The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Is Twatter Bad for Your Mental Health?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows the percentages of GSS respondents who have experienced poor mental health (“stress, depression, and problems with emotions”) in the last thirty days by sex and by whether or not they use Twitter (N = 800):

Steve Sailer, we have your answer if you’ll allow us to modify your question a bit.

Women are not psychologically equipped to handle social media. It amplifies and perpetuates their neuroses. Not good.

GSS variables used: SEX, TWITTER, MNTLHLTH(0)(1-30)

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: GSS, Health, Sex, Social Media 
Hide 22 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I'd expand this answer to include the proliferation of smartphones, which enabled the spread of Twitter/Facebook/Tindr etc.

  2. Or. Perhaps crazy people are more likely to be Twits.

  3. I like using Twitter a lot now, but I went into it understanding it was a necessary vice. I am not afraid to give myself days off.

    And of course, people who have read my comments here and elsewhere for awhile probably realize I'm fairly low when it comes to neuroticism and can process stress easily.

    Of course, I'm not suggesting that I'm a paragon when it comes to social media use, but I encourage people to find what works for them and not take it so seriously.

    Social media is bad for women for at least three reasons:

    1. It stokes their narcissism. A 23 year old girl can doll herself up for a few shots and then become heavyweight on social media. Guys have to grind for years to receive the same amount of recognition.

    2. But with narcissism comes insecurity. Women feel they need to do everything they can to maintain their image against envious eyes.

    3. Constant outrage. Social media's encourages strongly partisan, tribalistic thinking, and there are many outlets which produce content to fuel and feed off of the constant outrage cycle.

    It says a lot that ISIS did so well on Twitter!

  4. There's a book which covers this question in great detail called "IGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy–and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood–and What That Means for the Rest of Us"

    Spoiler: Smartphones are possibly the worst thing that has ever happened to a generation of children.

  5. And yes, there are experiments which demonstrate causation. Social media causes mental illness, no question about it, and proportionally so as usage increases.

  6. I can’t speak to its effects on mental health, but I know Twitter isn’t good for my blood pressure.

  7. .
    .
    "Or. Perhaps crazy people are more likely to be Twits."

    This should not be dismissed without consideration.

    The "needy" types may be the ones who are more prone to engage as readers and suffer negative impact.

    Also, some of those generating content can be the confident type who are somewhat indifferent to how what they say affects others. It doesn't bother them, so they figure, it won't bother others.

    Those who live from the inside out and are more driven might feel less impact.
    Those who live from the outside in deriving much of their feelings from what others say would seem to be at risk.

  8. O/T

    For those that still think street demonstrations are productive.

    https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1051412468470304768

    https://twitter.com/RationalMale/status/1051710596415148032

    Overweight (divorced) middle-aged football hooligans are bad optics compared to the coalition of the ascendant, especially when you are outnumbered.

    And in terms of thinking of the average Afro-Muslim immigrant, aren't those crazy blue-haired feminists scarier than the Western version of your dad? As it says in the first video, the establishment will never allow the far-right to "own" the issue of rape gangs.

    Lots of people want the entertainment of being an asshole in public, rather than the mundanity of entryism by attending your local Party Association.

  9. Yeah, it is clear that the Facebook/Twitter/Instagram triad is bad for mental health. Women naturally assess their social status, and while that evolved in the context of a village or tribe with no privacy and few secrets, it is now happening when all their friends and enemies can broadcast a carefully curated, photoshopped version of their own lives constantly.

    The competition for status and positive feedback is unceasing and unwinnable, like Sisyphus pushing the boulder. The worst irony is that because of social media young women today are getting more positive feedback than ever, far too much in fact, but it is still not enough because it is less than other people they know. So you have this debilitating combination of high self-esteem but low self-confidence.

    And all of that is before you even consider the political effects of social media, which then arise because virtue signaling is tied to this status quest.

    I predict that social media will turn out to be like smoking – something addictive that everyone does everywhere for a few decades, until it becomes impossible to deny that it is bad for your health, at which point there will be a movement against it.

  10. Validating stereotypes, I know, but I've even heard members of The Hive jokingly reference how bad Twitter/social media is for the mind. They know. They're just addicted. In 40 years, social media will be treated like smoking.

    The real chicken-egg question is which came first, the splintering of our meatspace social fabric or the rise of social media. Living in a status pressure-cooker like the social media world is downright lethal as it is but no wonder the poor women who lack Kinder, Küche, or especially Kirche crumple like aluminum cans. I'll exhort you again, get your wife and children into a conservative church where status is awarded based on actual sane and decent living (with a possible bonus of actually buying in to save your soul).

  11. The detrimental affect that social media has on the brains of women is the same damaging affect that porn has on the minds of men.

  12. Is this corrected for age? Old people do not use Twitter and they are more likely complacent middle aged.

  13. The detrimental affect that social media has on the brains of women is the same damaging affect that porn has on the minds of men.

    Dafuq? In what way could that even remotely be the case??? Social media is something that a huge segment of society engages in constantly, throughout the day. Watching porn is something that people do occasionally, in private (yes, you can come up with extreme examples like DJ Octagon who watch porn constantly, but that's just the point – what is comically extreme for porn is normal for social media).

    Another thing: porn has been around for decades and instant access online porn has been around for close to 15 years. But the spike in mental problems documented by Haidt et al. only began in ~2013, when social media saturation reached its present apex. Meanwhile in spite of decades of efforts with actual studies, nobody has been able to establish a firm real link between pr0n (or video games for that matter) and mental health outcomes.

    Even if you want to make the case that both social media and pr0n are potential addictions, they are very different types and scopes of addictions with very different effects, both on the individual and on society. Lazy equivalences are stupid and should be avoided.

    If you insist on comparing the two, here's a not great, but still way better and less lazy analogy: Social media is like cigarettes in 1950 and porn is like cocaine in 1950. The first pair leads to widespread health problems throughout society, even harming those who don't partake directly, and makes a ton of money for certain corporate oligarchs. The second pair is potentially quite harmful to the lives of the smaller number of people who are directly addicted or involved in production, and enriches a few in a black (or grey) market.

  14. EvolutionistX,

    Piers Anthony's Xanth universe (a series of fantasy books I read when I was a kid) included gourds, which when looked into transfixed those doing the looking. Not only were there the obvious problems of neglecting real life while looking in the gourd, but there was also a lot of irritation and disorientation when people transitioned back and forth. Smartphones are gourds.

    Bob,

    Yeah, chicken-and-egg question. I suspect they're mutually reinforcing.

    Sid,

    Psychology matters. Not necessarily the iffy study of the subject, but at a personal level it matters more now than just about any other time. When physical barriers are removed, psychological obstacles move in to fill the void.

    Additionally, women are able to constantly compare themselves to others on social media–and they're not comparing themselves to other women's average, they're comparing themselves to those best shots of themselves that other women put up.

    Aeoli,

    Consider this a little more corroborating evidence, then.

    Stodgy White Guy,

    The two are, at the least, related.

    silly girl,

    Also, some of those generating content can be the confident type who are somewhat indifferent to how what they say affects others. It doesn't bother them, so they figure, it won't bother others.

    Great point.

    216,

    Whoever is out on the streets looks bad. Even when the cultMarxists try to make the leftist agitators look good, they're repulsive to normies. Watching that video made me want a Pinochet to come in and start dropping people from helicopters.

    Jig,

    The competition for status and positive feedback is unceasing and unwinnable, like Sisyphus pushing the boulder. The worst irony is that because of social media young women today are getting more positive feedback than ever, far too much in fact, but it is still not enough because it is less than other people they know. So you have this debilitating combination of high self-esteem but low self-confidence.

    This is pure gold man, thanks.

    Kipling,

    We've been invited to a Serbian orthodox church. There is community with Episcopalians, but it's not… the right stuff.

    Anon,

    Good point. Beyond the age of 40, there is almost no difference. Under 40, it's even more pronounced, especially among women. Among women under 40, a staggering 70.8% of Twatter users report poor mental health, compared to only 47.0% of non-twitter users. The sample is only 202, so keep that in mind but damn, that's a staggering difference.

  15. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    "Good point. Beyond the age of 40, there is almost no difference. Under 40, it's even more pronounced, especially among women. Among women under 40, a staggering 70.8% of Twatter users report poor mental health, compared to only 47.0% of non-twitter users. The sample is only 202, so keep that in mind but damn, that's a staggering difference."

    What I was thinking is if there are very few twit users in the over 40 where more are mentally stable, and many twit users in the under 40 where mental problems are more common, it might look like twit users are less mentally stable.

  16. O/T

    Inside the Blue Banana, the population moves further into globohomo insanity. There's lots of other commentary about the Bavaria results, but I'd like to present the results in Belgium, the most globalist country on the planet.

    Lots of obviously Arabic names in the results, an Islamic Prime Minister is thus not out of the realm of possibility in the 2020s.

    The biggest sign is the rise of the "full cuck" Greens, mirrored in Luxembourg, the beating heart of the Blue Banana that also voted yesterday. There were several major wildfires in Northern Europe this summer, and this has said to be part of the reason why, beyond the nature of most Western Europeans to put their liberalism before their survival.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_local_elections,_2018

  17. https://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-fourth-great-crisis-in-american.html

    "If the Crisis ends sometime between 2016 and 2020, the next twenty years will see America more and more in thrall to its corporations, with inequality increasing still more. While the upper reaches of society will be open to women, minorities, and gays, the lower reaches will increasingly have to fend for themselves, regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexual preference. Undocumented immigrants may well continue to make up a substantial portion of the work force. The energy industry and the financial sector will essentially control government at every level, just as the “trusts” and railroads did in the late nineteenth century. The endless war in the Middle East will continue. Periodic terrorist attacks at home will occupy much too much of our attention, and keep that war going as well. Protests will be shrill, relatively unorganized, occasionally violent, and generally ineffective, like the Wobblies and Coxey’s Army. Indeed, the Occupy movement and the Black Lives Matter movement already fit this pattern, as observers such as Oprah Winfrey have noted. Intellectual life will stagnate, in part because rampant individualism rules the academy as well. We cannot yet say what the effect of the decline and fall of magazines, newspapers, and even serious films will be, but there is little cause for optimism. It is possible, of course, that some genuine national catastrophe or even a massive foreign war could still force the nation to pull together, but I will be very surprised if it does. We lack the capacity for mobilization and organization that earlier generations had—and so, for better or for worse, do the other major states of the world."

    I get it, now…….Popular mass protests don't happen in a era of rising corruption. Such things did happen, or would've happened if necessary, in the 1930's and 1960's. Because those were eras of falling or already low corruption. Rising corruption leads to widespread apathy, alienation, and chaotic individualism that prevents well-adjusted and earnest people from partaking in team-work. Had elites failed to handle the Great Depression well, it would've engendered protests from thousands of normies, united in their efforts to call out failing elites. In the 1960's, the Vietnam fiasco eventually elicited a popular protest movement (older generations were actually more opposed to Vietnam all along, and older generations primarily disliked the tactics of Boomer protesters, rather than disliking the reasoning behind the protests).

    Because we can't organize large groups of people together for the sake of achieving common sense goals anymore, what with being 40 years into an era of corruption that might not end for another 30-40 years, that's why agitators/protesters, be they white nationalist morons or anti-fa goons, are so few in number, wildly undisciplined, varying in motivation and tactics, and generally anti-social and repellent. What's more, unlike the 1930's or 1960's (or the time of the American Revolution), elites (the people who matter) at the moment have no coherent grasp of the crisis we are in; if you can't grasp the nature of the problem collectively, how do you solve it? We beat the British, we helped people out of the Great Depression, and US troops were brought home from Vietnam within 4-5 years of Americans mostly feeling as if we had no business there. With the biggest believers of the meme that we weren't "allowed" to win being doofus hawk Boomers who fortunately were ignored; said hawks would later try to find vindication in our current never-ending middle East wars, whereas Republican GI president GHW Bush felt satisfied by our limited actions in Desert Storm. And Reagan, God bless him, limited US military activity to covert ops in some places+ the overt invasion we did in Grenada, that resulted in just 19 US casualties.

  18. Sadly, as expected.

  19. "The competition for status and positive feedback is unceasing and unwinnable, like Sisyphus pushing the boulder. The worst irony is that because of social media young women today are getting more positive feedback than ever, far too much in fact, but it is still not enough because it is less than other people they know. So you have this debilitating combination of high self-esteem but low self-confidence."

    This is just a proxy. There is the endgame: getting Mr. Awesome. If you don't actually get him, it is all just blah, blah, blah, hence the low self-confidence.

    Consider the difference between getting social media attention and getting actual marriage proposals from high-earning upwardly mobile men. That is a world of difference.

  20. @ silly girl

    Positive attention and status via social media is not just a proxy for romantic success. More like romantic success is a part of obtaining status. Consider that women (and some men) are still obsessed with their image and obtaining positive feedback and comparing themselves favorably to others even after they've locked down a high SMV spouse.

  21. Anon,

    Yeah, I get that but among those over 40, there is no difference among Twatter users and non-users. Only 20% of the population uses it, though, so even under 40, most people do not. And those that do, who are young, have really poor self-reported mental health.

    216,

    Am I reading that correctly, that non-EU citizens can vote in Belgian elections?

  22. AE,

    Yes, this was a local election, and legally resident foreigners are allowed to vote.

    https://www.vlaanderen.be/en/authorities/elections-belgium

    https://www.quora.com/Which-EU-country-has-the-easiest-citizenship-requirements

    Given the reserved power of elections to the States, there is nothing stopping the California legislature from allowing foreigners to vote. The real perversion of the law already exists where the VRA of 1965 required the printing of ballots in languages other than English.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS