Are smart phones destroying our mental health?::undefined
I’m becoming increasingly skeptical of the “destroying our mental health” framework that we’ve become obsessed with as a society. “Mental health” is so all-encompassing in its breadth (It’s basically our entire subjective experience with the world) but at the same time, it’s actually quite limiting in the solutions it implies, as if there’s specific ailments or exercises or medications.
We’re miserable because our world is bad. The mental health crisis is probably better understood as all of us being sad as we collectively and simultaneously burn the world and fill it with trash, seemingly on purpose, and we’re not even having fun. The mental health framework, by converting our anger, loneliness, grief, and sadness into medicalized pathologies, stops us from understanding these feelings as valid and actionable. It leads us to seek clinical or technical fixes, like whether we should limit smart phones or whatever.
Maybe smart phones are bad for our mental health, but I think reducing our entire experience with the world into mental health is the worst thing for our mental health.
🥇
Lemmy Gold for this comment
Maybe smart phones are bad for our mental health, but I think reducing our entire experience with the world into mental health is the worst thing for our mental health.
In much the same way as individual people are blamed for CO2 emissions and make you worry about your carbon footprint as a cynical ploy, it’s a type of shifting the blame from where it belongs.
The thought process behind this is: “your personal mental health being bad must be a personal failing rather than external factors, or else the system would need to be changed. And that simply would hurt profits.”
I thought you were implying that the mental health framework is an oversimplification, but then you oversimplify the issue yourself by saying that the world is bad. Neither is the truth. It may also still be worth invetigating data related to mental health issues and mobile phone usage.
No, I am saying it is overused, not oversimplified.
Oversimplification on its own is usually one of the weakest critiques of a model, because the point of any model is to simplify. For example, reducing the entirety of the sun and the Earth and everything in or on them as two point masses in an empty space is a ridiculous, almost offensive oversimplification, but it’s really useful for understanding our orbit. It’s an insufficient critique to say this model of our galaxy is oversimplified, because it obviously has utility. Often, the best theories or models are really simple. When we have really good, simple models, we often call them things like “elegant.”
Mental health, as a model, is actually extremely complex. You can spend a lifetime getting advanced degrees in that field and you’d probably barely scratch its surface. I wouldn’t dream of calling it an oversimplification. If anything, I’d say you’re more likely to find a fruitful critique going in the other direction.
Ok, let me see if I get you.
“Mental health” is so all-encompassing in its breadth (It’s basically our entire subjective experience with the world) but at the same time, it’s actually quite limiting in the solutions it implies, as if there’s specific ailments or exercises or medications.
Are you saying that mental health is too limiting in terms of its solutions, because the real world is not involved? For example, I might come to a doctor saying that my child is restless. The child might be prescribed with medicine for an ADHD diagnosis, whereas the root cause is a flaky parent.
I agree with this point.
We’re miserable because our world is bad. The mental health crisis is probably better understood as all of us being sad as we collectively and simultaneously burn the world and fill it with trash, seemingly on purpose, and we’re not even having fun.
How is this not an over-simplification? People are miserable for all kinds of reasons. Of course the problem and the solution is always some combination of the world and how we interpret the world, but sometimes the problem lies more in the interpretation than in the world, right? It may have nothing or nearly nothing to do with climate change or the state of the world at large.
The mental health framework, by converting our anger, loneliness, grief, and sadness into medicalized pathologies, stops us from understanding these feelings as valid and actionable. It leads us to seek clinical or technical fixes, like whether we should limit smart phones or whatever.
Which may be valid under some circumstances, but sometimes a clinical fix as you call it might be in order. Sometimes people are just extremely unkind to themselves due to conditionings of the past, which are not relevant anymore today.
I would agree that solutions to mental health problems need to be examined in a biopsychosocial context, but whereas you say that just looking at the person and not the world is too limiting, I think just looking at the state of the world is too limiting.
The child might be prescribed with medicine for an ADHD diagnosis, whereas the root cause is a flaky parent.
I’d just like to say that this does not tend to be the issue in ADHD diagnoses, and is framing the issue of ADHD in a very incorrect way.
Perhaps. I am not an expert. It was an example of a problem where the diagnosis depends more on the social context than on the biological context.
My wife is a family systems therapist and she told me once of a case, where one group of therapist had a child diagnosed with autism and another group found that the parents were the problem and that the child was only behaving in a certain way as a reaction to the parents’ behavior. They had a meeting on the topic and after re-evaluation they decided that the child was not autistic after all.
I understand that singular cases do happen, it’s just a fairly irresponsible framing to use as an example imo.
I agree with this point.
👍
How is this not an over-simplification? People are miserable for all kinds of reasons. Of course the problem and the solution is always some combination of the world and how we interpret the world, but sometimes the problem lies more in the interpretation than in the world, right? It may have nothing or nearly nothing to do with climate change or the state of the world at large
Maybe it is, but is it useful? Right now, our currently accepted model for dealing with our widespread sadness is to go to doctors. Biden administration recently announced it wants to start screening every American over a certain age for anxiety.
I propose we consider that maybe people are more sad because the world is actually getting worse in a variety of ways. Sure, it’s simple, but I think it’s a great starting point. This way of thinking won’t help us understand every single so-called mental health problem, but isn’t it a reasonable starting point, rather than screening every American for anxiety.
would agree that solutions to mental health problems need to be examined in a biopsychosocial context, but whereas you say that just looking at the person and not the world is too limiting, I think just looking at the state of the world is too limiting.
Sure. That’s fine. I even agree. Multiple models and theories can coexist and have utility, even if they’re conflicting. My main point is that we’re seemingly stuck on one. There will never be one theory that explains anything perfectly, and I think the one we’re using now is particularly harmful for the reasons that I have set out.
Yes
I keep saying it’s not the smartphone. It’s the social media people are constantly using on their smartphone.
Reading a book all day? Great!
Reading all celebrity gossip, and what your “friends” say they’re doing? Not great.Reading stuff like this all day isn’t great.
Yeah, I don’t use any other social media except lemmy, and in honestly thinking about replacing it’s location on my home screen with something to read that’s better for my mind.
deleted by creator
Why can’t it be both?
It’s just a tool. If there is someone who destroys your mental health it’s you or sometimes other people.
Heroin is just a painkiller. A slotmachine is just a game. Guns don’t kill people. A cigarette is just a plant leaf in a piece of paper.
While all true, there are clear merits to regulate them.
Are smartphones bad? I don’t know. But I wouldn’t reject the idea on the spot. I don’t think it’s the device perse, it’s how we use them. There are assholes among us.
Exactly.
The libertarian paradise of Somalia has never really appealed to me.
As for smartphones, it’s no secret that App designers pull every trick they can to increase engagement a.k.a. addiction.
I can definitely see a future where some of the more sinister tricks have mandatory opt-out or opt-in options.
What does “regulate them” look like? It’s not phones doing it. It’s the social media apps doing it, as far as phones are concerned.
it’s an awfully convenient and accessible tool though.
It’s a tool that opens up a lot of dangers (bullying/misinformation/addiction loops created by companies). Oddly, we don’t seem to educate kids on how to handle the tool properly.
Yeah…
I say as I scroll on my smartphone
Weeeellll… They’re probably not helping.
deleted by creator
I’m thinking about getting into matrix, how has it been for you?
deleted by creator
Good luck
deleted by creator
For vehicle navigation, Waze is amazing.
deleted by creator
Industrialization and capitalism have figured largely in an intergenerational mental health crisis. But it’s so ubiquitous we think dysfunctional behavior is normal and acceptable like vodka addiction in Russia.
Social media and dysfunctional smartphone behavior is yet another cope, yet another way to tolerate a stressful live forced upon us. And it’s probably less harmful than other coping methods such as drinking or domestic violence.
How bad is vodka addiction in russia?
Pretty bad but in the early 20th century it was infamously bad.
The Soviet union illustrated how booze is also the opiate of the miserables when the economy is dire. I can’t say if alcoholism is or was less dire in the States, but both are on the same page finally that alcoholism is a problem to be reduced (despite an both states liking the taxes from the booze market.)
So giving phones to kids and not parenting them enough to ensure they learn how to interact with people IRL is bad?
I thought we had kinda already come to that conclusion some years ago tbh
(Not your fault OP) Clickbaity headline
Unfortunately it is very difficult to be good parents when both parents have to stay out over 10 hrs per day to work. This is the part that is always overlooked in these news. Problem is not the smartphones. It’s modern society
Really good point tbh, and really just adds to my point, not just bad parenting through negligence, but also an unfortunate lack of presence from otherwise good parents even being possible due to both needing full time jobs.
I’m not gonna bang the 4dww drum in this thread, but reduced-day-same-pay working weeks need to happen yesterday, so many tangible improvements to society are just hanging there.
Absolutely agree. We should have gone from single income households to “2 part time incomes” households
Op is a bot lol
Oh lol, well, I guess strictly not the bot’s fault either
Though I guess probably also not necessary to reassure the bot.
^(Remember this in the AI uprising)
Eh. Wasn’t much there to destroy anyways. At least i got memes and cat pics out of the deal.
Sometimes I dream of a flip phone or regressing to using a Treo but the core services like Facetime, etc. are quite handy. I’m thinking when I get much older it’ll be easier. Still got a Palm PDA that runs on AAA’s sitting in a box waiting… but of course the year 2038(?) problem is a thing and there’s a capacitor I’ll have to replace on the board eventually. But syncing things locally sounds neat since I’m back down to one phone and one computer now.
deleted by creator
