Posts Tagged ‘Jonathan Haidt’

Is Social Media Driving Girls Insane?

Saturday, July 12th, 2025

Here’s a video featuring Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, discussing data showing that a whole lot of depression and anxiety disorders among girls (less so among boys) were soaring at the same time social media (which, for the time-frame they’re talking about, is mostly Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) were taking off.

  • Jonathan Haidt: “Something weird happened in 2014. Greg Luciano, my my friend who runs the Foundation for Individual Rights of Expression, he noticed it too, he came to talk to me. Something had changed among the students. There was a new kind of new morality driven by anxiety and fragility.”
  • JH: “So we wrote an Atlantic article called ‘The Coddling of the American Mind.’ We turned that into a book in 2017, we went much deeper.”
  • JH: “Writing that book in 2017, we have a page where we say, you know, the timing is right for social media. Like social media comes in just at the right time to maybe have contributed, but we don’t really have evidence so that’s it, that’s all we said.”
  • JH: “2019: I’m collecting evidence, because now it’s clear it’s not just America.”
  • JH: “First we saw it in all of the Anglophere countries. When you look at levels of internalizing disorders…This is important. It’s not all mental illnesses, it’s not schizophrenia, it’s internalizing disorders, which is preeminently anxiety and depression related disorder.”
  • JH: “They’re pretty stable, from the late ’90s all the way through 2010, 2011 there’s really no trend in the United States or in the other English English speaking countries. And then, all of a sudden, there’s an elbow like around 2012, 2013 there’s an elbow, and the rates go up very sharply for girls, with more of a curve for boys, and that’s a clue, the different shape is an important clue. But for girls 2011, 2012 no sign of a problem, 2014, 2015 it’s off to the races with depression, anxiety. We see the same thing in self harm.”
  • JH: “So that’s that was the empirical puzzle that came to us as college professors, and that came to us in the national data, and that’s what that’s what launched me on this book.”
  • Jordan Peterson: “It’s an important coda that you mentioned there, that it wasn’t only rates of self-reported depression and anxiety. Because I know there was a criticism directed at your work by a psychiatrist who pointed out or claimed that the self-report data might be unreliable.”
  • JP: “But you pointed out, quite rightly, I thought, that you saw the same data in episodes of self harm, particularly among young women, which is a much more direct behavioral measure of that proclivity for negative emotion.”
  • JP: “I should point out clinically, just for those who are watching and listening, that anxiety is a response to the the threat of destruction, psychological or physical. Depression is more of a pain response, and it’s got two aspects: It’s heightening of negative emotion, withdrawal in particular, that causes cessation of activity, but also decrease in positive emotion, which is more associated with demoralization and and lack of motivational impetus to move forward. And you describe those as the internalizing disorders.” Not psychosis fragmentation or manic depressive disorder.
  • JP: “This is quite a particularized, let’s say, epidemic.”
  • JP: “What drove you to the conclusion, or even to investigate the possibility, that this had something to do with technology generally, and with social media more particularly?”
  • JH: “Jean Twenge was really the first person to call attention to this. Jean Twenge has been studying generations for 20 years, and she had an article in The Atlantic, in 2017 where The Atlantic chose the title ‘Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?’ And so Jean laid out the evidence. It was all correlational, which doesn’t prove it. But the patterns are so consistent, there’s a correlation in time, which is when this new technology is introduced, around 2012.”
  • JH: “In 2010, teenagers almost all have a flip phone or a basic phone. The iPhone exists, but it’s not very common. The front-facing camera comes out on the iPhone 4 in 2010. Instagram becomes super popular in 2012, so that’s the period where teen social life is changing radically from using a phone to call your friend saying ‘Hey let’s get together this afternoon,’ to spending all day swiping and scrolling and commenting and posting. 2010 to 2015 is the great rewiring of childhood.”
  • JH: “The increases we’re talking about are are generally between 50 and 100% increases in these measures of of psychopathology for pre-teen girls. You sometimes get 200% increases and for self harm. 10 to 14 year old girls did not used to cut themselves, it was very, very rare before 2012. You get over 200% increase in hospital visits for self harm, so the historical correlation is there. It doesn’t prove it, but there’s no other alternative. And then you have the correlation in time use, that is the people who are heavy users of social media in almost every study are doing much worse.” Until they take kids’ smart phones away, and they show dramatic improvement in mood in one to two weeks.
  • Though barely touched on in this interview, while this is happening, we see a dramatic increase in during the same time, again disproportionately among girls and women, of an epidemic-like spread of the woke social justice mind virus. Victimhood and cancel culture escape from their initial reservoirs of infection in academia and the Democrat Party and spread among the general population. Many have theorized that women are far more driven by consensus and conformity to social pressure from other women, and that this tendency to knuckle under to woke groupthink, combined with the vector for infection that was social media, explains how quickly the irrational psychosis of social justice spread.

    And thus the social media explosion of 2010-2015 primed the pump for full blown epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome in 2016…

    Anti-Woke Academics Announce New University of Austin

    Tuesday, November 9th, 2021

    Yesterday, a number of anti-woke intellectuals announced that they were starting a new university on Bari Weiss’ substack.

    Pano Kanelos:

    So much is broken in America. But higher education might be the most fractured institution of all.

    There is a gaping chasm between the promise and the reality of higher education. Yale’s motto is Lux et Veritas, light and truth. Harvard proclaims: Veritas. Young men and women of Stanford are told Die Luft der Freiheit weht: The wind of freedom blows.

    These are soaring words. But in these top schools, and in so many others, can we actually claim that the pursuit of truth—once the central purpose of a university—remains the highest virtue? Do we honestly believe that the crucial means to that end—freedom of inquiry and civil discourse—prevail when illiberalism has become a pervasive feature of campus life?

    The numbers tell the story as well as any anecdote you’ve read in the headlines or heard within your own circles. Nearly a quarter of American academics in the social sciences or humanities endorse ousting a colleague for having a wrong opinion about hot-button issues such as immigration or gender differences. Over a third of conservative academics and PhD students say they had been threatened with disciplinary action for their views. Four out of five American PhD students are willing to discriminate against right-leaning scholars, according to a report by the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology.

    The picture among undergraduates is even bleaker. In Heterodox Academy’s 2020 Campus Expression Survey, 62% of sampled college students agreed that the climate on their campus prevented students from saying things they believe. Nearly 70% of students favor reporting professors if the professor says something students find offensive, according to a Challey Institute for Global Innovation survey. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports at least 491 disinvitation campaigns since 2000. Roughly half were successful.

    On our quads, faculty are being treated like thought criminals. Dorian Abbot, a University of Chicago scientist who has objected to aspects of affirmative action, was recently disinvited from delivering a prominent public lecture on planetary climate at MIT. Peter Boghossian, a philosophy professor at Portland State University, finally quit in September after years of harassment by faculty and administrators. Kathleen Stock, a professor at University of Sussex, just resigned after mobs threatened her over her research on sex and gender.

    We had thought such censoriousness was possible only under oppressive regimes in distant lands. But it turns out that fear can become endemic in a free society. It can become most acute in the one place—the university—that is supposed to defend “the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.”

    The reality is that many universities no longer have an incentive to create an environment where intellectual dissent is protected and fashionable opinions are scrutinized. At our most prestigious schools, the primary incentive is to function as finishing school for the national and global elite. Amidst the brick and ivy, these students entertain ever-more-inaccessible theories while often just blocks away their neighbors figure out how to scratch out a living.

    The priority at most other institutions is simply to avoid financial collapse. They are in a desperate contest to attract a dwindling number of students, who are less and less capable of paying skyrocketing tuition. Over the last three decades, the cost of a degree from a four-year private college has nearly doubled; the cost of a degree from a public university has nearly tripled. The nation’s students owe $1.7 trillion in loans.

    And to what end? Nearly 40% of those who pursue a college degree do not attain one. We should let that sink in. Higher education fails 4 in 10 of its students. A system that so brazenly extracts so much from so many without delivering on its basic promises is overdue for a reckoning.

    The warped incentives of higher education—prestige or survival—mean that an increasing proportion of tuition dollars are spent on administration rather than instruction. Universities now aim to attract and retain students through client-driven “student experiences”—from trivial entertainment to emotional support to luxury amenities. In fact, many universities are doing extremely well at providing students with everything they need. Everything, that is, except intellectual grit.

    Snip.

    But we are done waiting. We are done waiting for the legacy universities to right themselves. And so we are building anew.

    I mean that quite literally.

    As I write this, I am sitting in my new office (boxes still waiting to be unpacked) in balmy Austin, Texas, where I moved three months ago from my previous post as president of St. John’s College in Annapolis.

    I am not alone.

    Our project began with a small gathering of those concerned about the state of higher education—Niall Ferguson, Bari Weiss, Heather Heying, Joe Lonsdale, Arthur Brooks, and I—and we have since been joined by many others, including the brave professors mentioned above, Kathleen Stock, Dorian Abbot and Peter Boghossian.

    We count among our numbers university presidents: Robert Zimmer, Larry Summers, John Nunes, and Gordon Gee, and leading academics, such as Steven Pinker, Deirdre McCloskey, Leon Kass, Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, Joshua Katz, Vickie Sullivan, Geoffrey Stone, Bill McClay, and Tyler Cowen.

    We are also joined by journalists, artists, philanthropists, researchers, and public intellectuals, including Lex Fridman, Andrew Sullivan, Rob Henderson, Caitlin Flanagan, David Mamet, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sohrab Ahmari, Stacy Hock, Jonathan Rauch, and Nadine Strossen.

    It’s an interesting collection of people, running from conservatives to “mugged liberals,” all of which I think have objected to the epistemological closure of social justice.

    We are a dedicated crew that grows by the day. Our backgrounds and experiences are diverse; our political views differ. What unites us is a common dismay at the state of modern academia and a recognition that we can no longer wait for the cavalry. And so we must be the cavalry.

    It will surely seem retro—perhaps even countercultural—in an era of massive open online courses and distance learning to build an actual school in an actual building with as few screens as possible. But sometimes there is wisdom in things that have endured.

    Here’s the website for the new institution, which states the following principles:

    Universities devoted to the unfettered pursuit of truth are the cornerstone of a free and flourishing democratic society.

    For universities to serve their purpose, they must be fully committed to freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience, and civil discourse.

    In order to maintain these principles, UATX will be fiercely independent—financially, intellectually, and politically.

    About funding:

    We’re completely rethinking how a university operates by developing a novel financial model. We will lower tuition by avoiding costly administrative excess and overreach. We will focus our resources intensively on academics, rather than amenities. We will align institutional incentives with student outcomes.

    The new university is located at 2112 Rio Grande Street in Austin, Texas. For those unfamiliar with Austin, that’s right in the West Campus area, AKA Fratville, immediately to the west of the University of Texas. Presumably they’ll be able to draw some students, talent, etc. from their location, not to mention a lot of nearby student amenities.

    It will be interesting to see how this experiment works out, but one university isn’t enough to stem the tide. All of American education needs a hard reboot, one where everyone pushing social justice down America’s throat lose both their jobs and funding.

    Social Justice Warrior Headhunters

    Tuesday, June 4th, 2019

    Here’s professor Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University, as well as co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, on Joe Rogan talking about the various strands that came together to metastasize social justice warriors across college campuses. He mentions how their toxic culture reinforces itself like other toxic cultures, including headhunter tribes.

    It’s part of a longer interview with Haidt, which starts off talking about the grievance studies hoax.