The fixation with social media as the root of rising teen suicides blinds us to critical factors that you rarely hear anyone talking about in conversations about teen mental health.
Interesting take, I do agree that just banning social media to teenagers is a lazy approach.
Suicide is a complex phenomenon for which science can inform but will likely be far from a panacea. If you take positivist sociology from the XIX century seriously Protestants will always have a higher likelihood of killing themselves than Catholics.
It's hard for any study to determine how social media is used, giving the layers of irony baked into certain content, especially in racist and self-harming circles. So yeah, you mount a good case to remain skeptical given the poor evidence and assumptions of blanket statements like those of the New Yorker article.
Yet, what is concerning to me isn't so much the linear relationship between social media usage and teen suicide, but how this tech alters how we think and socialize.
It's broadly clear that online discussion isn't about clearing the fog of ignorance as much as it is about amplifying the depth of already held assumptions, as Godwin’s law or this very comment section already indicates.
This tendency, paired with the drive of companies to increase the engagement and attention spent in their platform with algorithmic tools -that try to get you what you want, or make you want - may lead to echo chambers that reinforce a pathological relationship with social media.
Without being reductionist or implying that going back to a golden era will solve our problems, it becomes necessary to try to hold the diverse contradictions social media creates: where kids today connect in a completely different way to previous generations, which sometimes will turn into extraordinary positive art and collective action, and others, may just make them drown in the cesspool of hate and self-damage. This may just be happening right now by using the very same platform.
Thanks for the comment. I think you've touched on a lot of great points.
It's funny really because I've been considering making a video or writing an article about the effects of online echo chambers, which I have very strong (and negative) feelings towards. What's been putting me off is the limited amount of original research available and I just can't get my head around how to separate the cause and effect relationships of these chambers.
It's kind of tough really because I can see a similar conundrum to the social media and mental health problem... like, do echo chambers create pathological relationships because they satisfy a need for validation? Or... perhaps... our need for validation is what ends up creating these echo chambers. I feel like our need for validation is really the root cause of all this.
I'm a pretty active Redditor and I've recently learnt that I'm a fascist. I'm also a liberal apparently. I've been banned by the moderators of r/ Conservative for being a liberal and the moderators of r/ BashTheFash for being a fascist. You can imagine how confused I am rn.
The need for validation where everyone you talk to has to subscribe to the same set of views that you hold is really messing with our politics, economy, social progress, and mental health.
I have been following the debate between Jon Haidt and his critics. IMO both stories are valid. We don't have evidence of causality yet but both social factors and social media seem like valid confounding factors.
As a teacher in Scotland, I can guarantee you that phones have a big impact on their school performance, and their well being. When kids are bullied now, it's almost always also through social media; some are starving themselves of day-dreaming and using their subconscious mind, and their attention spans (all our attention spans) are getting smaller and smaller.
Doomscrolling apps like reddit and specifically tiktok drain them of dopamine hits and make anything else seem boring by comparison.
Phones absolutely need to be banned in classrooms, otherwise we are doing a lot of these kids a disservice.
Far from wanting to wash our hands of any responsibility (like actually wtf are you even talking about), we want the best for our kids.
You have been reductive, not provided any counter points to your argument, and have built strawmen to attack. I guess this gets you more views on YouTube, and citing papers makes you feel better about things, but this is really hack journalism and you should know better.
Hi. Thanks for reading my article. It's funny that you mention banning in the classrooms because that's something I agree with! I had hoped it was clear that my piece was about banning adolescents off social media (period), but I obviously need to be clearer next time.
As always, I appreciate your feedback though I obviously disagree with your assessment.
I'm a medical doctor. I make roughly $30 off YouTube a month. I make no money from Substack. I also don't promote any products or services on my YouTube channel. I pay a video editor out of my own pocket, meaning I actually create these videos at a significant loss.
The reason I do this is because I really care about presenting science in an engaging and informative way. I chose this topic because, contrary to what you might think, I actually care about adolescent mental health. I spent most of my teen years and my early twenties struggling with my mental health. I don't believe I do this for the YouTube views, but obviously you know better. Perhaps the kids in your classroom are learning all about bullying and strawman arguments not from their peers online, but from their teacher?
Interesting take, I do agree that just banning social media to teenagers is a lazy approach.
Suicide is a complex phenomenon for which science can inform but will likely be far from a panacea. If you take positivist sociology from the XIX century seriously Protestants will always have a higher likelihood of killing themselves than Catholics.
It's hard for any study to determine how social media is used, giving the layers of irony baked into certain content, especially in racist and self-harming circles. So yeah, you mount a good case to remain skeptical given the poor evidence and assumptions of blanket statements like those of the New Yorker article.
Yet, what is concerning to me isn't so much the linear relationship between social media usage and teen suicide, but how this tech alters how we think and socialize.
It's broadly clear that online discussion isn't about clearing the fog of ignorance as much as it is about amplifying the depth of already held assumptions, as Godwin’s law or this very comment section already indicates.
This tendency, paired with the drive of companies to increase the engagement and attention spent in their platform with algorithmic tools -that try to get you what you want, or make you want - may lead to echo chambers that reinforce a pathological relationship with social media.
Without being reductionist or implying that going back to a golden era will solve our problems, it becomes necessary to try to hold the diverse contradictions social media creates: where kids today connect in a completely different way to previous generations, which sometimes will turn into extraordinary positive art and collective action, and others, may just make them drown in the cesspool of hate and self-damage. This may just be happening right now by using the very same platform.
Thanks for the comment. I think you've touched on a lot of great points.
It's funny really because I've been considering making a video or writing an article about the effects of online echo chambers, which I have very strong (and negative) feelings towards. What's been putting me off is the limited amount of original research available and I just can't get my head around how to separate the cause and effect relationships of these chambers.
It's kind of tough really because I can see a similar conundrum to the social media and mental health problem... like, do echo chambers create pathological relationships because they satisfy a need for validation? Or... perhaps... our need for validation is what ends up creating these echo chambers. I feel like our need for validation is really the root cause of all this.
I'm a pretty active Redditor and I've recently learnt that I'm a fascist. I'm also a liberal apparently. I've been banned by the moderators of r/ Conservative for being a liberal and the moderators of r/ BashTheFash for being a fascist. You can imagine how confused I am rn.
The need for validation where everyone you talk to has to subscribe to the same set of views that you hold is really messing with our politics, economy, social progress, and mental health.
I have been following the debate between Jon Haidt and his critics. IMO both stories are valid. We don't have evidence of causality yet but both social factors and social media seem like valid confounding factors.
As a teacher in Scotland, I can guarantee you that phones have a big impact on their school performance, and their well being. When kids are bullied now, it's almost always also through social media; some are starving themselves of day-dreaming and using their subconscious mind, and their attention spans (all our attention spans) are getting smaller and smaller.
Doomscrolling apps like reddit and specifically tiktok drain them of dopamine hits and make anything else seem boring by comparison.
Phones absolutely need to be banned in classrooms, otherwise we are doing a lot of these kids a disservice.
Far from wanting to wash our hands of any responsibility (like actually wtf are you even talking about), we want the best for our kids.
You have been reductive, not provided any counter points to your argument, and have built strawmen to attack. I guess this gets you more views on YouTube, and citing papers makes you feel better about things, but this is really hack journalism and you should know better.
Hi. Thanks for reading my article. It's funny that you mention banning in the classrooms because that's something I agree with! I had hoped it was clear that my piece was about banning adolescents off social media (period), but I obviously need to be clearer next time.
As always, I appreciate your feedback though I obviously disagree with your assessment.
I'm a medical doctor. I make roughly $30 off YouTube a month. I make no money from Substack. I also don't promote any products or services on my YouTube channel. I pay a video editor out of my own pocket, meaning I actually create these videos at a significant loss.
The reason I do this is because I really care about presenting science in an engaging and informative way. I chose this topic because, contrary to what you might think, I actually care about adolescent mental health. I spent most of my teen years and my early twenties struggling with my mental health. I don't believe I do this for the YouTube views, but obviously you know better. Perhaps the kids in your classroom are learning all about bullying and strawman arguments not from their peers online, but from their teacher?