New Study In The Journal Of Pediatrics Says Maybe It’s Not Social Media, But Helicopter Parenting That’s Making Kids Depressed

from the correlation-and-causation dept

We’ve been covering, at great length, the moral panic around the claims that social media is what’s making kids depressed. The problem with this narrative is that there’s basically no real evidence to support it. As the American Psychological Association found when it reviewed all the literature, despite many, many dozens of studies done on the impact of social media on kids, no one was able to establish a causal relationship.

As that report noted, the research seemed to show no inherent benefit or harm for most kids. For some, it showed a real benefit (often around kids being able to find like-minded people online to communicate with). For a very small percentage, it appeared to potentially exacerbate existing issues. And those are really the cases that we should be focused on.

But, instead, the narrative that continues to make the rounds is that social media is inherently bad for kids. That leads to various bills around age verification and age gating to keep kids off of social media.

Supporters of these bills will point to charts like this one, regarding teen suicide rates, noting the uptick correlates with the rise of social media.

Of course, they seem to cherry pick the start date of that chart, because if you go back further, you realize that while the uptick is a concern, it’s still way below what it had been in the 1990s (pre-social media).

In case that embed isn’t working, here’s an image of it:

Image

Obviously, the increase in suicides is a concern. But, considering that every single study that tries to link it to social media ends up failing to do so, that suggests that there might be some other factor at play here.

A recent study in the Journal of Pediatrics suggests a compelling alternative. It’s not social media, but the rise of helicopter parenting, in which kids no longer have spaces to just hang out with each other and be kids. It’s titled: Decline in Independent Activity as a Cause of Decline in Children’s Mental Well-being: Summary of the Evidence. If you can’t see the full version, there’s a preprint version here.

The research summarizes the decline in “independent mobility” for kids over the last few decades:

Considerable research, mostly in Europe, has focused on children’s independent mobility (CIM), defined as children’s freedom to travel in their neighborhood or city without adult accompaniment. That research has revealed significant declines in CIM, especially between 1970 and 1990, but also some large national differences. For example, surveys regarding the “licenses” (permissions) parents grant to their elementary school children revealed that in England, license to walk home alone from school dropped from 86% in 1971 to 35% in 1990 and 25% in 2010; and license to use public buses alone dropped from 48% in 1971 to 15% in 1990 to 12% in 2010.11 In another study, comparing CIM in 16 different countries (US not included), conducted from 2010 to 2012, Finland stood out as allowing children the greatest freedom of movement. The authors wrote: “At age 7, a majority of Finnish children can already travel to places within walking distance or cycle to places alone; by age 8 a majority can cross main roads, travel home from school and go out after dark alone, by age 9 a majority can cycle on main roads alone, and by age 10 a majority can travel on local buses alone.” Although we have found no similar studies of parental permissions for US children, other data indicate that the US is more like the UK concerning children’s independent mobility than like Finland. For example, National Personal Transportation Surveys revealed that only 12.7% walked or biked to school in 2009 compared with 47.7% in 1969.

And then it notes the general decline in mental health as well, which they highlight started long before social media existed:

Perhaps the most compelling and disturbing evidence comes from studies of suicide and suicidal thoughts. Data compiled by the CDC indicate that the rate of suicide among children under age 15 rose 3.5-fold between 1950 and 2005 and by another 2.4-fold between 2005 and 2020. No other age group showed increases nearly this large. By 2019, suicide was the second leading cause of death for children from age 10 through 15, behind only unintentional injury. Moreover, the 2019 YRBS survey revealed that during the previous year 18.8% of US high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a suicide plan, 8.9% attempted suicide one or more times, and 2.5% made a suicide attempt requiring medical treatment. We are clearly experiencing an epidemic of psychopathology among young people.

But, unlike those who assume correlation is causation with regards to social media, the researchers here admit there needs to be more. And they bring the goods, pointing to multiple studies that suggest a pretty clear causal relationship, rather than just correlation.

Several studies have examined relationships between the amount of time young children have for self-directed activities at home and psychological characteristics predictive of future wellbeing. These have revealed significant positive correlations between amount of self-structured time (largely involving free play) and (a) scores on two different measures of executive functioning; (b) indices of emotional control and social ability; and (c) scores, two years later, on a measure of self-regulation. There is also evidence that risky play, where children deliberately put themselves in moderately frightening situations (such as climbing high into a tree) helps protect against the development of phobias and reduces future anxiety by increasing the person’s confidence that they can deal effectively with emergencies.

Studies with adults involving retrospections about their childhood experiences provide another avenue of support for the idea that early independent activity promotes later wellbeing. In one such study, those who reported much free and adventurous play in their elementary school years were assessed as having more social success, higher self-esteem, and better overall psychological and physical health in adulthood than those who reported less such play. In another very similar study, amount of reported free play in childhood correlated positively with measures of social success and goal flexibility (ability to adapt successfully to changes in life conditions) in adulthood. Also relevant here are studies in which adults (usually college students) rated the degree to which their parents were overprotective and overcontrolling (a style that would reduce opportunity for independent activity) and were also assessed for their current levels of anxiety and depression. A systematic review of such studies revealed, overall, positive correlations between the controlling, overprotective parenting style and the measures of anxiety and depression.

They also note that they are not claiming (of course) that this is the sole reason for the declines in mental health. Just that there is strong evidence that it is a key component. They explore a few other options that may contribute, including increased pressure at schools and societal changes. They also consider the impact of social media and digital technologies and note (as we have many times) that there just is no real evidence to support the claims:

Much recent discussion of young people’s mental health has focused on the role of increased use of digital technologies, especially involvement with social media. However, systematic reviews of research into this have provided little support for the contention that either total screen time or time involved with social media is a major cause of, or even correlate of, declining mental health. One systematic review concluded that research on links between digital technology use and teens’ mental health “has generated a mix of often conflicting small positive, negative and null associations” (Odgers & Jensen, 2020). Another, a “review of reviews” concluded that “the association between digital technology use, or social media use in particular, and psychological well-being is, on average, negative but very small” and noted some evidence, from longitudinal research, that negative correlations may result from declining mental health leading to more social media use rather than the reverse (Orben, 2020)

Indeed, if this theory is true, that the lack of spaces for kids to explore and play and experiment without adult supervision is a leading cause of mental health decline, you could easily see how those who are depressed are more likely to seek out those private spaces, and turn to social media, given the lack of any such spaces they can go to physically.

And, if that’s the case, then all of these efforts to ban social media for kids, or to make social media more like Disneyland, could likely end up doing a lot more harm than good by cutting off one of the last remaining places where kids can communicate with their peers without adults watching over their every move. Indeed, the various proposals to give parents more access to what their kids are doing online could worsen the problem as well, taking away yet another independent space for kids.

Over the last few years, there’s been a push to bring back more “dangerous” play for kids, as people have begun to realize that things may have gone too far in the other direction. Perhaps it’s time we realize that social media fits into that category as well.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “New Study In The Journal Of Pediatrics Says Maybe It’s Not Social Media, But Helicopter Parenting That’s Making Kids Depressed”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
87 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

And I’m pretty sure it’s not because that reality right now for children and teens today is so much fundamentally worse than, I dunno, the 1950s, that living seems so much fundamentally worse than the other option?

I mean, to even pay the bills, one is looking at either shackling yourself to eternal debt to get a job, only to realize that the only jobs left are so shit you are FORCED to take them to “prove that you can move up the corporate ladder”?

Global warming? Shit economy? 74 million white supremacists exporting their shit ideology to the world?

GEE, I DON’T FUCKING KNOW WHY?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Teenagers do read the news, asshole.

They know something has gone fundamentally wrong with the world, and that current standards cannot be sustainable with current wages, at best.

If they can put 2 and 2 together, they will know their future is so utterly fucked.

Something you clearly don’t care about.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

There’s always something wrong with the world. The kids of the 1950s grew up with fears of atom bombs and being drafted into pointless wars (the people of North America and Europe had never had more than a decade or two of peace). Their parents had been traumatized by the Great Depression. Subsequent generations got to worry about communism, exploding nuclear power plants, terrorism. And, yeah, about what to do with their lives and how to pay the bills.

So what’s new? Certainly not financial stress or racism.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

That you can’t pay the bills, raise a family AND retire on today’s salary.

That’s what changed.

The class disparity is VERY APPARENT now. And today’s rich are more interested in oppressing the workers than pretending to help them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That you can’t pay the bills, raise a family AND retire on today’s salary.

That’s not new. My parents couldn’t pay the bills on their 1980s-90s salaries. I remember the grandparents helping with some credit card bills, and I was like 15 before the house we lived in had actually been afforded (i.e. paid off). They saw retirement as impossible for a while, but despite fairly high spending (constant home “upgrades” per HGTV, eating in restaurants, etc.), it seems to be working out.

The grandparents had modest amounts of savings, though, because they’d lived through the Great Depression (a time when people really couldn’t afford stuff) and they never let their expenses rise above what modern economists would deem “poverty-level” spending. They weren’t rich, mind you, because they were all distrustful of “investing” (the Depression) and only got bank interest. But they had their ways. My parents, as children, might’ve gone to restaurants once or twice a year, but were regularly tending to the gardens that produced much of the food they ate. Clothes were repaired. Etc.

As for me, a child of the 1980s-90s, I somewhat took after my grandparents and also kind of lucked into a well-paying field of work (due to having an unaffordable home computer), so I was never very concerned. But others of my cohort definitely were. There was a “student debt wall” at my university, and people joked they’d maybe be able to pay it off after 30 years. “Maybe”, because many saw their degrees as useless and/or had no idea what they were gonna do. Even now, co-workers near my age talk about “Freedom 85” or such (a play on “Freedom 55”, a well-known slogan for early retirement at age 55).

Seriously, go look at the history of working and living conditions. Before the 40-hour week, people were often working double that amount and still struggling. It was common to be hungry and cold. Dickens talked of poorhouses for a reason (and inequality?—look up the history of the first millionaires and billionaires, such as Rockefeller). But you don’t have to go back that far; plenty of TV shows and movies from about 1970 through 2000 have young people with financial troubles, roommates, precarious jobs, etc., who are dejected about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

By the way, the pretense of the rich trying to help the workers? The rich (possibly Ford) invented it a little over a hundred years ago, as an attempt to get citizens and governments off their backs. And it seems to have worked. Look at the USA’s top marginal tax rates over time: upwards of 70%, even 94%, when people were angry about inequality; down below 40% now, and probably easier to avoid.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I suggest you take your own advice .. seriously.

You’re gonna have to be more specific. The modern idea of “retirement” only became popular about a hundred years ago. (It existed since the mid-1800s but was out of reach for most.) Then there was a depression and a world war, and in the USA the Vietnam draft, and by the 1980s the single-income household was seen as impractical for young adults.

If there was some “Golden Age” of an easy life, I’d have to guess it was for people young enough to avoid the WWII draft and old enough to avoid Vietnam. If a young person today wants to live like they did, pathologically preparing for the next Great Depression (or worker strike), I think they’ll do just as well.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Oh, like when world “leaders” are not trying to kill everyone just to generate dividends?

You might be missing the point. The original message suggested that maybe “reality right now for children and teens today is so much fundamentally worse than … the 1950s”, and we’re talking about “what’s changed”. From about 1950 till 1990, there was a very real threat of world leaders killing everyone, so it’s not that. The knowledge that such destruction would not be “just to generate dividends” was of little comfort (though, of course, most wars have some vaguely “financial” root cause, like concerns over some putative ethnic group having too much control over resources).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

This has some truth to it, but it’s not 100% factual. Trade school is an example of something people like to throw around as an alternative to college, for instance, but community college, apprenticeships, starting a business, etc. are good alternatives. The propaganda machine will have you believe that college is the only way, but if you are sufficiently clever enough it doesn’t have to be.

Some of those are much harder than the high school-to-college pipeline, but they exist. In a lot of cases your portfolio is also incredibly important; if a job has to consider a fresh-out-of-school kid with nothing but a degree versus someone with no degree but a comprehensive portfolio, they’re going to choose the latter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

starting a business

Yeah, uh… Imma have to stop you there, chief. Starting a business is absolutely not for everyone. There’s only so many entrepreneurs and business starters and leaders that a system can accommodate. If everyone wants to be a leader whose “passive income” carries on indefinitely (which it can’t), who’s going to be the grunt workers actually making that passive income happen?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Ever notice that the people who talk about starting their own business are also usually the ones selling you courses on how to make money?

There’s far more money to be made “teaching” people to be entrepreneurs, than actually being an entrepreneur. Fleece idiots, bring their money into the system, milk them dry, and blame them for being part of the 90% of statistical failures. “You didn’t want to be successful enough!”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“The propaganda machine will have you believe that college is the only way,”

re: propaganda machine, are you referring to the job descriptions which show a degree as a requirement for entry level positions or are you referring to the propaganda machine that does not pay you enough to live in the local community where said employment is located.

It is all propaganda isn’t it .. portfolio – lol
another two bit ass clown with an opinion.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew N. Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

This is such an ignorant comment I barely have a sarcastic response for it.

Global worldwide poverty is on a rapid decline. Minorities and women in the United States have more rights than they ever did in the 50s. We have made major strides in medicine, healthcare, and quality of life. Treatment for mental illness is much more comprehensive, and the internet has given underrepresented parts of the populace more of a voice than they have ever had.

The problem with people like you, Anonymous Coward, is that there isn’t any problem with you. You are taught by an immeasurably large propaganda machine to live in fear, because it is financially beneficial for the people that run the machine for you to be terrified. This is not to say bad things never happen, but the 24/7 news cycle bombards your mind with negativity until you think nothing but bad thoughts. You don’t even realize that you are trapped.

I know you will probably disregard this whole comment as yet another psyop from the “tiresome asshole” of the Techdirt comments section, but I hope you take at least some of this in earnest. You are so much stronger than you know, Anonymous Coward. I hope you see that one day.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

you will probably disregard this whole comment as yet another psyop from the “tiresome asshole” of the Techdirt comments section

If you hadn’t tried your hardest to be a tiresome asshole by taking the name of a known troll and trying to do shitty satire by posting like said troll, maybe people wouldn’t disregard your actually halfway decent posts whenever you decided to stop being a discount knockoff of a troll and start being an actual contributing commenter who doesn’t get autoflagged.

Your mistake was assuming that ridiculing the marginalized instead of the powerful was satire. If you want to correct that mistake, you must abandon your shitty conflict peddler schtick, including the name, and start over with a clean slate and a name you didn’t steal from a troll. Or you can keep getting flagged on sight like the troll you took your name from, even when you’re not trying to troll. Your choice, son.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew N. Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Seems like Techdirt ate my last comment here. It was quite long so I’ll summarize the key points for you.

  • You can’t stop me from posting, no matter how many paragraphs you write
  • I don’t care about getting flagged as much as you do
  • lol

One last note; you are not the arbiter of who can and can’t post here, or what qualifies as satire, or who I am. Post number and account registration date don’t convey authority, no matter how badly you want them to, son.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

you are not the arbiter of who can and can’t post here

That’s right. Mike is. And he’s proven, through Hyman Rosen, that he can send a user’s comments to the spamfilter and keep them there.

or what qualifies as satire

Satire requires a clarity of purpose and target if you don’t want it to be mistaken for/contribute to that which you intend to criticize. Your normal bullshit isn’t a satire of the troll we know as Matthew M. Bennett; it’s basically you saying “I can say equally awful or even worse things about minorities than he does while using his name” without trying to mock him at all. That’s why people got pissed at you when you started doing this shit: Rather than trying to actually mock Matty M, you lifted his schtick wholesale, and now you’re trying to declare that your shit was “satire” when your name and reputation get you auto-flagged by a fair number of users (me included).

If you want to spend your one wild and precious life being an asshole and spreading the same hate as another asshole under the guise of “satire”, that’s your choice. But consider this: You might actually be able to contribute to conversations⁠—and contribute something other than rank bigotry or inane bullshittery⁠—if you weren’t actively and fully committed to imitating, and thus becoming, a conflict peddler.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Wow, you gaslight like a pro.

There’s nothing wrong with being trained for an industry that is currently doing a shitton of firing, in an economy that clearly isn’t hiring unless you know people on the inside, all the while disconnecting from a news cycle that clearly keeps reminding me of how I should just shut up and be a pro-government voter and defend EVERY SINGLE ACTION THE GOVERNMENT MAKES.

OH SURE, THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH ME, SAYS THE ASSHOLE WHO TAKES HIS NAME AFTER AN INSURRECTIONIST ASSHOLE AND ARGUES LIKE SAID ASSHOLE HALF THE TIME.

If anything, please at least try to NOT argue like an insurrectionist.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew N. Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Wow, you gaslight like a pro.

That’s not what gaslighting is.

There’s nothing wrong with being trained for an industry that is currently doing a shitton of firing, in an economy that clearly isn’t hiring unless you know people on the inside, all the while disconnecting from a news cycle that clearly keeps reminding me of how I should just shut up and be a pro-government voter and defend EVERY SINGLE ACTION THE GOVERNMENT MAKES.

All of that is inside your head.

OH SURE, THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH ME, SAYS THE ASSHOLE WHO TAKES HIS NAME AFTER AN INSURRECTIONIST ASSHOLE AND ARGUES LIKE SAID ASSHOLE HALF THE TIME.

I didn’t say there was nothing wrong with me.

If anything, please at least try to NOT argue like an insurrectionist.

Telling people to turn off the negativity machine and refuse to listen to an exploitative establishment is just about the most anti-Republican/insurrectionist thing I can think of. Believe it or not, right-wing outlets are part of this too.

Did you read my comment, or did you just see “Matthew N. Bennett” and fly into an incoherent frenzy?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I did.

That’s why I’m mad enough to rip off your head.

You sound so much like Marc Andersen, right down to the smug as fuck attitude and lack of self-awareness.

Any more gaslighting from YOU will make me commit suicide, because you are fucking denying that I have an actual problem.

And no, it’s not a matter of “disconnect from the negativity” when few people are hiring, everyone NEEDS a job and what’s left are so shit it doesn’t even pay the fucking BILLS.

It is very fucking clear you are doing this to give me a heart attack.

FUCKING STOP THAT.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Evil Matthew Bennett Ramsey says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You are so much stronger than you know, Anonymous Coward. I hope you see that one day.

He’s not though, brother. Maybe he could be. Maybe he could’ve been. But now he’s a weak, impotent soiboi who couldn’t capture, protect, and care for a female mate if he had BAP’s testosterone levels.

In short, he lacks the Gorilla mindset.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew N. Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

This is you obviously you joking around but I will respond seriously because I guess that’s what I’m doing tonight.

It’s never too late for anyone. A defeatist mindset is one that kills you before you die. I acknowledge that my efforts on this post are probably fruitless — highlighting one of my favorite verses from Proverbs, 9:7-8:

Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

Ultimately nothing here will matter much. This is a storm in a teacup amongst a bunch of internet nerds who read an internet blog about content moderation. But I was moved to try anyways. Not sure why.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew N. Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Dude, nobody cares about the week-in-review ratings stuff as much as you do. Stephen gets a lot of upvotes because he says things people want to hear, which he does very well because he’s been here longer than some of the people commenting have been alive. I could do it (and have done it) under the Anonymous Coward flag.

Like, does it matter?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

nobody cares about the week-in-review ratings stuff as much as you do

I semi-regularly make it into those Funniest/Insightful rankings and even I don’t give a shit. It’s a nice little cap to the week if I make it in and all, don’t get me wrong⁠—but I forget about the article pretty much right after I read it. The only people who truly care about those articles are the dipshit trolls.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

the 24/7 news cycle bombards your mind with negativity until you think nothing but bad thoughts

lmao, and what positivity has YOUR news cycle been contributing? Alex Jones gay frog lasers from space? Gigachad Andrew Tate Top 10 head-shaving tips while mocking soy boys? Yet another guru-backed crypto trading bot you have to pay thousands of dollars to attend courses for?

You straight white boys are a complete fucking joke, and you might have only been a joke if you hadn’t spent the last few decades running the planet into the fucking gutter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew N. Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I’m not Matthew M. Bennett and I don’t own or watch Fox News so I’m not sure how the alt-right news machine is “mine.” Your comment only proves my point that your lives are dictated by fear.

You make assumptions about me because of who you think I am, and then you baselessly act on those assumptions. This is the reality of those who choose to live in fear.

David Stein (user link) says:

Re: Egregiously Erroneous Graph

The teen suicide graph in this article is egregiously wrong.

While rates from 1968 to 1998 are correctly (per graph legend) for teens aged 15-19, the rates from 1999 to 2021 are incorrectly for teens aged 13-19.

So in reality, the 2018 rate of 11.8 suicides (per 100k aged 15-19) is above the 1990 peak at 11.1 and teen suicide rates have remained high ever since.

Recent suicide rates are similar to those three decades ago for teen boys and actually much higher for teen girls and early adolescents (suicide among girls age 10-14 outright quadrupled).

Beware of the massive misinformation on adolescent suicide engendered by this graph.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Uh, wait, so back in the 80s and 90s, children had more freedom…and the suicide rate was higher?

And look what happened in the late 1990s: the suicide rate dropped precipitously. Right around the time kids started getting onto the Internet. Coincidence? Well, I don’t know, but a guess with a possibly-coincidental graph is more than the linked paper has. For example, the quoted bit about Finland? That’s literally all the paper says about it. Did Finland have a lower suicide rate than other countries, attributable to more independence? Not only do we not know whether there’s a correlation, we’re not even told whether the rates were lower.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

You missed the multiple modes of causality bit. i’ll just throw out a random thing: environmental lead. It certainly affects other behaviors. Whatever, other factors are at play.

The larger point: Teh Intarnets don’t cause suicide, in case you missed it. More? Read the damn paper yourself.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Read the damn paper yourself.

It seems pretty short on data. “Our thesis is that a primary cause of the rise in mental disorders is a decline over decades in opportunities for children and teens to play, roam, and engage in other activities independent of direct oversight and control by adults. Such independent activities may promote mental wellbeing through both immediate effects…”—wait a minute, “may” promote? They note a very broad correlation, but there’s basically zero statistical rigor. It’s little more than a summary of hypotheses, mostly from other people, with references to unproven theories (SDT and BPNT).

You can kind of draw whatever conclusion you want. Like, indepedence promotes wellbeing, and school creates stress, so obviously school is making kids depressed. Nevermind that I never showed stress is the same as depression or causes depression, or defined “wellbeing” or related it to depression.

Maybe the cause is the lack of good bicyling infrastructure, or our unwillingness to give knives to infants (the paper mentions both). Maybe it’s the lack of assigned chores—but, wait, if they’re assigned, is that really independent? What’s the actual new information that this paper puts forward? I’m against “helicopter parenting” (especially when parents give kids zero privacy, because I probably would’ve killed myself under those conditions), but I don’t see anything here I can use to support my view.

Thad (profile) says:

Insofar as social media is a problem, it’s a problem because it’s an extension of existing problems — bullying, body-shaming (girls and women in particular), the world on fire and fascism on the rise, etc.

Parents have a lot of reasons to worry about their kids; some of those reasons are very good and some are very not. But a parent’s job is to protect children when they’re young, teach them the skills to take care of themselves when they’re old enough, and to be able to tell when that is.

NotTheMomma (profile) says:

Re:

Unfortunately, too many parents are only involved in their kids lives to ban books or make sure they didn’t catch the gay. Not all, but many. Those don’t want to teach right and wrong and how to cope because many of them aren’t even sure how to cope. As said, these issues existed before social media, its just gotten a bigger voice now.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t know if it’s got a bigger voice now or if it’s just getting more pushback now.

There were certainly parents trying to get books with any kind of sexual content — and they considered anything that acknowledged that LGBT people exist as “sexual” — banned from school libraries when I was growing up in the ’90s.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The problem has always been people trying to tell kids that boys shouldn’t kiss boys and girls shouldn’t kiss girls, when the truth is that homosexuals are the most mentally, holistically stable and adjusted people ever. It’s true. You just need to think about how wholesome and well-rounded gays and lesbians are. Straight people can’t stand this. They can’t accept their inferiority.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
NoahVail (profile) says:

We've weaponized safety

I’m early GenX and maybe the last generation with a functioning childhood.

Specifically 1) We had places to roam and 2) Hours each day with no adults.

Much of the our critical, irreplaceable child learning only happens in the absence of adults, with peers. It’s where we learn, boundaries, ambition, problem solving skills, negotiation, loyalty and how to think.

We’ve wiped out the core of what kids need to learn and replaced it with 24/7 parenting – the most wrong thing possible. It puts parents in a fully impossible position, tasking them with a responsibility that no adult can fulfill.

Parents who are wise enough to try sane and healthy parenting risk arrest from police and hazing from schools, press and any nearby clueless adults.

Children who realize they need adult-free time risk the same thing. When they finally reach adulthood, they’re greeted with widespread scorn for lacking the skills they were legally prohibited from developing.

So yeah. Adults systemically erased childhood and then punish children for being hamstrung by that. Because adults suck.

— an adult.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

I think the problem is likely societal and includes All The Parts. There isn’t a smoking gun, it’s a general failure of society to produce kids who spend enough time feeling safe in their environment.

Moral of story: kids shouldn’t constantly feel unsafe growing up or it fucks them up. Doesn’t matter what the source of fear is– parents, environment, social media, inner city gang violence, christofascists, 9/11, economic uncertainty, etc. An inability to feel safe in their environment leads to mental health issues. And all of those things have the potential to cause chronic social harms. Everyone always wants A Single Thing to fix instead of approaching the situation more broadly.

When kids grow up in environments where parents are able to feel safe/stable, they get what they need. When there’s massive periods of plutocratic grift, war, and/or economic downturn (see: Reaganomics, union jobs all moving to China, 9/11, great recession, etc.) that prevent people from raising kids in stable, safe environments, you wind up with kids who don’t trust the institutions or authority figures to protect/help them when they’re in need.

What’s that you say? A Scandinavian country (that was largely immune from all that crap because they had infinitely better social safety nets) did the best job providing stable homes that engender trust in society and well-adjusted children? You mean they trusted everyone more when they didn’t lose housing or healthcare after their parents lost jobs??? I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED… Well not that shocked.

Cowardly and Anonymous says:

Re:

I would agree, but specifically: kids need a safe “home base” where they can live – at home, at school, and around other places they frequent. They need to have these places as somewhere they don’t need to constantly anticipate danger. It’s okay if not everything is perfectly safe, but they need to be able to choose when they want to be adventurous and go somewhere they need to be on guard, and when they aren’t in a state where they can/want to handle that and want to be somewhere safe. And the things they need to do, like going to school and assorted tasks at home, should be in an environment where they don’t need to be vigilant to such a high degree.

We want our kids to encounter the real world and learn to deal with it, and they do that best when they are able to retreat to somewhere safe and learn from their experiences in more dangerous situations without needing to anticipate further threats during their contemplation, and ideally where they have one or more trusted elders with whom they feel free to discuss matters. The whole world doesn’t need to be safe for kids, but they need to have enough spaces where they feel safe and they need to be safe at certain times (especially when they are compelled to do something, such as attending school).

Having a safe and stable home environment is long known to improve academic performance, but it also helps children learn other lessons in life.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Humans tend to lack the ability to take accountability until they have exhausted shifting the blame everywhere else.

There is always an excuse, something/someone else to blame.

When is the last time a parent cooked a kid in their car where it wasn’t blaming a change in schedule, being over worked, not enough sleep, or 1000 other things all while the ‘I fscked up in a way that ended horrifically’ escapes them.

It isn’t the child fault that they crashed their car & killed themselves and others. The phone should have stopped them from texting, the car should have done something, the app should have done something… No the parents are always willing to point anywhere but the mirror. You had the ability to monitor how they were driving, you had the ability to remind them to be responsible, but now that its tragic everyone else is responsible because the dead kid who was doing 90 & texting on a side street can’t be held to account.

Throw in the QAnon and other MAGA insanity with kids being told the vaccine will kill them or make them robots so that the democrat drag queens and steal their blood and molest them… while its way more likely a priest will molest them yet off to church their parents send them.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Looks at Washington DC, the land of never taking personal responsibility

Yeah, it might help if kids learn early on cause & effect and that actions have consequences that they will have to face if they do the thing, rather than someone running up to give them an excuse like they were to rich to understand getting that high & drunk and running people down wasn’t a good thing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Social Media is a changing landscape

While I don’t agree outright that social media is the primary cause of increase teen suicide, the simplistic comparison of dates pre and post the invention of social media is useless.

Social media has been and will forever be a changing landscape. What used to be an innocent way of staying in touch, finding old friends and easy communication is for many morphing into an influencer driven reality bubble that, like much advertising of any era, teaches our teens that they must look and act certain ways, purchase certain products and dislike certain groups of people.

If social media is viewed not as a static product like the car, or the mobile phone, but instead the daily changing influence that it is, it’s easily conceivable to see how it might be a variable in teen suicide.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...