Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, writes on social media, smartphones and the rise in teen mental illness.
Commenters cite his review documents and his phone-free schools case as arguments that smartphones harmed teens, and one notes he addresses the reverse-causation objection.
What's often lost in a simple review of the history is that in modern times certain elements of the Unix philosophy [1] have become more important than ever. In fact as technology becomes more pervasive I would argue that the ideas it encapsulates are no longer only relevant to computer architecture, they're now relevant to the survival of a free and open society. This isn't just about how to build the best widget anymore (though I still think the Unix philosophy is a great contender for that).
In particular I'm referring to the principles of composability and universal interfaces. These principles make the Unix philosophy inherently democratizing - when you apply it you're producing something that's intended to interoperate with other agents in a diverse ecosystem beyond your control. This is in stark contrast to the monoliths that tend to emerge from proprietary software development where the socioeconomic goals are to control everything strictly and limit interoperability because there's commercial value in having a "moat" or a "walled garden" which people can't escape.
As computers become interwoven with our lives and our society the general purpose computer has become a tool like the printing press. The printing press was a precursor for democracy as we know it because it enabled the dissemination of information on a scale that was previously impossible.
What sort of social progress we might ultimately achieve through the general purpose computer is yet to be fully…
I'm 18. My parents did not moderate my smartphone usage, they just told me the harms that will result from phone addiction: life spent wastefully, especially in the critical years of middle and high school, bad grades, cognitive decay, vision decay, etc. I wised up and never get addicted to my phone ever, nor have used it for time-wasting distractions like social media. I hate those parents who restrict their kids' phone usage forcefully, they can't learn to use them safely. What happens when they grow up and be introduced to the world of unrestricted phone usage?
Just kidding. I was an addict just like almost all other classmates of mine. I'm currently curing my myopia which is 4+ diopters in one eye thanks to using my iPhone 5 cms away my eyes, laying in bed countless nights. I was ~155 IQ (can't remember because of poor memory), now down to 150. My memory was the best I know among people, I used to never forget anything which I can classify as 'timelessly relevant info', so I would remember everything in a science book I read once three years ago (but not the yesterday's lunch). People would frequently comment about my memory and comprehension. Not so much, I wasn't able to remember things from the textbook the teacher is going to ask in late high school. Now my brain is still foggy, but I'm recovering. I'm very unfit, confirmed by a doctor, again recovering from that. I was in %0.5 in my country's university exam alhamdulillah, and I wonder how would it be if I have…
> So far he hasn't turned into a domestic terrorist, and neither is he selling heroin for crypto on the dark web. Also, he has specific times when he can use his devices аnd limits on how much time.
I think this sort of hyperbole is unhelpful. What people are worried about is more mundane: whether the hyperconnectedness will make their kids less happy in the short or long run. There is some evidence that the age of first smartphone negatively correlates with these outcomes. [1] For my daughters, I worry about social media use, body image issues, and the like.
> Just delaying their first contact to the age of 13/14 won't magically guarantee they will be able to navigate it responsibly. This is just magical thinking born out of laziness.
I don't think most parents think this would be a magic bullet. They just think that it is one (important) tool in the toolkit. We understand that parents (n) are supposed to parent (v). It's not lazy to say that we think our children would be better served if their brains were a bit more developed before they are confronted with the world of addictive apps and always-on social media.
I'm glad to hear that things have worked out well for your kid. There are of course a variety of outcomes for different kinds of kids. No one knows whether their kid would have been happier (or would have grown into a happier adult) had they done something differently. We are all just trying to figure out how to do our best, and for some people that means…
I am afraid that this will just lead down the path to what https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1718654143110512741 was mocking. We're dictating solutions to today's threats, leaving tomorrow to its own devices.
But what will tomorrow bring? As Sam Altman warns in https://twitter.com/sama/status/1716972815960961174, superhuman persuasion is likely to be next. What does that mean? We've already had the problem of social media echo chambers leading to extremism, and online influencers creating cult-like followings. https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls is a sober warning about the dangers to mental health from this.
These are connected humans accidentally persuading each other. Now imagine AI being able to drive that intentionally to a particular political end. Then remember that China controls TikTok.
Will Biden's order keep China from developing that capability? Will we develop tools to identify how that might be being actively used against us? I doubt both.
Instead, we'll almost certainly get security theater leading to a regulatory moat. Which is almost certain to help profit margins at established AI companies. But is unlikely to address the likely future problems that haven't materialized yet.
I commented this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating because actually reading the author's arguments (granted, in other writings, not OP) will allow you to see he's considered this point and is will to accept that causation works the other way around.
It's a fair point. But what explains the uptick in depression and mental health issues starting around 2012, disproportionately impacting pre-teen girls and not contained to any geo. The author's entire point is that social media is the only explanation that that has been proposed [1]. Moreover, it's not a far-fetched explanation. He very aware that correlation does not provide causation, and that it could be the other way around. However, no one (according to him) has offered up a theory which explains the data like the social media theory does.
[1] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic
I'm not as pessimistic as you. There is more and more evidence (https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/13-explanations-mental-health-crisis) that social media companies have essentially engineered a harmful addictive drug - at some point they will be held accountable. I do think we are going through the tobacco company phase, where the CEO's will stand before Congress and solemnly state they think their product is not harmful, and even if it is, it is a matter of "freedom" or something.
"Just put down the phone" is this generation's Nancy Reagan "Just say no" moment. It was a joke amongst my young peers back in the day. But the real war on drugs, the War on Tobacco, has been incredibly effective - smoking used to be ubiquitous in the US, now it is just about gone. Social media, with attention-engineered timelines, is tobacco.