Structured argument is gift as well as a discipline of the mind

From Links to Consider, 3/21 by Arnold Kling.

A nice example of how respectable discourse, information sharing, and argument ought to work to advance our knowledge frontiers.  

There is an argument going on right now as to whether children are suffering greater anxiety (especially young girls) and if so what might be the cause of that rising anxiety.  Click through for the plenteous links.  

I have seen a couple of references to a critique of Jonathan Haidt that says that mental health problems among young people preceded social media, and instead the cause of mental health problems is that young people are under too much pressure to succeed, particularly in school. I did not link to the critique, which was heavily based on anecdotes and citations of experts/authorities claiming that academic pressure is/was a big factor, but without any statistical support. If I find the critique again (is Derek Thompson in the Atlantic the source?), I will link to it. In any case, Jean M. Twenge has a rebuttal, posted on Haidt’s substack.

The good thing about an argument like this is we can test it. Three questions come to mind based on these recent pieces and observations:

Do Gen Z teens spend more time on homework than previous generations at the same age? Did homework time increase concurrently with teen depression?

Do Gen Z teens report feeling more academic pressure than previous generations at the same age? Did feelings of academic pressure increase concurrently with teen depression?

Are higher-achieving teens — those fighting for good grades and aiming for college — more likely to be depressed than lower-achieving teens? And has depression increased more sharply among high-achieving teens compared to less academically oriented teens?

The Monitoring the Future study of U.S. teens collects a nationally representative sample in schools every year and has data that can answer all three of those questions. The answers don’t look good for the academic pressure hypothesis.

This is how we would hope these discussions go.

A hypothesis was advanced (mental health was in decline before social media).

A test was proposed that ought to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or not based on conditions which should be true if the hypothesis.

The data is marshaled.

The data does not support the hypothesis.

That is not the end of the discussion.  Possibly the conditions were not viable proxies.  Perhaps there is a matter of degree.  Perhaps the hypothesis is true but not well formulated.  And so on.

My personal suspicion is that we are dealing with a very complex issue with multi-causal elements.  They may each and all be necessary but with sharply different degrees of impact.

My suspicion is that the phenomenon (child and teen anxiety) may be real but less strong or prevalent than is suggested.  That social media is probably a significant factor.  That a reduction in national or cultural pride or self-respect is a contributor.  That an emphasis on childhood self-esteem was misguided and contributive.  That the steepening of the technology S-curve is also contributive, distinct from social media.  That affluence is a contributing factor.  That degradation of traditional social hierarchies are making social competition more cutthroat, etc.