My Notes (and thoughts): “The Anxious Generation” – Jonathan Haidt

This book has been all over LinkedIn as a “must-read” for educators. Understanding how busy we often are, I’ve put together some notes to help you grasp the key messages without needing to read the entire book. However, I still do suggest you read it for yourself when you have time.

I did start by writing lots, but have condensed it down as it is quite repetitive, and still is!

---

I initially didn’t plan to, but I’ve also shared my thoughts at the end, you’ll see why when/if you read them.

Whilst I’ve supported the idea of no phones in schools, after reading this and reflecting on it, I realise, it is not the appropriate solution if that is the only thing we do.

I suppose what I would propose is a “Ban and Bridge” approach; by this I mean ensure we educate in the void that is left so students leave us with a healthy relationship and approach to mobile phone use.

---

The Anxious Generation:

Generation Z, known as “The Anxious Generation,” includes those born up to 2010 and those growing up with conditions perpetuating anxiety. This generation is the first to experience puberty with readily available digital devices, significantly impacting their mental health.

Previously to smart phones, short and infrequent text messages were primarily used to arrange in-person meetings. However, after the Great Rewiring, our interaction with phones has dramatically increased, which has altered how most of us connect and communicate.

Suggestions:

• No smartphones before age 16
• No social media before 16
• Phone-free schools
• FAR MORE unsupervised play and childhood independence.

The increase in (reporting of) anxiety and depression is not limited to one country, but is observed across Anglo countries, Nordic countries, and in PISA Surveys.

Play:

Free play, which is essential for child development, has declined since the late 1980s, shifting us from a play-based to phone-based childhood. This transition, alongside the rise of personal computers, has led to overprotection (safetyism) in the real world and under-protection in the virtual one. The early 2010’s saw a sharp increase in anxiety, depression, and self-harm among young people, highlighting the need to reassess and reshape modern childhood conditions.

Human childhood is longer than that of other mammals in order to facilitate cultural learning. Play, a crucial aspect of this process, is essential for developing social, cognitive, and emotional skills. The deprivation of play leads to significant impairments, which highlights its importance in fostering skills necessary for a democratic society. Risky play, involving physical challenges, teaches children to care for themselves and others, and is essential for their development.

The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education

 UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

“Play” by Stuart Brown is an excellent book that I recommend on the importance of play. I would argue that you should read this first.

Modern parenting trends, driven by fears of crime and an emphasis on safetyism, have created overprotective environments, drastically reducing children’s opportunities for unsupervised play. This has impacted their confidence and problem-solving skills, as they spend less time in “discover mode” activities that encourage exploration and growth. Instead, they are often in “defend mode,” focused on shielding against threats. One of the most beneficial parts of free play is children learning to act as judges, juries and legislators for rules.

Children in discover mode tend to thrive, learning rapidly and growing robustly, whereas those in defend mode often struggle and experience slower development. A play-based childhood promotes discover mode dominance, whilst a phone-based upbringing leans towards defend mode, which is particularly affecting children born after 1995.

Overprotecting, or “coddling,” can lead to anxiety disorders and low self-esteem. Mariana Brussoni advises that children should be kept “as safe as necessary, not as safe as possible.” This approach to play is crucial for developing the ability to handle larger risks in adulthood. Children who experience small risks become less likely to have phobic reactions, whereas those raised in overly protective environments can become crippled by anxiety and unprepared for life’s challenges. It helps foster resilience and independence.

Risky play is “thrilling and exciting forms of play that involve a risk of physical injury.

Sandseter and Kennair

Parenting and Childhood:

In recent years, parents have felt a sense of loss and frustration in managing their child’s digital lives, often facing daily conflicts over device use. Social media captures girls’ interests, whilst boys are drawn to video games and sometimes pornography. Parents feel trapped, fearing social isolation for their children if devices are removed, yet they recognise the negative impacts of excessive digital engagement.

Since 2010, adolescent depression has sharply increased, with rates rising 145% for girls and 161% for boys, particularly since 2012. This increase is mainly seen in anxiety and depression disorders, as reflected in emergency room visits for self-harm and higher suicide rates among younger adolescents.

Adolescents are often more concerned about “social death” than physical death, highlighting the intense pressure to remain connected and relevant in their social circles.

Jonathan Haidt

The trend of concerted cultivation has led parents to meticulously manage their children’s time and activities, reducing unsupervised play since the 1990s. Driven by college admission pressures and safetyism, this shift blocks children from gaining essential real-world experiences, beneficial for their development. Fear of child abduction and rising crime since the 1980s has eroded community trust. Frank Furedi calls this “the breakdown of adult solidarity,” where adults avoid correcting other people’s children due to scandals and fear of accusations. Consequently, children fear strangers, and adults avoid engaging with them. This loss of trust has led American parents to restrict childhood freedom significantly, often not allowing unsupervised play until age 10, affecting a child’s independence negatively.

Despite safeguards to filter harmful content, digital media often replaces face-to-face play, leading to harmful effects such as chronic social comparison and unattainable beauty standards. There has been a significant decline in students meeting friends in real life daily, with teens now spending over two hours a day on social media, influencing their perceptions and social dynamics.

Even with filtered content, the digital world reduces time for face-to-face play, contributing to negative impacts like chronic social comparison and unachievable beauty standards.

Last year, 45 million illegal images were flagged online, highlighting the issue of overprotecting children in the real world whilst leaving them vulnerable online.

Puberty:

The human brain reaches about 90% of its adult size by age five, but it still requires years of refining and strengthening neural connections through processes like pruning and myelination. During early childhood, the brain operates with lower efficiency compared to an adult brain, a dynamic that changes significantly during puberty.

During puberty, adolescents’ brains undergo critical changes, making them particularly vulnerable to prolonged stressors and the impact of digital media. For girls, the most sensitive period is ages 11-13, and for boys, it’s 14-15. This emphasises the need for balanced interactions to support healthy development.

Puberty brings substantial structural changes in the brain, influenced by activities and experiences during this period. Adolescence is marked by increased brain plasticity, making it a high-risk but high-opportunity time. Adolescents are particularly sensitive to sustained stressors, and their experiences can have lasting impacts. Whilst real-world access is increasingly restricted, the virtual world is more accessible than ever, exposing children to its full spectrum of risks and experiences.

Historically, rites of passage marked the transition into adulthood with clear maturity thresholds. Today, these lines are blurred in the digital realm, leading children to create their own milestones without structured guidance. Haidt recommends a gradual approach to increasing responsibilities for children, helping them navigate toward adulthood effectively. Proposing a structured “ladder” approach, where at each even year after age six, children are granted more autonomy, allowing them to mature and develop through manageable steps.

Children, being the most vulnerable and having the least willpower, are especially susceptible to manipulation by digital devices. The impact is not limited to those who actively engage with social media; even passive users are influenced by the carefully crafted incentive structures of these apps.

Teenagers aged 13-18 can spend up to 50 hours per week on their devices, with time spent varying by social class—lower-income teens often spending more time online. Whilst the healthiest form of play is outdoor activities that involve some risk, the opportunity cost is substantial as they are replacing it with screen based activities.

Costs:

Smartphones divert attention from non-screen activities, leading to a decline in the development of real-world social skills. When interactions are predominantly virtual, children miss out on learning the nuanced social skills required for adulthood.

It is this opportunity cost which is the crux of the problem. It includes social deprivation, sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and addiction.

Social Deprivation: Time with friends in face to face interactions is reduced as they have moved many of their communications to online platforms. “Real” connection suffers. We have a higher volume of contact, but a lower depth, it has become superficial.

Sleep Deprivation: Children need a lot of sleep. Whenever sleep is in short supply mood and learning declines. This is worse for those that sleep with their mobile phones.

Attention Fragmentation: This is linked to the idea that children will constantly be side tracked by their mobile phone, wondering whether they have a message on social media or the likes, this means that their attention is never fully on the task at hand. It is also suggested that a phone-based childhood can interfere with development of executive function.

Addiction: Apps have been designed so that children win enough to want to keep coming back. Every time they do? Dopamine. They will then repeat it for the next release of dopamine. If it feels negative to withdraw from it, they’re addicted.

Girls:

Social disconnection significantly contributes to depression. The widespread adoption of smartphones by 2012 and the rise of social media have altered how young people interact, often preoccupying them with the virtual world despite physical presence in the real one.

For girls, between 2010-2015 is when most of the transformation in mental health occurs.

Instagram and front-facing cameras, introduced in 2010, have especially impacted young girls. By 2013, Instagram had 90 million users, with filters and curated personas making real-life appearances seem less attractive.

Research shows that social media harms girls more than boys, with a clear correlation between social media use and higher depression rates among girls. Girls who use social media heavily are three times more likely to be depressed compared to those who don’t use social media. A major factor is that girls often compare themselves to the filtered and idealised images they see online, particularly on Instagram, leading to pressure to enhance their own appearance.

Girls tend to place a higher value on their relationships, making them more vulnerable to relational aggression like gossip or social exclusion, which can damage their self-worth. They are more emotionally expressive and better at communicating their moods, which makes them more susceptible to sociogenic disorders by mimicking popular online figures.

Haidt has written about increased gender dysphoria, it feels like outdated and prejudiced rhetoric similar to the anti-LGBT sentiments of the 1980’s which I am not going to repeat – it isn’t contagious and as professionals we can deal with and provide appropriate support case-by-case. He does thankfully note that increased awareness of gender expression is a form of social progress.

Social media makes it easier for men to behave as predators online and avoid accountability, as girls often seek a high number of followers and may accept connections from people they don’t know.

Boys:

Boys have gradually disengaged from the real world over time, reaching a critical point in the early 2010s. They have increasingly invested their time and talents in the virtual world. Structural changes have made it difficult for boys to succeed as traditional skills and physical strength have become less valued in modern work environments. Safetyism has impacted boys more than girls, leading to a decrease in risky behaviours and accidents (not that they are good, just that they indicate risk) but an increase in internalising behaviours which are more so associated with girls.

The mental health effects of game immersion on boys became significant in the late 2000s. Boys are becoming more reclusive, with increases in NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) and Hikikomori (acute social withdrawal) behaviours. There is also a rise in pornography consumption, with compulsive users more likely to avoid real-life interactions, making it harder for them to find love, intimacy, and marriage. AI is beginning to offer programmable girlfriends for those wanting to lead Hikikomori lifestyles.

Whilst video games have some benefits for intellectual development and helped mitigate loneliness during the pandemic, problematic gaming affects about 7% of adolescent boys, causing significant real-world impairment and missed opportunities for real social connections. Virtual friendships formed through gaming lack the strength and bonding of real-life relationships. Boys need norms, rules, and boundaries to guide their path to adulthood, but the virtual networks they create do not provide the same support or nourishment as the real world.

---

Haidt also has some recommendations for schools and parents. Rather than summarise that, I’ll link you to his resources.

---

My own thoughts…

These are just my current thoughts and ramblings, they change, they evolve, they are not in any way linked to my employer. How you think about this and consider bans is going to depend a lot on your school and its context. My thoughts are coloured by my own experiences in international schools.

There is so much more that is different in the world today other than just social media and mobile phones that will add stress to a person’s life or cause an anxious response. I can’t help but feel that by blaming everything on this, we overlook so much of what affects the lives of young people today. The rest of us didn’t grow up in such a globalised world nor were we as aware of the tragedies of the global stage in the same way.

There is no escaping mobile phones or social media. The world we live in requires us to co-exist in a healthy way. We have to ensure that by the time students leave education, they have the tools to be able to do that. We don’t get better at driving a car by reading the manual, we need to drive it, the same goes for pretty much everything else, learning to use something and practicing that, in a healthy way, is how we improve.

I’m a huge supporter of incorporating more play into kids’ lives, both in and out of lessons. The data on the importance of play has been around for years and shows how incredibly important it is for all of us, not just kids! Adults modelling this is even better—relax, have fun, get silly. Whilst I will not join in with strategy board games, I will definitely see who can eat the most Pringles in 30 seconds. I love that so many schools are adopting a fully play-based curriculum for younger children, we, in secondary, could learn a thing or two from this. What a golden opportunity for cross-phase collaboration! I’d love to look at how play-based could be used with older students; I know there is opportunity for there to be more fun, for sure!

Phones

I think there should be a movement to reduce screen time and increase engagement in the real world. This is for everyone, not just kids; I’m often the only person on the MTR that isn’t staring at a screen. Adults are the ones modeling how to behave with a phone, we might want to think about what children are seeing us do.

The reflex here is to ban phones, but banning phones is a short-term solution; a band-aid. If that’s all we do in school we’re just moving the problem further down the line, it becomes someone else’s problem to deal with. We’re supposed to set students up to thrive in their next step, a ban without education doesn’t do that. We can’t ignore a problem and expect it to go away.

We should also be mindful of our language; the term ‘ban’ may create issues and make people feel like we are taking something away from them. We aren’t truly banning anything, we are simply restricting phone use in certain settings. For example, saying ‘using a phone in school? We don’t do that here’ offers a more accurate representation of any policy.

We need to be aware that this generation is different, many also for example, don’t carry a wallet (👵🏼 it gives your age away, apparently) because everything is on their phone. There are places in the world where you cannot take part if you don’t have a smart phone – Shenzhen in China for example. Which means we need to robustly educate children so that they can process and handle the negatives of them and technology in general.

To be clear, I’m in support of not using phones unnecessarily in schools, always have been, students don’t need to be on Facebook at breaktime when someone is sat right next to them, nor do I think they should they be playing games on them (or their laptop). Haidt makes some great points which we mostly already knew as educators. Boundaries and rules for their use should be in place and enforced, and there should be consequences for device misuse.

The mobile phone itself is not the problem, it’s how they can and are being used in an unhealthy way. Masturbation received similar warnings (did I make you spit your tea?!) but is a perfectly healthy, safe and natural method of self-care.

Phone use in class for me as a science teacher can be really useful. Calculators? Amazing. I also don’t have to mess around with batteries in stop watches (or waste time showing students how to use them). They can use apps for different experiments, they can video record a pendulum swing (or anything else for that matter) to get a more accurate reading, they can take a picture of their dissection or cells down a microscope and add it to an e-portfolio or show their parents at home. They are great and add to learning when used in an appropriate manner. But do I need them? No.

Social Media

Social media is no longer just social media. It’s a photo storage system, a news source, a central hub for organising actual social activities, I’ve personally had to get a Facebook (after years without it) to have access to information I need. It has some amazing positives, especially for international students and teachers who are away from many of their family members. I often send random memes to friends in different places around the world, they know they crossed my mind, this soft check-in is good for us when we are leading busy lives.

Can we stop students accessing social media or get companies to enforce the rules? I don’t think we can without causing harm to certain groups more than others. Requiring ID will mean that groups of people, mainly the poor, will be disproportionately affected. When we try to control in this way, we can make it more enticing, and ways around the rules will definitely be found. If they want to get on social media, they will find a way and they will hide it from us, which means they will be less safe online. However, given the potential harm, we can and should make it difficult for students to circumvent a block or a ban. If students are so desperate to find a way around it, they highlight the very reason we need such measures in the first place. This is where addiction begins.

My main problem here is that the scientist in me is really uncomfortable with some of this. There is correlation with the data, but it’s quite difficult to ascertain causation. Some of it appears to be quite cherry-picked to fit the narrative of the book. It’s quite strange. The data provided doesn’t seem nearly as compelling as the words suggest. Without more information on the methodologies used, which I don’t have time to review, I’m a bit skeptical. A quick example: I don’t think it acceptable to compare the data of girls going through puberty with a study of college-aged (non-gendered) students to imply causation. I could have missed something, but 13-year-old me was very different from 21-year-old me, and 13-year-old me was certainly different from 20-year-old Barry. I’ll refrain from commenting further on that. I’ll let you enjoy these from the Tyler Vigen website to get a better idea of why this bothers me.

I find it irresponsible that information was published in the way it was regarding how girls who discuss their anxiety and depression are likely to make their friends anxious and depressed; the higher rates within groups. The last thing I would ever want to happen is that a girl was feeling terrible and not wanting to speak to anyone about it for fear that they would ‘infect’ or make the other person depressed. Every educator I know wants these girls to speak up and speak out. Let us or someone else know. We shouldn’t risk the shutting down of these girls.

“Teenage angst” has long been expected and struggling to handle emotions during puberty isn’t new. Hormonal fluctuations are not fun, no matter which stage of life you’re in. Girls now having the language to identify their feelings and talk about them is positive. Can we STOP shying away from verbalising how our hormones are affecting us? Normalise it, I once cried on the phone to a friend because I couldn’t find tampons in Manila. I was 37. Crying, btw, is an excellent way to self-sooth and calm ourselves down.

👌👌 I want to point out that I’m so glad that young people now stand up and say what they’re feeling rather than suffering in silence; they should be commended for having the courage to do this. If we know about it, we can try to help. This generation having the courage to speak when previous ones didn’t will indeed cause numbers on a survey to change. Just because people never said it before, does not mean it wasn’t there. 👌👌

Heal loudly, so others don’t drown in their own silence. Heal loudly, so others may live. Heal loudly, so others know that they are not alone.

Gina Clingan

Regardless of that, we have an issue with the mental health of a generation of children and young adults, and social media use is a contributing factor for some of those children.

This is a well-being issue. This is an education issue.

Social media isn’t all bad though, and we shouldn’t pretend it is, nor should we make anyone feel fear or shame for using and enjoying it. I recall in the early days of TikTok how girls loved making videos together at break time – so much so that the end of the year ‘dares’ included selected teachers having to make them for the kids to enjoy (laughing at us) too. This is play. This is what we want them to be doing.

I also want to say that I appreciate that it won’t be as simple or easy for schools that have a high prevalence of bullying occurring via social media. It takes a lot of work to change the culture and it’s not as easy in larger schools, but as we know, it will be set by the top and decided based on the worst behaviours we are willing to accept. Co-existing healthily with social media is going to take a lot of work.

Schools

Education on healthy and appropriate device use. Education on critical processing of information. Education on healthy self-regulation. More play!

We need to look at all of this and ensure that our well-being curriculum is specifically aligned and encapsulates it; I know many schools with this already in place and it’s already taught really well in some of the best schools. This needs to be explicit and not just down to chance, teachers should have professional development linked to it, schools should have dedicated well-being sessions (do we still call this PSHE?!), students should have a voice and give feedback. I’ll say it again because I love to: proper planning and alignment of curriculum is one way we can care for the well-being of students.

Parents should also be involved and aware of what the school is doing so that they can support this at home. Deliver workshops, share resources with them, make sure channels of communication are open to keep it collaborative. If we learn about problems, we can start doing something to solve them.

Experiential learning programs are also really useful in building the social skills that can end up lacking due to the phone-based childhood.

Do students want to game and keep demanding it or resisting schools restricting it? Set up a Nintendo Switch (or similar communal gaming system) for them. Or do they just want to play alone on a device? There is a distinction here that suggests different issues entirely.

Parents

Convenience is a culprit and will always be difficult to resist. Human beings want convenience, especially when we are time poor. I’m not blaming here, we live in a very different world to the 1970’s where having a stay-at-home adult was far more likely. In most homes now, both adults have to work which means caretakers are tired. Mobile devices and social media give us the convenience we need for many things.

If you’re like me, you’ll have grabbed a chocolate bar as a snack because it’s convenient (and ignored the banana next to it), ordered fast food because it’s convenient, ordered your supermarket shopping online and selected the pre-chopped veggies. Hopped on a zoom call rather than travel to the city to have a coffee? Been there. I often order from Amazon when I don’t have the energy to cope with shopping. Dishwasher? Robotic vacuum? Check.

We pass a child an iPad because we don’t have time to play or negotiate with the tiny human demanding our attention, and do they have to do it so loudly?! We know that an app can help a child learn their colours or shapes, surely that’s a good thing? Yes, it is, but we just need to make sure they’re getting other interactions too. Don’t forget, children do also need to be savvy with digital devices, using them has benefits.

The harm is not done by children learning on digital devices or playing with them, it is from replacing too many real interactions with this. A child should not be choosing online games when there are other children to play with, we should aim to remove that as an option. They need to learn to play with others to develop social skills. Also, whilst we are here, let them get bored! That’s when they will get creative!

Kids need to play. Giving them as much opportunity as you can for physical play would be fabulous. Tire them out physically so that they sleep well. We can teach your kids (and you, if you like) about sleep hygiene, we just need you to help enforce it.

If you make them play and make them sleep, we can take care of much of the rest; we will need you to support us though.

As children grow older, setting household rules regarding device use, gaming, and social media should be at your discretion. Different age groups have different needs, and the rules will likely evolve based on how your child responds. Schools will be able to help make suggestions. But you’re in charge, if you want to add controls to their phones or block apps, they’re your children and your responsibility at home.

---

What would younger you have done?

Let’s try to think from the child’s perspective for a minute. If you had had access to today’s technology, would your childhood be a little different?

I think it would have been difficult for my parents to manage the social media use of myself and my siblings. I remember the struggle to get my brothers off the Commodore 64 -> Sega Mega drive -> Playstation. Share with the girls? Not a chance.

Connection: I grew up on a farm which was ~5 miles away from my school which is where all of my friends lived. Seeing my friends outside of school wasn’t very convenient. I had to walk, run, cycle, or beg a parent, I also had a few different teachers who would take me home after sports or stop and pick me up if they saw me running (they didn’t think the back roads were very safe to run along). It was inconvenient but is exactly what I would do multiple times per week. I would have definitely moved most of that ‘social contact’ online because of the inconvenience of travel. Or, I would have gotten an Uber; which is a barrier for low-income families.

Self-Management: If I was ever upset growing up, which was rare as I was notoriously oblivious to anything that was happening around me, I would go out into the fields, spend time with the horses, dogs, sheep, or lay by the river watching the clouds. Being in nature is something I learned worked for me, luckily, as it was pretty much my only option! Today we teach the benefits of nature to children. I know the healthier thing for me to do is go for a walk/run, but convenience means I will often mindlessly doom-scroll on social media going down all kinds of rabbit holes. Because of this, I’ll often remove social media apps from my mobile device. I know that I’m a verbal processor and I need to talk things through to help me understand, this is more convenient for me with today’s technology as I’m able to do this without leaving the house.

What about you?

---