There is no definitive consensus on the driver of the decline in happiness and rise in unhappiness among young adults, though Blanchflower believes the trend is driven by cell phone and social media usage. “What you need here is something that starts around 2014 or so, is global and disproportionately impacts the young—especially young women,” he says. “Anybody that comes up with an explanation has got to have something that fits that. Other than cell phones, I don’t have anything.”
Regardless of the cause, however, “this is a global problem,” Blanchflower says. “We’re past the point of measuring. We should be out doing pilots, trying to figure out what might work. We should be trying to come up with solutions… Tell me what we can do to help these young people who are in trouble.”
Lol this dude sounds super out of touch. There are a whole lot of societal and economic factors around the '00s and '10s that are likely contributing.
Fuggin’ “cellphones” sounds like a typical boomer answer.
Also, there is likely some lag time between a population’s perception of traumatic or disturbing events and the onset of despair. I know that learning more about the financial crises around the late '00s did not help my mental health and only really occurred some time after in the mid '10s as people had time to analyze the root causes of these issues.
The continual deathmarch of climate change, growing awareness of the exploitation of the working class, and the reactionary violence and hate bred by right wing fanatics and politicians which surged beginning in the early '10s are all contenders for massive, culturally debilitating, trends. Lol “cellphones”.
Smart phones and social media are obviously amplifiers of these issues and are part of the problem, but the quote is remarkably reductive and does not address the root cause of what makes the information communicated through cell phones and social media so disheartening. Maybe we are given poor context for the quote and maybe it was something Blanchflower said in passing during the interview, but, still, not a good look.
You act like social media is just providing access to the unfortunate state of the world rather than using manipulative algorithms to drive engagement by only showing the most inflammatory content. Whether it is technically factual or out right misinformation it only shows that which creates a strong emotional response thus only showing the worst the world has to offer. The fact you believe that is reality just goes to show how effective it is at creating despair.
Absolutely. I totally agree that social media is a manipulative lens based on those engagement algorithms. I definitely see that as having amplified these issues (and in many cases, misrepresented and confused, as you said, which also drives despair and conflict).
I also didn’t mean to sound extremely dour in the first place, there are, of course, some aspects of society and progress worth celebrating, and I’m not particularly unhappy, so much as worried for others, myself.
The reality and perception of existential threats like climate change, violence, and exploitation is no doubt amplified by the lens of social media, but I would argue that those pressures would still be felt, regardless of that amplification, leading me to see them as the root causes.
I also agree that social media in general is another root cause, but argue that just throwing that out there as “the” root cause, as Bellflower does in his quote, is reductive and looks out of touch.
I don’t know if people have just gotten meaner over time or if that is how it has always been, but there are a lot of people who are very unpleasant to interact with, both on and off the internet. It can be stressful trying to interact with new people because it’s a dice roll on whether they’re friendly or condescending.
Anyway, just my observation. I don’t know if that has anything to do with social media, but it wouldn’t surprise me I guess.
A lot of environments on the internet basically reward hostility. Any kind of engagement gets stuff promoted in the algorithms, including negative engagement, so anything the starts a fight gets put in front of everyone else. That’d mean that people are more likely to see hostile people regardless of whether there are actually more of them than before
That only accounts for online interactions though, so maybe it’s not as strong an explanation as I think if offline interactions are similar
Offline, I’ve seen an increase in hostility after the pandemic. Mainly, people just being rude or outright hostile to each other in public. Completely anecdotal, of course, but it was less common prior to the pandemic and all of this weird political landscape.
Lol this dude sounds super out of touch. There are a whole lot of societal and economic factors around the '00s and '10s that are likely contributing.
Fuggin’ “cellphones” sounds like a typical boomer answer.
Also, there is likely some lag time between a population’s perception of traumatic or disturbing events and the onset of despair. I know that learning more about the financial crises around the late '00s did not help my mental health and only really occurred some time after in the mid '10s as people had time to analyze the root causes of these issues.
The continual deathmarch of climate change, growing awareness of the exploitation of the working class, and the reactionary violence and hate bred by right wing fanatics and politicians which surged beginning in the early '10s are all contenders for massive, culturally debilitating, trends. Lol “cellphones”.
Smart phones and social media are obviously amplifiers of these issues and are part of the problem, but the quote is remarkably reductive and does not address the root cause of what makes the information communicated through cell phones and social media so disheartening. Maybe we are given poor context for the quote and maybe it was something Blanchflower said in passing during the interview, but, still, not a good look.
You act like social media is just providing access to the unfortunate state of the world rather than using manipulative algorithms to drive engagement by only showing the most inflammatory content. Whether it is technically factual or out right misinformation it only shows that which creates a strong emotional response thus only showing the worst the world has to offer. The fact you believe that is reality just goes to show how effective it is at creating despair.
Absolutely. I totally agree that social media is a manipulative lens based on those engagement algorithms. I definitely see that as having amplified these issues (and in many cases, misrepresented and confused, as you said, which also drives despair and conflict).
I also didn’t mean to sound extremely dour in the first place, there are, of course, some aspects of society and progress worth celebrating, and I’m not particularly unhappy, so much as worried for others, myself.
The reality and perception of existential threats like climate change, violence, and exploitation is no doubt amplified by the lens of social media, but I would argue that those pressures would still be felt, regardless of that amplification, leading me to see them as the root causes.
I also agree that social media in general is another root cause, but argue that just throwing that out there as “the” root cause, as Bellflower does in his quote, is reductive and looks out of touch.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment. You are correct that thinking the world would be perfect without social media is pretty juvenile thinking.
Funny, no mention of late stage capitalism
I don’t know if people have just gotten meaner over time or if that is how it has always been, but there are a lot of people who are very unpleasant to interact with, both on and off the internet. It can be stressful trying to interact with new people because it’s a dice roll on whether they’re friendly or condescending.
Anyway, just my observation. I don’t know if that has anything to do with social media, but it wouldn’t surprise me I guess.
A lot of environments on the internet basically reward hostility. Any kind of engagement gets stuff promoted in the algorithms, including negative engagement, so anything the starts a fight gets put in front of everyone else. That’d mean that people are more likely to see hostile people regardless of whether there are actually more of them than before
That only accounts for online interactions though, so maybe it’s not as strong an explanation as I think if offline interactions are similar
Offline, I’ve seen an increase in hostility after the pandemic. Mainly, people just being rude or outright hostile to each other in public. Completely anecdotal, of course, but it was less common prior to the pandemic and all of this weird political landscape.