Jonathan Haidt: "Social networks are a threat to the mental health of young people"

L & # 39; American Jonathan Haidt He is one of the most influential social and moral psychologists in the world. He is Professor of Ethical Leadership at the Stern Business School of New York University and has been featured as one of the world's leading thinkers two years in a row, first by Foreign politic in 2012 and then by Perspective in 2013

His books The spirit of the righteous: why politics and religion divide reasonable people (2012) and The morgue of the American mind: how good intentions and bad ideas prepare a generation to failure (2018) – not yet available in Spanish – were the best sellers of the New York Times.

This year, he arrived in Buenos Aires to participate, between April 22nd and 24th, in activities organized by Argentina 2030, the long-term prospective program of the head of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Nation headed by Iván Petrella. The visit took place as part of the program's international guest cycle, which aims to nurture public debate and bring new ideas or perspectives to government officials, non-profit organizations, universities and the general public.

While in the city, Haidt was in Infobae to talk about the main axes of his research over the years: happiness, the negative interference of social networks in our lives and the parental overprotection which, according to him, ruins the new generations

– in The hypothesis of happiness (2006), you explore the relationship between ancient philosophies and modern science regarding the concept of happiness. How can we live our lives in a way that makes us happier?

– The first thing to keep in mind is that happiness is not just a feeling that one feels when one is doing something. It's something that goes through a person when it's connected in the right way. The conclusion that I came to after reading a lot about East and West thoughts and about modern psychology is that we are happier when we have the right contacts with them. others, with productive work and something bigger than ourselves.

– How can we establish this "good link" in our relationships, family, with our work?

-We can listen to the advice of antiquity. They tell us that we are all hypocrites and very adept at finding all that is bad in the other person – "why she should not have told me that" and "why I was perfectly justified in what I've done "- and that's why we peel with friends and family. If we recognize that we ourselves have many flaws and that we have probably acted in the same way as the other person we are accusing, we will learn to forgive and be more grateful. These are two masterful skills for improving relationships. There is a lot of research in the field of positive psychology. Daily thank you exercises are as effective as Prozac in reducing depression.

– As you mentioned, your book contains many ideas from great thinkers of the past, such as Plato. How can they be applied today?

– I started the book by simply reading everything I could about the old West and East. I took all the psychological statements and organized them into categories. Concepts such as "what does not kill you makes you stronger", or "life is what we think". Our vision of the world counts more than the realities of the world. And after comparing that with what we think about today in psychology, we realize that all these concepts are true. It's not that in the old days they were smarter than now, but they wrote a lot of things. These writings were then "filtered" for 2,000 years; Only the best has arrived. In this way, this filtering process is an advantage for us because we can read the best of the thought of ancient China, India and Mediterranean civilizations.

They had a lot of ideas. They tried to understand the physical world and most of what they said was wrong. The reading of ancient treatises on physics or chemistry has no value, but when it comes to understanding one's mind – consciousness and human relations – one finds there, especially the stoics of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, Buddhists. In India and later in China, they were extremely wise and many people today find comfort in their teachings.

My country has gone mad in the last three years. The truth is that it scares the situation. And a few months ago, it seemed like a nuclear war with North Korea was going to take place, and I live in Manhattan, which would be one of the main targets. At that time, I started reading Marco Aurelio in the morning because most people lived in chaos and danger throughout history. The stoics and Buddhists are the best guides to help us lead a pleasant, calm and productive life in the midst of all this chaos.

-In The spirit of the righteousyou examine how people's morals are formed by emotion and intuition and not by rational thought. Why does this happen?

-It is necessary to understand the kind of creatures that we are and how evolution evolves. All animal spirits are instruments for finding patterns. The brains take the information received by the senses, treat it and then come in the form of behavior. This also happens with the human being. We develop language, we do not know exactly when, but there is a million years or so. When this happened, the brain did not change configuration and did not pbad the control of thought and reasoning. This is why our reasoning is not very good. So, we are basically animals, only we develop this other system of conscious reasoning.

But in my books, I quote research that suggests that our conscious reasoning has not necessarily evolved to help us decide what to do. He has evolved to help us influence others. We are very good at navigating gossip networks and social responsibility. This can be seen very clearly in other people. We have an argument, they expose their argument, we refute it and, surprisingly, they do not change their position, but invent another argument. Then we realize that their reasoning is detached from their emotions and their intuitions, but they think the same thing about us.

– Do you think that social networks help to alienate people who do not think the same and encourage this culture of accusation instead of debating in a deep and productive way?

– Yes, definitely. I think that today, it is clear that social networks pose a threat to the stability of democracies around the world because they are constantly indignant, and it is a threat to mental health, especially for people . young The Anxiety and Depression Index has increased significantly, at least in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, and more women than men are suffering from it. This is not related to the simple fact of watching a screen, but specifically with social networks. I believe that in recent years we have begun to realize that even though networks bring good things, I personally think that there are many more and that the danger is great for a healthy society. .

-Especially for Generation Z, which is in a more vulnerable situation than previous generations …

-All generations like to laugh at the generations that follow them. People like me do not care about the millennia, but they come out pretty well. They are creative, they started their own business. Generation Z members, born after 96 years, were 10 or 11 years old when they started using networks. My daughter was 9 years old when her friends started creating Instagram accounts. They grew up in a world of constant comparisons and with the need to behave in a certain way in front of the world. This is unhealthy, especially for young girls, who are already more aware of this social comparison. The aggression of men is more physical, they become bullying. When they received a cell phone, they stopped bullying. The aggression of women was always more relational. They compare themselves to each other. Then social networks have further complicated the most difficult years of a girl's life.

– Only social networks make a generation so different from the previous ones?

-We do not know it. We can not even prove that the reason is social networks. The moment is perfect for that to be the reason, and it would be the most logical and coherent answer. In the United States, another important factor is that in the 90s we began to overprotect our children and not let them play with other children at the age of 6 or 7, what we did before. But in the '90s, when our crime rate was falling – paradoxically, because there was a big wave of crime when I was younger, but in the' 90s, everyone was worried about removing our children, which almost never happened in the United States. So we kept them at home, under the supervision of an adult, we did not let them play alone. And then, when these guys come to college, they have problems because they can not solve their own problems. They ask the authorities or teachers of educational institutions to resolve a conflict. "I want you to punish this person for what he said." The largest generation has affected the normal development of these boys. By overprotecting them, we make them morally dependent and they do not know how to solve their problems themselves, which complicates them at the university. And now, they came to work, it is very difficult for them.

-What are the effects of this overprotection on the social and political level?

– We can not say for sure yet, because the first litter of Generation Z has just come out of the United States a year ago. Most of them are fine, they want to learn and work. The theme here is to understand if 5% are suffering from anxiety and depression or if 15%. We do not know if high anxiety levels will improve as they get older. My concern is that people who grew up with social networks have a lot more chronic anxiety, spend a lot more time in their childhood worrying about what others are saying and that it generates a high level of stress hormones, cortisol. And there is evidence that if we have high levels of cortisol for months and months, brain development is impaired: the brain is programmed to live in a dangerous world. And the effects can be permanent. I hope not, but it is possible that these high levels of anxiety travel with this generation up to adulthood.

– The solution would then be to leave the social networks for a while at least?

-Yes, there are three experiences that prove it. I am doing a literary review of all the studies that I have been able to find and the evidence shows that, at least in the case of university students and older students, people are happier a few days after having stopped using social networks. Since the experiments were not conducted on 10- or 11-year-olds, we have no results, but I can predict that if we stop using social networks or drastically reduce their use, we will be happier.

-The FOMO syndrome or Fear of missing is one of the main reasons why young people are reluctant to leave the networks …

-Exactly, it's a trap. In the United States, very few parents want their children to be part of the networks, but the argument that children use is "but everyone is in. I feel outside". That's what my son tells me. Then most parents give up. Many children do not want to be, but they see that all others share their life in the networks and do not want to be left behind. Then it's a problem of social coordination. Platforms like Facebook and Instagram have trapped us, and there is social pressure to do things we do not want to do. This must be solved centrally. I do not necessarily talk about the government, but there will be a change if, in each school, the principal clearly asks parents not to leave their children in social networks while they are not in high school, or say "let's get it out" of elementary school, hopefully they're 15 years old. "No boy should have social networks, and even if 10% lie and secretly register, it's very easy for parents to say no, but if 90% of boys are in the networks, that's a good idea. is much more difficult.