How Smartphones Changed Childhood: Jonathan Haidt on The Anxious Generation

If you are going to have children on your site, if you are going to have millions of children on your site, you can't be connecting them to strange men who have a history of sextortion on your site. You have to have ways to block contact with strangers, perhaps in one setting. You have to have features that protect kids. You have to set defaults to private. If government were to say here's some minimum safety standards, that would have no political ramifications. Doesn't help the left or the right. It would work. Everyone in the world doesn't depend on content moderation. Content moderation is bad news. Hard to make it work. Always going to overcorrect the left or the right's going to hate it. So I never talk or think about content moderation. I'm totally focused on design. We designed cars dangerously before the 60s. Now we design them safe and they're so much safer. We need to do the same for social media platforms which are the companies that own our kids lives.

Good morning everybody, I'm Guy Kawasaki, this is the Remarkable People podcast and we're coming from our Far west studio in Waikiki on Oahu in Hawaii. And I'm particularly relaxed today and I have a great guest, but honestly, this topic is not that relaxing. His name is Jonathan Haidt and he is a social psychologist. He's a best selling author and he explores things like morality and culture and social media psychology of division. His latest book is called of All Things in Hawaii, the Anxious Generation how the Great Rewiring of Children is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. It's quite the subtitle, Jonathan. And let us just say that his book and what we're going to discuss today is going to help you understand the impact of social media and other things on society. Did I get all that right, Jonathan?

Yep, that is all correct. And are you suggesting that in Hawaii people don't even know what anxiety is because life is so lovely and wonderful?

Hawaii is supposed to be the happiest state. I think I read that someplace.

Yeah.

First of all, I got, I saw a video of you on Neil Degrasse Tyson's podcast and he started off by saying that he was really offended and hurt that you didn't ask for his blurb for your second book. I thought that was the funniest damn thing.

Yeah, well, yeah, because he blurbed the previous book. Yeah, but we smoothed it all out in the corners.

I'm glad you did. I'm glad you did. First of all, before we get into the social media stuff, I want to go back to your work in 2005, where you came up with this concept of the moral foundations theory. And first of all, I'll let you explain it, but I found that very interesting. So will you please explain the six kind of factors or foundations in your moral foundations theory?

So first, I should give listeners a sense of who I am, which is I'm a social psychologist, which means I study how we influence each other. And early on in my career, while I was in grad school, I picked morality as my topic. Why do we care so much what other people are doing? How do we judge them? And then I also quickly picked cultural variation in morality as my topic, because you will not find a human society that doesn't care what people do, that isn't gossiping and judging and criticizing. That's part of human nature. But yet morality varies across cultures. And so that's what I began to study in the 90s in graduate school and then in my first faculty position as a professor at the University of Virginia. And as I began to look at how morality varies across cultures, I began to notice, this is late 90s, early 2000s, that the American culture war, like, left and right, they're beginning to be like separate countries, like totally different frames of reality, different views of economics, of American history, of the Constitution, of everything. So the culture war was beginning to be like, literally two different separating cultures. Now, it's kind of obvious that we're separate cultures, but it wasn't so obvious back then. And so in the process of trying to understand, you know, we've all got it, but it varies. And a lot of people said, oh, well, it's like language. Everyone has language. It's part of human nature. But our languages differ. That's a common analogy. But because I was studying, I began to see that moral judgment is really much more based in the emotions and in quick, intuitive reactions than it is in, like, reasoning. And so I use the metaphor of the tongue. All of our tongues have the same five taste receptors on them. That's sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami, a kind of a meat flavor. We all have the same five, but our cuisines are different. But we can like each other's cuisines. And so from looking at all kinds of moral traditions and cultures, my colleagues and I came up with the view that there's at least five foundations that are like the taste buds of the moral sense. They are care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity. And then later we added liberty. There are more. There are other things. But with those six you can really understand the coherent worldview of the left and the coherent worldview of the right and why each side thinks the other is wrong and why libertarians are kind of different from all of them. And you can look at how American culture has changed, and you can look at how America versus Iran versus Russia. Like, you can re. It's. You know, the idea was to give people vocabulary to say, oh, okay, this is what they say. I see how it's based in these three taste buds, not in these other three. So that's what the theory is about.

And that's 20 years ago. So has the theory proven to be more correct or less correct? If anything, we're more separate and divided.

Yeah. So the theory, in terms of what are the universal taste buds of the moral sense, the theory has held up very well. There are critics in psychology. There are. People have alternate models. But the one revision that we made in this work, more recently, so I should say the original work was done especially with professors Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek, Pete Ditto, Sana Kaleva, Ravi Iyer, that was the original team that created the first version. And then more recently, Mohamed Athari, who's now at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, has really been leading. He did an incred online serving, like more than a dozen different cultures, giving a lot of new questions, doing factor analysis to figure out what's the factor structure in all these cultures. And the only revisions we had to make are that we. We broke fairness into sort of equality, which is what the left cares about, and proportionality, like the law of karma, do the crime, do the time. Proportionality is what the right cares about. So even on fairness, there's a left right difference. That was the main change that we made. So the theory has, I think, held up very, very well in terms of what are the foundations. What's changed is that when I wrote my book the Righteous mind, that was 2012, based on all this work, when I wrote the Righteous Mind, the left was still visibly liberal and the right was still visibly conservative. And what's happened since 2012 is that the left is split. There's a far left that is really illiberal and pushing for things that are contrary to the liberal tradition. And on the right, there's a far right that is really radical, reactionary, that is not recognizably conservative. There's no connection between the far right or the maga right and the conservative intellectual tradition, for which I have a great deal of respect, going all the way back to Edmund Burke. So American politics has gotten much more extreme. I believe one of the main factors is because of social media. And so we don't have liberals and conservatives anymore. I mean, they're center left, center right. We still have some. But our politics is driven by the extremes. And that is a. That is terrible for a large, diverse, secular, liberal democracy like the United States. It is terrible for us to be being pulled apart like this. We're in big trouble, I believe.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but when I read this theory, my reaction was, if you're a liberal, you think conservatives are bad, they're evil, blah, blah, blah, and vice versa. But if you look at your six factors, all of your six factors are kind of positive things, right? Like, you know, sanctity and liberty and all this kind of stuff. So it's not that they believe in the opposite of you, it's just which flavor is most important to them. But it's all on sort of six, more or less, at the very least, neutral, but perhaps even positive features, right?

That's right. Because our morality is not just like a taste. It's not just like good, bad. Like our morality, or at least political morality, is a set of ideas and metaphors and beliefs and facts that are built up over many decades or even generations on certain foundations. So on the left, there's been much longer a tradition of focus on victims, on those who are oppressed, those at the bottom. And that was incredibly powerful in bringing about the rights revolution. So the civil rights, gay rights, animal rights, women's rights, you know, the rights revolutions were driven by much more by the left. And so what you do is over time, you construct a narrative about groups. And some groups have power and some groups are oppressed. And sometimes that's right. And that was true at times, and it's still true at times. But that view became so hardened on the left. I believe this is just my analysis of how we got so extreme, became so hardened on the left, that they kind of took it into everything, like everything is victim, oppressor. And this went across universities in 2015, causing, I think, catastrophic results, which I wrote about in a book called the Coddling of the Mind with my friend Greg Lukianoff. So the left kind of gets hardened into a set. These are not the moral foundations themselves, but these make sense. If your main moral foundations are care for victims and equality in a country that has a lot of inequality, that is not a crazy way to think. Okay? So that kind of gets hardened. And it was very helpful in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I'm not sure it's been so helpful in the 2010s when we even got gay rights and trans rights have been instantiated by the Supreme Court. So that's on the left. On the right, they care more than the left does about loyalty, like group loyalty and authority and respect for authority and sanctity. And some of your listeners might be saying, really, they care for authority. Look what they're doing to the Constitution and American traditions. I think what happens there on the right, you've long had this idea, going back many decades, that the left is attacking moral order. The left, they hate everything about America's past, and they want to tear it all down. And our job is to preserve it. And that's a visibly conservative sentiment. And what I say in the anxious, in the righteous mind, is that a healthy society has a liberal wing that's like pushing for change and a conservative wing. So, whoa, slow down. Let's have a gas pedal and a brake. You don't want a country without both of those. But on the right, I think they've hardened into. The left is always trying to destroy America. They hate America. And we are the real Americans who are guarding American traditions. Now, one of the greatest American traditions is the Constitution. That's all about dividing powers and limiting the power of the presidency. That's what the Founding Fathers were afraid of, that you'd have a tyrant who would take over and assume all power. So you might say, come on, conservatives, this is what you should be offended by. But again, if you take that view that the left is the enemy and they've been trying to destroy America for decades and decades, and then you get modern social media and you get everybody more extreme. Now you can have the view on the right that our enemy isn't Russia or China or Iran, it's the left, and we've got to fight the left. And it's very scary when the executive power of the country is harnessed. I don't want to get too political on you. I just want to say, for whatever, whether your listeners are on the left or the right, your worldview makes full sense. I totally grant that. And the other side, they believe that theirs makes full sense. And the further we get apart, the more we hate the other side. We become incapable of believing that they really believe that. And this is where we are in the culture war. And this is a very dangerous place.

This is a really brilliant lens and a brilliant way to look at what's happening right now, because it's not right or wrong. It's different. And so you got to be able to hold it in your head that both sides can believe they're right and both sides have an argument to be made that they are right.

I fully agree with that. I'll say something a little bit more controversial, which is I actually think that you can sometimes say where the other side is wrong. Now, you can't just do that in a vacuum. You have to have a frame of reference. But from a vibrant liberal democracy, and the United States was the world's premier liberal democracy for so long, I can say, and I have said, and I get a lot of flack for this, that some things on the left, like cancel culture is deeply illiberal, and they are wrong. They're wrong to create a climate of fear where people can't speak up even on. So I've said, even though I respect both sides, like, I think this is contrary to liberal principles. And the same thing on the right, where I think we can see that power with no checks on it is really dangerous. And to see all the checks going away and to see Congress doing nothing and to see the Supreme Court seeming to bless the power grab. So I'm willing to say that we're all ethical creatures. We all want what's best for the country, for our families, for the world. But, man, the two sides are both kind of suffering at the extremes, at least are suffering from some delusions and pursuing some policies that I think betray their own traditions. Okay, now on to more positive stuff or social media. We're already on social media. Yeah, we didn't think this was going to be about politics primarily. No, you got us into it. You asked.

Talk about a timely concept about this. It's a very useful framework. I found it very useful to learn about this framework. And, Jonathan, may I just say, I am not worthy. I am not worthy. Because, Jonathan, seriously, if somebody said to me, guy, 20 years ago you wrote a book and you had six concepts, can you explain them to me? I can honestly tell you, I would be sitting here saying, what the hell is he talking about? I remember six principles in the book I wrote six months ago. And you just went back 20 years and ripped them off. You don't have notes in front of your computer, right?

Well, it's one thing if you spend 15 years of your life as a researcher, as a scholar, and you live and breathe it, and you create this thing and you send it out into the world and then you find out the world is coming apart along exactly the lines that you wrote about. And even though Everything I've been thinking and talking about for the last year or two has been about the anxious generation, social media, kids, mental health. But in the last six months, wow. I took the Righteous Mind off my shelf the other day. I was flipping through it because I'm going to try to write something saying, okay, what's happening now is really insane and scary, but let's go through it. Okay, what are the three principles of moral psychology? How are they operating today? If we're going to go over a cliff, let's at least understand how we're going over this cliff and what might happen at the bottom.

If I were someone who worked for the Atlantic and listening to this podcast, I would be calling you up in the next five minutes and saying, jonathan, we need an article for the Atlantic about this.

We're already there. So I love the Atlantic. Most of my most influential pieces have been in the Atlantic, and I am now officially a contributor to the Atlantic. I think the Atlantic is doing the most amazing work to bring in diverse viewpoints. It's on the right, People think it's on the left, but it really is politically diverse and committed to saving the country. So I love writing there. And I'm actually writing the paper that I mentioned that's actually. I'm writing that for the Atlantic. So we're already there.

Ah, see, great minds think alike.

Yeah. Or actually great minds often don't think alike. But okay, all right.

All right. So let's get out of the past here and let's get into this current work of yours. So first of all, explain the fundamental harms that social media can cause in kids.

So something weird happened beginning around 2013, 2014. All of a sudden, teenagers were much more depressed, anxious, suicidal, self harming. It seemed to come out of nowhere. It wasn't like this in 2010, even 2011, there was no sign of this. And so since 2015, when this became apparent on college campuses, but then it turned out it was everywhere. It wasn't just on college campuses. I've been focused on what happened to Gen Z. What happens that people born in 1996 and later, that is Gen Z. Why are they so different from the millennials who were born 1981-1995? Why are they so different? And everything comes back to what happened to them during puberty. And so the millennials, let's say you're born in 1990, you go through puberty from roughly 2002 to 2016, 2006, so four or five years, those crucial years in which your brain is rewiring. Your brain is literally changing, you know, huge change in the connections among dendrites and axons. Because as you go through puberty, the brain is shifting from the child form, which is very open and plastic and flexible, to the adult form, which is kind of locked down in an effective pattern for your culture. You become enculturated, especially during puberty. There's a sensitive period where you learn your culture. And my argument in the book in the exist generation is that the millennials, their mental health is fine because they got through puberty before 2012 and so they're okay. But Gen Z went through puberty in the early 2010s or later. And what happened is that in 2010, everyone has a flip phone. The iPhone exists, but teens don't have one in 2010. They're texting each other. There are no apps, not a lot of high speed Internet. So the technology is just, it connects them. They talk, they text, that's it. But by 2015, all the teens have a smartphone. 2012 is the flip year. That's where it goes to majority. So it's that short period 2010 to 2015, everything changes in technology environment. By 2015, the amount of time kids are spending with other kids is plummeting. They're not spending much as much time anymore. The amount of exercise they get is dropping, the amount of sunlight they get is dropping, the number of books they read is dropping. Because this takes up everything. And if the phone is taking up six to 10 hours a day, depending on the subgroup you're talking about, and that's not counting school and schoolwork and other stuff, if the phone for many kids is taking up literally half of their waking hours, that interferes with everything about development. So in the book I especially find focus on what it's done to their mental health and why this new phone based childhood creates anxious, fragile young adults. Whereas the older play based childhood, where you go out, you're playing, you take risks, you get in arguments, you settle the arguments, everything's not mediated by an adult. Why that's a healthy way to develop. That's why the millennial's mental health is fine. So that's the basic argument of the book. There are a lot of other harms we can go into, but that's the core idea about the great rewiring of childhood. 2010-2015.

Starting a business comes with its share of ups and downs, which is why staying true to your vision is essential. A non negotiable for Romeo and Milka Bregali Capital One business customers and co owners of Ra's plant based restaurant in New York. Romeo and Milka took a leap of faith when starting their own restaurant, gutting an empty space and building it from the ground up and every pipe, every wall, every detail. But building from scratch came with a heavy financial burden, which is when they turned to their Capital One business card. With the flexibility of the card's no preset spending limit, they were able to spend more and earn more rewards while bringing their vision to life. Today, Roz's success is proof that with passion and the right support, it's possible to make your dreams a reality. Learn more@capitalone.com business cards.

You're listening to Remarkable People with Guy.

Kawasaki and is there any issue that someone pushing back on you would say Jonathan Post hoc propter Hawk is not necessarily true. Just because we see these changes in them and it happened after smartphones doesn't mean necessarily the smartphone caused it. So you have like proof that it was the smartphone, nothing else?

Yes. So first I certainly grant that if all I were to say, and in the first chapter of the book, I say, look what happened to mental health over and over again in multiple countries. Same thing in the uk, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia. So if I say that and then I say, hmm, what changed? Oh, you know, technology change. Okay, that's just a correlation, a historical correlation that does not prove causation. It could be anything else. And so I'm surprised how little pushback there is. Actually. I expected a lot of stuff to be written. There was one article written in Nature that was very critical and that's really the only one everybody cites that to say, oh, it's totally controversial, there's a big fight. There's really that one article. There are a couple of other negative reviews, but over the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive. And there's actually, there's a small group of researchers that think I've misinterpreted this. And we have a normal academic argument. And so what you're asking is how can I show its causality? It's not just a historical correlation. And so the answer is we're just about to come out with an essay on my substack after Babel where we show there are seven different lines of evidence. Seven different lines. Think about it this way. Imagine if a woman is mugged by three men and she knows the three men and they punch her and they take her wall and they take her car. How do we know they did it? So she, it goes to trial, she Reports them, they're arrested, it goes to trial. How do we know they did it? Line one, she says so, like she saw them, she knows it. And with social media, the kids say it. So in this article we showed the seven lines. Line number one, surveys of Gen Z, they're not grateful to these apps and program. They say, this is the major reason we're depressed. Huge amounts of regret. Whereas with prior moral concerns like over television, kids weren't saying, oh God, television ruined our lives. God, if only we could stop watching television, but we can't. Please help us stop watching television. So the first thing is the apparent victims actually point to the perpetrator, say they did it. Next, they're eyewitnesses. So the kids could be wrong, but they're eyewitnesses. So surveys of parents show the same thing. The parents believe this is hurting them. And it's the combination of smartphones and social media, it's not just the phone. And teachers believe it is happening. And we have all kinds of surveys of that. And then there are confessions. Suppose that the prosecutor was able to say, look, here are screenshots of the text messages between these three guys. And they say, let's go mug someone Thursday at 3. Yeah, let's do it. And then they say, wow, that was fun mugging this woman at three. Okay, guy, would you consider that to be evidence that these guys are guilty if you had screenshots of their texts?

Yeah. So this is Mark Zuckerberg talking to his direct report saying, making the thing that sucks you in the most.

Right? Exactly right. That's right. Because so many parents and attorneys general are suing these companies because there's so many dead kids and there are so many huge expenditures by the states for teen mental health emergency services. So huge numbers of lawsuits. In the lawsuits, there's a process of discovery and the lawyers have brought out all kinds of internal reports and documents and they quote those in their briefs that they put up online. And my team, we analyzed all these briefs and we took out just the quotes from their own employees over and over again. The goal is to addict them. They know what they're doing. TikTok seems heavy use of TikTok seems to correlate with loss of ability to pay attention and damage to relation. I mean, it's unbelievable. So if listeners go to afterbabel.com, or just search industrial scale harms, you'll find our posts on TikTok and Snap. So that's the third line of evidence that they say. So like their own reports Say that they're hurting kids. Okay, then the fourth line is the correlational studies. Now, correlational studies can't prove causality, but there's an argument over whether the correlations are so low that they don't matter or whether they're much larger. And so I believe we're going to win that argument. But we lay it all out. Like, how do you interpret all these? Then there are the experiments, which we generally do think establish causality. And we can't run the real experiment, which is let's take a thousand kids and not give them iPhones on social media and let them go through puberty. That would determine it. If we could do that, would totally suck. But we'll never do that, of course. So instead we have these little toy problems. And a toy problem is, let's try to get 500 college students. We'll randomly assign half of them to reduce their social media use for a week, two weeks, three weeks, and let's see if they get less depressed. And the answer is yes, they do compared to the control condition. Now, that's only if you wait a week or longer. Some studies go one day. And if you blend in the one day studies, if you're addicted to something and then they take it away from you, are you happy? No. It takes a while to over to overcome it, to get back to normal for your dopamine system to reset. So the experiments, there are quasi experiments, there are longitudinal studies. So we'll be posting this in the next couple of weeks@afterbabble.com sorry, that was a very long answer to your question, but I'm in the middle of this debate right now with other researchers. So yes, there is a debate, but I believe that the debate focuses very narrowly on how to interpret correlational studies in a small class of experimental studies. But in fact, there are seven different lines of evidence. And so if you're a parent or a legislator, are you going to say let's wait until the researchers have reached consensus? Okay. That's going to take 30 years on media effects. We can't reach consensus in a decade or two. It takes a long time. But legislators and parents have to make a decision today. Does it look like this is hurting kids? Does it look like it's good for kids? So that's where we are.

My mother used to tell me, if four people tell you you're drunk, you catch a cab, you don't say, they're all wrong.

That's right. No, they're all wrong. I know better. Yeah.

And is the evidence that social media is especially harmful to girls.

Yes. To be clear, what we're talking about here isn't social media overall. It's a single variable which is what we study because we don't know what the kids are doing online. Only the companies know. They know, they see the damage. We don't know. All we know is there are a lot of surveys where you ask a thousand kids, how many hours a day do you spend on social media? It's often not defined. Does it include texting? So how many hours a day? 0.0 to 1? 1 to 3. So we get like a five point scale of just the amount of time and it's not even that accurate, but it's correlated with the reality of how much time. That's all we have. We look at that and then we look at how often were you anxious in the last month. So we have a variable on mental health. So if you just look at that correlation, then girls have a bigger correlation repeatedly. Girls are more harmed by spending time on social media if you're just looking at that relationship that I'm very confident about. But what I've come to see is that even though girls use it more, they care about it more, they're more drawn in, they're more addicted to getting social information than boys are. When we look at very serious harms, like who actually dies because they bought drugs that release with fentanyl on Snapchat, super easy to buy drugs. You can do it within 10 seconds of opening account, he was able to get fine drug dealers. So who was dying because they bought Percocet that turned out to have fentanyl in it? Who is getting sextorted, that is who is being tricked into sharing a naked photo of themselves showing their genitals and then is revealed, oh, I thought I was talking with a sexy girl. But it turns out it's a sextortion ring operating somewhere in Asia or Africa. And they're going to destroy my reputation in send this photo to everyone I know unless I pay them $500. And then another 500, then another 500. And so we know of about 40 cases. We know the names of boys who killed themselves that day or the next day. So when we look at the very serious harms, sextortion driven to suicide, fentanyl. Now I'm not sure there's a sex difference. Oh, cyberbullying that caused a lot of suicides. And there it's also a lot of girls. So in terms of very serious harms, there may not be a sex difference. Or it might even tilt towards boys in terms of actual death. But I don't have those hard numbers.

And I think you already said this, but I just want to reiterate that this is not a uniquely American phenomenon.

Right, right.

Is it everywhere that has smartphones and social media like this?

Not quite. Not yet. For an interesting reason. So a couple of amazing things about this, and this is what convinced me. So to go back to your question, like, okay, you got this correlation. Does that prove causation? The correlation doesn't prove causation. But the fact that very much the same pattern happened in Canada, the uk, Australia, New Zealand, so the Anglo countries at the same time, usually whatever happens in America gets to Australia, New Zealand three to five years later. But this was the same. Okay. And in all countries, the girl's curve is steeper than the boys. So that tells you that this has nothing to do with Obamacare redefining mental illness. This has nothing to do with the Newtown shooting. Lots of. Some of my critics say, like, oh, well, yeah, 2012, that was the Newtown shooting. And kids have had these lockdown drills, these shooter drills. Of course they're anxious. Really? Why did that cause girls in New Zealand and Iceland to suddenly cut themselves? So once you see that this is happening in many other countries now, the causal hypothesis becomes more plausible because there is no alternative. Nobody has even proposed an alternative. Some people say, oh, it was the great financial crisis. No, that was 2008. By 2012, 2013, we're already on the mend. Some people say it's not too simple to blame it on technology. Depression's caused by poverty and racism and, you know, fears of climate change, really. So why was it like totally steady from the 90s through, those were not changing. And then all of a sudden in 2012, everything changes all over the world, like everyone. There's more poverty, there's more racism suddenly in 2013. So I think when we look at what's happening around the world. But now, to get to your specific question, so we have really good data from the Anglo countries and there's a couple of good studies in Europe. When you look at the developing world, there's the Gallup world poll, which has a question about well being, but it doesn't have any questions about depression. There's one question about worried, which is like anxiety. So there's not very good data, but they actually do cover the world. But we don't really have good data to map it up. But to the extent that we can, that we've tried what we're learning. And this is work done by Zach Rauch, who's my lead researcher of what we're learning is that the effect seems to be bigger in the Anglo countries than in Europe, although within Europe, it's actually pretty big in Scandinavia, and it's a little less in Southern Europe. We're not seeing so much in Eastern Europe now. Eastern Europe used to be poor and communist, and life is getting better there over the last few decades. So there's two things. Is the economy improving? Is life improving in places where it is? And that's true in a lot of the developing world. I'm not sure what we're going to find. We're going to find out. We're working with the Gallup people and the World Happiness Report people. So I can't say it's happening in the developing world, and it's happening less in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe than in Northern Europe and the Anglo countries. And our hypothesis there, there is that in places that had a lot of freedom, where kids were very free, not bound in by obligations and traditions traditionally been actually generally good for mental health. But it's in those countries that the kids got just washed away into this bizarre, crazy world of influencers and social media and extremists and addiction. I should add, we also don't see this big trend in families that are religious or conservative. Everyone's doing worse off, but the increase is much smaller in those that are religious or conservative. And as I said in the Righteous Mind, when the big difference is conservative moralities are more binding, like, you have to do your duty, you have to do your chores, you have to go to church, you have to go see your grandmother. Conservatives use more strict parenting, which traditionally is not better than other kinds of parenting. But if you have strict parenting and you're embedded in webs of adult relationships and obligations, now everyone's getting on Instagram. But you don't get swept away because you still have to go see your grandmother and you still have to go to church and you still have to clean the dishes and you're still deep in contact with adults. Whereas in more secular, progressive families, a lot of freedom, not a lot of obligation or tradition. Those kids were most vulnerable. They're the ones who are worse off. So that's my best guess as to what's happening with the cultural variation.

And this is even true in, I don't know, every year you come out and you see a study that Denmark or Norway is the world's happiest country and all that. It's true there too.

Yeah. So that's very interesting because it's true that Scandinavian countries have long been rated as the happiest, along with Switzerland, Israel. So especially small countries tend to do better. So that's been true for a long, long time. But really interesting work. There's a guy named Danny Blanchflower, an economist at Dartmouth. He showed as many others. This has been long known for a long time. There's been a U shaped curve of happiness where if you graph how happy life's at, whatever you find the highest levels are actually in the elderly. People in their 60s and 70s are actually the happiest. And then in middle age they're less happy. And young people, young adults are the second happiest. It's like you start off pretty happy and then you get less happy in midlife. And you got kids, you got a job, you got to take care of the parents. It's hard. But then kids are out and you're retiring. And so there's long been a U shaped curve happening happiness. Okay. And that was true not just in a couple of rich countries. That was generally true around the world until 2015. What Blanchflower finds is that once kids are getting on or whatever it is, my hypothesis is that it's once kids leave behind a play based child, they take a phone based childhood. As soon as that happens, the you goes away because the young adults are much less happy. Older people haven't changed. Older people today are the same happiness level as older people were 20 years ago. But young people today used to be the second happiest group. And now they're either flat like the same as people in midlife or in some countries they're actually the least happy group. And that's true in Scandinavia too. So Scandinavia is still generally where you find the happiest populations. But their young people are no longer so happy.

But we almost by definition, because it's only been 10 or 15 years, but we don't know the long term impact. So when Gen Z becomes the old people, could they recover and become happy again?

They might become happier. But I believe at this point the damage has been going on for so long and some people thought like, oh, they'll grow out of it like these college students that are so fragile or that are complaining about a book. They won't be able to do this at Google, they won't be able to act like this. They're gonna have to grow up and join the real world. That's what we thought 10 years ago. But it turns out that a lot of these companies are accommodating to this. Now, part of it is, of course, you need to accommodate to levels of mental illness. That's the law, and that's the ethical thing to do. So young workers today have much higher levels of anxiety, depression, and other internalizing disorders. So you have to accommodate to it. But they don't seem to be growing out of it. So people in their 20s are much less happy than people in their 20s used to be. It's not just a teen thing. And again, if you go through puberty is when your brain is changing and assuming adult position. If you're not socialized by your culture, by the elders in your culture, by your older siblings, by books and movies that your culture thinks are good, if Instead it's just 10 million little snippets of nothing on TikTok, if that's what's wiring up your brain during puberty, there's a good chance that it's going to be permanent. And by per, I don't mean. Look, anyone who improves their habits can improve their outcomes. I'm not saying fatalist like you're locked in. But when we look at a whole generation, we're looking at averages and the odds that the average or that all of these people in their 20s are going to quit social media, try to regain control of their attention, try to develop some discipline. Like, that's not going to happen. So I think we are going to see an echo where Gen Z, all the way through their life course is going to look different and diminished compared to the millennials or Gen X before them.

Okay, so let's assume that you're right. You got seven pieces of evidence. So the next question for everybody listening is, okay, so now what do we do at this point? What's the collective response we should be making?

That's a good way to put the collective response. I think that's what I brought to this topic. I haven't been studying this my whole life. I've just been studying it for eight years, but intensively for six years. What I brought was the sensibility of a social psychologist. And so I think the people who were researching it before, they didn't seem to fully grasp the degree to which what everyone was doing was kind of forced by what everyone else was doing. It was a collective action problem. The kids all had to be on Instagram back in 2012 because everyone else was getting on Instagram and they had to have a smartphone. Nowadays you have to have a smartphone in sixth grade in a lot of Places because everyone else has a smartphone in sixth grade. So what I did in the Anxious generation was at the end, I said, okay, let's understand that this is a collective action trap. The kids are in it, the parents are in it, even the companies are in it. Because if Instagram or if Meta was to do the right thing and not let on people under 13 years old, which is what the law is supposed to be, if they actually kicked off people under 13, they'd all just go to TikTok. So the companies themselves are trapped in a collective action problem. They're competing viciously to get younger and younger and younger users. So the way out of a collective action trap is with collective action. So what I laid out in the book is four norms. And if we do these four norms, then we'll save Gen Alpha, we'll save the kids. Gen Alpha, birth year 2011, 2012, we don't really know yet, but roughly in there. So the kids who are just beginning puberty now, that generation, if we can do these four norms, we can make a big impact on their mental health and their strength and their competence and their confidence. Here they are. No smartphone before high school. You can give a phone watch, you can give a flip phone, but don't give them a supercomputer with an app store and push notification. Don't give them all that stuff which is going to take over their lives. Wait until they're in high school for that. Ideally we'd wait longer, but the world is making kids have a smartphone, so let's just clear it out of middle school. Second norm, no social media before 16. This should be a law. The current law says 13 with zero enforcement. The companies have no obligation to check ages. Australia has raised the age to 16 in part because the wife of one of the politicians there read the Anxious Generation said to her husband in South Australia, said, peter, you got to read this book, you got to do something about it. And so they developed first in South Australia, in the whole country, a law, it'll take effect in December, that kids are going to have to be 16 to open an account or to maintain their account. And that would be huge because there's really no way to use these things safely. Once you're on these algorithm driven, engagement based business models, even if they could take away all the bad content, you still would get addicted. Huge social comparison, you wouldn't sleep as much, all these problems would still be there. So raise the age of 16, be done with it, treat it like drinking, driving, gambling, there's all sorts of things that are appropriate for adults, not appropriate for children to be talking with strange men who are going to sextort them. The third norm is phone free schools. And this has been the most spectacular success because the teachers can't stay on the phones. Can you imagine standing in front of a classroom and trying to teach anything while half the kids are on social media, especially TikTok and Instagram. They're watching short videos, a quarter are playing video games and a quarter are watching porn. Okay, it's not a quarter watching porn, but sometimes it is. The point is that the teachers have long hated the phones. There's no reason why kids should have phones while they're in school. If there's a smartphone buzzing in your pocket and you're addicted to it and everyone else is texting, you've got to check. And so test scores are literally dropping around the world and across the country. Our kids literally know less than kids did 15 years ago because they're so distracted they're not able to pay attention in school. Once we propose, here are the four norms. One of them is phone free schools. Teachers, parents, people jumped into action saying, yes, we wanted to do this for so long, but we were afraid of the number of parents that would complain. The parents that would say, no, I have to be able to text my son. What if he's anxious? I need to text with him.

No, you don't.

This is part of the problem. If you think that you do. The kid needs to learn to separate and learn how to deal with the people in school you need. Eight hours apart is good for your kid, good for you. So this is just an amazing success. A number of countries have done it. Brazil. Within 10 months of the book coming up, Brazil had banned all phones in school. And 19American states have done that. If you're listening to this and Your state is one of the 19 or so that only banned it during class time, I'm really sorry for you, but your legislators made a mistake. Because while that will help a little bit during class, you don't get any of the benefits from an all day ban. When schools ban phones for the whole day, we always hear the same thing. There's laughter in the hallway. We haven't heard that in 10 years. The lunchroom is loud. We haven't heard that in a long time. Kids are playing games with each other. They're playing soccer at lunch rather than sitting on their phones for the lunch period. So only a phone free school, a distraction free school, the whole school day. That brings miraculous results. Oh, discipline Problems drop. Many schools are a ballpark of 50%. These are not small drops in one of the most important outcome variables are kids getting in fights, are they destroying the bathroom, all that? If they can't take a video of it, why would you do it? Why would you trick someone into coming into the bathroom so you can beat the hell out of them if you can't take a video and post it. And so once you go phone free for the school day, discipline problems plummet. And then the fourth norm is far more independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world. Because the point isn't just take away the devices and hope that they play with each other. It's rearrange life so that they're actually allowed to walk out the front door without you. They're allowed to go over to a friend's house who lives three blocks away when you're nine or 10 years old, everyone used to walk around by the age of eight. You and I both up during a huge crime wave. Maybe not in Hawaii, but in most of the country. There was a huge crime wave in the 70s and 80s, but kids still played outside. Now crime is way, way, way down. Drunk driving is way, way, way down. Child deaths are way, way, way down. The world is so much safer than it was when you and I were growing up. But parents are afraid. We've lost trust in each other and we're freaked out by things we see on social media and television. So we got to overcome that. We got to find ways to let our kids out to play and develop a sense of independence and learn that if there's a setback, they can handle it. They don't need to call for reinforcements by phone or text. So those are the four norms. If we do that, we change childhood, we roll back the phone based childhood, we restore the play based childhood. And Gen Alpha is going to come out a lot better. Up next on Remarkable People. How about if we come together? How about if groups of families come together in a neighborhood and say we're all going to wait to give our kids a smartphone and our kids can go to each other's houses and play without us walking them three blocks? We can take collective action on our own as families, as groups, in neighborhoods, as schools and as towns.

Meet Nicole Nicholas, Capital One business customer and co owner of Ansett Uncles, a plant based restaurant and community space in Brooklyn, New York that got its start from a need for unity.

The inspiration, it was born from the desire to create a space that felt like home, where we can connect community culture Good food and come together with family and friends. That's how we birthed aunts and uncles.

Nicole and her husband Mike were fulfilling their dream of bringing people together out of their home kitchen. But they soon learned that the demand for community was greater than they knew.

It became overwhelming, and we were like, we need home, but not in our actual home. We realized that there was also a need in our community for something bigger in our neighborhood. So we had to find a place.

Moving from a home operation into a storefront was a huge next step. But Nicole and Mike were able to take it on with the help of Capital One Business.

It's not for the weak. As a small business, finding resources is super important because that's the way you'll be able to manage and scale. We would have never done that without having Capital One to be able to help us along the way. The cashback rewards are very helpful. You know, it just gave us that Runway to be able to breathe a little bit. Then you get to focus on the cooking of the food and making the experience great.

To learn more, go to capitalone.com businesscards.

Become a little more remarkable with each episode of Remarkable People. It's found on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

Welcome back to Remarkable People with Guy Kawasaki.

To play devil's advocate a little bit, isn't one of the interpretations of that that to protect privacy and stuff like that, you have to invade privacy? I mean, how did you actually enforce something in Australia that you have to be over 16 and kids are going to figure out a way around that? They're going to find a site that doesn't participate in that. There's so many loopholes. How do you make this work in practical terms?

So if your question is, how do you make it work perfectly, the answer is you can't. Same thing with alcohol. We have laws against drinking, but kids are going to find a way around. We have laws against heroin and marijuana, but kids are going to find a way around. So perfection is impossible here. I grant that, but we as a society, we have 100 years of experience, age, gating, the physical world. We know what's dangerous. You have to have a fence around a swimming pool. You have to be 18 or 21 to gamble. We've had fences in the real world, but with the virtual world, we just said, oh, whatever. It's hard to do. It's hard to educate. It's true. It's harder than in the real world. You show a driver's license to buy beer. It's Harder. So how about we give up? How about we just say, eh, it's hard. So let the companies have the kids, we don't need the kids anyway. Let them take a second generation. And what Australia has done I think is really brilliant. They didn't try to legislate how to do this because governments aren't good at that. What they said is, for the first time you guys are making the money from this, you guys are hurting the kids. You figure it out. And look, there are a lot of industries that already age gate. You can buy alcohol, you can buy all sorts of things online, but you have to age, you can gamble online. There's age gate. So age gating exists. Often it uses a government id. And what the Australia bill says is you can't only ask for a government ID. So Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, they all, it's up to them. You do it how you want and probably what I'm hoping will happen, I imagine will happen. If you want to open an account on TikTok, let's say you, you put in your age as you currently have to do and then rather than just accepting that you were born 18 years ago, which is what they often do with the defaults on Snapchat, if you sign up for an account, it helpfully suggests that you were born exactly 18 years ago. So every 11 year old opens a Snapchat account. A lot of them just say they're 18 and then there's no restrictions, that's got to stop. So instead of just putting in whatever you want, it'll take you another page that will say, okay, here's five ways that you can verify your age and one will be, you can show us a photo of your driver's license or passport or whatever. That would be one another. So I have clear. Do you have clear where you go to airports and you have a quick line. So if you have a clear account, boom, you're done, you're in like. Because all that happens would be like Meta or TikTok. They would just send over a call. You'd type in your clear password or whatever it is on the way, but they would send over a call to clear. Or there's so many different companies that will age kit. So they can pick the five or 10 companies that they want to make as options and clear would just send back yes or no because the query would come is this person 13? Or is this, in this case 16? Is this person 16? And clear doesn't need to even know what it is you're doing just they got a query about you and then they just say yes or no. And so that's one way. There are so many other ways to do it. And so I understand people's concerns about privacy because if it was TikTok taking your driver's license or TikTok taking all your information. Look, they already do take your information. But all these companies get hacked at some point. So I do appreciate the concern about privacy. But to say there could be a risk of privacy, so let's just condemn all future generations to exploitation and diminished cognitive capacity. No, I don't think we should do that.

And what about the concern that, you know. So now you're 16 and we have been overprotecting you up to 16. And at 16, the gates, the floodgates open, wide open.

Sure, that's a good. Because one of the themes of my book is that we've been overprotecting our kids in the real world. We need to back off, let them out, and we've been underprotecting them online. We need to do something. We need to begin doing something. We can't just let the companies rip them to shreds with zero liability, zero accountability. So far, not a single company has lost a lawsuit. They've paid nothing for the millions of kids that they've harmed and the thousands that are dead. It'd be one thing if we were keeping them hermetically sealed from the Internet. And then at 16, we say, here you go. Porn, gambling, everything. No one is hermetically sealed from the Internet. They've been googling things since they were five or seven. They will have been on all kinds of sites, they will have watched all kinds of YouTube videos. Because the law isn't that you can't watch YouTube. That would be crazy. We rely on YouTube. A lot of us, we all do. The law says you can't open an account, meaning you can't sign a contract with a company that is known to hurt kids, that will exploit you, that will take your data without your parents knowledge or your parents consent. You have to be 16 to do that. So it's not that they're not going to know what the Internet is. They'll know all about it. They just won't be able to have an account where an algorithm is now hooked up to them to hook them with whatever is most engaging for them that we will delay. Algorithmic manipulation will be delayed until 16. And at that point their brain is most of the way through puberty. It's through the intense period of puberty. So there are all kinds of proposals to make the Internet safer. Let's try to cut this pro suicide content by 90%. Let's try to remove more beheadings so that kids only see a beheading every now and then, not so often. So we could try to make it better. But as far as I'm concerned, you can put all those reforms in one bucket and then put age gating in the other. I'll take the age gating. That's going to transform kids lives.

And what if I'm Mark Zuckerberg listening to this and either my belief or my rationalization is my fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders, it's not to kids. So it's not that I'm a bad person, I'm fulfilling my fiduciary responsibilities. It seems that a lot is being done in terms of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

So first, the idea that an executive has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders is disputed. Some economists interpret the law that way. Your fiduciary duties to the company, not to the shareholders. You'd have a duty to the shareholders, you need to repay them, you need to help them earn a profit. But it's not certain in legal circles that is literally a fiduciary duty. It has some things in common with it, but some things are different. Secondly, the fact that you have a duty to your shareholders does not mean you have zero duty to the planet or the people. It does not mean that you should exploit children up to the point where you might lose lawsuits. And since so far they've never lost any lawsuits, that means there is no stopping point. And Mark Zuckerberg has made that clear. When you know now, six months ago, we weren't thinking about chatbots. We didn't know about all the deaths, all the boys who've been urged to kill themselves by their chatbots. We didn't know about all the sex talk that kids are doing with chatbots. We didn't know that. Mark Zuckerberg said when they were trying to make the safety guidelines for Meta's AI, some were concerned that these AIs are going to do sexual fantasies with anyone. There's no age gating, so anyone can do sexual fantasies. How about we put some guard? So if we think it's a child, how about we don't do that? And we know from reporting in the Wall Street Journal, I think it was Jeff Horowitz that Zuckerberg specifically gave the instruction, like, no, make it as engaging as possible. He weakened the guardrails for children because he wants it as engaging as possible. I've met him twice, I've talked with him, I've read a lot about him. I know he doesn't want to hurt children, but everyone says he's a very, very competitive person. Nick Clegg said in his recent book, he's the most competitive person he's ever met. So I don't even know that Zuckerberg is trying to give a return to his shareholders. I think Zuckerberg just really, he just wants to win. He's very competitive and channeled in the right way. That is great for a free market society, but that is only if you have functioning markets where there are constraints on the externalities you can impose on innocent people. And Meta has such a long history of telling us they're going to reform, telling us they care about kids, but there's just insult after insult, injury after injury. And specifically saying that chatbots can talk about sex with kids is unbelievable. Oh, and it wasn't just this one thing that he said in an interview. A little later, a document came out. It was their internal company policy that said they can have sensual conversations and they gave examples of what's permissible. It's disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. The chatbot talking to a 13 year old saying, oh, I, I would bring you to the bed and I would rip off your shirt. This is completely disgusting. And this document was signed by the chief legal officer, by the chief ethics officer, by all the top brass. This is official Meta policy. We're putting out a product that will do sexual fantasy with any 9 year old who says she's 13.

You know, I'm sorry, but the fact that Mark Zuckerberg is very competitive doesn't mean shit to me. I don't give a shit how competitive you think you are. It's still not right.

That's right. Ethics, Right. And this is the eternal problem. In a free market society, we get all the benefits. You've been right there in Silicon Valley. The benefits from the tech sector are beyond calculation. I love tech and I used to think it was making the world better. And in many ways it still is. But we now have some technologies, first social media and now AI, where the trajectory looks incredibly dark. Yeah.

What do you think of a concept that, to use the metaphor, it's kind of like the process of getting a driver's license that, you know, there's a certain minimum age, you get a learner's permit, you might have to take a driving class before you get a Full license. Because right now, isn't it the day you're 16 and can prove it, bada bing, bada bang, you're in. What about the day you're 16? You cannot just jump in a car and drive.

You have to pass a written test. But I'm going to challenge that metaphor and apply a different one because I recognize that the Internet is different from driving because of free speech issues and especially in the United States with the First Amendment, which I love. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment compared to other countries. And so I would never say the Internet. So many dangers. Kids need a driver's license before they can use the Internet. We'll make a kid's license so that if you're a kid, you can go to these sites. Okay, no, that I would not want to see that. That would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. No, that's out of the question. But here's a better analogy using cars. When cars first came out, there were no safety features. It was really just, can we get this thing to go? And if you crash into a tree, the glass breaks and punctures you because it's window glass and there are no seat belts and et cetera, et cetera. So over time, they get a little better, but not much better. And in the 60s, Ralph Nader writes a book called Unsafe at Any Speed, pointing out that we're putting people in these vehicles that are beautiful.

Pinto, you know, they're optimizing. Pinto is not beautiful.

That's true. Because the 70s after the gas crisis, you're right, they get small and stupid. But when Nader was writing, he was showing these companies, they're all competing on looks. Okay? They're competing on style.

Great.

We have stylish cars. That's nice. But they see safety as a cost. Like, why would we put in seat belts and safety glass if it's going to raise our production cost and consumers aren't asking for it, so let's not do it. So Nader writes this book, Unsafe at Any Speed. And I forget where he says in the book or later, he says he imagined that someday he hopes companies will compete on safety. And it only happened because government mandated, they said, okay, wow, here are some minimum safety standards. If you're going to put people in cars, you have to have seatbelts and eventually you have to have airbags. You have to have all these things. And cars got so much safer. That I think is the right analogy here. Right now, the tech company, the social media companies are competing viciously passionately for engagement. That's it. It's all engagement. Can we grab this kid before another company grabs him? It's for adults too, but I'm focusing on the kids. They're all competing on engagement. And now with AI slop. Now it's oh, let's have AI. Our users weren't making weird enough stuff. Let's have AI make even weirder stuff that'll hook people because it's so weird and interesting. So how about if government says here's some minimum safety stance. This is not about speech. If you are going to have children on your site, if you are going to have millions of children on your site, you can't be connecting them to strange men who have a history of sextortion on your site. You have to have ways to block contact with strangers, perhaps in one setting, or to reduce, you know, if Snapchat were to remove the quick Add feature. That's the way drug dealers and sextortionists get to kids that they don't know. You have to have features that protect kids. You have to set defaults to private. If government were to say here's some minimum safety standards that would have no political ramifications, doesn't help the left or the right. It would work everywhere in the world. Doesn't depend on content moderation. Content moderation is bad news. Hard to make it work. Always going to overcorrect the left or the right is going to hate it. So I never talk or think about content moderation. I'm totally focused on design. We designed cars dangerously before the 60s. Now we design them safe and they're so much safer. We need to do the same for social media platforms which are the companies that own our kids lives.

Well, Jonathan, I understand what you're saying, but then when all these tech billionaire bros are showing up at the inauguration and donating a million dollars and being on Stage and promising $500 billion in U.S. investments and giving you a glass and gold trophy, I don't think you can expect the government to rein them in.

I do not expect the US government to rein them in for the very reasons that you just said. It seems very clear to me that Meta has unlimited influence over Congress because they have unlimited money and they spend it. Yeah, they spent it to block the Kids Online Safety Act. So I am not putting any faith or hope in Congress. But guess what? There are a lot of other governments in the world. So the state governments are acting really fast. It turns out Republican governors and legislators have kids and they see it and they're acting. And it turns out that Democratic governors and legislators have kids and they see the problem and they're acting. So there's been huge action at the state level, especially on phone free schools. That was done in a flash. A lot of states, my state, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has been great regulations on the use of algorithms. So there are things you can do at the state level. And guess what, there are a lot of other countries in the world and the EU and the UK have both enacted some laws that are a little complicated, but we'll see how they work out. Australia's done something very simple and powerful. We'll see how that works out. So there are governments that can act. And I wrote the book as an American, meaning we don't have a functioning legislature in our country. We have a thing that sits in Washington and I don't know what they do, but they don't respond to the needs of the country. So I wrote the book. Assuming we'll never get any help from legislators. I wasn't even thinking about state and international. I wrote the book saying we're on our own here. We have to solve this ourselves without any help from government. How are we going to do that? How about if we come together? How about if groups of families come together in a neighborhood and say we're all going to wait to give our kids a smartphone and our kids can go to each other's houses and play without us walking them three blocks. We can take collective action on our own as families, as groups in neighborhoods, as schools and as towns. And that's happening all over the country.

Okay, my last question for you is, what do you say to a parent who says it's too late, my kids already hooked. What can I do?

Well, if your kids are 18 and out of the house, it is very hard. You don't have much influence over them. I hope you would maybe get them the audiobook of the anxious generation. Gen Z has difficulty reading books, but they're fine on audiobooks. I hope you would talk to them. But if they're out of the house, it's very hard now, even then it's not too late. I teach a course here at NYU called Flourishing in the business school here and it's all sophomores, mostly sophomores. They're about 19 years old and they make amazing progress regaining their attention, getting time back, being able to talk more deeply because they're not always checking their phone and always being interrupted. So even in your early 20s, it's not too late to change it's just hard to make someone change. And if your kids are, say 10 to 12 and they already have a phone or an iPad and they're already on these things, you can change things. You can take it away. It's going to be a lot less painful if you do it with the parents of their friends. The kids are not terrified of losing the iPad or iPhone. They're terrified of being the only one who loses it. Because then you'll be an outcast and you'll be not in the mix. So try to be like a social psychologist about that. Like, I understand that this is how you communicate with your friends. I know you opened an Instagram account three months ago, but you're just gonna have to close it down and so are your friends. So if you do it together, you can do it. A very important rule that anyone can do, you don't even need your friends, is you just say no devices in the bedroom overnight. So everything comes out of the bedroom at 9, 30 or 10 o'. Clock. Learn to go to sleep with a book. Learn to wake up with an alarm clock. Because the really bad stuff especially happens when a kid is talking to strangers overnight. That's the main thing. You definitely want to stop that. There's still a lot you can do. And I guess I'll just close by saying, you're not alone. All of us are facing this. Even if your kids are 5, 6, 7, there's a good chance they're already hooked on an iPad. You've seen them play video games that create compulsions and addictions and irritability when they're separated. So we're all seeing this. We're all in this together. For help, for advice for resources, Please go to anxiousgeneration.com we have all kinds of resources for parents, for teachers, for legislators. Also go to letgrow.org which I started with Lenore Skenazy, who wrote a book called Free Range Kids. A lot of advice for schools and parents about how to be a more free range parent. How to let your kid have the kinds of experiences that will make them healthy and confident and capable out in the world. And also please subscribe to my substack which is afterbabble.com it's free. You don't have to pay anything. And that's where we put out our research. That's where we'll be putting out the document with the seven different lines of evidence. So there's a lot of information and there are like a hundred other organizations. We have those all listed at Anxious generation. Like a couple of mothers got together, they share the concern, they start an organization. They're doing great work. Work on phone free schools on there's wait until 8th, there's mama, the mothers against Media Addiction. So there are a lot of organizations that you can join that you can get information from. Yeah. We're all in this together and we've got to win. There. There isn't an alternative.

Wow. Jonathan, thank you very much for all this information and inspiration. I recently became a grandfather, so my kids are old.

Congratulations.

I am going to insist that my son at the Daughter in Law listen to this episode and I'll get them a copy of your books.

Thank you for wonderful. Your grandchild is a little too young now, but we're coming out with a children's version of the book on December 30th. It's called the Amazing Generation. It's written for kids 8 to 12 years old.

Jonathan, thank you so much. Let me thank Madison Nismer, the co producer, Jeff C. Co producer, Tessa Nismer, researcher Shannon Hernandez, sound design engineer, because there's a whole team of people trying to help you be remarkable. And thank you so much, Jonathan. All the best.

Oh, thank you. What fun to talk with you. You radiate positivity and I had a lot of fun.

This is remarkable. People.