> It's not one society, it's every society in which smartphones and social media are available. It's simply implausible to suggest that every society on Earth nearly simultaneously became more anxiogenic for no common reason. The common reason very clearly seems to be social media.

It does not make sense: social media, and even more smartphones, can be used in a lot of different ways, and is strongly linked to social behavior of the community you live in. If you are arguing that different societies will not become more anxiogenic at the same time, you cannot also argue that usage of the smartphone, due to a magical reason, turn out to be toxic exactly the same way at the same time for different societies.

What you are saying is both that it is very improbable that every society reacts in the same way when it comes to reaction to globalisation (which, by definition, is affecting the majority of society), but that it is very probable that every society reacts exactly in the same way when it comes to use social media AND ALSO happen to react exactly the same way when adopting smartphones.

I would argue that the first one is way more plausible: globalisation has a stronger chance to affect societies in a similar way than just smartphones, because for globalisation there is an explanation of why they react the same way (a stressful situation is a stressful situation, it does not matter if you are Chinese or Argentinian), while there are no explanation of why all over the world, people started to use the smartphone in a toxic way at the same time, especially if you are pretending that these societies are separated.

> but he's focusing specifically on the Anglosphere in this article. He literally links to all of the prior work discussing the trends and possible explanations,

But that's my point: he is switching to what is more convenient for his conclusion. The elements found in the "focus specifically on the Anglosphere" are NOT the same scale and the same details as in the other society. He just cherry-picks: "this aspect is different, which prove I'm right because US is different than other society, but this aspect is the same, which prove I'm right because these other societies also have smartphones".

> so like I said, I suggest reading them before claiming the situation is murky.

It's interesting that you are saying I haven't read them.

> And he's reviewed those as well: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/why-some-researchers-th...

Yes, I know this article, and it is very disappointing, a lot of his counter-argument either don't understand the initial criticism, or use arguments that apply to his own work (for example, the whole "in social science, we cannot prove causation, so if I say A -> B it's ok, but if you, you say B -> A, then magically it's not ok")

> he jury is not as far out as you think, only a few jurors are holding out but the direction of the verdict is quite clear now.

Are you sure you are not seeing just the Haidt bubble? I may myself see the situation through a bubble, but what I see is people who are working in Haidt's field and are saying that his theses are not taken that seriously inside this field. How do you know the "verdict is quite clear"? What does it mean for the long list of experts disagreeing (list long enough that Haidt needed to address them, something that would not happen if "the verdict is quite clear"), do you accuse them of being dishonest or biased? Why is it fine when you are accusing these experts of such dishonesty and not when others suspect that Haidt was honest but not careful enough?

> If you are arguing that different societies will not become more anxiogenic at the same time, you cannot also argue that usage of the smartphone, due to a magical reason, turn out to be toxic exactly the same way at the same time for different societies.

Different societies will not undergo simultaneous changes without a reason.

Social media is a reason. Social media is algorithmically designed to drive engagement, often via negative emotions, to gather information about people. It is a great homogenizer, a systematic, unidirectional global pressure, which explains why different societies have undergone similar changes simultaneously with the advent of social media. Furthermore, it's well established by now that second order effects of social media and phone use is the disruption of sleep patterns, and sleep is particularly important to teens undergoing puberty. Haidt has pointed out all of this.

Now contrast to your suggestion: globalization, which has been going on for 50 years, suddenly led to mental health issues only 10 years ago for no discernable reason we can see, but not among people actually in the workforce and experiencing its direct effects, but in people who have never had a job, have very little understanding of foreign policy tariffs and trade, and it didn't affect disparate societies proportionally to the extent that they adopted globalization policies, but it affected them all about the same.

I honestly can't take you seriously if you think nebulous, indirect third order effects of globalization are more plausible than direct first and second order effects from a device kids have in their hands for 16 hours a day.

> But that's my point: he is switching to what is more convenient for his conclusion. The elements found in the "focus specifically on the Anglosphere" are NOT the same scale and the same details as in the other society.

No, that's not what he said or why he's focusing on it. The data is basically the same across other nations, and he's focusing on that specific subset because that's what he's consistently covered in his other articles. If you had read the other ones, as you claim, then you know he had other researchers gathering the same data from other nations across the globe which all showed the same trends, and they've been writing their own articles on those.

> Social media is a reason.

Exactly. Social media is accessible through smartphones, laptop, any connected device.

If the reason is social media, then talking about smartphones in itself is really a mistake: they would not have existed, the same phenomenon would have happened too.

> globalization, which has been going on for 50 years, suddenly led to mental health issues only 10 years ago for no discernable reason we can see

Globalization is not something "that has been going on for 50 years", it is something that is always evolving and that have different impact in time.

Globalization in the 2010 was VERY DIFFERENT from globalization in the 1990. For example, in the 90's, more conservative / pro-market political parties was presenting it as a good thing. In the 2010, globalization suddenly started to be this "thing that no one really want to happen but is happening anyway", even by the pro-market people. It changed way people see themselves, they start to feel powerless. It affects parents and therefore children, it affects social media, it affects popular cultures, movies, ... In the 2010, there was a real change in mentality, globally, about the fact that the globalization may drive us towards the wall.

(even South Park went from "climate change is overstated" to "man-bear-pig is real, but what can we do anyway", which shows in a particular US example how the media mentality shifted from "we are in control and everything is fine" to "in fact, we are powerless". And even in SP, the man-bear-pig example is just one example, there are others where "unfair ending" becoming more and more prevalent)

Also, social media existed since ages too, before the crisis you talk about, and yet, you mention it in your equation.

> if you think nebulous, indirect third order effects of globalization are more plausible than direct first and second order effects from a device kids have in their hands for 16 hours a day.

And I cannot take you seriously if you are thinking that complex social phenomenon is as simple as adding or removing a technological gadget. In fact, you say it yourself that the tool itself is not the reason, you are talking about social media.

> If you had read the other ones, as you claim, then you know he had other researchers gathering the same data from other nations across the globe which all showed the same trends, and they've been writing their own articles on those.

I have read them, and I have also read other articles showing how those trends in these articles have been cherry-picked. I think the difference between you and me is that you've read only Haidt, so obviously, when Haidt says "it's funny, people in US speak english as a first language, but this trend also exist all over the world, let's take some random countries: england, australia, india, south africa", it sounds logical and true.

(ps: I'm not saying Haidt is lying, I'd rather think he thought of an attractive theory and then started seeing the things that confirm it and started finding excuse to conclude that the things that does not confirm it should be considered as irrelevant)

> Exactly. Social media is accessible through smartphones, laptop, any connected device. If the reason is social media, then talking about smartphones in itself is really a mistake: they would not have existed, the same phenomenon would have happened too.

No, those other devices are not attached to your hip every waking moment, they don't interrupt your regular thought patterns and daily activities, they don't track your movements through physical space and people you physically associate with, and people mostly don't take them to bed and use them before sleep and first thing after they wake up.

> In the 2010, globalization suddenly started to be this "thing that no one really want to happen but is happening anyway", even by the pro-market people. It changed way people see themselves, they start to feel powerless. It affects parents and therefore children, it affects social media, it affects popular cultures, movies, ... In the 2010, there was a real change in mentality, globally, about the fact that the globalization may drive us towards the wall.

1. Prove the existence of this global shift in attitude against globalization.

2. Again, the trends are among teens and pre-teens. Prove that this cohort knew or even cared about these issues. There is no trend of parental well being decreasing, therefore your claim that this would not apparently affect parents but would somehow affect children is bordering on the absurd.

> Also, social media existed since ages too, before the crisis you talk about, and yet, you mention it in your equation.

Not the algorithmically curated feeds optimized to drive engagement. Not phones with self-facing cameras.

> And I cannot take you seriously if you are thinking that complex social phenomenon is as simple as adding or removing a technological gadget.

Printing press. Nuclear weapons. Refrigeration. Aviation. The computer. All technological gadgets that had dramatic social effects.

> I have read them, and I have also read other articles showing how those trends in these articles have been cherry-picked.

Not "showed", "claimed", and poorly at that. They're wrong. Everyone who has ever quit social media for any extended period has reported improvements in well being. Those are direct interventions that test the dose-response hypothesis.

> No, those other devices are not attached to your hip every waking moment, they don't interrupt your regular thought patterns and daily activities, they don't track your movements through physical space and people you physically associate with, and people mostly don't take them to bed and use them before sleep and first thing after they wake up.

And yet, there are plenty of people who have smartphone and don't use them in the way you describe it. So my question is: how do you explain that, according to you, all over the world, people ended up reacting to smartphones in a way that is similar, but, according to you, it is unrealistic to say that maybe, all over the world, people ended up reacting in the same way faced with other recent worldwide changes?

That's my point: smartphones is used the same way around the world shows that people around the world adopt similar behavior in similar circumstance, which is a counter-argument to your idea that it is not possible.

> 1. Prove the existence of this global shift in attitude against globalization.

It is not to me to prove it. You are saying "the _only_ change is the smartphone", and I'm saying "are you sure? from what I see, I really feel like there are others, for example X or Y. Sure, maybe I'm wrong, but you are the only claiming there is only one, so, surely, you have number demonstrating X and Y is not a change", and you answer "I have no proof that X or Y was not a change, but I have decided they are not"

> . Again, the trends are among teens and pre-teens. Prove that this cohort knew or even cared about these issues. There is no trend of parental well being decreasing, therefore your claim that this would not apparently affect parents but would somehow affect children is bordering on the absurd.

Well, if these teens and pre-teens watch TV, or even watch TikTok videos made by young adults, then, yes, they are directly feed by the tone that people directly concerned by these problems (unless you pretend that TV is made by pre-teens).

Honestly, you seems to have a very naive and simplistic vision of sociology. Sociology is hard, social interaction and influence between groups are very very very very complicated. It's very ridiculous to pretend that pre-teens are not influenced by adults: the majority of the content they are feed is directly from adults and the rest is from teens trying to imitate adults.

> Not the algorithmically curated feeds optimized to drive engagement. Not phones with self-facing cameras.

And globalization existed for ages, but not with the algorithmically optimised information exchange, not with the mass tracking and recording of human resources.

If you pretend that this argument for the change of context for social media is enough to induce the change, then change of context for globalization is also enough.

> All technological gadgets that had dramatic social effects.

Where did I say the opposite? I've said "is as simple as ....". They had dramatic social effects, but they were not simple. The impact of printing press, for example, was strongly modulated by the pre-existing graphs. For example, European press had a big impact because they printed a best seller: the Bible, with roman characters that made the pages look as good as hand-written. In Muslim countries, the printing press boom was strongly affected by the fact that, by chance, arabic script is way more tricky to decompose in movable type. The result was that they did not print religious text because it would have been ungodly to diffuse it with simplified characters. The printing press dramatic social effects was not the results of a technological gadget, it was the results of social interactions and circumstances. In a parallel universe where all graphs were as complex as arabic script, you would have introduced the printing press and this "dramatic effect" would not have happened. So, no, simply introducing a technological gadget like the "printing press" is not enough to have a dramatic social effect.

No, whatever you are saying, depression did not just pop out just because we gave piece of plastic and metal to teenage girl. There were a lot of social interaction and social trend involved too. As long as you have a naive and simplistic grip on those, all your conclusions on "how to solve it" are based on "proverbial wisdom" (which is fine), not on "science".

And as I've said before, I'm myself 100% for banning smartphone in school, I think it will be very good for mental health. Yet, it is dangerous to reducing this complex problem to one easy and comfortable enemy.

> Not "showed", "claimed", and poorly at that. They're wrong. Everyone who has ever quit social media for any extended period has reported improvements in well being. Those are direct interventions that test the dose-response hypothesis.

It's hilarious that you say "they are wrong" and then say "everyone who has ever quit social media has reported improvements" as you stupidly think experts who questioned Haidt logic don't agree with that.

> Those are direct interventions that test the dose-response hypothesis.

Well, you should go to the end of your experiment then: if the smartphones are the problem, it means that someone who has quit social media but still kept a smartphone should not have reported improvements in well being. Is it the case?

On top of that, how do you count the number of people who don't go out of social media and are not unhappy. Or the one that are more happy with social media. This is a typical survival bias: of course people who feel better after quitting will say it out loud. People who don't feel better or even feel worse don't come to you to say "yeah,you know what, I stop social media and it did not change anything". And what about the fact that people quitting social media decide also to "not care anymore" which means they are less affected by non-social-media stress? All you see is that some people are stressed when on social media, which is a consensus that nobody denies.

All you are saying is that you are unable to fathom that 1) smartphones cannot be used differently than in a toxic way, 2) social media can only be used by smartphones

>> showing how those trends in these articles have been cherry-picked > They're wrong.

I don't understand that. What these experts are showing is from the articles that Haidt used, they are parts that Haidt "forgot" to mention.

How can they be wrong? How is that possible to show some paragraphs showing that the article was way more nuanced as Haidt is saying it is? Either they are wrong and those paragraphs don't exist, either they are legitimate.

But you don't care about the reality, don't you? You decided that these authors are wrong, you don't even need to read their articles to know it's the case. I personally don't care if Haidt is wrong or not, I don't understand why people like you are so invested. It is not difficult: blaming all on smartphones is just not scientific. It does not mean we should not ban the smartphones. But it means that all blaming on smartphones is dangerous and will have bad consequences (mainly because we are not going to fix the problem, just hide it and pretend it's fine while it's not).