I had just finished Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind, when I met a gal for a computer date. To break the ice, I asked her what she was reading, and she answered, "The Righteous Mind." I married her.
One indicator of what Haidt is talking about is to observe how few playgrounds, ball fields, and other recreation areas for kids actually have kids playing in them. Unless it is an organized league of some sort they are normally deserted.. seems that no sport or activity can compete with what they are getting on their phones.
This is what happens when parents are told their kids are always in danger. COVID would be the ultimate example, but so would the "stranger danger" in the 1970s and the photos of missing kids on milk cartons.
I agree with those who back the "free range kids" concepts. As I said elsewhere, in-person interaction with other kids teaches them how to handle conflict, rather than have an adult step in every single time.
Parents too busy to encourage or play with them. When I was a kid we had day (and night) long pickup baseball games going for kids and parents of all ages dropping out and joining in. No umpires and just great fun. Some of my best memories.
Not to date my paleolithic self, but in my long lost youth, kids organized their own pick up games--no parents, no refs, and when we played touch football in the street, not even a field. Of course, this was not without controversy, like the day the football hit a parked car and the irate owner came out and started choking one of my little buddies. Ah, the good old days!
I talked to those parents of 13 year old yesterday. Their observation was, why are there only boys out playing and zero girls? Zero. Only their girls went to play at the park.
I think it is more the requirement that kids be supervised 100% of the time. I know 13 year olds that *just* got permission to go to the park 3 blocks away alone for the first time. And these are some of the more permissive parents I know.
Good point. I trace this trend to the rise of the "at risk" culture of the 1980s... suddenly there was danger everywhere, and kids now needed a permission slip to go to the park.
Plenty of kids are indeed into organized sports, and that's a very good thing. Pickup games are becoming rare, though, since the phone is right at hand, and it requires little effort to squeeze some amusement out of it. This leads to your conclusion that outdoor public recreation areas have been deserted.
In fact, the athletically inclined are also using their smartphones quite a bit.
I seriously wonder about the severity of this new crisis, and am a bit skeptical that it's time to collectively "do something" about all the time children and adolescents spend fiddlefucking around with these things.
It's a new form of isolated social engagement, which is perverse in that time spent with others no longer requires a physical presence, and this situation creates all sorts of novel problems that the author and others point out.
Many of the same concerns were expressed when TV became ubiquitous, and we have lived with the shut-in couch spud for decades now (see "The Whale" for a grotesque caricature of the type). I recall the term "electronic babysitter" applied to mothers plopping their kids down in front of the box for the day while they get on with the housekeeping. I have the feeling we will adapt in a similar way to the smartphone and not have our public life entirely destroyed, since I firmly believe at some point even those who stare into these things the most get cabin fever and feel the urge to go outdoors, even if they may walk into traffic or fall into holes while distracted.
In short, for reasons I don't understand, we seem to have a need to actually be present in the natural world periodically, even if it's just to be with the trees and grass at the corner park.
He lost me too, so I did some research. He appears to be dead on correct, with plenty of scientific studies to back up his statements. Correlation is not causation. However, the link between lead exposure and future behavioral problems is well documented, and studies in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (just to name two cities in my home state among a larger cadre studied show a link). And since leaded gas was phased out at various times in different countries, researchers can examine whether lead is a major factor across time and location. The "thing" I still don't get is why we Boomers aren't equally affected, because the.highest concentrations of lead in gasoline occurred between.1949 and 1979.
Thank you for saying "dead on" instead of "spot on." Spot on is for impressions. Dead on or right on are for saying "correct." I'm kind of a usage crank because I used to siphon leaded gas by sucking on a length of garden hose.
I remember when I could get my arms into an engine compartment to make my own repairs. I replaced my last water pump around 1988. All the electronics now make home repairs impossible for someone not familiar with the diagnostic gear and all the gadgets attached to newer models.
Haidt's claim seems to be the effect is strongest during gestation/early childbirth. Possibly there weren't as many cars around before the mid 1960s, so Boomers didn't suffer the same effect? Just a guess.
Great observation. Today I think we are quick to look for an 'environmental excuse'. Not to say that there aren't discoveries still to be made & changes employed. But everything considered, the Boomer generation survived an awful lot that today's kids would think is criminal.
Susan-- I wondered the same thing! I'm sure there is not just one cause. I think we Boomers were reined in by a much stricter, more cohesive society. Of course there were outbreaks (like the motorcycle gang terrorization depicted in the movie "The Wild One") but this was shocking to the general public.
Sorry. I accept that lead in gas wasn't a good thing and we're better off for cleaner air. But leaded gas as the reason for a rise in crime among ghetto youth and a subsequent drop in crime (at the same time anti-crime initiatives were predominant) seems completely against common sense.
"I believe this is very similar to leaded gas, where we have evidence of its hugely negative effect on the intelligence and behavior of an entire generation." I think the problem here is that your brain appended a lot of things to the end of that phrase that simply weren't there.
I question the drop in juvenile crime. I saw this stated in several of the references I access earlier today. Gang and cartel activity was not mentioned. I question most of the statistics provided by government (i.e., inflation, job creation for example)., so I question the drop in crime too.
Lead was all over the place. Toothpaste tubes were 100% lead. The water supply lines going into a house were/are lead. I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any claims about lead, for or against. But with all the exposure that I've had in my life, and I'm still (sort of) normal, I have to wonder about how dangerous it is.
BTW, the issue in Flint, MI shows how clueless the MSM are. The issue was not that there was lead in the water supply. The issue was that the water wasn't chemically treated with an agent to keep the lead in people's supply lines from leeching lead into their water. They also made it about how much the 'authorities' didn't care about it because Flint is mostly black. That is an idiotic, bigoted statement, that was made over and over again. I checked, and the black population is 56%. Also, I have not seen ANY report that claims that anyone was actually exposed to unusual levels of lead.
Seems 56% qualifies as "mostly black," and especially given that blacks comprise only 12.6% of the total U.S. population. Flint is mostly black, mostly poor, and above all, like thousands of towns and cities scattered across the U.S., mostly politically powerless.
You miss my point. There are plenty of white people who live in Flint, who also drink the water. The media wanted to imply that it was racism against blacks that caused the leadership to allow that water through. That's absurd. It was just good old-fashioned incompetence.
As for powerless, yes most of us are powerless. We do not control our governments; our governments control us. Not supposed to be that way, but it is.
The media "wanted" to imply or they "did" imply that it was racism? And I believe the authorities' very slow response to the contaminated water was the source of the controversy.
At any rate, it's not all that challenging to conceive, here in the U.S., that racism played some role in the botched and tentative response by elected officials to spend public money to help the residents of a poor, majority-black city. Not much of a stretch at all.
You have a right to make that inference. But that's all it is. I've worked more closely with government than I want to have to, but you have to, if you want responsive government. I've also worked in business. They are two different worlds. In business, incompetence is not tolerated. In government, no problem. I can get a problem solved by a business generally with one phone call. In government, good luck. Maybe yes, maybe no. And you don't get to take your 'business' elsewhere. You HAVE to deal with the incompetence.
Now, here's a question: In a city that is 56% black, what are the chances that all its elected officials are white? Never crossed your mind to did it? Do you know the race of the elected officials? Why not? If you're going to make it about racism of the officials, shouldn't you know their race? It sort of makes you a racist, that you didn't even bother to check.
In fact, the mayor was white. But it's also a fact that he was the one who exposed the problem, and did NOT cover it up.
It's a long story, and I've got better things to do than try to uncover everything. But here's an article that lists five of the nine people indicted for the problem. Two are black. Charges have been dropped on many, and the finger pointing will probably never stop. Feel free to sort things out for yourself, if you care to. But if you are just going to make assumptions, you shouldn't expect anyone to take your opinions seriously. I have a rule I try to live by, "Question everybody and everything, but first and foremost, question yourself."
Lead paint exposure also was significant, but I think much less likely to have effected Gen X than Boomers. Lead.exposure also can alter personality and effect behavior, which totally explains why at least half this country over 40 is crazy or stupid or both.
I am recently retired from the gasoline business, and removing lead from gasoline was the biggest environmental improvement in the history of motoring. Vaporizing a toxic heavy metal into the atmosphere does real long-term harm. I have no idea about the NY crime rate or abortions, but Haidt is spot on about leaded fuel.
Haidt isn't just claiming that leaded fuel causes physical health problems. Like many academics he needs a platform from which to launch a book, and this particular platform is shaky when Haidt expands the health risks to include anxiety in young people. Update - I checked, Haidt's "hugely negative impact on a generation" seems an overstatement, but I'll concede there's a substantial literature on the topic.
A cursory skim indicates the most recent studies seem to have conducted between 2009 and 2014 with a focus on a particular subset of individuals in New Zealand. More to follow.
Cheers, I expect you're right about the rats. Thanks!
I agree. I've read that abortion was behind the drop in crime because of the disproportionate number of abortions among the poor. There always seems to be the need for a sociological explanation rather than simple fact that locking away criminals tends to reduce crime. No, we can't have that.
That formula really only works when the possibility of going to prison acts as a deterrent. World Population Review claims that "the United States leads the world in total number of people incarcerated, with more than 2 million prisoners nationwide (per data released in October 2021 by World Prison Brief). This number is equivalent to roughly 25% of the world's total prison population."
Yet we still seem to have a crime problem.
Could be our appetite for illegal drugs and their idiotic prohibition. Could be our tendency to take others to court to settle grievances that otherwise could be handled personally. I don't pretend to know why the threat of prison seems to have little effect on crime.
Another commenter is right that this was a central claim and first widely popularized by the book "Freakonomics"; your criticism is off base because that book also treated all other factors, such as higher rates of incarceration and increases in police force size, properly and gave them their due.
I get what you're saying but I'm not sure it actually is true. Obviously in the immediate term, a person in prison can't also be out committing crimes. But unless you're locking them up for life, what will actually happen to crime rates in the long run?
As just one example, does having been in prison make it much harder to get hired for legitimate work afterwards, so you tend to be forced back to committing crimes? I think it's highly likely that this is the case.
By being unable to obtain legitimate work. You understand that's what I meant, please don't play silly games over the use of the word "forced", like the people who said "no one was FORCED to take the covid vaccine due to mandates (they were just unable to keep their jobs or engage in normal society)".
oldmanmurray.com, a hilarious and long-dormant video gaming site, referred to that idea as the "almost magically pan-offensive theory that abortion reduces crime."
Update, I checked. There's a substantial literature on the links between leaded gas and depression. I stand by my critique of the interview, and have provided links to the literature elsewhere.
Unfortunately, I agree. That's the problem with moral psychology as a discipline. Haidt fails completely in his duty to provide clear evidence of causality, when correlation, or collinearity are real possibilities when other variables are introduced. That evidence may exist, but Haidt simply points to "trends." He's on firmer ground, somewhat, with his work on phones.
Again, the problem is separating the practice of sitting immobile for large periods of time from the practice of staring at screens. I sit on my ass for long periods of time, I feel like shit.
My own unproven pet theory is that much of our nuttiness is connected to outsize expectations of what life will 'give' us without doing the requisite work. Add pharmaceuticals, passivity, and a whole lot of apocalyptic nonsense about climate variations and we're part way to understanding why so many young people in America seem unhappy, girls especially.
I've been working with young people for the last three decades. This generation is the same as the last - all they need are a series of achievable challenges to reset their confidence in their own agency. Had several personally thank me this week for making their lives harder than my peers. Many were visibly delighted to discover they could step outside their comfort zones without causing the end of life as we know it for the entire planet.
Get'em to go for a walk, first, without their phones, climb some stairs, go for a run. Cleaning a sink or two, or the front steps helps, too. I expected more from Haidt frankly.
Old books. "The Shallows." "Last Child In the Woods." The Bible.
Parenting is a tough, hard job that takes lots of effort AND time. But apparently being a parent is easily handled by giving your kid the phone. In the recent past, giving them sugary drinks. Whatever.
I included the Bible on my reading list upstairs, just because of the Book of Genesis, and the story of The Garden of Eden. Make a choice --- consequences ensue.
But of course we live in a world where there is no responsibility whatsoever for our choices. Children get breakfast at their school because I guess no one cares about them enough before sending them off on their way. And breakfast is not a tough meal.
Women are being absolutely degraded in this society and around the world, and the cultural alleged illuminati don't say "crap." Some. Thing. Else. But of course, "choice"
today means, newborn in the toilet if I feel like it.
So until people are willing to take responsibility for their choices and the consequences thereof, we are doomed. Do I really need the federal government to tell me when to put on a raincoat?
Expectations seem strange. I was just arguing with some younger people the other day that thought $10k a month wasn't enough to live on. They seemed to truly believe this that things are just so expensive and crazy that not even $10k a month is enough to live on.
You have wise words. And the idea that "the nuttiness is connected to outsized expectations of what life will 'give us' without doing the requisite work" is dead on.
Cheers, thank you for the kind words, wish I came up with ideas myself. These used to be what we called "common sense." What the hell happened to that?
Yeah, that's a pretty loaded assertion and it wasn't backed up at all. Perhaps it's somewhere in his writing, but my skeptic alarm went to 10 on that one.
I have three nephews. The family moved to Panama when the youngest was still pretty young. The two eldest are off-the-charts brilliant and productive. The youngest...never really got it together. Killed himself a few years back. He tested very high for lead from environmental contamination while a baby. Correlation is not causation; but lead poisoning was very common and is unquestionably very very serious. The point is we found the collective will to really do something about a documented problem.
Around 1993, Fed agency declared zero lead to be acceptable. In 2023 one of the most densely populated crime ridden small cities, Mt Vernon, in NYS, is just getting around to swapping out lead pipes for whatever.
Don't know if crime is more or less?
Multiple times a day on suburban highway of NYC metro area cars are crashing while tailgaters snuggle up at any speed and cars chase on joy rides in between dense traffic. I admire their skill knowing they are on some kind of amphetamine, while I stay back, wondering how far back is safe and wondering how a society can survive when law enforcement can't even really catch the evil ones. I thought they evil was a form of mental illness but now I think that's true for a small number of the subway crimes. For the most part, evil is evil.
That's not a peer reviewed paper. It's based upon correlation and not causation. Saying 'lead' also does not imply you are referring to gasoline. Many older homes probably still have lead paint.
Either way, I need more evidence than an article and correlation to believe leaded gasoline caused people to be violent.
"Correlation does not equal causation" is a cliché and mantra of scientism used to deny many obvious causalities with strong correlations by e.g the smoking industry with regard to cancer in the absence of RCTs.
Every time your heart beats, our planet moves in space.
This is a 100% correlation.
Yet, the Earth moving has no causal link to your heart beating. They are just things that happen together. They correlate. Correlation does not mean there is a causal link.
Every time you breathe, somewhere a bird flaps its wings. This is a 100% correlation, yet, a bird flapping its wings has nothing to do with your breathing.
There is no causation between a bird flapping its wings and you breathing.
I've heard stuff like this from lay people ever since I went to undergraduate school. People that have never even read a physics book, tell me how a physicist is supposed to be.
It is what it is. People simply make things up and then believe it. Nothing I can do about it.
This is what it says: The children, born between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, weren’t exposed to lead pipes or paint but to leaded gasoline used in cars from the 1940s through the 1990s.
We know that lead exposure causes cognitive and behavioral problems. That's not in question. You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean leaded gas caused the problem, but when a known cause is paired with an observable correlation, causality is a reasonable conclusion.
I don't see that it is ever reasonable to use correlation to argue for causation.
Look, I'll admit that I have little respect for soft sciences, because unlike in physics where the universe is the arbiter of truth, there is no arbiter of truth in soft sciences. They are completely based upon correlation and probabilities. There is no scientific method in soft sciences.
This is called the logical fallacy of demanding negative proof. That one makes a claim and then it's my job to verify or deny that claim. That's not how burden of proof works.
Yes, PhD in physics and what do you think happens in physics? Do you think when I write a paper making claims about superconductivity that the scientific community doesn't expect me to show any evidence, at all, for my claims? Is that how science works? Scientists just make a claim and then expect the public to go research it?
RFK, Jr. got my undivided attention when he spoke the truth about vaccines. He lost me when he came out as an unhinged Zionist who thinks Palestinians are the "most pampered people on the planet."
I'm actually pretty vaccine-skeptical myself—I certainly don't think kids should be getting the 50 or 70 (or whatever) doses currently recommended, clearly the COVID vaccine effort was a massive shit show, and I don't know too many people who trust Big Pharma on anything. However I think RFK Jr's claims about the specific effects of vaccines stand on fairly uncertain data.
Still, I mostly ignored his antivax statements and was ready to get behind him, until, as you point out, he went hard-right Zionist.
Yeah, I can't say that was good argument. Hell, I was born in the mid-fifties and if my generation's criminal and suicidal rates don't correlate with the claimed increases of later generations, I'd have to surmise his conclusions are based on flawed data; because I'm reasonably sure my generation was exposed to probably more leaded gas and many other lead based products than ANY subsequent group. Also, as soon as he bragged about working for a gun control group, he lost credibility in my eyes. They are notorious for espousing some truly ludicrous language and giant leaps of "logic" to support their claims.
My kids were born in the early to mid 1990's. We purposely chose not to have cable TV until the youngest was in her teens. We saw too many kids glued to tv sets among our peers and did not want that for our kids. I think this certainly helped because with few options they were forced to turn the tv off and play with their friends. Thankfully we delayed cell phone use for them but I have seen a worrisome trend in one my kids who is on their phone all the frickin time. I wholeheartedly agree with Haidt's 4 reforms. Good luck on implementing them. One of my daughters is a second grade teacher and she is dealing with parents that text their kids throughout the day! Beyond ridiculous.
Don’t ban cell phones in public schools. Disband public schools. They have changed more than cell phones have in those years. Home and private schools that reflect the culture and values of the parents instead of indoctrination institutions for the dumbing down of the “deplorables” would be an improvement.
I taught in public schools for years. You're right about recent trends in indoctrination. Which means the problem isn't with the institution, but with who's calling the shots. Change that and we change outcomes, in some cases. We had the income mobility to ensure we could place our kids in good public schools. School choice for all is the only way forward.
"When a society transforms its children into consumers, making them want, want, want, in order to sell their parents not what the children need but what they have been made to want, it commodifies and monetizes the children. It objectifies them. It dehumanizes them."
I've read both The Righteous Mind and The Coddling of the American Mind and both are well written. The latter book noted a lot of trends that were rising at universities that weren't good trends, from safe spaces to "what are your pronouns?"
In Coddling, Haidt and Lukianoff talked about the need for kids to play because that's how they learn how to resolve conflict. They dated this all the way back to "stranger danger" that was prevalent in the 1970s, in which the bulk of missing kids on milk cartons were either runaways or taken by a parent who didn't have legal custody.
I did read other reviews of Anxious Generation that noted that Haidt looked at mental health trends from the time that smartphones dominated the marketplace, up to 2019 -- meaning he didn't include the COVID years. I can only imagine what that would look like if 2020 and 2021 had been included.
For those who are skeptical about smartphones playing any role, consider this: Back when we were limited to one TV, one phone line and one computer that would have dial-up Internet, it was a lot easier for parents to convince kids to quit hogging things because somebody else would like to use it. Now when it comes to cell phone plans, everyone gets their own smartphone, so there goes that reason for telling a kid to get off the smartphone.
Smartphones are a brilliant invention. In the hideous urban agglomerations of North America every bit of space is owned and YOU are not allowed - especially kids.
But here is the infinite space of the digital where you’re free!
I don’t know why everyone thinks the solution to the damage being done by social media is complicated or that there is no easy way to legislate a solution. It is as simple as removing the viral nature of the technology. The legislation simply needs to provide that when someone makes a post on a social media site, anyone who follows them can send a “like” or a “comment”, but only to that person - no other users will be able to see that comment or like. This is why email and texting are digital forms of communication that have not produced massive emotional damage, as it is very difficult to make those communications go viral. And, let’s face it, a very large percentage of the garbage posted on social media is done for the exclusive reason of attempting to get validation (or financial reward) thru the viral nature of social media platforms. Yes, this will devastate the financial model of these social media platforms, who are getting insanely rich destroying our civilization - which is to me a very desirable side-effect.
Our country's problems are not caused by social media. They are not caused by the internet or smartphones, or any other mode of communication. Our problems are caused by our elites' embarrassing and consistent inability to meet the needs of ordinary citizens. Efforts by media elites like Haidt to blame and limit social media are just attempts to elide being blamed for this failure and justify censorship.
I would agree with you, if I thought helping kids is what Haidt is about. But, less than two years ago, he was on (and on) about how social media is "undermining democracy" and using advocating control of its use (by adults. ) See link to just one of his articles on this: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/social-media-harm-facebook-meta-response/670975/. He's also written academic articles claiming social media creates a "democracy recession".
Haidt is one of many elites that criticize social media because it makes it more difficult to control the narrative and suppress unwanted views than with previous technologies, so they claim it harms democracy (and, now, kids mental health). If Haidt was ONLY criticizing social media due to its potential damage to kids' mental health, I wouldn't be so skeptical (I'm a parent; I agree, kids spend too much time on phones), but this latest book and article is just Haidt's (and the broader elite's) latest attack on social media as a mode of communication because they want to believe that social media is the reason they're losing their grip on power, rather than their terrible policies.
Jonathan Haidt's suggestion - "...they are things that groups of parents can do together or that schools and parents can do together." But that presupposes parents & schools WANT to get together and do these things. Parenting itself has morphed over the years. Decades ago being a parent meant raising a child with a good moral foundation for character & principles & educating them - in all ways - to move smoothly into adulthood. Parenting in the last 20 years has changed into something else. What, I'm not sure of.
What I have seen is parenting as competition - 'my kid won the Memorial Day essay award' & 'how many colleges did Kayleigh apply to? Jonathan applied to 24'. ( I actually had a parent say the latter to me 😳)
The kid serves as trophy for the parent.
I have also seen parenting as 'whoops, how did THAT happen?' sometimes leading to 'well, at least letting him play w my iPhone keeps him quiet for 20 minutes.' Or 'my kids are so good when they're playing their video games. I'll take all the quiet time I can get.' The kid is an intrusion & constrains the life of the parent.
Lots of Moms & Dads - even me - have been the parent in the above scenarios. A few times here & there, a time when quiet is necessary (my 6 yr. old rambunctious son was allowed to play some video games in a side room during my father's wake 🙄) is helpful. But for some parents, sadly, it's a constant.
It's hard work being a parent. You have to sacrifice so much, even when there are 2 of you in the household. One parent is even a tougher row to hoe. You have to put yourself second for the next 18 - 21 years or your life. Hard work given our 'it's someone else's job' lifestyle that many of us have.
I think if even a handful of parents read this interview & decide to change how to allow their kids to engage with technology, that's a positive step in the right direction. The best protective move is always adult supervision.
I don't want the government to decide when I can or can't buy my kids a smartphone. Haidt says that social media is the problem, and I agree. I don't allow social media, but I did get my middle schoolers a smartphone. I have parental monitoring software and set limits on their usage. We made it clear these are our phones and we are giving them privilege of using them. We have strict rules and take the phone away if they break the rules. I check their phones regularly.
My kids regularly go outside and play with their friends, they are honor roll students, they swim every day, they play sports, they do not have anxiety, and they are polite and respectful.
Haidt is focusing on a big government solution to this issue. Big government causes more problems than it solves. We don't need government intervention, we need parents to actually parent.
I don't know Haidts intentions, maybe they do rise fully to "the government should take childrens phones away", but I doubt it.
Just personally I think I've noticed a rise in hearing stories about how schools are doing things like taking kids phones away during school hours.
Maybe this is heavy handed, and there is another middle ground which is better, but it seems like a reasonable reaction to the sort of thing Haidt is talking about.
You're correct though, in an ideal world this is the role of parents. But I think, also, in an ideal world, schools and parents agree on these type of things. And are working together, instead of against each other, for the betterment of children.
I agree. It's fine for local school districts to limit phones in school. Our school district does just that, but teachers have the discretion to allow it.
Jonathan Haidt's initial critique of society was total boomer bullshit. He thought young people were "coddled", fragile snowflakes etc., when anyone with eyes could see that woke excesses were the product of a social media environment full of cliques and bullying (tumblr) + a vicious struggle for a shrinking pool of academic/"cultural" jobs, against a backdrop of insane inflation in housing and tuition prices.
That being said, banning smartphones for kids and encouraging in person community activities would do a hell of a lot more for overall happiness than the endless "get diagnosed with mental health condition, get therapy/drugs" treadmill. Of course, that would require a government that sees in person socializing as valuable, not something to throw away the second there's an "emergency".
Oh, yeah the masking and social distance thing again. Yawn.
I’ve traveled widely in this country. There is almost zero public space in an American city. There are enormous barriers to people socializing IRL, especially if (like teenagers) you don’t have any money. There is little
If any physical space, transportation in most cities is totally inadequate.
There are plenty of public spaces, but fewer people are using them.
The streets of most cities, even downtown areas, are bereft of foot traffic.
I was hooked on Hobo Stobe's freight-train-riding YouTube videos. When he arrives at a new destination, he frequently wanders around virtual ghost towns, even at high noon.
By public space I mean space that is available at all hours.
I do have access to de facto public space. Technically this space closes to the public but I’m a local and I make a point of making friends with security. But I’m a pale face, tall, so that affords me certain privileges. I’m not decrying this…I love this unearned privilege lol.
On train hopping. I had a friend who lived like this. He obtained a train schedule (not easy) that allowed him to hop trains and for me to accompany him. It was fun but I think it was fun because I could go home.
I live in a giant city so there is almost always foot traffic on the streets. Even more so in my neighborhood which is adjacent to the downtown core.
Anyway…your point that people don’t use public spaces…well, that’s true for the most part. Personally, I make a point of using public spaces but I am admittedly an odd duck.
It's not about how much or how little "public space" there is in an American city or anywhere for that matter. It's about the government imposing mandates in order control the population, and make them compliant to any and all government edicts, no matter how irrational and nonsensical they are. It was also to single out those free-thinkers who refused to comply, and induce the sheep into shaming and canceling them for "opposing authority."
I disagree with your contention that "there is no public space," even if you are generalizing to make a point or for emphasis.
"We," that is many if not most of us, meet people outside of direct merchant/customer transactions, in schools, at bars and restaurants (not only with bartenders and waitrons), at church (yes, some of us still do go), at concerts (I recently met some delightful folks at a Wishbone Ash show), and . . . yes . . . even strolling around the neighborhood.
I agree that more people are shut-ins and that the ease of e-commerce and communication encourages this, but I am not convinced that the majority of us are cowering in our traps, avoiding urban hellscapes.
Visit Nebraska sometime . . . or Michigan or rural Illinois, or Minnesota . . . go fishing (may still do), spend a weekend in a tent at your local campground or Forest Preserve. Go to a less-traveled beach. These do not have to be expensive activities.
Or stay in and stew about how isolated we are all becoming, I don't care.
I do agree with you. I have always lived in America’s megalopolises. When I visit say the Ozarks of Arkansas or the Texas Hill Country, I do have interactions that are not centered on commerce.
In fact one of my fondest memories is taking my gf to the Frio River and accessing it on private land…the landowner was congenial and invited us to his home for a party in the evening.
It was absurd how hospitable that was. Truly lovely.
In The Righteous Mind, Haidt makes the case that political views are driven by disposition. For example, people with high levels of conscientiousness tend to be conservative and people who value new experiences tend to be liberal. So even if people agree on facts, they value different things, which creates political discord. I think Jordan Peterson makes a similar argument.
FYI, valuing safety over freedom is the mark of a more authoritarian mindset, according to moral psychology. You are probably more libertarian.
Isn't that the primary role of schools--both public and private--in a mass, capitalist society---to inculcate obeisance to the state and its many functions?
I liked the book too, and found it strongest in the areas of his initial focus: comparing and analyzing sets of cultural values (I think he calls them "axes") and viewing them as drivers of ethical behavior.
I agree with everyone here about Haidt skating on thinner ice in his later books and interviews when he readily assumes correlation is causality.
I wouldn't say I'm become more conservative. I grew up in a household with a Republican father and tended towards being Republican without thinking much about it. What my evolution has been is more seeing how full of shit both sides are, so now I feel like I'm in a group of one.
Interesting. Either your views changed, your priorities changed, or left/right politics changed.
For example, if you have always cared about free speech and still do, you probably abandoned the left and moved right without changing your views. I think that's what happened to Haidt and many others.
I'm curious, what do you think was your turning point?
Speaking for myself: working three jobs my freshman year in college changed my views about taxes, government spending, and coerced "sharing." Not coincidentally it was my first chance to vote, and I voted for what seemed like would work for me; everyone else be damned.
That was the late 90s so the Democrats hadn't gone to complete shit on free speech. After reactions to a certain event in 2001, particularly for a 3rd generation New Yorker living here, it was pretty obvious that the uniparty was never going to represent what was important to me ever again.
It's not that bad, but single mothers are the villains you are apparently looking for. Jordan Peterson says the rise of the "helicopter parent," the over-protective mother, is due to more women having only one child and giving birth later in life, like after 40.
It's a bit sad that the term "free range parenting" has arisen because so many are shocked by parents who let their kids roam around at will and (gasp!) ride the bus or subway alone at 10-years-old. I recall fairly recently hearing about a mother who was turned into the cop shop for child neglect because she let her kid ride the subway by himself. Turns out there's a big stink about some sort of YouTube parental advice guru, an advocate of free-range parenting, who got busted for child abuse, and all the requisite scolding and hand-wringing and faux concern followed. Still, some states have passed legislation easing up on the legal punishment of parents who choose to give their offspring a bit of self-determination and unsupervised free play, and there's a faction devoted to discrediting and stopping the trend.
A critique from the left? I suspect most of the "left" (and everyone to the right of the left for that matter), have more interesting and profitable pastimes crowding their dockets than turning their attention to Dr. Haidt's lugubrious nostrums.
How about a critique from science? From genuine scholars? Haidt's an idiot but he's not stoopid. He knows who payeth the royalties when the pop psychologist comes a-knocking and a-fearmongering---America's nervous, fingernail-biting parents. Haidt baiting members of the "left" by challenging them to fight through one of his Warholian tomes almost constitutes an attempt at a pop-psych psyop.
Johnny "I got a gut feeling" Haidt. Fortunate for him (and his dependents) he's a shrewd hack-of-a-pop psychologist and not a gambler.
"Suicide rates among people in most age groups have been increasing steadily for the past 20 years in the United States. Researchers cite access to guns, exposure to violence, structural discrimination and racism, sexism and sexual abuse, the opioid epidemic, economic hardship and social isolation as leading contributors."
Access to guns has declined over that time frame, with most major cities passing restrictive gun laws since the early-2000s spate of school shootings. Violence hasn't notably increased anywhere in America in the last 20 years, except for the post-racial reckoning spike in violence (along with other kinds of lawlessness) in black communities, which only started in 2020. "Structural racism" means whatever the researcher wants it to mean, but anyone minimally honest would have to agree that America is much less racist than it was in, say, the 1960s. Sexual abuse of children has likewise been on a downward trajectory for around the last half-century. Economic hardship may be plausible; 2008 was 16 years ago. Ditto the opioid epidemic. However, those two potential causes wouldn't be hard to spot in the data: someone either is addicted to opioids (or has an addict family member) or they aren't. Unless we're theorizing that kids are getting depressed en masse about the *existence* of the opioid epidemic, in a way that they did not for previous epidemics of addiction, like cocaine in the 1980s or crack in the 1990s, it should be a slam dunk case. I haven't read whichever paper the author is referring to (no citation provided), but somehow I doubt it.
The quoted passage frankly sounds more like a laundry list of buzzwords than anything Haidt has written.
That's a rather lengthy post that does little but question a set of conclusions from research I neither discussed, endorsed nor defended in my comment.
My comment simply pointed out that Haidt is a pop psychologist adept at identifying a BIG subject (the deleterious effects on-line culture can or may have on children and young adults) and then molding that into an argument that sounds conclusively and especially harrowing to a specific cohort (parents), with little to no research on the subject conclusively supporting his argument, which is that the kids are obviously a depressed, neurotic mess, the whole lot of them, and you have to look no further than all that time they spend staring at their phones to discover the source of their collective neuroses and depression.
The pop psychologist's need to invent a simple answer for a complex problem for it is simple answers that sell pop psychology books, especially pop psychology books that purport to explain neurotic children to their neurotic parents.
"...Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers..."
"...Of course, our current understanding is incomplete, and more research is always needed. As a psychologist who has studied children’s and adolescents’ mental health for the past 20 years and tracked their well-being and digital-technology use, I appreciate the frustration and desire for simple answers. As a parent of adolescents, I would also like to identify a simple source for the sadness and pain that this generation is reporting....
I'm convinced technology radically changes human behavior.
We have massive wealth inequality, and a growing segment of young men who have never gotten laid. In earlier times, this would've already led to violent revolution.
But it hasn't happened, because so many would-be malcontents are pacified by porn and video games--cheap simulations for sexual intimacy and real accomplishments.
He lost me at "So the Republicans have banished almost all of its moderates. And while the Democrats still have plenty of moderates in congress". Somebody needs to define clearly "moderate" for me. Cause I'm not seeing it in the Democrat votes in congress over the last bunch of years. Might be why the Rs have kicked out all of theirs. Some Ds might be "moderates," but it sure doesn't seem like they are voting that way to me.
I like to think I'm on "team common sense", which I'm sure everybody does. But don't try to tell me that there are moderates in the Democratic Party right now, not at least by their votes.
yep, the entire Dem party has gone off the rails. I was a "blue no matter who" guy until 2016, although I did have to hold my nose to vote for Obama's second term. I am done with the Dems and the majority of Republicans.
I had just finished Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind, when I met a gal for a computer date. To break the ice, I asked her what she was reading, and she answered, "The Righteous Mind." I married her.
That’s pretty weird. It’s not Wuthering Heights or something. It’s a Haidt book.
Good luck with all that.
Nice story.
One indicator of what Haidt is talking about is to observe how few playgrounds, ball fields, and other recreation areas for kids actually have kids playing in them. Unless it is an organized league of some sort they are normally deserted.. seems that no sport or activity can compete with what they are getting on their phones.
This is what happens when parents are told their kids are always in danger. COVID would be the ultimate example, but so would the "stranger danger" in the 1970s and the photos of missing kids on milk cartons.
I agree with those who back the "free range kids" concepts. As I said elsewhere, in-person interaction with other kids teaches them how to handle conflict, rather than have an adult step in every single time.
I drop my kids off at the church. Safest place I know. And they can interact with different ages of kids
Parents too busy to encourage or play with them. When I was a kid we had day (and night) long pickup baseball games going for kids and parents of all ages dropping out and joining in. No umpires and just great fun. Some of my best memories.
Not to date my paleolithic self, but in my long lost youth, kids organized their own pick up games--no parents, no refs, and when we played touch football in the street, not even a field. Of course, this was not without controversy, like the day the football hit a parked car and the irate owner came out and started choking one of my little buddies. Ah, the good old days!
I talked to those parents of 13 year old yesterday. Their observation was, why are there only boys out playing and zero girls? Zero. Only their girls went to play at the park.
Word. I grew up in L.A. at the height of satanic panic, etc. I roamed around the city (LBC) with my friends. Good times.
We only got hurt from being dumb ass kids. Nothing serious. And we learned something.
Maybe it’s different now. I don’t know.
I think it is more the requirement that kids be supervised 100% of the time. I know 13 year olds that *just* got permission to go to the park 3 blocks away alone for the first time. And these are some of the more permissive parents I know.
Good point. I trace this trend to the rise of the "at risk" culture of the 1980s... suddenly there was danger everywhere, and kids now needed a permission slip to go to the park.
Plenty of kids are indeed into organized sports, and that's a very good thing. Pickup games are becoming rare, though, since the phone is right at hand, and it requires little effort to squeeze some amusement out of it. This leads to your conclusion that outdoor public recreation areas have been deserted.
In fact, the athletically inclined are also using their smartphones quite a bit.
I seriously wonder about the severity of this new crisis, and am a bit skeptical that it's time to collectively "do something" about all the time children and adolescents spend fiddlefucking around with these things.
It's a new form of isolated social engagement, which is perverse in that time spent with others no longer requires a physical presence, and this situation creates all sorts of novel problems that the author and others point out.
Many of the same concerns were expressed when TV became ubiquitous, and we have lived with the shut-in couch spud for decades now (see "The Whale" for a grotesque caricature of the type). I recall the term "electronic babysitter" applied to mothers plopping their kids down in front of the box for the day while they get on with the housekeeping. I have the feeling we will adapt in a similar way to the smartphone and not have our public life entirely destroyed, since I firmly believe at some point even those who stare into these things the most get cabin fever and feel the urge to go outdoors, even if they may walk into traffic or fall into holes while distracted.
In short, for reasons I don't understand, we seem to have a need to actually be present in the natural world periodically, even if it's just to be with the trees and grass at the corner park.
He lost me at leaded gas.
He lost me too, so I did some research. He appears to be dead on correct, with plenty of scientific studies to back up his statements. Correlation is not causation. However, the link between lead exposure and future behavioral problems is well documented, and studies in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (just to name two cities in my home state among a larger cadre studied show a link). And since leaded gas was phased out at various times in different countries, researchers can examine whether lead is a major factor across time and location. The "thing" I still don't get is why we Boomers aren't equally affected, because the.highest concentrations of lead in gasoline occurred between.1949 and 1979.
Thank you for saying "dead on" instead of "spot on." Spot on is for impressions. Dead on or right on are for saying "correct." I'm kind of a usage crank because I used to siphon leaded gas by sucking on a length of garden hose.
I need to remember that distinction. I have been dead wrong with my usage of spot on. I drank from garden hoses, but didn't siphon much gas!
We would end up with a half a mouthful of the stuff most of the time. Bleh!
Been there done that. Of course in those days one could actually repair a car without the interference of bandit mechanics.
I remember when I could get my arms into an engine compartment to make my own repairs. I replaced my last water pump around 1988. All the electronics now make home repairs impossible for someone not familiar with the diagnostic gear and all the gadgets attached to newer models.
I haven't looked at a repair manual in decades.
What the hell is a bandit mechanic?
Is this some weird good old days bullshit?
Being old sucks. Naturally, times before being old are better.
I withdraw my comment.
Cryin over here!!!
🤣🤣🤣
Haidt's claim seems to be the effect is strongest during gestation/early childbirth. Possibly there weren't as many cars around before the mid 1960s, so Boomers didn't suffer the same effect? Just a guess.
Only about 60% of Americans lived in cities in 1950. By 1980, it was about 75%.
Thanks. Did not consider population distribution.
My limited research confirmed when the lead effect is strongest. Most Boomers were 14 or under by 1960, so fewer cars makes some sense.
So glad I was a petty girl and never pumped my own gas. To the bitch in OK who yelled that I’d save 25 cents, screw you.
Yeah. Fuck that bitch.
Hilarious
You need a friend.
Great observation. Today I think we are quick to look for an 'environmental excuse'. Not to say that there aren't discoveries still to be made & changes employed. But everything considered, the Boomer generation survived an awful lot that today's kids would think is criminal.
Susan-- I wondered the same thing! I'm sure there is not just one cause. I think we Boomers were reined in by a much stricter, more cohesive society. Of course there were outbreaks (like the motorcycle gang terrorization depicted in the movie "The Wild One") but this was shocking to the general public.
We are like roaches, not much affects us..LOL
Sorry. I accept that lead in gas wasn't a good thing and we're better off for cleaner air. But leaded gas as the reason for a rise in crime among ghetto youth and a subsequent drop in crime (at the same time anti-crime initiatives were predominant) seems completely against common sense.
"I believe this is very similar to leaded gas, where we have evidence of its hugely negative effect on the intelligence and behavior of an entire generation." I think the problem here is that your brain appended a lot of things to the end of that phrase that simply weren't there.
I question the drop in juvenile crime. I saw this stated in several of the references I access earlier today. Gang and cartel activity was not mentioned. I question most of the statistics provided by government (i.e., inflation, job creation for example)., so I question the drop in crime too.
Lead was all over the place. Toothpaste tubes were 100% lead. The water supply lines going into a house were/are lead. I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any claims about lead, for or against. But with all the exposure that I've had in my life, and I'm still (sort of) normal, I have to wonder about how dangerous it is.
BTW, the issue in Flint, MI shows how clueless the MSM are. The issue was not that there was lead in the water supply. The issue was that the water wasn't chemically treated with an agent to keep the lead in people's supply lines from leeching lead into their water. They also made it about how much the 'authorities' didn't care about it because Flint is mostly black. That is an idiotic, bigoted statement, that was made over and over again. I checked, and the black population is 56%. Also, I have not seen ANY report that claims that anyone was actually exposed to unusual levels of lead.
Seems 56% qualifies as "mostly black," and especially given that blacks comprise only 12.6% of the total U.S. population. Flint is mostly black, mostly poor, and above all, like thousands of towns and cities scattered across the U.S., mostly politically powerless.
You miss my point. There are plenty of white people who live in Flint, who also drink the water. The media wanted to imply that it was racism against blacks that caused the leadership to allow that water through. That's absurd. It was just good old-fashioned incompetence.
As for powerless, yes most of us are powerless. We do not control our governments; our governments control us. Not supposed to be that way, but it is.
The media "wanted" to imply or they "did" imply that it was racism? And I believe the authorities' very slow response to the contaminated water was the source of the controversy.
At any rate, it's not all that challenging to conceive, here in the U.S., that racism played some role in the botched and tentative response by elected officials to spend public money to help the residents of a poor, majority-black city. Not much of a stretch at all.
You have a right to make that inference. But that's all it is. I've worked more closely with government than I want to have to, but you have to, if you want responsive government. I've also worked in business. They are two different worlds. In business, incompetence is not tolerated. In government, no problem. I can get a problem solved by a business generally with one phone call. In government, good luck. Maybe yes, maybe no. And you don't get to take your 'business' elsewhere. You HAVE to deal with the incompetence.
Now, here's a question: In a city that is 56% black, what are the chances that all its elected officials are white? Never crossed your mind to did it? Do you know the race of the elected officials? Why not? If you're going to make it about racism of the officials, shouldn't you know their race? It sort of makes you a racist, that you didn't even bother to check.
In fact, the mayor was white. But it's also a fact that he was the one who exposed the problem, and did NOT cover it up.
It's a long story, and I've got better things to do than try to uncover everything. But here's an article that lists five of the nine people indicted for the problem. Two are black. Charges have been dropped on many, and the finger pointing will probably never stop. Feel free to sort things out for yourself, if you care to. But if you are just going to make assumptions, you shouldn't expect anyone to take your opinions seriously. I have a rule I try to live by, "Question everybody and everything, but first and foremost, question yourself."
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2021/01/14/nine-michigan-officials-charged-flint-water-crisis/4161106001/
Lead paint exposure also was significant, but I think much less likely to have effected Gen X than Boomers. Lead.exposure also can alter personality and effect behavior, which totally explains why at least half this country over 40 is crazy or stupid or both.
Agreed.
I am recently retired from the gasoline business, and removing lead from gasoline was the biggest environmental improvement in the history of motoring. Vaporizing a toxic heavy metal into the atmosphere does real long-term harm. I have no idea about the NY crime rate or abortions, but Haidt is spot on about leaded fuel.
Haidt isn't just claiming that leaded fuel causes physical health problems. Like many academics he needs a platform from which to launch a book, and this particular platform is shaky when Haidt expands the health risks to include anxiety in young people. Update - I checked, Haidt's "hugely negative impact on a generation" seems an overstatement, but I'll concede there's a substantial literature on the topic.
So, I looked - https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=anxiety+and+leaded+gasoline#ip=1
A cursory skim indicates the most recent studies seem to have conducted between 2009 and 2014 with a focus on a particular subset of individuals in New Zealand. More to follow.
Cheers, I expect you're right about the rats. Thanks!
I agree. I've read that abortion was behind the drop in crime because of the disproportionate number of abortions among the poor. There always seems to be the need for a sociological explanation rather than simple fact that locking away criminals tends to reduce crime. No, we can't have that.
More prisons, less crime, not rocket science.
Leaded gas my ass.
There are more prisons and prisoners than there ever have been.
So then crime must be at its lowest ever, right?
Fun fact: Prisons didn't even exist in most of human history, dungeons and oubliettes for nobles to keep each other in notwithstanding.
Discussions of crime and punishment are best without historical context. We prefer simplistic syllogisms that play well at Bible study.
Not enough
That’s why I favor large scale public executions.
Look around.
We have public executions every hour of the day.
Mentally ill fentanyl deaths.
It's called compassion.
That formula really only works when the possibility of going to prison acts as a deterrent. World Population Review claims that "the United States leads the world in total number of people incarcerated, with more than 2 million prisoners nationwide (per data released in October 2021 by World Prison Brief). This number is equivalent to roughly 25% of the world's total prison population."
Yet we still seem to have a crime problem.
Could be our appetite for illegal drugs and their idiotic prohibition. Could be our tendency to take others to court to settle grievances that otherwise could be handled personally. I don't pretend to know why the threat of prison seems to have little effect on crime.
Most criminals don't commit just one crime.
While in prison they aren't for committing crimes.
Prison removes society threats.
It’s rather difficult to procreate in prison.
But it HAS been done.
Unless you're a woman with a trans cellmate.
You don't know shit, I grew up smoking diesel dope in Picayune Ms.
Cousins did the same in Freer.
Scenic Juarez. One of the best friends I ever had grew up there.
Leaded gas whatever.
Dude was for real.
Another commenter is right that this was a central claim and first widely popularized by the book "Freakonomics"; your criticism is off base because that book also treated all other factors, such as higher rates of incarceration and increases in police force size, properly and gave them their due.
I get what you're saying but I'm not sure it actually is true. Obviously in the immediate term, a person in prison can't also be out committing crimes. But unless you're locking them up for life, what will actually happen to crime rates in the long run?
As just one example, does having been in prison make it much harder to get hired for legitimate work afterwards, so you tend to be forced back to committing crimes? I think it's highly likely that this is the case.
"Forced back to committing crimes." Forced by who?
By being unable to obtain legitimate work. You understand that's what I meant, please don't play silly games over the use of the word "forced", like the people who said "no one was FORCED to take the covid vaccine due to mandates (they were just unable to keep their jobs or engage in normal society)".
This was the theory posited in the best-selling "Freakonomics."
oldmanmurray.com, a hilarious and long-dormant video gaming site, referred to that idea as the "almost magically pan-offensive theory that abortion reduces crime."
Update, I checked. There's a substantial literature on the links between leaded gas and depression. I stand by my critique of the interview, and have provided links to the literature elsewhere.
Unfortunately, I agree. That's the problem with moral psychology as a discipline. Haidt fails completely in his duty to provide clear evidence of causality, when correlation, or collinearity are real possibilities when other variables are introduced. That evidence may exist, but Haidt simply points to "trends." He's on firmer ground, somewhat, with his work on phones.
Again, the problem is separating the practice of sitting immobile for large periods of time from the practice of staring at screens. I sit on my ass for long periods of time, I feel like shit.
My own unproven pet theory is that much of our nuttiness is connected to outsize expectations of what life will 'give' us without doing the requisite work. Add pharmaceuticals, passivity, and a whole lot of apocalyptic nonsense about climate variations and we're part way to understanding why so many young people in America seem unhappy, girls especially.
I've been working with young people for the last three decades. This generation is the same as the last - all they need are a series of achievable challenges to reset their confidence in their own agency. Had several personally thank me this week for making their lives harder than my peers. Many were visibly delighted to discover they could step outside their comfort zones without causing the end of life as we know it for the entire planet.
Get'em to go for a walk, first, without their phones, climb some stairs, go for a run. Cleaning a sink or two, or the front steps helps, too. I expected more from Haidt frankly.
Thanks to Matt for bringing him on!
Yeah. People think they’re entitled to way too much without working for it. I inherited a good deal of wealth and I worked hard to increase it.
Bless your heart.
Old books. "The Shallows." "Last Child In the Woods." The Bible.
Parenting is a tough, hard job that takes lots of effort AND time. But apparently being a parent is easily handled by giving your kid the phone. In the recent past, giving them sugary drinks. Whatever.
I included the Bible on my reading list upstairs, just because of the Book of Genesis, and the story of The Garden of Eden. Make a choice --- consequences ensue.
But of course we live in a world where there is no responsibility whatsoever for our choices. Children get breakfast at their school because I guess no one cares about them enough before sending them off on their way. And breakfast is not a tough meal.
Women are being absolutely degraded in this society and around the world, and the cultural alleged illuminati don't say "crap." Some. Thing. Else. But of course, "choice"
today means, newborn in the toilet if I feel like it.
So until people are willing to take responsibility for their choices and the consequences thereof, we are doomed. Do I really need the federal government to tell me when to put on a raincoat?
I'd "like" your post if I could.
Cheers, very much appreciate your input.
Expectations seem strange. I was just arguing with some younger people the other day that thought $10k a month wasn't enough to live on. They seemed to truly believe this that things are just so expensive and crazy that not even $10k a month is enough to live on.
Wow, what kind of lives are they living?
You have wise words. And the idea that "the nuttiness is connected to outsized expectations of what life will 'give us' without doing the requisite work" is dead on.
And your last paragraph is great advice.
Cheers, thank you for the kind words, wish I came up with ideas myself. These used to be what we called "common sense." What the hell happened to that?
Who knows what happened to it! We still have to have it here in rural Idaho or we don't survive. But it is disappearing.
Common sense and good sense are not necessarily synonymous. Common sense came from ‘the commons’. Burning witches was common sense.
Yeah, that's a pretty loaded assertion and it wasn't backed up at all. Perhaps it's somewhere in his writing, but my skeptic alarm went to 10 on that one.
I have three nephews. The family moved to Panama when the youngest was still pretty young. The two eldest are off-the-charts brilliant and productive. The youngest...never really got it together. Killed himself a few years back. He tested very high for lead from environmental contamination while a baby. Correlation is not causation; but lead poisoning was very common and is unquestionably very very serious. The point is we found the collective will to really do something about a documented problem.
Around 1993, Fed agency declared zero lead to be acceptable. In 2023 one of the most densely populated crime ridden small cities, Mt Vernon, in NYS, is just getting around to swapping out lead pipes for whatever.
Don't know if crime is more or less?
Multiple times a day on suburban highway of NYC metro area cars are crashing while tailgaters snuggle up at any speed and cars chase on joy rides in between dense traffic. I admire their skill knowing they are on some kind of amphetamine, while I stay back, wondering how far back is safe and wondering how a society can survive when law enforcement can't even really catch the evil ones. I thought they evil was a form of mental illness but now I think that's true for a small number of the subway crimes. For the most part, evil is evil.
See Harrison Koehli's substack, Ponerology
um? google it? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2729713
That's not a peer reviewed paper. It's based upon correlation and not causation. Saying 'lead' also does not imply you are referring to gasoline. Many older homes probably still have lead paint.
Either way, I need more evidence than an article and correlation to believe leaded gasoline caused people to be violent.
"Correlation does not equal causation" is a cliché and mantra of scientism used to deny many obvious causalities with strong correlations by e.g the smoking industry with regard to cancer in the absence of RCTs.
https://bayesianinvestor.com/blog/index.php/2018/07/06/pearls-book-of-why/
Every time your heart beats, our planet moves in space.
This is a 100% correlation.
Yet, the Earth moving has no causal link to your heart beating. They are just things that happen together. They correlate. Correlation does not mean there is a causal link.
Please, use your brain. It's very powerful.
Scientism? Well, I do have a PhD in physics.
Every time you breathe, somewhere a bird flaps its wings. This is a 100% correlation, yet, a bird flapping its wings has nothing to do with your breathing.
There is no causation between a bird flapping its wings and you breathing.
Only correlation.
I would expect a Physics PhD to have a bit more respect for correlation.
Say, did they ever get around to proving gravity is what causes things to fall?
I'm 52.
I've heard stuff like this from lay people ever since I went to undergraduate school. People that have never even read a physics book, tell me how a physicist is supposed to be.
It is what it is. People simply make things up and then believe it. Nothing I can do about it.
And the correlation may be very small.
Too bad you’re not a close reader.
Things could be worse. I could just make up things about people, believe it and post it.
this is sophistry.
This is a baseless claim.
Next-level shit-posting.
This is what it says: The children, born between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, weren’t exposed to lead pipes or paint but to leaded gasoline used in cars from the 1940s through the 1990s.
Let me get this straight, friend. And I do mean this in a non-confrontational way.
You accuse me of not reading closely enough.
In an article that never mentions anger, violence, being violent. Nothing.
So here we are, discussing if lead makes people violent and you reference an article that never even uses the word violent, violence, anger, nothing.
Is this correct?
Is "CA" short for California? If so, it explains a lot.
We know that lead exposure causes cognitive and behavioral problems. That's not in question. You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean leaded gas caused the problem, but when a known cause is paired with an observable correlation, causality is a reasonable conclusion.
I don't see that it is ever reasonable to use correlation to argue for causation.
Look, I'll admit that I have little respect for soft sciences, because unlike in physics where the universe is the arbiter of truth, there is no arbiter of truth in soft sciences. They are completely based upon correlation and probabilities. There is no scientific method in soft sciences.
"And I’m used to the fact that it’s very, very hard to change people’s minds, especially if you just give them reasons and evidence."
It's even harder when you don't give ANY reasons or evidence.
Is it not?
Should I just commit the logical fallacy of appeal to authority?
Whatever works!
:D
spend a few moments with google. or the references. or not. or talk about butterflies instead. And PhD in physics?
This is called the logical fallacy of demanding negative proof. That one makes a claim and then it's my job to verify or deny that claim. That's not how burden of proof works.
Yes, PhD in physics and what do you think happens in physics? Do you think when I write a paper making claims about superconductivity that the scientific community doesn't expect me to show any evidence, at all, for my claims? Is that how science works? Scientists just make a claim and then expect the public to go research it?
Yep. I believe in that connection like I believe in the lack of pirates and increase in global warming connection…
In the same way that RFK Jr. lost people at vaccines.
RFK, Jr. got my undivided attention when he spoke the truth about vaccines. He lost me when he came out as an unhinged Zionist who thinks Palestinians are the "most pampered people on the planet."
I'm actually pretty vaccine-skeptical myself—I certainly don't think kids should be getting the 50 or 70 (or whatever) doses currently recommended, clearly the COVID vaccine effort was a massive shit show, and I don't know too many people who trust Big Pharma on anything. However I think RFK Jr's claims about the specific effects of vaccines stand on fairly uncertain data.
Still, I mostly ignored his antivax statements and was ready to get behind him, until, as you point out, he went hard-right Zionist.
Yeah, I can't say that was good argument. Hell, I was born in the mid-fifties and if my generation's criminal and suicidal rates don't correlate with the claimed increases of later generations, I'd have to surmise his conclusions are based on flawed data; because I'm reasonably sure my generation was exposed to probably more leaded gas and many other lead based products than ANY subsequent group. Also, as soon as he bragged about working for a gun control group, he lost credibility in my eyes. They are notorious for espousing some truly ludicrous language and giant leaps of "logic" to support their claims.
They actually believe guns kill people.
All of mine have been trained to just lay around. They are actually very obedient!
Me too. Why can’t we use leaded gas? Some Correct Thought Commissar decided it’s “harmful” with a total lack of evidence.
Does this country care about liberty anymore?
"Lost" you how?
My kids were born in the early to mid 1990's. We purposely chose not to have cable TV until the youngest was in her teens. We saw too many kids glued to tv sets among our peers and did not want that for our kids. I think this certainly helped because with few options they were forced to turn the tv off and play with their friends. Thankfully we delayed cell phone use for them but I have seen a worrisome trend in one my kids who is on their phone all the frickin time. I wholeheartedly agree with Haidt's 4 reforms. Good luck on implementing them. One of my daughters is a second grade teacher and she is dealing with parents that text their kids throughout the day! Beyond ridiculous.
Don’t ban cell phones in public schools. Disband public schools. They have changed more than cell phones have in those years. Home and private schools that reflect the culture and values of the parents instead of indoctrination institutions for the dumbing down of the “deplorables” would be an improvement.
I taught in public schools for years. You're right about recent trends in indoctrination. Which means the problem isn't with the institution, but with who's calling the shots. Change that and we change outcomes, in some cases. We had the income mobility to ensure we could place our kids in good public schools. School choice for all is the only way forward.
Agreed. Children should be indoctrinated into the culture and beliefs of their parents.
"When a society transforms its children into consumers, making them want, want, want, in order to sell their parents not what the children need but what they have been made to want, it commodifies and monetizes the children. It objectifies them. It dehumanizes them."
- Russell Banks (2014)
I've read both The Righteous Mind and The Coddling of the American Mind and both are well written. The latter book noted a lot of trends that were rising at universities that weren't good trends, from safe spaces to "what are your pronouns?"
In Coddling, Haidt and Lukianoff talked about the need for kids to play because that's how they learn how to resolve conflict. They dated this all the way back to "stranger danger" that was prevalent in the 1970s, in which the bulk of missing kids on milk cartons were either runaways or taken by a parent who didn't have legal custody.
I did read other reviews of Anxious Generation that noted that Haidt looked at mental health trends from the time that smartphones dominated the marketplace, up to 2019 -- meaning he didn't include the COVID years. I can only imagine what that would look like if 2020 and 2021 had been included.
For those who are skeptical about smartphones playing any role, consider this: Back when we were limited to one TV, one phone line and one computer that would have dial-up Internet, it was a lot easier for parents to convince kids to quit hogging things because somebody else would like to use it. Now when it comes to cell phone plans, everyone gets their own smartphone, so there goes that reason for telling a kid to get off the smartphone.
Smartphones are a brilliant invention. In the hideous urban agglomerations of North America every bit of space is owned and YOU are not allowed - especially kids.
But here is the infinite space of the digital where you’re free!
When someone I know writes something terrible I say that it is “interesting” or “well-written.”
I don’t know why everyone thinks the solution to the damage being done by social media is complicated or that there is no easy way to legislate a solution. It is as simple as removing the viral nature of the technology. The legislation simply needs to provide that when someone makes a post on a social media site, anyone who follows them can send a “like” or a “comment”, but only to that person - no other users will be able to see that comment or like. This is why email and texting are digital forms of communication that have not produced massive emotional damage, as it is very difficult to make those communications go viral. And, let’s face it, a very large percentage of the garbage posted on social media is done for the exclusive reason of attempting to get validation (or financial reward) thru the viral nature of social media platforms. Yes, this will devastate the financial model of these social media platforms, who are getting insanely rich destroying our civilization - which is to me a very desirable side-effect.
Our country's problems are not caused by social media. They are not caused by the internet or smartphones, or any other mode of communication. Our problems are caused by our elites' embarrassing and consistent inability to meet the needs of ordinary citizens. Efforts by media elites like Haidt to blame and limit social media are just attempts to elide being blamed for this failure and justify censorship.
Lol. You're equating a parent restricting a childs time on twitter to the government censorship of speech?
C'mon now. Not everything is about everything else.
Kids are too online, everyone recognizes this. It's not that deep.
I would agree with you, if I thought helping kids is what Haidt is about. But, less than two years ago, he was on (and on) about how social media is "undermining democracy" and using advocating control of its use (by adults. ) See link to just one of his articles on this: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/social-media-harm-facebook-meta-response/670975/. He's also written academic articles claiming social media creates a "democracy recession".
Haidt is one of many elites that criticize social media because it makes it more difficult to control the narrative and suppress unwanted views than with previous technologies, so they claim it harms democracy (and, now, kids mental health). If Haidt was ONLY criticizing social media due to its potential damage to kids' mental health, I wouldn't be so skeptical (I'm a parent; I agree, kids spend too much time on phones), but this latest book and article is just Haidt's (and the broader elite's) latest attack on social media as a mode of communication because they want to believe that social media is the reason they're losing their grip on power, rather than their terrible policies.
I just don't see the guy as genuine.
Fair enough, that definitely seems like valid criticism to me. At least of Haidts motives.
I think there's merit to the message, as you said, but in the future I'll try to be more discerning of the messenger.
I'd agree that this really isn't something that should be in the hands of the government either way.
It's a good thing that parents have more access to controls and hopefully they will begin to use them with good sense.
Jonathan Haidt's suggestion - "...they are things that groups of parents can do together or that schools and parents can do together." But that presupposes parents & schools WANT to get together and do these things. Parenting itself has morphed over the years. Decades ago being a parent meant raising a child with a good moral foundation for character & principles & educating them - in all ways - to move smoothly into adulthood. Parenting in the last 20 years has changed into something else. What, I'm not sure of.
What I have seen is parenting as competition - 'my kid won the Memorial Day essay award' & 'how many colleges did Kayleigh apply to? Jonathan applied to 24'. ( I actually had a parent say the latter to me 😳)
The kid serves as trophy for the parent.
I have also seen parenting as 'whoops, how did THAT happen?' sometimes leading to 'well, at least letting him play w my iPhone keeps him quiet for 20 minutes.' Or 'my kids are so good when they're playing their video games. I'll take all the quiet time I can get.' The kid is an intrusion & constrains the life of the parent.
Lots of Moms & Dads - even me - have been the parent in the above scenarios. A few times here & there, a time when quiet is necessary (my 6 yr. old rambunctious son was allowed to play some video games in a side room during my father's wake 🙄) is helpful. But for some parents, sadly, it's a constant.
It's hard work being a parent. You have to sacrifice so much, even when there are 2 of you in the household. One parent is even a tougher row to hoe. You have to put yourself second for the next 18 - 21 years or your life. Hard work given our 'it's someone else's job' lifestyle that many of us have.
I think if even a handful of parents read this interview & decide to change how to allow their kids to engage with technology, that's a positive step in the right direction. The best protective move is always adult supervision.
I don't want the government to decide when I can or can't buy my kids a smartphone. Haidt says that social media is the problem, and I agree. I don't allow social media, but I did get my middle schoolers a smartphone. I have parental monitoring software and set limits on their usage. We made it clear these are our phones and we are giving them privilege of using them. We have strict rules and take the phone away if they break the rules. I check their phones regularly.
My kids regularly go outside and play with their friends, they are honor roll students, they swim every day, they play sports, they do not have anxiety, and they are polite and respectful.
Haidt is focusing on a big government solution to this issue. Big government causes more problems than it solves. We don't need government intervention, we need parents to actually parent.
I don't know Haidts intentions, maybe they do rise fully to "the government should take childrens phones away", but I doubt it.
Just personally I think I've noticed a rise in hearing stories about how schools are doing things like taking kids phones away during school hours.
Maybe this is heavy handed, and there is another middle ground which is better, but it seems like a reasonable reaction to the sort of thing Haidt is talking about.
You're correct though, in an ideal world this is the role of parents. But I think, also, in an ideal world, schools and parents agree on these type of things. And are working together, instead of against each other, for the betterment of children.
I agree. It's fine for local school districts to limit phones in school. Our school district does just that, but teachers have the discretion to allow it.
Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable.
Me staring out the port window at the American political and economic headwinds heading toward the boat:
"You're gonna need a bigger government to get parents to actually parent..."
Jonathan Haidt's initial critique of society was total boomer bullshit. He thought young people were "coddled", fragile snowflakes etc., when anyone with eyes could see that woke excesses were the product of a social media environment full of cliques and bullying (tumblr) + a vicious struggle for a shrinking pool of academic/"cultural" jobs, against a backdrop of insane inflation in housing and tuition prices.
That being said, banning smartphones for kids and encouraging in person community activities would do a hell of a lot more for overall happiness than the endless "get diagnosed with mental health condition, get therapy/drugs" treadmill. Of course, that would require a government that sees in person socializing as valuable, not something to throw away the second there's an "emergency".
Oh, yeah the masking and social distance thing again. Yawn.
I’ve traveled widely in this country. There is almost zero public space in an American city. There are enormous barriers to people socializing IRL, especially if (like teenagers) you don’t have any money. There is little
If any physical space, transportation in most cities is totally inadequate.
There are plenty of public spaces, but fewer people are using them.
The streets of most cities, even downtown areas, are bereft of foot traffic.
I was hooked on Hobo Stobe's freight-train-riding YouTube videos. When he arrives at a new destination, he frequently wanders around virtual ghost towns, even at high noon.
You make a good point.
By public space I mean space that is available at all hours.
I do have access to de facto public space. Technically this space closes to the public but I’m a local and I make a point of making friends with security. But I’m a pale face, tall, so that affords me certain privileges. I’m not decrying this…I love this unearned privilege lol.
On train hopping. I had a friend who lived like this. He obtained a train schedule (not easy) that allowed him to hop trains and for me to accompany him. It was fun but I think it was fun because I could go home.
I live in a giant city so there is almost always foot traffic on the streets. Even more so in my neighborhood which is adjacent to the downtown core.
Anyway…your point that people don’t use public spaces…well, that’s true for the most part. Personally, I make a point of using public spaces but I am admittedly an odd duck.
It's not about how much or how little "public space" there is in an American city or anywhere for that matter. It's about the government imposing mandates in order control the population, and make them compliant to any and all government edicts, no matter how irrational and nonsensical they are. It was also to single out those free-thinkers who refused to comply, and induce the sheep into shaming and canceling them for "opposing authority."
Ok. But in our shared material space before and after masks there is no public space. There are few resources used to encourage civic life generally.
We meet people as customers, employees…we seldom meet as equals.
I disagree with your contention that "there is no public space," even if you are generalizing to make a point or for emphasis.
"We," that is many if not most of us, meet people outside of direct merchant/customer transactions, in schools, at bars and restaurants (not only with bartenders and waitrons), at church (yes, some of us still do go), at concerts (I recently met some delightful folks at a Wishbone Ash show), and . . . yes . . . even strolling around the neighborhood.
I agree that more people are shut-ins and that the ease of e-commerce and communication encourages this, but I am not convinced that the majority of us are cowering in our traps, avoiding urban hellscapes.
Visit Nebraska sometime . . . or Michigan or rural Illinois, or Minnesota . . . go fishing (may still do), spend a weekend in a tent at your local campground or Forest Preserve. Go to a less-traveled beach. These do not have to be expensive activities.
Or stay in and stew about how isolated we are all becoming, I don't care.
I do agree with you. I have always lived in America’s megalopolises. When I visit say the Ozarks of Arkansas or the Texas Hill Country, I do have interactions that are not centered on commerce.
In fact one of my fondest memories is taking my gf to the Frio River and accessing it on private land…the landowner was congenial and invited us to his home for a party in the evening.
It was absurd how hospitable that was. Truly lovely.
I agree with your assertion.
What in the world is "moral psychology"?
Are there professors of "immoral psychology?"
Speaking as an old crank, I must say that I am more than a bit concerned by how young people are so obsessed, and I do mean, obsessed with safety.
When did risk taking stop being an intrinsic part of being young?
Where's the fun in being young if you can't do stupid things? Where's Bluto Blutarsky when we need him most?
In The Righteous Mind, Haidt makes the case that political views are driven by disposition. For example, people with high levels of conscientiousness tend to be conservative and people who value new experiences tend to be liberal. So even if people agree on facts, they value different things, which creates political discord. I think Jordan Peterson makes a similar argument.
FYI, valuing safety over freedom is the mark of a more authoritarian mindset, according to moral psychology. You are probably more libertarian.
Check out the book. It's good.
I have definitely found young people to be obsessed with rules, which fills me with foreboding.
They are actively hostile to any view they consider to be unapproved by authority.
They are the products of schools that value obedience over everything else.
Isn't that the primary role of schools--both public and private--in a mass, capitalist society---to inculcate obeisance to the state and its many functions?
It’s called “school damage”
This!
I liked the book too, and found it strongest in the areas of his initial focus: comparing and analyzing sets of cultural values (I think he calls them "axes") and viewing them as drivers of ethical behavior.
I agree with everyone here about Haidt skating on thinner ice in his later books and interviews when he readily assumes correlation is causality.
What would be his explanation for someone like me, who went from being ultra-left to conservative-leaning since 2016?
I'd say it's seeing things for what they clearly are.
I wouldn't say I'm become more conservative. I grew up in a household with a Republican father and tended towards being Republican without thinking much about it. What my evolution has been is more seeing how full of shit both sides are, so now I feel like I'm in a group of one.
You’ve described a conservative outlook.
So realizing that conservatives are full of shit is a conservative outlook?
Yes.
Interesting. Either your views changed, your priorities changed, or left/right politics changed.
For example, if you have always cared about free speech and still do, you probably abandoned the left and moved right without changing your views. I think that's what happened to Haidt and many others.
I'm curious, what do you think was your turning point?
Speaking for myself: working three jobs my freshman year in college changed my views about taxes, government spending, and coerced "sharing." Not coincidentally it was my first chance to vote, and I voted for what seemed like would work for me; everyone else be damned.
That was the late 90s so the Democrats hadn't gone to complete shit on free speech. After reactions to a certain event in 2001, particularly for a 3rd generation New Yorker living here, it was pretty obvious that the uniparty was never going to represent what was important to me ever again.
Truth!
I dunno, the Right-wing kool-aid circulating and readily available is mighty powerful stuff.
They need a Guyana punch line.
I am a professor of amoral philosophy. I teach at Westpoint.
Why do I suspect this is not true?
The psychology underlying human moral behavior. Haidt wrote a famous book about it, called The Righteous Mind.
(Does Substack really not allow italics or am I missing how to do it?)
It's not that bad, but single mothers are the villains you are apparently looking for. Jordan Peterson says the rise of the "helicopter parent," the over-protective mother, is due to more women having only one child and giving birth later in life, like after 40.
It's a bit sad that the term "free range parenting" has arisen because so many are shocked by parents who let their kids roam around at will and (gasp!) ride the bus or subway alone at 10-years-old. I recall fairly recently hearing about a mother who was turned into the cop shop for child neglect because she let her kid ride the subway by himself. Turns out there's a big stink about some sort of YouTube parental advice guru, an advocate of free-range parenting, who got busted for child abuse, and all the requisite scolding and hand-wringing and faux concern followed. Still, some states have passed legislation easing up on the legal punishment of parents who choose to give their offspring a bit of self-determination and unsupervised free play, and there's a faction devoted to discrediting and stopping the trend.
A critique from the left? I suspect most of the "left" (and everyone to the right of the left for that matter), have more interesting and profitable pastimes crowding their dockets than turning their attention to Dr. Haidt's lugubrious nostrums.
How about a critique from science? From genuine scholars? Haidt's an idiot but he's not stoopid. He knows who payeth the royalties when the pop psychologist comes a-knocking and a-fearmongering---America's nervous, fingernail-biting parents. Haidt baiting members of the "left" by challenging them to fight through one of his Warholian tomes almost constitutes an attempt at a pop-psych psyop.
Johnny "I got a gut feeling" Haidt. Fortunate for him (and his dependents) he's a shrewd hack-of-a-pop psychologist and not a gambler.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2.epdf?no_publisher_access=1&r3_referer=nature
"Suicide rates among people in most age groups have been increasing steadily for the past 20 years in the United States. Researchers cite access to guns, exposure to violence, structural discrimination and racism, sexism and sexual abuse, the opioid epidemic, economic hardship and social isolation as leading contributors."
Access to guns has declined over that time frame, with most major cities passing restrictive gun laws since the early-2000s spate of school shootings. Violence hasn't notably increased anywhere in America in the last 20 years, except for the post-racial reckoning spike in violence (along with other kinds of lawlessness) in black communities, which only started in 2020. "Structural racism" means whatever the researcher wants it to mean, but anyone minimally honest would have to agree that America is much less racist than it was in, say, the 1960s. Sexual abuse of children has likewise been on a downward trajectory for around the last half-century. Economic hardship may be plausible; 2008 was 16 years ago. Ditto the opioid epidemic. However, those two potential causes wouldn't be hard to spot in the data: someone either is addicted to opioids (or has an addict family member) or they aren't. Unless we're theorizing that kids are getting depressed en masse about the *existence* of the opioid epidemic, in a way that they did not for previous epidemics of addiction, like cocaine in the 1980s or crack in the 1990s, it should be a slam dunk case. I haven't read whichever paper the author is referring to (no citation provided), but somehow I doubt it.
The quoted passage frankly sounds more like a laundry list of buzzwords than anything Haidt has written.
"and social isolation as leading contributors" isn't this exactly what Haidt is talking about?
And isn't this what Robert Putnam, before him, also talked about in Bowling Alone?
That's a rather lengthy post that does little but question a set of conclusions from research I neither discussed, endorsed nor defended in my comment.
My comment simply pointed out that Haidt is a pop psychologist adept at identifying a BIG subject (the deleterious effects on-line culture can or may have on children and young adults) and then molding that into an argument that sounds conclusively and especially harrowing to a specific cohort (parents), with little to no research on the subject conclusively supporting his argument, which is that the kids are obviously a depressed, neurotic mess, the whole lot of them, and you have to look no further than all that time they spend staring at their phones to discover the source of their collective neuroses and depression.
The pop psychologist's need to invent a simple answer for a complex problem for it is simple answers that sell pop psychology books, especially pop psychology books that purport to explain neurotic children to their neurotic parents.
"...Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers..."
"...Of course, our current understanding is incomplete, and more research is always needed. As a psychologist who has studied children’s and adolescents’ mental health for the past 20 years and tracked their well-being and digital-technology use, I appreciate the frustration and desire for simple answers. As a parent of adolescents, I would also like to identify a simple source for the sadness and pain that this generation is reporting....
"...There are, unfortunately, no simple answers."
Who or what are you quoting?
Good smart parents are needed.
It you want to fix kids, fix parents.
Technology changes, human behavior does not.
Nothing new here.
What is here, is century old gibberish.
I'm convinced technology radically changes human behavior.
We have massive wealth inequality, and a growing segment of young men who have never gotten laid. In earlier times, this would've already led to violent revolution.
But it hasn't happened, because so many would-be malcontents are pacified by porn and video games--cheap simulations for sexual intimacy and real accomplishments.
For your argument, I would say the train, plane and car have changed human behavior much more than the interweb.
You may be right. Maybe the same could be said for clean water supply, electric light, and air conditioning.
But then it seems we are in agreement that technology does reshape human behavior.
I looked to see if I was using "Human Behavior " correctly.
And of course I found an article that supports me. Ha
But I agree with this description.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201901/3-ways-explain-human-behavior
Behavior isn't what, it's why.
He lost me at "So the Republicans have banished almost all of its moderates. And while the Democrats still have plenty of moderates in congress". Somebody needs to define clearly "moderate" for me. Cause I'm not seeing it in the Democrat votes in congress over the last bunch of years. Might be why the Rs have kicked out all of theirs. Some Ds might be "moderates," but it sure doesn't seem like they are voting that way to me.
Yeah, this guy is clearly on Team Blue, although he poses as a nonpartisan "social psychologist."
I like to think I'm on "team common sense", which I'm sure everybody does. But don't try to tell me that there are moderates in the Democratic Party right now, not at least by their votes.
yep, the entire Dem party has gone off the rails. I was a "blue no matter who" guy until 2016, although I did have to hold my nose to vote for Obama's second term. I am done with the Dems and the majority of Republicans.
Common sense.
I too hold opinions without reflection.
Fuck yeah!