages at the bottom and middle, while skyrocketing at the top. If minimum wage had kept up with productivity since 1968, for example, it would be well into the $20s/hour by now. But the oligarchs at the top took nearly all of the gains for themselves. If that doesn't make the reader feel RIPPED OFF, check your pulse 'cause you might be dead!
It's worth mentioning, for sure, but if you look at the income graph, you see that kids with higher income seem even worse off. Which is probably due to: parents earning well but constantly on their phones for work, away a lot, and more access to tech due to better wealth in the home, etc.