I'm a high school student in a school where phones are essentially not accessible during school time, but your description of your English class is spot on with mine. I don't see the shyness or lack of engagement coming from cancel culture or something like that, I just don't think that students (including myself) respect the teachers or their lessons at all. The teachers (more so in the humanities) also seem to realise/think that their 'work' is useless, that they are essentially university educated babysitters. Maybe things could be different if they 'tried harder' or had different lessons, but the way things are now they are in fact university educated babysitters.
Could the teachers be bored themselves? Where are you from? In my country - NL - the requirement that teachers have a universty degree has been abandoned decades ago. Now many teachers are at their toes in class having reached their own intelluctual 'summit' or better limits, rather quickly after getting a job. Foreign kids, especially from eastern Europe or ASIA, and now from UA for instance, when introduced to NL schools, often say 'easy', and 'few hours'). Education must be fun and enjoyable...
(NL kids are some of the happiest in the world btw. And since last year there is a smartphone ban in schools. Seeing kids play in school playgrounds isn't an exotic event anymore now).
And since there is a permanent teacher shortage, schools aren't that picky, especially in the lesser neighborhoods (progressives, who dominate education, typically have all the best wishes for immigrants and the white working class but often choose a job in a nice(r) neighborhood since the kids are easier to handle...The parents there behave like consumers-of-education though).
As women in high-equality nations tend to choose traditionally 'female' jobs the shortage is caused by the 90% women education workforce: the pay is already pretty good and to 'solve' the shortage every now and then another financial incentive is added. Only making it more attractive for women to work even less. Today a 3 day work 'week's' pay equals a previous ft teaching job.
Our PISA scores keep declining. A few years ago a new education secretary seemed to be seriously going after the low standards, low quality, and over-sized power of the school boards (very independent in the NL) and the huge education consultancy sector that has appeared since the 80s. Within months the education bureaucracy had produced anonymous complaints about his 'violent' behaviour and he stepped down.
Even the conservative Christian political parties, tiny but traditionally with some prestige at education, have let go of the idea of rigorous, demanding education. As an education secretary said about 7 years ago when asked about the lousy NL PISA scores: 'personality development is just as important'...
They are definitely bored, the work is extremely easy for the teachers and middling students as well. A German exchange student has been complaining how boring and easy it is - English isn't even his native language. I'm in Australia.
I love my phone, and I love technology and the things that come with it: computers, video games, social media, etc.
I think it’s a super hardcore cope to blame social media or technology for the problems that young people are facing today. The problem is not technology or social media; it is a broken, isolated society. And that ultimately is a problem with the people who compose that society, not the technology around them.
The technology enables the pathology. Our author was quite gentle in his recitation of those pathologies. Example, pornography on demand has perturbed many a “modern” relationship between men and women, boys and girls.
Yes, parental control is key, but that as you’ve noted is lacking in a declining and sick society. No one argues for going back to the pre-Internet days or for a Luddite view of technology. However, in lieu of the appropriate controls for those too young to make such decisions and lack appropriate adult guidance, those knowledgeable in society must intervene where effective. Not sure what that immediately would entail—restrictions or education—but the evidence is piling up. We do not have another generation to lose to this great social experiment called the information revolution.
"The technology enables the pathology". Agreed, in the sense that it gives an opportunity for vulnerabilities already present to be expressed, and I think this is cathartic.
But, I disagree with just about everything you wrote after that. Parental control is not key, there are many people who argue for going back to pre-internet days or for a Luddite view of technology, and I don't think there is evidence piling up that suggests social media is the cause of young people's anxiety. In fact, I think the evidence points to social media being a great blessing to them. The information revolution is a fantastic success and I personally have been able to write what I believe are very important and useful academic articles that hardly could ever have been written without the assistance of the internet and modern technology.
You need to look up the research. The aspect of dopamine hits for likes and such has been indicated as are suspected brain rewiring due to such. Many indications are that such is detrimental much like we see in persons addicted to drugs. Research goes on.
Now as to the aspect of usefulness of the internet and technology, who the hell suggested it was not and that it should be eliminated? We don’t allow youthful persons to imbibe alcohol, or drive cars, or sign contracts, or do all sorts of things until we determine they’ve reached an age of maturity to handle these things. In this case maturity most like entails complete and normal brain development. We know that complete development of brain function complete in one’s early 20’s, not age 12.
You are an adult, we expect you to use the internet and technology appropriately. If not, it’s your problem. Young people, which is the entire point of the article, not so much.
Of course it would be a good thing for parents to guide their children towards a healthy relationship with technology, but we have very different perspectives on this topic that I don't think can be adequately dealt with in this comment section, so I'll leave it there, and hopefully people can learn from the back and forth.
Respectfully, you lack perspective. You must understand that it’s important to know what you know, and know what you don’t know. “Know Thyself” and other Delphic maxims could help. Arguing that technology somehow “saves” us from real world problems is misguided. Technology is a tool to improve the real world, not a construct to escape to. Rewatch The Matrix, Cypher.
I write this with respect. I will disagree, but I respect your points of view as plausible. I'm not seeking a conversion so much as a private consideration of what I'm proposing.
"Parental control is not key",
If we start by recognizing that there's a problem adolescents spending time on social media at inappropriate times, and perhaps for too large a percentage of their day (this varies, person by person), how else might we get them to reduce use *voluntarily*? Do you think that they will self-restrain, if restraint is appropriate?
"...there are many people who argue for going back to pre-internet days or for a Luddite view of technology,"
This may be your opinion, but what I think that any such claims that this is an *actual* rather than rhetorical, argument, is a red herring. If you accept this as such, you can thereby claim that they're unreasonable ("Luddites"), and dismiss their criticisms and suggestions. Do you see this as possible?
So far as evidence, I can't speak to any databases supporting increased evidence of but my anecdotal perception is that it is indeed increased and pervasive use of social media that is contributing to social alienation that we're seeing regularly now.; one can have a social interaction without any direct personal contact, ever. You may disagree, and mention that evidence points to the opposite conclusion--that social media helps, rather than hinders anxiety. It's difficult to imagine how, *in its entirety*, this might be. I can envision that consoling contact with a close friend via social media can lessen anxiety, and if this was the sufferer's main use of social media. that would be just fine. But would that narrow benefit be the main use of social media by the sufferer? I think not. I think it more likely that they suffered humiliation on the broad media, and sought (and received) consolation online from the putative close friend.
But maybe you meant something else. If so, what did you mean as a benefit?
"The information revolution is a fantastic success and I personally have been able to write what I believe are very important and useful academic articles that hardly could ever have been written without the assistance of the internet and modern technology."
This is not what anyone is talking about. You're talking about internet access to reference material, and this article and thread are about casual and informal and unvetted social media used by vulnerable young adults.
These new information tools are very powerful. We are still learning how to use them for good. Nuclear technology has the greatest potential to move humanity forward. We are still learning to use it for good.
It’s important that you define the term cope. It’s also important that you save what you wrote and keep reading the article until you understand that this is exactly the problem outlined in the article.
"In my class, I greet each student at the door with a fist bump (before COVID it was a handshake). Most used to return the greeting in a socially competent way. Now, many students will not look up at me or even smile when I greet them, and some try to slip in unnoticed to avoid the greeting altogether."
Super shy gen Xer here. I can tell you that I too would have tried to avoid the fist bump. Requiring a handshake would already have been bad enough, but the first bump adds an extra layer of mandatory hipness that would have been very difficult for me to swallow. Just like requiring a high-five from everyone. I would have regarded it as almost a form of harassment.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being shy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being non-conformist, and there's no good reason to force everyone to be the same. I have a wife and kids, and I have lived a happy life. "Get better"? Kindly buzz off.
While it's easy for things to go off the rails with kids and they definitely need more supervision, you do need to introduce them to tech. Like it or not, it's going to be a vital life skill once they're in the adult world.
Older people definitely also have these symptoms - messaging rather than talking, scrolling rather than interacting.
Yes, all true, but bear in mind that no one is suggesting doing away with all, or even most, access to internet technology. Simply excessive social media contact and especially at inappropriate times.
Yes, adults (me) have these behaviors, but hopefully my defenses are up and functioning, and I can't really say that for adolescents.
Things may turn around. My children simply do not allow the grandchildren to use smartphones, nor is tv allowed to be watched on demand—nor watched alone. They know/suspect the scary effect on the mind. Instead we read with them. The oldest, now 7, was reading independently at 4 and was reading to me a year later. It can be done.
However, this problem is not solely one of youth, it affects oldsters as well. After long years in academia, reading ponderous tomes, the internet has produced somewhat of an ADHD retired senior. So much to learn, so little time. One flys from source to source, but never spends much time to get into the depth of things. It now takes a considered effort on my part to delve into any chapter length book, whereas previously that was all I spent time on.
I hear now on the radio rapacious law firms advertising for folks to join their class action lawsuit against “unnamed” social media firms for damage done to their children. A “parade of horribles” is recited as the result of these firms’ multi-media software, and perhaps it is so.
"...the internet has produced somewhat of an ADHD retired senior. So much to learn, so little time. One flys from source to source, but never spends much time to get into the depth of things."
The main difference is that you had the time to recognize and develop in-depth information gather and subsequent evaluation and analysis. You possess the model, the paradigm.
The kids we're discussing never got that far. This hopping quickly from topic to topic is all they know. They actually believe that this is sufficient knowledge (sometimes it is) in most/all cases. You don't kid yourself in that fashion.
If true, *when* might we expect them to learn this, and how?
Absolutely. My experience was relayed to express that no one is immune and it seems not a “random” phenomenon. I suspect younger minds are affected more so since they are so malleable—which is the whole purpose of delayed mental development in higher order mammals like humans. I was lucky to grow up in a cohort before the technology became ubiquitous.
The Studies Show, which tackles the actual scientific evidence behind theories from a skeptical point of view, does not find good evidence that social media is the culprit - teens in other countries with heavy social media use are not seeing the same problems, for example - not that there is necessarily a crisis, as the terms are not well-defined for depression and anxiety in comparing the studies. I have love Jonathan Haidt and used to swear by him, but i think he is not being rigorous this time.
The sceptical comments do not address the experience recorded in the article. Parents need to man up. Especially single mothers, who are likely to find it more difficult. Taking the easy road is grossly irresponsible.
Yes. I think that there is a lot in that idea. But these factors have been fairly gradual, while social media exposure, to the point of saturation, better matches a circumstantial connection, possibly causal, if data can be trusted.
I'm a high school student in a school where phones are essentially not accessible during school time, but your description of your English class is spot on with mine. I don't see the shyness or lack of engagement coming from cancel culture or something like that, I just don't think that students (including myself) respect the teachers or their lessons at all. The teachers (more so in the humanities) also seem to realise/think that their 'work' is useless, that they are essentially university educated babysitters. Maybe things could be different if they 'tried harder' or had different lessons, but the way things are now they are in fact university educated babysitters.
Could the teachers be bored themselves? Where are you from? In my country - NL - the requirement that teachers have a universty degree has been abandoned decades ago. Now many teachers are at their toes in class having reached their own intelluctual 'summit' or better limits, rather quickly after getting a job. Foreign kids, especially from eastern Europe or ASIA, and now from UA for instance, when introduced to NL schools, often say 'easy', and 'few hours'). Education must be fun and enjoyable...
(NL kids are some of the happiest in the world btw. And since last year there is a smartphone ban in schools. Seeing kids play in school playgrounds isn't an exotic event anymore now).
And since there is a permanent teacher shortage, schools aren't that picky, especially in the lesser neighborhoods (progressives, who dominate education, typically have all the best wishes for immigrants and the white working class but often choose a job in a nice(r) neighborhood since the kids are easier to handle...The parents there behave like consumers-of-education though).
As women in high-equality nations tend to choose traditionally 'female' jobs the shortage is caused by the 90% women education workforce: the pay is already pretty good and to 'solve' the shortage every now and then another financial incentive is added. Only making it more attractive for women to work even less. Today a 3 day work 'week's' pay equals a previous ft teaching job.
Our PISA scores keep declining. A few years ago a new education secretary seemed to be seriously going after the low standards, low quality, and over-sized power of the school boards (very independent in the NL) and the huge education consultancy sector that has appeared since the 80s. Within months the education bureaucracy had produced anonymous complaints about his 'violent' behaviour and he stepped down.
Even the conservative Christian political parties, tiny but traditionally with some prestige at education, have let go of the idea of rigorous, demanding education. As an education secretary said about 7 years ago when asked about the lousy NL PISA scores: 'personality development is just as important'...
>Could the teachers be bored themselves?
They are definitely bored, the work is extremely easy for the teachers and middling students as well. A German exchange student has been complaining how boring and easy it is - English isn't even his native language. I'm in Australia.
The evolved answer to this in the US is a very. very carefully selected private education.
Essentially you do not pay for enhanced education, per se, but to avoid much of what you are talking about.
...and funny thing: if this stuff is avoided, often it evolves to "enhanced education".
My answer was to homeschool. I have a non-Woke 19yo in college with a 4.0GPA studying automotive technology and engineering.
Wow, this is horrible!
Thank you for posting. Education needs an overhaul.
I love my phone, and I love technology and the things that come with it: computers, video games, social media, etc.
I think it’s a super hardcore cope to blame social media or technology for the problems that young people are facing today. The problem is not technology or social media; it is a broken, isolated society. And that ultimately is a problem with the people who compose that society, not the technology around them.
The technology enables the pathology. Our author was quite gentle in his recitation of those pathologies. Example, pornography on demand has perturbed many a “modern” relationship between men and women, boys and girls.
Yes, parental control is key, but that as you’ve noted is lacking in a declining and sick society. No one argues for going back to the pre-Internet days or for a Luddite view of technology. However, in lieu of the appropriate controls for those too young to make such decisions and lack appropriate adult guidance, those knowledgeable in society must intervene where effective. Not sure what that immediately would entail—restrictions or education—but the evidence is piling up. We do not have another generation to lose to this great social experiment called the information revolution.
"The technology enables the pathology". Agreed, in the sense that it gives an opportunity for vulnerabilities already present to be expressed, and I think this is cathartic.
But, I disagree with just about everything you wrote after that. Parental control is not key, there are many people who argue for going back to pre-internet days or for a Luddite view of technology, and I don't think there is evidence piling up that suggests social media is the cause of young people's anxiety. In fact, I think the evidence points to social media being a great blessing to them. The information revolution is a fantastic success and I personally have been able to write what I believe are very important and useful academic articles that hardly could ever have been written without the assistance of the internet and modern technology.
You need to look up the research. The aspect of dopamine hits for likes and such has been indicated as are suspected brain rewiring due to such. Many indications are that such is detrimental much like we see in persons addicted to drugs. Research goes on.
Now as to the aspect of usefulness of the internet and technology, who the hell suggested it was not and that it should be eliminated? We don’t allow youthful persons to imbibe alcohol, or drive cars, or sign contracts, or do all sorts of things until we determine they’ve reached an age of maturity to handle these things. In this case maturity most like entails complete and normal brain development. We know that complete development of brain function complete in one’s early 20’s, not age 12.
You are an adult, we expect you to use the internet and technology appropriately. If not, it’s your problem. Young people, which is the entire point of the article, not so much.
Of course it would be a good thing for parents to guide their children towards a healthy relationship with technology, but we have very different perspectives on this topic that I don't think can be adequately dealt with in this comment section, so I'll leave it there, and hopefully people can learn from the back and forth.
Yes. There is value in honest exchange.
Thanks.
Respectfully, you lack perspective. You must understand that it’s important to know what you know, and know what you don’t know. “Know Thyself” and other Delphic maxims could help. Arguing that technology somehow “saves” us from real world problems is misguided. Technology is a tool to improve the real world, not a construct to escape to. Rewatch The Matrix, Cypher.
I write this with respect. I will disagree, but I respect your points of view as plausible. I'm not seeking a conversion so much as a private consideration of what I'm proposing.
"Parental control is not key",
If we start by recognizing that there's a problem adolescents spending time on social media at inappropriate times, and perhaps for too large a percentage of their day (this varies, person by person), how else might we get them to reduce use *voluntarily*? Do you think that they will self-restrain, if restraint is appropriate?
"...there are many people who argue for going back to pre-internet days or for a Luddite view of technology,"
This may be your opinion, but what I think that any such claims that this is an *actual* rather than rhetorical, argument, is a red herring. If you accept this as such, you can thereby claim that they're unreasonable ("Luddites"), and dismiss their criticisms and suggestions. Do you see this as possible?
So far as evidence, I can't speak to any databases supporting increased evidence of but my anecdotal perception is that it is indeed increased and pervasive use of social media that is contributing to social alienation that we're seeing regularly now.; one can have a social interaction without any direct personal contact, ever. You may disagree, and mention that evidence points to the opposite conclusion--that social media helps, rather than hinders anxiety. It's difficult to imagine how, *in its entirety*, this might be. I can envision that consoling contact with a close friend via social media can lessen anxiety, and if this was the sufferer's main use of social media. that would be just fine. But would that narrow benefit be the main use of social media by the sufferer? I think not. I think it more likely that they suffered humiliation on the broad media, and sought (and received) consolation online from the putative close friend.
But maybe you meant something else. If so, what did you mean as a benefit?
"The information revolution is a fantastic success and I personally have been able to write what I believe are very important and useful academic articles that hardly could ever have been written without the assistance of the internet and modern technology."
This is not what anyone is talking about. You're talking about internet access to reference material, and this article and thread are about casual and informal and unvetted social media used by vulnerable young adults.
"The technology enables the pathology."
Yes, this is it, exactly. It is a failure of some to recognize cause effect.
Correct Gent. The technology has socially handicapped Gen Z.
These new information tools are very powerful. We are still learning how to use them for good. Nuclear technology has the greatest potential to move humanity forward. We are still learning to use it for good.
It’s important that you define the term cope. It’s also important that you save what you wrote and keep reading the article until you understand that this is exactly the problem outlined in the article.
Untrue.
"In my class, I greet each student at the door with a fist bump (before COVID it was a handshake). Most used to return the greeting in a socially competent way. Now, many students will not look up at me or even smile when I greet them, and some try to slip in unnoticed to avoid the greeting altogether."
Super shy gen Xer here. I can tell you that I too would have tried to avoid the fist bump. Requiring a handshake would already have been bad enough, but the first bump adds an extra layer of mandatory hipness that would have been very difficult for me to swallow. Just like requiring a high-five from everyone. I would have regarded it as almost a form of harassment.
This is sad. I hope you get better. Socialization is part of education.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being shy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being non-conformist, and there's no good reason to force everyone to be the same. I have a wife and kids, and I have lived a happy life. "Get better"? Kindly buzz off.
While it's easy for things to go off the rails with kids and they definitely need more supervision, you do need to introduce them to tech. Like it or not, it's going to be a vital life skill once they're in the adult world.
Older people definitely also have these symptoms - messaging rather than talking, scrolling rather than interacting.
Yes, all true, but bear in mind that no one is suggesting doing away with all, or even most, access to internet technology. Simply excessive social media contact and especially at inappropriate times.
Yes, adults (me) have these behaviors, but hopefully my defenses are up and functioning, and I can't really say that for adolescents.
No argument from me. We’re not immune, but hopefully, wise enough to use these gifts in moderation and for the right reasons.
Things may turn around. My children simply do not allow the grandchildren to use smartphones, nor is tv allowed to be watched on demand—nor watched alone. They know/suspect the scary effect on the mind. Instead we read with them. The oldest, now 7, was reading independently at 4 and was reading to me a year later. It can be done.
However, this problem is not solely one of youth, it affects oldsters as well. After long years in academia, reading ponderous tomes, the internet has produced somewhat of an ADHD retired senior. So much to learn, so little time. One flys from source to source, but never spends much time to get into the depth of things. It now takes a considered effort on my part to delve into any chapter length book, whereas previously that was all I spent time on.
I hear now on the radio rapacious law firms advertising for folks to join their class action lawsuit against “unnamed” social media firms for damage done to their children. A “parade of horribles” is recited as the result of these firms’ multi-media software, and perhaps it is so.
"...the internet has produced somewhat of an ADHD retired senior. So much to learn, so little time. One flys from source to source, but never spends much time to get into the depth of things."
The main difference is that you had the time to recognize and develop in-depth information gather and subsequent evaluation and analysis. You possess the model, the paradigm.
The kids we're discussing never got that far. This hopping quickly from topic to topic is all they know. They actually believe that this is sufficient knowledge (sometimes it is) in most/all cases. You don't kid yourself in that fashion.
If true, *when* might we expect them to learn this, and how?
Absolutely. My experience was relayed to express that no one is immune and it seems not a “random” phenomenon. I suspect younger minds are affected more so since they are so malleable—which is the whole purpose of delayed mental development in higher order mammals like humans. I was lucky to grow up in a cohort before the technology became ubiquitous.
The mass tort industry is another thing we can blame on boomers.
The Studies Show, which tackles the actual scientific evidence behind theories from a skeptical point of view, does not find good evidence that social media is the culprit - teens in other countries with heavy social media use are not seeing the same problems, for example - not that there is necessarily a crisis, as the terms are not well-defined for depression and anxiety in comparing the studies. I have love Jonathan Haidt and used to swear by him, but i think he is not being rigorous this time.
https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-25-is-it-the-phones?utm_source=publication-search
The sceptical comments do not address the experience recorded in the article. Parents need to man up. Especially single mothers, who are likely to find it more difficult. Taking the easy road is grossly irresponsible.
Blaming the boomers is usually my go to. :)
Neuroinflammation from obesity, vaccinations, pesticides, and perhaps microplastic may also be a factor.
Yes. I think that there is a lot in that idea. But these factors have been fairly gradual, while social media exposure, to the point of saturation, better matches a circumstantial connection, possibly causal, if data can be trusted.
Excellent