I'm on a spring break mini-getaway with my family so I'm aiming to be as off the grid as possible, but I wanted to quickly jump online to let those of you who commented know how much I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I genuinely appreciate such intelligent and civil discourse on an important topic! I look forward to saying more when I get "back to work" in a few days. Thanks to all for reading and critically thinking!
I'm back after a lovely few days doing my best to be phone-free and away from social media for our family's spring break in an adorable Michigan beach town (not quite beach weather, but still nice to leave the city). Thanks to each of you who took the time to craft your thoughts about Haidt's new book. I wanted to jump in with my response.
I think Jen Z is correct that there's probably a fair amount of overlap between Haidt's and my views, and I could have presented it more "both/and" than "either/or." I also completely agree with Lauren F that tech and social media companies need regulation and accountability and can't be playing with fire with our kids' mental health while they make billions. I do agree we need a combination of individual and collective action to create a safer and healthier digital world for all of us.
Where my concern lies, which Haidt's work is only one example of, is how he overstates the empirical evidence of what is causing which harm. I have only been able to read his Atlantic article he wrote about the book and not his book yet, but it's the way he presents the data in a way that leans heavily into fear that I challenge. I follow and read other parenting experts who take on the same concerns in more balanced ways, scrutinizing the data and finding positives as well as risks in our young people's use of cell phones and social media. Melinda Wenner Moyer has an excellent chapter in her book, How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes that helped me personally breathe a sigh of relief. Devorah Heitner also analyzes the data with more nuance in her book, Screenwise.
My argument more generally is I think we will parent more effectively when we can take a balanced and more nuanced perspective that isn't so driven by fear. We need to be alert and cautious about cell phones and social media, and take measures to make positive changes, but I take issue with Haidt's framing of the problem as going beyond what we can truly take from the science (again, based on how others more expert than I in this area have read the science). And hey -- he's about a million times more successful than I am so who am I to say anyways? But that's the great part about places like Substack -- writers like me can throw our thoughts into the ring, too.
Thanks for reading and for all of your thoughts! Any ideas for what you want me to take on in the next newsletter?
I would be interested to read more about why you reject the conclusions of those studies (if you do), or whether you feel he is mis-interpreting their results etc.
Thank you for all of the work you do - I am a new parent and your content has been enormously helpful in thinking about how we want to raise our kids!
Thanks so much Matt! Unfortunately, Haidt tends to leave out the data that doesn't support his claims, which is one of my frustrations with him as a social scientist.
This book review in Nature sums it up well: "Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers1.
These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message2–5. An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally6. Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use7. Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence.
I am struggling with the response a bit. The original critique was that Haidt relies on correlational studies, not causational. This now seems to move the goal posts a bit, making a different point, which is that he leaves out data that don't support his claims.
But the Nature critique doesn't substantiate that. Haidt references the Odgers, Hancock, Vuorre, etc. studies in their open-source literature review. From what I can tell there are four+ studies in their review that use the ABCD data. Where Haidt and team disagree with the conclusions of those studies, they lay out why, but they don't seem to leave any of them out (and to the contrary, seem to actively be inviting other researchers to share studies that should be included but aren't).
There seem to be some really interesting disagreements on what these studies show. I would love to hear more in future posts about which of those you think support conclusions that are different from Haidt's, and what, specifically, his analysis is getting wrong.
I actually think there’s a lot of potential overlap between what you say here and Haidt’s view. For instance, you say, “We should view our children and teens using their phones and other online platforms as learning opportunities (with parameters) for becoming responsible, ethical, productive digital citizens.” I think Haidt would agree with this. But the big question is What are those parameters? And also, Who can (and who should) put them in place?
Talking with our kids about the risks of digital devices and social media, paying attention to how they’re doing, teaching our kids self-regulation skills, figuring out the best conditions for digital devices and social media for our own families’ situations and needs are all necessary. But they’re also compatible with the benefits of collective action to help reduce the burden on parents and the risks to kids. The more complicated things get, the harder it is for individual parents to figure out what to do and how to do it. And there are some things that individual parents can’t control and that can really only be done at the organizational or collective level (school policies, social norms, government regulations for social media companies, etc.).
If kids need scaffolding in their learning environments to help build their competence (because their skills aren’t fully developed), then what does that scaffolding look like in the digital world? I think there’s a lot of room here for both/and when it comes to individual and collective action. Parents and kids (and society) need all the help we can get!
I do have to push back as relates to Haidt's work. I haven't read The Anxious Generation yet (and I would really hope you read the book before passing judgment), but after reading many of his Substack articles at After Babel, his arguments make complete sense to me. He may come across as more black and white than I personally ascribe to, but I agree with the general thrust. Yes, our children grow up in a technological age but that doesn't mean we have to throw up our hands with, "Well, this is just the way it is now."
Having a husband in the tech world & doing some research on the origins of social media has also greatly influenced me. Haidt isn't just using fear tactics-- these are quantifiable facts that SHOULD scare us. Tech companies and the founders of social media need to be held accountable for how they've designed their products to hijack the brain for profit, at the cost of many adolescents' mental health as well as lives. And that will only happen if we stop burying our heads in the sand and start to push back against these cultural norms.
I have just finished The Anxious Generation. The chapters about the decline of Free Play and Childhood independence are really good, and his suggestions of actions to take are reasonable. But I'm not convinced by his smartphone/social media/gaming hypothesis and I share your concerns about fearmongering.
The main reason I'm not convinced by the smartphone/social media angle is that, for his thesis to work, he has to completely downplay the role of screentime and mobile phones for millennial teens in the noughties-- a decade in which teen mental health was stable and maybe even improving (as shown by his own data). In the UK, mobiles and texting were a teen craze as early as 2001, MySpace was popular amongst selfie-taking teens by 2006, the first iPhone was released in 2007, and throughout the noughties many teens spent hours everyday interacting with friends online through Instant Messaging, online games, and Web 2.0. If these activities were the cause, wouldn't we see a gradual rise in mental health problems starting in the 2000s?
I share your concerns about fearmongering and I think it's likely that the book will serve to replicate the 'safetyism' Haidt criticises in the offline world to the online world--for example, I've read lots of posts recently from parent's who read their teenager's Whatsapp messages, which makes me really uncomfortable.
Thanks for your thoughts after reading the book Gael! I haven't had the opportunity to read it with my huge TBR pile, so this is helpful. From what I have read from Haidt about this, though, I do agree with his emphasis on free play and increasing independence. I also support the strategy of school policy to put cell phones away (although polls show that parents would not go along with this because they want to reach their child throughout the day). I also know there's no responsible way to draw such a clear line between any one cause and mental illness on a population level. Thanks for adding to the discussion!
Slightly late to the chat, but I just finished Haidt's book and I appreciated your review as an opportunity to advance this important discussion. However, in it I also noticed a common thread shared by other detractors falling back on the causation versus correlation argument. This is always an easily defensible position and works well to refine scientific data, but I feel like it has less value in discussions of parent practice. As I think Haidt makes clear, this problem is a question of parenting more than technology.
In general practice, I'm all for making the devil's advocate position. Most of the negative reviews I have read, including yours, agree with much of Haidt's writing, but then turn toward possibly valid, but unnecessary arguments with accusations of fearmongering and inconclusive or misinterpreted data. Within the wide world of effective parenting, there is plenty of precedent for acting without full possession of the facts or certainty of the cause. Would you care to speak on one or two takeaways, which you found, which parents could apply to the benefit of their children?
Thanks so much for taking the time to chime in, Bart! I absolutely agree that there's no way to parent with full certainty about anything -- even when we have good data. But I think such sweeping and over-generalized claims like Haidt makes contribute to more controlling parenting, which causes more problems. In fact, I have seen in my own therapy practice how a controlling approach to a teen's phone use caused more problems in the relationship than the actual phone use. I follow what many experts advise, which is acting as more of a mentor around technology use, encouraging active over passive use, and having ongoing discussions so there's openness instead of sneakiness. Thanks again for adding to the discussion!
Thank you for this post -- I completely agree with your concern about Haidt's work. His assertions about the link between smart phones/social media and youth mental health are not well founded and this is a case where the causes of youth mental health declines/increased isolation/etc matter for thinking about solutions. There is great write up in Nature by an actual expert in this field that unpacks the empirical critiques of his work: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2
Thank you for sharing this Rachel! Right off the bat, "First, this book is going to sell a lot of copies, because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children’s development that many parents are primed to believe. Second, the book’s repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children’s brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science. Worse, the bold proposal that social media is to blame might distract us from effectively responding to the real causes of the current mental-health crisis in young people." I will add this link to my post now!
I also have to push back regarding Haidt's new book. While it is "fear based", he fully acknowledges that it's fear that parents are already feeling. Parents don't think it's a good idea for kids to have smartphones at 9, yet that's the age the average American child receives a smartphone. Parents already don't think that teens should spend 5 hours a day on social media, yet that's what's happening.
He's just leveraging the worries parents already have about smartphone and social media use, and giving us a map for how to generate change using collective action.
Haidt uses correlational data to formulate his hypothesis. In a way he is no different than Charles Darwin in the way he formulated his theory of natural selection by pulling together a variety of observation from the natural world to make his case.. What we have from Haidt is a testable hypothesis about smart phones and access to social media. He hasn't proven anything but he has given us an idea we can test and I would suggest that is the primary strength of the book.
I've read about some bestselling books that are causing quite a stir among parents. It's interesting to see how different perspectives can impact our views on parenting. 📚 Excellent work, fantastic writing! 🌟
I'm on a spring break mini-getaway with my family so I'm aiming to be as off the grid as possible, but I wanted to quickly jump online to let those of you who commented know how much I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I genuinely appreciate such intelligent and civil discourse on an important topic! I look forward to saying more when I get "back to work" in a few days. Thanks to all for reading and critically thinking!
I'm back after a lovely few days doing my best to be phone-free and away from social media for our family's spring break in an adorable Michigan beach town (not quite beach weather, but still nice to leave the city). Thanks to each of you who took the time to craft your thoughts about Haidt's new book. I wanted to jump in with my response.
I think Jen Z is correct that there's probably a fair amount of overlap between Haidt's and my views, and I could have presented it more "both/and" than "either/or." I also completely agree with Lauren F that tech and social media companies need regulation and accountability and can't be playing with fire with our kids' mental health while they make billions. I do agree we need a combination of individual and collective action to create a safer and healthier digital world for all of us.
Where my concern lies, which Haidt's work is only one example of, is how he overstates the empirical evidence of what is causing which harm. I have only been able to read his Atlantic article he wrote about the book and not his book yet, but it's the way he presents the data in a way that leans heavily into fear that I challenge. I follow and read other parenting experts who take on the same concerns in more balanced ways, scrutinizing the data and finding positives as well as risks in our young people's use of cell phones and social media. Melinda Wenner Moyer has an excellent chapter in her book, How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes that helped me personally breathe a sigh of relief. Devorah Heitner also analyzes the data with more nuance in her book, Screenwise.
My argument more generally is I think we will parent more effectively when we can take a balanced and more nuanced perspective that isn't so driven by fear. We need to be alert and cautious about cell phones and social media, and take measures to make positive changes, but I take issue with Haidt's framing of the problem as going beyond what we can truly take from the science (again, based on how others more expert than I in this area have read the science). And hey -- he's about a million times more successful than I am so who am I to say anyways? But that's the great part about places like Substack -- writers like me can throw our thoughts into the ring, too.
Thanks for reading and for all of your thoughts! Any ideas for what you want me to take on in the next newsletter?
The point that Haidt relies on correlational data to justify his premise is technically correct, in that he does rely on correlational studies, but leaves out that he also relies on (and has repeatedly cited to) longitudinal studies and experiments specifically designed to test causality. These are all described in detail here - https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic - and inventoried here - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-olnkPyWcgF5BiAtBEy0/edit#.
I would be interested to read more about why you reject the conclusions of those studies (if you do), or whether you feel he is mis-interpreting their results etc.
Thank you for all of the work you do - I am a new parent and your content has been enormously helpful in thinking about how we want to raise our kids!
Thanks so much Matt! Unfortunately, Haidt tends to leave out the data that doesn't support his claims, which is one of my frustrations with him as a social scientist.
This book review in Nature sums it up well: "Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers1.
These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message2–5. An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally6. Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use7. Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence.
I appreciate the reply!
I am struggling with the response a bit. The original critique was that Haidt relies on correlational studies, not causational. This now seems to move the goal posts a bit, making a different point, which is that he leaves out data that don't support his claims.
But the Nature critique doesn't substantiate that. Haidt references the Odgers, Hancock, Vuorre, etc. studies in their open-source literature review. From what I can tell there are four+ studies in their review that use the ABCD data. Where Haidt and team disagree with the conclusions of those studies, they lay out why, but they don't seem to leave any of them out (and to the contrary, seem to actively be inviting other researchers to share studies that should be included but aren't).
There seem to be some really interesting disagreements on what these studies show. I would love to hear more in future posts about which of those you think support conclusions that are different from Haidt's, and what, specifically, his analysis is getting wrong.
Thanks for the interesting discussion!
I actually think there’s a lot of potential overlap between what you say here and Haidt’s view. For instance, you say, “We should view our children and teens using their phones and other online platforms as learning opportunities (with parameters) for becoming responsible, ethical, productive digital citizens.” I think Haidt would agree with this. But the big question is What are those parameters? And also, Who can (and who should) put them in place?
Talking with our kids about the risks of digital devices and social media, paying attention to how they’re doing, teaching our kids self-regulation skills, figuring out the best conditions for digital devices and social media for our own families’ situations and needs are all necessary. But they’re also compatible with the benefits of collective action to help reduce the burden on parents and the risks to kids. The more complicated things get, the harder it is for individual parents to figure out what to do and how to do it. And there are some things that individual parents can’t control and that can really only be done at the organizational or collective level (school policies, social norms, government regulations for social media companies, etc.).
If kids need scaffolding in their learning environments to help build their competence (because their skills aren’t fully developed), then what does that scaffolding look like in the digital world? I think there’s a lot of room here for both/and when it comes to individual and collective action. Parents and kids (and society) need all the help we can get!
I do have to push back as relates to Haidt's work. I haven't read The Anxious Generation yet (and I would really hope you read the book before passing judgment), but after reading many of his Substack articles at After Babel, his arguments make complete sense to me. He may come across as more black and white than I personally ascribe to, but I agree with the general thrust. Yes, our children grow up in a technological age but that doesn't mean we have to throw up our hands with, "Well, this is just the way it is now."
Having a husband in the tech world & doing some research on the origins of social media has also greatly influenced me. Haidt isn't just using fear tactics-- these are quantifiable facts that SHOULD scare us. Tech companies and the founders of social media need to be held accountable for how they've designed their products to hijack the brain for profit, at the cost of many adolescents' mental health as well as lives. And that will only happen if we stop burying our heads in the sand and start to push back against these cultural norms.
Will get off my soapbox now!
I have just finished The Anxious Generation. The chapters about the decline of Free Play and Childhood independence are really good, and his suggestions of actions to take are reasonable. But I'm not convinced by his smartphone/social media/gaming hypothesis and I share your concerns about fearmongering.
The main reason I'm not convinced by the smartphone/social media angle is that, for his thesis to work, he has to completely downplay the role of screentime and mobile phones for millennial teens in the noughties-- a decade in which teen mental health was stable and maybe even improving (as shown by his own data). In the UK, mobiles and texting were a teen craze as early as 2001, MySpace was popular amongst selfie-taking teens by 2006, the first iPhone was released in 2007, and throughout the noughties many teens spent hours everyday interacting with friends online through Instant Messaging, online games, and Web 2.0. If these activities were the cause, wouldn't we see a gradual rise in mental health problems starting in the 2000s?
I share your concerns about fearmongering and I think it's likely that the book will serve to replicate the 'safetyism' Haidt criticises in the offline world to the online world--for example, I've read lots of posts recently from parent's who read their teenager's Whatsapp messages, which makes me really uncomfortable.
Thanks for your thoughts after reading the book Gael! I haven't had the opportunity to read it with my huge TBR pile, so this is helpful. From what I have read from Haidt about this, though, I do agree with his emphasis on free play and increasing independence. I also support the strategy of school policy to put cell phones away (although polls show that parents would not go along with this because they want to reach their child throughout the day). I also know there's no responsible way to draw such a clear line between any one cause and mental illness on a population level. Thanks for adding to the discussion!
Slightly late to the chat, but I just finished Haidt's book and I appreciated your review as an opportunity to advance this important discussion. However, in it I also noticed a common thread shared by other detractors falling back on the causation versus correlation argument. This is always an easily defensible position and works well to refine scientific data, but I feel like it has less value in discussions of parent practice. As I think Haidt makes clear, this problem is a question of parenting more than technology.
In general practice, I'm all for making the devil's advocate position. Most of the negative reviews I have read, including yours, agree with much of Haidt's writing, but then turn toward possibly valid, but unnecessary arguments with accusations of fearmongering and inconclusive or misinterpreted data. Within the wide world of effective parenting, there is plenty of precedent for acting without full possession of the facts or certainty of the cause. Would you care to speak on one or two takeaways, which you found, which parents could apply to the benefit of their children?
Thanks so much for taking the time to chime in, Bart! I absolutely agree that there's no way to parent with full certainty about anything -- even when we have good data. But I think such sweeping and over-generalized claims like Haidt makes contribute to more controlling parenting, which causes more problems. In fact, I have seen in my own therapy practice how a controlling approach to a teen's phone use caused more problems in the relationship than the actual phone use. I follow what many experts advise, which is acting as more of a mentor around technology use, encouraging active over passive use, and having ongoing discussions so there's openness instead of sneakiness. Thanks again for adding to the discussion!
Thank you for this post -- I completely agree with your concern about Haidt's work. His assertions about the link between smart phones/social media and youth mental health are not well founded and this is a case where the causes of youth mental health declines/increased isolation/etc matter for thinking about solutions. There is great write up in Nature by an actual expert in this field that unpacks the empirical critiques of his work: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2
Thank you for sharing this Rachel! Right off the bat, "First, this book is going to sell a lot of copies, because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children’s development that many parents are primed to believe. Second, the book’s repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children’s brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science. Worse, the bold proposal that social media is to blame might distract us from effectively responding to the real causes of the current mental-health crisis in young people." I will add this link to my post now!
You’re welcome!
I also have to push back regarding Haidt's new book. While it is "fear based", he fully acknowledges that it's fear that parents are already feeling. Parents don't think it's a good idea for kids to have smartphones at 9, yet that's the age the average American child receives a smartphone. Parents already don't think that teens should spend 5 hours a day on social media, yet that's what's happening.
He's just leveraging the worries parents already have about smartphone and social media use, and giving us a map for how to generate change using collective action.
Haidt uses correlational data to formulate his hypothesis. In a way he is no different than Charles Darwin in the way he formulated his theory of natural selection by pulling together a variety of observation from the natural world to make his case.. What we have from Haidt is a testable hypothesis about smart phones and access to social media. He hasn't proven anything but he has given us an idea we can test and I would suggest that is the primary strength of the book.
Thanks for writing this Emily. Every time I see another post or write up about these books I get a knot in my stomach.
I've read about some bestselling books that are causing quite a stir among parents. It's interesting to see how different perspectives can impact our views on parenting. 📚 Excellent work, fantastic writing! 🌟