I appreciate Pew Research for doing good research here. Most teens like social media and don't see it as a problem for mental health. Undercuts all the "even kids want to see this banned" talk we hear
www.pewresearch.org/internet/202...
The UK’s proposed study of social media reduction in kids doubles down on a failed experimental protocol & is likely to produce misleading results. It’s easy to tear apart a study post-hoc so I’m putting my marker down before the study begins: This is a bad study.
open.substack.com/pub/grimoire...
Interesting post suggest claims that EdTech is harming learning are overblown. Also claims of "inflection points" for each state may not always match up with years that states began to really give kids Chromebooks, even the correlational claims may be unreliable. www.eschoolnews.com/digital-lear...
No hate for this particular paper, but #socialmedia seems to have about the highest # of scoping, systematic, umbrella and meta reviews I've ever seen (hey I've contributed to this). I wonder what's up with that?
Had fun yesterday at the Storyteller's Fair here in Orlando. Bestseller of the day was How Madness Shaped History. So BESTSELLER SPECIAL: Signed copy, $14 including postage anywhere in the US, shoot me a DM and we can make it happen. That's cheaper than it is on Amazon right now.
Another great essay on how #socialmedia panics were overblown. Seeing more of these lately. Maybe a corner is (slowly) turning: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
I our essay for the @orlandosentinel William Proctor and I discuss #socialmediaaddiction. Is there such a thing, or is it a moral panic?
www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/04/11/c...
When discussing a contested research field we say, “more research is needed.” But often, decades more research fails to illuminate. Is it ok to sometimes acknowledge some research fields in the social sciences are just fruitless? I discuss this today.
grimoiremanor.substack.com/p/we-dont-al...
The unspoken issue with the recent "replication crisis" research is that replication is only part of the issue. It remains entirely naïve of the issue that even high replicating fields may simply be replicating crud over and over again. Tip of the iceberg really on the social science endeavor.
I wonder if it's possible that the number of "reviews" (narrative, meta, systematic, umbrella, etc.) in the screen time literature may eventually exceed the number of individual studies?
I’ve seen people claim that there are too many women in some careers like psychology and this feminization is detrimental. But is that true? Or are the anti-woke now mirroring the 2020 arguments of the woke? I have a look in my latest essay.
grimoiremanor.substack.com/p/are-there-...
Given all the coverage of the recent Meta #socialmedia trials, it's probably worth reupping my article for Real Clear Investigations on social media "addiction", "dopamine myths" and all the myths that contribute to this moral panic. Have a read:
www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/202...
Mainstream journalists are abdicating their duty. Cartoonists are the real heroes of the moment.
In my essay today I look at the recent #meta lawsuits decided this week in LA and New Mexico. What implications might they have for #freespeech? Will any of this actually help kids?
grimoiremanor.substack.com/p/the-meta-t...
A snippet of text in which Oxford professor Andrew Przybylski says tech companies saying their products are 'addictive' will come back to bite them.
From an interview I did with @shuhbillskee.bsky.social 3ish years ago... boy did he call it. The language of social media 'addiction' didn't start with campaigners, it started in Silicon Valley with techies trying to upsell their products.
No they don’t I study this. It’sa false claim
Actually it hasn’t worked at all well in Australia
Actually even the data from their own study Don’t support this. A little critical thinking in science journalism would be good.
Yeah I’ve taken a look. Even their own days don’t support this. It’sa shit show
That initial claim isn’t correct anyway. Said as an author of one such longitudinal study
OK, can somebody ask Jonathan Haidt why the first citation in the second endnote in his "World Happiness Report" chapter about the evils of social media is an irrelevant article, and why the second is a Substack post that doesn't link to a study?
files.worldhappiness.report/WHR26_Ch03.pdf
This is odd. Chapter 3 of the World Happiness Report, which appears to be weakly sourced and full of questionable claims says social media is bad for kids. But Chapter 4... is a deep dive look at 3 separate meta studies finding that the research pretty clearly finds no evidence to support that.
The example of the UK definitely feels unfair. Germany's contribution to Kosovo may indeed have been symbolic, but they were still operating under a "no intervention" post-WWII guideline at the time IIRC.
Failing policies on #cellphonebans and #socialmedia bans, now a massive data breach of age-verification ID systems.
I'd say the digital abstinence movement is going just swimmingly without any of the problems people warned about.
In my post today I look at my new study. In thousands of UK youth, tiny correlations between social media time and mental health outcomes vanish once other factors in the youth's life are controlled.
grimoiremanor.substack.com/p/new-study-...
also worth noting that anyone who speaks of "dopamine highs" is an imbecile
Also the research doesn't support their claim: www.christopherjferguson.com/Porn%20Meta....
It was just a bad and highly biased piece. By trying to shift the discussion, you're deflecting from your piece's flaws to some kind of logical fallacy where the conclusion is predetermined despite lack of evidence and you pretend to appear befuddled by this.
Also see potential COI issues covered in SciAm for Twenge and others: www.scientificamerican.com/article/does...
I'm open to the conversation about COI, but if it's one-sided that's obvious bias.
It seems you don't seem to mention vested financial interests related to advocacy groups. IIRC APA's Science Directorate head is funded by an openly anti-social media advocacy group, Haidt has founded his own openly anti-tech nonprofit, in addiction to speaking fees and royalties, etc.