To add to my other comment, I noticed I failed to address this earlier comment of yours: https://kbin.social/m/science@lemmy.ml/t/954121/-/comment/6137667

Here you do exactly what Haidt criticises, IMO entirely correctly - focusing only and exclusively on the situation in the USA. Which absolutely looks narrow and reductonist.

I’m not downplaying its existence but its wider social effects. If a society of two thousand people is racist against two members of that society, that is not likely to affect the mental health of dozens of members of the society - at most only those two who are the direct victims and those who are close to them.

What are some of those assumptions? Maybe it is reductionist, but I haven’t seen you or the Nature article present a more nuanced approach (or an approach at all). And personally this isn’t a topic that I find myself emotionally very invested in, and I’m far from an expert on sociology, so I really would be interested in learning about better approaches. Do your and the Nature article make fewer assumptions for your framing to work?

Haidt articulated his points and methods very clearly and you shifted away from them without any explanation, as far as I can see. This isn’t just disagreement within the conversation, but a disagreement on what the discussion is supposed to be about. Only now have you actually addressed what is an essental part of Haidt’s argumentation, but still very vaguely.

As opposed to ignoring a whole sentence that I wrote in order to make me come off as if I deny the existence of racism?

You’re ignoring the fact I wrote “which is not to say that those areas can’t be or aren’t quite racist”. The racism, no matter how heinous, if it can only affect a smaller percentage of the population, or those who aren’t even the citizens of the country (as it happens with migrants from the Middle East and north Africa), cannot have much to do with the mental illnesses of European teenagers accross all social and ethnic groups.

I do not get the impression you’re even trying to argue against my or Haidt’s position at this point, you’ve simply waved away all the arguments he has brought up, and now are ignoring entire sentences from my comments.

You’ve forgotten what we’re talking about in the first place. To explain the rise in mental illnesses, you have to find what changed in people’s environment that could affect the health situation. If nothing in the environment has changed, the expected result would be that there would be no change in the outcomes either. If the discrimination has been roughly the same for the last few decades, why would it suddenly start resulting in different rates of mental illnesses?

other forms of othering often around socioeconomic standing or even one’s ancestors or even their ancestors’ jobs

Ok but none of that is new, it is not relevant here.

Racial discrimination - depends on the region. Much of Europe is still fairly homogenous, thus the racism there cannot be statistically as harmful as in the US (which is not to say that those areas can’t be or aren’t quite racist). And yet I don’t believe those areas are exempt from the general trend with mental illnesses, as I see at least in my own country. And even in the more heterogenous areas this probably barely begins to account for the trend, the illnesses are not confined to the discriminated populations.

Sexual discrimination is what I include under things that are “at worst, not increasing”. If it’s not rising , it doesn’t explain the rise in mental illnesses.

In the end, out of four proposed causes two are clearly irrelevant, and two can account for the trend only partially at most.

with the rise of right-wing parties

IMO many of these parties are also symptoms of phone and internet overuse too. Much of the ideas, values and language of many new European right-wing parties is clearly imported from online American conservative discourse, without regard for the reality of local society. In my country where gender transitions are very difficult to undergo, where non-binary people simply do not exist in the public sphere at all, new right-wing parties will still talk about the nefarious “gender ideology”, declaring there can be only two genders, etc. This is literal Internet-induced delusion.

His second point in his rebuttal is particularly eyebrow raising.

Do you mean this one?

Odgers’ alternative explanation does not fit the available facts.

Because that’s obviously correct. I don’t know where you live, but I live in continental Europe, where issues such as “opioid crisis, school shootings and increasing unrest because of racial and sexual discrimination and violence” simply do not exist or are, at worst, not increasing. (One exception might be a very specific variant of opioids, which is gambling. Edit: Besides, gambling is also heavily promoted online, made easier to access, even packaged into video games, so it’s just a further problem for defending phone-/internet-centric teenage culture.) They also frequently have little to do with how young people feel, think and live in general even in US, as far as I see from the stuff (conversations, media) that I see online. Projecting these very specific issues onto all young people all across the world looks like nothing more than American defaultism.

I’ve read both the review and the response, and I find the response more convincing, supported by much more explicit data and clear arguments.

Something of the sort has already been claimed for language/linguistics, i.e. that LLMs can be used to understand human language production. One linguist wrote a pretty good reply to such claims, which can be summed up as “this is like inventing an airplane and using it to figure out how birds fly”. I mean, who knows, maybe that even could work, but it should be admitted that the approach appears extremely roundabout and very well might be utterly fruitless.

Yeah, I’ll shill for dbzer0 as the place to host the community.

Kosovars (Kosovo Albanians) are not Slavs.

I never said, nor implied, either side were “dumb” or “barbarians”.

Your stance implies it, in many ways. You’re not really trying to understand the people there, and treat them in a completely dehumanising manner.

Like, do I have to explain why it’s not a good idea to take most goods and history away from a nation and dump it somewhere near the polar circle?

Do I have to remind you of that other guy who thought a fabricated cultural conflict could be solved by moving the Jews away to Madagascar?

the populace of both sides are brainwashed by organized religion, and authoritarians and terrorists are using that as a cudgel to achieve their own selfish aims, and are the real poison here.

The only way to take away their power is to remove the dispute over the region.

Since you’re already proposing completely impossible fantasy solutions, why didn’t you propose e.g. deposing of those authoritarians and religious extremists who fan the fires of conflict, assembling representatives willing to work out a tolerable solution to the conflict, and thus allowing the area (especially Palestine) to gradually develop, and naturally ease and dispose of the extremist culture that most people there are born into?

No, that sounds boring, let’s just take everyone, terrorists and normal people together, and dump them into the Amazon rainforest or Tierra del fuego. Even in your fantasies you don’t seem to wish for especially nice things for those people.

This “solution” makes you sound as if you’re just annoyed by hearing and reading about those dumb middle-eastern barbarians and want literally any solution that would get them out of your news feed, rather than actually wanting much good to those people.

The last part of your comment sounds like an ad straight out of those overlong YT videos.

Really?

Indeed. He’s the director of a Russian foundation, teaches at a Russian university, and is being legally bullied by Russia, as you can see from my three-sentence summary. I’m pretty sure you can’t do all that from Portugal or something.

I think he very much should have thought of himself as one. His mistake.

He should’ve thought of himself as not currently able to travel to Russia?

Ok, lol.

Ok, and? It’s completely obvious the person in question is not among those.

Huh? He couldn’t not travel to Russia, he’s a Russian.

one view with NewPipe

“Fears”?