Also, they ignore connections to changes in education. Schools changed drastically after the No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001, raising the stakes of education, making school more pressured, less enjoyable, and taking agency from students. The kindergarteners at that time were teenagers during the years Haidt notes rising mental health issues.
That’s such an important point and thank you for reading! There are so many factors that this movement leaves out and simply dismisses that anything else could explain mental health struggles. If the messaging weren’t so effective and reaching people, I’d say it was ridiculous.
I read this with an open mind but it kind of seems like you are the one making straw man arguments. The people following the recommendations in The Anxious Generation are saying phones should not be used in schools, not that they should be banned outright. And he openly states that there is nuance — just read his post today where he says some digital conversations are good.
Overall, it seems like you are inaccurately describing the “movement” just for the purpose of criticizing it rather than engaging with its actual ideas.
I disagree that I have made a straw man argument. Take the quotes I pulled - these are their words. And frankly, they’re quite shocking. They are incompatible with nuance. How they write about these issues is critically important, the dominant message is important. Read the body of the work they post. Mentioning nuance briefly doesn’t counter that.
Tracy: You said in the article that your view is that we should leave phones out of schools and delay kids’ use of social media, but with the context that we can’t blame digital tech for everything because it is one of many factors affecting youth mental health. I agree. I believe this is the correct view, and I consider myself part of the “movement” inspired by Haidt’s book. The people around me pushing for phone-free schools and more intentional use of tech also know (of course!!) that there are other factors, and again even Haidt says it too, even if it’s not in the exact form and frequency that you want it to be. That’s why I said you seem to be arguing with a straw man. I have never heard anyone say that tech is the SOLE reason for youth mental illness and be taken seriously.
As for age-related restrictions, that’s not a ban. You wouldn’t say that, gambling, vaping, tobacco, etc are banned, right? Age-related restrictions are very normal and in fact there is already a restriction for those under 13, it’s just ignored.
If you want to talk about the details of how an age restriction should be enforced and balanced against, say, privacy concerns, that would be an engaging conversation. Knowing that you’re a longtime skeptic and a scientist, I bet you do have some great points to make. But from the article I couldn’t even tell what kind of scientist you are. It was all just a big assumption that any of the thousands (millions?) of people inspired by that book are automatically too dumb to understand that there is more than one factor in the world.
Haidt is a total grifter and you can see it whenever he is challenged. Straw man = talking about something unrelated to the topic. So when someone pushes Haidt and says, you don’t have the data to support this, his straw man argument deflects and says “kids are dying, don’t you care!” Can you point out the straw man in this post? Where did she deflect from the argument at hand? The fact is that Haidt’s camp has WEAK arguments, which are easy to dissect.
Also it feels like gaslighting to say they don’t want to ban phones. Creating an age cut off is banning phones for everyone under that age.
I actually disagree with you that we need to encourage less screen time in children, but that just speaks to the ability to find the nuance when arguments are grounded in actual facts.
I have been called unhinged and a troll for disagreeing with the movement. I pointed out parallels between the anti-vax movement that claimed vaccines cause Autism. As a person diagnosed with anxiety and depression, I’m not sure how it’s ok for someone to write a whole book stigmatizing disability and mental health. It’s stigmatizing because it’s not true; and this is where I see the parallel to anti-Vaxxers. The views are entrenched in ableism, anti-science, and moral panic. Can you imagine if he wrote a book called “the Autistic generation”?!
You are not wrong in your comparison. My understanding of anti-vaxxers is that they double down when you stereotype them and suggest that they are dumb (i.e. that they can’t understand data or nuance). Lecturing and condescending people just doesn’t work, especially when their beliefs conversely make them feel connected and like they are part of a community.
I hear you, and this is why I get immediately turned off by the whole anti-phones movement; it feels like a lecture and not even a good one. Do you have any recommendations for how to get through to people?
Making analogies like this one that require them to zoom out and take another perspective. But a lot of people don’t want to hear it no matter which way I say it. There is a lot of privilege being defended in the anti-phones position
I agree that there can be a lot of privilege, and unreasonably blaming parents, among the phone-free schools discussions. I’d like to make it more welcoming to people who aren’t privileged.
Yes I like the analogies! Personally I’d rather have an interesting discussion with someone I disagree with than be lectured by anyone, even someone I agree with.
Excellent post!!!!
Thank you!
Yes! The generation becoming anxious is the generation of parents reading this book! It’s infuriating.
Also, they ignore connections to changes in education. Schools changed drastically after the No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001, raising the stakes of education, making school more pressured, less enjoyable, and taking agency from students. The kindergarteners at that time were teenagers during the years Haidt notes rising mental health issues.
That’s such an important point and thank you for reading! There are so many factors that this movement leaves out and simply dismisses that anything else could explain mental health struggles. If the messaging weren’t so effective and reaching people, I’d say it was ridiculous.
Excellent as always, Tracy. My husband and I were just having this conversation this weekend-there is no nuance in movements!
I read this with an open mind but it kind of seems like you are the one making straw man arguments. The people following the recommendations in The Anxious Generation are saying phones should not be used in schools, not that they should be banned outright. And he openly states that there is nuance — just read his post today where he says some digital conversations are good.
Overall, it seems like you are inaccurately describing the “movement” just for the purpose of criticizing it rather than engaging with its actual ideas.
There are social media bans by age suggested.
I disagree that I have made a straw man argument. Take the quotes I pulled - these are their words. And frankly, they’re quite shocking. They are incompatible with nuance. How they write about these issues is critically important, the dominant message is important. Read the body of the work they post. Mentioning nuance briefly doesn’t counter that.
Tracy: You said in the article that your view is that we should leave phones out of schools and delay kids’ use of social media, but with the context that we can’t blame digital tech for everything because it is one of many factors affecting youth mental health. I agree. I believe this is the correct view, and I consider myself part of the “movement” inspired by Haidt’s book. The people around me pushing for phone-free schools and more intentional use of tech also know (of course!!) that there are other factors, and again even Haidt says it too, even if it’s not in the exact form and frequency that you want it to be. That’s why I said you seem to be arguing with a straw man. I have never heard anyone say that tech is the SOLE reason for youth mental illness and be taken seriously.
As for age-related restrictions, that’s not a ban. You wouldn’t say that, gambling, vaping, tobacco, etc are banned, right? Age-related restrictions are very normal and in fact there is already a restriction for those under 13, it’s just ignored.
If you want to talk about the details of how an age restriction should be enforced and balanced against, say, privacy concerns, that would be an engaging conversation. Knowing that you’re a longtime skeptic and a scientist, I bet you do have some great points to make. But from the article I couldn’t even tell what kind of scientist you are. It was all just a big assumption that any of the thousands (millions?) of people inspired by that book are automatically too dumb to understand that there is more than one factor in the world.
The minute you say I’m calling people dumb, I think I know that this can’t be a productive dialogue online. I wish you the best.
Haidt is a total grifter and you can see it whenever he is challenged. Straw man = talking about something unrelated to the topic. So when someone pushes Haidt and says, you don’t have the data to support this, his straw man argument deflects and says “kids are dying, don’t you care!” Can you point out the straw man in this post? Where did she deflect from the argument at hand? The fact is that Haidt’s camp has WEAK arguments, which are easy to dissect.
Also it feels like gaslighting to say they don’t want to ban phones. Creating an age cut off is banning phones for everyone under that age.
I actually disagree with you that we need to encourage less screen time in children, but that just speaks to the ability to find the nuance when arguments are grounded in actual facts.
I have been called unhinged and a troll for disagreeing with the movement. I pointed out parallels between the anti-vax movement that claimed vaccines cause Autism. As a person diagnosed with anxiety and depression, I’m not sure how it’s ok for someone to write a whole book stigmatizing disability and mental health. It’s stigmatizing because it’s not true; and this is where I see the parallel to anti-Vaxxers. The views are entrenched in ableism, anti-science, and moral panic. Can you imagine if he wrote a book called “the Autistic generation”?!
Thanks for reading the piece.
This is an incredibly important issue and shutting down constructive dialogue is a real problem
You are not wrong in your comparison. My understanding of anti-vaxxers is that they double down when you stereotype them and suggest that they are dumb (i.e. that they can’t understand data or nuance). Lecturing and condescending people just doesn’t work, especially when their beliefs conversely make them feel connected and like they are part of a community.
I hear you, and this is why I get immediately turned off by the whole anti-phones movement; it feels like a lecture and not even a good one. Do you have any recommendations for how to get through to people?
I’ve been trying to connect with people IRL to work on local issues but it’s tough because I’m anxious too and online is easier.
What about you, any tips on what has worked for you?
Making analogies like this one that require them to zoom out and take another perspective. But a lot of people don’t want to hear it no matter which way I say it. There is a lot of privilege being defended in the anti-phones position
I agree that there can be a lot of privilege, and unreasonably blaming parents, among the phone-free schools discussions. I’d like to make it more welcoming to people who aren’t privileged.
Yes I like the analogies! Personally I’d rather have an interesting discussion with someone I disagree with than be lectured by anyone, even someone I agree with.