Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Studies Shoot Down Tech’s Harmful Effects on Kids – So Now What? (nautil.us)
119 points by mhalle 16 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 79 comments



I'm reminded of this South Park quote:

"Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but… well, son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored. And it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything."

An endless stream of Facebook or Twitch or YouTube probably won't do acute harm, but it fills a void that might have otherwise been filled with something more nurturing.

But... I have a cousin who spent an insane amount of time watching YouTube. She loves all the usual personalities. And one day something clicked in her and she wanted to do it too. She spent an incredible amount of her free time bashing her head against creative tools, learning how to animate and draw and make video.

She's 13 and can use illustrator and a Wacom and publish animations to YouTube. All self taught. I'm jealous. My parents had the best interests in mind but still did the, "get off the X and go play outside." My cousin has parental figures who noticed and nurtured her passion, even though it looked a whole lot like her YouTube addiction. Buying her a tablet and whatnot.

So like all important issues I'm left with "balance" being probably the safest approach.


I work with kids in tech (including “at-risk youth” with limited means), and their abilities these days are downright frightening.

When I was 11 I was riding a skateboard around until I got into coding and by 13 I had Hello World and an OpenGL triangle and felt so empowered.

Some of these kids though are pumping out small 3D games about whatever interests them with their own custom shaders and models. Part of that is access to information / better tools, but also I feel part of it is being tuned to absorb, find, and filter information through these mediums. If they are into something they will grasp it at astounding rates.

I haven’t come across any education system currently that outright targets exploring the interest space or doing a good job of offering to kids why they should be interested in something that isn’t immediately obviously very cool or fun or feeling attainable. And for a lot of them this is exactly what they need, if not all they need if there’s a lot of easy to absorb information online.


Don't feel too bad, part of it is the tools are better, you can make 3d animations now without having to do as much of it from scratch.


>It looks like grownups can disregard the fear-mongering about the ill effects of digital media on kids. A 2017 study in Child Development found “little or no support for harmful links between digital screen use and young people’s psychological well-being.”

Someone might come out of reading this article with the idea: "so, there's no harmful link between digital screen use and young people’s psychological well-being".

Whereas the full story is:

a) A random 2017 study said that.

b) We aren't shown the criticisms from other studies done later on this one (e.g. for its methodology, etc)

c) We aren't told that scientific papers have a huge reproducibility crisis

d) We aren't told that papers in soft-sciences like psychology have even worse crisis

e) We aren't told that what "well being" is fuzzy and depends on one's definition. The article implies that some PhDs doing a study can determine generally, and across cultures and worldviews, what "well being" is. Which would be very convenient, but hardly realistic -- instead they just take their culture's current biases for wellbeing as a universal default (or measure some trivial aspects of it, e.g. the kids don't end up having worse health stats).


> We aren't told that what "well being" is fuzzy and depends on one's definition.

Right. I strongly suspect there's a correlation (and in fact causation) between lots of video watching and lower reading level.

I don't know if there are low-level brain effects, but I think once a child realizes that one can watch a movie or read the same book, the easier and more visual option is going to look more attractive. Reading is fairly hard work at first...


As for low-level brain effects I'm reminded of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18385536

"Learning to Read in Your 30s Profoundly Transforms the Brain"


The reproducibility crisis is largely related to publication bias and the lack of low hanging fruit. That is to say, the only real effects left out there are small size effects that most studies do not have the power to measure anyways and often end publishing the few random Type 1 errors that occur. In fact, when there is a reproducibility issue and you don't suspect ethical issues, the issue is probably due to small effect size.

The real take away is that, even if there is an actual effect on well being, digital screen time's effect on well being is likely less than 1% of variation.

Which is a mostly meaningless effect.


It would be shared environment. Which we know basically doesn't matter: for any trait.

The shared environmental impact on behavioral and psychological traits is next to zero in every instance ever examined.


Tendentious language.

Who actually worries about children's "well-being" (in the short term) being impaired by too much iDevices?

I'm concerned about interference with learning and development needed to interact with actual people and the physical world. The kids themselves may not be particularly unhappy about losing those skills as long as mummy and daddy earn the money, serve the meals and drive them to daycare, but long term it's a major blow to their lives as independent individuals and the vitality of society, if the risk proves to realize itself to actual problems.

Weird stance to effectively advocate unfettered full-scale testing at high stakes just because the "has never been conclusive evidence that screens are a direct cause of harm".


Worth mentioning that their summary measure of well-being is more comprehensive than what's typically asked of adults and probably does correlate with learning and development:

"Data from 19,957 telephone interviews with parents of 2‐ to 5‐year‐olds assessed their children's digital screen use and psychological well‐being in terms of caregiver attachment, resilience, curiosity, and positive affect in the past month."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdev.13007

Still plenty to quibble with in the study though.


Thanks for posting. I looked at the methodology, which, as you point out, was solely caregiver questionnaires, and anyone who took from that methodology that "Studies shoot down tech's harmful effect on kids" is either an idiot or being willfully misleading.


You could just go to that site and experience the "infinite scrolling" to figure out that this is "information" meant for fools.


> I'm concerned about interference with learning and development needed to interact with actual people and the physical world.

Correlation is not causation.

You're taking it given that tech is a cause of that, but it may well be that other trends are driving kids to be indoors and separated from their peers (see various "mother gets arrested for letting child walk half a mile to a park" news stories), with tech merely filling the gap of lost activities.


I don't buy that. I know from my own experience that tech is addictive. Just like I know from experience that sugary foods are addictive (in the sense that absent of discipline, people would choose to consume more of them than is good for them).

And just like parents need to exercise some level of control over their childrens' diets, they should exercise control over their technology use.

At least in a UK context, "mother arrested for letting child walk to park" stories aren't realistic, but kids here still spend an awful lot of time using technology.


I turned to tech in my late teenage years when technology was available because my parents exercised control over everything else, but it's considered fine to complain about friends and classmates being rowdy and to avoid hanging out with them, creating introverted social-fobic wrecks.

Kids today who spend at least 20x the time with iDevices still end up socially successful. You base the argument on the actual use of devices being comparable to sugar consumption. Are you saying there is evidence supporting that? I thought the lack of that very evidence was the basis of the discussion.


Is there any proof that most parents dont control their kids usage of technology?


I was at the supermarket yesterday. There was a little boy (about 4) walking behind his dad. The boy was doing something on his dad's smartphone, holding it inches from his face. The boys father was walking at a normal rate and hadn't noticed his son had slowed to a crawl, completely immersed in the screen.

The father had completely disappeared from view before he realized his son was still on the other side of the store. Upon returning he complained to him, "I've been doing all sorts of silly tricks for you, and you aren't even there!" but didn't seem to make the connection with the phone, or take it away.

My best guess is that giving devices to toddlers is so popular for the same reason putting them in front of a TV is popular. It's the same sedative, in a more convenient form factor.


All I know is that me and any other parent I know are very aware of the problem and most I know set rules like max 1 hour a day.

>but long term it's a major blow to their lives as independent individuals and the vitality of society

Is the idea that only the kids being studied will be subject to this deficiency? I'm pretty sure it would be widespread, and that society itself would adapt.

I'm not arguing with "tendentious," though. These studies are invariably BS.


I wasn't stuck behind a computer screen and I still feel like I was far behind on interacting with people - computers didn't cause that, my personality did. Cause and effect. I WANTED to be stuck behind a computer, but my mum didn't let me when the weather was good. Probably for the best, but still.


"I'm concerned about interference with learning and development needed to interact with actual people and the physical world"

Books would cause the same withdrawal from actual people and the physical world, yet I haven't seen anybody warn of too much reading in quite a while.


People used to be very anxious about that sort of thing. Novels like Don Quixote and Madame Bovary were popular because people really did believe you could go crazy if you read too much fiction.


> Books would cause the same withdrawal from actual people and the physical world

No. "Also", but not "the same". And certainly not in the same way.

rimliu made a similar point earlier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19074971

In my opinion the analogy is basically valid, but it's not clear that they are comparable.


It doesn't seem fair to compare reading books to the worst possible things you can do on a screen device. And the argument made was about physical exercise and engagement with real people.

I think that's a problem of all those studies actually. After all, reading books is a subset of things you could do on a tablet device.

No question there are harmful apps and movies, optimized to increase addiction. Few people you should simply hand kids these devices and never check what they are doing.

And presumably, harmful books also do exist. It probably makes a difference what kind of books you read.


> I'm concerned about interference with learning and development needed to interact with actual people and the physical world.

But the fact is, we already have a generation of young adults more accustomed to conducting our lives via technology than face-to-face in the physical world. I greatly prefer conducting my business through user interface and electronic communication over use of the phone. Incidentally, my parents' generation preferred the phone to face-to-face interaction.

I don't think we really need to worry about real-world interaction skills being lost. Kids still go to physical school where they have face-to-face interaction. Maybe that will one day not overwhelmingly be the case, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.


The same concerns should apply to books then. I've spent almost all my free time as kid and teen reading. But I admit, reading in general was way less popular compared to smart devices now.


Fair objection and, I think, true to some extent.

But first off, most people didn't do that sort of reading (if ever) until they were a couple of years into school, because of the reading skill threshold, and second, the books tend to hook you only to the extent that they offer a compelling story, and generally run out pretty soon, with some reservations about re-readability.

Contrast that with things like the parents at a New Year's party I attended recently, giving their two-year-old daughter a touchscreen phone to keep her pacified, and she sits mesmerized poking stupid bright colors and sparkles, not making eye contact, ignoring grown-ups when they did talk to her, except when pressed about being offered ice-cream, which she declined.

Ponder that. Poking brightly colored sparklies is higher priority to that kid than even taking a break a few minutes for ice cream.

I think you did pay with other opportunities for your reading, but I suspect it also gave you a lot that you would be willing to pay that for over again if you were asked to consciously make the choice. There are real trade-offs involved.

But anecdotally from what I see, the books were introduced at a less sensitive stage, hooked into better motivational systems in more benign way, and gave more back for the time spent. Time on the sparkly poking slabs can also be paid with time that would normally be used to tune the fundamentals of how it works to be a functioning human being, and for a great many uses it's not clear to me that it gives all that much back at all beyond cheap thrills in the moment, whether it's some slot-machine-like like matching game, restyling your selfie with a cartoon dog nose, fall-on-your-ass-videos or Facebook.

The quantitative differences are so big that they are qualitative differences, and some caution is in order.


>I'm concerned about interference with learning and development needed to interact with actual people and the physical world.

maybe the physical world is overrated


Yeah, it's only the reality we live in... Who cares for that when there's escapism...


Maybe someday that will be true, perhaps if/when we crack human uploading, but right now meatspace is where your hardware lives and (for the large majority of people) where you need to work to support that hardware, and that's not likely to change before today's kids become adults.


"Well being." This is tobacco industry grade nonsense.

haha Try looking at language acquisition or physical development and screen time. Many studies linked here:

https://theswaddle.com/effects-of-screen-time-on-children/


Exactly. The methodology of the study solely involved telephone interviews to caregivers about screen time (which itself is likely to be inaccurate) and questions related to children's "well being" (also likely to be inaccurate). At no point was screen time actually measured, nor children's well-being independently assessed. The whole study is bunk.


I don't find those much more convincing. Mostly they say the negative effect comes from missing out on physical activity (in older children).

For babies, I am not sure what to think. Who watches 1 hour of movies with their baby? Were they really able to disentangle that from all other factors (socioeconomic status and so on)?


I think that like everything, there's a balance to be struck. I want my kid to develop skills of interacting with the physical world and with physical people. But I also want her prepared to enter a world of technology with full fluency. And there are a lot of things that are actually well learned via screen media. I think about how valuable video games were to my development and how little enthusiasm my parents had for my interest in them.

For the past several generations, each generation has encountered entirely new forms of media and technology that revolutionize social and economic processes. Each preceding generation confronts that change with full-scale freak out. Everything in moderation. It'll all probably be okay.


> I want my kid to develop skills of interacting with the physical world and with physical people.

I came across a fascinating BBC article on treating ADHD with music [0]

> "The ability to time, to synchronise with others underlies all face to face communication," says Khalil. "People imagine that synchronizing is doing something simultaneously. But synchronizing actually means processing time together - perceiving time together in such a way that we have this common understanding of how time is passing."

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21661689


I have questions about this article.

The stated issues the article lists ("well being") is not the primary concern that most people I have discussed this with - or at least, does not appear to be on the surface.

The fear is long term effects of sustained screen time for long periods that supplant all other forms of play may essentially stunt some forms of social or physical development and at a later age have significant negative effects on their ability to cope and/or function in terms of social ability, attention span etc.

Well-being is not clearly enough defined for me to take a proper conclusion out of this article, and the studies I clicked through to (albeit, quickly) I could not access.

Also, to make a sweeping conclusion about "Tech's harmful effects on kids" from that measurement seems as foolhardy as thinking that technology is also extremely damaging to children - it's just one measurement, and does not apply to a whole range of other potential issues.

Not a fan of this title. The article itself appears to mostly be arguing that screens are a useful tool for children to utilise and are not damaging as such compared with other methods of play, which is a fair argument, but the title and the common complaints don't marry up.


I don't need a scientific study to tell me that focusing purely on your own self interests for extended periods of time (doesn't matter the activity) is _not_ conducive to either long term happiness or a successful life in multiple measures.

Any study that says being selfish as a way of life is not "harmful" is flawed in the most fundamental manner.


> Any study that says being selfish as a way of life is not "harmful" is flawed in the most fundamental manner.

Ironically, you just disregarded other opinions to focus purely on your own interests


My "own interests" are to be a good example to my kids, so they themselves don't become selfish people. There's a dichotomy here, self interest working side by side with interests for others. You simply cannot help others if you don't do what is right for yourself.

The trick is to find the things that are right for both/multiple parties, not _only_ yourself. There's possibly no such things a pure selflessness. Even an act of giving provides a benefit to the giver, even if it's only an emotional one.

And, I am allowed to disregard everyone else's opinions, it's a fundamental right of every living being.

More importantly, if we only rely (or somehow over value) science instead of common sense, then all it takes is another counter argument from "science" to change our minds. This is being blown around by the wind instead of thinking for yourself.


So parents have to make a crucial decision vis-a-vis the environment and the brain development of their children?

Good luck making your decision giving too much weight to recent studies, which will probably be validated 20 years from now; if.

Children growing up without screen time have stood the test of time (think robustness); I’m not so certain the ones growing up with iPads will.


Anecdotally, but I'm already seeing it in high school age kids. These kids haven't really grown up without access to a smartphone, and you can tell the difference in how they interact with each other. There's a lot less social talking, and they don't understand emotions or empathy very well at all. And heaven forbid you try to get them to put down the damn phone and take notes or do something.

"Why do I need to learn this when photomath does it for me?" was often heard, or they'd just Google the answers because they're there. They work a lot less hard to try to get stuff, and it hurts their discipline and focus, for sure. And I'm going to stop my rant there, because I could continue on with it forever.


I think I’ve heard it in an interview with the physician Gabor Maté, that the prefontal cortex is responsible – among other things – for empathy, and he was making the case that in the modern age, the conditions for the proper development of the prefrontal cortex are not sufficiently met, because kids nowadays are exposed too much to social media and too little to physical interactions with other kids and other adults. Thus, the newer generations will most likely be deficient in the empathy department; and empathy is very important as it allows one to see things from another person's perspective and understand other people's emotions, which is crucial for effective communication.


This is also the kind of skills that helps again social conflicts and things like wars. This is worrying indeed.


apropos of nothing, I had not heard of photomath until your comment. I’m 40 and it’s like…magic. I understand how it all works, I even write image processing models...but it’s like having a magic wand that turns your A-Level questions into answers. Astounding. I can see why it’s a problem…


Isn't this just the latest - "Think of the children!" We've had Reefer madness, Elvis' hips, satanic rock and roll played backwards, video-nasties, murder-simulator computer games - and all the rest of it. Every set of parents seems to look at what their children seem to mysteriously like - and determine it's harmful (accompanied by mixed scientific evidence).

By no means am I simply saying that this means that there can't be an issue with screen-time - Simply that older generations have a long and ignoble history of "this type of stuff".


It feels like the word moderation doesn't exist anymore or has lost all meaning to people. Moderating kids is harder though, especially when other parents don't do so and thus that 'extreme' behavior becomes the norm or the standard for peers to live up to.


Or to look at it another way. I can't think of an example where we've greeted change with open arms. I presume somewhere back in history there's a parent monitoring their childs harpsichord time, or telling them to stop drawing on the cave walls and get out there to kill a real mammoth.


That's actually hilarious! Too much cave wall time


Kids these days, with their fire don't know how good they have it.

In my day, if it was cold, and it was always cold, you just beat something warm to death with your bare hands and ate your way inside. Built character.


even going way back people worried about kids reading to many "trashy" novels - of course those novels are now part of the englit cannon


Yep - fiction wasn't what books were for. Books were for men to exchange serious knowledge. Start of the 19th century we had Austen knocking out chick lit, Shelley on a Euro-bender knocking out horror, then Dickens serialized gubbins selling pamphlets on the street etc etc


Kids can't resist addiction as well as adults. Screens are easily the thing that get the most compulsive reactions from my 4yo. My feeling is that too much video stimulates him enough that he will end up repeating phrases and songs rather than invent stories and playact. Not sure how any of this would show up in a survey like the one in the article, but I'm pretty convinced that our daily quota of one hour of screen time is a good idea.


Mine is 3 and we do zero screen time. Once every few months I watch something with him and he gets obsessive when it's over. we read books, he knows the stories, he memorizes lots and lots of songs and speaks 3 languages daily. iPad turns him into a whiney addict right away.


Well, can't argue with "studies," folks. Wrap it up and proceed with the ipad babies.


I can't agree with the primary message that gives tech a pass as virtually harmless towards kids' development.

I've yet to see anything that is used in excess that is harmless. The use of tech these days reminds me of television watching in the past. It has been impossible to determine TV's impact on society but it has had an impact but we can't tell if it's been good or bad.

I also think that one study can't possibly test the whole impact of tech on kids' development.

A generation from now there will be an impact but we won't know whether it's been good or bad. What I do know is that there is an opportunity cost by tech on a whole generation. Time that could have been used on other activities but yet it would have been used on apps.

I think it's up to parents to make sure their kids use their time effectively and it's not lost in front of a useless app.


The definition of "in excess" is that it's harmful, so you're kind of begging the question here.

Why must there be a problem with screen use? Why can't you live in a world where screen use is neutral?


When talking about such things, we should always remember how resistant some people were to new technologies (like electricity, the bicycle, mass schooling, the radio, the TV, the walkman, mainframes, gaming PCs, chatrooms etc). Most of those fears turned out to be overexaggerated. My favrite is the fear that hearing one sound pattern (multiple times, for example one song played from tape, instead of a live performance, will somehow make us go crazy.


Just like any tech, business as usual. Like we stopped using coal derived products when the damage gets out of control. Or when we stopped massive animal husbandry when we realized it's a huge black swan of killer germs? We try to regulate the nth order effects, fix holes while new ones pop out.

No one has a scientific approach to allowing new inventions anywhere. So many chemicals being used everywhere until sometime in the future the damage is known and visible.


If there are doing useful and constructive things with tech some of the time it's good. I used to play 50% video games, 50% programming and I turned out good enough IMO.


I mysteriously never got the computer I wanted for Christmas for years. Only eventually turned up when I'd saved up pocket money for over a year to contribute half the cost. Turned out my grandmother "didn't like them" (not that she'd ever used one) - and she'd been a teacher. I think I turned out 'OK'


Try another study until you get the result you want?


Better: Say what you're going to say regardless and cite to these studies, knowing that people will agree with what you're saying because Kids These Days and That Newfangled Technology are both evil by definition, so they won't bother to read the studies, and/or will read the studies such that they agree with you.


Are there any web sites that summarize studies by topic like this? It does seem like anyone can cite a study to prove anything but there is no layman equivalent of the meta study. Even better if the studies were weighted by things like sample size and reproducability.


This topic is a very good example of the risks inherent in trying to do science by consensus. The study [1] this article references had a huge sample size (19,957) and is also probably very replicable. It's also complete trash. The methodology was to call and survey parents of 2-5 year olds asking questions such as on a (1/never to 5/always) 'How would you rate your child's interest and curiosity in learning new things' or 'How would your child's laughing and smiling tendencies'?

They then proceed to massage the data in a bunch of different ways, in no small part because they acknowledge that their variables ended up providing no decent mapping of reliability - in the study's words, "these variables were not combined into a composite well‐being measure because the reliability of these items was relatively low." And after this massaging and subjective "normalizing" they conclude that TV and video games are just awesome for 2-5 year olds.

Ultimately on complex topics that cannot be objectively and meaningfully tested you can generally prove whatever you want to prove. To actually have something vaguely resembling meaning here you'd need to take a random sampling of children and then require that one group provide no access to digitech, another provide 1-2 hours of digitech, and the final group 5+ hours or whatever. Do this for years and then compare the children using objective measurements determined by a blind third party or examination. The random factor there is also required. If you just survey households that chose to allow their children e.g. 0 or 5+ hours of digitech per day, then you're going to get some severe environmental and perhaps genetic confounding variables in your results. In any case no study like this is ever going to happen in modern times.

And granted even that sort of study would have a million possible flaws, but studies such as the one this article are just jokes. And they are very much the rule rather than the exception. We tend to attribute quality to something with a doctorate or two behind it, but publish or perish alongside let's say 'motivated' research is increasingly distorting science.

[1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdev.13007


> This topic is a very good example of the risks inherent in trying to do science by consensus.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about doing science but communicating it. Even just cataloging the various studies and assigning some sort of label for reliability like you just did would be valuable.

As you acknowledge, there is an awful lot of noise, but as a layman I have no way of separating the signal from the noise.


Of course, but what you're requesting is science. It's a meta-analysis. A work that studies other studies and tries to provide aggregate data while controlling for whatever the meta-analysis creators determine to be relevant. What I was pointing out here is how studies like this would generally be considered high-reliability studies for these meta-analyses. It ticks all the right boxes, probably by design. Yet at the same time when you look at it, it's something I think few would find worthy of basing their decisions on.

But qualifying exactly which studies you should, or should not, give weight to is a task that's ultimately going to also involve substantial bias. If I want to argue that digitech is good for kids, I'm going to be able to create very reasonable sounding criteria that would include studies such as this. If I want to argue that digitech is bad for kids, I'm still going to be able to create very reasonable sounding criteria yet one that would exclude studies such as this. The same problem inherent in the individual studies also ends up emerging in the meta-analyses as well.

Aggregating data in some ways takes you even further away from the truth. Here you can reasonably show that this study is not so great, yet imagine this was part of hundreds of different studies all packed together with a sample size aggregate of hundreds of thousands. It may very well be that that meta-analysis was also loaded with dubious work, such as this, yet it becomes vastly more tedious to illustrate such. And as the rate of publication continues to exponentially increase, then going forward into the future we will eventually be faced with things such as meta-analyses of meta-analyses. Meta-meta-analysis I suppose?


Not really. Systematic meta-analyses take an enormous amount of effort and aren't particularly exciting, so they're difficult to fund. Lay people are not the primary audience, so there's little incentive to translate the findings into plain English. The Cochrane Collaboration produce meta-analyses and plain-language summaries for important clinical topics, but there's no equivalent for social science.

https://www.cochrane.org/evidence


Smartphone and web apps tend to exploit our habit mechanisms in order to retain users. I severely doubt that forming time consuming non-productive habits early on is beneficial for children, or that they're somehow protected from the effects of reward loops.


"Well being", sure, but how about their cardiac well-being and muscular well-being?


People are idealistic about their children. The studies consistently show that passive screen time is bad and active screentime can be good or neutral. It applies for anyone past the age of five where it becomes a net benefit to have active screen time.


It also depends on what the screen content happens to be... I'd be sure running Horror flicks or Bold and the Beautiful all day for the kids won't give the same outcomes as Sesame Street and Playschool. It's also what are kids missing out on by sitting in the isolated screen environment, not that they feel ok doing so...

The point is always simplified for some broad guidance rule while ignoring the required complexity to properly understand and advice on a 'problem.'

That and people lie/embellish when interviewed on the phone, so that would have a huge margin of error.


I dunno.. kids raised on the bold and the beautiful would probably have a wide range of interpersonal skills. They may be narcissists and not nice to their neighbors but I'd bet they'd climb the corporate ladder.


Let's see if this validates. It's a first salvo against the Haidt et al hypothesis


Haven't been following Haidt on this topic. What's the hypothesis?


This study is sponsored by who?


There is a strong correlation between the increased usage of social media by young people and an increase in suicide rate, that being said the US went through an economic depression at the same time so maybe it has more to do with young peoples guardians economic stability.


While that is somewhat true, it's far more complex than that correlation. We must understand why social media is a negative environment and not just state that it is bad as an idea.

Advertising, influencing, addiction, social breakdowns, attachments, medications, wealth, etc, all play a role in what creates a negative environment for young people on the internet.



if you're the nyt, you ignore this information as hard as possible




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: