By a variety of measures and in a variety of countries, the members of Generation Z (born in and after 1996) are suffering from anxiety, depression, self-harm, and related disorders at levels higher than any other generation for which we have data.

  • Politically Incorrect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If someone it’s interested at reading about the effects of TV and internet into modern culture you should read a book named Homo-videns by Giovanni Sartori.

    Beside the book, I believe the boom of ADHD diagnostics could be related to modern technology use and its effects on brain development, psychological and emotional.

      • shneancy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        we know it’s genetic for sure. but we don’t know if it isn’t enviormental as well, it’s rather hard to check, but to confidentiality claim that it definitely isn’t is silly

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s how science works. We don’t just consider things as true just in case they might be true

          • emptiestplace@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 months ago

            Casting doubt on environmental factors without conclusive evidence simplifies a complex issue. Science thrives on openness to new data, not dismissing possibilities without thorough investigation.

            Personally, I don’t think you should be telling folks “how science works”.

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              8 months ago

              No that’s not how it works. If you have a theory, posit it, test it, and peer-review the tests. If you (or someone else) won’t do that, you can’t just muddle the waters like this. This is how anti-science works.

              • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Them:

                I believe

                They admitted it’s just a theory.

                You:

                Adhd is not something environmental

                Alas, the only definitive assertion in this comment chain. It has been proven that there is a genetic component to ADHD, not that it is exclusively a genetic disorder.

                I also believe ADHD is partially environmental. I have diagnosed with and am treated for it.

                It’s not anti-science to believe something that hasn’t been disproven. It is anti-science to believe something that has been disproven (e.g. climate change-denying loons).

                • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  They admitted it’s just a theory.

                  You don’t just “I have a theory that aliens caused it” and then start spreading it around like the OP i Was responding to did.

                  It’s not anti-science to believe something that hasn’t been disproven.

                  By that argument it’s not anti-scientific to believe in Gods and Astrology…

                  • BringMeTheDiscoKing@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Belief in god or astrology is not anti-scientific, it is unscientific.

                    Anti-scientific is evangelizing that the belief in god or astrology is a replacement for science.

              • emptiestplace@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                You’re literally doing the thing you accuse others of—jumping to conclusions without full evidence. Declaring ADHD purely genetic, while ignoring potential environmental factors, is a leap without scientific backing. It’s not about muddling waters; it’s about acknowledging our current limits and exploring all possibilities. That’s the essence of true scientific inquiry.

                • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  I believe things that are proven. Claiming ADHD is environmental without proof is on the same scale as “Vaccines cause Autism” and is used to claim shit like “Everyone has ADHD these days” or find something to blame for “causing ADHD” without ever supporting actual people with ADHD. The OP was literally using this exact argument to blame electronics for causing ADHD! This is muddying the waters and is not helping people with ADHD at all and is probably just harming them.

                  • emptiestplace@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Dismissing the role of environmental factors in ADHD overlooks the basic science that our behaviours and surroundings can fundamentally alter brain function. It’s a leap to equate cautious exploration of these effects with debunked myths.