Correlación entre uso de redes sociales y problemas de salud mental adolescente Transcript: Jonathan Haidt There’s a lot of data tracking adolescents. There’s self-reports of how depressed, anxious, lonely. There’s data on hospital admissions for self-harm. There’s data on suicide. And all of these things, they bounce around somewhat, but they’re relatively level in the early 2000s. And then all of a sudden, around 2010 to 2013, depending on which statistic you’re looking at, all of a sudden, they begin to shoot upwards, more so for girls in some cases, but on the whole, It’s like up for both sexes. It’s just that boys have lower levels of anxiety and depression, so the curve is not quite as dramatic. But what we see is not small increases. It’s not like, oh, 10%, 20%. No, the increases are between 50% and 150%, depending on which group you’re looking at. Suicide for preteen girls, thankfully, it’s not very common, but it’s two to three times more common now. Or by 2015, it had doubled. Between 2010 and 2015, it doubled. So something is going radically wrong in the world of American preteens. So as I’ve been studying it, I found, first of all, it’s not just America. It’s identical in Canada and the UK. Australia and New Zealand are very similar. They’re just after a little delay. So whatever we’re looking for here, but yet it’s not as clear in the Germanic countries. In continental Europe, it’s a little different, and we can get into that when we talk about childhood. But something’s happening in many countries, and it started right around 2012, 2013. It wasn’t gradual. It hit girls hardest and it hit preteen girls the hardest. So what could it be? Nobody has come up with another explanation. Nobody. It wasn’t the financial crisis that wouldn’t have hit preteen girls the hardest. There is no other explanation. The complexity here and the data is, of course, as everyone knows, correlation doesn’t prove causation. The fact that television viewing was going up in the 60s and 70s doesn’t mean that that was the cause of the crime. So (Time 0:13:10)
2min adolescencia correlación redes_sociales salud_mental
2min adolescencia correlación redes_sociales salud_mental
No es el smartphone, son las redes sociales en donde el usuario es el producto. Transcript: Jonathan Haidt What I’m talking about here is not the internet. It’s not technology. It’s not smartphones. And it’s not even all social media. It’s a particular business model in which people are incentivized to create content, and that content is what brings other people on. And the people on there are the product which is sold to advertisers. It’s that particular business model which Facebook pioneered, which seems to be incredibly harmful for teenagers, especially for young girls, 10 to 14 years old is where they’re Most vulnerable. And it seems to be particularly harmful for democratic institutions because it leads to all kinds of anger, conflict, and the destruction of any shared narrative. So that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about Facebook, Twitter. I don’t have any data on TikTok. I suspect it’s going to end up having a lot of really bad effects because the teens are on it so much. (Time 0:16:48)
2min adolescencia modelo_de_negocios redes_sociales salud_mental
2min adolescencia modelo_de_negocios redes_sociales salud_mental
Los datos no son sólo autorreporte, están respaldados por admisiones a hospitales. Transcript: Lex Fridman Right. Jonathan Haidt So when this data started coming out around… So Gene Tweng’s book, iGen, 2017, a lot of people say, oh, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. This is just self-report. Like Gen Z, they’re just really comfortable talking about this. This is a good thing. This isn’t a over epidemic. And literally the day before my book with Greg was published, the day before, there was a psychiatrist in New York Times who had an op-ed saying, relax, smartphones are not ruining your Kid’s brain. And he said, it’s just self-report. It’s just that they’re giving higher rates, there’s more diagnosis, but underlying there’s no change. No, because it’s theoretically possible, but all we have to do is look at the hospitalization data for self-harm and suicide, and we see the exact same trends. We see also a very sudden, big rise between 2009 and 2012, you have an elbow, and then it goes up, up, up. So that is not self-report. Those are actual kids admitted to hospitals for cutting themselves. So we have a catastrophe and this was all true before COVID. COVID made things worse, but we have to realize, you know, COVID’s going away. Kids are back in school, but we’re not going to go back to where we were because this problem is not caused by COVID. What (Time 0:26:54)
2min adolescencia evidencia redes_sociales salud_mental
2min adolescencia evidencia redes_sociales salud_mental
Correlación de 0.2 es ENORME en salud poblacional Transcript: Jonathan Haidt So first point, correlational studies consistently show a link. They almost all do, but it’s not big. Equivalent to a correlation coefficient around 0.1, typically. That’s the first point. The second point is that the correlation is actually much larger than for eating potatoes. So that famous line wasn’t about social media use. That was about digital media use. That included watching Netflix, doing homework on everything. And so what they did is they looked at all screen use, and then they said, this is correlated with self-reports of depression, anxiety, like, you know, 0.03, it’s tiny. But they said that clearly in the paper, but the media has reported as social media is 0.03 or tiny. And that’s just not true. What I found digging into it, you don’t know this until you look at the, there’s more than 100 studies in the Google Doc. Once you dig in, what you see is, okay, you see a tiny correlation. What happens if we zoom in on just social media? It always gets bigger, often a lot bigger, two or three times bigger. What happens if we zoom in on girls and social media? It always gets bigger, often a lot bigger. And so what I think we can conclude, in fact, what one of the authors of the potato studies herself concludes, Amy Orban says, I think I have a quote from here, she reviewed a lot of studies And she herself said that, quote, the associations between social media use and well-being therefore range from about R equals 0.15 to R equals 0.10. So that’s the range we’re talking about. And that’s for boys and girls together. And a lot of research, including hers and mine, show that girls, it’s higher. So for girls, we’re talking about correlations around 0.15 to 0.2, I believe. Jean Twenge and I found it’s about 0.2 or 0.22. Now, this might sound like an arcane social science debate, but people have to understand, public health correlations are almost never above 0.2. So the correlation of childhood exposure to lead and adult IQ, very serious problem, that’s 0.09. Like the world’s messy and our measurements are messy. And (Time 0:28:12)
2min adolescencia correlación epidemiología salud_mental
2min adolescencia correlación epidemiología salud_mental
Púberes no están preparados para utilizar redes sociales. Debiese prohibirse su uso. Transcript: Lex Fridman Okay. Jonathan Haidt So here’s the most important thing to understand. In the social sciences, we say, is social media harmful to kids? That’s a broad question. You can’t answer that directly. You have to have much more specific questions. You have to operationalize it and have a theory of how it’s harming kids. And so almost all of the research is done on what’s called the dose response model. That is, everybody, including most of the researchers, are thinking about this, like, let’s treat this like sugar. Because the data usually shows a little bit of social media use isn’t correlated with harm, but a lot is. So think of it like sugar. And if kids have a lot of sugar, then it’s bad. So how much is okay? But social media is not like sugar at all. It’s not a dose response thing. It’s a complete rewiring of childhood. So we evolved as a species in which kids play in mixed age groups. They learn the skills of adulthood. They’re always playing and working and learning and doing errands. That’s normal childhood. That’s how you develop your brain. That’s how you become a mature adult until the 1990s. In the 1990s, we dropped all that. We said, it’s too dangerous. If we let you outside, you’ll be kidnapped. So we completely, we began rewiring childhood in the 90s before social media. And that’s a big part of the story. I’m a big fan of Lenore Skenazy, who wrote the book, Free Range Kids. If there are any parents listening to this, please buy Lenore’s book, Free Range Kids, and then go to letgrow.org. It’s a nonprofit that Lenore and I started with Peter Gray and Daniel Shookman to help change the laws and the norms around letting kids out to play. They need free play. So that’s the big picture. They need free play. And we started stopping that in the 90s that we reduced it. And then Gen Z, kids born in 1996, they’re the first people in history to get on social media before puberty. Millennials didn’t get it until they were in college, but Gen Z, they get it because you can lie. You just lie about your age. So they really began to get on around 2009, 2010, and boom, two years later, they’re depressed. It’s not because they ate too much sugar necessarily. It’s because even normal social interactions that kids had in the early 2000s, largely, well, they decline because now everything’s through the phone. And that’s what I’m trying to get across, that it’s not just a dose response thing. Imagine one middle school where everyone has an Instagram account and it’s constant drama. Everyone’s constantly checking and posting and worrying. And imagine going through puberty that way versus imagine there was a policy, no phones in school, you have to check them in a locker, no one can have an Instagram account, all the parents Are on board. Parents only let their kids have Instagram because the kid says everyone else has it. And we’re stuck in a social dilemma. We’re stuck in a trap. So what’s the solution? Keep kids off until they’re done with puberty. There’s a new study actually by Amy Orban and Andy Shabilsky showing that the damage is greatest for girls between 11 and 13. So there is no way to make it safe for preteens or even 13, 14 year olds. We’ve got to, kids should simply not be allowed on these business models where you’re the product. They should not be allowed on until you’re 16. We need to raise the age and enforce it. That’s the biggest thing. Lex Fridman So (Time 0:32:27)
adolescencia competencias redes_sociales regulación salud_mental
adolescencia redes_sociales regulación salud_mental
Relación ansiosa y adictiva con las interacciones en redes sociales Transcript: Jonathan Haidt One of five or seven different avenues of harm. The main one, I think, which does in the girls, is not being bullied. It’s living a life where you’re thinking all the time about posting. Because once a girl starts posting, so it’s bad enough that they’re scrolling through, and this is everyone comments on this, you’re scrolling through and everyone’s life looks better Than yours because it’s fake and all that you see are the ones the algorithm picked that were the night. Anyway, so the scrolling, I think, is bad for the girls. What I’m beginning to see, I can’t prove this, but what I’m beginning to see from talking to girls, from seeing how it’s used, is once you start posting, that takes over your mind. And now you’re basically, you’re no longer present. Because even if you’re only spending five or six hours a day on Instagram, you’re always thinking about it. And when you’re in class, you’re thinking about how are people responding to the post that I made between classes. I mean, I do it. I try to stay off Twitter for a while, but now I’ve got this big article, I’m tweeting about it, and I can’t help it. I check 20 times a day, I’ll check, like, what are people saying? What are people saying? This is terrible. And I’m a 58-year man. Imagine being a 12-year girl going through puberty. You’re self-conscious about how you look. And I see some young women. I see some professional young women, women in their 20s and 30s, who are putting up sexy photos of themselves. And this is so sad, so sad. (Time 0:39:28)
2min adicción ansiedad diseño redes_sociales
2min adicción ansiedad diseño redes_sociales
La solución pasa por regulación legislativa. Transcript: Jonathan Haidt And you have to look at it systemically. And so the biggest change for teen mental health, I think, is to raise the age from 13. It was set to 13 in COPPA in like 1997 or six or whatever, eight, whatever it was. It was set to 13 with no enforcement. I think it needs to go to 16 or 18 with enforcement. Actually, so look, Instagram, the age is 13, but they don’t enforce it. And they’re under pressure to not enforce it because if they did enforce it, then all the kids would just go to TikTok, which they’re doing anyway. But if we go back a couple of years when they were talking about rolling out Facebook for kids, because they need to get those kids, they need to get kids under 13. There’s a business imperative to hook them early and keep them. So I don’t expect Facebook to act on its own accord and do the right thing because- So regulation is the only way. Yes, exactly. When you have a social dilemma, like what economists call a prisoner’s dilemma or a social dilemma is generalized to multiple people. And when you have a social dilemma, each player can’t opt out because they’re going to lose. You have to have central regulations. I think we have to raise the age. The (Time 1:37:37)
2min adolescencia ley redes_sociales regulación salud_mental
2min adolescencia ley redes_sociales regulación salud_mental