Of course you’re correct, but may I make an argument why the New York Times might have unwittingly stumbled into being right, too?
This is the key:
“ Wallace-Wells begins by pointing out that in 2011 there were “a new set of guidelines that recommended that teenage girls should be screened annually for depression by their primary care physicians and … required that insurance providers cover such screenings in full.””
What if depression increased not, as Wallace-Wells argues, because screening found more of it… but because *screening itself causes depression*??
In brief: doctors and teachers are “checking in” far far more than ever before on kids’ sad feelings, and just like the trans social contagion, you get what you measure.
So the times guy may be right, only not in the way he thinks…
This was the first thing I thought of as well -- how often does repeatedly asking the question end up planting the thought in the child's somewhat suggestible mind?
I’m all for listening to teenagers, ending our denial, and facing the realities they face.
From 2010 to 2021, Americans ages 30-59 (the ages of parents, relatives, household adults, teachers, coaches, etc.) suffered a skyrocketing epidemic of 800,000 suicides and fatal overdoses, plus 13 million ER self-harm and poisoning cases (nearly all o.d.’s) – up 180% in 11 years.
We didn’t like that reality millions of teens live with, so we ignored it and pretend the grownups are just fine. We don’t ask teens if grownups’ soaring self-destruction makes them more depressed.
The 2021 CDC survey showed that while teens who are online report more depression, they also report less self-harm, fewer attempted suicides, and fewer major risks. We liked the “more depression” finding and endlessly highlight it. We didn’t like teens' “less self-harm,” “fewer suicide attempts,” and “fewer risks” answers, so we ignored those answers.
That same CDC survey associated violent and/or emotional abuse by parents and household adults with vastly more teenaged (especially girls’ and LBGTQs’) depression, suicide attempts, self-harm, and other major risks than associated with any other factor, including screen time. We didn’t like teens’ answers on the abuse issue, so we ignored them.
Depressed teen girls, in particular, report being online more, and also being abused by parents/adults more. Analysis decisively shows that being parentally-abused is hugely more important. We didn’t like what girls said. So, we ignored the abuse result and just blame being online.
Teens are 3.5 times more likely to be abused by parents and grownups than online or at school, the CDC also reports. We didn’t like that answer, so we ignored it. Teens abused by parents at home are also much more likely to be cyberbullied and bullied at school. We didn’t like that connection, so we ignored it and blamed bullying on peers.
The Pew Research survey found teens several times more likely to rate their personal online experiences as positive, inclusive, connective, and helpful in dealing with “tough times,” rather than negative. We didn’t like that result, so we ignored it.
Large majorities of teens also told Pew that social media is neither good nor bad. Repeated reviews of survey and experimental studies confirmed that social media are associated with very low and contradictory effects on teens. We didn’t like those results, so we dismissed them.
It’s inconvenient and perhaps embarrassing to admit that teen girls have extraordinarily low suicide and overdose rates compared to us mature grownup women and (especially) men. So, we ignore that reality.
Instead of asking better questions and paying attention to what teens say, we pick and choose only those time periods, measures, and risk factors that we grownups find comfortable to face. Teenagers in real-life homes and communities enjoy no such pick-and-choose luxury.
So, yes, by all means, let’s start taking teens’ answers seriously. It would be a refreshing change. There are enough uncomfortable, unfaced factors in the teenage-social-media/real-life realms to form an entire substack. And the price is right.
Of course you’re correct, but may I make an argument why the New York Times might have unwittingly stumbled into being right, too?
This is the key:
“ Wallace-Wells begins by pointing out that in 2011 there were “a new set of guidelines that recommended that teenage girls should be screened annually for depression by their primary care physicians and … required that insurance providers cover such screenings in full.””
What if depression increased not, as Wallace-Wells argues, because screening found more of it… but because *screening itself causes depression*??
My case for that is here:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/how-we-make-children-miserable-and
In brief: doctors and teachers are “checking in” far far more than ever before on kids’ sad feelings, and just like the trans social contagion, you get what you measure.
So the times guy may be right, only not in the way he thinks…
This was the first thing I thought of as well -- how often does repeatedly asking the question end up planting the thought in the child's somewhat suggestible mind?
Excellent (cogent, incisive) analysis, Jean . . . I've been hoping you or Jon/Zach would respond to that NYT essay. Keep on . . .
I’m all for listening to teenagers, ending our denial, and facing the realities they face.
From 2010 to 2021, Americans ages 30-59 (the ages of parents, relatives, household adults, teachers, coaches, etc.) suffered a skyrocketing epidemic of 800,000 suicides and fatal overdoses, plus 13 million ER self-harm and poisoning cases (nearly all o.d.’s) – up 180% in 11 years.
We didn’t like that reality millions of teens live with, so we ignored it and pretend the grownups are just fine. We don’t ask teens if grownups’ soaring self-destruction makes them more depressed.
The 2021 CDC survey showed that while teens who are online report more depression, they also report less self-harm, fewer attempted suicides, and fewer major risks. We liked the “more depression” finding and endlessly highlight it. We didn’t like teens' “less self-harm,” “fewer suicide attempts,” and “fewer risks” answers, so we ignored those answers.
That same CDC survey associated violent and/or emotional abuse by parents and household adults with vastly more teenaged (especially girls’ and LBGTQs’) depression, suicide attempts, self-harm, and other major risks than associated with any other factor, including screen time. We didn’t like teens’ answers on the abuse issue, so we ignored them.
Depressed teen girls, in particular, report being online more, and also being abused by parents/adults more. Analysis decisively shows that being parentally-abused is hugely more important. We didn’t like what girls said. So, we ignored the abuse result and just blame being online.
Teens are 3.5 times more likely to be abused by parents and grownups than online or at school, the CDC also reports. We didn’t like that answer, so we ignored it. Teens abused by parents at home are also much more likely to be cyberbullied and bullied at school. We didn’t like that connection, so we ignored it and blamed bullying on peers.
The Pew Research survey found teens several times more likely to rate their personal online experiences as positive, inclusive, connective, and helpful in dealing with “tough times,” rather than negative. We didn’t like that result, so we ignored it.
Large majorities of teens also told Pew that social media is neither good nor bad. Repeated reviews of survey and experimental studies confirmed that social media are associated with very low and contradictory effects on teens. We didn’t like those results, so we dismissed them.
It’s inconvenient and perhaps embarrassing to admit that teen girls have extraordinarily low suicide and overdose rates compared to us mature grownup women and (especially) men. So, we ignore that reality.
Instead of asking better questions and paying attention to what teens say, we pick and choose only those time periods, measures, and risk factors that we grownups find comfortable to face. Teenagers in real-life homes and communities enjoy no such pick-and-choose luxury.
So, yes, by all means, let’s start taking teens’ answers seriously. It would be a refreshing change. There are enough uncomfortable, unfaced factors in the teenage-social-media/real-life realms to form an entire substack. And the price is right.