Here is a recent presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVq4ARIlNVg

and a podcast with Simon Sinek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2hERv5l3H4

As we lowered the cost of publishing, we created a vicious cycle. Segmented audiences mean more targeting is required. More targeting requires appeals to more and more specific, and weird segments, fueled by YouTube and podcasts.

Look at the growth of conspiracy theories. That stuff was the province of truckers and other listeners of overnight AM radio. Now, people have a heartfelt belief in flat earth and chemtrails.

it's a bit akin to Santa Clause and Christmas shopping. shopping areas flood synapses with visual auditive and olfactory impressions because that lowers internal barriers to spending. the whole purpose of the western style pre Christmas frenzy is more sales.

if it was for inner transformation spiritual something, Christmas would look like pre Santa Clause (a guy in a highly carnevalistic red suit but I digress). pre coca cola Santa Clause, Christmas was a time of fasting, one candle, then two, then three, then four, and the family sitting together and _creating_ gifts for each other.

in the very same vein, social media are the pipe dream of 24/7 advertisement flooding. to increase sales. and fun it works for influencing elections, too!

even if social media (not: social networks!) were innocent, those placing targeted content for political or financial profit or both are not. and social media is the means they use.

The world has always been filled with negativity, but for most of history, most people only really knew what was around them. Now people are online more than ever before, which means they are exposed to more non-local content than ever before. People seek out engaging content, and negativity, especially fear, turns out to be particularly attention-grabbing due to human instinct formed through natural selection.

You can blame currently social media (Facebook, Tiktok, etc.) on this. But I believe even if it were replaced by the Fediverse and IRC, the current generation would still form a more negative outlook than previous ones. It's human nature to seek out negative content, so an algorithm would need to hide this content to prevent people from finding it.

Personally I still believe it's a good thing overall that people know about bad things in the world. I think it's better than the alternative, where most people are blissful and ignorant, and other people suffer with no-one to save or support them. Some negativity is important: just enough to motivate the feeler to do something and make a positive impact on the world.

I agree that part of a solution is "a framework to understand the harshness of the world". The world has a lot of bad but it also has a lot of good, and the massive amount of exposure is only an issue because negativity affects people and grabs their attention more than positivity. It would help people to understand this, so when they catch themselves hyper-focusing on something negative, they can take a step back and realize that e.g. it only affects a small percentage of the population.

Maintaining mental health requires the ability to balance these skills and perspectives.

Maybe at college level there is a bit of 'If you aren't vocal about issue x, you're an uncaring person'? I don't see it amongst peers at 40-50yo that you would be considered callous to not obsess over a given issue. (I'm accounting for some level of exaggeration with "obsess" and assume it would mean making public comments, donating, protesting, etc?)

That's kinda the point, they are endless. I have some peers that are continually in a state of distress, concern, and preoccupation. If you are inclined to fixate on these things, you wont ever run out of topics. I have serveral friends in their 30's who will be at a beautiful summer BBQ with friends and be unhappily fixated on negative news of police violence, foreign wars, or other things happening thousands of miles away. Im not saying paying attention to these things is bad, but the inability to stop and smell the proverbial roses is.

In my opinion, the phenomenon is more pronounced with younger generations, and also mellows somewhat with age. I think cranking out a kid or two certainly helps draw ones attention to the "here and now".

The ability to be mobile is what makes depression to go out.

  [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99429/
  [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/14/health/exercise-treat-depression-wellness/index.html

One had to go to store to buy something to eat then, now food can be delivered to the door.

I think this is exactly it. And I personally think this and the general decline in mental resilience we see in society is strongly correlated with decline in religion which (for better or for worse, depending on the religion I suppose) does provide exactly such a framework for dealing with the challenges of life with a more "eternal" perspective (i.e. death is not the end, life's challenges are temporary, God has a plan for you, etc).

Explain China, which didn't face any similar problems until this same generation, despite having no religion.

Or how about Japan until recently?

Or any of the ex-Soviet countries.

Something is changing in the world, and it is happening across geographic and cultural boundaries.

Now, it's easier to find that there's lots of things happening across the entire world, so it's more likely to feel that 'everything's turning to shit.'

Sure, people need to use resiliency skills to cope with the stresses of life. Often times, this is an important part of what therapy for depressed people is trying to achieve.

But this isn't to say that there isn't a constellation of causes in recent decades and years that cause the world to be particularly stressful, especially for young people. It also isn't to say that we should dismiss what is occurring in the world today as "the same old stuff" without acknowledging that it may actually have unique properties worth understanding. Off the top of my head: world population is at an all-time high, global warming is becoming increasingly understood, it is increasingly acknowledged that we can no longer simply extract unlimited resources from the earth to solve all problems, the Internet has changed the way the world works that seems to speed everything up: communication, changes within social groups, larger societal shifts, economic change, etc.

But how does one measure the impact of recent changes, such as the rise of the internet? Did the invention of the crossbow, the invention of money, of language, of the wheel, not also impact our lives in dramatic ways?

World population has almost constantly been at an all-time high, because it is mostly increasing.

It sure may feel different this time, but if you read the Book of Revelation, or consider 14th century pandemics, our current situation looks like child's play to me.

So maybe it's becoming harder for the young to avoid something they don't want, or obtain something they want, and this is the fundamental reason behind rising rates of depression.

Maybe only in the major rich developed western countries whose economies peaked in the post-WW2 boom, and then switched to profiting by fleecing their young in order to enrich the existing wealth holders (usually through horrible housing policies), but in most of the former undeveloped and underdeveloped parts of the world, average young people are now richer than their parents or grandparents ever could have dreamed of.

Back in my home country a few decades ago, you would have to wait 10 years to be eligible to buy a commie crapbox car and vacationing would mean 1-2 times/year in some local village a few km away from home, and that's if you were lucky. Now some any young people can buy a car after saving a few months of wages and can afford to go on city breaks abroad in Lisbon, Barcelona or even Asia, something unthinkable to their parents.

I think a lot of westerner from rich countries have forgotten what true depression inducing poverty and suffering actually feels like since 2-3 generations ago, hence why they can afford this luxury of being depressed over petty things and forget how good they actually have it: that happiness comes from having friends, family unit, health, safety, life experiences, and not from having bigger McMansions than your predecessors.

Also, the US is extremely not in a recession and currently has the strongest economic performance in decades or ever. (Yes, for young people. And for poorer people most of all.) It was of course in a recession in 2008 and in 2020.

But, /other English speaking countries are in recessions/, and their housing crises are worse than ours. Part of what's happening is that you're picking those posts up because they're in English and not realizing they're in London.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/millenn...

> I couldn't afford it if I wanted, now.

Sounds like you own it though. So you could afford an equally priced piece of land if you sell that one. Most people's houses are the largest component of their net worth, so it of course looks bad if you leave it out of the calculation.

(This is why blocking housing construction is bad for the elderly though - it makes it hard to downsize so you can't use your housing net worth towards retirement as easily.)

Other approaches which many people do include having your parents help with the down payment or inheriting.

And of course land value tax would solve this. So would upzoning, which would allow 10x more productive use of the land.

The perfect weather kind of makes up for it, I say as going outside for an hour today gave me a sunburn.

California notably.

Also see discussion at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40490610

Of course it's not just housing that has become more expensive – health care and higher education costs have also outpaced inflation for decades.

This one's partly natural for Baumol reasons - basically, having any highly paid industry near you raises the price for any service. But it's also partly the US has many bad ideas intended to create explicit limits on supply in healthcare, like limited residency seats and certificates of need for hospitals.

Also they are confronted with having less and less agency and control as information shrinks and standardizes the world.

I was aware shitty things happen in the world, but are rare and it was a nice day outside to hang with my friends and joke around.

But more to my point, I think it marked the end of a certain strain of optimism in world politics.

Also ”makes people go crazy” is a fittingly insulting way to put depression in a comment that’s way off base to begin with.

I still think my reasoning is fairly sound, though.

People are quick to make the least charitable interpretation, or even fabricate an issue entirely in the quest for a fix.

I'll note this article mentions doctors were also reluctant to admit they didn't know why drugs work. They similarly provided vague theories.

Edit: spelling

The noise of negativity is both exaggerated and amplified while the sights of positivity are both downplayed and silenced by media, both mainstream/commercial and social media.

There's a reason terms like "doomscrolling" came to be. Reducing exposure to the media can go a long way to improving mental health if someone is overexposed.

So if we assume that negative and positive is amplified equally, and there are even amounts of each, the end result will be pretty negative.

And while this was probably always true, the volume was probably low enough that the connection to your family and tribe were more dominant. Now, the volume from the internet might be more dominant.

This is a false assumption, at least with regards to mainstream/commercial media. Positive news simply doesn't grab as many eyeballs as negative news, so they are strongly incentivized to bias towards negativity.

As for social media, while the platforms themselves don't have as strong of incentives (they still do) it's easy to see that more people respond to negativity than positivity.

We even see this outside of the media. For example in elections, it is far more effective to go and ruthlessly attack your opponents than be positive about yourself because people respond better to negativity. Also reviews; nobody writes positive reviews, everyone writes negative reviews.

The moral is humans are hardwired to ignore positivity, because positive things are supposed to happen and thus not worth caring about. Nobody cares that thousands of airliners flew safely on a given day (positive), everyone cares that one airliner out of thousands happened to have an issue (negative).

I think basically this is just a visibility issue: the problems always existed, we just used to accept them as inevitable. We just demand more of life today, and actually pay attention, and that's a good thing.

There was a notion in the past that suffering was normal, and unusual behavior that very distressed people exhibit was just people being people. Like if you survived hunger in the great depression and a few decades later during boom times you still hid money in the seat cushion and wore rags and and went into fits when someone suggested you ought to spend the money you saved a bit more for your own good, no one thought that that was a form of suffering a doctor should help with. Not for poor people anyway. Or if you had been assaulted a woman who was assaulted by their husband and couldn't tell anyone about it, or if you were harmed by the clergy, or if you're a veteran who has a breakdown every time a loud noise happens, and all these other scenarios. Any unusual response to all that wasn't seen as a medical problem to be named and treated at a mass scale, I personally think because learning more about these things medically and making societal adjustments to prevent these things from happening required that society face some extremely uncomfortable truths, which did not happen easily or on its own.

And in fact I feel like the opposite even happened: I read, for example, about how shell shock was purposely not considered a real medical issue in WWI in the UK, to be able to return soldiers to the front as fast as possible even though more than a quarter of soldiers in the hospital were considered shell shocked. Eventually, the diagnosis was banned by the brits. Official shell shock rate at 0%. If you don't look, there's no problem, right?

So instead it was said that there's nothing wrong with you, you just need some rest. And if you had a really severe case and were not better, you were just weak or a coward, and you need to man up and get back out there. Then you get a court martial or electric shocks. It's no wonder that people pretended that they had nothing wrong with them - nothing good happened otherwise anyway. And so no wonder it took so long for society at large to accept this as a problem.

So now we finally have a more accurate pulse on these types of problems, and we see that unsurprisingly they rise as people have problems in their lives. Makes perfect sense to me.

> I'd rather assume that the lack of a framework to understand the harshness of the world is what makes people go crazy.

The framework is realism: it is very much that people do understand that the world is harsh and that hurts you, but then you now get to recognize that it hurt you and do something about it maybe.