A completely different explanation could be that our societies are so advanced by now that we can finally listen to mental illnesses and take them seriously - while in the past people just had to 'function', no matter what.
Could it be just a coincidence that young females are exactly the demographic that is constrained by a gender role where aesthetic appeal and social interactions are the most valuable assets? And those are exactly the type of things that social networks exploited, monetized and massively gamified in the last decade?
What's more likely: a rapid change of the cultural norms and roles associated with growing up as a woman or of those related to recognizing and treating mental health issues (all in a single decade!); OR: a purely technical revolution that put interactive screens in the hands of each kid and made the former much more effective in harming their development and leading to the latter?
At least for the young female demographic, I think there is a massive burden of proof for anyone claiming the epidemics is not social-media induced.
In theory we should have seen a spike and then slow decline as gender norms and roles continue to become less segregating.
"Yet other categories see linear or token increases."
Yeah, because other categories may manifest their problems differently. Such as young men turning to violence and drugs more than intentional self-harm (almost the inverse of young women). That doesn't mean it's not the problem, just that it's not such a great proof.
But, gender roles and stereotypes are being more forcibly institutionalized, not becoming less segregating. Particularly in the US.
In my opinion it seems like there is more institutionalize going on, but that's only a subset of restrictions that are being rolled back. Eg. If 25 states roll back restrictions (or implement protections) and the other 25 reinforce those restrictions, then you still have a 50% reduction. On the corporate side, I've seen a ton of protections/benefits being increased which didn't exist anywhere even 10 years ago.
I lived in the Eastern Europe of the 1980s and the 1990s, not the best of times, economically speaking. I used to play football with Rroma children that were walking strange, at least that's how it looked to child-me, only later to find out that most probably they had been afflicted by polio in the past. All this to say that things were tough.
Even so, as a kid back then I had no acquaintances of my age who were harming themselves or, the worst of all, who were off-ing themselves. We would have known, kids used to know this sort of stuff because we were almost always outside, playing together.
Suffice is to say that things are now totally different. I've heard of kids harming themselves at 11-12 years of age and I know of a young lady who took her own life (at 16 or 17). Again, that was unimaginable 30 to 40 years ago.
I was a teen in the 1980s, never knew of anyone who harmed himself other than accidentally. But we also didn't have doctors and counselors incessantly asking if we were depressed, or thinking of hurting ourselves. A kid today who says "yes" to either of those questions is going to find he's getting heaps of attention all of a sudden.
I have been thinking about this because I was at an orthopedist this week for an orthopedic isssue and I had to answer their "depression screening" questions. Trying to decide if these are being pushed by big pharma to get more people on antidepression meds or where else this might be coming from. The whole time I'm jsut thinking "you people aren't mental health specialists, or even general practioners, why are you asking me these irrelevant questions"
Who knows if this is a possibile contributor or not. Would be interesting to look into.
The article references massive increases in ER admits for self-harm, among similar data. That isn't a matter of "listening".
Haidt continually publishes detailed analyses and meets with retorts like this that obviously didn't engage at all with the content.
So no. It might not. Not for the reason you say at least. Improvements in diagnosis, self awareness and hospitalisation rates would have to happen specifically to teenagers, and unless someone can cite a specific reason why this is the case I just don't believe it. The increase is real.
Broadly if we are going to respect mental health more, the one cohort that is broadly capable of receiving mental health assessment medically, has enough agency to introspect to their own mental health, and still generally have adults responsible for their wellbeing, aka teenagers, are most likely to reveal this.
And then there are the hospitalisation rates. Did we lower the seriousness threshold to get our kids to the hospital? Unless they were talking about psychiatry hospitals that doesn't seem likely.
(Edit: and whoever downvoted me would help a great deal by explaining how exactly an increase in hospitalisation rates are an indication that we take this stuff more seriously. A wound remains a wound.)
Sometimes sucking it up is, psychologically, the right answer, and results in a more resilient individual. (Not all the time, perhaps not most of the time. But sometimes.)
For instance, imagine that the data were showing the opposite effect, that is, adults having a significantly greater increase in depression and anxiety than teenagers.
If that were the case, one could just as easily argue that it fits with the "our societies are so advanced that we can listen to mental illnesses" hypothesis quite well, because adults have the autonomy, resources, and maturity to get the attention they need to tackle their issues and symptoms. Teenagers don't, on the other hand, as they depend on their teachers and guardians and older adults often dismiss kids' symptoms as “not real illness” and just angst and moodiness.
Obviously, the part in italics is fiction. It is referring to the alternate world I mentioned in my comment above where the effect was the the opposite of what we're seeing (with the added extra of adult men appearing to be seeing a greater increase than adult women) and how it's so easy to come up with post-hoc explanations using what seem like reasonable and factual premises.
I was in high school during late 90's and early 00's. I was not diagnosed with anything until 2009 (around the articles timeline) looking back in hindsight I struggled with issues for years, lack of energy (some days just dragging myself out of bed was chore), lack of motivation to do anything, I avoided socializing with people I had no energy to stay in touch with friends I would make excuses to avoid hanging out with people all of the time because I never felt up to it.
If I spoke up to family members etc I was told what I was going through was normal, everyone feels tired, in essence to suck it up and stop being a wimp. It got to the point I just assumed everyone felt the way I did all of the time.
It wasn't until by chance I saw a different and younger doctor one day for an unrelated health issue I mentioned (again) how tired I felt all the time lack of energy I had it was explained to me that what I was experiencing very much not normal. That was the first time anyone took what I was saying seriously. My life drastically improved afterwards. I was 24 at the time.
When I was a teenager no one talked about mental health it just wasn't done. So I would not be surprised if some component of the statistics is an increased willingness among medical personnel to notice and diagnose the issues.
Alternatively, sometimes one has to cut people out of their life because one is insufficiently advanced to accomodate the others' deficiencies.
Taking that extra responsibility is what makes life difficult.