Thanks to bestselling authors like Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge, the public has become increasingly aware of the rapid rise in mental health issues among younger people […] Their warnings about the destructive impact of social media have had an effect, reflected not least in a wave of schools across Europe banning smartphones.
While it’s good to draw attention to the rising rates of depression and anxiety, there’s a risk of becoming fixated on simplistic explanations that reduce the issue to technical variables like “screen time”.
[…]
A hallmark of Twenge and Haidt’s arguments is their use of trend lines for various types of psychological distress, showing increases after 2012, which Haidt calls the start of the “great rewiring” when smartphones became widespread. This method has been criticised for overemphasising correlations that may say little about causality.
[…]
Numerous academics […] have pointed to factors such as an increasing intolerance for uncertainty in modernity, a fixation – both individual and collective – on avoiding risk, intensifying feelings of meaninglessness in work and life more broadly and rising national inequality accompanied by growing status anxiety. However, it’s important to emphasise that social science has so far failed to provide definitive answers.
[…]
It seems unlikely that the political and social challenges we face wouldn’t influence our wellbeing. Reducing the issue to isolated variables [such as the use of smartphones], where the solution might appear to be to introduce a new policy (like banning smartphones) follows a technocratic logic that could turn good health into a matter for experts.
The risk with this approach is that society as a whole is excluded from the analysis. Another risk is that politics is drained of meaning. If political questions such as structural discrimination, economic precarity, exposure to violence and opioid use are not regarded as shaping our wellbeing, what motivation remains for taking action on these matters?
When was the last time you brought/did something without checking an online review? Got into a conversation with a complete stranger? Left the house without a phone?
I think that’s the kind of risk they are talking about.
I buy groceries without checking a review, try local activities without checking reviews, etc.—I’m not exactly paralyzed. But something that costs a decent chunk of money I am absolutely checking a review and I don’t think that is wrong to do. The trouble with checking reviews nowadays is how easy they are to fake, how easy it is to get a genuine negative review deleted on certain sites, how a person who has it out for a small business owner can flood them with untrue negative reviews, how often they are gamed in some way such that it does not reflect the true quality of the thing…
Conversations with strangers… I’ll be honest that’s a hard one because I’m not good at social cues and I don’t want to think I’m having a nice conversation when the other half is composing a OH MY GOD STUPID FUCKING EXTROVERTS THE WORLD HATES INTROVERTS CAN’T THEY TELL I DON’T WANT TO TALK story in their head about me (being extroverted and having autism where you suck at social cues and know you suck at social cues is not a fun combination). I learned this behavior after seeing people express annoyance about strangers talking to them. Some things are obvious, like if you’re occupied with a book, but nowadays who isn’t occupied on their phone? I have had plenty of situations where I was on my phone but would have loved if someone started conversation with me—but I might be an anomaly so I just keep following the social rule of “occupied = don’t talk”. If I’m in a space where I think someone is open to socialization I am much more likely to initiate conversation—like a party or something. I’m not afraid of “sorry, not interested,” but I am afraid of “yeah I’m cool with you” (actually no I’m not but I’ll never tell you I have a problem with you until I blow up about it 6 months later).
I like quick and easy access to 911 or a locksmith’s number in case I leave the house and lock myself out and cannot find the spare key but there are other reasons I leave the house with a phone than risk aversion/insurance for screwups I have committed before—for directions, or because it’s nice to have a thing that staves away boredom if I know I’ll probably be sitting in a line for 30 minutes, or because I have a digital wallet on there that is easier to carry around than my real wallet…
The issue with those metrics is how many other things can motivate those behaviors besides being scared of everything, or factors that make what might be an unreasonable fear for most people actually reasonable for you (for example, a phobia of bees suddenly becomes a lot more reasonable if you are deathly allergic, live near them, and aren’t good at recognizing their hives/are accident-prone), but I do get the core of what you are saying. A generation who is more anxious about basic everyday things, which is definitely not good.
Although with checking reviews specifically, I’d argue that given how many times companies lower quality, change stuff, pull the rug out from under you in the name of profit, people have more and more cause to try to verify they are getting something decent when they would not have done so in the past. The more you hear of people getting screwed over, naturally the more you’ll check to make sure you are not getting screwed too. This increased risk aversion is entirely rational in my opinion.
I live on Staten Island. Used to be that I’d hear chatter on the ferry every day. I would have a nice chat almost daily, and a serious conversation a couple of times a month. These days it’s mostly silent and those who do talk came on the boat together. Otherwise, everyone is staring at the phone.
So what would be the solution you think?
I wish I knew.
There are gradients to risk-aversion, and that’s certainly on the low end of the spectrum. But also, those same parents were the ones who were actively rebelling in the 90s or in the 60s and 70s, in some cases for very good causes that were worth risking injury or even a chance of getting shot.
We need those people, now more than ever. And despite it being a natural personality trait, risk-aversion is more pervasive than ever. We risk losing our freedoms to people with far more power than us, because we collectively decided that it’s too risk-averse to fight.
We are frogs boiling in water, unwilling to fix our situation, because there’s a risk of injury or death.
Injury is a lot easier to risk if you won’t be charged more than your entire net worth for treatment. If you haven’t experienced the misery of medical debt, and know how others live with it, it’s absolutely terrifying to think about having to live with, all because you tried to do something good.
I like to try to help others but I am selfish enough to admit I’d never run myself into debt or risk my life for someone else. I always respect those willing to do what I’m not.
The thing is, it’s not the fear of injury or death, it’s the fact that people have forgotten the idea of public engagement.
There was a story a while back about a Georgia family who got in real legal trouble for letting a 10 year old wander about in their own neighborhood.
I used to ride my bike all over town and I’d see gangs of kids doing the same. I was in Jersey City, NJ a while back and was surprised by the sight of elementary school age kids out alone.
Like I said, gradients. If people have a fear of public engagement, they certainly can’t get far enough to get past the fear of injury or death.
Someone made an interesting point.
If a stranger asked the average citizen for $5.00 in most cases they’d refuse the request.
If a stranger fell into a lake many people would dive in and try to save them, even if it was dangerous.
What?
Thanks for helping me prove my point.