6 ms·

Jonathan Haidt, who's been driving a lot of the work against social media for kids, directly refutes these findings in this post https://www.afterbabel.com/p/fu

Jonathan Haidt, who's been driving a lot of the work against social media for kids, directly refutes these findings in this post https://www.afterbabel.com/p/fundamental-flaws-part-3 https://www.afterbabel.com/p/fundamental-flaws-part-3.

beala 2y ago
Refutes is a strong word. This is an ongoing debate and it’s not clear to me Haidt is on the right side of it. The Studies Show did a great episode on this, but unfortunately it’s paywalled. However, the show notes are public and link to the relevant back and forth if folks want to make up their own minds. https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/paid-only-episode-12-jonathan-haidt https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/paid-only-episode-12-jon... Edit: And here’s a link to their earlier free episode recorded before this new meta analysis: https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-25-is-it-the-phones https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-25-is-it-the-pho...
- Jimpulse 2y ago
  By refute I mean the paper cited. The meta-analysis methodology used in the Ferguson paper is flawed, one of After Babel's contributors goes into more detail here, https://shoresofacademia.substack.com/p/perils-of-flawed-meta-analytic-methodology https://shoresofacademia.substack.com/p/perils-of-flawed-met....
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  I'm not sure if anyone is ever going to "refute" much in this tussle or that this can really be called a "debate", But there's an ugliness to it and the casualty is science. I'm not old enough to remember doctors appearing in TV adverts claiming the health benefits of smoking. But I do remember those 1980s green-washing campaigns from Shell and Esso (Exxon) showing animals frolicking through the wonderful planet oil and gas were creating. I also remember all the plastic recycling campaigns that turned out to be rotten hoax. Let's face it science gets used and tossed aside these days. Seeing research papers that flat-out contradict each other every week is tiring. All I want to say is that this utterly devalues science to see such disingenuous conflict, and to know that at least one side is making stuff up. It's going the same way as political debate and is an embarrassment to everyone who participates and believes in science. Obviously there is emotion on all sides. And there is surely a humongous pot of money on one side. But I think where this is heading... it's classic Sirkov style full-spectrum disinformation, funding both sides and designed to undermine the very belief in scientific research itself. It benefits the anti-rationalists and nihilists who can say, "you know what.. fuck science, I'm just going to assert what I like based on my emotion alone!" That tends to favour the might-is-right crowd and the shrill angry mob.
- altruios 2y ago
  Informally: it would seem that of course social media exacerbates the spread of any social contagion such as bulimia, anorexia, 'alpha'-ness, etc... Maybe it also helps to immunize people to those same contagions as well: that seems less obvious that would happen, to me at least...
Amorymeltzer 2y ago
The If Books Could Kill podcast did a good episode about this topic and Haidt's book in particular: <https://www.buzzsprout.com/2040953/episodes/15546366-the-anxious-generation https://www.buzzsprout.com/2040953/episodes/15546366-the-anx...>
- eutropia 2y ago
  What they said on "If Books Could Kill" is an extremely thorough trouncing of Haidt's narrative and the methodologies of the researches he utilized in that book. The summary is this: The uptick is adequately explained by changes to mandatory reporting requirements for screening questions of mental health for teenagers from Obamacare and increased access to healthcare for those teenagers.
  - gotoeleven 2y ago
    So mental illness rose steeply in girls and not so much in boys since 2012, and more in liberals than conservatives, since 2012 and this is adequately explained by increased reporting requirements?
    - jjulius 2y ago
      I'd also ask a similar question about the stark increase in suicide rates, not just mental health.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        There is no stark increase. It only looks like an increase because the charts Haidt uses are cropped at a low point. Look at longer term data: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-suicide-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1950 https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-s... The number of suicides now is little different for men to 1990, and is significantly lower than it was in the 1970s.
- jjulius 2y ago
  IMO, there was entirely too much snark in there. It felt like the goal they set out on was to dunk on Haidt, rather to act as impartially as possible.
oneepic 2y ago
As a layperson who doesn't understand psychology but is interested in science and peace, I felt that Ferguson's article (this HN post) was much less directed at a person (as opposed to the person's work or theories put forward) and more professional, versus the linked blog post -- so I tend to believe the former. Even a simple sentence like, "Ferguson did both of these things and his findings thus do not “undermine” our causal claims; he failed to accurately test our causal claims," comes across as scathing compared to the paper.
- gotoeleven 2y ago
  Why is this "scathing"? He's literally just positing simple facts, which may or may not be true. This tendency of people nowadays to focus on tone and other irrelevant characteristics of an argument (as it is made) is dumb.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Humans commonly engage in deceptive rhetoric, and tone is one of the methods they use. Often, the individual may not even be doing it with substantial intention. Wordplay is another, and there is plenty of it in this HN thread.
    - gotoeleven 2y ago
      But surely someone reading what is purportedly a scientific argument should be interested entirely in the scientific argument, don't you think? Boy that Einstein fellow's paper sure had a gruff tone I'm sticking with Newton!
      - oneepic 2y ago
        That's an interesting point, doesn't this depend on the expertise of the audience? I'm not a psych expert, so if I'm unwilling to go back to school to interpret both sides "perfectly" then I'd be unsuccessful judging both sides on their factual/scientific merit. I only have other tools to choose from, ie. my personal experience, reading skills, being a (hopefully good) judge of character, etc.

beala 2y ago

Refutes is a strong word. This is an ongoing debate and it’s not clear to me Haidt is on the right side of it. The Studies Show did a great episode on this, but unfortunately it’s paywalled. However, the show notes are public and link to the relevant back and forth if folks want to make up their own minds. https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/paid-only-episode-12-jonathan-haidt https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/paid-only-episode-12-jon... Edit: And here’s a link to their earlier free episode recorded before this new meta analysis: https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-25-is-it-the-phones https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-25-is-it-the-pho...

Jimpulse 2y ago
By refute I mean the paper cited. The meta-analysis methodology used in the Ferguson paper is flawed, one of After Babel's contributors goes into more detail here, https://shoresofacademia.substack.com/p/perils-of-flawed-meta-analytic-methodology https://shoresofacademia.substack.com/p/perils-of-flawed-met....
nonrandomstring 2y ago
I'm not sure if anyone is ever going to "refute" much in this tussle or that this can really be called a "debate", But there's an ugliness to it and the casualty is science. I'm not old enough to remember doctors appearing in TV adverts claiming the health benefits of smoking. But I do remember those 1980s green-washing campaigns from Shell and Esso (Exxon) showing animals frolicking through the wonderful planet oil and gas were creating. I also remember all the plastic recycling campaigns that turned out to be rotten hoax. Let's face it science gets used and tossed aside these days. Seeing research papers that flat-out contradict each other every week is tiring. All I want to say is that this utterly devalues science to see such disingenuous conflict, and to know that at least one side is making stuff up. It's going the same way as political debate and is an embarrassment to everyone who participates and believes in science. Obviously there is emotion on all sides. And there is surely a humongous pot of money on one side. But I think where this is heading... it's classic Sirkov style full-spectrum disinformation, funding both sides and designed to undermine the very belief in scientific research itself. It benefits the anti-rationalists and nihilists who can say, "you know what.. fuck science, I'm just going to assert what I like based on my emotion alone!" That tends to favour the might-is-right crowd and the shrill angry mob.
altruios 2y ago
Informally: it would seem that of course social media exacerbates the spread of any social contagion such as bulimia, anorexia, 'alpha'-ness, etc... Maybe it also helps to immunize people to those same contagions as well: that seems less obvious that would happen, to me at least...

Amorymeltzer 2y ago

The If Books Could Kill podcast did a good episode about this topic and Haidt's book in particular: <https://www.buzzsprout.com/2040953/episodes/15546366-the-anxious-generation https://www.buzzsprout.com/2040953/episodes/15546366-the-anx...>

eutropia 2y ago
What they said on "If Books Could Kill" is an extremely thorough trouncing of Haidt's narrative and the methodologies of the researches he utilized in that book. The summary is this: The uptick is adequately explained by changes to mandatory reporting requirements for screening questions of mental health for teenagers from Obamacare and increased access to healthcare for those teenagers.
- gotoeleven 2y ago
  So mental illness rose steeply in girls and not so much in boys since 2012, and more in liberals than conservatives, since 2012 and this is adequately explained by increased reporting requirements?
  - jjulius 2y ago
    I'd also ask a similar question about the stark increase in suicide rates, not just mental health.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      There is no stark increase. It only looks like an increase because the charts Haidt uses are cropped at a low point. Look at longer term data: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-suicide-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1950 https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-s... The number of suicides now is little different for men to 1990, and is significantly lower than it was in the 1970s.
jjulius 2y ago
IMO, there was entirely too much snark in there. It felt like the goal they set out on was to dunk on Haidt, rather to act as impartially as possible.

oneepic 2y ago

As a layperson who doesn't understand psychology but is interested in science and peace, I felt that Ferguson's article (this HN post) was much less directed at a person (as opposed to the person's work or theories put forward) and more professional, versus the linked blog post -- so I tend to believe the former. Even a simple sentence like, "Ferguson did both of these things and his findings thus do not “undermine” our causal claims; he failed to accurately test our causal claims," comes across as scathing compared to the paper.

gotoeleven 2y ago
Why is this "scathing"? He's literally just positing simple facts, which may or may not be true. This tendency of people nowadays to focus on tone and other irrelevant characteristics of an argument (as it is made) is dumb.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Humans commonly engage in deceptive rhetoric, and tone is one of the methods they use. Often, the individual may not even be doing it with substantial intention. Wordplay is another, and there is plenty of it in this HN thread.
  - gotoeleven 2y ago
    But surely someone reading what is purportedly a scientific argument should be interested entirely in the scientific argument, don't you think? Boy that Einstein fellow's paper sure had a gruff tone I'm sticking with Newton!
    - oneepic 2y ago
      That's an interesting point, doesn't this depend on the expertise of the audience? I'm not a psych expert, so if I'm unwilling to go back to school to interpret both sides "perfectly" then I'd be unsuccessful judging both sides on their factual/scientific merit. I only have other tools to choose from, ie. my personal experience, reading skills, being a (hopefully good) judge of character, etc.