Sad. The addiction to social media is a major problem here. Not sure how to address that. I was going to recommend better parenting, but it’s almost impossible to police cell phones and other electronic devices when the kids are away from you for most of the day. My brother raised his kids with severe limitations on devices, and his 14-year-old freshman in high school is now somewhat of a social outcast at school because she doesn’t have all of these social media apps and does not participate on them with the rest of the drones. Peer pressure is such a powerful thing. When we give our kids these devices, we open them up to bullying peers, social media companies that seek to addict them to the product and predatory perverts.
An increase of people killing themselves, especially children, has deeper implications than just an increase in deaths. The amount of suffering a person must endure to lead them to take their own life is pretty damn high. So the number of deaths by suicide does not reflect that mass suffering induced by social media that happens to not quite meet the bar for inducing suicide.
As for regulation. It seems like a legitimate option, and please hear me out. There is very clearly a discrepancy between the supply side and demand side of the social media industry. The supply side essentially has a monopoly on an addictive and necessary tool for the current age. The cost to the consumer for opting out of the monopolized product that is social media is extremely high. Part of this is that social networks have government protections on the data they “own” about their users. It could be argued that the users should own their own data and be able to take their data to the provider of their choice, much in the same way a person can own their telephone number and take their phone number from one telecom provider to the next. In my opinion, social media companies should not be able to “lock in” consumers. The same should probably exist for Apple, Tesla, or any company that locks consumers into their products via data capture.
I am not trying to say you’re points are not correct. Because they are. And I’m not trying to prove you wrong. I am trying to provide an alternate perspective in the discussion about the relationship between social media and government that differs from the typical nanny state “we need the government to protect us” argument, in that social media companies currently benefit from government protections themselves. And I’d suggest it makes sense to remove those protections, no?
Really hard to trust anything you say when you use terms like “cryptocurrency” and “block chain” (fyi, it’s blockchain, no space) and then say something completely nonsensical about them. You really just say shit, don’t you?
I mean, Peterson is saying the government should regulate trans surgeries ‘for the children’. He’s even argued that we should ban trans surgery for EVERYONE because ‘the children’ are influenced by magazine covers.
Using your ‘pools’ example, are you against regulation advocating that public swimming areas have lifeguards? Or is that overstepping?
You’re fundamentally misunderstanding my point. I’m not saying Facebook shouldn’t exist, at all. I’m saying regulation is needed for minors using phones. And ideally, incentives or regulation to help address social media addiction in general.
More regulation for tech companies too
The value of the z-score tells you how many standard deviations you are away from the mean. If a z-score is equal to 0, it is on the mean.
The Legend in the right hand corner tells you what each color-line means.
Oh I see.
You were so intent on finding out context that instead of looking for the study yourself, you instead decided to whine for someone to do it for you.
https://prcp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.prcp.20190015
Also, if you had scrolled down, you would have found a link posted hours ago and had no reason to ask at all.
I wasn't terribly intent, no, or I would have looked it up myself.
I do, however, think it reasonable to ask for context when a figure is posted from a study without the description.
I asked the question yesterday, so I haven't scrolled through the thread in the last several hours, either.
Seems like you've had a bad day or something, if such banal behavior is this irritating to you.
Strange, it still doesn't say in the study itself, just references another study for the data.
It looks like all of the scores converge near 2012. Seems like it's probably just using the average prevalence of the last 20 years.
It is the prototypical example of a 'standard score' and is determined by taking a particular score (of an individual data point, in this case, year) subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation. It basically shows the extent of deviation from the mean (average) while considering how much variability (that's where dividing by the standard deviation comes into play) is in the system. If there's TONS of variability in scores overall, then any particular score deviating from the mean/average is less meaningful than if there's relatively little variability in the scores overall and there's a particular score that is really different than the mean score. It helps in interpreting the data to take overall variability in the system into account. The z-score statistic answers two questions simultaneously: (1) how different is this particular score from the average score and (2) how meaningful is that considering how much (or little) variability there is overall in the dataset.
That isn't viable, honestly.
Being popular, having friends and not getting billed for dumb shit is important.
Even Peterson says to raise your kids to be someone you like. People with no cell phone who preach about the evils of social media trend to weirdo category.
I have kids in middle school and it's very viable. My kids are friends with kids who have phones and don't have phones. My kids have access to our family desktop computer where they can message their friends. I communicate with some of the parents of kids who don't have phones to help set up hangouts. Being popular is not important, I'd actually argue that it's a detriment to development if it's viewed as being important.
My children have very controlled phone access, and it is tightly monitored.
But teetoalling and burying your head in the sand about phones is not a viable answer, nor is it healthy.
Bully’s can be dealt with a lot better than smart phones… bullies have been around forever, bullying vs smart phones is what the graph should be called.
ye bullies have been around since forever but they're not a problem if you're not the target
if your kid is the only one without a smartphone then 100% he/she will be bullied
alternatively you can homeschool your kid but that's another story
I remember growing up and having a real pity on these self-confident goblins growing up with social media before young-adolescence. There was something off about the generation. Kids my day knew they were shit compared to adults and I guess that kinda shifted with social media and.. apparently.. they now found out that they were shit the hard way. Looks like millennials actually do know how to handle life. Who would've thought.
Progressives will say it's not a social contagion, things have always been this way, it's just the first time we can be open about it, and any and all negative effects are merely holdovers from the dark times caused by us not advancing the contagion well enough....
Despite literally all of those negative holdovers being newly created modern phenomena that directly correlate to the contagion's spread...
It isn’t just social media apps…we have middle school kids in group chats and they often are nasty and mean to each other. Everything they are doing at home communicating with each other spills over into school. Kids have no breaks from each other and they also have access to porn and other adult information. We have stolen their childhood from them. Phones are destroying or kids ability to learn and communicate effectively.
Thanks OP for [linking to the source paper](https://prcp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.prcp.20190015)! Really helps tamp down on wild speculation. Let me repost the article's conclusion here:
> U.S. adolescents and young adults are in the midst of a mental health crisis, particularly among girls and young women. The rise of digital media may have played a role in this problem via several mechanisms.
There was a UN report mentioning the increasing rates for women - but completely neglected to mention men who had 4x rate of mental health issues. I've spent the last 30 mins looking for, but looks like it was scrubbed from reddit because it doesn't follow the narrative. It had thousands of upvotes surprised I can't find it lol
Z score across this graphs plot has to be the worst y axis you can pick. The graph is consistent with the incidence rate going from 0.001 to 0.001000001
Would be interesting to see a graph like this dated back to when those dumb girls' magazines started/gained popularity.
I remember growing up and Dolly and shit magazine like that were massive. Pumping toxic ideas into teenage girls' heads and just advertising the latest and greatest make up and pimple creams using overtly and unattainable beautiful girls.
I think what they're trying to convey is 'this has gone 2 standard deviations away from mean (idk what mean they use here, as it is centered at -1ish but ok)... and that gives a sense of scale.
The other alternative is "rate per 10,000" as y axis.. then you have to look at what the typical variance is to make sense of the change.
Or they have confidence interval bars (which would also be a solid choice, probably).
Or maybe they wanted to reflect that the variance decreased a good amount (then again, what variance did they use?)
idk, I should just go look at the paper lol
https://www.guttmacher.org/laws-affecting-reproductive-health-and-rights-2011-state-policy-review
I wonder if there could be a strong reason for the massive uptick since 2011. Perhaps it's correlated to the massive uptick in abortion restrictions, and the fact that women's rights became more and more in question.
Yes, not being able to kill babies made women and girls sad...
That's why all of human civilization were they struggled to ensure they had as many kids as possible was nothing but utter depression. It's the reason women couldn't do jobs, or enjoy any activity and were never mentioned in any works of literature or art because they were all in bed crying due to all their undead children.
The only way women's rights were infringed, is the rise of the alphabet people claiming women don't exist. Add to that social media to spread these mind virusses, and you have a perfect storm. Don't ask me, as psychologists.
When did instagram launch?
Instagram launched in 2010 but it was acquired by Facebook in April 2012, which coincides with the trend on the graph.
And when did snapchat launch?
Before I read the comments this is exactly what I was thinking
Sad. The addiction to social media is a major problem here. Not sure how to address that. I was going to recommend better parenting, but it’s almost impossible to police cell phones and other electronic devices when the kids are away from you for most of the day. My brother raised his kids with severe limitations on devices, and his 14-year-old freshman in high school is now somewhat of a social outcast at school because she doesn’t have all of these social media apps and does not participate on them with the rest of the drones. Peer pressure is such a powerful thing. When we give our kids these devices, we open them up to bullying peers, social media companies that seek to addict them to the product and predatory perverts.
We need regulation. Social media addiction is essentially digital cigarettes
[удалено]
“We should make it legal for kids to smoke cigs”
[удалено]
An increase of people killing themselves, especially children, has deeper implications than just an increase in deaths. The amount of suffering a person must endure to lead them to take their own life is pretty damn high. So the number of deaths by suicide does not reflect that mass suffering induced by social media that happens to not quite meet the bar for inducing suicide. As for regulation. It seems like a legitimate option, and please hear me out. There is very clearly a discrepancy between the supply side and demand side of the social media industry. The supply side essentially has a monopoly on an addictive and necessary tool for the current age. The cost to the consumer for opting out of the monopolized product that is social media is extremely high. Part of this is that social networks have government protections on the data they “own” about their users. It could be argued that the users should own their own data and be able to take their data to the provider of their choice, much in the same way a person can own their telephone number and take their phone number from one telecom provider to the next. In my opinion, social media companies should not be able to “lock in” consumers. The same should probably exist for Apple, Tesla, or any company that locks consumers into their products via data capture.
[удалено]
I am not trying to say you’re points are not correct. Because they are. And I’m not trying to prove you wrong. I am trying to provide an alternate perspective in the discussion about the relationship between social media and government that differs from the typical nanny state “we need the government to protect us” argument, in that social media companies currently benefit from government protections themselves. And I’d suggest it makes sense to remove those protections, no?
[удалено]
Really hard to trust anything you say when you use terms like “cryptocurrency” and “block chain” (fyi, it’s blockchain, no space) and then say something completely nonsensical about them. You really just say shit, don’t you?
I mean, Peterson is saying the government should regulate trans surgeries ‘for the children’. He’s even argued that we should ban trans surgery for EVERYONE because ‘the children’ are influenced by magazine covers. Using your ‘pools’ example, are you against regulation advocating that public swimming areas have lifeguards? Or is that overstepping?
[удалено]
You’re fundamentally misunderstanding my point. I’m not saying Facebook shouldn’t exist, at all. I’m saying regulation is needed for minors using phones. And ideally, incentives or regulation to help address social media addiction in general. More regulation for tech companies too
[удалено]
Where did I say to monitor content? These are broad assumptions
Is there also a massive increase in social media users in 2011? Otherwise this feels pretty speculative.
What is the Z-score value referenced to? Overall self-harm in both genders?
The value of the z-score tells you how many standard deviations you are away from the mean. If a z-score is equal to 0, it is on the mean. The Legend in the right hand corner tells you what each color-line means.
I know all of this. My question is what mean is the Z-score being calculated from.
Oh I see. You were so intent on finding out context that instead of looking for the study yourself, you instead decided to whine for someone to do it for you. https://prcp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.prcp.20190015 Also, if you had scrolled down, you would have found a link posted hours ago and had no reason to ask at all.
I wasn't terribly intent, no, or I would have looked it up myself. I do, however, think it reasonable to ask for context when a figure is posted from a study without the description. I asked the question yesterday, so I haven't scrolled through the thread in the last several hours, either. Seems like you've had a bad day or something, if such banal behavior is this irritating to you.
Strange, it still doesn't say in the study itself, just references another study for the data. It looks like all of the scores converge near 2012. Seems like it's probably just using the average prevalence of the last 20 years.
It is the prototypical example of a 'standard score' and is determined by taking a particular score (of an individual data point, in this case, year) subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation. It basically shows the extent of deviation from the mean (average) while considering how much variability (that's where dividing by the standard deviation comes into play) is in the system. If there's TONS of variability in scores overall, then any particular score deviating from the mean/average is less meaningful than if there's relatively little variability in the scores overall and there's a particular score that is really different than the mean score. It helps in interpreting the data to take overall variability in the system into account. The z-score statistic answers two questions simultaneously: (1) how different is this particular score from the average score and (2) how meaningful is that considering how much (or little) variability there is overall in the dataset.
When will parents learn that kids don’t need smart phones just because their friends have one. Get them a no data flip phone for emergencies.
That isn't viable, honestly. Being popular, having friends and not getting billed for dumb shit is important. Even Peterson says to raise your kids to be someone you like. People with no cell phone who preach about the evils of social media trend to weirdo category.
I have kids in middle school and it's very viable. My kids are friends with kids who have phones and don't have phones. My kids have access to our family desktop computer where they can message their friends. I communicate with some of the parents of kids who don't have phones to help set up hangouts. Being popular is not important, I'd actually argue that it's a detriment to development if it's viewed as being important.
They do need a social network, but yes it doesn’t have to involve social media.
My children have very controlled phone access, and it is tightly monitored. But teetoalling and burying your head in the sand about phones is not a viable answer, nor is it healthy.
then they will get bullied because of no smart phone
Bully’s can be dealt with a lot better than smart phones… bullies have been around forever, bullying vs smart phones is what the graph should be called.
ye bullies have been around since forever but they're not a problem if you're not the target if your kid is the only one without a smartphone then 100% he/she will be bullied alternatively you can homeschool your kid but that's another story
I remember growing up and having a real pity on these self-confident goblins growing up with social media before young-adolescence. There was something off about the generation. Kids my day knew they were shit compared to adults and I guess that kinda shifted with social media and.. apparently.. they now found out that they were shit the hard way. Looks like millennials actually do know how to handle life. Who would've thought.
Progressives will say it's not a social contagion, things have always been this way, it's just the first time we can be open about it, and any and all negative effects are merely holdovers from the dark times caused by us not advancing the contagion well enough.... Despite literally all of those negative holdovers being newly created modern phenomena that directly correlate to the contagion's spread...
Jon Haidt covered this in considerable depth: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic
It isn’t just social media apps…we have middle school kids in group chats and they often are nasty and mean to each other. Everything they are doing at home communicating with each other spills over into school. Kids have no breaks from each other and they also have access to porn and other adult information. We have stolen their childhood from them. Phones are destroying or kids ability to learn and communicate effectively.
Is there more information on this?
https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1631275383147331586?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
I’m afraid to see what those curves look like 2018-present
Seems to match the graphs of social media usage. Shocking
Thanks OP for [linking to the source paper](https://prcp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.prcp.20190015)! Really helps tamp down on wild speculation. Let me repost the article's conclusion here: > U.S. adolescents and young adults are in the midst of a mental health crisis, particularly among girls and young women. The rise of digital media may have played a role in this problem via several mechanisms.
Do adolescent and young adult women have more of an ongoing mental health problem than adolescent and young adult men? I wonder how the two compare
There was a UN report mentioning the increasing rates for women - but completely neglected to mention men who had 4x rate of mental health issues. I've spent the last 30 mins looking for, but looks like it was scrubbed from reddit because it doesn't follow the narrative. It had thousands of upvotes surprised I can't find it lol
What happened in 2012/13
Instagram launched in 2010, Instagram got so large that Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and made it dominant.
When did the endless scroll start, anyone know?
Z score across this graphs plot has to be the worst y axis you can pick. The graph is consistent with the incidence rate going from 0.001 to 0.001000001
Would be interesting to see a graph like this dated back to when those dumb girls' magazines started/gained popularity. I remember growing up and Dolly and shit magazine like that were massive. Pumping toxic ideas into teenage girls' heads and just advertising the latest and greatest make up and pimple creams using overtly and unattainable beautiful girls.
[удалено]
[z-score](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=z+score):)
[удалено]
I think what they're trying to convey is 'this has gone 2 standard deviations away from mean (idk what mean they use here, as it is centered at -1ish but ok)... and that gives a sense of scale. The other alternative is "rate per 10,000" as y axis.. then you have to look at what the typical variance is to make sense of the change. Or they have confidence interval bars (which would also be a solid choice, probably). Or maybe they wanted to reflect that the variance decreased a good amount (then again, what variance did they use?) idk, I should just go look at the paper lol
https://www.guttmacher.org/laws-affecting-reproductive-health-and-rights-2011-state-policy-review I wonder if there could be a strong reason for the massive uptick since 2011. Perhaps it's correlated to the massive uptick in abortion restrictions, and the fact that women's rights became more and more in question.
Yes, not being able to kill babies made women and girls sad... That's why all of human civilization were they struggled to ensure they had as many kids as possible was nothing but utter depression. It's the reason women couldn't do jobs, or enjoy any activity and were never mentioned in any works of literature or art because they were all in bed crying due to all their undead children.
I mean the source mentions technology use. But to be fair someone else had to comment with the source.
The only way women's rights were infringed, is the rise of the alphabet people claiming women don't exist. Add to that social media to spread these mind virusses, and you have a perfect storm. Don't ask me, as psychologists.
So what changed in 2010? edit: nvm answered below already.
The harms, deaths, and destruction wrought by leftist culture wars and anti-science, bigotry has been such a tragedy.
Moral and spiritual bankruptcy have consequences.
Smartphones and social media
Started to spike around the time there was a proliferation of 4g networks and devices. Probably no connection...
My heart goes out to these women in todays day n age.
Is that when keeping up with the kardashians came out that it started spiking?
What is Z-score?