> Social media is a reason.
Exactly. Social media is accessible through smartphones, laptop, any connected device.
If the reason is social media, then talking about smartphones in itself is really a mistake: they would not have existed, the same phenomenon would have happened too.
> globalization, which has been going on for 50 years, suddenly led to mental health issues only 10 years ago for no discernable reason we can see
Globalization is not something "that has been going on for 50 years", it is something that is always evolving and that have different impact in time.
Globalization in the 2010 was VERY DIFFERENT from globalization in the 1990. For example, in the 90's, more conservative / pro-market political parties was presenting it as a good thing. In the 2010, globalization suddenly started to be this "thing that no one really want to happen but is happening anyway", even by the pro-market people. It changed way people see themselves, they start to feel powerless. It affects parents and therefore children, it affects social media, it affects popular cultures, movies, ... In the 2010, there was a real change in mentality, globally, about the fact that the globalization may drive us towards the wall.
(even South Park went from "climate change is overstated" to "man-bear-pig is real, but what can we do anyway", which shows in a particular US example how the media mentality shifted from "we are in control and everything is fine" to "in fact, we are powerless". And even in SP, the man-bear-pig example is just one example, there are others where "unfair ending" becoming more and more prevalent)
Also, social media existed since ages too, before the crisis you talk about, and yet, you mention it in your equation.
> if you think nebulous, indirect third order effects of globalization are more plausible than direct first and second order effects from a device kids have in their hands for 16 hours a day.
And I cannot take you seriously if you are thinking that complex social phenomenon is as simple as adding or removing a technological gadget. In fact, you say it yourself that the tool itself is not the reason, you are talking about social media.
> If you had read the other ones, as you claim, then you know he had other researchers gathering the same data from other nations across the globe which all showed the same trends, and they've been writing their own articles on those.
I have read them, and I have also read other articles showing how those trends in these articles have been cherry-picked. I think the difference between you and me is that you've read only Haidt, so obviously, when Haidt says "it's funny, people in US speak english as a first language, but this trend also exist all over the world, let's take some random countries: england, australia, india, south africa", it sounds logical and true.
(ps: I'm not saying Haidt is lying, I'd rather think he thought of an attractive theory and then started seeing the things that confirm it and started finding excuse to conclude that the things that does not confirm it should be considered as irrelevant)
