I think Peter Gray is trying to show that it’s not tech that’s leading to kids’ decline in mental health.
It’s easy of course to say it’s tech’s fault.
But instead we should look for the real causes. The entire system, school system, early child care leading to a decline in parent child bond/attachment, reduced unsupervised free play for kids, parents who are stressed, emotionally not present, etc.
Thank you for being so vulnerable and brave to share this. If you don't mind me asking, what advice would you give to other parents knowing what you know now? I am so sorry for your loss. I don't know what to say except sending you prayers, love and light. 🙏🏻
You are 100% right with all you said above. And there was no way you could have known the impact! You are not at fault- I hope you know that. Sadly his generation are the canaries in the coal mines and Big Tech seems to have zero trouble sleeping an night knowing this...and continuing their tactics. It is shocking and deeply saddening. Thank you again for sharing your story and advice and I trust it will save others. Bless you and your family.
I hope you don't mind that I quoted you in an article i wrote to respond to Peter's piece.
Thanks for continuing to bring a counter argument to what, I must admit, are my prior beliefs about children's use of mobile phones. It's a useful challenge for me.
I would find it more useful, though, if I thought you weren't selectively interpreting the data. For example, it seems telling that the only time that you question drawing causal inferences from this correlational study is when the correlations are in a way that are counter to your prior beliefs.
Derek, you make a good point here. Thank you. Yes, because this was a cross-sectional correlational study, not a controlled experiment or a longitudinal study, we have to be careful about inferring causal direction. Concerning the relation between frequent posting on social media (which did not necessarily occur on smartphones) and depression, I suggested that the direction might be depression causing increased such posting, because several longitudinal studies have shown that to be the case. But, you are right, I should have pointed out that we can't be sure in this study that smartphone ownership was the cause of better psychological wellbeing. It seems plausible to me that kids who were given smartphones were psychologically healthier to begin with. Maybe parents are more inclined to give a smartphone to a kid who is doing well than to a kid who is not doing so well. What we need to really address the question is a longitudinal study, tracking changes in wellbeing over time for kids who get a smartphone and those who don't. I believe the Florida study is designed to continue on in a longitudinal manner, so maybe in the future we will have such data.
Matters mightily. Also, not just immediate welfare matters, but how well we are fostering kids' upbringing. I understand this to be Let Grow's mission: The crusade for more childhood freedom; learning through experience. As w/ Loki's experience, per Google: "That iconic exchange from Avengers: Infinity War shows Thanos belittling Loki's past failures (like losing the Tesseract in The Avengers), but Loki defiantly retorts, "I consider experience experience," asserting that even his failures taught him valuable lessons, just before his fatal attempt to kill Thanos to protect Thor, showcasing his final, complex character arc of love and self-sacrifice.
Context of the Scene:
Setting: The opening of Avengers: Infinity War, aboard the Asgardian refugee ship, the Statesman.
Thanos's Goal: To seize the Tesseract (containing the Space Stone) from Thor.
Loki's Offer: Loki offers to guide Thanos to Earth and the Tesseract, claiming his "experience in that arena".
Thanos's Insult: "Well, if you consider failure experience," mocking Loki's consistent defeats against Earth's heroes.
Loki's Rebuttal: "I consider experience experience," a defiant declaration that his history, including losing, shaped him." Is Let Grow to be Thanos w/ smartphones? I'm also reminded of Bruce's Dad and Arthur asking the young Batman to be: "Why do we fall?" Their answer: "So that we can learn to pick ourselves up!" A line repeated, underscored, mightily dramatized in the trilogy IMO." I don't understand why Let Go deviates so from its mission, what it otherwise crusades for, to carve out so depriving a niche for smartphones.
This study does not report statistical significance. It is unclear if these differences in percentages (which are pretty small by the way) reflect meaningful differences of if they simply reflect standard error of measurement. That is probably why this study is not peer reviewed. I do not believe that it is robust enough to draw meaningful conclusions from.
Katie, thanks for this. The differences in percentages are actually pretty large, and with the size of the sample they would certainly reach statistical significance. In the methods section, the auhors do report: "For this study, the sample data are accurate to within + 2.9 percentage points at a 95%-level of confidence." So, I think this means that any differences greater than 2.9 percentage points would be significant at at least the conventional p < .05 level. ... Still, I agree with you that the study has apparently not gone through peer review. I hope the study has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and is under review now. Sometimes that process stakes a while.
Again, I appreciate your writing about this, since respect you and disagree with you on this. There are a couple of issues I see here: (1) you seem to assume that because you use your smartphone in productive ways that kids are naturally going to do the same thing and (2) you say the report "directly tests the question: Are smartphones good for kids or bad for them?", but it does nothing of the sort. It surveys them about smartphones and surprise! surprise! they respond as if they like them and want to keep them.
Regarding (1): I think having come to phones late in a good life has made it so your personal approach to them is very different than young kids. So much so that it is a misleading indicator of their value to children. If kids used them as you do, they would travel farther away from home and they would be smarter than previous generations. I don't think that's the case. The data I have seen indicates the exact opposite. Fewer kids out exploring, test scores dropping. Colleges report kids want to major in English without having read any books before college!
Regarding (2): This one is tough. Asking kids about their phone use is essential, but I'm never sure how much confidence I can put in their self-reports. But here the whole report is framed as what kids with smartphones say vs. what kids without smartphones say. Most of these kids recently got their phones. They don't know what childhood was like without phones. They don't know what they're missing. It would an incredible sign of maturity for a kid to say at 11 years old,"Gee Mister Researcher, I sure love watching 3 hours of YouTube every day after school, but some times when I stare up at the ceiling in the dark of night, I wonder if my time would be better spent reading a book, going over to Jimmy's house to see what he's up to, or maybe getting a paper route or bagging groceries."
As a question for you: the report indicates that for 11-13 year-olds who report Netflix as their most used app, their average estimated usage of Netflix alone PER DAY was 4.0 hours! With all your wisdom and experience, do you think you could beneficially watch four hours of Netflix a day?
No, phones do not exacerbate “an epidemic of loneliness” - is this even real? They help disabled people communicate and connect with one another. They help Palestinians alert us to the horrors they face and get money directly in their pocket. Your fixation on the phone as the source of these problems tells me you are not viewing these issues through the lens of the marginalized.
A comparable cigarette study would have asked people who smoked and people who didn't smoke a questions like: "Do you find that you cough more than twice a day?" "Do you frequently run out of breath?" A finding that smokers were LESS likely than non-smokers to cough or to run out of breath would have been the analogy to findings in this study.
You paint them as imbeciles and don’t give their voices the same credence as adults. I realize that the contempt is benign but it’s so glaring in these moments. Children are incredible and adults have much to learn from them around tech use.
As I said, "Asking kids about their phone use is essential." Is that contempt?
We disagree that one has to give the exact same regard to children's responses on surveys as adults'. Children are not the same as adults. They are capable of many things, much more than we currently ask of them. But I'm comfortable taking their survey responses with an even bigger grain of salt than I'd need for adult survey responses. That's not contempt. Do you think it is contemptuous to not let 11-year-olds drive? If not, why not?
What are some examples of things that adults have to learn from children around tech use? (I'm assuming that watching Netflix for four hours a day, is not one of them.) Do you feel like children have to be able to teach adults things in order for children to have value?
I feel children have incredible value- and this comment continues to highlight how you see children as inferior. Here is the section that was especially mean-
They don't know what they're missing. It would an incredible sign of maturity for a kid to say at 11 years old,"Gee Mister Researcher, I sure love watching 3 hours of YouTube every day after school, but some times when I stare up at the ceiling in the dark of night, I wonder if my time would be better spent reading a book, going over to Jimmy's house to see what he's up to, or maybe getting a paper route or bagging groceries."
We are strangers on the internet so this is the extent of teaching I’m willing to offer you. Lots to read out there by Peter, and many others, demonstrating how children continue to be the most oppressed class, harmed by adults. Mike Males has a great blog on here.
I am deeply EXHAUSTED by the performative care when underneath is such a disdain for children. Reread your words as if you were that age. Sounds to me like someone who has no respect for children.
Thanks for the teaching you were willing to offer.
Might I offer some as well? There's more than a bit of irony in accusing a stranger of being "performative" while indicting their character multiple times, ignoring all their questions, and claiming to be "deeply exhausted" (in all caps!) from having to point out just how terrible they are.
Meanwhile, I'll just keep thinking that facilitating round-the-clock access to kids for the world's largest, most influential attention-monetizing companies (YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Netflix) is probably a bad idea. I would have bet really good money that we could agree on that, but now I'm not so sure.
The major flaw in most studies like this one is to assume all children will respond in the same manner. There was no mental health screening because in any group of 1500 kids at one point in time, in one geographic place are going to have a negative response to about any activity you name. Children different. They respond or react is unique and specific ways that many times has more to do with their genetic wiring than the environmental circumstances.
They have had studies with similar results to TV use, day care and won’t surprise if riding a bicycle bore similar result. There a too many variables for such a narrow non longitudinal study to have a simple answer to such a complex question. We still don’t know if violent TV is bad or its the child’s brain wiring dictating outcome.
I don’t think there is a one size fits all solution; children develop at their own pace. They have different temperaments and propensities. Before introducing smartphones, I think they need to get grounded in the physical world. And it’s not only about the benefits of using smartphones,, it’s about what they are not doing when they are on their phones. They are not moving or creating! I think it’s about balance, knowing our children, and trusting our intuition. What’s good for one child may not be good for another.
Smart phones are addictive, and addictive behaviour can be personality driven so this affects certain individuals more than others.
It makes sense that there is a correlation between smartphone use and mental health issues like depression and anxiety, and also with ADHD. People with ADHD (like me) are more likely to experience these things, and are also more prone to doom scrolling and even sharing on social media because of impulsiveness. Difficulty switching tasks makes getting off phones harder than it would be for someone without these traits. Some neurodivergent traits lead people to prefer socialising online to in person, because of social anxiety, which is not necessarily a bad thing because it’s still socialising. I think studies and research can sometimes lead to misleading conclusions.
Other people (probably the majority), aren’t as susceptible to addiction and are likely genuinely more motivated to socialise despite phone use because it uplifts them rather than drains them.
I personally find not carrying a phone very difficult (I never go anywhere without it). Yet, one time on holidays I lost my phone for 3 weeks and having a break for that long was extremely liberating. Without the temptation in my pocket, I felt much lighter and refreshed when I got home. Phones are like a weight you don’t realise you’re carrying. Although I wouldn’t give mine up for the world (neither would my teens).
This is a very relevant point because new data on screen use shows that addictive screen use is the problem - not amount of time on screens. It is not the screens causing addictive behaviour, it is a vulnerable subset of children with unmet emotional or neurobiological needs including attentional differences, that find themselves struggling to self regulate. If parents actually let their kids regulate their own screen use they would find that many, when trusted, are able to. Those who struggle need help with their underlying vulnerabilities. Banning or strictly limiting screens is not the solution. Back in the day kids watched a lot of TV - that is a rich source of emotional learning as narrative arcs in stories are important for emotional development. Books and TV fulfil this need whereas short videos do not. As usual, the truth is far more nuanced than we are led to believe. Screens are not the demons - it's what and how they are used.
mm. I don't think I agree. Phones and their apps are carefully designed to be addictive and money is being made by us being on their apps. I have 10 years experience working with children- and I haven't met the child yet who is able to say: 'actually, that's enough YouTube Kids for me thank you!.'
Don‘t the children you work with ever switch off their phones without anybody telling them to do so?
My five year old play, watches on the phone, plays online, plays, interacts with me, etc, all day long. He doesn’t want to be on the phone all day long, apart from on days where I am not very well emotionally. He can feel that, of course. It also depends on his environment. Are his older siblings on their phones or not, are there other kids around to play with? But most importantly is how I am, what I’m doing.
I must add that he is still at home full time. He did not want to go to preschool and so far does not want to join his siblings at a Sudbury school.
With all my four kids I have made the experience that all I need to do is look after myself, do my emotional work/healing. Trying to control their behaviour doesn’t work or goes badly. And makes me feel helpless.
Working on myself makes me feel way more empowered and of course makes me happier.
1.5k sample of kids and ALL from Florida, without further indications on their background doesn't seem robust enough to me. besides the study is based on interviews and self reporting . a child beteeen 11 and 13 if he/she's depressed or suicidal or anorexic is unlikely to give that away with some few superficial questions. Feels to me study based on personal opinions and self reporting are not really scientific.
Thanks for yet another though-provoking piece. I subscribe to your newsletters because I find your pieces to be inspiring, although I occasionaly disagree with you completely. Today's piece was an example of an issue that I think you have profoundly mis-read. As an elementary school principal for the past 15 years (and a teacher before that) and as a parent of two teenagers, I would like to highlight that you really cannot compare the time that you (a highly educated and self-regulating adult) might spend googling plants in the wild to how children today use (or are used) by technology. In every way that I can measure it (attention span, inability to tolerate difference, body image, physical frailty, etc.) smartphones have been detrimental to our children. For every five minutes my own children spend practicing French on DuoLingo, they spend an hour or more gorging themselves on inane videos of people "reacting" to each other, screaming over top of video game footage, or just generally behaving badly. Additionally, the algorythms of many search engines are so sophisticated that once on a phone, children never have a chance to encounter anything that might challenge their thinking or enrich them as humans. The use of phones as anxiety shields is all around me, all day, as well: every teen in my life hides behind their phone in elevators, on buses, and at social gatherings. I've watched my son's hockey team at a celebratory end-of-season banquet, sitting in complete silence, each on a device, for instance. As a school administrator I can report that my teachers used to hate doing supervision duty in the cafe at lunch. Now it is the preferred duty as the cafe is one of the quietest places in the school, since students no longer talk to each other, flirt, or joke around as we might once have; they are all on phones. I will go out on a limb and suggest that these teens are not all researching flowers that they have recently discovered, or some similarly enriching interest. Instead they fill the one part of the day where they might unwind and de-stress, with negative social media messages, advertising, and prank videos.
Even the "play" part of their smartphone experience fails to make them human: it's a mostly repetitive and anonymous experience puntuated by occasioanl racism, sexist comments, and plenty of blood and gore. I'm not anti-technolgy or anti-Internet (both can be positive), nor do I think that a bit of mindless downtime is a problem. I do feel, however that in your usual enthusiasm to promote childhood independence and autonomy that you have really missed how utterly helpless most children (and adults) are in resisting the worst aspects of smartphones.
I totally agree, I spent my early teenage years alongside the internet, and this is when the algorithm isn’t as scarily effective as they are now, and i can really say that even though i don’t post much, the content that i see on the internet (mainly youtube and instagram) really impacted the relationship with my body. Then tiktok came along with the pandemic and because of the improved algorithm, it keeps feeding me more and more content on “weight loss tips” or “30 days workout challenge” that exacerbates my already skewed perception of what is considered an “ideal” body from the youtube times. And till now I’m still trying to unlearn and challenge those harmful thoughts and behaviors even after getting more educated and deleting social media.
So yeah even tho phones are a need nowadays, kids still need lots and lots of parental supervision and talks to guide them through it. Esp considering the rise of the red-pill, incel content targeting young boys.
Adults may be utterly helpless but you clearly haven’t seen how children act when they are given unfettered access to screens. They are way more adept at controlling themselves than adults. But these are children who are otherwise not controlled in a prison-like school. All the issues being framed here could easily relate to back to the issues caused by coercive schooling
I am really a big fan of your work on education and I wish you would abstain from minimizing the tech harms. Smart phones may enrich your experience but you are an adult. A smart phone makes my life easier too. But I had the benefit of developing as a human without my face buried in a screen all day, comparing myself to every other child everywhere, watching porn at age 10, youtube videos in class, and generally replacing life experiences with “safe” sterile online “experience”. I think even if one doubts the data (and I think there is ample data) you can see it in kids this age. The idea that parents can police all this is absurd. “Freedom” is great but I wouldn’t give my kids alcohol either with “rules” in place - clearly we do better by them when we restrict some things. Some things aren’t worth it. Happy childhood doesn’t hinge on access to iPhones.
I guess I think that in this day and age it would be a big mistake to forbid a child the use of a smart phone, since so much of our modern lives seems to depend on them more and more. But, I admit readily that I don't own one, and personally prefer to have times in my life when I'm not connected to, or even near a connection to the Internet or other digital entities. And, I have some worry that for some people (maybe children especially) having that always-available connection to the magical on-line world creates a situation where they are less likely to do creative activities in what I find myself tempted to call "the real world". I do spend a certain amount of time each day on the Internet, using a desk-top computer, which I'm quite happy I can't carry around with me! All the best to you, Fred
I agree that the content of the screen is the red herring. But it’s the effects of the screen use on the organs of the body, including the brain that is what we really want to look it. So I believe you hit on the most important outcome but you stopped too soon.
You say the one negative outcome was diminished sleep heath. I think you need to go one step further, calculate the real costs of the chronic sleep deprivation. Physiological: decreased immune function, cardiac health, reaction time, working memory and cognitive capacity more generally, Inc chronic pain, digestive issues etc Emotional: decreased mood, increased symptoms of depression, decreased motivation, increased chronic stress etc.
So I think writing off sleep without acknowledging its immediate and downstream effects, is to fail to look at how does diminished sleep actually show up in people short- and long-term?
Cat, I wouldn't write off the value of sleep. What I pointed out is that the sleep loss (which was actually very small) occurred only for those who posted just before bed or who slept with their phone. I suggested there is an easy solution to this problem, short of depriving them of a phone entirely.
I think the solution to put the phone away an hour before bed and not check it throughout the night is only an "easy" solution for some people. There's reports fo 60% of teens checking their phones between 1-5am on school nights and up to 90% regularly missing some amount of sleep, and we have to remember it's not only about quantity of sleep, but quality of sleep. My point is not to disagree with the research, it's to bring attention to the impacts of all screen use (regardless of type of device or content) on sleep.
But a big one that we didnt' mention: nobody should be surprised that a 12 year old who has just gotten a smartphone is going to be happier than one who is in the minority who does NOT yet have one. The kid without the phone feels left out at first. But look at them when they are older. Members of Gen Z hardly ever wish they got a smartphone earlier. They are more likely to wish that their parents had waited longer. Same is true for the parents:
What about answers, Jon Haidt, to the IMO penetrating flaws Peter IDs about the direction of causation?
My impression is your research, positions are focused plenty, often exclusively, on the first 2 years. I missed any actual data on this; as opposed to floated doctrine.
I don't see data in your NYT piece to be excluding the 1st 2 years. Nor to be IDing actual harm. Rather, people's feelings, which may be mistaken. Strike me along the lines of similar hysteria decades ago about video games; supposedly controversial Great Books, The Beatles/Elvis, etc.. Ruining teen minds, addictive, etc. Turns out there's increasing reporting about these sometimes being helpful in combatting dementia, learning disabilities, more.
Isn't Free Ranging premised on the importance of exposing minors to freedom, independence -- along w/ guidance, failures to learn from -- in exploring what they will inevitably confront as their lives unfold? How else can upbringings be successful?
Plus most of your figures, FWIW, I read to SUPPORT Peter's points. Denial of smartphone use due to my severe affliction(s), including reading stamina, has dangerously contributed to the afflictions' ruinous impact: increasing deprivations in medical care, disability.
I question the extent to which parents prepare their kids for responsibility. Consequences for failure, if they are not sufficiently serious, do not teach responsibility. When other people actually depend upon you, and bad things happen if you fail, these are the kinds of experiences that help build responsibility. School in that sense is mostly consequence free for most people, unless kids are seriously invested in it.... which I kinda feel is not very common.
Only because that’s what the adults are choosing. I worked inside the public schools for a decade a half,
If they wanted to change- they would.
Instead we have adults on this very thread focusing on pseudo-harms that they twist themselves into knots to prove phones caused, rather than looking past the phones to the HARM to determine WHY we continue to allow schools to harm our children, who then harm themselves and each other.
I am very interested in how you envision potentially overcoming the desires of the school system and parents to scapegoat. I am sure they see it in their self-interest to do so.
Jon, thank you for joining in here. I do want to point out, however, that the study was not of kids who had "just gotten a smartphone." Most of those in the study had owned one for years, and the authors report that there was no difference between those who received one much earlier in life compared to those who received one more recently. But, yes, I agree, we don't know what these same kids might say about their early ownership of a smartphone in future years. Maybe we will know at some point, as this study is apparently the first in what will be longitudinal.
A point you make that, I think, is definitely true is this. Part of the problem of not having a smartphone is that most of the other kids have one, so you are left out of the peer group. We live in a technological age. That is not going to change. So, as a parent, is it better to deprive your kid of a smartphone knowing that they will be left out of the group communicating that way, enjoying shared experiences with YouTube, etc, using the phone to find ways of getting together physically as they do; or is it better to allow them to join that group and, at the same time, help them understand the downsides and ways of dealing with the potential dangers? I'm in the latter camp.
My thought every time I hear the argument that their kids without phones are “left out” is “left out of what? The anxiety, depression, ruined attention span and dopamine regulation? That’s exactly what I WANT my kid left out of”.
Mr. Haidt, look how Professor Gray is patient to you. When someone is speaking up for digital natives, you always say he is working for big tech company. If we don't follow you to blame on social media, we will be considered as to be very evil by you. But is it really real?
On the opposite, you need to see we are all patient enough to you. Though you 've hurt many people. You lied about teenager social media usage without caring about what truly happened. But the people who is announced to be "brainwashed by the algorithm" is still not angry. They are still trying to communicate with you and politely explain what really happens. They have already exercised the utmost restraint towards you. For example, facing with your doubt, Gray even says thank to you.
We are trying to be as the most friendly to you as we can. We appreciate you, and patiently tell you about our true experience of social media usage. We hope you can understand us. But what is your reply to us? You ignored all the voice from young people, and struggle to think the voice standing for social media is all from the big tech company. Even so, young people are still respectful, friendly and polite to you.
Look at what you did, I hope you can think seriously about how you disappointed the respect from the public.
Bravo, Peter! A most welcome corrective IMO. Especially:
" As I have pointed out elsewhere, it seems more likely that the causal direction is the other way around: depression and anxiety result in increased public posting. Other studies have shown that depressed or anxious people often post publicly as a way of finding solutions to or in other ways dealing with their unhappy condition. The Florida study was not longitudinal, so there was no way to know if the anxiety or depression preceded or followed increased public posting. Longitudinal studies showing a correlation between social media posting and anxiety or depression have generally shown that the increased anxiety or depression typically precedes the increase in social media use (e.g. Heffer et al., 2019).
One of the most revealing such studies was of 100 teens who were enrolled in an outpatient program for depression and suicidality (Hamilton et al., 2021). At weekly visits to the clinic, over the course of a month, the teens reported on their use of social media over the past week and were assessed with measures of depression and suicidal ideation. The main finding was that those who used social media more showed greater improvement in mental health from week to week—less depression and fewer suicidal thoughts—than those who used it less or not at all. The researchers concluded, “among adolescents who are at high risk for suicide, social media may be indicative of adaptive or healthy social engagement.”"
If smartphones/access had been denied me, I would have been furious, maybe turned toward delinquency. I was a minor my first year of college, when I looked for a summer job thereafter. A rare nerve/immune disorder has rendered me unable to navigate smartphones, access text, download most apps. I'm consequently deprived increasingly of vital medical, financial, insurance services. I feel I'm viciously being told: 'Your afflictions render you unwelcome on this planet. Leave or be terminated.' Terrifying.
Dearly hope you are recovering well, rapidly, Peter. Again, much appreciated.
I'm just not ready to explain what sex and porn are yet...
I feel that its important developmentally to wait until puberty has actually begun, which I am quite sure is why people say 14. The emergent curiosities that come with that age I believe need proper awareness before the whole range of internet content is suddenly available.
True self-control and therefore culpability is something I see as a pre-requisite for the opportunity to access the unrestricted freedom the internet offers. Accountability takes time to develop, it means being given responsibility often enough (and usually failing often enough) that seriousness becomes capable of overpowering whims.
I think Peter Gray is trying to show that it’s not tech that’s leading to kids’ decline in mental health.
It’s easy of course to say it’s tech’s fault.
But instead we should look for the real causes. The entire system, school system, early child care leading to a decline in parent child bond/attachment, reduced unsupervised free play for kids, parents who are stressed, emotionally not present, etc.
My condolences 🙏
Heather, my heart goes out to you and yours.
Thank you for being so vulnerable and brave to share this. If you don't mind me asking, what advice would you give to other parents knowing what you know now? I am so sorry for your loss. I don't know what to say except sending you prayers, love and light. 🙏🏻
You are 100% right with all you said above. And there was no way you could have known the impact! You are not at fault- I hope you know that. Sadly his generation are the canaries in the coal mines and Big Tech seems to have zero trouble sleeping an night knowing this...and continuing their tactics. It is shocking and deeply saddening. Thank you again for sharing your story and advice and I trust it will save others. Bless you and your family.
I hope you don't mind that I quoted you in an article i wrote to respond to Peter's piece.
https://staceysx4.substack.com/p/when-the-experts-disagree-parents?r=zq3uf
Thanks for continuing to bring a counter argument to what, I must admit, are my prior beliefs about children's use of mobile phones. It's a useful challenge for me.
I would find it more useful, though, if I thought you weren't selectively interpreting the data. For example, it seems telling that the only time that you question drawing causal inferences from this correlational study is when the correlations are in a way that are counter to your prior beliefs.
Derek, you make a good point here. Thank you. Yes, because this was a cross-sectional correlational study, not a controlled experiment or a longitudinal study, we have to be careful about inferring causal direction. Concerning the relation between frequent posting on social media (which did not necessarily occur on smartphones) and depression, I suggested that the direction might be depression causing increased such posting, because several longitudinal studies have shown that to be the case. But, you are right, I should have pointed out that we can't be sure in this study that smartphone ownership was the cause of better psychological wellbeing. It seems plausible to me that kids who were given smartphones were psychologically healthier to begin with. Maybe parents are more inclined to give a smartphone to a kid who is doing well than to a kid who is not doing so well. What we need to really address the question is a longitudinal study, tracking changes in wellbeing over time for kids who get a smartphone and those who don't. I believe the Florida study is designed to continue on in a longitudinal manner, so maybe in the future we will have such data.
Matters mightily. Also, not just immediate welfare matters, but how well we are fostering kids' upbringing. I understand this to be Let Grow's mission: The crusade for more childhood freedom; learning through experience. As w/ Loki's experience, per Google: "That iconic exchange from Avengers: Infinity War shows Thanos belittling Loki's past failures (like losing the Tesseract in The Avengers), but Loki defiantly retorts, "I consider experience experience," asserting that even his failures taught him valuable lessons, just before his fatal attempt to kill Thanos to protect Thor, showcasing his final, complex character arc of love and self-sacrifice.
Context of the Scene:
Setting: The opening of Avengers: Infinity War, aboard the Asgardian refugee ship, the Statesman.
Thanos's Goal: To seize the Tesseract (containing the Space Stone) from Thor.
Loki's Offer: Loki offers to guide Thanos to Earth and the Tesseract, claiming his "experience in that arena".
Thanos's Insult: "Well, if you consider failure experience," mocking Loki's consistent defeats against Earth's heroes.
Loki's Rebuttal: "I consider experience experience," a defiant declaration that his history, including losing, shaped him." Is Let Grow to be Thanos w/ smartphones? I'm also reminded of Bruce's Dad and Arthur asking the young Batman to be: "Why do we fall?" Their answer: "So that we can learn to pick ourselves up!" A line repeated, underscored, mightily dramatized in the trilogy IMO." I don't understand why Let Go deviates so from its mission, what it otherwise crusades for, to carve out so depriving a niche for smartphones.
This study does not report statistical significance. It is unclear if these differences in percentages (which are pretty small by the way) reflect meaningful differences of if they simply reflect standard error of measurement. That is probably why this study is not peer reviewed. I do not believe that it is robust enough to draw meaningful conclusions from.
Katie, thanks for this. The differences in percentages are actually pretty large, and with the size of the sample they would certainly reach statistical significance. In the methods section, the auhors do report: "For this study, the sample data are accurate to within + 2.9 percentage points at a 95%-level of confidence." So, I think this means that any differences greater than 2.9 percentage points would be significant at at least the conventional p < .05 level. ... Still, I agree with you that the study has apparently not gone through peer review. I hope the study has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and is under review now. Sometimes that process stakes a while.
Again, I appreciate your writing about this, since respect you and disagree with you on this. There are a couple of issues I see here: (1) you seem to assume that because you use your smartphone in productive ways that kids are naturally going to do the same thing and (2) you say the report "directly tests the question: Are smartphones good for kids or bad for them?", but it does nothing of the sort. It surveys them about smartphones and surprise! surprise! they respond as if they like them and want to keep them.
Regarding (1): I think having come to phones late in a good life has made it so your personal approach to them is very different than young kids. So much so that it is a misleading indicator of their value to children. If kids used them as you do, they would travel farther away from home and they would be smarter than previous generations. I don't think that's the case. The data I have seen indicates the exact opposite. Fewer kids out exploring, test scores dropping. Colleges report kids want to major in English without having read any books before college!
Regarding (2): This one is tough. Asking kids about their phone use is essential, but I'm never sure how much confidence I can put in their self-reports. But here the whole report is framed as what kids with smartphones say vs. what kids without smartphones say. Most of these kids recently got their phones. They don't know what childhood was like without phones. They don't know what they're missing. It would an incredible sign of maturity for a kid to say at 11 years old,"Gee Mister Researcher, I sure love watching 3 hours of YouTube every day after school, but some times when I stare up at the ceiling in the dark of night, I wonder if my time would be better spent reading a book, going over to Jimmy's house to see what he's up to, or maybe getting a paper route or bagging groceries."
As a question for you: the report indicates that for 11-13 year-olds who report Netflix as their most used app, their average estimated usage of Netflix alone PER DAY was 4.0 hours! With all your wisdom and experience, do you think you could beneficially watch four hours of Netflix a day?
Cat, just a reminder. In this study they were not asked if they liked smartphones or not. That's not how the study was done.
No, phones do not exacerbate “an epidemic of loneliness” - is this even real? They help disabled people communicate and connect with one another. They help Palestinians alert us to the horrors they face and get money directly in their pocket. Your fixation on the phone as the source of these problems tells me you are not viewing these issues through the lens of the marginalized.
They don’t pose risks tho and continuing to demonize them is distracting us from what is actually harming our children
Uhh. Phones sow division? Not… racism, sexism, ableism? Be so for real.
Come at cars the way we come at phones and the whole argument breaks down.
A comparable cigarette study would have asked people who smoked and people who didn't smoke a questions like: "Do you find that you cough more than twice a day?" "Do you frequently run out of breath?" A finding that smokers were LESS likely than non-smokers to cough or to run out of breath would have been the analogy to findings in this study.
Your contempt for children is showing.
Hi Megan. I was surprised by your comment.
If you could elaborate and specify how I showed "contempt for children", that might be helpful to the both of us.
You paint them as imbeciles and don’t give their voices the same credence as adults. I realize that the contempt is benign but it’s so glaring in these moments. Children are incredible and adults have much to learn from them around tech use.
As I said, "Asking kids about their phone use is essential." Is that contempt?
We disagree that one has to give the exact same regard to children's responses on surveys as adults'. Children are not the same as adults. They are capable of many things, much more than we currently ask of them. But I'm comfortable taking their survey responses with an even bigger grain of salt than I'd need for adult survey responses. That's not contempt. Do you think it is contemptuous to not let 11-year-olds drive? If not, why not?
What are some examples of things that adults have to learn from children around tech use? (I'm assuming that watching Netflix for four hours a day, is not one of them.) Do you feel like children have to be able to teach adults things in order for children to have value?
I feel children have incredible value- and this comment continues to highlight how you see children as inferior. Here is the section that was especially mean-
They don't know what they're missing. It would an incredible sign of maturity for a kid to say at 11 years old,"Gee Mister Researcher, I sure love watching 3 hours of YouTube every day after school, but some times when I stare up at the ceiling in the dark of night, I wonder if my time would be better spent reading a book, going over to Jimmy's house to see what he's up to, or maybe getting a paper route or bagging groceries."
We are strangers on the internet so this is the extent of teaching I’m willing to offer you. Lots to read out there by Peter, and many others, demonstrating how children continue to be the most oppressed class, harmed by adults. Mike Males has a great blog on here.
I am deeply EXHAUSTED by the performative care when underneath is such a disdain for children. Reread your words as if you were that age. Sounds to me like someone who has no respect for children.
Thanks for the teaching you were willing to offer.
Might I offer some as well? There's more than a bit of irony in accusing a stranger of being "performative" while indicting their character multiple times, ignoring all their questions, and claiming to be "deeply exhausted" (in all caps!) from having to point out just how terrible they are.
Meanwhile, I'll just keep thinking that facilitating round-the-clock access to kids for the world's largest, most influential attention-monetizing companies (YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Netflix) is probably a bad idea. I would have bet really good money that we could agree on that, but now I'm not so sure.
To most of us, I'd suspect. As it stands, all I see is lashing out.
The major flaw in most studies like this one is to assume all children will respond in the same manner. There was no mental health screening because in any group of 1500 kids at one point in time, in one geographic place are going to have a negative response to about any activity you name. Children different. They respond or react is unique and specific ways that many times has more to do with their genetic wiring than the environmental circumstances.
They have had studies with similar results to TV use, day care and won’t surprise if riding a bicycle bore similar result. There a too many variables for such a narrow non longitudinal study to have a simple answer to such a complex question. We still don’t know if violent TV is bad or its the child’s brain wiring dictating outcome.
I don’t think there is a one size fits all solution; children develop at their own pace. They have different temperaments and propensities. Before introducing smartphones, I think they need to get grounded in the physical world. And it’s not only about the benefits of using smartphones,, it’s about what they are not doing when they are on their phones. They are not moving or creating! I think it’s about balance, knowing our children, and trusting our intuition. What’s good for one child may not be good for another.
Smart phones are addictive, and addictive behaviour can be personality driven so this affects certain individuals more than others.
It makes sense that there is a correlation between smartphone use and mental health issues like depression and anxiety, and also with ADHD. People with ADHD (like me) are more likely to experience these things, and are also more prone to doom scrolling and even sharing on social media because of impulsiveness. Difficulty switching tasks makes getting off phones harder than it would be for someone without these traits. Some neurodivergent traits lead people to prefer socialising online to in person, because of social anxiety, which is not necessarily a bad thing because it’s still socialising. I think studies and research can sometimes lead to misleading conclusions.
Other people (probably the majority), aren’t as susceptible to addiction and are likely genuinely more motivated to socialise despite phone use because it uplifts them rather than drains them.
I personally find not carrying a phone very difficult (I never go anywhere without it). Yet, one time on holidays I lost my phone for 3 weeks and having a break for that long was extremely liberating. Without the temptation in my pocket, I felt much lighter and refreshed when I got home. Phones are like a weight you don’t realise you’re carrying. Although I wouldn’t give mine up for the world (neither would my teens).
This is a very relevant point because new data on screen use shows that addictive screen use is the problem - not amount of time on screens. It is not the screens causing addictive behaviour, it is a vulnerable subset of children with unmet emotional or neurobiological needs including attentional differences, that find themselves struggling to self regulate. If parents actually let their kids regulate their own screen use they would find that many, when trusted, are able to. Those who struggle need help with their underlying vulnerabilities. Banning or strictly limiting screens is not the solution. Back in the day kids watched a lot of TV - that is a rich source of emotional learning as narrative arcs in stories are important for emotional development. Books and TV fulfil this need whereas short videos do not. As usual, the truth is far more nuanced than we are led to believe. Screens are not the demons - it's what and how they are used.
mm. I don't think I agree. Phones and their apps are carefully designed to be addictive and money is being made by us being on their apps. I have 10 years experience working with children- and I haven't met the child yet who is able to say: 'actually, that's enough YouTube Kids for me thank you!.'
Don‘t the children you work with ever switch off their phones without anybody telling them to do so?
My five year old play, watches on the phone, plays online, plays, interacts with me, etc, all day long. He doesn’t want to be on the phone all day long, apart from on days where I am not very well emotionally. He can feel that, of course. It also depends on his environment. Are his older siblings on their phones or not, are there other kids around to play with? But most importantly is how I am, what I’m doing.
I must add that he is still at home full time. He did not want to go to preschool and so far does not want to join his siblings at a Sudbury school.
With all my four kids I have made the experience that all I need to do is look after myself, do my emotional work/healing. Trying to control their behaviour doesn’t work or goes badly. And makes me feel helpless.
Working on myself makes me feel way more empowered and of course makes me happier.
1.5k sample of kids and ALL from Florida, without further indications on their background doesn't seem robust enough to me. besides the study is based on interviews and self reporting . a child beteeen 11 and 13 if he/she's depressed or suicidal or anorexic is unlikely to give that away with some few superficial questions. Feels to me study based on personal opinions and self reporting are not really scientific.
Dear Peter,
Thanks for yet another though-provoking piece. I subscribe to your newsletters because I find your pieces to be inspiring, although I occasionaly disagree with you completely. Today's piece was an example of an issue that I think you have profoundly mis-read. As an elementary school principal for the past 15 years (and a teacher before that) and as a parent of two teenagers, I would like to highlight that you really cannot compare the time that you (a highly educated and self-regulating adult) might spend googling plants in the wild to how children today use (or are used) by technology. In every way that I can measure it (attention span, inability to tolerate difference, body image, physical frailty, etc.) smartphones have been detrimental to our children. For every five minutes my own children spend practicing French on DuoLingo, they spend an hour or more gorging themselves on inane videos of people "reacting" to each other, screaming over top of video game footage, or just generally behaving badly. Additionally, the algorythms of many search engines are so sophisticated that once on a phone, children never have a chance to encounter anything that might challenge their thinking or enrich them as humans. The use of phones as anxiety shields is all around me, all day, as well: every teen in my life hides behind their phone in elevators, on buses, and at social gatherings. I've watched my son's hockey team at a celebratory end-of-season banquet, sitting in complete silence, each on a device, for instance. As a school administrator I can report that my teachers used to hate doing supervision duty in the cafe at lunch. Now it is the preferred duty as the cafe is one of the quietest places in the school, since students no longer talk to each other, flirt, or joke around as we might once have; they are all on phones. I will go out on a limb and suggest that these teens are not all researching flowers that they have recently discovered, or some similarly enriching interest. Instead they fill the one part of the day where they might unwind and de-stress, with negative social media messages, advertising, and prank videos.
Even the "play" part of their smartphone experience fails to make them human: it's a mostly repetitive and anonymous experience puntuated by occasioanl racism, sexist comments, and plenty of blood and gore. I'm not anti-technolgy or anti-Internet (both can be positive), nor do I think that a bit of mindless downtime is a problem. I do feel, however that in your usual enthusiasm to promote childhood independence and autonomy that you have really missed how utterly helpless most children (and adults) are in resisting the worst aspects of smartphones.
Thanks, and keep up the great posts!
I totally agree, I spent my early teenage years alongside the internet, and this is when the algorithm isn’t as scarily effective as they are now, and i can really say that even though i don’t post much, the content that i see on the internet (mainly youtube and instagram) really impacted the relationship with my body. Then tiktok came along with the pandemic and because of the improved algorithm, it keeps feeding me more and more content on “weight loss tips” or “30 days workout challenge” that exacerbates my already skewed perception of what is considered an “ideal” body from the youtube times. And till now I’m still trying to unlearn and challenge those harmful thoughts and behaviors even after getting more educated and deleting social media.
So yeah even tho phones are a need nowadays, kids still need lots and lots of parental supervision and talks to guide them through it. Esp considering the rise of the red-pill, incel content targeting young boys.
Adults may be utterly helpless but you clearly haven’t seen how children act when they are given unfettered access to screens. They are way more adept at controlling themselves than adults. But these are children who are otherwise not controlled in a prison-like school. All the issues being framed here could easily relate to back to the issues caused by coercive schooling
The study says they will track these kids for at least the next decade. I may wait until *those* results come out before I give my son a smartphone.
I am really a big fan of your work on education and I wish you would abstain from minimizing the tech harms. Smart phones may enrich your experience but you are an adult. A smart phone makes my life easier too. But I had the benefit of developing as a human without my face buried in a screen all day, comparing myself to every other child everywhere, watching porn at age 10, youtube videos in class, and generally replacing life experiences with “safe” sterile online “experience”. I think even if one doubts the data (and I think there is ample data) you can see it in kids this age. The idea that parents can police all this is absurd. “Freedom” is great but I wouldn’t give my kids alcohol either with “rules” in place - clearly we do better by them when we restrict some things. Some things aren’t worth it. Happy childhood doesn’t hinge on access to iPhones.
Hi Peter!
I guess I think that in this day and age it would be a big mistake to forbid a child the use of a smart phone, since so much of our modern lives seems to depend on them more and more. But, I admit readily that I don't own one, and personally prefer to have times in my life when I'm not connected to, or even near a connection to the Internet or other digital entities. And, I have some worry that for some people (maybe children especially) having that always-available connection to the magical on-line world creates a situation where they are less likely to do creative activities in what I find myself tempted to call "the real world". I do spend a certain amount of time each day on the Internet, using a desk-top computer, which I'm quite happy I can't carry around with me! All the best to you, Fred
Fred, i's great to see you here!
I agree that the content of the screen is the red herring. But it’s the effects of the screen use on the organs of the body, including the brain that is what we really want to look it. So I believe you hit on the most important outcome but you stopped too soon.
You say the one negative outcome was diminished sleep heath. I think you need to go one step further, calculate the real costs of the chronic sleep deprivation. Physiological: decreased immune function, cardiac health, reaction time, working memory and cognitive capacity more generally, Inc chronic pain, digestive issues etc Emotional: decreased mood, increased symptoms of depression, decreased motivation, increased chronic stress etc.
So I think writing off sleep without acknowledging its immediate and downstream effects, is to fail to look at how does diminished sleep actually show up in people short- and long-term?
Cat, I wouldn't write off the value of sleep. What I pointed out is that the sleep loss (which was actually very small) occurred only for those who posted just before bed or who slept with their phone. I suggested there is an easy solution to this problem, short of depriving them of a phone entirely.
I think the solution to put the phone away an hour before bed and not check it throughout the night is only an "easy" solution for some people. There's reports fo 60% of teens checking their phones between 1-5am on school nights and up to 90% regularly missing some amount of sleep, and we have to remember it's not only about quantity of sleep, but quality of sleep. My point is not to disagree with the research, it's to bring attention to the impacts of all screen use (regardless of type of device or content) on sleep.
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2023-cs-smartphone-research-report_final-for-web.pdf
Dear Peter,
That Florida study has many flaws, some of which we detailed here:
https://www.afterbabel.com/p/flawed-absolution-for-smartphones?utm_source=publication-search
But a big one that we didnt' mention: nobody should be surprised that a 12 year old who has just gotten a smartphone is going to be happier than one who is in the minority who does NOT yet have one. The kid without the phone feels left out at first. But look at them when they are older. Members of Gen Z hardly ever wish they got a smartphone earlier. They are more likely to wish that their parents had waited longer. Same is true for the parents:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/opinion/social-media-smartphones-harm-regret.html
Are they all wrong? Parents are not focused on what happens in the first year or two. They care about the long term effects of early smartphone use.
Jon Haidt
What about answers, Jon Haidt, to the IMO penetrating flaws Peter IDs about the direction of causation?
My impression is your research, positions are focused plenty, often exclusively, on the first 2 years. I missed any actual data on this; as opposed to floated doctrine.
I don't see data in your NYT piece to be excluding the 1st 2 years. Nor to be IDing actual harm. Rather, people's feelings, which may be mistaken. Strike me along the lines of similar hysteria decades ago about video games; supposedly controversial Great Books, The Beatles/Elvis, etc.. Ruining teen minds, addictive, etc. Turns out there's increasing reporting about these sometimes being helpful in combatting dementia, learning disabilities, more.
Isn't Free Ranging premised on the importance of exposing minors to freedom, independence -- along w/ guidance, failures to learn from -- in exploring what they will inevitably confront as their lives unfold? How else can upbringings be successful?
Plus most of your figures, FWIW, I read to SUPPORT Peter's points. Denial of smartphone use due to my severe affliction(s), including reading stamina, has dangerously contributed to the afflictions' ruinous impact: increasing deprivations in medical care, disability.
I question the extent to which parents prepare their kids for responsibility. Consequences for failure, if they are not sufficiently serious, do not teach responsibility. When other people actually depend upon you, and bad things happen if you fail, these are the kinds of experiences that help build responsibility. School in that sense is mostly consequence free for most people, unless kids are seriously invested in it.... which I kinda feel is not very common.
That’s what my kids learn AND MORE at their Sudbury school. With access to screens whenever they want.
Those schools are too rare
Only because that’s what the adults are choosing. I worked inside the public schools for a decade a half,
If they wanted to change- they would.
Instead we have adults on this very thread focusing on pseudo-harms that they twist themselves into knots to prove phones caused, rather than looking past the phones to the HARM to determine WHY we continue to allow schools to harm our children, who then harm themselves and each other.
I am very interested in how you envision potentially overcoming the desires of the school system and parents to scapegoat. I am sure they see it in their self-interest to do so.
Jon, thank you for joining in here. I do want to point out, however, that the study was not of kids who had "just gotten a smartphone." Most of those in the study had owned one for years, and the authors report that there was no difference between those who received one much earlier in life compared to those who received one more recently. But, yes, I agree, we don't know what these same kids might say about their early ownership of a smartphone in future years. Maybe we will know at some point, as this study is apparently the first in what will be longitudinal.
A point you make that, I think, is definitely true is this. Part of the problem of not having a smartphone is that most of the other kids have one, so you are left out of the peer group. We live in a technological age. That is not going to change. So, as a parent, is it better to deprive your kid of a smartphone knowing that they will be left out of the group communicating that way, enjoying shared experiences with YouTube, etc, using the phone to find ways of getting together physically as they do; or is it better to allow them to join that group and, at the same time, help them understand the downsides and ways of dealing with the potential dangers? I'm in the latter camp.
My thought every time I hear the argument that their kids without phones are “left out” is “left out of what? The anxiety, depression, ruined attention span and dopamine regulation? That’s exactly what I WANT my kid left out of”.
I would love to see you - just once - focus on the children rather than the adults. Your contempt for children is ALWAYS showing.
Mr. Haidt, look how Professor Gray is patient to you. When someone is speaking up for digital natives, you always say he is working for big tech company. If we don't follow you to blame on social media, we will be considered as to be very evil by you. But is it really real?
On the opposite, you need to see we are all patient enough to you. Though you 've hurt many people. You lied about teenager social media usage without caring about what truly happened. But the people who is announced to be "brainwashed by the algorithm" is still not angry. They are still trying to communicate with you and politely explain what really happens. They have already exercised the utmost restraint towards you. For example, facing with your doubt, Gray even says thank to you.
We are trying to be as the most friendly to you as we can. We appreciate you, and patiently tell you about our true experience of social media usage. We hope you can understand us. But what is your reply to us? You ignored all the voice from young people, and struggle to think the voice standing for social media is all from the big tech company. Even so, young people are still respectful, friendly and polite to you.
Look at what you did, I hope you can think seriously about how you disappointed the respect from the public.
Bravo, Peter! A most welcome corrective IMO. Especially:
" As I have pointed out elsewhere, it seems more likely that the causal direction is the other way around: depression and anxiety result in increased public posting. Other studies have shown that depressed or anxious people often post publicly as a way of finding solutions to or in other ways dealing with their unhappy condition. The Florida study was not longitudinal, so there was no way to know if the anxiety or depression preceded or followed increased public posting. Longitudinal studies showing a correlation between social media posting and anxiety or depression have generally shown that the increased anxiety or depression typically precedes the increase in social media use (e.g. Heffer et al., 2019).
One of the most revealing such studies was of 100 teens who were enrolled in an outpatient program for depression and suicidality (Hamilton et al., 2021). At weekly visits to the clinic, over the course of a month, the teens reported on their use of social media over the past week and were assessed with measures of depression and suicidal ideation. The main finding was that those who used social media more showed greater improvement in mental health from week to week—less depression and fewer suicidal thoughts—than those who used it less or not at all. The researchers concluded, “among adolescents who are at high risk for suicide, social media may be indicative of adaptive or healthy social engagement.”"
If smartphones/access had been denied me, I would have been furious, maybe turned toward delinquency. I was a minor my first year of college, when I looked for a summer job thereafter. A rare nerve/immune disorder has rendered me unable to navigate smartphones, access text, download most apps. I'm consequently deprived increasingly of vital medical, financial, insurance services. I feel I'm viciously being told: 'Your afflictions render you unwelcome on this planet. Leave or be terminated.' Terrifying.
Dearly hope you are recovering well, rapidly, Peter. Again, much appreciated.
I'm just not ready to explain what sex and porn are yet...
I feel that its important developmentally to wait until puberty has actually begun, which I am quite sure is why people say 14. The emergent curiosities that come with that age I believe need proper awareness before the whole range of internet content is suddenly available.
True self-control and therefore culpability is something I see as a pre-requisite for the opportunity to access the unrestricted freedom the internet offers. Accountability takes time to develop, it means being given responsibility often enough (and usually failing often enough) that seriousness becomes capable of overpowering whims.