Social media and female mental health

Teenage mental health has been a source of growing concern over the past decade, with recent whistleblower testimony pointing to the mental health risks of spending time on social media platforms, especially for girls. This paper investigates the extent to which social media are harmful for teenagers, leveraging rich administrative data from the Canadian province of British Columbia and quasi-experimental variation related to the introduction of wireless internet there. I show  neighbourhoods covered by highspeed wireless internet have significantly higher social media use, based on Google search volume data. In the main analysis, I link spatial data on broadband coverage  to 20 years of student records that provide detailed information about individual student health. Using this novel data linkage, I estimate a triple-difference model comparing teen girls to teen boys in terms of school-reported mental health diagnoses, before and after visual social media emerged, and across neighbourhoods with and without access to high-speed wireless internet. Estimates indicate high-speed wireless internet significantly increased teen girls’ severe mental health conditions – by 90% – relative to teen boys’ over the period when visual social media became dominant in teenage internet use. I find similar effects across all subgroups. When applying the same strategy, I find null impacts for placebo health conditions – ones for which there is no clear channel for social media to operate. The evidence points to adverse effects of visual social media, in light of large gender gaps in visual social media use and documented risks. In turn, the analysis calls attention to policy interventions that could mitigate the harm to young people due to their online activities.

That is from a new paper by Elaine Guo, who is on the job market from University of Toronto.

Since I have written on related questions, normally I would comment here, but when it comes to the job market I feel the candidate and not the blogger should have the last word.  Elaine Guo is an excellent and possibly undervalued job candidate, and I hope you employers out there give her absolutely full consideration.  Hers is one of the most interesting and most important papers on this job market season.

Comments

One of the things to consider is that social media use is something of a natural result of killing every other alternative for adolescent socialization outside of the high stakes educational environment.

Boyfriends are wildly less common among teens. At best most of my female teen patients seem to view boyfriends as ephemeral blips who will be abandoned for college or a job. Certainly the view is that boyfriends require a lot of time and effort and a not particularly small cohort thinks that having a boyfriend will actively hold them back. And, of course, boyfriends tend to bring up sex worries (be it wildly unrealistic worries about pregnancy or far more realistic worries about being pressured into recapitulating porn. A time sink that taught useful life skills (e.g. how to navigate life situations as half of a couple) and was correlated with better mental health is now dying out.

Extracurricular activities have largely stopped being social. Cheerleading used to be more about being social and popular, but now is much more competitive with massively more gymnastics and an utterly massive perceived impact on college acceptances. Band is something one does to prove devotion and competency to your instrument for the admission's committee rather than a way to have fun playing instruments with friends for the big game. And parents pretty much universally count it as a waste of time if their daughters merely enjoy some activity. They desperately want them to "succeed" and become "good" at it, and all too often are highly invested in it "paying off".

Religious praxis continues to decline among young women and that was always a major source of socialization with more experienced adults outside their family. Losing those sorts of mentorship opportunities has its own costs, but it also means that kids are also deprived of the sorts of dense social networks where multiple generations are tied to multiple generations and help to provide a more balanced picture of peers and future possibilities.

Even the teen sleepover is becoming endangered. Many parents are too worried about the adults in another home, who they barely know thanks to the decimation dense social networks, taking sexual advantage of their daughters. And of course we have worries about drugs, performance impacts from sleep deprivation, and even worries about diet or social awkwardness.

This ultimately creates large blocks of time and large amounts of absent socialization. So, of course, social media is going to have an outsized impact. And being so heavily curated and having such imbalanced comparisons is going to much more depressing. And lest we forget, social media is forever. Whatever mistakes you make at 15 can, and for some pretty normal girls have, derail your life years later.

Net effect is that we are eliminating ever more low stakes activities of the sort which have dominated human societies for millennia and either replacing or converting those to higher stakes ones of the sort that have an historical track record that sparked many an assassination, revolt, or even a few of the bloodiest wars in history.

Because end of the day I am not only seeing more psychiatric diagnoses in these populations, but I am also seeing a lot more of the physiological correlates of stress (e.g. a poorly controlled retrospective made us wonder if our CRP tests were off, but there was a clear trendline among young patients that was not evidenced among our seniors).

Maybe it is all anecdata, but social media seems to have particularly harsh impacts for a minority of adolescents. And when I suggest textbook alternatives as a way to lower the frequency of panic attacks or the like, the amount of pushback I get (often from the parents) is quite high. Social media let's kids do a few things that are increasing hard to shoehorn in elsewhere in their life, but it certainly seems to be the most toxic way of doing them.

> is something of a natural result of killing every other alternative for adolescent socialization outside of the high stakes educational environment.

This is a very interesting point you make. There was an unmatched thrill that came from hanging out with friends when we were all in high school. I still remember vividly being picked up by a car full of friends to go to concerts, sneaking beers into movies, nights at the arcade, awkward experiences with he other sex, laughing over hamburgers, backpacking, etc. Nothing about social media could replace those evenings. Often I used to just drive after the night was done, way out into the sticks by myself, window down, dipping Copenhagen and listening to new wave. I still have vivid memories of walking home one night from a buddy's at 2 AM and seeing the milky way like I'd never seen it before and just marveling at the detail I could make out.

Social media isn't better than these things. But it's better than nothing. And if parents block these things, then the void is filled with social media, which kind of scratches the itch but poorly. But then you potentially exit your teens and twenties without a collection of "best night ever" events that will stick with you for decades. Maybe the movie of "best night ever" events plays constantly and pushes humans forward, in search of new "best night ever" events...

But yes, parents desire to shelter probably has some responsibility here.

This has been a gradual thing but I think it has been going on for at least 40 years, this gradual cocooning of our kids. Some of it is probably because we have fewer kids, some of it because we have found out that there are more bad people then we thought and even the priests and ministers arent always safe. Still, I think even more of it is because each bad event gets covered so heavily in the media. If it bleeds it leads. Now it has just become a "thing" for some reason. Little blonde girl missing, bad stuff happened stories would be covered for weeks on end about the same kid.

I also find that parents are much more averse to risk taking with their kids until they are much older. I think my son was 5 or 6 when he had his hatchet and I had the ax and we were going to chop wood when they yuppie neighbors saw us and called my wife so she would know what I was doing. She pointed out that I was with him, he would be safe, and why was it their business anyway. Some of this is clearly risk aversion but some of it is also lack of familiarity with tools and manual labor. Even cooking for yourself.

Steve

My own 2000s childhood can be pretty sharply divided into one half where I lived in a neighborhood with friends I could walk to within a few minutes and one half where my nearest friend was at least 10 minutes of driving away. I know cars can be a tiring progressive bogeyman, but I think they've made it harder for children build independence and friendships. Yeah, bikes exist, but -- and maybe this is my cocooning yuppie instinct -- I'd be pretty reluctant to let a kid bike around a generic suburban neighborhood populated by people who can't see the ends of their SUVs.

I don't know how much of this is social media. I think a lot of it is coming from college admissions. Say what you want about the SAT; one advantage is that there was only so much that can be done to prepare for it. Even GPA is sort of that way. But you can put an awful lot of time and effort into debate, or soccer, or violin, all the time thinking it's helping you get a little better odds of good school admissions.

Colleges didn't want to choose kids based on how smart they are, and instead they started choosing kids based on effort and success in a bunch of frivolous extracurriculars. Kids and parents respond by pouring resources into an arms race in those extracurriculars.

I buy this to some extent, but I question what fraction of teens are actually at the level where a punishing schedule is actually a consequence of their goals. It's easy to see how an ambitious kid who badly wants to go to a top 10 school will pour energy into it, but how many such ambitious kids are there, really? I can't imagine it's more than a significant minority, but a much bigger class of kids seems to experience this kind of alienation.

Because even the strivers typically don't want the thing itself, they want to be the sort of person who gets the thing.

After all, only 6% of football players ever even play in college. Yet students put in long hours, risk permanent bodily harm, and sacrifice their academics (which will make the difference from them getting into the least selective colleges).

Why? My guess is because they want to be liked and respected and when you have gunners, anywhere, in the system the only way to be certain you will be liked and respected is to at least look like you are working as hard.

"After all, only 6% of football players ever even play in college."

I think the college payoff happens to kids even if they don't play in college. Or at least, that's the perception. Just like how most kids who sacrifice a lot to be great at an instrument aren't going to get music degrees. But they can write about their passion in their essays. You may never run at University of MyState, but being a four year varsity athlete is a credible measure of acheivement. You have race times to point to and it's pretty clear you were diligent. GPA and recommendations are much more susceptible to gaming.

Anyway, in the sports that I do know about, you see a remarkable dedication to the sport even in kids who won't (or don't want to) play in college. But part of that is just that sports are well-run, perceived as fair or at least honestly merit-based, generally fun, and an outlet for personality traits you need to supress in school, etc..

It's possible I'm in rarified air. Most of the kids I know are probably headed to college. But I think this is prevalent far outside of top-ten schools.

This post really resonated with me and sums up high school well. Social media came a few years later, towards the end of college. I'm so glad we didn't have it in high school. And I used to ride around our small town and out in the country with friends dipping Copenhagen, drinking Miller Lite, and listening to music and laughing. Amazing times, immortalized on the by Dazed and Confused.

immortalized on the screen*

Dazed and Confused was easily the most accurate depiction of the era as I recall it. The 70s both sucked and were brilliant simultaneously. We just didn’t realize it until later.

Sure's comment is one of the best, and saddest, in recent memory. I'm the parent of a teen who has hardly any social interactions w/ other kids, and no friends he hangs out with, and it depresses me. This is not uncommon among kids these days. It's a very sterile world, dominated by kids in their rooms staring at phones. In parallel, schools keep emailing about "mental health," as if this is something that can or should be patched up by lessons or assemblies, and not something that grows organically from the way we live.

A great essay on this theme: https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/06/13/stanfords-war-on-social-life/

I have a daughter that will be graduating high school next year. She's been playing soccer since about the fourth grade. It has been a very good experience for her - given her good friends without all the drama teenage girls go through because they are teammates too. I've remarked to parents of new incoming players about how this has gotten us through what most parents expect could be a few rough years with their kids.

Added bonus is that we know the other players' parents pretty well too, so we do trust when they have parties or sleepovers.

Every bit of evidence I have ever seen suggests that humans thrive best in dense social networks with numerous repeated interactions that span the life course.

Unfortunately, your experience with sport appears atypical to what I see. I very, very rarely see kids who manage 8 years of with the same team. Normally the best kids move to more competitive leagues and leave their less talented peers behind. Travel games make it hard to socialize the parents. Work or finances dictates a move across school boundaries. And far, far too many kids play numerous sports and hence disconnect from their teammates for the duration of the off season (or even play multiple concurrent sports so they skip the social aspects of two sports to do the competitive aspects of two).

It amazes me to no end that the majority of my peers do not know any of the parents of their kids' friends well.

"And far, far too many kids play numerous sports and hence disconnect from their teammates for the duration of the off season (or even play multiple concurrent sports so they skip the social aspects of two sports to do the competitive aspects of two)."

I'm not sure this is a good thing, but this is definitely on the downtrend. As sports become more and more competitive, it's hard to keep up if you're a multi-sport athlete. And although you'll hear old people say "college coaches love multisport athletes!", you know what they love more? Kids who are better in their sport.

"Travel games make it hard to socialize the parents."

I don't know. I've made a lot of my parent friends in some bar in Georgia accompanying a team to a tournament. I know the travel team parents better than the local team parents in some respects. It depends a bit on ages. WFH has been a godsend in this respect. It's made high-end sports travel a lot easier to accomodate for the parents.

This isn't exactly a rebuttal to your points; it's more a slightly different perspective on them.

I will say that the sports experience has been much more healthy and normal than the school experience for my kids. This is true even for a high academic achievement family. I even slanted a bit away from hyper-academic activities that my wife and I embraced growing up because sports seemed a little better for the kids' life development.

There was a book on the bestseller list about 30 years ago titled Reviving Ophelia that health with the traumas of raising a teen girl. As I recall, one fo the things they noted that seemed to help was having them involved with sports. It let them focus on stuff besides whatever the other cliques were doing and it required a modicum of time discipline to do sports and get homework done.

Steve

Friends of ours bought their daughter a pony to see her through her teenage years with something safe to love.

They even bought a paddock for the ruddy thing. We had to suppress the question "how on earth did you afford it?"

Hence the incel.

I agree with your analysis.

I'd also add that labor force participation among teenagers is much lower than in previous generations. In 2001, around 50% of women aged 16-19 were working. Today it's more like 35%.

Waiting tables or working the counter at a retail shop might not be the most exciting job in the world but it gets you out of the house and off social media for a while. It forces you to interact with other people, learn useful life skills and earns you a little money to generate a sense of accomplishment.

The "killing every other alternative" effect would appear everywhere regardless of broadband penetration, no?

I'm curious to understand more about the negative mental health impacts of social media. Is it a matter of loneliness, since social media is substituting for other socializing? Is it a matter of social comparisons (e.g. not realizing that the feed you're viewing is not someone's life, it's their highlight reel)? Is it cyberbullying? Do teenage girls complain a lot about social media, and if so what do their complaints sound like?

Mentally ill women on social media is pretty much the Demicratic Party's base.

...also unmarried. It's called "bureaugamy". Instead of 'marrying up' modern single women are just marrying government.

It's hard to find a bigger daddy than D.C., just saying...

They make good little drones, so the attraction is mutual.

How do the trans/gender fluid activists deal with this, if femininity and masculinity are social constructs?

"It's complicated. Perhaps if my organization ran a training session at your place of employment..."

Pretty obvious how they'd answer this. People who are socially indoctrinated into the female gender role are also indoctrinated into being more image conscious and socially anxious. This is pretty elementary as ideological Turing tests go.

In a similar vein, how can I be sure whether the school-reported health data reflects the students reported gender or their "birth" gender?

I’d like a follow up on birth vs reported race.

Since I actually had this happen to my family (one name and gender reported to me from the school, a different name and gender on the internal school records), I'm not sure if you're being serious or making light of my comment.

Not sure about the public policy implications of this topic, but yes, social media like Tik Tok should be thought of as a damaging psychological drug. Not even China allows their own citizens to use the version that kids in the west are using daily.

Somewhat relatedly, if preserving young people's mental health is a growing public concern, then I encourage TC to go down the rabbit hole of the horror show that is "social-emotional learning" being pushed by western schools systems.

It's utterly depressing to see kids who can not pry themselves from their phones, who constantly are checking them. It is absolutely an addiction.

Not limited to kids.

Steve

Did we find the old fogey?

Indeed. Social-emotional learning sounds so nice, but it involves a lot of telling people, especially girls, that they are unhappy and can't possibly ever be happy until the entire world is reordered.

It's actually a lot like scientology right down to the idea that you are a a bodyless spiritual being that needs to awaken to the knowledge that you have contributed to creating the illusion that is the universe. Weird.

I'm afraid it's even worse than that. The creepy part that should piss off parents is that it's actually a data mining operation of kids by replacing traditional education with a "dialogue" based model where the teacher surveys kids to understand personal details about them so that lessons can re-packaged in a way that resonates with their "lived experience" so that they can become conscious of the political context in which they live. Greta Thunberg is the poster child of what SEL does to kids, especially girls, who recently said the goal of her activism is to end capitalism. Success!

The whole thing was pioneered by Paulo Freire, one of the most cited sources in colleges of education. His book Pedagogy of the Oppressed currently has over 107,000 citations on Google Scholar. And since TC is at GMU, I looked up GMU's college of education, and yep, Paulo Freire is everywhere on GMU syllabi as required reading.

I’m less interested in how much girls’ mental health problems increased relative to boys and more interested in how much they increased relative to other girls who were using less social media.

The girls using less social media were the ones before who didn't have broadband.

I'm sure there are interesting questions about kids who have access to the Internet to different degrees, but those would be different kids, while this study has the advantage of comparing relatively the same kids, before and after.

You assume that there are significant numbers of girls not using much social media. That's not my experience.

Yep and any sample of teen girls who don't use social media is going to have significant confounding factors-- if a girl isn't on social media, she probably has a very unique upbringing or personality.

IDK. There is always a distribution.

Amish? Lot's more going on I'd guess though so the variable wouldn't be isolated.

She shows there are girl cohorts that use less and they have less issues. They are using less because they didn’t have internet access.
If you are asking whether girls who abstain from visual social media have better health outcomes, I think that will line up with abstention effects elsewhere.

Because the author is estimating a triple difference, the causal parameter is an average treatment effect for girls. The comparison groups basically if valid give you an estimate of their mental health under social media compared to the same hypothetical girls without it. It is somewhat what you’re asking — the counterfactual is the same girls without social media. But how they get there is through multiple comparisons (triple difference models make multiple comparisons).

This is interesting. A natural experiment where the data is readily available, simply needing some analysis to find correlations. Ingenious and valuable.

I lived through those changes, and a short time before this article was posted mentioned to my wife that it was good that all this happened after our daughter became an adult. It would have been one more challenge to parenting.

I wonder what this will look like in another 10 years. Instagram is dead in the water for anyone under 20. TikTok doesn’t seem to be about the fake image so much and its users are 50% the same women aged 20-40 as IG.

Social media use might be shifting again anyway. My kids and their friends all seem to hold sharing things with the world in complete contempt, they stick to private group chats.

'Generative AI Tiktok' is what I've been hearing about lately.

Not sure that will be robust to them leaving home. Teenage children have always been more concerned with their school scene, even during the emergence of recent social media. These apps have always been about networking between adults.

I don't see the drivers of that changing *too* much - wanting to be a slacker that drops out of conventional expectations works great... until you find that playing the game actually does reap dividends in your success among cliques and networking. People always sell out, eventually.

"the mental health risks of spending time on social media platforms, especially for girls"
Considering that Sailer and Phinton constantly point this out, it is nice to see some other people paying devoted attention to teenage girls.

Jean Twenge has been studying the negative impact of smartphones & social media on teen girls for some time. Her findings are so strong that I kind of figured a few years ago that somebody would debunk them, but I guess not.

Well, yes and no.

Male teens commit suicide at far higher than girls, about three or four to one, depending on source cited.

Further...

The rate of suicide is highest in middle-aged white men.

In 2020, men died by suicide 3.88x more than women.

On average, there are 130 suicides per day.

White males accounted for 69.68% of suicide deaths in 2020.....

Every academic study of women finds women are under stress...but the results are actually worse for men....

College graduation rates, suicides, incarceration, real wages, you name it, America's men are struggling....

But...no movement to help men....

Richard V, Reeves who wrote "Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It" pointed out that when the White House sponsors a forum on gender issues, only women's issues are discussed. Remember, that the Obama Administration had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that the deaths of despair of white men was lowering the life expectancy of white men.

But...no movement to help men...

Men don't wait around to be helped. This is a primary tenet of manhood.

We inherited the patriarchy. But because we grew up in it, we didn't value it enough to keep it.

Now that it's disintegrating, we see our mistake. A future generation of men will use our natural strengths to reassert patriarchy more strongly, in full consciousness of patriarchy's ultimate benefit to women, society and the state.

There was a funny/sad video that went around last week where a trans man (f2m) that was a barista at a starbucks was openly sobbing about the job. What struck me about the video is how many f2m think manhood is about a beard and tattoos. It's just a skin suit you wear. So there you have a person with a chemically induced beard, blubbering like a 12 year old girl because too many customers keep coming and they cannot keep up. I wonder how this person would do if told to charge an enemy position on Omaha beach.

Manhood is yet another costume we wear anymore. It's whatever we want it to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNx8OiWiKcw

"Men don't wait around to be helped. This is a primary tenet of manhood."

Eating a bullet doesn't sound like a reasonable solution.

And the idea that we need to suppress anyone in order to be mentally healthy (which is what arguments for patriarchy amount to) is a very twisted reading of human history.

The concept of "Manhood" is extremely fluid throughout history. PHinton mocks someone for crying, yet anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the Western Cannon can cite numerous examples of men--heroic men, men specifically held up as ideals to live up to--openly weeping. Yes, even in combat situations. There's a core that seems universal (provide for the tribe, protect the tribe, be physically and mentally strong as defined by the culture), but there's so much wiggle-room around it that what's considered "manly" in one culture can be considered craven or even feminine in another even if they are extremely close culturally.

Yes the Western Canon venerates the heroic tears of service workers on the frontline of the war of consumerism.

> heroic men, men specifically held up as ideals to live up to--openly weeping. Yes, even in combat situations.

If you just picked up your buddy's leg and set it next to him on the stretcher as they were loading the Huey for a ride back to Da Nang, then tears from men are understood.

If you are sobbing because the customers are coming in too frequently, then we need to talk.

The sobbing barista sees men as physical attributes only--a beard, for example. That is, anyone that gets a chemically induced beard is suddenly a man if they want to be. But at the same time, the sobbing barista doesn't want any of the other traditional attributes of manhood to be applied to them. They want manhood to be precisely what THEY define it as. Their definition is what matters. Not the definition of the other 7B in the world.

Sorry, but my gender isn't a Halloween costume. The barista is practicing the gender version of blackface, and it's offensive.

PS. Note in the video, the barista is sobbing like a child, and then gets upset when someone sees the barista as a women rather than a man, which elicits another wave of howling.

If you want to be treated as a man, then do things that will cause people to treat you like a man.

"If you want to be treated as a man, then do things that will cause people to treat you like a man."

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? What acts are necessary to be seen as manly? Many here assume that there is some universal suite of traits that causes this, and go to great lengths to distort scientific data--even inventing it out of whole cloth--to support their a priori conclusions. History is demonstrably messier. Turns out "do[ing] things that will cause people to treat you like a man" is heavily, even overwhelmingly, dependent upon the specific culture AND subculture you exist within. I mean, there was an order of Spanish knights that was 100% female. They were granted all the rights, privileges, and duties of any other knights--they were treated as men of that specific status--because they had acted as men of that status and defended the town from attacking Muslims (this was pre-Reconquista). Romans....well, I'd probably get banned for an accurate description of how Romans viewed sexuality. Suffice to say, it was very different from modern views.

The issue our society is facing is that "do[ing] things that will cause people to treat you like a man" is in flux. The old ways--which, to be clear, have ALWAYS been more myth than reality, and have really only been around for a few generations anyway--are no longer functional. We're establishing new ones. It's a messy process, particularly since we at the same time experimenting with our physiology and biochemistry in numerous ways. Such things have happened before, and there's always a lot of tension and mockery and derision about what other groups consider manly, each group either proclaiming (usually falsely) that they're either representing the wave of the future or honoring the ways of the past.

You see a pathetic weakling. I see one experimental mode among many. For my part, I happen to dislike it--I certainly would never behave that way, and I've worked in food service--but I'm mature enough to dissociate personal preference from an idealized universal archetype. For my part the main error this person committed was crying in public. To me, that's a fairly private activity.

As for crying, men have always cried, and often over things we would consider silly these days. Music, poetry, paintings, natural vistas, even something as simple as seeing their kids--these have always moved men to tears. Yes, stress has as well, even in jobs that aren't "supposed to be" stressful. It's not considered particularly noble in such a case, and in fact is considered a bit juvenile, but it has always happened. The question that men in Western cultures have always had to face (I'm not saying other cultures haven't, I'm only familiar with Western culture) is whether they keep going or not. That's a part of the story I note you don't address. And frankly someone who's only been a male for a few years is still in an adjustment period; their hormones are unlikely to have settled down yet. I'm willing to cut them some slack.

Continue this thread →

Missed the point entirely, Anonymous. Not surprising.

Hypothesis: "Teenage girls are bonkers. Yer social media make the symptoms florid."

Counterargument: the girls I went to school with weren't obviously bonkers.

Countercounterargument: but they weren't North Americans.

Alternative hypothesis: social media make it more fashionable for teenage girls to claim mental heath "issues".

The second hypothesis may have merit.

Perhaps, but I am also seeing more of the physiological correlates of stress in this demographic. Weight, for instance, has a reasonable correlation with psychiatric illness and particularly non-standard weight velocities; both of which are more common. Early menarche correlates quite well incidence of psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses. We are also seeing increasing signs of anorexia nervosa/bulimia in the electrolyte panels and the growth curves. We are also seeing increases in autoimmune disorders in young women.

None of this is airtight, but it would take a lot more epicycles to your hypothesis to explain these physiological outcomes. Do we think folks savvy enough to fake mental health issues are inducing vomiting and going hypochloremic for the fun of it?

There are other possible, and outright plausible, explanations for all these observations. But they are consistent with the, no girls actually have more real psychiatric dysfunction and at least in the Bayesian sense that is evidence for that being less likely to be just smoke and mirrors.

Overweight looks to be a near universal thing and not just limited to teenage girls exposed to social media. Its certainly an issue in our rural areas where internet use is lower and social media not such an issue.

Totally agree that women dominate in the eating disorder category. Has been that way for a long time.* On the anorexics and other eating disorders the increase in these diagnoses precedes social media. Doesnt rule out social media making it worse but given that it is near universal, spread through much of the world and increasing for a long time, I think that suggests there are at least some other causes.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/109/5/1402/5480601

*For many health networks behavioral health is an afterthought. Many lose money on it. However, some have figured out how to make it work and how to make money. I think provider induced demand is a real thing so I think it possible some of this may not be real, but given the scale and persistence of this increase over the last 30-40 years it is a minor effect if it exists.

Steve

Depression diagnoses have predictive value for teenage obesity (OR 3.7, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Obesity-and-depression-in-adolescence-and-beyond%3A-Marmorstein-Iacono/b8b0b7d9717145620bdcc8fc75fd51673f1c74c6). It is pretty hard to make that math work without some differential force. I have seen studies go either way on the timing question (after all we know that socialization skills impact odds ratios for anorexia and if social media is displacing those we would expect an impact) and we certainly see more severe symptomology following social media use.

And I can go on. For instance, female teen suicide rates (completed) have been on a fairly steady rise since something like 2008. Female teen suicide attempt rate are perhaps more prone to overclassification, but they have also been rising.

And on the other side, we know that depression worsens likelihood of achieving interpersonal outcomes like dating, marriage, and involuntary childlessness, all of which are also increasing.

It is not completely true, but name a correlate of worsening mental health, and chances are that it is increasing in young women.

Is social media causing it? I doubt it. I suspect a lot more comes from the fact that we have been all but systemically destroying the dense interpersonal relationships which best allow for navigating the difficult years of early adulthood.

But the idea that mental health increases are just changes in reporting is a lot of epicycles to explain things like suicide rates.

If you have the time you should check out crazy like us by Ethan Watters, he goes over the social contagion hypothesis in more detail. It’s not “fake” per say, it’s a way to get attention that then morphs into the actual disease with all its associated problems

Somatization, social contagion, and the like are well known to me. The odds that gluten intolerances (allergy, celiac, or even something more vague) track so much better with social contacts than with genetics, geographic colocation, profession, or any other risk factor suggests we see a good bit of this.

And certainly something social happened with Gender Dysphoria. Gender prevalence, time course of onset, and the rest have all changed dramatically in a painfully short period of time.

Is this all iatrogenic illness? Doubtful, but that is a theory I can by. The idea that this is all due to "claims" rather than social contagion is a much harder sell (and remember I am the guy who believes point blank that the elevated rates of mental health issues that require accommodations during medical school are largely the stuff of claims).

Second hypothesis is obviously true to some extent; doesn't mean that they don't actually manifest symptoms of "mental health issues".

Finding it fashionable to claim "mental health issues" is a sign of sickness. Only a sick society would be proud of being sick. The therapeutic/atheistic interpretation of life, which contemporary mental illness discourse is emblematic of, deserves to be criticized, however.

"the analysis calls attention to policy interventions that could mitigate the harm to young people"

The most obvious "policy intervention", of course, would be to inform parents of these findings to allow parents to determine their children's social media usage. For adults, the proper policy intervention is to provide information for adults to make their own decisions. For children, parents substitute their judgement for their childrens'. The ease with which one reaches these conclusions is a good test of one's sensibilities about the proper role of adults, parents, children, and policymakers. Did you pass?

On a different note, I would *not* take these findings to suggest that women are less able than men to deal with social media and, thus, that they might be less suited than men for certain tech jobs. Of course, if that were the normative context, that shouldn't impact at all our evaluation of the positive findings in this paper. Positive descriptions of reality are completely separable from normative policy judgements that one might derive from such descriptions, right? Right?

There’s a difference between someone being “vulnerable” and “able”.

From a quick look at the paper, it seems like an effect is only found in the girls who were in an existing "severe mental health" category, 1.5% of the population? There is no effect at all in the "moderate mental health category".

I read it as a difference of the number of girls with severe mental health needs comparing high speed wireless (1.9%) to no wireless (1.5%), although the difference goes the other way comparing low speed wireless (1.2%) to no wireless. Low speed wireless also had the best results for moderate mental health needs (1.3% vs 1.5% no wireless, 2% high speed wireless).

The portion of the sample affected seems far too small to make any inferences about "kids these days", and it is disappointing the Conclusion doesn't say anything about potential benefits of social media to 199 out of 200 girls not showing a change in mental health needs.

Economists can make models and manipulate large data sets. When did that make them experts in every field?

Look at NBER papers, economists tossing numbers about in every field with little or no subject matter expertise about what the numbers mean. This is especially strange since economists’ ability to make accurate predictions about the economy is almost nil.

The problem is the status competition aspect of social media, as currently constructed. That was designed in as a "hook" to get people to use it. It's designed to be addictive, and it's designed to use status anxiety as the means of addiction.

However in theory it might be possible to envision a form of social media that is NOT status driven, that functions as more of a neutral social hang-out joint than as a status signaling venue. There are things like internet forums and chat rooms that existed before social media and don't have those features, so it's probably *possible*. The other question is how do you get people to prefer the less status conscious environment over the addictive "social media" one.

Might be possible. The other thing to remember is that in some studies of social media it looked as though it also had positive effects for some teens.

Steve

Tiktok is chinese poison on the brain!

Does this mean the lockdowns hurt teenagers mental-health more than lockdowns helped teenagers physical-health, and therefore the people against lockdowns (republicans) should've done better in the mid-terms?

An injection of new stimuli will take a generation or two to digest through the boa constrictor of society. The capitalist system is exploring every nook and cranny for exploitable advantage.
The only societal mechanism in play is age restriction but this has weakest utility in the digital world.
My policy recommendation: Let the chips fall where they may. I trust girls to figure it out. They tend to do better than the guys in the long run it seems to me.
What families made up of social media girls and ubiquitous porn boys looks like feels distressing, but I doubt will result in much more than a continuation of the economic gap between those equipped to flourish under change and those unable to flourish for whatever personal or systemic reason. It has always been so.

Did early jazz corrupt young girls' morals?

Four or Five Times.

Can you give Bessie a reefer, and a bottle of beer?

Sure.

Millennia of evolution have adapted teenage women to the role of being wives of older men and mothers of their babies. If society denies them the role they are evolved to fill, their psyches will be unbalanced, and the result will be vulnerability to various psychosocial contagions.

Then, of course, if you plug a vulnerable population into an uncontrolled universal rapid transmission vector for psychosocial contagions, you will have all sorts of serious psychiatric illnesses spread throughout the vulnerable population.

But the cure isn't to shut down the vector; that still leaves you with a unbalanced, vulnerable population. The cure is to get the teenage women into the role evolution adapted their psychology for.

If a woman is sixteen and she isn't a wife and mother, your society has failed her. If a woman is sixteen and your society is telling her she shouldn't be a wife and mother, your society is actively, objectively, and acutely misogynistic.

Why stop there? Let's double down on "millenia of evolution" and replace the second half of high school with two years lf semi-nomadic life in your rural African territory of choice, preferably with enough internecine combat to kill off 1% of boys. It's what growing brains need!

That actually doesn't sound so bad.

Pretty much any time you see someone using evo-psych to justify anything you can assume they are wrong. Sometimes they get things right, but only by pure chance. Memetic theory (which presupposes as a foundational assumption that humans are incapable of evaluating ideas--though I think QRS and their ilk would be fine with that as applied to women) is even worse.

Pretty much nothing said in this post bears even a passing resemblance to anything we know about human sexuality pre-agriculture. The one thing we DO know (via genetic evidence) is that humans would sleep with pretty much anything that was reasonably human-shaped. There is zero evidence for family structure, ages of common first births, and the like prior to written records, and ample reason (kin selection, the way chromosomes work, written records, the existence of virginal religious orders in many cultures, etc) to doubt this interpretation of the past. Further, the idea QRS is pushing--that we are obliged to live as our ancestors did because "evolution"--is pure, unmitigated nonsense. Evolution acts on the local changing environment, and our environment is so different from what it was thousands of years ago that even if QRS was right (and to be clear, HE IS NOT) it would be utterly irrelevant to any discussion of modern reproduction. In order for QRS to be correct we would have to assume that evolution stopped around the time we domesticated wheat; assume that evolution is ongoing and his entire argument falls apart.

This is nothing more than misogyny with a few poorly-understood scientific terms added onto it. No one with a firm understanding of population genetics or evolutionary biology would take this crap seriously.

Your critique of QRS is apt, but your own offering contains just as much speculative eco-psych nonsense (built on assumptions which are more arbitrary than you realize).

First, this is a Tu Quoque, Ad Hom, and Red Herring fallacy. The only part of your statement relevant to this discussion is the first 6 words; the rest is a rather remarkable demonstration of rhetorical trickery. I'm genuinely impressed; that's a tremendous number of fallacies to insert into so brief a statement.

Second, can you provide any evidence for this? I rather studiously avoid evo-psych as a rule. There are one or two things that I'll accept, but to my recollection I've been very open about when I do so.

Upon review maybe you didn't engage in any explicit evolutionary psychology, but statements such as "The one thing we DO know (via genetic evidence) is that humans would sleep with pretty much anything that was reasonably human-shape" strike me as unfounded hyperbole--and remind me too much of people like Geoffrey Mill and Diana Fleischman in their advocacy of science-based degeneracy.

Average age of first marriage for women in the US in 1800 was ~21.5. Even in the middle ages where betrothal was young, age of first pregnany was earl 20s.

To add to your point, most of those young marriages we hear about were political arrangements among the nobility, having more to do with politics than marriage. Most people were farmers, and most of the rest were merchants and townspeople, and thus excluded from such arrangements. As I understand it most of the non-nobility married in their late teens/early 20s. The child marriages are notable because they were abnormal.

Views of family life in the past are HEAVILY distorted by how biased our sources are. When we get candid depictions of family life it often shows a very different picture.

Academic economics is so lame. It's just applying econometrics to the lamest social science issues du jour.

Yeah... children's mental health... no reason to study that.

If your society treats a sixteen-year-old human female as a child rather than a woman, you're quite surely going to damage her mental health.

It's allowing 16-yr olds to think they have the capacity and maturity to make adult decisions that exacerbates all their mental health problems.

In 1310 in a farming village where she's surrounded by extended family and doing the same thing that her ancestors had for hundreds of years (spinning, taking care of the poultry, and cooking), maybe a 16 year old could function as an adult.

In 2022, in a society that requires 16 years of rigorous education to even begin to be a functioning member? The math alone renders the idea that these kids should be treated as adults preposterous.

in a society that requires 16 years of rigorous education

What society might that be?

"Do phone calculators mean you don't need to memorize your multiplication tables anymore?"

Given that the society the pedophilic misogynists' on this thread are advocating for was a time before widespread literacy or understanding of mathematics, I'm not sure what relevance this has to the topic at hand. The difference between pre-agricultural society and modern society is definition far, far greater than the difference between the 1950s and today (the difference between pre-agricultural society and the 1950s is included in the difference between pre-agricultural society and today).

To answer your question, phones DO reduce the utility of mental math. The error rate in mental calculations is such that we have spent several thousand years figuring out ways to address this issue. This is one of the reasons writing was invented--to keep count of things. Used to be you had books where people did calculations for you, and which you could reference; the methods they went to in order to ensure accuracy were fairly onerous. Having a device that eliminates such errors is a positive good. The main advantages of mental calculations are speed and an independent verification of the numbers.

Continue this thread →

Do phone calculators mean you don't need to memorize your multiplication tables anymore?

"What society might that be?

8 years of primary/middle school
4 years of high school
4 years of college

Geologists are notoriously bad at math, but 8 plus 4 plus 4 was 16 last time I looked. And while college isn't technically required by any laws, we're talking culture here, not law. Our culture is very clear: College education is a requirement, and if you fail to fulfill it you need to prove yourself in far more onerous ways.

I'm skipping kindergarten; it's not required everywhere, and there are ample reasons for not sending a kid. I probably should include it, but I believe in allowing my opponents in a debate to take precedence whenever there is ambiguity.

Pedo alert.

A sixteen-year-old is biologically an adult, someone attracted to 16-year-olds is not a pedophile (by definition) but just a normal healthy person. Not even a hebephile.

A 16 year old looks very different from a 20 year old. Significant development is still ongoing. On the other hand one shouldn't be too autistic about this stuff. I've known several older couples married for 5 decades who met when the women was 16, the man in his early 20s. The man certainly wasn't a pedophile. (And I'm sure they were chaste before marriage.)

Another pedo alert.

Yeah, if I were the FBI I'd be VERY curious about QRS' hard drive....

Are you a Swatter?

Yes. Economics is now a branch of sociology.

I'm curious as to what else it could possibly be.

IDK, seems kinda crazy that someone would forgo 6 years of real wages just to write a paper that we all knew was true.

Lots of assumptions made in the research design that don't seem robust too.

There's a lot of stuff that "we all know is true" that ends up being false. Confirming conventional wisdom with research is indeed useful.

I’m just saying that it was very nuanced data manipulation which doesn’t seem robust and the conclusion is common sense.

Good for her yet it cost her 200k in earnings, at least.

Good for her yet it cost her 200k in earnings, at least.

She violated the American 11th Commandment: Never leave money on the table.

Incels have wanted young women off social media for years.

It's damaging because social media tend to be the vilest, most misogynistic place imaginable when it comes to women, especially teenage girls. Just baffling the amount of sexual harassment they receive, insults, "dick pics", violent threats, and more that women and girls receive online, and that they just brush off casually because it is, unfortunately, normal for them.

Good lord. Women and girls are more vicious to each other than men ever have been, and it's not "internalized misogyny", either. Further, self-reported "harassment" is inherently suspect. Maybe if there was less scare-mongering, there would be less hysteria, as well.

Begging you to get out of your basement and talk to one woman in your life that isn't your mother.

Well...that's quite the critique of the study. Perhaps you should submit your observations to the author: elainexiaoyu.guo@mail.utoronto.ca

The harm to adults from using social media is worse for society because, as adults, they can buy firearms and vote. With teens, especially girls, they tend to internalize criticism and rejection, whereas for adults, males in particular, the criticism and rejection fuels anger and resentment that increase anti-social behaviors. Social media: what good is it? It isn't.

Social media and cults: Before social media, cult leaders used deception to recruit their victims, such as operating what was claimed to be a rehab center or a center for abused spouses and partners. Recruitment was often harsh and included physical and mental abuse to gain and maintain control over cult members. This meant cults often had enforcers, much like in organized crime. Enforcers not only abused cult members but also critics of the cults. In one case, a critic of the cult known as Synanon was the target of an assassination plot in which the enforcers put a rattlesnake in the critic's mailbox, who was bitten by the snake and nearly died. Today with social media cultish leaders don't resort to physical abuse but use indoctrination to gain and maintain control, and don't use rattlesnakes to silence critics but use social media to depict the critics as social outcasts. Indeed, most cultish figures who use social media to gain and maintain control aren't even considered cult leaders, but instead are considered business, religious, or academic leaders.

Isn't this just old ppl getting grumpy at whatever kids are up to these days?

No. No it isn't.

Comments for this post are closed