The Anxious Generation Page Header

The Anxious Generation – Jonathan Haidt

by Book ReviewsChildren, Teens and DigiTech

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist.

This is different from a CyberPsychologist, in that social psychology takes a broader view of issues (including digital technology) that may or may not affect a collective group of similar people within an environment or context.

A CyberPsychologist will focus more on the individual level of how a person (who has specific traits that are similar to traits others have) interacts with and is impacted by various types of digital technology. 

There are likely to be a number of CyberPsychologists who will disagree with a lot of the concepts, propositions and conclusions within this book. I would suggest that this is partly because the worldview and direction of study differs quite substantially, but also partly because he has not focussed on Digital Technology as his primary psychology speciality.

For those who do disagree with his approach to, and misreading of, the data the suggestion is that he is cherry picking research that fits his theories while ignoring research that contradicts it. Correlation does not imply causation.

Being a relatively new research area, there are many nuances, subtleties and new findings in CyberPsychology that a social scientist may not take into account when diving into these topics. 

I don’t agree with everything he lays out in this book. He seems to veer off the main topic on several occasions, creating a few tenuous links back to his topic or argument. Additionally, some of his explanations are based on his very specific worldview that does not necessarily link back to other research. It seems a one-sided argument, that does not consider or weigh up other contradictory evidence.

However, he does present a number of compelling arguments and data to the reader that showcases a correlation between the launch of smartphones / social media and the increase in mental health conditions amongst teens in the last few decades. 

  • He talks through how the role ‘helicopter parenting’ has delayed the development of a sense of independence amongst teens and how the fear of real-world dangers has played into parents giving their children smartphones at a younger and younger age. 
  • He includes how Big Tech exploits very specific developmental stages and present the case of how different online elements affect teenage girls and teenage boys differently. 
  • He finishes by providing a number of suggested solutions for parents, schools and institutions and how we may be able to reverse the social trends we are witnessing amongst younger children.

Although the book is written for a USA audience, and based a mostly on data and research from the US, the theories and solutions he presents are still mostly relevant for other English speaking Western audiences.

Whether you agree or disagree with Mr Haidt on the issues and solutions he presents in his book, it is still worth a read. But, like any argument, it is always worth balancing it with those who have an alternative perspective on the same issues around how Big Tech, smartphones and social media may be influencing us and our teens.

We still have so much to learn about the longer-term impact of Digital Technology on human behaviour and psychology, especially amongst children, but we also know more than we did a decade ago. 

You can read a review in favour of his book in The Atlantic here, and a critique of his theories, research and book in The Daily Beast here.

Below are a few interviews Jonathan Haidt has conducted explaining more about the theories, concepts and solutions he presents throughout his book.

You can find out more about his book The Anxious Generation here.

About Jonathan Haidt:

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis, The Righteous Mind and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind.

Book Review Related Articles
Digital-Families

Digital families

by Digital Home

The impact of childhood gadget use is a hot topic and often in the press.

Anecdotally, I am hearing a lot of parents’ stories about the negative impact they feel digital technology is having on their children’s emotions, self-esteem and psychological well-being. 

Simultaneously, parents are aware that their children not having a smartphone can be alienating for them at school and amongst their peer groups.

And it’s not just about ‘screen time’. It’s about their overall mobile phone reliance and behaviour.

Jonathan Haidt has just launched his new book, ‘The Anxious Generation‘, which is bound to be a fascinating read/listen, and is accompanied by a few interesting articles that summarise and discuss some of these issues.

An article in The Atlantic, by Jonathan Haidt himself, is available to read in The Atlantic and is calling for the immediate ending of phone-based childhood. The subtitle ‘The environment in which kids grow up today is hostile to human development’, provides interesting statistics and insights which are a prelude to the reading of his book.

A New Statesman article talks about, how there seems to be an increasing level of parental fear of physical danger in the real world (which has dropped steeply since the 1990s) and supply their school-going child with a smartphone ‘for physical safety reasons’. Simultaneously, parents underestimate the danger of releasing their children into the online world. Children also seem to be shifting from a state of high play time to high screen time, with teenage years being almost ubiquitously spent online.

The most impactful quote from this article is another argument for the need to restrict the use of phones in schools: “The value of phone-free and even screen-free education,” Haidt concludes, “can be seen in the choices that many tech executives make about the schools they send their children to, such as the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, where all digital devices – phones, laptops, tablets – are prohibited.” 

A Guardian article reviewing the book adds a bit of further insight: “Smartphones pull us away from our immediate surroundings and the people closest to us, rendering us, as the sociologist Sherry Turkle puts it, “forever elsewhere””. This may be one of the most insightful observations of our technology use and how it impacts our real-world social connections. 

In his book ‘Lost Connections‘, Johann Hari talks about how our loss of social connections was already on the rise before smartphones became ubiquitous. Social media seemed to promise a re-connection with that lost community that gave us meaning and purpose but instead delivered only empty connections. 

I hear a lot of conversations around the most appropriate amount of screentime is appropriate for various ages of children, without considering the social and behavioural reasons why children seek to spend more time on their gadgets. we often forget that children learn through observation of others’ behaviour much more than what they are told to do. Social and group conformity is engrained in our ability to survive as humans. 

Before around 8-9 years old, children’s primary focus is on their role in the family. In this capacity, they observe and copy the behaviour of those older than them. Take the example of a young child pushing their doll/toy around in a pram. They are practising future adult behaviour. If they are observing their parents and older siblings staring at a shiny screen, it is not surprising that they interpret this behaviour as ‘how to adult’ and would desire to copy and mimic this behaviour in their own lives as soon as possible. Reducing the amount of time they have on the device may make it even more appealing and desirable. 

So, the question remains for me: how are we, as adults, demonstrating responsible gadget use to the younger generations? The adage ‘do as I say, not as I do’ seems hypocritical at best.

Without wishing to judge anyone, because we are all different – instead of lamenting the analogue youth, we may have enjoyed pre-Y2K, maybe we all need to carve out more in-person time to relive the values of that childhood with our children – with no digital devices insight.

Most advice around reducing the amount of time spent on digital tech involves increasing the number of activities and interests outside of the digital world.

So, my advice to parents would be summarised by a quote from point 8. of The Atlantic article, “If parents don’t replace screen time with real-world experiences involving friends and independent activity, then banning devices will feel like deprivation, not the opening up of a world of opportunities. The main reason why the phone-based childhood is so harmful is because it pushes aside everything else. Smartphones are experience blockers. Our ultimate goal should not be to remove screens entirely, nor should it be to return childhood to exactly the way it was in 1960. Rather, it should be to create a version of childhood and adolescence that keeps young people anchored in the real world while flourishing in the digital age”.

Related Articles

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Ruth Guest

Ruth Guest (Sersha) | Ep 1

by Children, Teens and DigiTechExpertPodcasts

In this episode, Ruth tells us about:

  • Who she is and what got her started on the CyberPsychology journey.
  • Why she started Sersha.
  • What Sersha is and how it is designed as social media training for pre-teens (to reduce the risk of social media) and to help parents have better conversations with their children about social media.
  • Who she’s looking for to help her test the ‘Beta model’ of her education simulator.
  • Where she is hoping to take Sersha in the near future (watch out for the September 2024 launch of the next stage).
  • What her favourite (and recommended reading) CyberPsychology books are.

Parents: Test Sersha’s BETA Game with your 8-13 year old here or scan the QR Code.

Go to Sersha’s website

Visit Ruth’s personal website

Connect on LinkedIn:

Linkedin

Ruth’s recommended reading:

What the acronyms mean:
  • IADT: Institute of Art, Design and Technology (Dublin, Ireland)
  • MVP: Minimum Viable Product
  • TAM: Technology Acceptance Model (the older we are, the less likely we are to accept technology)
  • CMC: Computer-mediated communication (how we communicate online)
Production Caveat:

I am not a journalist, media personality or producer by trade or training. I am a psychologist who used to do corporate marketing.

So, please forgive me the current not-so-professional nature of the videos. I’m hoping the value of the information shared will overshadow the less than glossy nature of the production you watch.

The quality should improve with time and practice.

Do you have any CyberPsychology related questions?

If so, please get in touch. I will do my best to either answer your questions or find another expert who hopefully can. Use any of these options to send through your questions.

Other Podcasts
242A. Good or Bad Gadgets

Are phones and gadgets good or bad for you? Yes!

by Digital Home

Experts regularly debate, agree and disagree about how good or bad digital technology (DigiTech) is for us – whether we are young, old, working or playing. Until we are further down the line in this great social experiment called Digital Technology and Social Media, the expert opinion (including mine) comes down to the individual expert bias and perspective.  

A recent Guardian article summarises the opinions gathered from a few expert interviews and showcases their divided opinions on how good or bad DigiTech is. We know both from a historical and an anecdotal perspective that the introduction of any form of technology changes us culturally and individually. DigiTech is no exception.

I think a better set of questions to ask is – How does using digital technology…:

1. Impact my mental and physical well-being?

2. Improve or add to my life goals?

3. Add to or take away from my ‘in-person’ community / relationship with others?

And probably the most important question of all is:

4. Do I feel like I’m in control of, or being controlled by, my DigiTech use?

If the answer to any of these is not what you’d like it to be, then maybe something needs to change. 

The greatest concern is around the impact on children. Research is increasingly revealing that children under 13 (and probably really children under 16) should be restricted in their use of DigiTech. If a phone is needed from a safety perspective, there are plenty of alternatives to a smartphone.

They are cognitively, emotionally, psychologically, socially, and developmentally too young. Ruth Guest from Sersha uses a great comparison of giving a child a smartphone being in the same category as giving a child a set of keys to your car. 

More than anything, the thing we have most lost out on, is human connectivity and the life benefits that come from a deep, relational, accountable, reliable community. This is where children and teens are losing out the most.

In a Netflix documentary called ‘Live to 100, Secrets of the Blue Zones‘, Dan Buettner looks at the key elements that promote longer life in pockets of areas where both men and women are living substantially longer and healthier lives than the average. In this series, and in his Ted Talk, he lists just a few key attributes that contribute to a longer life.

One of these is being actively involved and participating in an in-person community. International travel and leaving our communities in search of career and personal fulfilment have gone some way to weaken ties with those intimate relational communities. And we don’t always work hard enough to build a community in the place we find ourselves for work. 

Similarly, in her Ted Talk, Susan Pinker has come to a matching conclusion. It seems to be that having people around us that we can rely on in our physical space is an important element of longevity and a life well lived.

Granted, not all relationships are created equal, but if we are spending the majority of our lives creating (often international) digital connections with others, rather than investing in (local) in-person relationships we are losing out on a fundamental element of what it is to be human.

We are living with unprecedented levels of online connection, but physical ‘aloneness’ – resulting in a major loneliness epidemic.

They say that loneliness strips you of 7 years of your life. Being lonely is stressful. It’s hard work. It’s mentally exhausting. It’s soul-destroying. It is why solitary confinement is such a harsh form of punishment and being a social outcast is so emotionally and psychologically devastating. 

Even those who are introverts – who need time on their own to emotionally and mentally recover from the energy required to engage with others – still need regular social interactions. 

The thing is, in the same way that eating too much of the wrong type of food too often leads to progressive weight gain, leading to negative longer-term physical consequences, spending too much time engaging in online communities and not enough time in our off-line communities results in a negative longer-term emotional and social consequences.

If you can relate to this, below are a few suggested things to think through:

  • How strong are your current offline connections?
  • Who, in your social or family circle, could you call at any time and know they will physically be able to help you?
  • On a scale of 1 to 10, how lonely do you feel (with 10 being really lonely)?
  • If you wanted to spend more time with friends/family or meet new people, what could you do or where could you go that doesn’t involve using digital technology? 
  • What changes do you need to make to my DigiTech use to increase the amount of time you physically spend with others?
Related Articles
241. DigiTech at School

Technology, education and pre-teen years

by Children, Teens and DigiTech

I seem to be having a number of discussions with parents (particularly mothers) about the quantity and type of technology that is being used within schools for the purposes of education.

Screentime and homework
The biggest concern, especially for parents of children in younger age groups, has been children only being able to access homework via their smartphones. The parent’s concern is mostly around the issue of limiting their child’s screen time – not being able to do so if they need it for their homework. 
 
Parent’s who have raised this concern with me have expressed the fear that they may be the only parent who has this concern, and they don’t have enough agency to make any change against the school their child attends. 
 
For these parents, I ask them if there are other parents who feel the same and, if there are, to go together to raise their concerns with the school. We often think we are the only ones who feel a certain way and do not want to speak up in case we are a lone voice in a crowd. But, it is often that others feel the same as we do, but are also concerned they are the only ones to be so. 
 
Focus and distraction
From a neuro-cyberpsychology perspective I have a lot of concern for the level of technology / screen based use in the education of young people. Using constantly shifting information and media reduces the brains capacity for ‘deep’ information processing – resulting in rapid attention shifting/decreased ability to sustain attention and reduced ability to deliberate. It reduces the ability to pay attention and focus while increasing distractibility. The brain is still growing at super-speed at this age – and is still building those key neural pathways for overall (although are still neuroplastic in adulthood) brain structure and sets the groundwork for adult behaviour and capabilities. 
 
Children of this age should not have the kind of exposure they do to screens and content that they do. It is a parent’s prerogative as to how much screen exposure a child gets, but schools and teachers should minimise engagement in online content and should not be giving them homework that can only be/is mostly accessed via a screen.
 
Left-behind or left out?
I often hear the argument that they will be ‘left behind’ their peers if they do not engage in digital technology. But this is not true. Just look at how little exposure the big tech CEO’s (the very people who develop the hard and software used) give their children to digital technology. 
 
What is of greater relevance is the notion of children being teased or ostracised by peer-groups because they don’t have the same access as others in the group.
Post-apocalyptic 'educational' content
The second concern is some the type of content that children are exposed to, as part of their education. A concerned mum recently asked me to review a hyper-realistic animation video her 10 year old son had to watch as part of the English curriculum. The is video part of The Literacy Shed materials available for educational use – and can be viewed here. 
 
Having been disturbed by the video her son had to watch, the mum found other  parents who were equally  concerned about the content. 
 
I suspect that not all parents would like their pre-teen children to be exposed to action-based or violent content – whether animated, AI generated, real or CGI. Even if the content is used for ‘educational purposes’. Surely there is plenty of alternative content that can be used to achieve exactly the same educational purposes that is not of an intense or violent nature or has triggering potential?
De-sensitisation and information processing
I’m guessing a child would need to watch the video a number of times in order to be able to answer the questions. Some psychologists refer to repeated exposure to disturbing/extreme content as ‘fear conditioning’ and studies show that constant exposure to this type of  content can lead to desensitisation to violence, decrease in empathy and suppression of effective information processing. Although the studies were done on older video-gamers, it seems a little ironic to me that children are expected to process information to answer specific questions after repeated watching of post-apocalyptic/violent material that may reduce their ability to process information. 
 
Pre-teens and peer acceptance
Around the double-digit-age mark, children start separating their self-identity-base from the family, creating bonds with peers and are beginning to feel pressure to conform. They are hyper-sensitive to criticism and resist the possibility of being viewed as an outsider. So if a child feels uncomfortable with this type of content, they are unlikely to admit as much to teaches and peers – especially if their peers are playing/watching a lot of violent video games (which a surprising number are at this age). 
 
Developmental pace and emotional safeguarding
Every child is different and develops at a different pace to others – so what will trigger or soothe them differs accordingly. One 9 year old viewing the content as being ‘cool’ is no indication that all children at a similar age will feel just as ‘cool’ about it.
 
The context of the video watching plays a role in how children feel. For some children watching a potentially ’scary’ movie or content could feel safe when they are with a trusted adult/parent – where they know they are physically, emotionally and psychologically protected and safe-guarded.
 
Watching the same content on their own, in front of peers or within a school environment will have a different impact – as they will not feel that same level of safeguarding that comes from those they trust to protect them. 
 
Social developmental and online risk
From a developmental perspective, this is the age range that children are most vulnerable to the internet and online harms/risks. This is when they are starting to learn the differences between right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice. They are not ‘little adult’s’. They are psychologically incapable of making as much sense of the world as grown-ups are.
 
As every child mentally develops at different rates, so what is ok for one, will be very much not ok for another. Boys are also more vulnerable and less resilient than girls at age 9/10 y.o. – so it is interesting that the content in the video is focussed on more male-based characteristics of fighting, defending and conquering. 
 
Personality and hyper-sensitivity
From a personality perspective, some people are a lot more hyper-sensitive than others and more vulnerable when exposed to external stimuli. They feel more deeply and have a stronger brain mirroring network – which means that they are highly socially and emotionally intelligent and are more likely to internally experience similar emotions, feelings and actions of others (virtual or in-person) they are watching or engaging with.
 
Exposure to this type of content for a highly-sensitive 9-10 year old would, therefore, be experienced at a much deeper level than for others of the same age. 
Do phones belong in schools?

This is a highly sensitive and polarising topic. Mobile phones have been banned in schools in France, Italy and Portugal. In October 2023 the UK government announced that ‘Mobile phone use to be banned during the school day, including at break time’, in an attempt to tackle online bullying, decrease distractions and increase attention and focus. 

A recent Guardian article reports on some of the benefits of reducing hyper-connectivity in the school environment and the resulting increase in attention and face-to-face connectivity. It show-cases a Massachusetts (USA) school that has introduced a Light Phone with minimal functionality, that results in less time spent on screens, fewer distractions and more meaningful interactions in and out of classes.  

A Rutgers University–New Brunswick study found that mobile use during educational sessions can reduce overall test scores. 

‘The study found that having a device didn’t lower students’ scores in comprehension tests within lectures but did lower their scores in the end-of-term exam by at least 5 percent, or half a grade. This finding shows for the first time that the main effect of divided attention in the classroom is on long-term retention.

In addition, when the use of electronic devices was allowed in class, performance was also poorer for students who did not use devices as well as for those who did’.

What is the 'digital technology use in schools' solution?

That is not an easy question to answer.

We are still in the middle of a digital technology social experiment – on-boarding all available technology and finding out the longer-term (positive and negative) consequences as we go along. Sometimes after investing a lot of money and social capital into the said technology. 

It will take us a few decades to really understand the human and social consequences of our digital technology use in the education system. But, it does seem that teachers and parents needs to take a more cautionary approach to what and how much digital integration is included.

Maybe we need to revert to a greater degree of ‘non-digital education’. It worked for many generations, and still has that capacity to be a highly effective form of learning. 

Related Articles
Tech Habits at Home

How do your tech habits compare to the average UK person?

by Personal Tech Use

When I first tell people what I do, they seem to have an interesting need to launch into a series of guilt-like confessions about their technology use, probably because we all feel some level of guilt over the amount of time we spend in front of our screens – because, somehow, we know doing so has changed and affected us. 

So, to get you to think about a few ways you use technology, here are a few questions for you to answer and compare with the average UK user. 

80% of people report having their mobile phone with them for all by 2 hours of the working day.

Most of us tend to check our phones just before we go to sleep at night and again first thing in the morning – even before going to the toilet.

On average, we check our phones around 100 times a day (you can double this number for 16 – 24-year-olds)). That is equal to about every 10 mins. This has increased by 20% since the beginning of Lockdown 1.

Most people leave notifications on and check them within 30 secs of receipt – regardless of the source.

People use the internet for an average of 4h 25m every day.

We spend around 2h 25m on social media, on average, every day.

That is more time than what we spend eating and drinking. 

Related Articles
changing expectations

Changing social engagements and expectations

by Cultural & Society Norms

Most people get a little frustrated when someone checks their phone in the middle of a conversation. But, most of us do it… on a regular basis.

It never used to be socially acceptable to pick something up and start reading it while talking to another. Not many people would pick up a newspaper or a book and start reading it in the middle of a conversation. Yet, we regularly do this with our mobile. It’s become normal.

As a society, we’ve slipped seamlessly into some previously unacceptable social habits with our tech and media usage – especially when others are present. As individuals, workers, families and as a culture, we need to address, challenge and reshift these norms to ones that are more focussed on those physically present with us, rather than those virtually present in another part of the world. 

The interesting phenomenon we are now facing hinges on how much less time we spend building and maintaining the stronger and deeper relationships we have with physical others (which tend to be more enduring and grounding), in contrast to the time spent and reliance we are placing on the shallower and more shifting nature of online relationships. That is not to say there is no value in online relationships, but rather that our cognitive and emotional ‘presence’ has dramatically shifted over the past two decades without us really taking stock of what that means individually and collectively.  

We are doing both ourselves and others a disservice by not being fully present with others. 

A few hints and tips for work: 

  • Don’t take your phone with you into a meeting – unless you are waiting for a call, there is rarely anything so important that it can’t wait until the meeting is finished
  • Keep your phone out of sight while working – having your phone in view while working increases the chance of you randomly checking your phone for messages and notifications, causing you unnecessary distractions and attention shifts

A few hints and tips for home: 

  • Switch your work phone off when you get home
  • Don’t load work emails and work-related apps onto your personal phone
  • Set yourself hours in the day when you can say, ‘I’m no longer working’ – try to stick to it 
  • Keep your phone in your bag or pocket while out with a friend – better yet, leave it at home
  • Negotiate with your family a set of ‘house rules’ and limitations on what and when tech is used in the home
  • Education yourself and your family on why sleep is such a necessary part of current and future mental wellness (Matthew Walkers book on ‘Why We Sleep’ is a good start)
  • Try switching off all technology at least 1-2 hours before bed – giving your brain time to ‘de-escalate’ from the whirlwind that work and life can create.
  • If you can, use separate devices for home and work tasks – giving your brain the cues that you are ‘transitioning’ out of work and into home life and visa versa.

Your psychology and automated processing systems need a daily and weekly rhythm that allows you to regulate your physical, emotional and cognitive energy levels. 

A few hints and tips for managers: 

  • Negotiate digital working practices with your staff and teams.
  • Let people manage their own digital engagement levels after working hours, but make it clear that there is no expectation around communication response times after working hours
  • Set a precedent that if one person sends an email or message to a project platform after work hours, it doesn’t mean that everyone is expected to also do so.
Related Articles
Digital Decluttering

Digital Decluttering – removing unnecessary tech

by Work-Home-Play Balance

A lot of us tend to purchase and use digital technology without thinking about the consequences. Once we engage with tech, we get to experience the benefits that technology provides and start engaging with it more. Until it becomes hard to distinguish between the time and attention digital tech consumes and the benefits that technology gives. The smartphone, for instance, promises to make us so much more efficient, informed and productive. Which in so many ways it has. But, in so many ways it steals our time, distracts us, keeps us awake and keeps us preoccupied.

If you had to count the number of digital devices you engage with daily (including your smart meter, smartwatch, smartphone, laptop, etc) you may be surprised at how many devices you juggle. Or it may be that you are not at all surprised yet may feel slightly beholden to check and engage with them on a regular basis.

Many people advocate taking a ‘digital detox’. The problem with a detox (complete abstinence from technology for a certain period of time), is that once that detox time is completed, we tend to revert to old habits – despite being adamant at the end of the detox period not to do so.

 

Digital decluttering should be about taking a more strategic (and then tactical) approach to how you use digital technology. Maximising the benefits and minimising the negative impact is an individual decision and depends on your job and home-based responsibilities. Making a choice to spend more physical time and mental energy with physically present people has greater (physical and mental) health benefits than spending time and mental energy with ‘digital people’.

Much like any project involving minimalism, a better option is to reduce the amount of technology available to use. In an interview with Jordan Harbinger, Cal Newport (a computer scientist trained at MIT) talks through his insights into Digital Decluttering.

Cal explains more in this video.

What Cal doesn’t take into account is that within this decluttering, we need to consider the separation of work and home-based technology use. One area where having more technology is useful (especially for consultants, managers and the self-employed) is the option of having a personal phone and a professional phone. Although it is tempting to give your personal phone number out for business purposes and upload work emails onto your personal phone, it does mean that you never mentally leave work.

It is too easy to check those emails just before going to bed. 

It is too easy to reply to that WhatsApp message on a Sunday. It’s too easy to pick up that call on a Friday evening because your client is working late and has a question they forgot to ask you earlier.

By having a professional phone, it’s much easier to turn it off or leave it in your work bag or in the drawer of your home office in the evenings and weekends. It becomes just that little bit less easy to check and respond. 

A few additional YouTube interviews with Cal Newport on his book are included below.

Related Articles
Lost Connections Post Header

Lost Connections – Johann Hari

by Book ReviewsCultural & Society Norms

In this book, Johann Hari goes in search of the answers to help him understand more about the depression that surfaced in his teens and became a big part of his life.

His passion for investigating and writing on various subjects seems to come from a deep desire to find specific answers to deeply personal questions shared by many of us in the West. 

In this book Johann talks to many experts around the world to uncover what is driving the majority of the depression epidemic, how medication is being used to try to solve the personal and social issues that are endemic, and what we can do as individuals to reverse this trend.

The title of the book is a clue into what the cause and potential solution are for the state of depression amongst many in the West.

The overriding principle is that our individualistic life focus has resulted in our pursuit of independence from the group and the severing of ties to our communities that ground us in who we are as part of a group. 

Although we are searching for and think we have found connections in online groups and friends, these online shallow connections cannot replace the deeper offline connections that are essential to our human grounding. 

In the West, moving away from where we grew up is not uncommon. We go away to Uni. We move towns/counties/countries with a new job, for a partner, or in search of a new lifestyle. 

Each new move is a separation from established connections towards new connections. With limited opportunities to build or sustain offline connections wherever we go, many turn online to find substitute connections. 

Although this book is about ‘Uncovering the real causes of depression – and the unexpected solutions’, the premise of the book is true for many who turn to online apps, games, gambling, porn and social media tools. There is a direct link between spending time online and anxiety/depression. 

The solutions Johann provides are, therefore, not just for those who struggle with depression, but for those who find themselves spending more time online than they feel they ought to and need to find a way back to building better, deeper, more real connections with others. 

You can find out more about his book Stolen Focus including some additional notes and snippets to his interviews on the Stolen Focus website. 

About Johann Hari:

Johann Hari is a journalist and author. You can read more about him on his official website. 

Book Review Related Articles
Because Internet Article Header

Because Internet – Gretchen McCullough

by Book ReviewsCultural & Society Norms

Because Internet is an exploration of how the language used on the Internet, and in particular on social media and text messaging, has changed how we communicate with others. 

The book explores how language and communication have evolved, even exploring how it changed with the advent of the landline. It also analyses the differences in languages between the generations and those who are familiar with the use of ‘digital language’ and those who are less so. 

About Gretchen McCullough:

Gretchen is ‘an internet linguist. She analyses the language of the internet, for the people of the internet’. You can find her website here. 

Related Articles