Gen Z has been warped by social media and victimhood culture: Jonathan haidt

[Anonymous]

Tik Tok is extraordinarily toxic. All it is doing is training peoples' (especially kids') brains to basically become ADD. Kids these days are absolutely incapable of holding an attention span for more than 3 minutes, because they've grown up their entire lives being completely addicted to 5 second video clips. If you don't get to the punchline for instant gratification in a matter of seconds, kids are incapable of listening for longer. I don't even want to think about the nightmare this is going to turn into 20 years from now when you are trying to teach young students complex topics are university like quantum mechanics or virtually any STEM based materials they require intense listening and deductive reasoning. Kids will absolutely be unable to handle such materials after having their brains turned to mush by social media like TikTok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the 1970s and 1980s, as a GenXer, I never feared being gunned down by one of my classmates in my own school.

Fight, GenZ! I am on your side.

Neither did I. However, kids would also drive to school with a gun in the gun rack in their pickup.

[Anonymous]

This is such a boring, played out generational trope. You can find dozens of this article written about millennials ten years ago. Not surprised the boomers are eating it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tik Tok is extraordinarily toxic. All it is doing is training peoples' (especially kids') brains to basically become ADD. Kids these days are absolutely incapable of holding an attention span for more than 3 minutes, because they've grown up their entire lives being completely addicted to 5 second video clips. If you don't get to the punchline for instant gratification in a matter of seconds, kids are incapable of listening for longer. I don't even want to think about the nightmare this is going to turn into 20 years from now when you are trying to teach young students complex topics are university like quantum mechanics or virtually any STEM based materials they require intense listening and deductive reasoning. Kids will absolutely be unable to handle such materials after having their brains turned to mush by social media like TikTok.

Plus they generate a ton of bad information as fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tik Tok is extraordinarily toxic. All it is doing is training peoples' (especially kids') brains to basically become ADD. Kids these days are absolutely incapable of holding an attention span for more than 3 minutes, because they've grown up their entire lives being completely addicted to 5 second video clips. If you don't get to the punchline for instant gratification in a matter of seconds, kids are incapable of listening for longer. I don't even want to think about the nightmare this is going to turn into 20 years from now when you are trying to teach young students complex topics are university like quantum mechanics or virtually any STEM based materials they require intense listening and deductive reasoning. Kids will absolutely be unable to handle such materials after having their brains turned to mush by social media like TikTok.

Plus they generate a ton of bad information as fact.

You'll need to learn how to teach in 2min interval

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, Haidt’s cohort did a shitty job raising their kids but he wants to blame it on the children instead ofntakignnreaponsibilitybfienti. Classic boomer.

Boomers are grandparents. You are looking to blame Gen x and millennials.

Haidt turns 60 this year

So born in 1963...cusp boomer but definitely a boomer.

That was my point.

Did you actually read his article?

It was not anti youth but citing the obvious …

Mother of 15 yo who has been poisoned by social media victim culture and gender identity confusion …

NP. I agree with the author and with you, PP.

I feel people are resisting the article’s main points because they do not want to accept them; they wish it were not so.

But it is.

I wonder whether they are reading it at all … They are taking the author’s comment that internet age of adulthood should start at 16 literally and twisting obvious concerns about the negative impact of social media on our youth into a inter-generational blame game.

The stats speak for themselves - our youth are suffering intense mental illness problems/ eating disorders/ self harm and substance abuse. The wait list for teen psychiatrists is very long. Mental health facilities for teens are a booming business. They are insanely expensive and insurance routinely refuses to cover residential treatment comprised of evidence based approaches even when the need is clearly there. Ask me how I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1970s and 1980s, as a GenXer, I never feared being gunned down by one of my classmates in my own school.

Fight, GenZ! I am on your side.

Neither did I. However, kids would also drive to school with a gun in the gun rack in their pickup.

Wait - what?!?!

That would suggest there was much wider availability of guns back then. If that were true, then why weren’t there more school shootings, like, on a daily basis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wah! Wah!
Right wing grievance against GenZ continues.

Huh? Jonathan Haidt is no right winger.

I'm that PP. You misunderstand.
I was talking about the PPs on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1970s and 1980s, as a GenXer, I never feared being gunned down by one of my classmates in my own school.

Fight, GenZ! I am on your side.

Neither did I. However, kids would also drive to school with a gun in the gun rack in their pickup.

Wait - what?!?!

That would suggest there was much wider availability of guns back then. If that were true, then why weren’t there more school shootings, like, on a daily basis?

Because there was less cultural rot back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, Haidt’s cohort did a shitty job raising their kids but he wants to blame it on the children instead ofntakignnreaponsibilitybfienti. Classic boomer.

Boomers are grandparents. You are looking to blame Gen x and millennials.

Haidt turns 60 this year

So born in 1963...cusp boomer but definitely a boomer.

That was my point.

Did you actually read his article?

It was not anti youth but citing the obvious …

Mother of 15 yo who has been poisoned by social media victim culture and gender identity confusion …

NP. I agree with the author and with you, PP.

I feel people are resisting the article’s main points because they do not want to accept them; they wish it were not so.

But it is.

I wonder whether they are reading it at all … They are taking the author’s comment that internet age of adulthood should start at 16 literally and twisting obvious concerns about the negative impact of social media on our youth into a inter-generational blame game.

The stats speak for themselves - our youth are suffering intense mental illness problems/ eating disorders/ self harm and substance abuse. The wait list for teen psychiatrists is very long. Mental health facilities for teens are a booming business. They are insanely expensive and insurance routinely refuses to cover residential treatment comprised of evidence based approaches even when the need is clearly there. Ask me how I know.

+1 It doesn't seem like many people commenting have read the article. I don't see Haidt's analysis as an indictment of Gen Z; it's more of an indictment of parents (me included) and society for not offering Gen Z the real-life experiences they need to gain resilience and standing
by while performative social media replace those developmentally necessary experiences. You aren't paying attention if you can't see some merit to this insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, Haidt’s cohort did a shitty job raising their kids but he wants to blame it on the children instead ofntakignnreaponsibilitybfienti. Classic boomer.

Boomers are grandparents. You are looking to blame Gen x and millennials.

Haidt turns 60 this year

So born in 1963...cusp boomer but definitely a boomer.

That was my point.

Did you actually read his article?

It was not anti youth but citing the obvious …

Mother of 15 yo who has been poisoned by social media victim culture and gender identity confusion …

NP. I agree with the author and with you, PP.

I feel people are resisting the article’s main points because they do not want to accept them; they wish it were not so.

But it is.

I wonder whether they are reading it at all … They are taking the author’s comment that internet age of adulthood should start at 16 literally and twisting obvious concerns about the negative impact of social media on our youth into a inter-generational blame game.

The stats speak for themselves - our youth are suffering intense mental illness problems/ eating disorders/ self harm and substance abuse. The wait list for teen psychiatrists is very long. Mental health facilities for teens are a booming business. They are insanely expensive and insurance routinely refuses to cover residential treatment comprised of evidence based approaches even when the need is clearly there. Ask me how I know.

+1 It doesn't seem like many people commenting have read the article. I don't see Haidt's analysis as an indictment of Gen Z; it's more of an indictment of parents (me included) and society for not offering Gen Z the real-life experiences they need to gain resilience and standing
by while performative social media replace those developmentally necessary experiences. You aren't paying attention if you can't see some merit to this insight.

No need to waste time reading his drivel when we have real-life experience with Gen Z. Why would I listen to an old man who clearly doesn't interact with younger people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, Haidt’s cohort did a shitty job raising their kids but he wants to blame it on the children instead ofntakignnreaponsibilitybfienti. Classic boomer.

Boomers are grandparents. You are looking to blame Gen x and millennials.

Haidt turns 60 this year

So born in 1963...cusp boomer but definitely a boomer.

That was my point.

Did you actually read his article?

It was not anti youth but citing the obvious …

Mother of 15 yo who has been poisoned by social media victim culture and gender identity confusion …

NP. I agree with the author and with you, PP.

I feel people are resisting the article’s main points because they do not want to accept them; they wish it were not so.

But it is.

I wonder whether they are reading it at all … They are taking the author’s comment that internet age of adulthood should start at 16 literally and twisting obvious concerns about the negative impact of social media on our youth into a inter-generational blame game.

The stats speak for themselves - our youth are suffering intense mental illness problems/ eating disorders/ self harm and substance abuse. The wait list for teen psychiatrists is very long. Mental health facilities for teens are a booming business. They are insanely expensive and insurance routinely refuses to cover residential treatment comprised of evidence based approaches even when the need is clearly there. Ask me how I know.

+1 It doesn't seem like many people commenting have read the article. I don't see Haidt's analysis as an indictment of Gen Z; it's more of an indictment of parents (me included) and society for not offering Gen Z the real-life experiences they need to gain resilience and standing
by while performative social media replace those developmentally necessary experiences. You aren't paying attention if you can't see some merit to this insight.

No need to waste time reading his drivel when we have real-life experience with Gen Z. Why would I listen to an old man who clearly doesn't interact with younger people?

Speaking of drivel...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, Haidt’s cohort did a shitty job raising their kids but he wants to blame it on the children instead ofntakignnreaponsibilitybfienti. Classic boomer.

Boomers are grandparents. You are looking to blame Gen x and millennials.

Haidt turns 60 this year

So born in 1963...cusp boomer but definitely a boomer.

That was my point.

Did you actually read his article?

It was not anti youth but citing the obvious …

Mother of 15 yo who has been poisoned by social media victim culture and gender identity confusion …

NP. I agree with the author and with you, PP.

I feel people are resisting the article’s main points because they do not want to accept them; they wish it were not so.

But it is.

I wonder whether they are reading it at all … They are taking the author’s comment that internet age of adulthood should start at 16 literally and twisting obvious concerns about the negative impact of social media on our youth into a inter-generational blame game.

The stats speak for themselves - our youth are suffering intense mental illness problems/ eating disorders/ self harm and substance abuse. The wait list for teen psychiatrists is very long. Mental health facilities for teens are a booming business. They are insanely expensive and insurance routinely refuses to cover residential treatment comprised of evidence based approaches even when the need is clearly there. Ask me how I know.

+1 It doesn't seem like many people commenting have read the article. I don't see Haidt's analysis as an indictment of Gen Z; it's more of an indictment of parents (me included) and society for not offering Gen Z the real-life experiences they need to gain resilience and standing
by while performative social media replace those developmentally necessary experiences. You aren't paying attention if you can't see some merit to this insight.

No need to waste time reading his drivel when we have real-life experience with Gen Z. Why would I listen to an old man who clearly doesn't interact with younger people?

PP here. Did you miss the part where he has two teenagers? I'm a mother of multiple Gen Zs who sees truth in his words. Have you not noticed how many young people are struggling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1970s and 1980s, as a GenXer, I never feared being gunned down by one of my classmates in my own school.

Fight, GenZ! I am on your side.

Neither did I. However, kids would also drive to school with a gun in the gun rack in their pickup.

Wait - what?!?!

That would suggest there was much wider availability of guns back then. If that were true, then why weren’t there more school shootings, like, on a daily basis?

Because there was less cultural rot back then.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tik Tok is extraordinarily toxic. All it is doing is training peoples' (especially kids') brains to basically become ADD. Kids these days are absolutely incapable of holding an attention span for more than 3 minutes, because they've grown up their entire lives being completely addicted to 5 second video clips. If you don't get to the punchline for instant gratification in a matter of seconds, kids are incapable of listening for longer. I don't even want to think about the nightmare this is going to turn into 20 years from now when you are trying to teach young students complex topics are university like quantum mechanics or virtually any STEM based materials they require intense listening and deductive reasoning. Kids will absolutely be unable to handle such materials after having their brains turned to mush by social media like TikTok.

I agree. I can see it in my own brain. If the clip isn't interesting in the first twelve seconds, I move on. It is damaging.
But....it is our jobs as parents to keep our kids away from this as long as possible. I saw this very early on in video games, many kid shows and of course tik tok. The three second bite where the video or game has to change in three second increments to keep the child's attention. I tried to keep it from my child as long as possible. He still doesn't have an attention span and can't entertain himself, but I tried.