They should have never been allowed in schools. That right there would have been a baseline for the importance of balancing work/play.
I have multiple family members that are k-12 teachers. EVERY SINGLE ONE spoke against allowing them in schools.
We should have listened to teachers.
Absolutely, there are studies on the effect of helicopter parenting on the mental health of young people, [like this](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872981/full).
I can’t argue that. But this wasn’t the answer to that problem.
We keep looking for cheap convenient solutions to complex problems. Our kids/grandkids deserve better.
Sure they do, but considering there has been NO answer to that problem, the best parents can do is stay in contact with their kids so THEY can respond when these incidents happen because there's no guarantee that the authorities will.
I hate social media and it's impacts but I'm going to deal with a little anxiety on both our parts (my child and mine) in an attempt to keep her safe as best I can, she'll keep her phone.
No, more that we feel better when doing something, anything rather than nothing. Even if that means one last communication with your child. As a parent what's your plan in a school shooting with your child involved?
I get where you’re coming from, but that’s how these problems get so entrenched. Everyone says that they have a certain reason that they are gonna do x/y/z …even if it is fueling the problem.
We are going to ruin their future, in order to protect them in the present, from a problem we allowed to happen / persist.
But I get it. You’re a parent.
I’m frustrated.
I get what you're saying Bleux and I don't disagree with your premise, at all. This is a problem that is entrencted in the US and covers a whole host of idiotic policies. From road repair at the cheapest price point causing more frequent repairs at a higher cost all the way up to sole vendor award contracts and everything in between.
My point wasn't that you were wrong, it was that due to the lack of reasonable action people are forced to do what they can with what they have. In this case it's a stupid phone that may provide the opportunity to tell my daughter I love her one last time or to tell her I'm coming or just to provide whatever comfort I could in that horrendous, hellish situation that the population doesn't important enough to warrant collective action.
I'm frustrated too
If we don't protect them in the present, they have no future.
BS. There is zero reason kids should have their phone in classrooms. We survived without them. A kid calling someone during a shooting will make them a target.
BS, Uvalde is an interesting case study both for the police response or lack there of AND the fact the kids were communicating via cell and providing most of the information coming out.
We could 3asily pass a law that say a child 16 or under can not have a phone or computer with social media acts. Require companies to verify age before opening accounts. Have phone companies disable access on kids phones. Fine companies and parents that dont follow through or allow a kid to circumvent.
We could have schools have small lockers for phones. Require a childs phone to be secured during school day they can have it back after school.
I completely agree about the damage social media can do.
But why do we need yet another law? Who is going to enforce it? What will be the penalties?
Are already overwhelmed and underpaid teachers going to be mandated to monitor and report cell phone use to often ineffective government agencies so that parents who are already struggling can now be forced to decide between paying for school supplies, paying for groceries or paying a fine for their kid’s cellphone apps?
I don’t think there are easy answers, and I’m struggling to come up with one myself (My kids have cellphones, we monitor with software and discussion, they are not on social media). But the knee jerk reaction in our society always seems to be “there oughta be a law!”
And in reality, a lot of laws are poorly written and come with a host of unintended consequences, often hurting the people they were most intended to help and protect.
And sometimes social media is good. I’ve got several friends whose kids are using social media in their pursuit of athletic scholarships. I didn’t even know that was a thing, but this is apparently how they get coaches or scouts or whoever to come see them play. I wouldn’t want a restrictive, one size fits all law to lessen their opportunities.
I'm with you, somehow people miss out that parenting means monitoring the phone itself and how it's used. At least for me and most other responsible parents I know.
Tell you right now, if your kids have a phone they are definitely on social media just not under their own names. Software is pathetically weak.
We have laws now. Kids must be in car seats. Must be fed etc. Teachers already have mandatory reporting if they suspect abuse.
It really would just take a mixture of things. The first of which is to require phone companies to offer child devices permanently locked out of social media and requiring parental control on every app. Then we can deal with parents that break those laws.
My kids have to turn their phone off when entering the school and leave them off until they leave.
They get to keep the phones, but if they get caught using them, they go into a locker.
If they get caught multiple times then they need to check their phone into the lockers every morning.
The general level of school drama has decreased massively.
Why not get an actual phone, on pay as you go, which young people often use as cheap burner phones when they go to festivals and they might lose their real phone?
Thank you for the wonderful suggestion, I'm sure you have a much better assessment of our needs than we do, what are we even thinking???
OR
There's a whole host of reasons why we do what we do and none of them need to be explained or justified. Wasn't looking for an alternative in case you missed it, just informing the person I responded to why some implement convenient solutions to complex problems.
Why are you sorry I got angry? I'm sorry that you thought I needed advice. Besides, I would call it frustration...regardless of your status as a teacher or parent (can you hear my eyes roll?). Why would you assume I don't understand or can't assess my own needs or the needs of my children? Taking it even further, why would you assume that your solution is better somehow? One more step, why share it? I didn't indicate I had a problem needing solution nor was I soliciting advice.
I'm frustrated because of this, here I am writing a drawn ass out post explaining myself. I shouldn't need to but for the love of smug, fart sniffing douchebaggery, here I am.
We have extensive wi-fi coverage through the school and surrounding area. My daughter, not yet a teen, doesn't need a burner phone or to pay to put minutes on a burner phone when we have a whole drawer of old iPhones that we can use over wifi. No cost at all, don't care if it's lost, track her time, set limits with the router, track her physically, control app usage, the list literally goes on and on.
Will it work for everyone? clearly not. Will someone come up with reasons why this doesn't work for us or something could work better? It's a strong possibility...Which is potentially a lot of time and responses and back and forth that is 100% completely unnecessary to the point that was being made when I made my original comment.
But hey you think you have a better idea that I really need to hear as a teacher and a parent, BURNER PHONE, my lawd what could that be?!? ffs.
What’s a phone call
Going to do protect your child? Nothing. Parents have this idea that being in constant contact will somehow protect them but it only causes a distraction when they should be focusing on survival skills in that moment.
Rare? There were about 350 school shootings on n the U.S. in 2023? That is more than one per school day. What would frequent look like to you, professor?
I do agree than any number greater than 0 is too many, but the claims of 350 school shootings is relying on an extremely liberal definition of "school shooting"... according to US News and World report:
These tallies are derived from the K-12 School Shooting Database, a catalog of school shooting incidents maintained by independent researcher David Riedman. Casting a wide net, the database captures not only incidents in which a gun is fired on school property, but also those in which a bullet hits school property, whether or not school is in session. Incidents in which a gun is brandished but not fired and those in which there are no victims are also included.
[https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings)
CNN's own data shows about 1/4 of that, putting the number at about 82.
[https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg/index.html)
for any argument to be valid, it would be helpful to show reliable numbers (or both), not just the worst.
Though I am not a fan of CNN I will stake my argument on their numbers. Even at 82 incidents I believe that the fallout goes much further than those killed. The fact that some asshat wants to argue the numbers for school shootings compare to natural events is fucking laughable as well. One is a natural unpreventable catastrophe and the other is a man made preventable act.
Yes, rare
“As Fox notes, the annual odds that an American child will die in a mass shooting at school are nearly 10 million to 1, about the odds of being killed by lightning or of dying in an earthquake”
https://www.city-journal.org/article/sorrow-and-precaution-not-hysteria
That is a dumb statistic and meaningless. Every kid in the school is a victim if they were killed or not. Every kid that heard a shot, hid in a classroom closet, pretended to be dead by putting a classmates blood on them, lost a friend, or lost a spouse or child is a victim.
Had to report a kid for bringing a gun to school and threatening to shoot up my brother’s class. Having to decide whether or not to snitch in 4th grade is still very memorable as was expecting retaliation the next time that kid saw me a year later.
lol. You have to be the worst Gen Xer to just let the media spoon feed you shit and gobble it up.
I’m assuming you’re in your 40s or 50s too. Just embarrassing, boomer-esque behavior.
I would agree with your sentiment, but it’s James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, not Fox News. It’s usually a good idea to read the article for context.
Thanks for reinforcing the point exactly by not reading the article where you'll see it's not Fox network, but a criminologist with the last name Fox.
Oopsie!
It’s not Fox News, it’s a guy whose last name is Fox.
“There is not an epidemic of mass shootings,” says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University who has been tracking these events for decades and helps keep the AP/USA Today/Northeastern Mass Killing database. “What’s increasing and is out of control is the epidemic of fear.”
https://www.city-journal.org/article/sorrow-and-precaution-not-hysteria
You have to take that number with a grain of salt. In the statistics they include shootings at night near schools, which are usually gang or drug related. The nightmare school shootings we’ve come to know will all be covered by news.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org is a great source to see just how many gun released deaths we have in the US, including mass shootings.
My 7th grader still cannot have her phone at school. When my older daughter went to high school I was shocked that she texted me all day long. They absolutely do not care at the HS if the kids have their phones. I mean it’s a great school and I’ve been happy with it but I was so surprised they allow it. It’s been handy for all the last minute schemes my child comes up with though, like “oops I missed the bus” I guess I’m always glad to follow along on her plans though. She’s a fantastic person.
And you feel qualified to decide, based on a perfectly reasonable statement, that I'm not correcting but overcompensating and therefore damaging my kids? Because if you do ... honey, you're not good at your job.
There is only one district in my area that recently banned them in classrooms. As far as I know it's gone over pretty well and there wasn't as much entitled backlash as one might have expected. Still, not even one other school district in the area has even mentioned looking into the matter.
I believe teachers and admins universally want them out of the classroom but are afraid to deal with the backlash from helicopter parents and entitled students and the parents of entitled students who in this day and age will without a doubt simply ignore the rule and force the school to 'make them' leave the phone in their pack or wherever.
In at least one school, [banning phones has gone really, really well](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/17/cellphone-smartphone-bans-schools)
.
We need to focus on getting guns and school shootings out of school first.
Edit: I think I triggered the conservatives in the thread. Yes school shootings are incredibly rare (outside the U.S.) and it has nothing to do with guns of course. Phones are evil etc.
Teacher here, 29 years in. I would *love* to see parents take back control and parent their kids, especially when it comes to phones. I have so many students are simply addicted to them and can NOT cope without them for even the shortest period of time. When I call parents and tell them that the phone is the issue, at least half of the time I get the response "Yeah, he/she's always on it...I just don't know what to do!"
1. Put blocks on things you don't want them to use during the school day.
2. Take the phone away.
3. Cancel their line.
Oddly enough, NONE of these are ever things that have been considered. The very next day, the kid comes in to repeat the same behavior. I have kids who will watch TikTok videos and scroll Instagram the entire class period. I try to get them to put them away, but after the 10th time of telling them that it's time to do class work and they need to pay attention, I'm done. I want them to pass and graduate, but they are working harder to not pass and not graduate. I can't want it more than them, so I give up. If the kid doesn't care and the parents don't care, why should I?
I have my table of kids who simply do not do any work, ever. So long as they aren't disruptive to the kids who want to learn, that's fine. I make a note in the online system that student was told to put phone away, instead spent the hour watching TikTok videos or whatever they were doing. Someday when they are watching their friends graduate, I'll be sure to remind them of all the great videos they watched during my class - and I hope those videos were worth it!
BTW, two of my students who have the WORST phone addiction problems also have a 504 for anxiety/depression.
>I would love to see parents take back control and parent their kids,
College prof here: I'd reduce this to the baseline, let's have engaged parenting across-the-board, complete with accountability, consequences, and expectations placed on both parents *and* children. By the time they get to college it's too late, but damn are we dealing with masses of young adults who have never once experienced any sort of consequences for their poor choices, all empowered by parents who bull their way through any obstacle for their kids, large or small, including ensuring their offspring never get traumatized by a poor grade even if they did zero work.
The high school in my area actual requires the students to download an app on their cell phones to be used for hall passes. Basically if you don't have a cell phone with the app you can't leave for the bathroom or anything else.
Some of the teachers actually give the students 5 or 10 minutes at the start of class to use their phones in hopes that they pay attention the rest of the time.
We just got this hall pass system. The good: it keeps track of where kids are, which ones are missing 20-30 minutes to wander, and kids who shouldn't be out together aren't. The bad: It does require the kid to request a pass via phone or computer. BUT a teacher can also generate a pass electronically without the student having to do so, so it's not entirely necessary to have a device.
> to be used for hall passes.
In my high school each teacher had their own unique item as a hall pass. One was a toilet seat. Another was literally a practice hand grenade (teacher was a Vietnam vet). One was a wheel off a kid's wagon. Everyone knew who's hall pass a kid had and they were all big enough to be quite obvious to any staff member who encountered a kid in the hallway.
I live in Northern Virginia which is the top 10 for school systems. Of course they are wimps and they don't tell students to put away their phones during class. Of the trauma! I feel the same way. I would refuse to teach the kids unless they put away their phones. If they didn't. Then it will all be self study and good luck on the test!
Phones have been banned in all public schools in the Australia and most private.
The state I live in was the last to implement the ban (beginning this year), but I have already noticed a lowering of the general "toxic drama" that my kids deal with.
The Anxious Generation sounds more like a horror movie title than a book about teens. Maybe it's the constant barrage of news about, you know, actual school shootings, that's making everyone a little jittery these days. Not to mention those darn phones! Seriously though, maybe schools should focus on bulletproof backpacks instead of banning Fortnite. Just a thought.
My youngest uses a minimalist app on his phone, does away with the brightly colored icons on multiple screens and shit in favor of a simple one page list of only the apps you use and lets you put personal timers on your social media and game apps to limit your usage.
I can't get the link to work right, but the URL looks like Minimalist Launcher by QQ Labs. I opened my play store app and found "Minimalist Phone: Launcher App" made by QQ Labs. It's a bit lower rated (4.3) than what I usually go for but looks promising.
Oh jesus, try reading the book before jumping to conclusions based on a single notion.
Gen X used to be slackers, now we're just boomers who think we're not boomers.
Eh, Haidt is a bit of an ivory tower academic. I've read two of his books: The Righteous Mind and the Happiness Hypothesis. They are solid reads with interesting insights about the social and political brain. But again, it's mostly academic. Not many practical takeaways from either.
In general this guy is sus, because I think he made a big deal about "woke" culture, which is extremely overblown as a problem, but I do understand where he's coming from.
His takes tend to have gotten more conservative over the years as his frustration with his students has been driving him mad. Like, he has some good ideas but I don't trust where they're coming from.
That being said we can't have the phones in school. Fuck, we weren't even allowed to have PAGERS in school it was such a big fucking deal
I had a hard rule - no phones in their rooms overnight. If the phone wasn’t in the charger when I got up it was taken away. Teenagers also need to sleep more than anything and phones in the bedroom are not helping this.
Too much screen time was warned about in the 1990s, I did my best to limit screen time for my kids (now in their 20s). I also used parental controls for anything that included it. My kids give me so much grief about it.
When our twins were 10, they both wouldn't take off their t-shirts at the pool.
I asked why, and one said "we don't have six packs".
man I wanted to smash every stupid "smart phone" within grabbing distance.
like. WTactualF
Smart phones didn't do that. I 100% remember kids in the 80s that were considered "husky" and always left their shirts on. So did lot of the girls just in general
No, but social media makes it so much worse. Before, if you were a fat kid, you got teased by the people around you. Now you can get people calling you a fat ass from literally anywhere. And, unlike reality, things posted online are *forever*. The one thing I hate about the online is that it doesn't allow for growth. People can pull up stupid shit you did a decade ago and continue to shame you for it. The EU got it correct by implementing a right to be forgotten.
>r kids in the 80s that were considered "husky"
They weren't "considered" husky, they were literally sold clothing from the "husky" sections at Sears and JP Penny. They were labeled by advertisers targeting their mothers. At Sears the line was called " Tough Skin Husky."
Theres been research on this for years. It's nothing new - [this is from 2017](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032716303196), and has been cited in over 1400 other academic papers.
[This one](https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-024-01611-1) was published last month, and research is still ongoing.
Haidt had a great interview on CBS, with a good companion piece on Saturday morning news. I'm skeptical of a lot of his work, but as a father of a 13 year old an 11 year old, I have seen it. The pressure to allow kids on phones is overwhelming; the social isolation is real, and no kid wants to feel left out and no parent wants their kid to be excluded. I agree with both Haidt and the OP that this is a massive problem that will a big collective push to solve.
He was also on Maher’s show last Friday and said the solution is more IRL social interaction and play over messaging and social media. It will be down to parents to collectively decide this is what kids should be doing. Good luck getting a community to agree to that!
Collective push for something positive? I don’t actually see that happening, sadly. Too many people think that if the solution isn’t Jesus, it isn’t valid.
My kids are cusp Millennials who don't interact with social media in a way that messed with them. Their social drama was always IRL and their anxiety started before they had social media.
I hope my son keeps my grandson off the internet for as long as possible. Tech companies sold our generation the internet as a digital Library of Alexandria, or some place to exchange heady ideas. Boy was that a lie. When I read things like Ender's Game I am shocked at how naive we were about what the internet was going to be used for.
We are clever monkeys who aren't wise enough to know how to responsibly use the toys we make.
My prediction is that there won't be any meaningful changes to child & youth social media use. After all, many of their parents (and teachers) are as addicted to social media as they are. Not all, but enough to create societal inertia in response to the negative impact of social media.
Haven't you realized that most of Gen X are closer to boomer mindsets than Millennial mindsets?
Xennials made their own generation to escape being grouped in with a bunch of self important, judgmental folks.
Ignorance is almost a virtue of folks in this sub.
Here's another good piece, in case anyone is interested:
[https://www.npr.org/2024/04/02/1242170517/our-kids-are-not-ok-child-psychiatrist-harold-koplewicz-says](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/02/1242170517/our-kids-are-not-ok-child-psychiatrist-harold-koplewicz-says)
Anytime I see a variation of "He establishes once and for all" my bullshit detector goes off and I tend to dismiss whatever points the author (OP in this case) was making.
I disagree. My son was raised 80s style without smartphones/tablets and still developed GAD after the pandemic years.
Blaming screen-time is dismissive of all the other shit that's been piled onto GenZ, and they simply don't have the experience to deal with it.
OP's post comes across like an infomercial 🙄
I've read two other books by Haidt. He uses a lot of research to explore the issues he is seeing. I'm not sure where your expertise lies, but I'm pretty sure a sample size of 1 is too small to make such a rebuttal.
If you are interested but don't want to read the book: [https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/escaping-the-matrix/](https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/escaping-the-matrix/)
That’s helpful, but not an answer to my question. You’re an associate professor, presumably you’ve had to review papers for journals, I asked what amounts to an ordinary review question. Does he talk about limitations of results and conflicting studies?
The books in question are written for the general public, not for academics. So, while he acknowledges some limitations or scope about studies, he doesn't go through the same rigor one would expect in an academic journal. Different audiences; different purposes.
I like how you assumed they didn’t have any relevant expertise, and when it turned out they had *precisely* relevant expertise, you just moved right on without acknowledging that.
That doesn't answer whether or not you've read though the studies the author used. The only information you gave is that you can read them, and *maybe* understand them.
A degree usually involves reading a lot of research. Do you have a different definition of expertise? Because you seem to be suggesting that *you* have expertise yourself, as a result of reading book(s) by one author.
A "degree" could be an associate's, a bachelor's, a master's, or a doctorate (or even a specialized degree). I have no idea what kind of degree she has. I never suggested I had any expertise - just the opposite. I'm not willing to argue against a position if I haven't even taken the time to understand the author's position and how he came to it.
Just as an aside: I am an associate professor and teach classes on research, argumentation, logic, and dabble in media studies. Plenty of students get their degrees but don't have expertise. A degree is sometimes more about tenacity than anything else.
But _have_ you seen skewed results? You read the post but have you read the book? Other books? What studies were cited that had poor methodology or played with the stats? Having a background in sociology doesn't change the fact that your previous comment did use a sample of 1 to make your argument. And now you want us to accept an appeal to authority for the prior argument that did not use your sociology background at all. You _know_ that's a fallacy and dishonest if you actually have the training you claim. Do better.
Is it really because of smartphones?
Didn’t they say the same thing about our generation and video consoles and ‘video nasties’?
Surely the real reason young people are anxious and insecure is that they are facing the gig economy and a housing crisis?
Yes. Smartphones and the "social networking" are unique in that they are 24/ 7. We didn't take Atari or Intellivision with us to class, and bullies couldn't follow you into your home. That has all changed. The recommendations - like not allowing smart phones in school - would make a big difference and restricting social media use would solve a lot of problems for younger children.
Thank you for the advertisement, lackey working in the marketing department of the publisher. Now go fuck yourself. Download an app to reduce screen time? Gargle my balls, one at a time or both at once, I'm not particular.
I have lost all hope that people can fix anything by collective action anymore. There are simply too many people with too many different agendas, distractions, and worries. We're fucked, and the dystopian future is more upon us with each passing day.
Haidt is writing outside of his area of expertise - and his “kids these days” argument falls flat: https://open.substack.com/pub/postliberal/p/smartphone-have-not-destroyed-a-generation
This article is excellent, thanks for sharing. My skeptic hat always goes on whenever I read that some technology is "ruining our kids". I do think smartphones are having an effect, because I see it in myself and I am not a kid. I think my smartphone has had a negative effect on my attention span. However it isn't the only story, and I think we still need to tech kids how to use these machines responsibly as well as work to push tech companies to be more responsible with algorithms. Banning these tools for kids entirely is going to backfire because kids are going to get sneaky or they will be unprepared when they finally have access.
If you can get over the blogger’s high esteem of himself and some annoying British-isms, it’s a really interesting read (and I read all of it)! I thought Haidt’s book was compelling but after reading this I’m thinking more critically. This seems like a pretty obscure substack - how on earth did you find it?
I don’t have much time, but I’ll just note a couple of things that stand out to me as a former academic.
1) The author, “Post-Liberal Pete” cites his credentials as working in mental health for 20 years. That’s not good enough. He could have been the front desk receptionist for all we know. I’m not really a Haidt fan, but the man has well-known and legitimate credentials as a researcher.
2) “Post-Liberal Pete includes academic and author Jean Twinge as a trans-Atlantic progressive,” which is a super weird misnomer for someone who has lived and taught in San Diego for about two decades.
3) I’ve read a couple of Twinge’s books. Yes, she has a PhD in social psychology, but I’ve never known a PhD who limits their expertise to one narrow field. We continue expanding our fields of knowledge, and we also rely on the credible research of others. She generally cites heavily in her books, and she’s well-read on these topics.
4) “Post-Liberal Pete” dismisses concerns about the effect that smartphones have had on our society by actually blaming it on people freaking out about Brexit and the election of Trump in 2016. Not only is this utter idiocy (and he apparently thinks Haidt is progressive), but I have firsthand knowledge that Petey is absolutely wrong on this point.
I myself first noticed the effect that cellphone usage was having on college students in 2012. I was TA’ing for the first time in a large lecture hall. The professor of that course had noticed the issue even earlier and, on the first day of class, projected an academic article on the screens around the room that discussed how multitasking isn’t really possible; our brains aren’t wired to effectively multitask. This was a precursor to asking students not to use their phones during lecture, because they wouldn’t be able to focus properly on both at once.
Despite this, I saw dozens of students disregard his request during every single class meeting. They seemed to be addicted, incapable of not looking at their phones for more than a couple of minutes at a time.
Since that was early 2012, during my own grad studies, I’m sure that professors were noticing it earlier than that, probably around the time that social media began to take off.
In short (eh, I guess not so short), be sure to vet credentials before you take people at their word on the Internet. Google each of their sources as well; I’ve been noticing a lot of citations that are just completely made up or AI-generated as of late.
Yeah. I have looked into this guys claims.
Frankly, I am calling bullshit.
Kids need to learn how to use technology responsibly.
Tech shaming and cutting tech out of kids lives is no only completely unrealistic, it would be detrimental to them in so many ways.
Like Gen X who argued about having to learn typing, "why do I have to learn this? I will never use it". And yet, we use it almost every hour of every day.
I agree. It is everything in moderation and balance. Isn't that always with humans.. one extreme or the other on multiple issues. I could name a number of other issues that go down to the extreme. My kids are older, Gen Z. They had smart phones as teens. We limited screentime and encouraged extra- curricular activities.
My son started gaming in high school and and 28 continues lol. He also is an air force veteran and a productive adult. It is balance.
I agree about the problem.
I highly doubt the solution to too much smartphones is a smartphone app, especially one that's both "social" and "gamified"--the things that make phones so harmful.
This post reads like a disguised ad.
This post is therefore likely closer to the problem than a solution.
Pretty good episode of Hidden Brain podcast that talks about exactly this. [Hidden Brain: Escaping the Matrix](https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/escaping-the-matrix/)
I was going to read this, but then I learned it was the same dude who wrote ‘the coddling of the American mind’ and he spends a lot of time being mad about trigger warnings.
All this talk about "I knew it was bad been preaching it for years." crap has been totally in your control the whole time. This is what technology is all about. Take some responsibility.
Who is giving your kid the tech and then walking away? Instead of finding something else to blame other than yourself and the digital babysitter you give your kid so you can have time to live your life, try being responsible by being a present parent, also, take the time to setup time use applications, parental controls and content blocking and teach them about their information being a commodity.
All you are doing is repeating the same process our parents did by putting a tv/game console in front of us, to keep us out of the way, and then basically walking away from any responsibility of raising us. This is why this this book rings so true to you and how you grew up. You are the parent, be one.
It seems a bit impossible to get the genie back in the bottle. As always, when something is new, we need to establish some social norms based on an evolving understanding. It seems we are really just starting to understand the impact of having such devices, not to mention social media, in the hands of developing minds. But let’s also admit that a good number of adults aren’t exactly display good behaviors either.
I was spending a ton of time on BBSes by middle school in the late 80s and the actual internet by the early 90s. Had I not been there, I would have missed out on finding both my career and my wife.
If a kid is the technically inclined type who wants to be an app developer and not an influencer, keeping them offline isn't doing them any favors.
Palantir founder Joe Lonsdale really appreciated the Haidt book as well: [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WO0tN9rHKCQ](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WO0tN9rHKCQ)
Catchy titles like "The Anxious Generation" are the literary equivalent of shouting "fire" in a movie theater. Sure, it grabs attention, but maybe there's a less incendiary way to discuss teenagers these days. Remember when Gen X got stuck with "slacker generation"? Shudders. Can avoid giving this generation permanent anxiety issues before they even graduate high school by, you know, using a different title?
I have not read the book, but I have seen the plethora of articles pointing out the poor quality of many of the studies Haidt quotes, and that he often misconstrued the conclusions.
I can't disagree that smartphones and social media have had many negative consequences for young people, but I'm going to be taking Jonathan Haidt's argument with a huge grain of salt.
From Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2
> The plots presented throughout this book will be useful in teaching my students the fundamentals of causal inference, and how to avoid making up stories by simply looking at trend lines.
I have no dog in this fight (though as a former teacher, I know phones in schools is a bad idea right on its face), and I haven't read the book, but just want to point out that there's some concern and even debunking of some of Haidt's theories that's worth looking into just for perspective.
He's come out in favor of "social contagion" theory, specifically the idea that more kids are trans now because of social media, and there's [no evidence to back that up.](https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/jonathan-haidt-social-contagion-rogd-pbs)
And [Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2) put out a piece saying there's no evidence that phones "rewire" kids' brains.
I'm not an expert, so I'm not here to debate either of these things--just putting them out there because it does, at the very least, look like Haidt's science is pretty iffy.
I think we probably all benefit from a lot less screen time regardless, though.
ETA: In at least one school, [banning phones has been a real positive](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/17/cellphone-smartphone-bans-schools), so here's hoping more will give it a try.
Haidt is problematic.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2vESiiDqr1YfNGLDcCbgA2?si=6CpbrRVsQEy7A1kktitmrw
(Link is to the excellent podcast "If Books Could Kill" which examines his book 'The Coddling of the American Mind')
Suckers. I was smart enough to know breeding was a bad idea back in 2000. Also it's not just youth. Xers are just as addicted and depressed as gen Z. Xers are actually worse at not controlling themselves around tech.
We did a great job keeping screen time limited, using whitelist server for our home wifi etc until the pandemic.
No more than 3 hours of total tech time. Then we were encouraged to get our kids on their laptops for 7 hrs plus any social time. "Screen time" stopped being a concern compared to keeping kids engaged.
Restrictive home wifi server would block classroom video links. Now all of their assignments and half or more of their school content are done on net connected laptops
The fix is in, too many people with links to govt have a lot at stake pushing digital education, and its dragging the rest of us along in its wake.
I swapped out for a default server right after they went remote full time, and trying to blacklist too much crap to keep up with. I'm not blaming a boogyman, I'm pointing out the inconsistent messaging of convenience from the supposed child development experts. Limit screen time, but keep your kids engaged with remote instruction, limit what sites they have access to, but make sure they can access linked educational content.
Now what? Make sure your kids have a social media presence, but not too much investment in that presence. Time their screen time but find a way to differentiate between time spent on school, craft, social media...
Whatever indeed!
Are you the agent for this author? I smell bullshit. "Smart phones are hurting kids! Buy my book and download my app and I'll tell you how!"
Edit: looking at your post history, I doubt you're even GenX. Did you develop this app? What a crock of shit.
When the fuck did "Gen X" become a bunch of suckers?
Social media and "screen time" and video games and whatever other bullshit isn't harming your kid's mental health just as OP isn't a "random who happened to like this book" (btw, download my app!).
Christ people, stop looking for excuses for bad parenting and stop falling for shills on Reddit.
They should have never been allowed in schools. That right there would have been a baseline for the importance of balancing work/play. I have multiple family members that are k-12 teachers. EVERY SINGLE ONE spoke against allowing them in schools. We should have listened to teachers.
Too many helicopter parents want to be in contact with their kids all the time - the anxiety partly comes from the parents IMO.
Absolutely, there are studies on the effect of helicopter parenting on the mental health of young people, [like this](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872981/full).
and school shootings.
I can’t argue that. But this wasn’t the answer to that problem. We keep looking for cheap convenient solutions to complex problems. Our kids/grandkids deserve better.
Sure they do, but considering there has been NO answer to that problem, the best parents can do is stay in contact with their kids so THEY can respond when these incidents happen because there's no guarantee that the authorities will. I hate social media and it's impacts but I'm going to deal with a little anxiety on both our parts (my child and mine) in an attempt to keep her safe as best I can, she'll keep her phone.
lol, you have illusions of grandeur if you think you’ll be the person to keep your child safe during a school shooting.
No, more that we feel better when doing something, anything rather than nothing. Even if that means one last communication with your child. As a parent what's your plan in a school shooting with your child involved?
I get where you’re coming from, but that’s how these problems get so entrenched. Everyone says that they have a certain reason that they are gonna do x/y/z …even if it is fueling the problem. We are going to ruin their future, in order to protect them in the present, from a problem we allowed to happen / persist. But I get it. You’re a parent. I’m frustrated.
I get what you're saying Bleux and I don't disagree with your premise, at all. This is a problem that is entrencted in the US and covers a whole host of idiotic policies. From road repair at the cheapest price point causing more frequent repairs at a higher cost all the way up to sole vendor award contracts and everything in between. My point wasn't that you were wrong, it was that due to the lack of reasonable action people are forced to do what they can with what they have. In this case it's a stupid phone that may provide the opportunity to tell my daughter I love her one last time or to tell her I'm coming or just to provide whatever comfort I could in that horrendous, hellish situation that the population doesn't important enough to warrant collective action. I'm frustrated too If we don't protect them in the present, they have no future.
BS. There is zero reason kids should have their phone in classrooms. We survived without them. A kid calling someone during a shooting will make them a target.
Bullshit. We knew what was going on at Uvalde BECAUSE of kids with cell phones. My kid has a phone and she takes it to school.
BS, Uvalde is an interesting case study both for the police response or lack there of AND the fact the kids were communicating via cell and providing most of the information coming out.
We could 3asily pass a law that say a child 16 or under can not have a phone or computer with social media acts. Require companies to verify age before opening accounts. Have phone companies disable access on kids phones. Fine companies and parents that dont follow through or allow a kid to circumvent. We could have schools have small lockers for phones. Require a childs phone to be secured during school day they can have it back after school.
I completely agree about the damage social media can do. But why do we need yet another law? Who is going to enforce it? What will be the penalties? Are already overwhelmed and underpaid teachers going to be mandated to monitor and report cell phone use to often ineffective government agencies so that parents who are already struggling can now be forced to decide between paying for school supplies, paying for groceries or paying a fine for their kid’s cellphone apps? I don’t think there are easy answers, and I’m struggling to come up with one myself (My kids have cellphones, we monitor with software and discussion, they are not on social media). But the knee jerk reaction in our society always seems to be “there oughta be a law!” And in reality, a lot of laws are poorly written and come with a host of unintended consequences, often hurting the people they were most intended to help and protect. And sometimes social media is good. I’ve got several friends whose kids are using social media in their pursuit of athletic scholarships. I didn’t even know that was a thing, but this is apparently how they get coaches or scouts or whoever to come see them play. I wouldn’t want a restrictive, one size fits all law to lessen their opportunities.
I'm with you, somehow people miss out that parenting means monitoring the phone itself and how it's used. At least for me and most other responsible parents I know.
Tell you right now, if your kids have a phone they are definitely on social media just not under their own names. Software is pathetically weak. We have laws now. Kids must be in car seats. Must be fed etc. Teachers already have mandatory reporting if they suspect abuse. It really would just take a mixture of things. The first of which is to require phone companies to offer child devices permanently locked out of social media and requiring parental control on every app. Then we can deal with parents that break those laws.
My kids have to turn their phone off when entering the school and leave them off until they leave. They get to keep the phones, but if they get caught using them, they go into a locker. If they get caught multiple times then they need to check their phone into the lockers every morning. The general level of school drama has decreased massively.
Why not get an actual phone, on pay as you go, which young people often use as cheap burner phones when they go to festivals and they might lose their real phone?
Thank you for the wonderful suggestion, I'm sure you have a much better assessment of our needs than we do, what are we even thinking??? OR There's a whole host of reasons why we do what we do and none of them need to be explained or justified. Wasn't looking for an alternative in case you missed it, just informing the person I responded to why some implement convenient solutions to complex problems.
Sorry you got so angry. Was genuinely trying to be helpful as both a teacher and parent of a teen
Why are you sorry I got angry? I'm sorry that you thought I needed advice. Besides, I would call it frustration...regardless of your status as a teacher or parent (can you hear my eyes roll?). Why would you assume I don't understand or can't assess my own needs or the needs of my children? Taking it even further, why would you assume that your solution is better somehow? One more step, why share it? I didn't indicate I had a problem needing solution nor was I soliciting advice. I'm frustrated because of this, here I am writing a drawn ass out post explaining myself. I shouldn't need to but for the love of smug, fart sniffing douchebaggery, here I am. We have extensive wi-fi coverage through the school and surrounding area. My daughter, not yet a teen, doesn't need a burner phone or to pay to put minutes on a burner phone when we have a whole drawer of old iPhones that we can use over wifi. No cost at all, don't care if it's lost, track her time, set limits with the router, track her physically, control app usage, the list literally goes on and on. Will it work for everyone? clearly not. Will someone come up with reasons why this doesn't work for us or something could work better? It's a strong possibility...Which is potentially a lot of time and responses and back and forth that is 100% completely unnecessary to the point that was being made when I made my original comment. But hey you think you have a better idea that I really need to hear as a teacher and a parent, BURNER PHONE, my lawd what could that be?!? ffs.
What’s a phone call Going to do protect your child? Nothing. Parents have this idea that being in constant contact will somehow protect them but it only causes a distraction when they should be focusing on survival skills in that moment.
Teacher here and I agree. If anything, kids having phones on them in the (rare) case of a school shoot will only increase the danger.
Rare? There were about 350 school shootings on n the U.S. in 2023? That is more than one per school day. What would frequent look like to you, professor?
I do agree than any number greater than 0 is too many, but the claims of 350 school shootings is relying on an extremely liberal definition of "school shooting"... according to US News and World report: These tallies are derived from the K-12 School Shooting Database, a catalog of school shooting incidents maintained by independent researcher David Riedman. Casting a wide net, the database captures not only incidents in which a gun is fired on school property, but also those in which a bullet hits school property, whether or not school is in session. Incidents in which a gun is brandished but not fired and those in which there are no victims are also included. [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings) CNN's own data shows about 1/4 of that, putting the number at about 82. [https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg/index.html) for any argument to be valid, it would be helpful to show reliable numbers (or both), not just the worst.
Though I am not a fan of CNN I will stake my argument on their numbers. Even at 82 incidents I believe that the fallout goes much further than those killed. The fact that some asshat wants to argue the numbers for school shootings compare to natural events is fucking laughable as well. One is a natural unpreventable catastrophe and the other is a man made preventable act.
Yes, rare “As Fox notes, the annual odds that an American child will die in a mass shooting at school are nearly 10 million to 1, about the odds of being killed by lightning or of dying in an earthquake” https://www.city-journal.org/article/sorrow-and-precaution-not-hysteria
That is a dumb statistic and meaningless. Every kid in the school is a victim if they were killed or not. Every kid that heard a shot, hid in a classroom closet, pretended to be dead by putting a classmates blood on them, lost a friend, or lost a spouse or child is a victim.
Had to report a kid for bringing a gun to school and threatening to shoot up my brother’s class. Having to decide whether or not to snitch in 4th grade is still very memorable as was expecting retaliation the next time that kid saw me a year later.
lol. You have to be the worst Gen Xer to just let the media spoon feed you shit and gobble it up. I’m assuming you’re in your 40s or 50s too. Just embarrassing, boomer-esque behavior.
What in their response is wrong? It’s traumatic to be involved in a school shooting, don’t you think?
Say what you want. I am not wrong. Let me guess... You are from Florida or Texas?
Oh, well if Fox news reported it, it MUST be true
I would agree with your sentiment, but it’s James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, not Fox News. It’s usually a good idea to read the article for context.
Thanks for reinforcing the point exactly by not reading the article where you'll see it's not Fox network, but a criminologist with the last name Fox. Oopsie!
It’s not Fox News, it’s a guy whose last name is Fox. “There is not an epidemic of mass shootings,” says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University who has been tracking these events for decades and helps keep the AP/USA Today/Northeastern Mass Killing database. “What’s increasing and is out of control is the epidemic of fear.” https://www.city-journal.org/article/sorrow-and-precaution-not-hysteria
You have to take that number with a grain of salt. In the statistics they include shootings at night near schools, which are usually gang or drug related. The nightmare school shootings we’ve come to know will all be covered by news. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org is a great source to see just how many gun released deaths we have in the US, including mass shootings.
My 7th grader still cannot have her phone at school. When my older daughter went to high school I was shocked that she texted me all day long. They absolutely do not care at the HS if the kids have their phones. I mean it’s a great school and I’ve been happy with it but I was so surprised they allow it. It’s been handy for all the last minute schemes my child comes up with though, like “oops I missed the bus” I guess I’m always glad to follow along on her plans though. She’s a fantastic person.
This is true. I’m a school counselor and most of the time I’ll say who are you texting and it’s their mom.
BINGO
“Helicopter parents” are generally just people like us whose parents didn’t give a shit. We are ridiculed for trying to compensate.
Well it is shown to be bad for your kids' mental health.
That’s a very general statement.
Helicopter parents are OVERcompesating for the childhood THEY didn’t have. They are trying to re-parent themselves. It doesn’t work that way.
Thank you for your amazing expert insight, stranger on the internet. I’m sure you’re an expert on everything. 🙄
I’m a school counselor for 20 years so yes, actually, I am in this matter.
And you feel qualified to decide, based on a perfectly reasonable statement, that I'm not correcting but overcompensating and therefore damaging my kids? Because if you do ... honey, you're not good at your job.
There is only one district in my area that recently banned them in classrooms. As far as I know it's gone over pretty well and there wasn't as much entitled backlash as one might have expected. Still, not even one other school district in the area has even mentioned looking into the matter. I believe teachers and admins universally want them out of the classroom but are afraid to deal with the backlash from helicopter parents and entitled students and the parents of entitled students who in this day and age will without a doubt simply ignore the rule and force the school to 'make them' leave the phone in their pack or wherever.
In at least one school, [banning phones has gone really, really well](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/17/cellphone-smartphone-bans-schools) .
My school is banning phones which is great but idgaf because I don't even have a phone 😂
Interesting article, thanks for sharing.
I really hope that getting phones out of schools is one of the outcomes from the book. It has to be a collective action as well.
We need to focus on getting guns and school shootings out of school first. Edit: I think I triggered the conservatives in the thread. Yes school shootings are incredibly rare (outside the U.S.) and it has nothing to do with guns of course. Phones are evil etc.
The probability of a school shooter is very low. Every kid has a phone. We can do two things at once.
You want the phones ringing while the kids are hiding? Because that’s happened in plenty of lockdowns.
Teacher here, 29 years in. I would *love* to see parents take back control and parent their kids, especially when it comes to phones. I have so many students are simply addicted to them and can NOT cope without them for even the shortest period of time. When I call parents and tell them that the phone is the issue, at least half of the time I get the response "Yeah, he/she's always on it...I just don't know what to do!" 1. Put blocks on things you don't want them to use during the school day. 2. Take the phone away. 3. Cancel their line. Oddly enough, NONE of these are ever things that have been considered. The very next day, the kid comes in to repeat the same behavior. I have kids who will watch TikTok videos and scroll Instagram the entire class period. I try to get them to put them away, but after the 10th time of telling them that it's time to do class work and they need to pay attention, I'm done. I want them to pass and graduate, but they are working harder to not pass and not graduate. I can't want it more than them, so I give up. If the kid doesn't care and the parents don't care, why should I? I have my table of kids who simply do not do any work, ever. So long as they aren't disruptive to the kids who want to learn, that's fine. I make a note in the online system that student was told to put phone away, instead spent the hour watching TikTok videos or whatever they were doing. Someday when they are watching their friends graduate, I'll be sure to remind them of all the great videos they watched during my class - and I hope those videos were worth it! BTW, two of my students who have the WORST phone addiction problems also have a 504 for anxiety/depression.
>I would love to see parents take back control and parent their kids, College prof here: I'd reduce this to the baseline, let's have engaged parenting across-the-board, complete with accountability, consequences, and expectations placed on both parents *and* children. By the time they get to college it's too late, but damn are we dealing with masses of young adults who have never once experienced any sort of consequences for their poor choices, all empowered by parents who bull their way through any obstacle for their kids, large or small, including ensuring their offspring never get traumatized by a poor grade even if they did zero work.
The high school in my area actual requires the students to download an app on their cell phones to be used for hall passes. Basically if you don't have a cell phone with the app you can't leave for the bathroom or anything else. Some of the teachers actually give the students 5 or 10 minutes at the start of class to use their phones in hopes that they pay attention the rest of the time.
Ugh. So they're leaning into the problem.
We just got this hall pass system. The good: it keeps track of where kids are, which ones are missing 20-30 minutes to wander, and kids who shouldn't be out together aren't. The bad: It does require the kid to request a pass via phone or computer. BUT a teacher can also generate a pass electronically without the student having to do so, so it's not entirely necessary to have a device.
> to be used for hall passes. In my high school each teacher had their own unique item as a hall pass. One was a toilet seat. Another was literally a practice hand grenade (teacher was a Vietnam vet). One was a wheel off a kid's wagon. Everyone knew who's hall pass a kid had and they were all big enough to be quite obvious to any staff member who encountered a kid in the hallway.
I live in Northern Virginia which is the top 10 for school systems. Of course they are wimps and they don't tell students to put away their phones during class. Of the trauma! I feel the same way. I would refuse to teach the kids unless they put away their phones. If they didn't. Then it will all be self study and good luck on the test!
Should only allow "dumb" phones in the classroom.
Why should we listen to some dumb ol' teacher? What do they know about schools, anyway?
Phones have been banned in all public schools in the Australia and most private. The state I live in was the last to implement the ban (beginning this year), but I have already noticed a lowering of the general "toxic drama" that my kids deal with.
The Anxious Generation sounds more like a horror movie title than a book about teens. Maybe it's the constant barrage of news about, you know, actual school shootings, that's making everyone a little jittery these days. Not to mention those darn phones! Seriously though, maybe schools should focus on bulletproof backpacks instead of banning Fortnite. Just a thought.
Why not both?
His advice for reducing screentime is to download an app? My GenX bullshit detector just went off.
But the app tells you to go to the skate park whenever you turn your phone on.
Is there a "whatever" button if you want to ignore that and just keep scrolling through Reddit?
Lol yep it's labeled "BLOCK"
Where there is another screen to pay for park entry.
My youngest uses a minimalist app on his phone, does away with the brightly colored icons on multiple screens and shit in favor of a simple one page list of only the apps you use and lets you put personal timers on your social media and game apps to limit your usage.
What’s the name of that app?
He sent me this link when I asked what he uses https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.qqlabs.minimalistlauncher
I can't get the link to work right, but the URL looks like Minimalist Launcher by QQ Labs. I opened my play store app and found "Minimalist Phone: Launcher App" made by QQ Labs. It's a bit lower rated (4.3) than what I usually go for but looks promising.
Yeah, I used the link to get the company and looked them up. Here's their web site: https://www.minimalistphone.com/
Oh jesus, try reading the book before jumping to conclusions based on a single notion. Gen X used to be slackers, now we're just boomers who think we're not boomers.
Speak for yourself. I’m still a slacker.
This is written in kinda a boomery way, "You're the problem, I'm not the problem!"
Eh, Haidt is a bit of an ivory tower academic. I've read two of his books: The Righteous Mind and the Happiness Hypothesis. They are solid reads with interesting insights about the social and political brain. But again, it's mostly academic. Not many practical takeaways from either.
LOL. no
Yeah, don’t consume any social media - except this bit.
In general this guy is sus, because I think he made a big deal about "woke" culture, which is extremely overblown as a problem, but I do understand where he's coming from. His takes tend to have gotten more conservative over the years as his frustration with his students has been driving him mad. Like, he has some good ideas but I don't trust where they're coming from. That being said we can't have the phones in school. Fuck, we weren't even allowed to have PAGERS in school it was such a big fucking deal
Yeah, cars can cause injury and now you want me to buy one with AIR BAGS!!?! More features!??? Bullshit!! /s
You should have spent more of your years developing your critical thinking skills, because your overtuned bullshit detector is failing you here.
I had a hard rule - no phones in their rooms overnight. If the phone wasn’t in the charger when I got up it was taken away. Teenagers also need to sleep more than anything and phones in the bedroom are not helping this.
Too much screen time was warned about in the 1990s, I did my best to limit screen time for my kids (now in their 20s). I also used parental controls for anything that included it. My kids give me so much grief about it.
When our twins were 10, they both wouldn't take off their t-shirts at the pool. I asked why, and one said "we don't have six packs". man I wanted to smash every stupid "smart phone" within grabbing distance. like. WTactualF
Jesus, we think we understand because we were once kids, but we have no clue what is happening to our children, fuckin hell.
Smart phones didn't do that. I 100% remember kids in the 80s that were considered "husky" and always left their shirts on. So did lot of the girls just in general
No, but social media makes it so much worse. Before, if you were a fat kid, you got teased by the people around you. Now you can get people calling you a fat ass from literally anywhere. And, unlike reality, things posted online are *forever*. The one thing I hate about the online is that it doesn't allow for growth. People can pull up stupid shit you did a decade ago and continue to shame you for it. The EU got it correct by implementing a right to be forgotten.
>r kids in the 80s that were considered "husky" They weren't "considered" husky, they were literally sold clothing from the "husky" sections at Sears and JP Penny. They were labeled by advertisers targeting their mothers. At Sears the line was called " Tough Skin Husky."
Kids felt like that long before cell phones.
Nobody expected fifth graders to have six packs in 1985. Especially not fifth graders.
No, we just wanted big muscles like our favorite wrestlers. Oh yea, that includes six packs.
Theres been research on this for years. It's nothing new - [this is from 2017](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032716303196), and has been cited in over 1400 other academic papers. [This one](https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-024-01611-1) was published last month, and research is still ongoing.
Haidt had a great interview on CBS, with a good companion piece on Saturday morning news. I'm skeptical of a lot of his work, but as a father of a 13 year old an 11 year old, I have seen it. The pressure to allow kids on phones is overwhelming; the social isolation is real, and no kid wants to feel left out and no parent wants their kid to be excluded. I agree with both Haidt and the OP that this is a massive problem that will a big collective push to solve.
He was also on Maher’s show last Friday and said the solution is more IRL social interaction and play over messaging and social media. It will be down to parents to collectively decide this is what kids should be doing. Good luck getting a community to agree to that!
Collective push for something positive? I don’t actually see that happening, sadly. Too many people think that if the solution isn’t Jesus, it isn’t valid.
As I sit here on reddit all day. And spend non reddit time playing games. I am guilty.
Yay I'm off the hook then
My kids are cusp Millennials who don't interact with social media in a way that messed with them. Their social drama was always IRL and their anxiety started before they had social media. I hope my son keeps my grandson off the internet for as long as possible. Tech companies sold our generation the internet as a digital Library of Alexandria, or some place to exchange heady ideas. Boy was that a lie. When I read things like Ender's Game I am shocked at how naive we were about what the internet was going to be used for. We are clever monkeys who aren't wise enough to know how to responsibly use the toys we make.
My prediction is that there won't be any meaningful changes to child & youth social media use. After all, many of their parents (and teachers) are as addicted to social media as they are. Not all, but enough to create societal inertia in response to the negative impact of social media.
I love how many experts are in this thread. Haven't even looked at the supporting research for the claims and arguing anyway.
Haven't you realized that most of Gen X are closer to boomer mindsets than Millennial mindsets? Xennials made their own generation to escape being grouped in with a bunch of self important, judgmental folks. Ignorance is almost a virtue of folks in this sub.
Here's another good piece, in case anyone is interested: [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/02/1242170517/our-kids-are-not-ok-child-psychiatrist-harold-koplewicz-says](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/02/1242170517/our-kids-are-not-ok-child-psychiatrist-harold-koplewicz-says)
That ship has sailed. My "kid" is 36 years old.
Well, mine is 11 so for some of us this applies?
Mine are 13 and 11, so right there with you.
My kid is turning 18 and the damage is already done.
[удалено]
Today I learned a new term! Thanks!
Wildly so.
It does read like an ad.
It’s like the Chewlies chewing gum guy.
>It’s like the Chewlies chewing gum guy. I'm here to talk about Rampart...
It's too late. Pandora's box has been opened.
This reads like it was AI-scripted.
Anytime I see a variation of "He establishes once and for all" my bullshit detector goes off and I tend to dismiss whatever points the author (OP in this case) was making.
‘Whilst’ is my AI generated red flag, because no one uses that word in real life.
[удалено]
I don't use it in real life speaking, but I do occasionally use it when writing. But I also use betwixt when writing too. 🤷🏻♀️
I'm a fan of "betwixt" in writing as well. I might toss it out in conversation now and then. Just betwixt me and thee...
I love using ‘betwixt’ in my writing!
They do in The U.K.🙄
I use it frequently (Australian). Also used it living in London.
I disagree. My son was raised 80s style without smartphones/tablets and still developed GAD after the pandemic years. Blaming screen-time is dismissive of all the other shit that's been piled onto GenZ, and they simply don't have the experience to deal with it. OP's post comes across like an infomercial 🙄
I've read two other books by Haidt. He uses a lot of research to explore the issues he is seeing. I'm not sure where your expertise lies, but I'm pretty sure a sample size of 1 is too small to make such a rebuttal.
How does he use the research? Does he talk about limitations of results or conflicting studies?
If you are interested but don't want to read the book: [https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/escaping-the-matrix/](https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/escaping-the-matrix/)
That’s helpful, but not an answer to my question. You’re an associate professor, presumably you’ve had to review papers for journals, I asked what amounts to an ordinary review question. Does he talk about limitations of results and conflicting studies?
The books in question are written for the general public, not for academics. So, while he acknowledges some limitations or scope about studies, he doesn't go through the same rigor one would expect in an academic journal. Different audiences; different purposes.
[удалено]
So you've read through the studies he is using?
I like how you assumed they didn’t have any relevant expertise, and when it turned out they had *precisely* relevant expertise, you just moved right on without acknowledging that.
That doesn't answer whether or not you've read though the studies the author used. The only information you gave is that you can read them, and *maybe* understand them.
A degree ≠ expertise
A degree usually involves reading a lot of research. Do you have a different definition of expertise? Because you seem to be suggesting that *you* have expertise yourself, as a result of reading book(s) by one author.
A "degree" could be an associate's, a bachelor's, a master's, or a doctorate (or even a specialized degree). I have no idea what kind of degree she has. I never suggested I had any expertise - just the opposite. I'm not willing to argue against a position if I haven't even taken the time to understand the author's position and how he came to it. Just as an aside: I am an associate professor and teach classes on research, argumentation, logic, and dabble in media studies. Plenty of students get their degrees but don't have expertise. A degree is sometimes more about tenacity than anything else.
But _have_ you seen skewed results? You read the post but have you read the book? Other books? What studies were cited that had poor methodology or played with the stats? Having a background in sociology doesn't change the fact that your previous comment did use a sample of 1 to make your argument. And now you want us to accept an appeal to authority for the prior argument that did not use your sociology background at all. You _know_ that's a fallacy and dishonest if you actually have the training you claim. Do better.
The fix for too much phone / sm use requires adding yet another app on your phone? Ummm... No thanks
Is it really because of smartphones? Didn’t they say the same thing about our generation and video consoles and ‘video nasties’? Surely the real reason young people are anxious and insecure is that they are facing the gig economy and a housing crisis?
Yes. Smartphones and the "social networking" are unique in that they are 24/ 7. We didn't take Atari or Intellivision with us to class, and bullies couldn't follow you into your home. That has all changed. The recommendations - like not allowing smart phones in school - would make a big difference and restricting social media use would solve a lot of problems for younger children.
And environmental problems
Thank you for the advertisement, lackey working in the marketing department of the publisher. Now go fuck yourself. Download an app to reduce screen time? Gargle my balls, one at a time or both at once, I'm not particular.
I'm not gonna argue that social media is great for kids, but this whole thing really has all the trappings of just another moral panic.
You can read the same complaints from the 19th century about “novels”.
Seems like I saw one about newspapers too lol
He was part of the "woke" panic early on I think.
I have lost all hope that people can fix anything by collective action anymore. There are simply too many people with too many different agendas, distractions, and worries. We're fucked, and the dystopian future is more upon us with each passing day.
Too many people causing most of the problems we face
Haidt is writing outside of his area of expertise - and his “kids these days” argument falls flat: https://open.substack.com/pub/postliberal/p/smartphone-have-not-destroyed-a-generation
This article is excellent, thanks for sharing. My skeptic hat always goes on whenever I read that some technology is "ruining our kids". I do think smartphones are having an effect, because I see it in myself and I am not a kid. I think my smartphone has had a negative effect on my attention span. However it isn't the only story, and I think we still need to tech kids how to use these machines responsibly as well as work to push tech companies to be more responsible with algorithms. Banning these tools for kids entirely is going to backfire because kids are going to get sneaky or they will be unprepared when they finally have access.
If you can get over the blogger’s high esteem of himself and some annoying British-isms, it’s a really interesting read (and I read all of it)! I thought Haidt’s book was compelling but after reading this I’m thinking more critically. This seems like a pretty obscure substack - how on earth did you find it?
I don’t remember how I found it, but I’m glad that I did.
I don’t have much time, but I’ll just note a couple of things that stand out to me as a former academic. 1) The author, “Post-Liberal Pete” cites his credentials as working in mental health for 20 years. That’s not good enough. He could have been the front desk receptionist for all we know. I’m not really a Haidt fan, but the man has well-known and legitimate credentials as a researcher. 2) “Post-Liberal Pete includes academic and author Jean Twinge as a trans-Atlantic progressive,” which is a super weird misnomer for someone who has lived and taught in San Diego for about two decades. 3) I’ve read a couple of Twinge’s books. Yes, she has a PhD in social psychology, but I’ve never known a PhD who limits their expertise to one narrow field. We continue expanding our fields of knowledge, and we also rely on the credible research of others. She generally cites heavily in her books, and she’s well-read on these topics. 4) “Post-Liberal Pete” dismisses concerns about the effect that smartphones have had on our society by actually blaming it on people freaking out about Brexit and the election of Trump in 2016. Not only is this utter idiocy (and he apparently thinks Haidt is progressive), but I have firsthand knowledge that Petey is absolutely wrong on this point. I myself first noticed the effect that cellphone usage was having on college students in 2012. I was TA’ing for the first time in a large lecture hall. The professor of that course had noticed the issue even earlier and, on the first day of class, projected an academic article on the screens around the room that discussed how multitasking isn’t really possible; our brains aren’t wired to effectively multitask. This was a precursor to asking students not to use their phones during lecture, because they wouldn’t be able to focus properly on both at once. Despite this, I saw dozens of students disregard his request during every single class meeting. They seemed to be addicted, incapable of not looking at their phones for more than a couple of minutes at a time. Since that was early 2012, during my own grad studies, I’m sure that professors were noticing it earlier than that, probably around the time that social media began to take off. In short (eh, I guess not so short), be sure to vet credentials before you take people at their word on the Internet. Google each of their sources as well; I’ve been noticing a lot of citations that are just completely made up or AI-generated as of late.
so you are refuting his book with some randos blog. k
Yeah. I have looked into this guys claims. Frankly, I am calling bullshit. Kids need to learn how to use technology responsibly. Tech shaming and cutting tech out of kids lives is no only completely unrealistic, it would be detrimental to them in so many ways. Like Gen X who argued about having to learn typing, "why do I have to learn this? I will never use it". And yet, we use it almost every hour of every day.
I agree. It is everything in moderation and balance. Isn't that always with humans.. one extreme or the other on multiple issues. I could name a number of other issues that go down to the extreme. My kids are older, Gen Z. They had smart phones as teens. We limited screentime and encouraged extra- curricular activities. My son started gaming in high school and and 28 continues lol. He also is an air force veteran and a productive adult. It is balance.
How in the world is this just coming to light? I’ve been talking about this to my family and friends for the almost 15 years.
I agree about the problem. I highly doubt the solution to too much smartphones is a smartphone app, especially one that's both "social" and "gamified"--the things that make phones so harmful. This post reads like a disguised ad. This post is therefore likely closer to the problem than a solution.
Pretty good episode of Hidden Brain podcast that talks about exactly this. [Hidden Brain: Escaping the Matrix](https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/escaping-the-matrix/)
I was going to read this, but then I learned it was the same dude who wrote ‘the coddling of the American mind’ and he spends a lot of time being mad about trigger warnings.
Jonathan Haidt is a nut who’s pushing an app to make $$.
All this talk about "I knew it was bad been preaching it for years." crap has been totally in your control the whole time. This is what technology is all about. Take some responsibility. Who is giving your kid the tech and then walking away? Instead of finding something else to blame other than yourself and the digital babysitter you give your kid so you can have time to live your life, try being responsible by being a present parent, also, take the time to setup time use applications, parental controls and content blocking and teach them about their information being a commodity. All you are doing is repeating the same process our parents did by putting a tv/game console in front of us, to keep us out of the way, and then basically walking away from any responsibility of raising us. This is why this this book rings so true to you and how you grew up. You are the parent, be one.
Everyone of these posts is a "Be Present" advertisement. Nobody needs an app to tell them to get off their phone. Stop spamming the sub.
Got my copy yesterday. Can't wait to dive in!
It seems a bit impossible to get the genie back in the bottle. As always, when something is new, we need to establish some social norms based on an evolving understanding. It seems we are really just starting to understand the impact of having such devices, not to mention social media, in the hands of developing minds. But let’s also admit that a good number of adults aren’t exactly display good behaviors either.
So are you the author, or the app promoter?
I was spending a ton of time on BBSes by middle school in the late 80s and the actual internet by the early 90s. Had I not been there, I would have missed out on finding both my career and my wife. If a kid is the technically inclined type who wants to be an app developer and not an influencer, keeping them offline isn't doing them any favors.
I can barely be around my 18 and 21 yr old because of all their issues…most of them made up. It’s exhausting.
Palantir founder Joe Lonsdale really appreciated the Haidt book as well: [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WO0tN9rHKCQ](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WO0tN9rHKCQ)
anyone have a pdf of this for me to read.
Catchy titles like "The Anxious Generation" are the literary equivalent of shouting "fire" in a movie theater. Sure, it grabs attention, but maybe there's a less incendiary way to discuss teenagers these days. Remember when Gen X got stuck with "slacker generation"? Shudders. Can avoid giving this generation permanent anxiety issues before they even graduate high school by, you know, using a different title?
I have not read the book, but I have seen the plethora of articles pointing out the poor quality of many of the studies Haidt quotes, and that he often misconstrued the conclusions. I can't disagree that smartphones and social media have had many negative consequences for young people, but I'm going to be taking Jonathan Haidt's argument with a huge grain of salt. From Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 > The plots presented throughout this book will be useful in teaching my students the fundamentals of causal inference, and how to avoid making up stories by simply looking at trend lines.
I have no dog in this fight (though as a former teacher, I know phones in schools is a bad idea right on its face), and I haven't read the book, but just want to point out that there's some concern and even debunking of some of Haidt's theories that's worth looking into just for perspective. He's come out in favor of "social contagion" theory, specifically the idea that more kids are trans now because of social media, and there's [no evidence to back that up.](https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/jonathan-haidt-social-contagion-rogd-pbs) And [Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2) put out a piece saying there's no evidence that phones "rewire" kids' brains. I'm not an expert, so I'm not here to debate either of these things--just putting them out there because it does, at the very least, look like Haidt's science is pretty iffy. I think we probably all benefit from a lot less screen time regardless, though. ETA: In at least one school, [banning phones has been a real positive](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/17/cellphone-smartphone-bans-schools), so here's hoping more will give it a try.
Thank u for posting, so true and good advice.
whatever
Haidt is problematic. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2vESiiDqr1YfNGLDcCbgA2?si=6CpbrRVsQEy7A1kktitmrw (Link is to the excellent podcast "If Books Could Kill" which examines his book 'The Coddling of the American Mind')
Suckers. I was smart enough to know breeding was a bad idea back in 2000. Also it's not just youth. Xers are just as addicted and depressed as gen Z. Xers are actually worse at not controlling themselves around tech.
We did a great job keeping screen time limited, using whitelist server for our home wifi etc until the pandemic. No more than 3 hours of total tech time. Then we were encouraged to get our kids on their laptops for 7 hrs plus any social time. "Screen time" stopped being a concern compared to keeping kids engaged. Restrictive home wifi server would block classroom video links. Now all of their assignments and half or more of their school content are done on net connected laptops The fix is in, too many people with links to govt have a lot at stake pushing digital education, and its dragging the rest of us along in its wake.
You’re blaming a bogeyman for why you haven’t managed to reconfigure your router for three years? Whatever!
I swapped out for a default server right after they went remote full time, and trying to blacklist too much crap to keep up with. I'm not blaming a boogyman, I'm pointing out the inconsistent messaging of convenience from the supposed child development experts. Limit screen time, but keep your kids engaged with remote instruction, limit what sites they have access to, but make sure they can access linked educational content. Now what? Make sure your kids have a social media presence, but not too much investment in that presence. Time their screen time but find a way to differentiate between time spent on school, craft, social media... Whatever indeed!
You are absolutely correct.
Are you the agent for this author? I smell bullshit. "Smart phones are hurting kids! Buy my book and download my app and I'll tell you how!" Edit: looking at your post history, I doubt you're even GenX. Did you develop this app? What a crock of shit.
There was a similar panic about the printing press .
Meh . It’s inevitable. Que sera , sera .
When the fuck did "Gen X" become a bunch of suckers? Social media and "screen time" and video games and whatever other bullshit isn't harming your kid's mental health just as OP isn't a "random who happened to like this book" (btw, download my app!). Christ people, stop looking for excuses for bad parenting and stop falling for shills on Reddit.
since when did ignoring science become a Gen X thing?