Why would conflict in real life make a child stronger, but conflict on social media be detrimental to them, but only if they were born with a vagina?For a similar reason that real-life sex is normal, but online porn wreaks havoc on boys sexuality. Encountering a clique of mean girls is hard. Encountering thousands is harder. And girls are more prone to experience negative emotions than boys. Same reason (among others) why most rapid-onset gender dysphoria cases are girls.
How did he or anyone determine where the cut off point is? At what point is it beneficial for you, and at what point is it detrimental? Does it have to be thousands online or are a few dozens enough? Or does one online harassment equal 5 real life harassments, or how much? Where are the studies and observations which prove all this?Use common sense. You don't need to be an academic to realize that 1) antifragility is a thing, 2) some experiences are TOO much, for some people, and 3) the cut-off points will be different for different people.
They don't exist, it's all assumptions and suppositions. Just like the idea to ban violent video games each time a school shooting occurs.
So why is it that out of a 100 girls who are all exposed to social media, bullying, social pressures and who are all more prone to experience negative emotions only 1 gets dysphoria but the others don't? Is it maybe the same reason why only a tiny fraction of boys who are exposed to online porn see their "sexuality wreaked"?I think all that should be obvious. The point is simply that new technologies will have an effect. That effect may only affect a subset of any population, but it's an effect all the same.
"E.g. if you seriously think that boys watching porn, who progressively find themselves watching more extreme and varied types that boys didn't have access to until the rise of the Internet, then find that they cannot achieve an erection with a real woman, and that if they were not to have been exposed to porn then they wouldn't be experiencing the same effect, isn't a thing (even taking into account that it won't happen with all boys), then I don't know what to say to you."I have no idea what you're referring to, since I in no way expressed such a belief. You may want to re-read what I wrote.
Use common sense. You don't need to be an academic to realize that 1) antifragility is a thing, 2) some experiences are TOO much, for some people, and 3) the cut-off points will be different for different people.You seem to not have read the last paragraph of my previous comment, where I tried to point out the pitfalls of using "common sense" and just believing things which "make sense". If you haven't read that, that's fine with me, but then it doesn't make sense to further engage me in a discussion.
2) some experiences are TOO much, for some people,But that's not what Haidt says when he condemns social media use and says it leads emotional problems in girls.
And girls are more prone to experience negative emotions than boys.So girls are able to switch that being more "prone to experience negative emotions" on and off based on whether they interact with their friends through Facebook or in real life? So they immediately become more prone to negative emotions the minute they turn on their iPhone, but then immediately become less prone when they put it aside? Or how does it work?
hkoehliGood. Didn't mean to Cathy Newman you. My bad."E.g. if you seriously think that boys watching porn, who progressively find themselves watching more extreme and varied types that boys didn't have access to until the rise of the Internet, then find that they cannot achieve an erection with a real woman, and that if they were not to have been exposed to porn then they wouldn't be experiencing the same effect, isn't a thing (even taking into account that it won't happen with all boys), then I don't know what to say to you."I have no idea what you're referring to, since I in no way expressed such a belief.
You may want to re-read what I wrote.I'm not saying use common sense to come to the specific conclusions you have issues with. I'm saying use common sense to see that the ideas of antifragility and mental health problems from social media are not necessarily self-contradictory. Certain levels or types of stressors can lead to growth. Higher levels or different types of stressors can lead to suicide, psychosis or other forms of mental illness in those same individuals. Bones are antifragile, until you break them.Use common sense. You don't need to be an academic to realize that 1) antifragility is a thing, 2) some experiences are TOO much, for some people, and 3) the cut-off points will be different for different people.You seem to not have read the last paragraph of my previous comment, where I tried to point out the pitfalls of using "common sense" and just believing things which "make sense". If you haven't read that, that's fine with me, but then it doesn't make sense to further engage me in a discussion.
I also never said I do not believe in the idea or importance of anti-fragility.I know.
Again, you completely misunderstood me and missed the point I was making, namely to show that Haidt's theory that it's social media use which causes mental health issues in girls is not based on rigorous research, only unscientific assumptions,See link at the end.
and that this is further stressed by the fact that it clashes with his own theory on anti-fragilityIt doesn't.
I was making my own point, not Haidt's. But see link at end for what they currently think.2) some experiences are TOO much, for some people,But that's not what Haidt says when he condemns social media use and says it leads emotional problems in girls.
He seems to imply that the fact alone that it happens digitally has the detrimental impact. How did he arrive to that conclusion?See the link.
Why would girls derive benefit from encountering conflict in real life, but not on social media?That's not what I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure that's not what Haidt is saying either. What I'm saying: a girl who 'derives benefit' from a real-life conflict may also 'derive benefit' from a social-media conflict. That same girl might kill herself in response to a lot more real-life conflict, just as she might kill herself in response to a lot more social-media conflict.
You say it's because of the numbers. So if a girl is bullied by 5 mean girls in real life it's good for her emotional development, but if the same 5 bullied her on Facebook it would make her suicidal? Or 5 would be still ok, but if it was 6 then it would take her over the edge?Now you're Cathy Newmaning me. How many real-life bullies does it take to turn a specific girl suicidal? 5? 6?
So girls are able to switch that being more "prone to experience negative emotions" on and off based on whether they interact with their friends through Facebook or in real life?No.
So they immediately become more prone to negative emotions the minute they turn on their iPhone, but then immediately become less prone when they put it aside? Or how does it work?No.
And why would their being "more prone to experience negative emotions" enable them to still derive personal benefit from experiencing conflict in real life (antifragility), but that same thing would disable them from gaining such a benefit through social media?No. Part of the hypothesis is that girls' aggression is amplified on social media to a degree that it isn't usually experienced in real life.
Point is: There is no evidence that social media use selectively causes detrimental mental health issues in girls. Haidt himself admits this, or rather pays lip service to this fact. But just like many other scientists, he seems to be much in love with his own ideas to genuinely want to scrutinize them.[Link]
Why would girls derive benefit from encountering conflict in real life, but not on social media? You say it's because of the numbers. So if a girl is bullied by 5 mean girls in real life it's good for her emotional development, but if the same 5 bullied her on Facebook it would make her suicidal? Or 5 would be still ok, but if it was 6 then it would take her over the edge?Its quite simple and really quite obvious to me: Girls (and boys) who can survive being bullied in real life can EASILY survive being bullied online. But girls (and boys) who can't survive being bullied online can NOT survive being bullied in real life. Go figure. And because I regularly on a daily basis interact with the widest demographic cross-section of society in real life, whether I like it or not, is why I know this. Again, go figure.
Jeezus Christ. What is this? The Oprah Winfrey Show?
Can't listen to any more of this. It's just as brainwashed as everything else.