Wow, this article is mediocre (editing this comment on an ongoing basis as I look at the author’s links. Edit: it took 25 minutes but I think I’m done). Here is the case against the case against the case against smartphones:
Suicide rates falling in Europe does not mean mental health is improving. It could mean improved weapons storage, improved OD mitigation, etc. The author acknowledges later in the article that anxiety and depression are getting worse in the “Western world” yet one of their first arguments is about suicide rates declining in Europe.
An R^2 of .15 is actually not that bad
Small sample sizes don’t give you bad data
One of the studies “debunking” the change in mental health is about pressure in school, not social media. It’s true they found no change in self-reported overall wellbeing but to quote that research article “The different trends in psychosomatic complaints and life satisfaction reinforce the idea that mental well-being is a multidimensional construct and that different components of mental well-being can show different trajectories and may have differential susceptibilities.”
Another “debunking” is about internet adoption rates globally (which, spoiler alert, is not the same as time spent on social media)
After all of that, the article closes by saying “but I think smartphones are probably still bad for mental health, just look at me as an example.” Then why cite a bunch of people trying to debunk that? Especially if you’re going to close on how you disagree with that research… in their words “In our conversation, Przybylski said he doubted that using social media shortens people’s attention spans. To me, this is a bit like doubting that chewing broken glass causes oral discomfort.” ok but you just said how great his research was?
The article talks about supposed “diagnostic inflation” of mental health, meaning people are being diagnosed for milder symptoms. Yet, the only link is to an article criticizing the DSM-V. It’s not a study, it’s one dude’s opinion piece. Also, the other pieces in the main article talk a lot about non-Americans… who probably use the ICD and not the DSM
Thanks for the diligence, but it was honestly unnecessary. You could have just said that it was an American media organization reporting on pop science, and I’d have known it was riddled with inaccuracies and errors. It’s a real shame that journalists aren’t interested in accurate reporting of science, but then again the public isn’t interested in hearing accurate reports either.
Have you thought of going into journalism yourself ? Proper research sorely missed in this underfunded , but crucial field. And in Mental health itself. There are proper studies being conducted on this topic for sure, so this piss poor article perhaps serves to encourage better research on the part of disgruntled readers lol. Even established media orgs seem to resort to alot of opinion pieces, which I guess means they can pay anyone less to spout their anecdotal opinion on a matter without the time (money) required to do the research. Sometimes this is fine - if the individual is an experienced expert on the matter. But much of the time its barely an extension of social media itself which I also generally avoid. Reading someone’s opinion about someone else’s opinion isn’t my idea of a good time. My problem recently is choosing which journalistic outfit(s) to pay.
I actually thought about it years ago but I just made a big career pivot, so probably not doing another any time soon. Thanks for the kind words though, I consider that a compliment!
Wow, this article is mediocre (editing this comment on an ongoing basis as I look at the author’s links. Edit: it took 25 minutes but I think I’m done). Here is the case against the case against the case against smartphones:
Thanks for the diligence, but it was honestly unnecessary. You could have just said that it was an American media organization reporting on pop science, and I’d have known it was riddled with inaccuracies and errors. It’s a real shame that journalists aren’t interested in accurate reporting of science, but then again the public isn’t interested in hearing accurate reports either.
It’s not a joke when people say most people only read the headline then go straight to the comments to broadcast their opinions on the matter
The public isn’t interested at all
Saved Me A Click. Thanks!
Have you thought of going into journalism yourself ? Proper research sorely missed in this underfunded , but crucial field. And in Mental health itself. There are proper studies being conducted on this topic for sure, so this piss poor article perhaps serves to encourage better research on the part of disgruntled readers lol. Even established media orgs seem to resort to alot of opinion pieces, which I guess means they can pay anyone less to spout their anecdotal opinion on a matter without the time (money) required to do the research. Sometimes this is fine - if the individual is an experienced expert on the matter. But much of the time its barely an extension of social media itself which I also generally avoid. Reading someone’s opinion about someone else’s opinion isn’t my idea of a good time. My problem recently is choosing which journalistic outfit(s) to pay.
I actually thought about it years ago but I just made a big career pivot, so probably not doing another any time soon. Thanks for the kind words though, I consider that a compliment!