There are multiple possible explanations for that. I don’t see any direct link between the kind of content we millenials consumed in our childhood and the apparent rise in the number of mental health cases. I’d be willing to bet that the time spent consuming said content plays a much bigger factor.
I’m not claiming there’s a direct link. I am saying there’s no evidence to support your claim that repulsive content is fine because the evidence suggests that we did not turn out just fine. My anecdotal evidence is that I had more empathy as a child than as an adult, which is largely thought abnormal, and I think desensitization due to watching beheadings and shit in my formative years might be part of the reason.
Yes, my intention was to respond to an anecdote with another anecdote to illustrate that point. Some of us can claim they looked at depraved shit as a kid and turned out fine, but statistically, many of us did not turn out fine.
For me, I’ve only spent more time online as I’ve gotten older for the reasons you stated. As a kid, my screen time was maybe an hour or so. I’m not saying the Internet turned me into an asshole, but I do believe that it had a hand in it.
Yes but we can’t tell if that’s caused by being online, it’s possible you’d have had the same problems anyway or possibly worse. For all we know the internet helped you deal with your issues and without it you’d have ended up a serial killer.
I think it’s less the network’s fault, and more on where someone chooses to spend their time on the network. If you’re on Facebook, it is in their interest to piss you off so you stay and fight. But plenty of other tools exist to connect folks online without being manipulative.
It’s like fire, nuclear energy, or most any other tool. Use it right and everyone benefits, use it wrong and people get hurt.
No, do not write leading statements like that, it’s rude. Just ask me to clarify.
I’m saying there’s.no point measuring millennial healthcare analytics vs older generations because millennials aren’t older yet (obviously). So point in time analytics aren’t valuable ( edit to my conversation, obviously they are useful) My point was to understand the health analytics of a cohort relative to care options, you must consider the same age band, no matter the year.
So like " describe mental health detection among 20-30 yo’s across decade’s of history"
How “mental illnesses” are described and defined in scientific literature changes as science (and bureaucracy) progresses, as do our methods of measurement, and our scientific understanding of what is involved- science moves faster than languages evolve to adapt to its progress.
It is therefore not strictly and necessarily a matter of increased prevalence, but how we encapsulate and express these things culturally.
Compare the logical conundrum of the infinitely expanding shoreline. Was it Alfred Korszybski with that? My memory fails me.
Millennials have higher rates of mental illness than previous generations. We are far from fine.
I’d imagine an increasingly hostile world economy coupled with a then-looming but now beginning climate crisis might have a huge impact there.
There are multiple possible explanations for that. I don’t see any direct link between the kind of content we millenials consumed in our childhood and the apparent rise in the number of mental health cases. I’d be willing to bet that the time spent consuming said content plays a much bigger factor.
I’m not claiming there’s a direct link. I am saying there’s no evidence to support your claim that repulsive content is fine because the evidence suggests that we did not turn out just fine. My anecdotal evidence is that I had more empathy as a child than as an adult, which is largely thought abnormal, and I think desensitization due to watching beheadings and shit in my formative years might be part of the reason.
When I was younger I wasn’t sad because I was online, I was online because I was sad and felt out of place in reality.
The cough isn’t the cause of the cold, it’s a symptom.
Also, I gained more empathy the older I got. So you probably need a bigger data set than your own experiences.
Yes, my intention was to respond to an anecdote with another anecdote to illustrate that point. Some of us can claim they looked at depraved shit as a kid and turned out fine, but statistically, many of us did not turn out fine.
For me, I’ve only spent more time online as I’ve gotten older for the reasons you stated. As a kid, my screen time was maybe an hour or so. I’m not saying the Internet turned me into an asshole, but I do believe that it had a hand in it.
Yes but we can’t tell if that’s caused by being online, it’s possible you’d have had the same problems anyway or possibly worse. For all we know the internet helped you deal with your issues and without it you’d have ended up a serial killer.
Life is just very complex.
I think it’s less the network’s fault, and more on where someone chooses to spend their time on the network. If you’re on Facebook, it is in their interest to piss you off so you stay and fight. But plenty of other tools exist to connect folks online without being manipulative.
It’s like fire, nuclear energy, or most any other tool. Use it right and everyone benefits, use it wrong and people get hurt.
Hard to believe this isn’t simply due to improved detection, reporting and treatment options.
Gen X and boomers still go to the Dr and undergo depression screenings, yet Gen X has roughly half the rates of depression as gen z and millennials. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9934502/
The key metric would be to review care detection and frequency at the same chronological age of participants, not simply today.
So you think young people are more likely to be mentally ill and then grow out of it when older?
No, do not write leading statements like that, it’s rude. Just ask me to clarify.
I’m saying there’s.no point measuring millennial healthcare analytics vs older generations because millennials aren’t older yet (obviously). So point in time analytics aren’t valuable ( edit to my conversation, obviously they are useful) My point was to understand the health analytics of a cohort relative to care options, you must consider the same age band, no matter the year.
So like " describe mental health detection among 20-30 yo’s across decade’s of history"
You’re calling me rude for asking you to clarify. That was a question, not a leading statement. Note the question mark.
It’s a statement you are assuming I made, which I contested.
How “mental illnesses” are described and defined in scientific literature changes as science (and bureaucracy) progresses, as do our methods of measurement, and our scientific understanding of what is involved- science moves faster than languages evolve to adapt to its progress.
It is therefore not strictly and necessarily a matter of increased prevalence, but how we encapsulate and express these things culturally.
Compare the logical conundrum of the infinitely expanding shoreline. Was it Alfred Korszybski with that? My memory fails me.