Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Both Pol. and Ethical Philosophy
>
Jonathan Haidt (1963-)
date
newest »
newest »
Alan wrote: "Some academic reviewers have alleged that it only shows a correlation, not a causal relationship ..."This semantic sidestep on their part, rather irks me. When it comes to something as vital as an entire generation of children, can we afford to play rhetorical games?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in past decades, wasn't merely 'correlative evidence' enough for adults to take action? In terms of nutrition, exercise, inoculations, etc?
Children only get one chance to be children. How can anyone gainsay "erring on the side of caution" in such matters? Isn't it worth the effort? Just asking...
Mod
Feliks wrote in the preceding post: “This semantic sidestep on their part, rather irks me. When it comes to something as vital as an entire generation of children, can we afford to play rhetorical games?”
I discuss the post hoc and correlation (cum hoc) fallacies on pages 41–43 of Reason and Human Ethics, providing examples of each. As I explain on page 42, “There are three necessary elements in a causal relationship: temporal precedence, covariation of the cause and effect (correlation), and no plausible alternative explanations [endnote omitted]. The post hoc and cum hoc fallacies account for some but not all of these requirements. Most importantly, they do not prove the absence of alternative explanations.”
The critics of Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation argue that Haidt has not eliminated plausible alternative explanations in asserting that social media has rewired children’s brains and caused an epidemic of mental illness. As Professor Candice L. Odgers states on page 29 of her Nature article:
Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers [endnote omitted].As I explained in the first post in this topic, Haidt disagrees with these conclusions. As I also explained, I take no position on this issue, having read neither Haidt’s book nor the references cited in Odgers’s endnotes.
These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message [endnotes omitted]. An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally [endnote omitted]. Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use [endnote omitted]. Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence.
Moreover, Odgers and other critics of Haidt’s conclusions do not necessarily disagree with all of his proposed measures. Odgers concludes her article as follows:
Two things can be independently true about social media. First, that there is no evidence that using these platforms is rewiring children’s brains or driving an epidemic of mental illness. Second, that considerable reforms to these platforms are required, given how much time young people spend on them. Many of Haidt’s solutions for parents, adolescents, educators and big technology firms are reasonable, including stricter content-moderation policies and requiring companies to take user age into account when designing platforms and algorithms. Others, such as age-based restrictions and bans on mobile devices, are unlikely to be effective in practice — or worse, could backfire given what we know about adolescent behaviour.Again, Haidt disagrees with Odgers’s analysis, and, absent immersion in the relevant social scientific literature, I take no position regarding same.
A third truth is that we have a generation in crisis and in desperate need of the best of what science and evidence-based solutions can offer. Unfortunately, our time is being spent telling stories that are unsupported by research and that do little to support young people who need, and deserve, more.
Feliks wrote: “Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in past decades, wasn't merely 'correlative evidence' enough for adults to take action? In terms of nutrition, exercise, inoculations, etc?”
I don’t know much about past studies of nutrition and exercise, but I’m aware that scientific views regarding some of those matters have changed or evolved over the decades as more information has been obtained. For example, it was thought for several decades that moderate use of wine was good for health; recent studies have disputed that notion.
Regarding vaccines: Manufacturers and distributors of vaccines have to go through a very rigorous process of scientific explanation and testing before they are approved by relevant governmental agencies for widespread use. In the cases of which I am aware (though I’m far from an expert), there is an understanding by medical experts of how the vaccine actually works to produce the desired effect. Thus, it is not based on correlation alone. Then the vaccine is subjected to real-world testing to ascertain whether it or a placebo produces the desired effect. People complain that the governmental advice and the Covid vaccines themselves kept changing during the course of the recent pandemic. Such developments have caused skepticism and downright opposition to vaccination for Covid, measles, smallpox, polio, etc., both in the United States and elsewhere. What simple-minded conspiracy theorists fail to understand is that Covid itself evolved, as was predicted, during the course of the pandemic, and the governmental advice and vaccines for same had to change to keep up with such evolution. But then, of course, many of these skeptics don’t believe in evolution to begin with, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence of same, especially in the development of diseases. Moreover, Covid was so novel a phenomenon and so quickly an emergency that governmental agencies initially gave out some incorrect advice that, upon further scientific study, was superseded. These facts have not prevented vaccine-skeptics like Bill Maher and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. from perpetrating misinformation about Covid and other vaccines, thereby unnecessarily prolonging the Covid pandemic and threatening (and in some cases already causing) new outbreaks of measles, polio, and other previously eradicated diseases.
H'mmm. Well, I don't know that they're ever going to find evidence of a "direct cause" enough to provoke industry change. Sociological symptoms are probably always going to be too slippery a phenomenon for testing to eliminate all other possibilities.
Opponents to Haidt's platform, would probably insist on evidence of physical changes in the brain and they'd never get it. And anything less than that, will always be too easy for industry lobbyists to deflect if the debate ever came to contest.
It's not like cigarettes and lung cancer which was eventually pinned down (albeit after decades of effort).
On the topic of testing: television was introduced into American society without any testing at all. Source: Mande'rs Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television
I'm betting insufficient testing was ever done on today's electronics either. Yes, they probably tested minimally --likely just tests of radiation. But I bet they never foresaw in advance that kids would be plugged in 24/7, to devices like these.
It's like how wristwatches are tested for water-tightness. The test is spraying water at them from a hose; instead of immersing them as a swimmer would during a swim.
Government standards: I would not agree that the strictest testing regimen is ever applied; despite the reassuring verbiage from the government itself. Anecdotal from my own profession: a few years ago a private company was going to launch a satellite which would have wreaked havoc in US airwaves. They were only halted because of the outcry of private consultants like myself banded together and submitted a letter-of-protest.
Anyway, I'm still puzzled by these anti-Haidt critics. Even at a casual distance, completely informally, I myself have been clipping essays and studies from the headlines and I've got dozens of reports which have mounted up over the years. No idea how they can claim the evidence is too scant.
Oh well. p.s. Beg pardon for the chattiness of my replies above. Sloppiness on my part. I'm typing this in haste --
Mod
Sociological symptoms are probably always going to be too slippery a phen..."
Thanks, Feliks for your thoughts and information.
Again, I am not taking sides on the issue between Haidt and his critics on this precise issue, as I don't know enough about it.
As I stated in my first post above, my issue with Haidt is my disagreement with him—and others in the “moral sentiment” school—regarding the basis of ethics. This issue is not addressed in the current controversy and in fact, is hardly ever addressed in the modern era. Specifically, the social science world long ago decided that ethics/morality/values are not subject to rational or scientific analysis. This is probably one thing that Haidt and his current critics have in common. It follows that his concern about young people does not have an objective, rational basis; it is merely his own subjective, personal “value judgment.” Others might have a different "feeling" about it, and (according to current social science thinking) who are we to judge? See my critique of ethical relativism on pages 1–5, my discussion of classical reason on pages 5–9, and my discussions of virtue ethics, evolutionary biology, and secular teleology on pages 25–30 of Reason and Human Ethics. See also chapter 2 (“Human Reason”) and the application of the principles of chapters 1 and 2 in chapters 3–6 and the epilogue and appendix of that book.
Alan, your appraisal (Hume, etc) is by far the more meaty and interesting here. Also, you provide proper citations. I'd like to revisit this thread sometime and re-phrase my inputs. You know this topic is a hobbyhorse of mine but I rode it around the room mighty recklessly & sloppily today. Topics like teen suicide and whatnot --I need to insert some links for my suspicions. In my defense, we did have an earthquake in New York City this morning. Good grief!
Mod
I heard about your earthquake. What next? Looks like Iran and Israel are about to go to war with each other. That could go nuclear.
On a lighter side, I experienced two minor earthquakes. It was so long ago I don't distinctly remember where I was at those times. I think the first one was in Chicago during the middle or late 1960s. I was reading in a chair, and the pole lamp next to me started shaking. The second one might have been in Cleveland during or after the 1980s. I didn't realize until these events that earthquakes even happen in this part of the country. Fortunately, no damage was done.
Feliks wrote: "Alan wrote: "Some academic reviewers have alleged that it only shows a correlation, not a causal relationship ..."This semantic sidestep on their part, rather irks me. When it comes to something ..."
I do not see this debate as involving “rhetorical games.” Distinguishing correlation from causality is fundamental in science. I understand your use of precautionary principle to argue that if social media might be the cause, we should take action just in case. However, there can be a significant opportunity cost to focusing on the wrong factor, if social media turns out not to be at the root of the problems Haidt discusses. It would be like a doctor sending you home with the wrong medication. And at the policy level, “crying wolf” can make future sensible laws and regulations more difficult to impose because of the decline in trust that occurs when policymakers take ineffective steps not based in solid science, steps that may have significant unintended consequences.
I've been meaning to return to this topic for some follow-up remarks. Been assembling verifiable info and mulling over what to say.But today I just wish to briefly insert a news item which has come to my notice.
The New York School system is finally proposing to ban smart-gadgets from schools.
https://www.techspot.com/news/103195-...
This extraordinary sea-change isn't transpiring for no reason at all.
Apparently my admittedly layman's concern --shared by so many educational professionals --is finally gaining the political ground it deserves.
One of the main points in my argument are the deleterious effects of frivolous technology on early childhood development.
Apart from the psychological harm being wrought, we know it is hindering scholastic success.
I don't believe there is a single study extant out there which has ever shown that smartphones improve learning.
The discussion I see in journals and papers is always --and only --how much damage are these toys doing? The answer is that no one knows. There's no way to know. The products are developed and marketed and put on shelves too fast for adequate testing.
It was the same with cigarettes: tobacco was vigorously tested in the 1950s. But they didn't understand that lung cancer takes twenty years to materialize. No American company is ever going to delay sales for twenty years' worth of tests.
Mod
I don’t think that desktop and laptop computers should be banned. Kids do not usually use this technology, and computers are essential to communication and information in our time. Yes, there is a lot of misinformation and disinformation on the internet, but the internet also provides a great deal of valuable information and knowledge (as, I believe, in the present Goodreads group). In any event, computers will never be banned or limited in the United States as a result of the First Amendment.
I would also note that the tobacco companies knew that smoking was deleterious to health during the 1950s but suppressed that information. See https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten.... In fact, there has been a lot of litigation over this precise issue. See https://www.lung.org/research/sotc/by....
On correlation vs causation—I agree with Feliks above, that the criticism that Haidt’s research only shows correlation may be a semantic sidestep. My understanding is that materialistic causation (e.g. harmful physical effects of cigarettes) and sociological causation (e.g. social/psychological effects of social media) are of two different kinds. The methods of observation, the kind of data gathered, the means of analysis are all different. Scientific/materialistic research proceeds definitively on falsification, whereas sociology is a lot less clear-cut. So the comparison of Haidt’s research to that of things like vaccines, medications, cigarettes, etc., is something like a category error.
The problem remains though that because sociological conclusions aren’t and can never be as clear-cut as those of material science, they don’t carry as much force. So I think that tech companies, government, etc. will be even more resistant to change/regulation than tobacco companies were.
On Haidt—
I’m in agreement with Alan’s criticism of Haidt as an emotivist. This has always bothered me, too. However, in his more recent books, he’s made increasing appeals to ancient wisdom including teleological/Aristotelian ideas, which cut against his emotivist tendencies. He’s also moved away from purely descriptive projects, becoming more and more normative. So I wonder if eventually he’ll be forced to give up emotivisim altogether. At least, I hope he will.
Mod
So do I! Perhaps common sense is gradually becoming more important in Haidt's thinking than his earlier deprecation of reason.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
re: Alan's msg #10 this topic, May 31, 05:08 amhttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Alan wrote: "I don’t think that desktop and laptop computers should be banned. Kids do not usually use this technology..."
I don't have a specific recommendation for banning desktops or laptops. These devices have crept --much as television sets did in the '50s --into the American home in a way that makes it impossible to easily eradicate.
In both cases, the potential effect of misuse on children/by children was realized after-the-fact. In both cases, manufacturers shrugged off any responsibility.
Big hardware firms all-too-typically rationalize it this way:
(1) televisions and personal computers are home electronics;
(2) parents purchase these products,
(3) parents are homeowners, therefore
(4) homeowners must exercise judgment when children are present.
Said another way: 'do not hinder our sales goals'.
But while I admit the difficulty of removing either TV or PCs from the home, I still object to the continual, reckless and sudden re-shaping of our society by corporations merely for the sake of pushing new product lines.
Why should Microsoft Corporation determine the course of American progress? What does Microsoft value, other than revenue? Do we allow companies to fabricate and sell anything they wish, without any let or check?
Alan wrote: "I don’t think they could be banned generally in the United States without violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I don't have a specific recommendation for banning phones for adults.
Mobile phones were once a fairly sober tool initially invented for grown-ups. At the outset, there were few worries. It was reasonable to assume grown-ups would not wind up gazing into 'dumb phone' text-only screens, ten hours each day. They were utilitarian.
But modern mobile phones have obviously now morphed multimedia platforms which --with regard to children --should be considered ripe for urgent regulation. They are essentially, televisions. They're dangerously 'mesmerizing' and 'addictive' in a way no one ever expected and which no one is restraining.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/0...
Therefore I do advocate some kind of ban for underage phone use. It's not inconceivable.
And after all, we traditionally do not allow minors to own guns, operate vehicles, smoke tobacco, ingest drugs, consume alcohol, purchase pornography, vote, marry, engage in adult sexual activities, enlist in armed services; etc.
I have a several subsequent remarks to raise --but, I will break them up into individual posts rather than preach a single, overlong 'sermon'.
Soaring myopia thanks to screen-addiction. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/17/120061...
Very apt example of abhorrent public sector-->private sector negligence.
William wrote: " And at the policy level, “crying wolf” can make future sensible laws and regulations more difficult to impose because of the decline in trust that occurs when policymakers take ineffective steps not based in solid science, steps that may have significant unintended consequences..."
My reason for disagreeing with this argument is simple and (I think) obvious to all. 'Good science' is already contravened by the corporate powers involved in big lawsuits.
Frex: Boeing Corp isn't observing "good science" when they strive to assure us their 737MAX planes are safe.
They're clearly using science merely as political 'damage control'.
This heinous practice extends back a long ways in the history of commercialism (as Alan reminds us above re: tobacco).
Alan, your point rather reinforces mine, There's even less reason to trust science when big conglomerates are involved.
In regard to smartphones having become a problem in schools, which I would think is the problem that is best evidence, a paradox arises. The same phones are emergency contact devices, whether to parents, police, medical, fire, or for other urgent issues. Banning them would be dangerous.It seems to me that a new generation of call-only phones with a limited memory capacity, part of it locked, could be developed by the industry that would be cheap enough to Give to every student. Just emergency numbers.
Let them leave their smartphones at home, or in their lockers until classes are over.
I assume that problems would arise with this too, and I would be interested in finding out what they might be, whether technical or legal.
Mod
Interesting idea.
I am assuming that the numbers would be limited to 911, school security and officials, parents or legal guardians, and possibly other adult relatives or designated emergency contacts, registered with the school, as now. (I can see disputes arising from shared custody situations, and more from non-custodial parents.)Maybe personal physicians for known medical problems, instead of letting first responders guess. A built in medical record would raise privacy concerns, and memory might add to the cost, but things like cardiac disease and dangerous allergies should not be too much of a problem.
There would be the problem of false alarms, but no worse than the existing situation so far as I can see.
Alan wrote: "Ian wrote: "It seems to me that a new generation of call-only phones with a limited memory capacity, part of it locked, could be developed by the industry that would be cheap enough to Give to ever..."Ian,
While your suggestion has merit in terms of limiting phone usage to emergency calls, I would caution against underestimating the deeper issues I describe in my book Global Disorder. One of the biggest challenges today is how the excessive use of mobile phones, especially among children and adolescents, leads to a range of psychological and emotional problems. Constant connectivity can weaken critical thinking skills, harm face-to-face social interactions, and make young people more vulnerable to disinformation, sensationalism, and even fanaticism.
Moreover, excessive dependence on mobile phones negatively impacts their sense of identity, family relationships, and social connections. Many face low self-esteem, increased anxiety, and even depression due to the pressures of being constantly online, superficial comparisons, and the overwhelming nature of digital content. These issues only distort personal growth and emotional well-being.
Another worrying factor is that most young people today are no longer willing to read books, whether in print or e-book format. Increasingly, they prefer to use, and only when absolutely necessary, apps that convert texts into audio for them to listen to, especially when the texts are long or extensive. This negatively affects their ability to structure a narrative, organize and present ideas clearly, and compromises their logical and critical thinking. The habit of reading not only enriches language and vocabulary but also develops deep thinking, which is being lost with this practice of merely "listening" to content.
While call-only phones might limit certain distractions, the root problem still lies in the overuse and dependency on digital technology as a whole.
Best regards,
Ricardo
In my view, the problem lies in the fact that many of these digital technologies are being diverted from their virtuous purpose, which should be to improve people's living conditions by driving progress, social justice, and sustainability. Instead, they are often used for purely commercial purposes, favoring sensationalism, viral views, and other manipulations aimed solely at increasing audiences.
The Consequences of Reduced Reading Among Youth: Impacts on Leadership, Professional, and Social Life.One of the most concerning trends today is that many young people no longer engage in reading, whether in printed books or e-books. Increasingly, they prefer to use, and only in cases of great necessity, applications that convert texts into voice so they can listen, especially when the texts are long or extensive. This reliance on auditory content undermines their ability to build coherent narratives, structure and present ideas clearly, and develop logical and critical thinking.
This diminished engagement with reading not only weakens linguistic skills and vocabulary, but it also erodes deep thinking, a skill essential in complex professions and leadership roles. As a result, young people might struggle in several areas of life:
In Politics and Leadership Positions: They may find it harder to articulate complex arguments, engage in nuanced debate, or understand multifaceted issues that demand critical analysis. Their ability to lead discussions, influence decision-making, or inspire others may be compromised by the lack of a robust intellectual foundation.
In Scientific Projects: The reduced practice of reading may hinder their capacity to analyze detailed information, draw from diverse sources of knowledge, and present scientific findings coherently. Research projects and innovation often require deep critical thought and meticulous communication, both of which are weakened by a passive consumption of information.
In Public Speaking and Lectures: Public presentations and speaking engagements, such as giving a lecture or leading a conference, demand not just confidence but also the ability to organize ideas and deliver them in a compelling way. Without strong reading habits, young people may struggle to captivate an audience or communicate effectively in professional settings.
In Professional and Social Interactions: In the workplace and broader social environments, the ability to express oneself clearly, think critically, and respond to complex situations is essential. A lack of reading can erode these skills, leading to difficulties in problem-solving, project management, and interpersonal communication.
While technologies that limit distractions, such as call-only phones, could reduce certain external temptations, the core issue remains: the over-reliance on digital technology, particularly passive content consumption, is leading to a decline in critical capacities essential for personal and professional growth.
The issue of digital over-dependence and the decline of deep thinking is explored in more detail in my book Global Disorder.
My principal problem with Haidt is theoretical. He explicitly adheres to the “moral sentiment” school of Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, and Adam Smith that ethics/morality derives from one’s emotions and feelings and not from reason. Haidt heartily approves of Hume’s youthful dictum that “[r]eason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” I have critiqued this view on pages 13–19 of my book Reason and Human Ethics, a PDF replica of the paperback of which is freely available online at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re.... I specifically discuss Haidt’s views on this issue (including his famous academic paper titled “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail”) on pages 18–19 of this book.
Haidt has written a number of bestselling books, some of which I have read in part. I have not, however, had time to read the entirety of any of them. Since he bases ethics (and, at least implicitly, values) on emotion, not reason, I find it difficult to understand how he could promote his moral and political values and hope thereby to persuade anyone who does not share his particular emotional temperament.
Haidt’s latest book is titled The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. I have not read this book, though it is possible that I might agree with some of it. Some academic reviewers have alleged that it only shows a correlation, not a causal relationship, between childhood cellphone use and mental illness. See, e.g., Candice L. Odgers, “The Great Rewiring, Unplugged,” Nature 628 (April 4, 2024): 29–30, https://www.nature.com/articles/d4158..., and Molly Liebergall, “Are phones to blame for the mental health epidemic?,” Morning Brew, April 2, 2024, https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/sto.... Haidt has responded at https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/1.... Since I have not read the book, I take no position on this controversy.