Really, enough of putting the blame on abstract agents like technological objects and start finding the real culprits: stressed or incompetent teachers, corrupt or incompetent politicians, sloppy or absent parents. This obsessive mania for wanting to put non-human causes at the root of human problems should be understood as a symptom of something much more serious.
Studies that support Haidt’s thesis are prominent, and information that does not conform is omitted or downplayed. In Figure 1.11, Haidt plots the percentage of Nordic teens with high psychological distress and highlights its rise between 2010 and 2015 (from Health Behavior in School Children data), especially among girls. However, the overall results of the HBSC, which surveyed more than 100,000 youths worldwide, does not show an increase in psychological symptoms or a decrease in life satisfaction between 2002 and 2014. These indicators are rather stable, with, at best, only a slight increase (see, studies by Dierckens and colleagues or Cosma and colleagues).
Haidt often relegates non-conforming information to the endnotes, like the fact that there “are a few studies that report little to no effect of screen use on sleep” (Chapter 5, note 36).
Researchers who focus on the complex relationships between various technologies and adolescents’ wellbeing have no evidence that engagement with digital technology is resulting in worse impacts on adolescents’ mental health problems over time. There is only a little evidence for the negative effects of digital screen engagement on adolescent wellbeing."
