I understand your point of view. Thanks for elaborating it further. I agree that any policy change shouldn’t be to make the life of adults easy but should be made to address the developmental need of the students. When you speak about tecnology being part of the society they are going to enter, I am reminded of Montessori’s quote in Childhood to Adolescence when she says, “…man must raise himself to a state that is higher than his natural state and the land-child must see that society is in a state of ascent from nature in which he, as a civilised and religious man must play his part.” She also says “But the thing that is important above everything else is that the adolescent should have a life of activity and variety.” I think that adolescents not finding ‘real’ activity and variety resort to using their devices and no matter how many discussions they and we have about the use of technology, they do not have a full life that supports ‘real’ work that is developmentally joyful instead. Montessori says this too - “The environment must make the free choice of occupation easy, and therefore eliminate the waste of time and energy in following vague and uncertain preferences.”
I think these are important points for consideration. If we push for traditional systems to be overhauled, do we have the courage to overhaul our own Montessori school systems and meet the needs of adolescents who need time away from family? Why do we come up with alternatives like camping and limited time away and not give them the whole thing with residential life in our schools?
Thanks for quoting me, Andrew! I support a lot of what you are saying here, but I want to push back a little, and I am interested in your response.
I think it is fair to say that phones aren't the single cause of the adolescent mental health crisis. I agree that Haidt overstates the research and is profiting off of moral panic. But I'm not sure it's fair to just supplant one single cause with another. Although the evidence doesn't show that phones and social media are the sole or main driver of the adolescent mental health crisis, they are surely playing a role. I also think his book has helped raise awareness of the issues with phone use in childhood/adolescence and has given schools/parents some language to tackle these issues in their homes/communities. The issue lies with schools/parents that then take this to the extreme and implement authoritarian measures of controlling tech/phone use.
I also think you go a little far with your dismissal of Andrew Haidt. I broadly agree with the ideas in his book - children need more free play, more autonomy, and less screen time. That we "overprotect children in the real world and underprotect them in the virtual world". His recommendations also seem common sense to me as a parent and teacher:
"Give children far more time playing with other children. This play should ideally be outdoors, in mixed age groups, with little or no adult supervision.
Look for more ways to embed children in stable real-world communities. Online networks are not nearly as binding or satisfying.
Don’t give a smartphone as the first phone. Give a phone or watch that is specialized for communication, not for internet-based apps.
Don’t give a smartphone until high school. This is easy to do, if many of your child’s friends’ parents are doing the same thing.
Delay the opening of accounts on nearly all social media platforms until the beginning of high school (at least)."
Hi Tom, thanks for your comment and pushback, I think it's an important one. The way I view it, and it may not have been explicitly stated above, is that the traditional institution of schooling is a main driver of the mental health crisis because it is predicated on the premise that compliance, control, and lack of autonomy are what is necessary to support young people. The SDT research clearly refutes this- that when we put our children in environments of compliance and control, they suffer. So while I don't believe that traditional schooling is the only factor influencing the mental health crisis (because nothing has a single origin), my read of the research leads me to think that it's a major factor because school is the place where adolescents spend most of their time, meaning that the majority of their waking hours are spent in an environment predicated on compliance and control, which then follows them home via homework and other requirements that they must complete under threat of punishment (bad grades, detention, etc).
We can attribute the same issue of depriving children of autonomy when we look at the cultural shift away from giving children opportunities for free play in their communities. This is an area where I agree with Haidt, as he bases this assumption off of properly interpreted research.
So while the quotes you give seem common sense, the reality is his book, and the way he framed it, are leading adults to dig ourselves further into a place of compliance and control in the form of bans on phones and technology. Not only is this the opposite of what young people need to thrive, it also doesn't empower them to learn to use the tools that are an integral part of our society, whether we like it or not. Even though I may agree generally with the claims you give above, I cannot support or recommend his work because it is littered with bad science. We simply must have a high bar when it comes to sharing academic research and using it to inform our decisions.
I would highly suggest you check out this post by Peter Gray, which is where I learned about the flaws in Haidt's work. I find Gray to be a particularly strong authority as someone who is a psychology professor (remember that Haidt is a business professor), has worked/collaborated with Haidt on previous projects (and still considers him a good friend), yet cannot stand by the book or its recommendations because of its serious flaws.
Here are two particularly succinct pieces that Gray wrote on the topic:
Based on my background and the research I have followed, parental involvement is one of the most overlooked yet critical factors in adolescent mental health. While there are certainly cases where verified SPED designations or DSM diagnoses play a significant role, for the broader adolescent population, the presence of a strong, supportive home environment can serve as a powerful buffer against school-related stress and social pressures. On the other hand, disengaged or overly controlling parenting can intensify mental health struggles.
Parents who model healthy technology habits, provide emotional support, and maintain open communication equip their children with the tools to navigate challenges more effectively. Instead of focusing solely on restricting phone use or restructuring schools, a multi-tiered approach, one that strengthens school-home partnerships, encourages balanced digital literacy, and prioritizes student well-being, would be, in my opinion, an effective way to address the root causes of the adolescent mental health crisis.
Isn't is possible that it isn't either or? I believe phones and screens are a real problem. And I home school my kids. The allure to not do anything but stare into a screen is real. And programming of the brain is real. When a kid has a melt down because you took away their phone and then can't think of anything else to do and being bored is terrifying....there is a major problem. I also agree that schools are a huge problem. But I don't think we can pinpoint one source. Life is way more complicated than that.
Insightful research and I agree with you that hypocrisy will never work and is not right. I also agree with Tom that we cannot find just one cause for the crisis. There are many compounding factors and there were mental health problems before screens became commonplace. However, the awareness the book and research has brought about has brought changes across the globe including Singapore where screen time understanding has penetrated everyone’s household because the government has taken it into account and published guidelines that help even our school parents to give more play and work opportunities instead of screens to their children when they are bored.
Autonomy is important for every student in the first plane or the third. However, this autonomy has to be gradually built up in specially prepared environments where the needs of each stage are met before proceeding onto the next. When the needs are not met, complete autonomy becomes dangerous as the powers of freedom and inhibition are not there. It is much harder for schools to completely overhaul their current system than to remove screens that have disruptive nature to development and we need to acknowledge that.
Hi Anjum, I appreciate your comment and perspective. To me, as I wrote in my comment to Tom, I simply can't get behind supporting a book that misrepresents research, especially when that research is used to further environments which are based in compliance and control. It's true that the easiest thing for schools to do is to remove phones- but that goes to all aspects of schooling; they're all easier if schools simply dictate them.
What I would advocate for is not freedom without structure, but rather, schools must do the hard work of being in conversation with their students, particularly adolescents, to invite them into dialogue, to review the actual research, and discuss what policies and values would be fair for the entire community to agree on. At my own school, we have intentionally dialogued with students about what our phone policy should be and are trying our best to empower them with the skills needed to exist in a digital world. In my view, banning such technology neither prepares them for the world they are about to enter, which is filled with technology, and it disempowers them to make real choices about their lives. If we can be in conversation with them, share the research, and still let them make their own decisions, then we can be truly guides when things don't go as they planned, and help them reflect on how to make better decisions.
An analogous story is whether or not to require adolescents to use outlines when writing. The adult, whose goal is efficiency, sees outlines as a no-brainer. This is certainly the way I see it. Early on in my work with 12-15 year old students, I had one young woman who loved to write but hated making outlines. I offered so many different ways she could make one, yet for the first four months of our time together, she did not use one- which meant that in some cases she was writing 8 or more drafts of her papers before they were at a strong quality of submission. Finally, after a particularly long revision process, she said "maybe next time I'll use an outline." She went back to the key lessons I'd given on outlines and created one that worked well for her. The next year, when she graduated from 8th grade, she remarked at how grateful she was that I gave her the space to create a framework that worked for her, and had the patience to continue to offer support but not force her into something that I thought was best for her, when what she really needed was to develop that practice through experience.
I believe we must do the same with technology. We should have guidelines for health and safety, as always, but we need to allow adolescents the safe space to explore that world, be in conversation with us, and develop guidelines for their own lives that will prepare them to exist with technology in a healthy way. That's not an easy thing to do (and it certainly makes adults, myself included, sometimes uncomfortable), but I believe it's a must- and it's only through being in conversation, with adults and our adolescents, that we will get there!
I understand your point of view. Thanks for elaborating it further. I agree that any policy change shouldn’t be to make the life of adults easy but should be made to address the developmental need of the students. When you speak about tecnology being part of the society they are going to enter, I am reminded of Montessori’s quote in Childhood to Adolescence when she says, “…man must raise himself to a state that is higher than his natural state and the land-child must see that society is in a state of ascent from nature in which he, as a civilised and religious man must play his part.” She also says “But the thing that is important above everything else is that the adolescent should have a life of activity and variety.” I think that adolescents not finding ‘real’ activity and variety resort to using their devices and no matter how many discussions they and we have about the use of technology, they do not have a full life that supports ‘real’ work that is developmentally joyful instead. Montessori says this too - “The environment must make the free choice of occupation easy, and therefore eliminate the waste of time and energy in following vague and uncertain preferences.”
I think these are important points for consideration. If we push for traditional systems to be overhauled, do we have the courage to overhaul our own Montessori school systems and meet the needs of adolescents who need time away from family? Why do we come up with alternatives like camping and limited time away and not give them the whole thing with residential life in our schools?
Thanks for quoting me, Andrew! I support a lot of what you are saying here, but I want to push back a little, and I am interested in your response.
I think it is fair to say that phones aren't the single cause of the adolescent mental health crisis. I agree that Haidt overstates the research and is profiting off of moral panic. But I'm not sure it's fair to just supplant one single cause with another. Although the evidence doesn't show that phones and social media are the sole or main driver of the adolescent mental health crisis, they are surely playing a role. I also think his book has helped raise awareness of the issues with phone use in childhood/adolescence and has given schools/parents some language to tackle these issues in their homes/communities. The issue lies with schools/parents that then take this to the extreme and implement authoritarian measures of controlling tech/phone use.
I also think you go a little far with your dismissal of Andrew Haidt. I broadly agree with the ideas in his book - children need more free play, more autonomy, and less screen time. That we "overprotect children in the real world and underprotect them in the virtual world". His recommendations also seem common sense to me as a parent and teacher:
"Give children far more time playing with other children. This play should ideally be outdoors, in mixed age groups, with little or no adult supervision.
Look for more ways to embed children in stable real-world communities. Online networks are not nearly as binding or satisfying.
Don’t give a smartphone as the first phone. Give a phone or watch that is specialized for communication, not for internet-based apps.
Don’t give a smartphone until high school. This is easy to do, if many of your child’s friends’ parents are doing the same thing.
Delay the opening of accounts on nearly all social media platforms until the beginning of high school (at least)."
Hi Tom, thanks for your comment and pushback, I think it's an important one. The way I view it, and it may not have been explicitly stated above, is that the traditional institution of schooling is a main driver of the mental health crisis because it is predicated on the premise that compliance, control, and lack of autonomy are what is necessary to support young people. The SDT research clearly refutes this- that when we put our children in environments of compliance and control, they suffer. So while I don't believe that traditional schooling is the only factor influencing the mental health crisis (because nothing has a single origin), my read of the research leads me to think that it's a major factor because school is the place where adolescents spend most of their time, meaning that the majority of their waking hours are spent in an environment predicated on compliance and control, which then follows them home via homework and other requirements that they must complete under threat of punishment (bad grades, detention, etc).
We can attribute the same issue of depriving children of autonomy when we look at the cultural shift away from giving children opportunities for free play in their communities. This is an area where I agree with Haidt, as he bases this assumption off of properly interpreted research.
So while the quotes you give seem common sense, the reality is his book, and the way he framed it, are leading adults to dig ourselves further into a place of compliance and control in the form of bans on phones and technology. Not only is this the opposite of what young people need to thrive, it also doesn't empower them to learn to use the tools that are an integral part of our society, whether we like it or not. Even though I may agree generally with the claims you give above, I cannot support or recommend his work because it is littered with bad science. We simply must have a high bar when it comes to sharing academic research and using it to inform our decisions.
I would highly suggest you check out this post by Peter Gray, which is where I learned about the flaws in Haidt's work. I find Gray to be a particularly strong authority as someone who is a psychology professor (remember that Haidt is a business professor), has worked/collaborated with Haidt on previous projects (and still considers him a good friend), yet cannot stand by the book or its recommendations because of its serious flaws.
Here are two particularly succinct pieces that Gray wrote on the topic:
https://petergray.substack.com/p/45-the-importance-of-critical-analyses
https://petergray.substack.com/p/follow-up-to-letter-45-comments-on/comments
Would love to dialogue on this more- perhaps on a future podcast episode!
Based on my background and the research I have followed, parental involvement is one of the most overlooked yet critical factors in adolescent mental health. While there are certainly cases where verified SPED designations or DSM diagnoses play a significant role, for the broader adolescent population, the presence of a strong, supportive home environment can serve as a powerful buffer against school-related stress and social pressures. On the other hand, disengaged or overly controlling parenting can intensify mental health struggles.
Parents who model healthy technology habits, provide emotional support, and maintain open communication equip their children with the tools to navigate challenges more effectively. Instead of focusing solely on restricting phone use or restructuring schools, a multi-tiered approach, one that strengthens school-home partnerships, encourages balanced digital literacy, and prioritizes student well-being, would be, in my opinion, an effective way to address the root causes of the adolescent mental health crisis.
Isn't is possible that it isn't either or? I believe phones and screens are a real problem. And I home school my kids. The allure to not do anything but stare into a screen is real. And programming of the brain is real. When a kid has a melt down because you took away their phone and then can't think of anything else to do and being bored is terrifying....there is a major problem. I also agree that schools are a huge problem. But I don't think we can pinpoint one source. Life is way more complicated than that.
Insightful research and I agree with you that hypocrisy will never work and is not right. I also agree with Tom that we cannot find just one cause for the crisis. There are many compounding factors and there were mental health problems before screens became commonplace. However, the awareness the book and research has brought about has brought changes across the globe including Singapore where screen time understanding has penetrated everyone’s household because the government has taken it into account and published guidelines that help even our school parents to give more play and work opportunities instead of screens to their children when they are bored.
Autonomy is important for every student in the first plane or the third. However, this autonomy has to be gradually built up in specially prepared environments where the needs of each stage are met before proceeding onto the next. When the needs are not met, complete autonomy becomes dangerous as the powers of freedom and inhibition are not there. It is much harder for schools to completely overhaul their current system than to remove screens that have disruptive nature to development and we need to acknowledge that.
Hi Anjum, I appreciate your comment and perspective. To me, as I wrote in my comment to Tom, I simply can't get behind supporting a book that misrepresents research, especially when that research is used to further environments which are based in compliance and control. It's true that the easiest thing for schools to do is to remove phones- but that goes to all aspects of schooling; they're all easier if schools simply dictate them.
What I would advocate for is not freedom without structure, but rather, schools must do the hard work of being in conversation with their students, particularly adolescents, to invite them into dialogue, to review the actual research, and discuss what policies and values would be fair for the entire community to agree on. At my own school, we have intentionally dialogued with students about what our phone policy should be and are trying our best to empower them with the skills needed to exist in a digital world. In my view, banning such technology neither prepares them for the world they are about to enter, which is filled with technology, and it disempowers them to make real choices about their lives. If we can be in conversation with them, share the research, and still let them make their own decisions, then we can be truly guides when things don't go as they planned, and help them reflect on how to make better decisions.
An analogous story is whether or not to require adolescents to use outlines when writing. The adult, whose goal is efficiency, sees outlines as a no-brainer. This is certainly the way I see it. Early on in my work with 12-15 year old students, I had one young woman who loved to write but hated making outlines. I offered so many different ways she could make one, yet for the first four months of our time together, she did not use one- which meant that in some cases she was writing 8 or more drafts of her papers before they were at a strong quality of submission. Finally, after a particularly long revision process, she said "maybe next time I'll use an outline." She went back to the key lessons I'd given on outlines and created one that worked well for her. The next year, when she graduated from 8th grade, she remarked at how grateful she was that I gave her the space to create a framework that worked for her, and had the patience to continue to offer support but not force her into something that I thought was best for her, when what she really needed was to develop that practice through experience.
I believe we must do the same with technology. We should have guidelines for health and safety, as always, but we need to allow adolescents the safe space to explore that world, be in conversation with us, and develop guidelines for their own lives that will prepare them to exist with technology in a healthy way. That's not an easy thing to do (and it certainly makes adults, myself included, sometimes uncomfortable), but I believe it's a must- and it's only through being in conversation, with adults and our adolescents, that we will get there!