On June 17, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy published a guest essay in the New York Times calling for a warning label on social media platforms. If you have a NYT subscription you can read the article online here. The logic presented by Murthy can be summarized as consisting of three main parts:
(1) We are currently experiencing a mental health crisis, especially among young people.
(2) Research reveals that engagement with social media is contributing significantly to that crisis.
(3) As illustrated by the 1964 Surgeon General warning about the dangers of smoking tobacco, such warnings can significantly influence public behavior.
Some of you have asked me to comment on Murthy’s essay, and so I will do so here—as a “thread” aimed at eliciting your thoughts along with mine, rather than as a regular Substack letter.
In brief, I am opposed to a Surgeon General warning about social media. I agree with the first and third contentions in Murthy’s essay. Yes, we are experiencing a mental health crisis especially among young people; and, yes, a Surgeon General warning would be taken seriously by many people and affect their behavior. But I disagree with the second and most significant contention, that research shows that social media is contributing significantly to the mental health crisis.
Concerning research evidence, there is no reasonable comparison between the case against social media today and the case against smoking tobacco in 1964, when Surgeon General Luther Terry issued the warning about its dangers. No serious scientists studying lung cancer, in 1964, doubted that smoking was a major cause of lung cancer. The evidence was overwhelming and unambiguous. The only people claiming doubt were those in the tobacco industry, and they knew they were lying.
The situation now for social media is entirely different from that. Most serious scientists who have studied this issue deeply and published peer reviewed articles on it, who have no connection at all to social media or tech industries, disagree with the view that social media has been shown to be a major cause of the decline in mental health among young people.
To issue a Surgeon General warning on social media would cheapen the concept of such a warning. Such a warning should be made only when there is clear scientific consensus.
In my D series of Substack letters, I have previously summarized much evidence against the smartphone/social media theory of the decline in teen mental health. Here are links to the relevant letters, where you can find not just my arguments but references to review articles by leading researchers into effects of social media.
• In Letter D1 I showed that the decline in mental health long preceded smartphones and even preceded the Internet. Between 1950 and 1990, the rate of suicide among teens increased by about 400 percent. Then it declined between 1990 and the early 21st century before starting to rise again around 2010. Suicides and other indices of poor mental health among teens are now at the same level as they were in 1990. So, what we are seeing today is not unprecedented.
• In Letters D6, D7, D8 , and D9, I presented evidence from many studies countering the hypothesis that the decline in teens’ mental health beginning around 2010 was caused largely by heavy use of smartphones and social media.
• In Letters D5 and D8 I presented multiple lines evidence for an alternative theory about the decline in teen mental health beginning around 2010—the theory that this is the period when Common Core took effect and dramatically increased the pressure and decreased the pleasure of schooling. Also, in D8, I described other social changes that could have contributed to the rise of anxiety and depression in kids.
I—or anyone else who examines the research objectively—could make a far stronger case for a Surgeon General warning about the mental health dangers of forced schooling than about the mental health dangers of social media. I’m not kidding.
I welcome your thoughts. Leave a comment.
Play Makes Us Human is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Peter, as an unschooling parent and passionate advocate for self-directed education, I wholeheartedly agree that school is the biggest problem contributing to mental health issues and the theft of childhood from children. And not just school but the whole culture of schooling, the state of mind that permeates everything we allow or don’t allow our children to do.
But I also find the claim — which I hear a lot — that scientific studies prove no connection between social media and mental health to be incredibly frustrating.
Science is many things, and I’m a big fan of science. Even though as an educator I taught history and conflict studies I always brought science and evolution and related topics into my classrooms, much to the dismay of my colleagues!
But science also has a tendency to change its mind every few years, sometimes with very quick 180 turns, and sometimes what it leaves behind is basic common sense, what we see and experience with our eyes.
And in my world, that common sense, and my experience being the parent of a 9 year old, leads me to a view of screens, social media, phones and tech in general as extremely impactful, in negative ways, on young people as well as adults.
I personally don’t ban my daughter from screens, she has some screen time. And I also don’t meant the internet and technology don’t have MULTIPLE positive benefits. For example, I don’t deny that, as you have mentioned in many of your letters, children might find independence from overbearing adults through their online contacts with other kids, through games, and that as long as we remove their fun and freedom the internet will be providing some that is much needed; I don’t deny technology is now not only a part of our minds but extension of our bodies and that we have to embrace that; I accept that our ideas about attention span, focus and other issues will have to change due to the realities of our current world (and also we weren’t doing so well before the internet so there wasn’t a golden age to look back on!); and as an historian I am hyper aware that every generation since the beginning of time has catastrophized about their children going toward the chamber of doom due to some new invention or way of thinking.
However…
I find it so hard to understand how you seem to deny the dark side! The parts that for me are in plain sight.
From my vantage point, I see how phones, tik tok or youtube shorts or many other forms of scrolling destroy attention span not only in the basic sense of ability to focus but in the deeper sense of young people unlearning how to be with and learn about themselves, reflect, have pauses, look at the world.
I see addiction in the truest sense of the word that I know, in children of all ages. A loss of autonomy and self in the face of something that has gripped them before they were able to choose whether or not to be gripped.
I see heartbreaking battles between parents and children that hurt otherwise strong relationships, because parents now have to constantly create boundaries they never wanted to create and eventually over-control or give in through defeat and exhaustion but with enormous guilt. You might say if parents would let go those battles wouldn’t have to be: but on the frontline its almost impossible not to have those or create those, anymore than we wouldn’t let our 2 year olds walk toward a cliff or eat poison berries. You might not think the internet is either of those, but as parents we have to continually make choices about how our young people interact with it.
I see validity in arguments about the criminality of advertisements online, how they have targeted young people and made the internet a vast enterprise in grabbing the attention of human beings, and especially how they targets young people: I see these as equally compelling in terms of scientific research. (Ezra Klein has several really great podcasts on this issue, the latest one called your mind is being fracked but the earlier ones worth finding a few were super on topic).
I see tech as having a role in children losing their chance at youth — again I do believe school and school culture stole youth a long time ago — and by the way the best books I’ve read about this is KITH by Jay Griffiths, a brilliant book about how we lost childhood through time. But I also see how, when kids of all ages have access to similar information online and share information with each other beyond any boundaries that are appropriate, younger children are dragged into being older before they are ready, with great consequences, and this chips away at their autonomy in many ways.
I see creative children who within short periods of time lose interest in physical creation because they ware doing something online, and while I recognize online creation is also real, I notice the move interrupts a flow of creation and self-confidence and budding capacities.
I see loss of independent choice and a child's right to become or explore who they really are in a free space when they begin social media and are they are faced with the opinions of millions of people on everything they do, often creating internal turmoil and fragmentation.
You're arguing with scientific evidence by bringing up a litany of anecdotal data. "Common sense" is not evidence, nor is it objective given that what's "common sense" based on your experience of the world may not make any sense to someone with a different set of experiences or perspective.
you’re absolutely right! common sense if flawed, subjective, sometimes makes dangerous claims and can run counter to evidence.
But i didn’t claim common sense was scientific or superior to science. i was saying that common sense is just one very important lens through which we see and learn about the world; not to be used instead of science but not to be dismissed because of it.
As we know throughout history science has made momentous claims and sometimes catastrophic mistakes in the name of objectivity, justifying violent laws and monstrous cruelty. Most importantly for this discussion, scientists change their minds all the time on social issues such as these, reversing entire worldviews that people took as objective just a few years after supporting them. So as I said I'm very pro-science...but science is flawed, as it common sense.
I just meant that we always need science to check our common sense, and often we need our common sense to tell us if what is being claimed in the name of science is dubious.
The way to "tell us if what is being claimed in the name of science is dubious" is to start with diving into the science itself. Look at the source data; is the conclusion actually warranted by the data presented? Question the data collection — any evidence of bias in the structure of the experiments?
>>>>I see heartbreaking battles between parents and children that hurt otherwise strong relationships
don't these battles stem from a difference of opinion: a child wants to do A (and the child is always right), while the parent considers A harmful or wasteful and insists on B?
For an advocate of unschooling, you should rather be free from such worries?
I see no flaw in Gray's reasoning. If you trust kid's choices, there will be no battles and the outcomes will be overwhelmingly positive
Hi Piotr and thanks for your response. I disagree strongly!
I am an unschooler but for me that doesn't mean "the child is always right" and all of children's choices are the right ones: to me that is an abdication of the idea of a partnership.
Children are not living in a world that is offering them a simple set of choices where they can learn age appropriate, body appropriate lessons: like "these berries are poisonous so i wont eat them next time: or this path led me to get lost in the forest i won't go next time". Rather they are faced with a world that is offering them options that are often not suited to their minds or bodies, such difficult options that as adults WE struggle to manage them. I couldn't say to myself "geez I can't really handle this issue its so complicated so i'll put it on the shoulders of a young person to manage and call that "unschooling".
I give my child more space, trust, respect and choice than most parents I know. And I'm deeply involved in unschooling, as a former educator, parent and active proponent of SDE. Never a day goes by when I don't see how I can expand the freedom in which my child lives or push against the constrictions she faces in other people or spaces.
But "the child is always right" is a version of unschooling that I don't subscribe to, I find it reductionist and also I think it is as black and white as "the parent is always right". A reversal of an extreme is rarely the other extreme.
Sometimes behind a child's "no" for example there is fear and worry but if you challenge them about it their "no" becomes a "yes" and many wonderful things happen. Sometimes behind a "yes" there are other motivations that if you challenge them you find a "no". My daughter has not had a problem with screens yet but i know parents who gave their children free reign and that was the child's "choice" but later the child was in a bad state and asked for help to detox and the parents felt that "choice" in this kind of situation is not real choice: if something is addictive your child doesn't actually have choice. Otherwise we could give our children whisky, tobacco and hashish, no? Why don't we give them those and trust their choices? Because there are some substances that a child cannot make choices about. I think screens (and sugar!) are two of those. Not as harmful as those listed above: I would not ban them, we use them and I give my child more and more space with them. But I don't leave the full choice to her.
There are dozens of other ways that I feel unschooling is a deep and new form of PARTNERSHIP between parent and child, children and their communities, children and each other, children and nature. I don't see it as a way for us to say "well it's all in their hands now, so we give them all the power we have and watch what happens........"!
I love unschoolers. These are the most empathetic people! :)
but ... I will show you a few points where you depart from the idea of unschooling:
>>>that doesn't mean "the child is always right"
the brain got all the info needed for making decisions, incl. parental warnings. Only the brain can make the right decision in any given context, and in that sense the decision is optimal. Even if it results in death
>>>age appropriate
in unschooling, age appropriateness is not a useful term. Development is chaotic and unpredictable. It is the school that sets the norms, incl. norms correlated with age
>>>these berries are poisonous so i wont eat them next time
a free kid learns like animals have for millions of years. She got all the mechanisms in place to make safe choices. Humans have an advantage of trying to stick to parental care for a longer while
>>>I give my child more space, trust, respect and choice than most parents
that's great! How about giving her more freedom and respect than all parents of the world :)
>>>I think it is as black and white as "the parent is always right"
you can say a human is always right as long as she has not been schooled. The reason is that school provides adaptation to non-adaptation. Paradoxically, the law of optimality applies only in ref. to the brain corrected for the damage inflicted. In other words, choices of the schooled brain might still be optimum, but are inferior to the unschooled brain that has traversed the exact same developmental trajectory (if damage could be inflicted by a magic wand without actual schooling history).
To simplify: human brain has magic qualities as long as they are not ruined by coercion.
>>>Sometimes behind a child's "no" for example there is fear and worry but if you challenge them about it their "no" becomes a "yes" and many wonderful things happen
if "yes" is voluntary, it is the effect of the optimum decision. "no" was optimum too in conditions before the arrival of the new information ("the challenge"). Challenge is welcome.
>>>My daughter has not had a problem with screens
excellent. In the sea of anecdotal evidence, THIS is most reliable. This is your own child who you know best (except for the child herself :)
>>>i know parents who gave their children free reign and that was the child's "choice" but later the child was in a bad state and asked for help to detox
you cannot diagnose the problem without more data. A mere interference with questioning child's choices may result in a cascade that ultimately leads to an addiction with positive feedback with parental distrust
>>>we could give our children whisky, tobacco and hashish, no?
I think they are all safe for they are radically unpleasant and distasteful to any healthy animal
>>>I think screens (and sugar!) are two of those
sugar is also perfectly safe in healthy conditions (e.g. sufficient opportunity to move around, play, enjoy life, etc.)
>>>"well it's all in their hands now"
I do not ask you for absence, or absence of advice or partnership. I ask for more trust in the optimality of the choices made by the brain which optimizes for well-being.
For clarity: there are a few technological traps we have developed that expose a human to imperceptible dangers: high roofs, speedy cars, blue light, household poisons, school, etc. This means that assistance is more needed today than a hundred years ago.
I can sense that you are a stellar mom! I use this occasion as a challenge to mule over optimality of development.
"I—or anyone else who examines the research objectively—could make a far stronger case for a Surgeon General warning about the mental health dangers of forced schooling than about the mental health dangers of social media."
Yes. The focus on social media is a distraction, intentional or not.
The biggest difference between schooling and social media seems to me to be that schooling has become assumed to be necessary and good. Even when it clearly harms, it is still defended as necessary and good. So instead of collectively taking on the institutions or social conditions that are most damaging to young people, that just so happen to reinforce the status quo, we are encouraged to chase boogeymen that may only help on the margins.
I appreciate this post as a parent who is navigating how to approach screen time and social media while also being aware that being overly focused on that misses so much! In our household we've tried to focus on the things we should do more of vs what we shouldn't do. At the same time it's hard for me to be out and not get anxious when everyone, kids and adults alike, are hours to their screens. I've personally felt the impact. At the same time, as I learn more about child development and schooling (I have a 4 year old) I also get anxious. We value outside time and most schools don't fit into that paradigm.
One big question from me. Are you opposed to the social warning because you think it's simply wrong or are you opposed to it because in it's focus on social media it keeps us from looking at other, technology-agnostic issues to that are more core to the decline in kids mental health?
Asking because I've started seeing groups "fight" about the main cause of decline in kids mental health (e.g. groups against screens when also want to promote more child led play etc) while largely ignoring where there is synergy in what they're trying to achieve. While I fully believe that it's important to understand the root cause of a problem in order to solve it, I'd hate for the focus to shift to trying to be perfect in attribution.
Amber, no reason to apologize. I appreciate the comment. The answer to your question is both. As I have explained in my D posts, I believe the evidence is lacking. Of course, like anything else we or our kids do, participating in social media can have some negative effects, but the claim that it is responsible for the large overall decline in teen mental health is not supported by science. And, the claim distracts from the more serious issues that really are having a mass effect on teen mental health.
I've talked to so many people who think that standardized testing or No Child Left Behind began the dumbing down of our school system. They simply don't know the history, which Frank Smith eloquently lays out in "Insult to Intelligence: The Bureaucratic Invasion of Our Classrooms." It's so much more fun to argue a position that feels deeply intuitively correct to you than to do the hard work of really informing yourself. Of course, we never solve the problem...
>>>the claim that it is responsible for the large overall decline in teen mental health is not supported by science
that's a nice man's understatement! Social media damages the mental health of kids whose mental health have already been undermined by limits on freedom (at school or at home). I learned that from a publication of Dr Peter Gray (Fall 2023) :)
Thanks, Peter! I appreciate your and Antonio's comments. I am squarely in the middle of the schooling conundrum as Kindergarten quickly approaches. So much to think about!
Good grief, here we go again. A moral panic that demonizes something the critics have no vested interest in, while ignoring the massive elephant in the room because it would hurt the establishment that benefits from industrial schooling and 24/7 surveillance of children. It's just like worrying about kidnappings by strangers, a completely trivial risk, instead of the very real risk of riding in the family car, which we ignore because middle-class parents have no intention of taking the bus. (Anyone else get the feeling adults in general should be disqualified from conducting this debate, given its track record?) I'm dreading the glee with which Murthy's pronouncement will be greeted by the do-gooders and dim bulbs whose ignorance of the secret life of children and teens is matched only by the amount of power they have over these hapless young people. Here's my proposal: take away the phones, but only if you replace them with a return to childhood adventure. No hovering, no constant adult presence, control, direction, advice, or meddling. Kids get a minimum of four adult-free hours a day and the grownups get no veto over activities (an invitation for them to get a life too). Under that condition I will endorse a phone ban. If they try the ban without the adventure, this will bite all of us on the ass very, very hard. Sadly, the scolds would then find another boogeyman to blame and we'd be back to square one.
"Here's my proposal: take away the phones, but only if you replace them with a return to childhood adventure. No hovering, no constant adult presence, control, direction, advice, or meddling. Kids get a minimum of four adult-free hours a day and the grownups get no veto over activities (an invitation for them to get a life too)."
I doubt all kids would make the switch but probably a great many would. Either way there would have to be a whole lot of unconditioning during the transition.
As a clinician for the past 20 years, and an educator prior to that, I support your theory that schools have much to improve upon. And yet, I cheer the Surgeon General’s warning. Peter, I am surprised you are such an advocate of Social Media, when you are constantly proposing the benefit of interactive play. Social Media is only a portion of the problem. Gaming addictions, and screen addictions are bringing many clients into my Practice, as well as cyber-bullying and media pedophilia. The take over of screens is what is leading to a lack of in-person human to human interaction and play. If you’re unsure, look at the mental health fall out after the Pandemic when everyone was in lock down and could be on screens all day. The enormous mental health fall out from that continues to this day. And, when bots start taking over childcare as with a recent ad for the “ AI- Genie Bot," that's when we face real challenges. We are losing humanness, and with all the tragic issues facing our world, we all require human playfulness, relational intimacy, and fun to brighten our days.
Gaming addictions, and screen addictions are the new forms of Play advocated by Gray. Signum temporis! The word "addiction" is either an adult label, or a result of battles that limit rewards and play becomes forbidden play.
Last weekend, I celebrated my 50th high school reunion with my close circle of friends and 70 of 102 alum from an all girl private Catholic school. Of the women in my inner circle, we all have good lives as in strong relationships, rhythms of self care, and meaningful work. But what we value most is that we have each other. For us, the greatest take-away from high school was our group of lifelong friends and I mean true, supportive, and non-judgmental friends. My question about the negative impact of school and social media is to ask a different question. What environment allows children to form relationships? Do you make true friends on social media? If you do not go to school, where do you meet peers and form relationships? I think the underlying problem is social isolation which can occur when children spend a lot of time courting "friends" on social media. It can also occur in a highly competitive school environment. But if the goal of education is the development of whole human beings, the curriculum provides space for play, time in nature, and the arts. Again, back to the high school reunion, a highlight of the evening was watching a film made for the event. It showcased the social context of the times to the beat of pop music. There were pictures of us sitting with friends at the lunch table, performing in the senior play, at proms, or on a trip to Madrid. It was the extracurricular that were photographed, saved, and then celebrated at the reunion. They were the social aspect of our education. My point is that children need time and space to develop friendships. In the end, they matter most and determine the value of how they are spending their time.
hi again peter...i really shouldn’t add another comment here after the NOVELLA i left below! but there is one thing i have always been so curious about in terms of your thinking, and its very relevant to this issue, so hope you don't mind my double post...
one thing i so appreciate so much about you is that you draw on evolution to understand our current needs. for example, you often speak of the lessons that hunter gatherer societies have for us about how our bodies were supposed to be in the world and how schools and many schoolish elements of our society fly in the face of what we need as human being, asking children to live and learn in ways that are inimical to their natural needs and dispositions. you’ve pointed out that this clash between nature and social norms is actually responsible for a great deal of mental health issues.
But for some reason you don’t seem to think that screens are in conflict with our natural needs in such a way that they too would contribute to mental health issues.
I know a lot of unschoolers who believe kids can “self regulate” when it comes to things like sugar and screens. my view is that we have simply not evolved to self regulate with two things that are so utterly in conflict with our bodies natural needs, both of which have been intentionally created to be addictive.
I think we are naturally attracted to sugar for healthy reasons having to do with its role in our bodies in history, but because our bodies do seek our sugar we are easily addicted to it when it comes in forms that are extremely unhealthy, and I don’t see how a young person can manage that addiction. We wouldn’t give them other addictive substances because we recognize they would not be able to control those. But we give them extreme sugar and then wonder at their reactions.
When it comes to screens, our bodies might have been naturally drawn to fast moving images so we could perceive danger, and thus are easily drawn to the fast pace of what we see on our screens. But how can children either self regulate or not be negatively impacted by an endless series of images passing in front of their eyes on a screens, which are intentionally created to be addictive to them and demand their constant focus and attention? To me that is another way of removing children’s autonomy and choice (the addictive element is intended to make them unable to choose to turn away) and thus removing a key need of childhood.
So my question is, how does your view of the importance of our evolutionary needs square with your sense that children will not be negatively impacted by having a lot of freedom with screens, even though it can be argued that screens are very much in conflict with the needs of our bodies?
We home educate in the U.K. (and always have), but I think your point about education causing mental health issues is spot on. As a home ed community, we’re seeing more and more young people being taken out of school to home educate because the pressure and anxiety is just too much. Just wanted to highlight that it’s similar across the pond too.
I have even better evidence from Poland. A school called "Chmura" took on 30,000 kids by attracting them with freedom and tolerance. The rapid change in the mental health status of those kids is material for breakthrough research that will prove what Gray and Holt and others knew decades ago. Freedom is a healer! School is a killer!
I find it interesting that this Surgeon General warning about the “dangers” of social media on young people is coming out after young people have had their eyes opened to the genocide happening in Gaza from seeing horrific images on social media and began protesting on campuses demanding their universities divest from weapons manufacturers. Honestly, seeing Palestinian children being ripped apart by US weapons has caused my mental health to decline but the problem isn’t social media. The problem is the US and the west funding a genocide.
More broadly, I think that end stage capitalism and everything it is causing: climate change, multiple genocides, billionaires getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, etc is the real problem, not social media.
I agree. Digital learning and social media cannot replace multi-sensory activities in and out of school. It’s both and taking into account how humans develop. A well educated person can pick up digital skills when the time is right. First, they need to integrate physical, emotional and cognitive skills through self-directed movement and human connection.
Sadly schools are not designed to help children develop the critical social and emotional skills they need. Instead, they constantly fight against effects that all this technology has had on their developing brains. The more kids are connected to others in real life, the less negative impact social media will have. Big tech has infiltrated schools and the impact it will have on mental health will only get worse. I pray that this trend will change.
As a Brit, I had no idea about this. I didn't even know such a thing as the Witchfinder General - er, I mean Surgeon General - existed.
My initial thoughts:
- I can't bear the 'nanny state' where we are Told What Is Good For Us. That's just the rebel in me!
- It strikes me that a warning like this really won't serve any purpose. People who already make tutting sounds about social media will say, 'I told you so' and will continue tutting when the result of the warning is that there is no change in the amount of social media interaction
- I do constantly worry about articles that state 'science tell us that..' or 'the science proves that...' with no ACTUAL evidence of this 'science'
- it's extremely easy to jump on bandwagons
- so when one person says, 'the bad behaviour in schools is because of Covid', or 'children have poor mental health because of social media', everyone just nods vigorously and goes along with it
- my own instinct is that the whole über-control thing is OUT of control - schools forcing both children and teachers to constantly 'behave', follow rules, be micro-managed...children not being allowed time to themselves...these things are considered not only 'normal' but 'good'
- I would like to see your Witchfinder General looking into every bit of research that exists about the effects of both social media and the education system, picking it apart, analysing and THEN perhaps issuing some sort of advice (rather than a finger-wagging 'warning')
- it is relatively easy to prove that not wearing a seat belt increases risk of serious injury in car accidents, or that heavy smoking increases the risk of developing lung cancer - it is way less easy to definitively state the risks of every type of social media on mental health
This is a biggie.
So much more discussion and research is necessary before Big Brother points the finger.
Your diagnosis is very US centric, though your posts have often been clear about the importance and presence of play in all sorts of cultures. What is the non-US explanation for the increase in mental health challenges in the last 10-15 years?
I will be less scientific. I watch free kids use social media to their heart content, and the use is always positive, educational and entertaining. It is the kids ruined by the school system that are driven into various blackholes of despair. Free kids need no instruction! Bans on electronic devices will set kids back in their chances to adapt to the modern world.
Thank you for this response! It definitely gave me a different perspective on things since I am still unpacking my own baggage around tech/smart phones/social media. I grew up in a very strict environment around technology, probably because it was the 80s-90s and it was still so new.
When you bring forced /high pressure schooling into the discussion, it makes complete sense why our teens are driven to social media! It is a place where they find autonomy. And perhaps this loss of autonomy is why we see instances of kids using it inappropriately, because they feel helpless in many ways, and this is a space where they have control.
As an unschooling mom technology use has been my biggest hurdle, but I am willing to learn and change my mind because technology isn't going anywhere. I usually try to focus on guiding them to use any technology in a balanced and healthy way, which of course looks different for everyone.
I completely agree with you on high pressure schooling and social media. As an unschooling mom, my kids have a completely different relationship with social media than those in high pressure schooling environments.
Quite surprised by this post. 'I and the people who look at evidence objectively' means that the others are dumb or purely ideological. This is not how to conduct a scientific discussion, it is its denial. Second, such trend are international, NCLB has no effect in Asia or Southern Europe. Third, as I previously asked here: the ways in which social media work go against the principles of free play you have so eloquently illustrated. Fourth, the dismissal of evidence supporting the link btw social media and mental health is, in my opinion, not 'objective'.
I found this very interesting and look forward to reading your other articles. Are you saying we shouldn't try to keep children from social media, or other things like phone free school Jonathan Haidht is advocating for? Or are you saying? that is just isn't far enough because the real issue is the pressures of schools and the lack of a play based childhood? Because it is an interesting point that you could take away screens from a child and they still wouldn't have the freedom you are advocating they have. Definitely gives me something to think about. Thanks for speaking in to these topics and making me think. I have five kids under 9 and we homeschool
additionally, how is the anxiety of children affected by the anxiety of parents. I feel like as a mother social media affects me and how I parent, for better or for worse, but when it's for the worse that has to affect my children? Is anyone studying the first generation of parents on devices raising children?
In short, "kids run into the virtual world to get that what adults steal from them in the real world". Perhaps that's even more convincing than science data? :)
“Signum temporis,” perhaps, but here in the US one might also apply that phraseology to the second warning this past week from the Surgeon General- gun violence. Just because something has permeated our culture doesn’t mean it shouldn’t carry a warning label. Particularly when that entity has led to numerous deaths, and mental health issues. Researchers are at odds, it appears, regarding screen “addictions”, but I can verify from the mental health trenches that it does exist. The costs are high, including a growing decline of creative ideation and social skills.
The Surgeon General posted a “warning,” not a law. Balance and oversight is critical. Every day I see evidence that in-person play is what leads to maintaining our humanness, happiness, and relational health.
I think that social media is connected to the decline in mental health and I think the surgeon generals warning is good. I started using social media in 7th grade and it was downhill from there with MySpace, then Facebook then Twitter then Instagram and on and on. My childhood was spent online and a lot of the behaviors were not good. Less interaction with people, less outside time, less reading actual books. I think many commenters are too old to fully understand that social media to a developing brain is like a drug addiction.
At least in school, (back pre-2013), I was forced to not be on social media during the school day.
I think compulsive schooling is inhumane and potentially very damaging for children, so I agree that the Surgeon General might better spend his time looking into that. But I also hate screens. I'm hooked, my kids are hooked, and we lose so much time to staring into our glowing rectangles. I would love to have louder messaging from the medical and developmental psychology fields about recommended age ranges, time limits, and comparisons of social media vs gaming vs video content.
As it is, I'm drawing my own conclusions, and I see a lot of overlap between schools and social media. Both result in way too much time spent sitting; both value consumerism, conformity and trend chasing; both try to dictate how you direct your attention (curriculum, algorithm, they each decide what should be important to you); both pull you out of your body and away from your in person social setting (I would say screens are worse than schools for this). In addition to that, screens ruin your eyes and give you neck problems. Plus there's the intensive psychological engineering behind social media and the sense that to these giant companies, my kids and I are prey. I understand the panic.
I think my kids and I fall into screens so often partly because there isn't much of a public life for us to join. Everybody is working or in school. We tie into our homeschool community as often as we can, but those opportunities don't come up more than once or twice a week, and then just for a few hours.
I think if we want to improve our societal screen-life balance, we'd need to make cities safe and walkable for kids, and we'd need to sprinkle small community centers into each neighborhood so people have a free casual gathering place. Right now, where do you go when you want to find other people? Or when you want to get out of your own space, your own head, for a bit? We've got outdoor public spaces (nobody there during school and work hours, and sometimes nobody there evenings and weekends), commercial spaces (pay to participate), the library (across town), and then the broad, omnipresent mass of humanity and content that is the internet.
It's easy to blame the coping activity rather than the absence it is trying to compensate for, and maybe that's what the Surgeon General is doing here. The internet is cheap, accessible, low pressure, widely varied, and allows you complete volition. I'm sure if kids could be getting that from a safe local space, they would be, and we wouldn't be here hollering about Snapchat.
Our main homeschool groups are attached to our church. There's tons of different groups to get involved with. I'm a part of a moms group and meet up for play dates and I've made friends. You've got to find the people who are living in a similar way to you and form groups.
That sounds wonderful, where do you live LOL The homeschool community here is less active, at least from my vantage point. I do try to create the groups I wish I could join. I run a weekly Homeschool Co-op, admin for the local facebook group, and host a yearly list of activities, but I can be responsible for only so much before I burn out.
It would be easier to focus on the paid classes and clubs, there are several of those and we do participate in some, but our budget is limited. I have heard rumors of local Christian homeschool groups; the ones I have heard of meet only once or twice a month and seem to be invitation only. My family hasn't yet landed on the invite list, which makes sense. We are godless heathens and might be an uncomfortable fit.
I supposed I'm yearning for unscheduled community. A place and a group that are broadly available, rather than available at very constrained times and for a fee. A community my kids can access even if I am not providing transport, cultivating contacts, enforcing a schedule, and luring other families in with activities and programming. I hate that my kids being around people is entirely contingent on my effort, especially because some days I am overextended just keeping on top of my own stuff.
I understand. I live 1 hr south of Seattle. We attend St Joseph's Latin Mass Catholic Church. The people who attend try to follow the church teachings as they've developed through the 1960s (with a lot of scrutiny post 1960) and the Bible.
We don't use daycare (toddler and an infant so far) and I've found that our church where similar families go has been the best source of the closest to free community.
I know of a non-church going homeschool family and they do a lot of sports and the library groups as well as the children's museum group. I like what I've heard of Forest schools.
Maybe joining co-ops that other families lead in addition to your co-op, add a sport, or martial arts/dance/theater/art and find parents with similar life philosophy.
Your community sounds very cozy! And I agree on Forest schools, there's a promising idea. My ideal would be a Sudbury style democratic free school. If my city had one of those, I'd just send my kids there every day.
Peter, as an unschooling parent and passionate advocate for self-directed education, I wholeheartedly agree that school is the biggest problem contributing to mental health issues and the theft of childhood from children. And not just school but the whole culture of schooling, the state of mind that permeates everything we allow or don’t allow our children to do.
But I also find the claim — which I hear a lot — that scientific studies prove no connection between social media and mental health to be incredibly frustrating.
Science is many things, and I’m a big fan of science. Even though as an educator I taught history and conflict studies I always brought science and evolution and related topics into my classrooms, much to the dismay of my colleagues!
But science also has a tendency to change its mind every few years, sometimes with very quick 180 turns, and sometimes what it leaves behind is basic common sense, what we see and experience with our eyes.
And in my world, that common sense, and my experience being the parent of a 9 year old, leads me to a view of screens, social media, phones and tech in general as extremely impactful, in negative ways, on young people as well as adults.
I personally don’t ban my daughter from screens, she has some screen time. And I also don’t meant the internet and technology don’t have MULTIPLE positive benefits. For example, I don’t deny that, as you have mentioned in many of your letters, children might find independence from overbearing adults through their online contacts with other kids, through games, and that as long as we remove their fun and freedom the internet will be providing some that is much needed; I don’t deny technology is now not only a part of our minds but extension of our bodies and that we have to embrace that; I accept that our ideas about attention span, focus and other issues will have to change due to the realities of our current world (and also we weren’t doing so well before the internet so there wasn’t a golden age to look back on!); and as an historian I am hyper aware that every generation since the beginning of time has catastrophized about their children going toward the chamber of doom due to some new invention or way of thinking.
However…
I find it so hard to understand how you seem to deny the dark side! The parts that for me are in plain sight.
From my vantage point, I see how phones, tik tok or youtube shorts or many other forms of scrolling destroy attention span not only in the basic sense of ability to focus but in the deeper sense of young people unlearning how to be with and learn about themselves, reflect, have pauses, look at the world.
I see addiction in the truest sense of the word that I know, in children of all ages. A loss of autonomy and self in the face of something that has gripped them before they were able to choose whether or not to be gripped.
I see heartbreaking battles between parents and children that hurt otherwise strong relationships, because parents now have to constantly create boundaries they never wanted to create and eventually over-control or give in through defeat and exhaustion but with enormous guilt. You might say if parents would let go those battles wouldn’t have to be: but on the frontline its almost impossible not to have those or create those, anymore than we wouldn’t let our 2 year olds walk toward a cliff or eat poison berries. You might not think the internet is either of those, but as parents we have to continually make choices about how our young people interact with it.
I see validity in arguments about the criminality of advertisements online, how they have targeted young people and made the internet a vast enterprise in grabbing the attention of human beings, and especially how they targets young people: I see these as equally compelling in terms of scientific research. (Ezra Klein has several really great podcasts on this issue, the latest one called your mind is being fracked but the earlier ones worth finding a few were super on topic).
I see tech as having a role in children losing their chance at youth — again I do believe school and school culture stole youth a long time ago — and by the way the best books I’ve read about this is KITH by Jay Griffiths, a brilliant book about how we lost childhood through time. But I also see how, when kids of all ages have access to similar information online and share information with each other beyond any boundaries that are appropriate, younger children are dragged into being older before they are ready, with great consequences, and this chips away at their autonomy in many ways.
I see creative children who within short periods of time lose interest in physical creation because they ware doing something online, and while I recognize online creation is also real, I notice the move interrupts a flow of creation and self-confidence and budding capacities.
I see loss of independent choice and a child's right to become or explore who they really are in a free space when they begin social media and are they are faced with the opinions of millions of people on everything they do, often creating internal turmoil and fragmentation.
And so much more.
I need to understand why you don’t see this….!
Yes, yes, yes!!
You're arguing with scientific evidence by bringing up a litany of anecdotal data. "Common sense" is not evidence, nor is it objective given that what's "common sense" based on your experience of the world may not make any sense to someone with a different set of experiences or perspective.
you’re absolutely right! common sense if flawed, subjective, sometimes makes dangerous claims and can run counter to evidence.
But i didn’t claim common sense was scientific or superior to science. i was saying that common sense is just one very important lens through which we see and learn about the world; not to be used instead of science but not to be dismissed because of it.
As we know throughout history science has made momentous claims and sometimes catastrophic mistakes in the name of objectivity, justifying violent laws and monstrous cruelty. Most importantly for this discussion, scientists change their minds all the time on social issues such as these, reversing entire worldviews that people took as objective just a few years after supporting them. So as I said I'm very pro-science...but science is flawed, as it common sense.
I just meant that we always need science to check our common sense, and often we need our common sense to tell us if what is being claimed in the name of science is dubious.
The way to "tell us if what is being claimed in the name of science is dubious" is to start with diving into the science itself. Look at the source data; is the conclusion actually warranted by the data presented? Question the data collection — any evidence of bias in the structure of the experiments?
Thank for for taking the time to write this, I think you've argued a compelling case.
I could not have said this better. Thank you.
>>>>I see heartbreaking battles between parents and children that hurt otherwise strong relationships
don't these battles stem from a difference of opinion: a child wants to do A (and the child is always right), while the parent considers A harmful or wasteful and insists on B?
For an advocate of unschooling, you should rather be free from such worries?
I see no flaw in Gray's reasoning. If you trust kid's choices, there will be no battles and the outcomes will be overwhelmingly positive
Hi Piotr and thanks for your response. I disagree strongly!
I am an unschooler but for me that doesn't mean "the child is always right" and all of children's choices are the right ones: to me that is an abdication of the idea of a partnership.
Children are not living in a world that is offering them a simple set of choices where they can learn age appropriate, body appropriate lessons: like "these berries are poisonous so i wont eat them next time: or this path led me to get lost in the forest i won't go next time". Rather they are faced with a world that is offering them options that are often not suited to their minds or bodies, such difficult options that as adults WE struggle to manage them. I couldn't say to myself "geez I can't really handle this issue its so complicated so i'll put it on the shoulders of a young person to manage and call that "unschooling".
I give my child more space, trust, respect and choice than most parents I know. And I'm deeply involved in unschooling, as a former educator, parent and active proponent of SDE. Never a day goes by when I don't see how I can expand the freedom in which my child lives or push against the constrictions she faces in other people or spaces.
But "the child is always right" is a version of unschooling that I don't subscribe to, I find it reductionist and also I think it is as black and white as "the parent is always right". A reversal of an extreme is rarely the other extreme.
Sometimes behind a child's "no" for example there is fear and worry but if you challenge them about it their "no" becomes a "yes" and many wonderful things happen. Sometimes behind a "yes" there are other motivations that if you challenge them you find a "no". My daughter has not had a problem with screens yet but i know parents who gave their children free reign and that was the child's "choice" but later the child was in a bad state and asked for help to detox and the parents felt that "choice" in this kind of situation is not real choice: if something is addictive your child doesn't actually have choice. Otherwise we could give our children whisky, tobacco and hashish, no? Why don't we give them those and trust their choices? Because there are some substances that a child cannot make choices about. I think screens (and sugar!) are two of those. Not as harmful as those listed above: I would not ban them, we use them and I give my child more and more space with them. But I don't leave the full choice to her.
There are dozens of other ways that I feel unschooling is a deep and new form of PARTNERSHIP between parent and child, children and their communities, children and each other, children and nature. I don't see it as a way for us to say "well it's all in their hands now, so we give them all the power we have and watch what happens........"!
Dear Natasha,
>>>I am an unschooler but ...
I love unschoolers. These are the most empathetic people! :)
but ... I will show you a few points where you depart from the idea of unschooling:
>>>that doesn't mean "the child is always right"
the brain got all the info needed for making decisions, incl. parental warnings. Only the brain can make the right decision in any given context, and in that sense the decision is optimal. Even if it results in death
>>>age appropriate
in unschooling, age appropriateness is not a useful term. Development is chaotic and unpredictable. It is the school that sets the norms, incl. norms correlated with age
>>>these berries are poisonous so i wont eat them next time
a free kid learns like animals have for millions of years. She got all the mechanisms in place to make safe choices. Humans have an advantage of trying to stick to parental care for a longer while
>>>I give my child more space, trust, respect and choice than most parents
that's great! How about giving her more freedom and respect than all parents of the world :)
>>>I think it is as black and white as "the parent is always right"
you can say a human is always right as long as she has not been schooled. The reason is that school provides adaptation to non-adaptation. Paradoxically, the law of optimality applies only in ref. to the brain corrected for the damage inflicted. In other words, choices of the schooled brain might still be optimum, but are inferior to the unschooled brain that has traversed the exact same developmental trajectory (if damage could be inflicted by a magic wand without actual schooling history).
To simplify: human brain has magic qualities as long as they are not ruined by coercion.
>>>Sometimes behind a child's "no" for example there is fear and worry but if you challenge them about it their "no" becomes a "yes" and many wonderful things happen
if "yes" is voluntary, it is the effect of the optimum decision. "no" was optimum too in conditions before the arrival of the new information ("the challenge"). Challenge is welcome.
>>>My daughter has not had a problem with screens
excellent. In the sea of anecdotal evidence, THIS is most reliable. This is your own child who you know best (except for the child herself :)
>>>i know parents who gave their children free reign and that was the child's "choice" but later the child was in a bad state and asked for help to detox
you cannot diagnose the problem without more data. A mere interference with questioning child's choices may result in a cascade that ultimately leads to an addiction with positive feedback with parental distrust
>>>we could give our children whisky, tobacco and hashish, no?
I think they are all safe for they are radically unpleasant and distasteful to any healthy animal
>>>I think screens (and sugar!) are two of those
sugar is also perfectly safe in healthy conditions (e.g. sufficient opportunity to move around, play, enjoy life, etc.)
>>>"well it's all in their hands now"
I do not ask you for absence, or absence of advice or partnership. I ask for more trust in the optimality of the choices made by the brain which optimizes for well-being.
For clarity: there are a few technological traps we have developed that expose a human to imperceptible dangers: high roofs, speedy cars, blue light, household poisons, school, etc. This means that assistance is more needed today than a hundred years ago.
I can sense that you are a stellar mom! I use this occasion as a challenge to mule over optimality of development.
Thank you for your patient reply :)
Thank you, you’re giving a wider perspective to this issue!
"I—or anyone else who examines the research objectively—could make a far stronger case for a Surgeon General warning about the mental health dangers of forced schooling than about the mental health dangers of social media."
Yes. The focus on social media is a distraction, intentional or not.
The biggest difference between schooling and social media seems to me to be that schooling has become assumed to be necessary and good. Even when it clearly harms, it is still defended as necessary and good. So instead of collectively taking on the institutions or social conditions that are most damaging to young people, that just so happen to reinforce the status quo, we are encouraged to chase boogeymen that may only help on the margins.
I commented before seeing your comment! Super helpful
school damages kids and then blames social media. Period!
I appreciate this post as a parent who is navigating how to approach screen time and social media while also being aware that being overly focused on that misses so much! In our household we've tried to focus on the things we should do more of vs what we shouldn't do. At the same time it's hard for me to be out and not get anxious when everyone, kids and adults alike, are hours to their screens. I've personally felt the impact. At the same time, as I learn more about child development and schooling (I have a 4 year old) I also get anxious. We value outside time and most schools don't fit into that paradigm.
One big question from me. Are you opposed to the social warning because you think it's simply wrong or are you opposed to it because in it's focus on social media it keeps us from looking at other, technology-agnostic issues to that are more core to the decline in kids mental health?
Asking because I've started seeing groups "fight" about the main cause of decline in kids mental health (e.g. groups against screens when also want to promote more child led play etc) while largely ignoring where there is synergy in what they're trying to achieve. While I fully believe that it's important to understand the root cause of a problem in order to solve it, I'd hate for the focus to shift to trying to be perfect in attribution.
Apologies in advance for the long comment! ☺️
Amber, no reason to apologize. I appreciate the comment. The answer to your question is both. As I have explained in my D posts, I believe the evidence is lacking. Of course, like anything else we or our kids do, participating in social media can have some negative effects, but the claim that it is responsible for the large overall decline in teen mental health is not supported by science. And, the claim distracts from the more serious issues that really are having a mass effect on teen mental health.
I've talked to so many people who think that standardized testing or No Child Left Behind began the dumbing down of our school system. They simply don't know the history, which Frank Smith eloquently lays out in "Insult to Intelligence: The Bureaucratic Invasion of Our Classrooms." It's so much more fun to argue a position that feels deeply intuitively correct to you than to do the hard work of really informing yourself. Of course, we never solve the problem...
>>>the claim that it is responsible for the large overall decline in teen mental health is not supported by science
that's a nice man's understatement! Social media damages the mental health of kids whose mental health have already been undermined by limits on freedom (at school or at home). I learned that from a publication of Dr Peter Gray (Fall 2023) :)
Thanks, Peter! I appreciate your and Antonio's comments. I am squarely in the middle of the schooling conundrum as Kindergarten quickly approaches. So much to think about!
If you haven't already, you'll get a lot out of Peter's book "Free to Learn."
Amber! Forget kindergarten or school. Unschool! If you are already in Gray's sphere, you will soon see your kids thrive! :)
I'm not quite there yet, but we'll see ☺️
Good grief, here we go again. A moral panic that demonizes something the critics have no vested interest in, while ignoring the massive elephant in the room because it would hurt the establishment that benefits from industrial schooling and 24/7 surveillance of children. It's just like worrying about kidnappings by strangers, a completely trivial risk, instead of the very real risk of riding in the family car, which we ignore because middle-class parents have no intention of taking the bus. (Anyone else get the feeling adults in general should be disqualified from conducting this debate, given its track record?) I'm dreading the glee with which Murthy's pronouncement will be greeted by the do-gooders and dim bulbs whose ignorance of the secret life of children and teens is matched only by the amount of power they have over these hapless young people. Here's my proposal: take away the phones, but only if you replace them with a return to childhood adventure. No hovering, no constant adult presence, control, direction, advice, or meddling. Kids get a minimum of four adult-free hours a day and the grownups get no veto over activities (an invitation for them to get a life too). Under that condition I will endorse a phone ban. If they try the ban without the adventure, this will bite all of us on the ass very, very hard. Sadly, the scolds would then find another boogeyman to blame and we'd be back to square one.
"Here's my proposal: take away the phones, but only if you replace them with a return to childhood adventure. No hovering, no constant adult presence, control, direction, advice, or meddling. Kids get a minimum of four adult-free hours a day and the grownups get no veto over activities (an invitation for them to get a life too)."
100% yes!!!!
>>> take away the phones, but only if you replace them with a return to childhood adventure
no! Return the freedom of adventure, and phones will walk away naturally!
I doubt all kids would make the switch but probably a great many would. Either way there would have to be a whole lot of unconditioning during the transition.
As a clinician for the past 20 years, and an educator prior to that, I support your theory that schools have much to improve upon. And yet, I cheer the Surgeon General’s warning. Peter, I am surprised you are such an advocate of Social Media, when you are constantly proposing the benefit of interactive play. Social Media is only a portion of the problem. Gaming addictions, and screen addictions are bringing many clients into my Practice, as well as cyber-bullying and media pedophilia. The take over of screens is what is leading to a lack of in-person human to human interaction and play. If you’re unsure, look at the mental health fall out after the Pandemic when everyone was in lock down and could be on screens all day. The enormous mental health fall out from that continues to this day. And, when bots start taking over childcare as with a recent ad for the “ AI- Genie Bot," that's when we face real challenges. We are losing humanness, and with all the tragic issues facing our world, we all require human playfulness, relational intimacy, and fun to brighten our days.
Gaming addictions, and screen addictions are the new forms of Play advocated by Gray. Signum temporis! The word "addiction" is either an adult label, or a result of battles that limit rewards and play becomes forbidden play.
Last weekend, I celebrated my 50th high school reunion with my close circle of friends and 70 of 102 alum from an all girl private Catholic school. Of the women in my inner circle, we all have good lives as in strong relationships, rhythms of self care, and meaningful work. But what we value most is that we have each other. For us, the greatest take-away from high school was our group of lifelong friends and I mean true, supportive, and non-judgmental friends. My question about the negative impact of school and social media is to ask a different question. What environment allows children to form relationships? Do you make true friends on social media? If you do not go to school, where do you meet peers and form relationships? I think the underlying problem is social isolation which can occur when children spend a lot of time courting "friends" on social media. It can also occur in a highly competitive school environment. But if the goal of education is the development of whole human beings, the curriculum provides space for play, time in nature, and the arts. Again, back to the high school reunion, a highlight of the evening was watching a film made for the event. It showcased the social context of the times to the beat of pop music. There were pictures of us sitting with friends at the lunch table, performing in the senior play, at proms, or on a trip to Madrid. It was the extracurricular that were photographed, saved, and then celebrated at the reunion. They were the social aspect of our education. My point is that children need time and space to develop friendships. In the end, they matter most and determine the value of how they are spending their time.
hi again peter...i really shouldn’t add another comment here after the NOVELLA i left below! but there is one thing i have always been so curious about in terms of your thinking, and its very relevant to this issue, so hope you don't mind my double post...
one thing i so appreciate so much about you is that you draw on evolution to understand our current needs. for example, you often speak of the lessons that hunter gatherer societies have for us about how our bodies were supposed to be in the world and how schools and many schoolish elements of our society fly in the face of what we need as human being, asking children to live and learn in ways that are inimical to their natural needs and dispositions. you’ve pointed out that this clash between nature and social norms is actually responsible for a great deal of mental health issues.
But for some reason you don’t seem to think that screens are in conflict with our natural needs in such a way that they too would contribute to mental health issues.
I know a lot of unschoolers who believe kids can “self regulate” when it comes to things like sugar and screens. my view is that we have simply not evolved to self regulate with two things that are so utterly in conflict with our bodies natural needs, both of which have been intentionally created to be addictive.
I think we are naturally attracted to sugar for healthy reasons having to do with its role in our bodies in history, but because our bodies do seek our sugar we are easily addicted to it when it comes in forms that are extremely unhealthy, and I don’t see how a young person can manage that addiction. We wouldn’t give them other addictive substances because we recognize they would not be able to control those. But we give them extreme sugar and then wonder at their reactions.
When it comes to screens, our bodies might have been naturally drawn to fast moving images so we could perceive danger, and thus are easily drawn to the fast pace of what we see on our screens. But how can children either self regulate or not be negatively impacted by an endless series of images passing in front of their eyes on a screens, which are intentionally created to be addictive to them and demand their constant focus and attention? To me that is another way of removing children’s autonomy and choice (the addictive element is intended to make them unable to choose to turn away) and thus removing a key need of childhood.
So my question is, how does your view of the importance of our evolutionary needs square with your sense that children will not be negatively impacted by having a lot of freedom with screens, even though it can be argued that screens are very much in conflict with the needs of our bodies?
I’m so curious how you think about this.
Thanks for listening again!
We home educate in the U.K. (and always have), but I think your point about education causing mental health issues is spot on. As a home ed community, we’re seeing more and more young people being taken out of school to home educate because the pressure and anxiety is just too much. Just wanted to highlight that it’s similar across the pond too.
I have even better evidence from Poland. A school called "Chmura" took on 30,000 kids by attracting them with freedom and tolerance. The rapid change in the mental health status of those kids is material for breakthrough research that will prove what Gray and Holt and others knew decades ago. Freedom is a healer! School is a killer!
I find it interesting that this Surgeon General warning about the “dangers” of social media on young people is coming out after young people have had their eyes opened to the genocide happening in Gaza from seeing horrific images on social media and began protesting on campuses demanding their universities divest from weapons manufacturers. Honestly, seeing Palestinian children being ripped apart by US weapons has caused my mental health to decline but the problem isn’t social media. The problem is the US and the west funding a genocide.
More broadly, I think that end stage capitalism and everything it is causing: climate change, multiple genocides, billionaires getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, etc is the real problem, not social media.
I agree whole heartedly that what is happening in schools is a big part of the issue. The curriculum and amount of technology being used in schools makes the impact of social media just as harmful. This is a time when I believe there are 2 truths: what is happening in schools plus what is happening on line with social media is impacting mental health. I encourage you to read my recent article on the substack Public https://public.substack.com/p/big-tech-hubris-and-greed-behind?utm_medium=web&post_id=144544217. I also wrote this post today https://open.substack.com/pub/dencham/p/we-cant-forget-we-are-raising-humans?r=1np5o7&utm_medium=ios
As an SLP in the field of education I would love to connect with you on this topic!
I agree. Digital learning and social media cannot replace multi-sensory activities in and out of school. It’s both and taking into account how humans develop. A well educated person can pick up digital skills when the time is right. First, they need to integrate physical, emotional and cognitive skills through self-directed movement and human connection.
Sadly schools are not designed to help children develop the critical social and emotional skills they need. Instead, they constantly fight against effects that all this technology has had on their developing brains. The more kids are connected to others in real life, the less negative impact social media will have. Big tech has infiltrated schools and the impact it will have on mental health will only get worse. I pray that this trend will change.
As a Brit, I had no idea about this. I didn't even know such a thing as the Witchfinder General - er, I mean Surgeon General - existed.
My initial thoughts:
- I can't bear the 'nanny state' where we are Told What Is Good For Us. That's just the rebel in me!
- It strikes me that a warning like this really won't serve any purpose. People who already make tutting sounds about social media will say, 'I told you so' and will continue tutting when the result of the warning is that there is no change in the amount of social media interaction
- I do constantly worry about articles that state 'science tell us that..' or 'the science proves that...' with no ACTUAL evidence of this 'science'
- it's extremely easy to jump on bandwagons
- so when one person says, 'the bad behaviour in schools is because of Covid', or 'children have poor mental health because of social media', everyone just nods vigorously and goes along with it
- my own instinct is that the whole über-control thing is OUT of control - schools forcing both children and teachers to constantly 'behave', follow rules, be micro-managed...children not being allowed time to themselves...these things are considered not only 'normal' but 'good'
- I would like to see your Witchfinder General looking into every bit of research that exists about the effects of both social media and the education system, picking it apart, analysing and THEN perhaps issuing some sort of advice (rather than a finger-wagging 'warning')
- it is relatively easy to prove that not wearing a seat belt increases risk of serious injury in car accidents, or that heavy smoking increases the risk of developing lung cancer - it is way less easy to definitively state the risks of every type of social media on mental health
This is a biggie.
So much more discussion and research is necessary before Big Brother points the finger.
:(
Fresh air from Britain. As a happy citizen of the European Union, I mourn Brexit in such moment :)
Your diagnosis is very US centric, though your posts have often been clear about the importance and presence of play in all sorts of cultures. What is the non-US explanation for the increase in mental health challenges in the last 10-15 years?
the explanation is here, and it is on the dot
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36841510/
greetings from Poland
I will be less scientific. I watch free kids use social media to their heart content, and the use is always positive, educational and entertaining. It is the kids ruined by the school system that are driven into various blackholes of despair. Free kids need no instruction! Bans on electronic devices will set kids back in their chances to adapt to the modern world.
Thank you for this response! It definitely gave me a different perspective on things since I am still unpacking my own baggage around tech/smart phones/social media. I grew up in a very strict environment around technology, probably because it was the 80s-90s and it was still so new.
When you bring forced /high pressure schooling into the discussion, it makes complete sense why our teens are driven to social media! It is a place where they find autonomy. And perhaps this loss of autonomy is why we see instances of kids using it inappropriately, because they feel helpless in many ways, and this is a space where they have control.
As an unschooling mom technology use has been my biggest hurdle, but I am willing to learn and change my mind because technology isn't going anywhere. I usually try to focus on guiding them to use any technology in a balanced and healthy way, which of course looks different for everyone.
Thanks again for your insight!
I completely agree with you on high pressure schooling and social media. As an unschooling mom, my kids have a completely different relationship with social media than those in high pressure schooling environments.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience!
Quite surprised by this post. 'I and the people who look at evidence objectively' means that the others are dumb or purely ideological. This is not how to conduct a scientific discussion, it is its denial. Second, such trend are international, NCLB has no effect in Asia or Southern Europe. Third, as I previously asked here: the ways in which social media work go against the principles of free play you have so eloquently illustrated. Fourth, the dismissal of evidence supporting the link btw social media and mental health is, in my opinion, not 'objective'.
I found this very interesting and look forward to reading your other articles. Are you saying we shouldn't try to keep children from social media, or other things like phone free school Jonathan Haidht is advocating for? Or are you saying? that is just isn't far enough because the real issue is the pressures of schools and the lack of a play based childhood? Because it is an interesting point that you could take away screens from a child and they still wouldn't have the freedom you are advocating they have. Definitely gives me something to think about. Thanks for speaking in to these topics and making me think. I have five kids under 9 and we homeschool
additionally, how is the anxiety of children affected by the anxiety of parents. I feel like as a mother social media affects me and how I parent, for better or for worse, but when it's for the worse that has to affect my children? Is anyone studying the first generation of parents on devices raising children?
“I’m not kidding” part. Nice!
Who understands French or Polish will greatly enjoy Adre Stern's take on the same issue:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JXd-OrUGClc
In short, "kids run into the virtual world to get that what adults steal from them in the real world". Perhaps that's even more convincing than science data? :)
“Signum temporis,” perhaps, but here in the US one might also apply that phraseology to the second warning this past week from the Surgeon General- gun violence. Just because something has permeated our culture doesn’t mean it shouldn’t carry a warning label. Particularly when that entity has led to numerous deaths, and mental health issues. Researchers are at odds, it appears, regarding screen “addictions”, but I can verify from the mental health trenches that it does exist. The costs are high, including a growing decline of creative ideation and social skills.
The Surgeon General posted a “warning,” not a law. Balance and oversight is critical. Every day I see evidence that in-person play is what leads to maintaining our humanness, happiness, and relational health.
I think that social media is connected to the decline in mental health and I think the surgeon generals warning is good. I started using social media in 7th grade and it was downhill from there with MySpace, then Facebook then Twitter then Instagram and on and on. My childhood was spent online and a lot of the behaviors were not good. Less interaction with people, less outside time, less reading actual books. I think many commenters are too old to fully understand that social media to a developing brain is like a drug addiction.
At least in school, (back pre-2013), I was forced to not be on social media during the school day.
I think compulsive schooling is inhumane and potentially very damaging for children, so I agree that the Surgeon General might better spend his time looking into that. But I also hate screens. I'm hooked, my kids are hooked, and we lose so much time to staring into our glowing rectangles. I would love to have louder messaging from the medical and developmental psychology fields about recommended age ranges, time limits, and comparisons of social media vs gaming vs video content.
As it is, I'm drawing my own conclusions, and I see a lot of overlap between schools and social media. Both result in way too much time spent sitting; both value consumerism, conformity and trend chasing; both try to dictate how you direct your attention (curriculum, algorithm, they each decide what should be important to you); both pull you out of your body and away from your in person social setting (I would say screens are worse than schools for this). In addition to that, screens ruin your eyes and give you neck problems. Plus there's the intensive psychological engineering behind social media and the sense that to these giant companies, my kids and I are prey. I understand the panic.
I think my kids and I fall into screens so often partly because there isn't much of a public life for us to join. Everybody is working or in school. We tie into our homeschool community as often as we can, but those opportunities don't come up more than once or twice a week, and then just for a few hours.
I think if we want to improve our societal screen-life balance, we'd need to make cities safe and walkable for kids, and we'd need to sprinkle small community centers into each neighborhood so people have a free casual gathering place. Right now, where do you go when you want to find other people? Or when you want to get out of your own space, your own head, for a bit? We've got outdoor public spaces (nobody there during school and work hours, and sometimes nobody there evenings and weekends), commercial spaces (pay to participate), the library (across town), and then the broad, omnipresent mass of humanity and content that is the internet.
It's easy to blame the coping activity rather than the absence it is trying to compensate for, and maybe that's what the Surgeon General is doing here. The internet is cheap, accessible, low pressure, widely varied, and allows you complete volition. I'm sure if kids could be getting that from a safe local space, they would be, and we wouldn't be here hollering about Snapchat.
Our main homeschool groups are attached to our church. There's tons of different groups to get involved with. I'm a part of a moms group and meet up for play dates and I've made friends. You've got to find the people who are living in a similar way to you and form groups.
That sounds wonderful, where do you live LOL The homeschool community here is less active, at least from my vantage point. I do try to create the groups I wish I could join. I run a weekly Homeschool Co-op, admin for the local facebook group, and host a yearly list of activities, but I can be responsible for only so much before I burn out.
It would be easier to focus on the paid classes and clubs, there are several of those and we do participate in some, but our budget is limited. I have heard rumors of local Christian homeschool groups; the ones I have heard of meet only once or twice a month and seem to be invitation only. My family hasn't yet landed on the invite list, which makes sense. We are godless heathens and might be an uncomfortable fit.
I supposed I'm yearning for unscheduled community. A place and a group that are broadly available, rather than available at very constrained times and for a fee. A community my kids can access even if I am not providing transport, cultivating contacts, enforcing a schedule, and luring other families in with activities and programming. I hate that my kids being around people is entirely contingent on my effort, especially because some days I am overextended just keeping on top of my own stuff.
I understand. I live 1 hr south of Seattle. We attend St Joseph's Latin Mass Catholic Church. The people who attend try to follow the church teachings as they've developed through the 1960s (with a lot of scrutiny post 1960) and the Bible.
We don't use daycare (toddler and an infant so far) and I've found that our church where similar families go has been the best source of the closest to free community.
I know of a non-church going homeschool family and they do a lot of sports and the library groups as well as the children's museum group. I like what I've heard of Forest schools.
Maybe joining co-ops that other families lead in addition to your co-op, add a sport, or martial arts/dance/theater/art and find parents with similar life philosophy.
Your community sounds very cozy! And I agree on Forest schools, there's a promising idea. My ideal would be a Sudbury style democratic free school. If my city had one of those, I'd just send my kids there every day.
Man, those decades from 1950 to 1990 are the most coveted decades according to many political sympathies...