There have always been people who find illness fashionable. Tuberculosis, in particular, was seen as a 'romantic disease', and individuals with tuberculosis were thought to have heightened sensitivity, which was seen as a good thing. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tuberculosis Social media amplifies everything, so why not this too?
Interesting, though because social media is an amplifier, i think it's concerning even if it's the case that already-depressed people are drawn to greater usage.
Indeed. But I am not so sure that we are very good at telling the difference between people who have genuine mental illness and those whose distress is mostly caused by their own play-acting. Complaining and grumbling, when done too much, really does drive down morale in a group. At some point, for some people, what started out as play-acting becomes something they can no longer control. Parents used to warn children about associating with 'bad companions' -- do we need to update our advice to handle 'bad companions on the internet, how to recognise and avoid them'? The internet has been a boon to countless shy and lonely people who were able to connect with other people with shared interests. Most of these groups are benign. Do we know how to recognise those that are not? Do we even agree what this entails? I am not sure about this.
"My guess is that in a decade, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who admits to having been in favour of lockdowns."
I have written this line myself over a dozen times since March 2020. Most of the lockdown advocates have already retreated to the "I only wanted to lock down for 15 days" line of defense.
I'm not sure where my beliefs lied during the first year or so. All I can say is that I traveled south to AL and FL during the first year and when I went into restaurants where the wait staff wasn't wearing masks, I not only didn't leave, I didn't ask them to wear masks. That said, I thought continuing the restrictions after vaccines were widespread was pointless.
The issue isn't that we can't admit we have moral panics after the fact. It's that these moral panics:
1) Go on and on (two years is a long time)
2) We go from one moral panic to the next so there is never really a pause
3) The impacts of each seem to be getting worse over time
So for instance we've recently repealed the Iraq War Authorization, but it doesn't seem like we learned anything about jingo-ism, real politick, and nation building. They recently had several OP-EDs in the NYTimes about the 20th anniversary of Iraq and I was amazed to learn that the wars major supporters, even amongst liberals, all think that they were basically correct despite some issues. They learned nothing!
It seems to me that Christianity helped Europe to develop in the High Middle Ages.
Maybe it was the church insisting that murders be executed. Maybe it was the concept of limited warfare. Maybe it was the church banning cousin marriage.
Maybe it was the doctrines or maybe it was an accident.
What is clear is that Europeans in 1500 are very different from Europeans in 1000.
I suppose it's possible, but it seems implausible given that by 1000, Christianity already had 500 years to work and Western Europe mainly trended downwards, and also Christianity was widespread over far more than a few parts of Western Europe, yet those other areas were in many respects backwards. For sure something happened at the end of the middle ages and early modern period, but it doesn't seem like it was Christianity.
I mean the Roman Empire fell, kind of a big deal. Was nice of the church to salvage something during that mess.
I’m convinced by Greg Clark’s work that slow evolutionary pressure was changing European population genetics each generation during that period. The reason seems to be that good market producers were able to out TFR the violent, but it took certain things for that to happen. Things that weren’t present in the ancient world.
Nowadays, the greatest sin in writing is using the passive voice. Still, wouldn't the second sentence of the last quote sound better using the passive voice? Using the third person plural here sounds artificial, awkward and grammatically incorrect (is Western Europe a they?) to me. Or is it because English is not my mother tongue?
"The government has little incentive to regulate banks effectively. When there is a breakdown, public officials just end up with more power."
While breakdowns likely increase govt power, I see no basis for assuming this is a primary motivator for govt regulators. I'd posit they either want to minimize harm to the public (optimistic view) or want to minimize harm to themselves for making what others judge to have been the wrong decision (pessimistic view). I'm not sure which of those dominates but I'd bet there is more of either than a desire to use it to increase power. Politicians tend to be power hungry, bureaucrats tend to take the safe option.
"It could easily be that less-depressed people are less likely to use social media."
Sure, but the chicken and egg question raised does not address the INCREASE in mental health issues most common in those who use it.
Reactions to Covid and Covid lockdowns were mostly emotional. Emotions fade. I'd bet in 10 years nearly everyone will look at the experience as far less important than they see it today.
There have always been people who find illness fashionable. Tuberculosis, in particular, was seen as a 'romantic disease', and individuals with tuberculosis were thought to have heightened sensitivity, which was seen as a good thing. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tuberculosis Social media amplifies everything, so why not this too?
Interesting, though because social media is an amplifier, i think it's concerning even if it's the case that already-depressed people are drawn to greater usage.
Indeed. But I am not so sure that we are very good at telling the difference between people who have genuine mental illness and those whose distress is mostly caused by their own play-acting. Complaining and grumbling, when done too much, really does drive down morale in a group. At some point, for some people, what started out as play-acting becomes something they can no longer control. Parents used to warn children about associating with 'bad companions' -- do we need to update our advice to handle 'bad companions on the internet, how to recognise and avoid them'? The internet has been a boon to countless shy and lonely people who were able to connect with other people with shared interests. Most of these groups are benign. Do we know how to recognise those that are not? Do we even agree what this entails? I am not sure about this.
"My guess is that in a decade, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who admits to having been in favour of lockdowns."
I have written this line myself over a dozen times since March 2020. Most of the lockdown advocates have already retreated to the "I only wanted to lock down for 15 days" line of defense.
I'm not sure where my beliefs lied during the first year or so. All I can say is that I traveled south to AL and FL during the first year and when I went into restaurants where the wait staff wasn't wearing masks, I not only didn't leave, I didn't ask them to wear masks. That said, I thought continuing the restrictions after vaccines were widespread was pointless.
Here is your clue. They were always pointless.
COVID
The issue isn't that we can't admit we have moral panics after the fact. It's that these moral panics:
1) Go on and on (two years is a long time)
2) We go from one moral panic to the next so there is never really a pause
3) The impacts of each seem to be getting worse over time
So for instance we've recently repealed the Iraq War Authorization, but it doesn't seem like we learned anything about jingo-ism, real politick, and nation building. They recently had several OP-EDs in the NYTimes about the 20th anniversary of Iraq and I was amazed to learn that the wars major supporters, even amongst liberals, all think that they were basically correct despite some issues. They learned nothing!
It seems to me that Christianity helped Europe to develop in the High Middle Ages.
Maybe it was the church insisting that murders be executed. Maybe it was the concept of limited warfare. Maybe it was the church banning cousin marriage.
Maybe it was the doctrines or maybe it was an accident.
What is clear is that Europeans in 1500 are very different from Europeans in 1000.
I suppose it's possible, but it seems implausible given that by 1000, Christianity already had 500 years to work and Western Europe mainly trended downwards, and also Christianity was widespread over far more than a few parts of Western Europe, yet those other areas were in many respects backwards. For sure something happened at the end of the middle ages and early modern period, but it doesn't seem like it was Christianity.
I mean the Roman Empire fell, kind of a big deal. Was nice of the church to salvage something during that mess.
I’m convinced by Greg Clark’s work that slow evolutionary pressure was changing European population genetics each generation during that period. The reason seems to be that good market producers were able to out TFR the violent, but it took certain things for that to happen. Things that weren’t present in the ancient world.
Nowadays, the greatest sin in writing is using the passive voice. Still, wouldn't the second sentence of the last quote sound better using the passive voice? Using the third person plural here sounds artificial, awkward and grammatically incorrect (is Western Europe a they?) to me. Or is it because English is not my mother tongue?
"The government has little incentive to regulate banks effectively. When there is a breakdown, public officials just end up with more power."
While breakdowns likely increase govt power, I see no basis for assuming this is a primary motivator for govt regulators. I'd posit they either want to minimize harm to the public (optimistic view) or want to minimize harm to themselves for making what others judge to have been the wrong decision (pessimistic view). I'm not sure which of those dominates but I'd bet there is more of either than a desire to use it to increase power. Politicians tend to be power hungry, bureaucrats tend to take the safe option.
"It could easily be that less-depressed people are less likely to use social media."
Sure, but the chicken and egg question raised does not address the INCREASE in mental health issues most common in those who use it.
Reactions to Covid and Covid lockdowns were mostly emotional. Emotions fade. I'd bet in 10 years nearly everyone will look at the experience as far less important than they see it today.