It’s not nuanced at all. She starts by asserting that there’s a “screen Time panic” but doesn’t defend or attempt to prove this: it’s all argument by innuendo.
What does “collectively, as a society, we have become too apprehensive — and even fearful — about screens” even mean? I might even say that I’ve looked at the evidence he provides for this, and found it unconvincing.
If you want actual nuance, try Jean M Twenge.
The UnHerd herd does not like nuance. Especially when it comes after one of its sacred cows.
Jack Bourke
1 month ago
All this mumbo jumbo (Haidt included) misses the key point that the blue light from screens disrupts dopamine signaling in the brain via the eye. This is a huge problem for kids whose brains haven’t fully matured. Neurosurgeon Dr Jack Kruse breaks all this down in his 7 hour tutorial of Professor Huberman on Rick Rubin’s podcast. This is a physics/biology problem. The psychological and societal problems we observe are merely the symptoms.
David, and Jack – if you can be this clear-eyed and certain after only relatively modest exposure to the relevant facts of this situation, why in the name of all that is holy is it so difficult to run a modern economy so that everyone flourishes?
Ha! I’ll put this one in my diary for a laugh in 10 years’ time, when nobody will be able to deny what is already evident to anyone with an iota of common sense.
Guy Haslam
1 month ago
Jonathan Haidt has repeatedly made it clear that his book is not about ‘screen time’, it’s about the specific interactions of children and young people on social media that he claims (with plenty of evidence it seems) are detrimental to their social interactions, sense of wellbeing and so on.
Similarly, though I admittedly haven’t read Shrier’s latest book, having heard her discuss it in several venues, she repeatedly emphasizes screens are not the only issue and are part of a wider social problem. In fact, the whole point of the book seems to be about masking normal life in therapy speak, not screen time.
The conclusion of this article was much more nuanced than the bold beginning and title. I would guess the conclusion is right on line with Haidt, Shrier, and many others, but I suppose the eye catching title and combative early tone gets more attention.
Alex Lekas
1 month ago
It’s not “knocking technology.” It’s noticing that an abuse of anything tends to cause problems. That includes hours and hours of mindless screen time. How many adults have complained about the digital tether that makes them a slave of the office 24/7?
I’m convinced that is the aspect of work that led to talk of ‘work-life balance,’ which did not exist in the analog world. When you were done for the day, you were done. A colleague could call you at home but there was no laptop to hop onto. Whatever the issue was had to wait till morning for resolution.
Sisyphus Jones
1 month ago
Why describe Jonathan Haidt as a “global superstar,” (which is delivered with a bit of a snarl) instead of as a “social psychologist” which is, you know, accurate and important when considering his contributions to the topic? Unherd used to be a place you went to get away from writers like this.
David McKee
1 month ago
It’s hard to shake off the nagging feeling that, if I were making pots of money out of social media, this is exactly the kind of article I would want to see published.
The tone is gently reassuring. It pours vaguely worded cold water on all that inconvenient research. “All’s well, go to sleep, goooo to sleep…”
She mentions previous moral panics. This neatly pigeon-holes Haidt etc, without the bother of having to produce, you know, evidence to support such a bold assertion. Well, let’s mention another: the connection between smoking and cancer. It took decades for the public to hoist on board that these anti-smoking campaigners really did have a point, because there were plenty of articles like this to reassure them and encourage them to have another cigarette.
In the meantime, there are plenty of smartphone users running around with the electronic equivalent of sixty-a-day habits.
M Shewbridge
1 month ago
I’m becoming less interested in studies, and more interested in reasoning from first principles.
That’s “less interested in studies”, btw, not “completely dismissive of studies”.
It’s not screens per se that are the problem anyway, it’s what we do with them. We know that social media, for example, is designed to prompt little dopamine bursts extremely quickly and frequently. That is to say that social media is addictive. I know I am addicted to it to some extent; I can tell by observing my own behaviour. What studies of varying quality might say is irrelevant to me.
We also know that, given the massively multimodal nature of screens connected to the internet, some uses will be much more instantly appealing than others. Because of the way humans work, whatever is instantly appealing is unlikely to be of high real value. That’s why Taylor Swift is more popular than Bach.
So the problem isn’t screens themselves, but the ease with which they can encourage addictive, time-wasting and low quality consumption.
Why are some people more susceptible than others? Same as with any other addiction; they haven’t done enough to make the more difficult yet fulfilling reward pathways entice them. It takes work, a good upbringing and other “expensive” things for that to happen, and some people can’t afford it.
McExpat M
1 month ago
This piece will age badly. In fact, it’s already insanely myopic. The title will read like “We Need to Calm Down About Cigarette Smoking” in a few years time.
laurence scaduto
1 month ago
The connection between digital media and teenage mental ill-health could be purely coincidental but there are too many other pressing issues that are also coincidental. Anger and depression and political division and loneliness and incivility and anxiety and…
With enough coincidences all pointing at one culprit, can you blame me for not wanting to wait any longer for the science to catch up with the evidence? Since approx. 2007, when the iphone hit the market, our culture has been debased very sharply. (And I’m comparing to the 70s and 80s, not exactly high points in the human story.)
Mechan Barclay
1 month ago
We have become a slave to this “Correlation does not imply causation” meme. Could it be that our senses as adults, who have lived through the early age of the internet, can see a justified reason why phone screen time is a very difficult challenge. There have clearly been game changing alterations to our day to day existence that were never there before. Buying, talking, social media at the tip of your hands just was never ever a thing before. And it is easy to hear the technologists ringing in my ear that we’ve never had life so easy, but are hard of hearing or require loads of “studies” to maybe make a reluctant admittance that these phones can be dangerous. Could it be that as adults who have not been born with one in our hand can hold off on the addictive qualities, but we can all see kids subverted and caught in a world that demands they are plugged in, lest they can’t do anything in the world. So I’ll admit that I can do and learn much with a phone, but the long term effects on kids/ teenagers is truly life altering and not much in a good way.
Dominic English
1 month ago
Phones are a weirdly emotive issue. Understandably so I guess when they are essentially accused of stealing our children from under our noses. But it’s obviously so much more complex than that.
My worry is we put too much emphasis on them, and don’t see that we as a culture are responsible for many of our kids failings, which have nothing to do with phones.
“Put it this way, if we took our kids phones away would they instantly become well adjusted citizens who do well at school? Of course not. But that’s the narrative we’re invited to buy into.”
Instantly? Oh the straw man….! If we took away our kids’ phones – *and parented them well* – they would gradually see improvements in mental health. Gradually is pretty good in my opinion.
william langdale
1 month ago
Can’t help but notice the other article on the home page “antidepressant prescriptions soar among UK children”.
Whenever I get one of my kids a new device I give them a month supply of Zoloft too
Adam P
1 month ago
The data sources used by Haidt are not and should not be characterised as they are by this article. They are among the most reliable sources of data measuring longitudinal mental well being in this demographic.
The idea that some people use their screen time in more healthy and productive ways and not all screen time is the same is a fair observation. However, that is in no way a rebutall to the clear public health data being presented by Haidt. The data is in as they say. The impact is clear.
The thesis presented here is that there is no alternative to spending time online because kids cant go outside and therefore the question should be not whether kids can spend time online but how to spend it healthily. As a parent, i have to say this is an absolutely awful way of thinking. Economists use the concept of opportunity cost as a good way of expressing costs. Spending time online means less time available to do other things. Spending all your time online means less time; reading, watching complex narratives (films, tv shows), drawing, painting, crafting, talking, playing games, doing sports and a whole array of activities that are fundamental to physical and mental health. In fact, i would add that i now would rather see my 10 year old playing a complex narrative game than using any form of social media. He is only allowed to watch youtube for a limited time and thats all the social media he sees. The 13 year old has more liberty but screen time is well controlled.
As a parent, this is what i see happening when screen time is not controlled. So, what do we as working parents do about this? Make an effort to ensure kids have a mix of activities, get them playing sports, get them into things where their time is occupied in a healthy way. Then limited screen time is easier to manage and it will be easier (but not easy) to ensure their time is not spent solely death scrolling mindless and harmful Tik Tok (banned in our house).
We are re-wiring our kids and we have to take this very seriously. Ask any parent.
Mark epperson
1 month ago
Just a hack getting paid to write propaganda. Nonsensical pap.
Elizabeth DuBois
1 month ago
I find it very hard to believe the author actually read Haidts book. Or Shrier’s. And i dont think more than 5% of commenters did either.
I have. And the “counterpoints” in this piece are literally all the points Haidt makes in his book, in detail, with evidence, and heaps of nuance. But somehow here Haidts research is represented as if he drew opposite conclusions, and this other guy has the “real story”.
This is honestly the strangest article i have read in a very very long time.
Unherd… maybe read the book before publishing a piece that wreeks of… nepotism? I cant think of any other reason for this.
Finally a piece with some nuance.
Thank you Tiandra. Looking forward to the new book.
I think you mean ‘a certain sort of “nuance”‘
It’s not nuanced at all. She starts by asserting that there’s a “screen Time panic” but doesn’t defend or attempt to prove this: it’s all argument by innuendo.
What does “collectively, as a society, we have become too apprehensive — and even fearful — about screens” even mean? I might even say that I’ve looked at the evidence he provides for this, and found it unconvincing.
If you want actual nuance, try Jean M Twenge.
The UnHerd herd does not like nuance. Especially when it comes after one of its sacred cows.
All this mumbo jumbo (Haidt included) misses the key point that the blue light from screens disrupts dopamine signaling in the brain via the eye. This is a huge problem for kids whose brains haven’t fully matured. Neurosurgeon Dr Jack Kruse breaks all this down in his 7 hour tutorial of Professor Huberman on Rick Rubin’s podcast. This is a physics/biology problem. The psychological and societal problems we observe are merely the symptoms.
Sorry, but the blue light scare stories are just quackery (or salespeople’s grift).
David, and Jack – if you can be this clear-eyed and certain after only relatively modest exposure to the relevant facts of this situation, why in the name of all that is holy is it so difficult to run a modern economy so that everyone flourishes?
Quackery!!
Ha! I’ll put this one in my diary for a laugh in 10 years’ time, when nobody will be able to deny what is already evident to anyone with an iota of common sense.
Jonathan Haidt has repeatedly made it clear that his book is not about ‘screen time’, it’s about the specific interactions of children and young people on social media that he claims (with plenty of evidence it seems) are detrimental to their social interactions, sense of wellbeing and so on.
Similarly, though I admittedly haven’t read Shrier’s latest book, having heard her discuss it in several venues, she repeatedly emphasizes screens are not the only issue and are part of a wider social problem. In fact, the whole point of the book seems to be about masking normal life in therapy speak, not screen time.
The conclusion of this article was much more nuanced than the bold beginning and title. I would guess the conclusion is right on line with Haidt, Shrier, and many others, but I suppose the eye catching title and combative early tone gets more attention.
It’s not “knocking technology.” It’s noticing that an abuse of anything tends to cause problems. That includes hours and hours of mindless screen time. How many adults have complained about the digital tether that makes them a slave of the office 24/7?
I’m convinced that is the aspect of work that led to talk of ‘work-life balance,’ which did not exist in the analog world. When you were done for the day, you were done. A colleague could call you at home but there was no laptop to hop onto. Whatever the issue was had to wait till morning for resolution.
Why describe Jonathan Haidt as a “global superstar,” (which is delivered with a bit of a snarl) instead of as a “social psychologist” which is, you know, accurate and important when considering his contributions to the topic? Unherd used to be a place you went to get away from writers like this.
It’s hard to shake off the nagging feeling that, if I were making pots of money out of social media, this is exactly the kind of article I would want to see published.
The tone is gently reassuring. It pours vaguely worded cold water on all that inconvenient research. “All’s well, go to sleep, goooo to sleep…”
She mentions previous moral panics. This neatly pigeon-holes Haidt etc, without the bother of having to produce, you know, evidence to support such a bold assertion. Well, let’s mention another: the connection between smoking and cancer. It took decades for the public to hoist on board that these anti-smoking campaigners really did have a point, because there were plenty of articles like this to reassure them and encourage them to have another cigarette.
In the meantime, there are plenty of smartphone users running around with the electronic equivalent of sixty-a-day habits.
I’m becoming less interested in studies, and more interested in reasoning from first principles.
That’s “less interested in studies”, btw, not “completely dismissive of studies”.
It’s not screens per se that are the problem anyway, it’s what we do with them. We know that social media, for example, is designed to prompt little dopamine bursts extremely quickly and frequently. That is to say that social media is addictive. I know I am addicted to it to some extent; I can tell by observing my own behaviour. What studies of varying quality might say is irrelevant to me.
We also know that, given the massively multimodal nature of screens connected to the internet, some uses will be much more instantly appealing than others. Because of the way humans work, whatever is instantly appealing is unlikely to be of high real value. That’s why Taylor Swift is more popular than Bach.
So the problem isn’t screens themselves, but the ease with which they can encourage addictive, time-wasting and low quality consumption.
Why are some people more susceptible than others? Same as with any other addiction; they haven’t done enough to make the more difficult yet fulfilling reward pathways entice them. It takes work, a good upbringing and other “expensive” things for that to happen, and some people can’t afford it.
This piece will age badly. In fact, it’s already insanely myopic. The title will read like “We Need to Calm Down About Cigarette Smoking” in a few years time.
The connection between digital media and teenage mental ill-health could be purely coincidental but there are too many other pressing issues that are also coincidental. Anger and depression and political division and loneliness and incivility and anxiety and…
With enough coincidences all pointing at one culprit, can you blame me for not wanting to wait any longer for the science to catch up with the evidence? Since approx. 2007, when the iphone hit the market, our culture has been debased very sharply. (And I’m comparing to the 70s and 80s, not exactly high points in the human story.)
We have become a slave to this “Correlation does not imply causation” meme. Could it be that our senses as adults, who have lived through the early age of the internet, can see a justified reason why phone screen time is a very difficult challenge. There have clearly been game changing alterations to our day to day existence that were never there before. Buying, talking, social media at the tip of your hands just was never ever a thing before. And it is easy to hear the technologists ringing in my ear that we’ve never had life so easy, but are hard of hearing or require loads of “studies” to maybe make a reluctant admittance that these phones can be dangerous. Could it be that as adults who have not been born with one in our hand can hold off on the addictive qualities, but we can all see kids subverted and caught in a world that demands they are plugged in, lest they can’t do anything in the world. So I’ll admit that I can do and learn much with a phone, but the long term effects on kids/ teenagers is truly life altering and not much in a good way.
Phones are a weirdly emotive issue. Understandably so I guess when they are essentially accused of stealing our children from under our noses. But it’s obviously so much more complex than that.
My worry is we put too much emphasis on them, and don’t see that we as a culture are responsible for many of our kids failings, which have nothing to do with phones.
Put it this way, if we took our kids phones away would they instantly become well adjusted citizens who do well at school? Of course not. But that’s the narrative we’re invited to buy into.
This looks at some context, plus at the explosion of mental health issues in the Uk. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/phoney-war?r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
“Put it this way, if we took our kids phones away would they instantly become well adjusted citizens who do well at school? Of course not. But that’s the narrative we’re invited to buy into.”
Instantly? Oh the straw man….! If we took away our kids’ phones – *and parented them well* – they would gradually see improvements in mental health. Gradually is pretty good in my opinion.
Can’t help but notice the other article on the home page “antidepressant prescriptions soar among UK children”.
Whenever I get one of my kids a new device I give them a month supply of Zoloft too
The data sources used by Haidt are not and should not be characterised as they are by this article. They are among the most reliable sources of data measuring longitudinal mental well being in this demographic.
The idea that some people use their screen time in more healthy and productive ways and not all screen time is the same is a fair observation. However, that is in no way a rebutall to the clear public health data being presented by Haidt. The data is in as they say. The impact is clear.
The thesis presented here is that there is no alternative to spending time online because kids cant go outside and therefore the question should be not whether kids can spend time online but how to spend it healthily. As a parent, i have to say this is an absolutely awful way of thinking. Economists use the concept of opportunity cost as a good way of expressing costs. Spending time online means less time available to do other things. Spending all your time online means less time; reading, watching complex narratives (films, tv shows), drawing, painting, crafting, talking, playing games, doing sports and a whole array of activities that are fundamental to physical and mental health. In fact, i would add that i now would rather see my 10 year old playing a complex narrative game than using any form of social media. He is only allowed to watch youtube for a limited time and thats all the social media he sees. The 13 year old has more liberty but screen time is well controlled.
As a parent, this is what i see happening when screen time is not controlled. So, what do we as working parents do about this? Make an effort to ensure kids have a mix of activities, get them playing sports, get them into things where their time is occupied in a healthy way. Then limited screen time is easier to manage and it will be easier (but not easy) to ensure their time is not spent solely death scrolling mindless and harmful Tik Tok (banned in our house).
We are re-wiring our kids and we have to take this very seriously. Ask any parent.
Just a hack getting paid to write propaganda. Nonsensical pap.
I find it very hard to believe the author actually read Haidts book. Or Shrier’s. And i dont think more than 5% of commenters did either.
I have. And the “counterpoints” in this piece are literally all the points Haidt makes in his book, in detail, with evidence, and heaps of nuance. But somehow here Haidts research is represented as if he drew opposite conclusions, and this other guy has the “real story”.
This is honestly the strangest article i have read in a very very long time.
Unherd… maybe read the book before publishing a piece that wreeks of… nepotism? I cant think of any other reason for this.