Wick Welker's Reviews > The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Caused an Epidemic of Mental Illness
The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Caused an Epidemic of Mental Illness
by
by

Children should not have smartphones and social media until they are 16.
As a parent of a young child, I read this book with interest and horror. This book is about the tragic great rewiring that was inflicted on Gen Z between 2010 and 2015 that completely upended them from a normal childhood and caused a generational mental health crisis. The author does a good job of explaining himself with good research and makes a compelling case against a phone-based childhood and praises the virtues of a play-based childhood. I think this book was very good and important but I didn’t agree with everything and think some of his reasoning is actually fallacious when it comes to “helicopter” parenting, which I’ll get into.
Depression, self harm and anxiety are undoubtedly higher in Gen Z and have a sharp rise in boys and girls in 2010 and thereafter. One could speculate that these children grew up after the 9/11 era and after the 2008 financial crisis but, as the author argues, every generation has socio-economic upheaval but doesn't typically result in dramatic drop in mental health. The most likely, and obvious, explanation is that their childhood became steeped in toxic self comparisons on social media (affecting girls more) and video game and pornography addiction (affecting boys more.) Social media is a strategic, asynchronous, disembodied interaction with the aims of fostering and protecting an individual's self brand. Social media platforms are the most efficient conformity machines ever invented where a user can literally gauge approval by numerical likes and views. This is really bad for everyone and basically inhumane to expose a child’s brain to this type of thinking. When a child starts doing this around the age of 10, they chase the dopamine hit of views and likes and sink the enormous opportunity of real-life social interactions and development that prepare them for adulthood. Social media doesn’t just correlate with poor mental health, it is causative. I think the author demonstrates this beyond doubt.
Children have “defend mode” and “discovery mode”, both useful but the former gets engaged more with a phone based childhood. Free and unsupervised play foster the discovery mode where children learn how to navigate not only the three dimensional space but relationships and their own feelings. A phone based childhood constantly puts a child in defend mode which spills over to real life and chronic anxiety. Social media inflicts sleep deprivation and social deprivation along with attention fragmentation and addiction. Again, these things are awful on an already socialized adult, imagine the cost on a child’s mind that has many years to go before adult brain development.
According to the author, there are real gender differences between boys and girls which are almost certainly sociogenic (culturally created) and these differences account for the disparate impact of a phone based childhood on boys and girls. Girls strive for communion and relationship building where boys strive for self autonomy and actualization. These culturally programmed desires I believe are functionally very real. Girl aggression is relational which explains why social media impacts them more than for boys. Take all the self comparison to airbrush models on magazine covers from the 70s and now put that on hyperdrive, socialize it over a screen, adding cyber bullying and dopamine addiction, and you will have a very sad, lonely and anxious girl. For boys, video games can fragment their socialization and silo it off into asynchronous relationships that then addict and hamper their growth. The easy access to pornography, while impacting both boys and girls, seems to hit boys harder who consume it at very early ages.
Here’s where I have a problem with this book: the author creates a false dilemma between a play-based childhood and phone-based childhood. These two things are not mutually exclusive and the author likes to partition them off like they are the only two options. As a parent who is very involved with my child’s life, I take umbrage with the term “helicopter parent” which the author uses. This well intentioned author asserts many times in this book that during the 1980s, parents become overprotective and stopped letting their kids have autonomy. My first response is what!?. This overt generalization is overtly speculative and laughably simplistic. In my opinion, having more parental presence, particularly when it comes to safety, is not hampering children’s socialization and growth. I’m not joking here: the author thinks kids should be able to play in junkyards and with fire, unsupervised. Without presenting much evidence, he talks about the statistic improbability of your child being really harmed or kidnapped. Okay, but what about the stakes? They are enormous. I think it's a parents responsibility to protect them from catastrophe, regardless of how unlikely because the stakes are absolutely enormous. The author creates a false dichotomy that you either must let your children roam the streets unsupervised or put a phone in front of their faces. Of course, this is not true. There is an entire spectrum of parenting, one which could involve letting children roam under freeway overpasses while also sticking a phone in front of their noses for 6 hours a day. I found his take on this bizarre and his assertions that parent’s are hampering their children’s development with over supervision mostly unsupported. “Helicopter parenting” has become a term used by parents who don’t actively engage with their children. Anyway, I digress.
The solutions the author offers are very good: no social media or smart phones before age 16 and phone free schools. He also laments the loss of spirituality and suggests we need to engage more in shared sacredness, self transcendence (the literal opposite of social media), be slow to anger and quick to forgive (never happens on social media) and to find awe in nature. Overall, I think this was a very good book that everyone should read.
As a parent of a young child, I read this book with interest and horror. This book is about the tragic great rewiring that was inflicted on Gen Z between 2010 and 2015 that completely upended them from a normal childhood and caused a generational mental health crisis. The author does a good job of explaining himself with good research and makes a compelling case against a phone-based childhood and praises the virtues of a play-based childhood. I think this book was very good and important but I didn’t agree with everything and think some of his reasoning is actually fallacious when it comes to “helicopter” parenting, which I’ll get into.
Depression, self harm and anxiety are undoubtedly higher in Gen Z and have a sharp rise in boys and girls in 2010 and thereafter. One could speculate that these children grew up after the 9/11 era and after the 2008 financial crisis but, as the author argues, every generation has socio-economic upheaval but doesn't typically result in dramatic drop in mental health. The most likely, and obvious, explanation is that their childhood became steeped in toxic self comparisons on social media (affecting girls more) and video game and pornography addiction (affecting boys more.) Social media is a strategic, asynchronous, disembodied interaction with the aims of fostering and protecting an individual's self brand. Social media platforms are the most efficient conformity machines ever invented where a user can literally gauge approval by numerical likes and views. This is really bad for everyone and basically inhumane to expose a child’s brain to this type of thinking. When a child starts doing this around the age of 10, they chase the dopamine hit of views and likes and sink the enormous opportunity of real-life social interactions and development that prepare them for adulthood. Social media doesn’t just correlate with poor mental health, it is causative. I think the author demonstrates this beyond doubt.
Children have “defend mode” and “discovery mode”, both useful but the former gets engaged more with a phone based childhood. Free and unsupervised play foster the discovery mode where children learn how to navigate not only the three dimensional space but relationships and their own feelings. A phone based childhood constantly puts a child in defend mode which spills over to real life and chronic anxiety. Social media inflicts sleep deprivation and social deprivation along with attention fragmentation and addiction. Again, these things are awful on an already socialized adult, imagine the cost on a child’s mind that has many years to go before adult brain development.
According to the author, there are real gender differences between boys and girls which are almost certainly sociogenic (culturally created) and these differences account for the disparate impact of a phone based childhood on boys and girls. Girls strive for communion and relationship building where boys strive for self autonomy and actualization. These culturally programmed desires I believe are functionally very real. Girl aggression is relational which explains why social media impacts them more than for boys. Take all the self comparison to airbrush models on magazine covers from the 70s and now put that on hyperdrive, socialize it over a screen, adding cyber bullying and dopamine addiction, and you will have a very sad, lonely and anxious girl. For boys, video games can fragment their socialization and silo it off into asynchronous relationships that then addict and hamper their growth. The easy access to pornography, while impacting both boys and girls, seems to hit boys harder who consume it at very early ages.
Here’s where I have a problem with this book: the author creates a false dilemma between a play-based childhood and phone-based childhood. These two things are not mutually exclusive and the author likes to partition them off like they are the only two options. As a parent who is very involved with my child’s life, I take umbrage with the term “helicopter parent” which the author uses. This well intentioned author asserts many times in this book that during the 1980s, parents become overprotective and stopped letting their kids have autonomy. My first response is what!?. This overt generalization is overtly speculative and laughably simplistic. In my opinion, having more parental presence, particularly when it comes to safety, is not hampering children’s socialization and growth. I’m not joking here: the author thinks kids should be able to play in junkyards and with fire, unsupervised. Without presenting much evidence, he talks about the statistic improbability of your child being really harmed or kidnapped. Okay, but what about the stakes? They are enormous. I think it's a parents responsibility to protect them from catastrophe, regardless of how unlikely because the stakes are absolutely enormous. The author creates a false dichotomy that you either must let your children roam the streets unsupervised or put a phone in front of their faces. Of course, this is not true. There is an entire spectrum of parenting, one which could involve letting children roam under freeway overpasses while also sticking a phone in front of their noses for 6 hours a day. I found his take on this bizarre and his assertions that parent’s are hampering their children’s development with over supervision mostly unsupported. “Helicopter parenting” has become a term used by parents who don’t actively engage with their children. Anyway, I digress.
The solutions the author offers are very good: no social media or smart phones before age 16 and phone free schools. He also laments the loss of spirituality and suggests we need to engage more in shared sacredness, self transcendence (the literal opposite of social media), be slow to anger and quick to forgive (never happens on social media) and to find awe in nature. Overall, I think this was a very good book that everyone should read.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Anxious Generation.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 21, 2024
– Shelved
March 21, 2024
– Shelved as:
to-read
March 29, 2024
–
Started Reading
April 1, 2024
–
40.0%
April 2, 2024
–
70.0%
April 3, 2024
– Shelved as:
child-development
April 3, 2024
– Shelved as:
nonfiction
April 3, 2024
– Shelved as:
nonfiction-favorites
April 3, 2024
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 62 (62 new)
message 1:
by
Rob
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Apr 03, 2024 10:45AM

reply
|
flag

I haven't. Does that book specifically address social media and smart phones for children?


I think you bring up goods points. Play-centered childhood is still relatively new as it used to be work-based childhood. And you certainly can't undo technological revolutions. This book is specifically about adolescent independent access to social media and smart phones. There is very good evidence that specific exposure to social media and smart phones in children is harmful. It's not speculative, it is data driven. Children from 2010-2015 had unprecedented rise in suicide, suicide attempts, ER visits for mental health crisis and other metrics of mental health. It's not doom saying at all, it's reporting on actual events that have happened. While we can't uninvent the smart phone (not what the author is advocating for) we certainly can be judicious about exposing children to social media and preventing their unfettered access to a smart phone. The solutions are laughably simple and free: don't allow these things until the age of 16. All it takes are informed and motivated parenting and school communities. That's what this book is about.

Thank you for the kind response, I don't doubt the reality of the problem I just don't think that we are ever going to be a situation where any significant number of children don't have access to this technology, and part of does feel that it is blaming the technology rather than the 'culture' it facilitates. Please don't imagine I am some great supporter of mobiles or social media, I am not but I just fear that books preaching simplistic solutions aren't really a help because to often they hark back to illusory past and a 'norm' that is anything but normal.
Do I have solutions, no, though rather then fighting or trying to banish technology I think it would be better to teach children to learn to discriminate between the dross and the gold of online information. Equally idealistic and impractical? of course problems like this are never solved by panaceas but learning to live with change.

You're so right. How technology is applied and abused is almost as impactful as the technology itself. Technology is always a double edge sword. I think educating children about technology and helping learn how to discriminate like you said would be much more impactful than blatant censorship. As for myself, I plan on not allowing my child to have social media or her own smart phone until she is 16. Once she is that age, if she chooses, I plan on guiding her about proper use and how to discriminate. Giving the tools to think critically is paramount.


I'm not going to lie I got that sense. This was my first read by him so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and I'm also biased toward what he's advocating for in this book. I checked out his Coddling of the American Mind but haven't read it. It was red flags for me which I saw in his false dichotomization in this book.


Thanks for the encouragement! I think one of the solutions, as mentioned in the book, is changing the surrounding culture of a child. If a child attends a school where smart phone are banned that deemphasizes greatly the online socialization. Even further, putting a child into a homeschool co-op with like-minded parents, and the social pariah stuff goes away. Maybe I'm fooling myself but I think it's possible to have a gradual and curated exposure to smart phones and social media especially as awareness of the harms to adolescents spreads. I'll get back to you in ten years when all my hair has fallen out from trying.

Over time, their peer group will influence them much more than their parents. If the schools banned smartphones, that would help enormously. Instead, my girls were the only ones with flip phones while their classmates were taking pictures of the assignments on the board. That was social suicide. Eventually, they got their smartphones. The devices are not all bad, as they could easily connect with classmates after school for homework help. But the problems mentioned in your review are true and terrible. I was probably the only parent in town who removed their phones at bedtime to ensure they got sleep. No matter -- they just snuck phones from elsewhere and connected them to our wifi, and I was clueless. The problem is pretty much out of control. I congratulate you for doing what you can, while you can.
My hair didn't fall out, but it sure turned gray! Lol!


Thanks for your insights, Darcy. My daughter in high school said that no one listens to the teacher, they just stare at their phones. That may be an exaggeration, but it's certainly a disturbing image. Anyway, they're off to college and it's no longer my problem. Now, I just send them articles on occasion and book recommendations and hope for the best. Thanks again for your professional input. I agree, it's a losing game.

I was impressed by your answer because it deals with reality, not fear mongering. I don't deny the problems the author brings up but I am just old enough to remember when 'Rock and Roll' was seen as undermining and destroying youth. The same was said about cinema, radio and TV - and maybe we would be better without so many of these things but you can't uninvent, ban or restrict access you have to learn how to live with it.
Also again I am not doubting the mental health issues raised but I wonder are they replicable across different countries and cultures? If they are not the author is blaming technological change rather then facing up to more specific USA problems.

Liam, you pose a good question -- is it global or only in the U.S.? Hopefully, the research will shed light on this.
I'm an older mom by adoption and I came of age in the rock and roll days with the huge generation gap. And, yes, we turned out fine. But I think this may be a new problem that was created by big tech to intentionally addict people, especially the young, for profit. The icons on the screens were designed to be as irresistible as casino slot machines. These poor kids don't have a chance. I blame the companies, not the kids.
But what to do now? Who knows. Any additional thoughts are welcome.

Agree creating an equivalency between the rise of smart phones and social media to anything else is a false equivalency. The exposure to children to these technologies is unprecedented and novel and nothing like it has ever occurred. The comparisons to the past prime parents and communities to just throw up their hands and admit defeat.

Thanks for your perspective and insights. Totally agree that responsible modeling and instruction is key. Smart phones school ban, although difficult, is feasible. Schools can and have completely removed screens from their campuses altogether. Flip phones can replace many of the vital functions you mentioned and there certainly can be screen access exceptions for IEPs. I’m not saying it’s not difficult but it’s certainly feasible.


I think you hit the nail on the head. A culture of family enrichment.


He definitely said both that children should play in junkyards and with fire unsupervised. And I found the evidence really lacking in this book about over protection other than self referential to his other books.

He did have a cell phone (I don't remember what age...I guess around 11 or 12?) and had his own computers pretty young. However, he was not allowed to have social media accounts. He was allowed a YouTube account only. As for tv and the like, I never really censored it too much. He was watching and loving horror movies with me and going to haunted houses and such at a very young age. (No porn, obviously, but if there was a short boob shot, we would still watch it. He would just look away)
Not being able to have social media was never a problem. Ever. He never snuck around to make one or argued to have one. He has been 18 for months now and still hasn't made one and has no desire to. The idea that giving your children boundaries will lead to problems and that they'll just do it anyway, so there's no point, is just ludicrous. (The Darcy comment) It is called parenting. It is like parents today forgot what parenting is and how to do it. Rules are ok and can be implemented with success. Just parent.
We homeschool, so the school, itself, was not a hindrance in our family and parenting. We made sure to foster a close family relationship. We discuss things, explain things, answer questions, are always available, etc. We ensured he knew early on that we will never lie to him, so we expect him to not lie to us. We made it very clear that we have all the trust in the world for him, until he breaks it. While also explaining that he can actually tell us anything. We spend quality time with him, as a family. Not just us, but extended family, as well. We made it clear that family is the most important thing.
He wasn't allowed to have his phone or use his computer at night. Night time is for sleeping. He also had a bed time up until he was 18. (At 17, it was 12 on school nights, 1 on weekends, so, not unreasonable. And he was allowed to stay up later if he had a friend over or if he was at their house) As he got older, the bedtime got later, but this structure is important. He can now stay up as late as he wants, but he still doesn't stay up all night.
He wasn't allowed to have his phone in his face all day. He was encouraged to go outside and play. This is why most of his friends are actually kids who go to public school. And he has never been treated differently by them. There's never been any ostracizing by them or anything negative for not having social media.
As for pornography, I explained the side effects and very negative consequences of it when he was young. How it actually rewires the brain and actually backfires on the goal of the pornography. How it is addictive. Etc. Using ones imagination does not have these side effects.
We never try to be his "friend" like many parents today seem to do or want to do. We are his parents. His friends are his friends. That doesn't mean we aren't close, or that we can't have close conversations, or have fun together. It just means that there are boundaries. It means that we are the parents.
Idk, maybe some of these things are why none of this was an issue for us.

Thanks so much for sharing your experience with your son. He sounds like a very well balanced young man. And I think you hit the head on the nail and really the point between the lines: parenting is never something that can be outsourced. The big issues is when there is a parenting vacuum that is replaced by social media and unfettered access to smartphones. If a child does not have a rich home life with highly engaged parents to act as a countervailing force, really bad mental health outcomes can probably happen. The key to parenting is just that, effective parenting where the child is provided with emotional connection, age-appropriate autonomy and very clear boundaries within which they can learn and grow.


John thanks for your comments. I never read Coddling because I suspected I wouldn't like or agree with it and I think I was right. Anxious Generation had lots to disagree with and it really was a presentation of data rather than peer reviewed research. His stuff about helicopter parenting really seemed based on tons of conjecture and he didn't make a strong evidence based case for it in this book. However, I was very biased toward his thinking about smart phones and social media going into this so it resonated with me and I ultimately found a lot of worth in this book.
Thanks for sharing your experience with your 13 year old. Sounds like an amazing effort that I admire. I'm scandalized that she is the last of her peers to get a phone. I think I'm just a naïve parent. Your tiered approach sounds fantastic. I'm definitely shooting for 16 as well. Looking for evidence that social media is harmful to pre-teens and teenagers is like looking for evidence that parachutes work. It's kind of obvious at this point, I don't need a DOI to be directed to.



What point am I missing?
The book should stand on its own legs and its logic and evidence shouldn’t rely on self referencing the authors other non peered reviewed books.

Well, it looks like you've poked a hornet's nest. But I stand with you, Wick. Life is full of risks and, yes, we still drive. But we also don't let our teens pick up their friends at night for a drinking cruise. (My daughters lost a classmate that way. The driver died, his drunken friends were taken to the hospital.) It's okay to set reasonable limits with our kids as they learn independence.

Well, it looks like you've poked a hornet's nest. But I stand with you, Wick. Life is full of risks and, yes, we still drive. But we also don't let our t..."
Thank you. I get the criticisms both way on this book and it's not like the guy has written an ironclad proof here but the take home is really not that controversial and it's totally risk free: be careful with how much unfettered access to a smart phone and social media you give your kids. Waiting to 16 is NOT extreme, radical, being a luddite or an alarmist and is honestly shouldn't be controversial at all.

Thanks for the heads up about that book.



I agree with you and nothing about my review is contradictory to what you’ve said. I think you’re also creating the false dilemma the author did between a play based childhood and a phone based childhood. The dichotomy is a construct that does not represent reality. A child can have free play and also be on a screen too much. I want to add that sharing your experience is a classic example of survivor bias. You’re reporting on those that went unscathed from unsupervised play and not those that have been harmed, kidnapped or killed by such play. It does happen.

I agree with you and nothing about my review is contradictory to what you’ve said. I think you’re also creating the false dilemma the author did between a play based childhood and a phone based childhood. The dichotomy is a construct that does not represent reality. A child can have free play and also be on a screen too much. I want to add that sharing your experience is a classic example of survivor bias. You’re reporting on those that went unscathed from unsupervised play and not those that have been harmed, kidnapped or killed by such play. It does happen.

I think it's safe to say that, ultimately, the problem is one of parenting, which I think Wick has said before. It's not enough to say "no phones, go play in the street" or "here's an iPad, get out of my face." Both of those are bad options because they lack the parental involvement and guidance. It shouldn't be a choice between helicoptering (an ancient buzzword if ever I've heard one) and letting your kids do whatever they want (phones or no) with zero supervision. As other comments have said, parents should be taking an interest in their kids' lives and making decisions based on their unique situations AS WELL AS the very obvious data surrounding the harm social media can bring. Playing outside can be just as mentally harmful if the kid is completely isolated from their peers - no amount of imagination is a substitute for healthy social interaction.

Thanks Jack, well said. It's clearly a false dilemma and dichotomy the author set up in the book. There aren't two choices, there are many. And what matters above all is parent-child connection and meaningful family enrichment.

Thanks! And totally agree, I’m a no sleepover parent. The risks are just way too high. Kids can socialize in a thousand other ways.

From what I've picked up to date, I think that it isn't just social media, but the entire tech-computer phenomenon. GenX had the introduction of cable tv, video games and by high school years, computers, and were the last to have limited tech options. I've been fascinated with the neurobiology of it, and what is known as polyvagal theory, and I honestly think the human nervous system isn't built to handle our tech interface as it is (see rise in ADHD diagnosis, particularly among adults). There's a reason people think being in a tech-free space is 'calming,' whether a church sanctuary, a playground, or a walk in the woods. It's because that's the pace our nervous system has evolved to. I'm not saying we need to get away and be alone, however; there's something to co-regulation of our beings with other humans (social species vs solitary predator species), and on-line interactions are pale comparisons to the real thing (but can be safe spaces! I'm not knocking it, just recognizing it can't stand in for all relationships).
However, I give the side-eye to anything that tries to break it down along gender lines (autonomy was my goal as a child).

From what I've picked up to date, I think that it isn't just soci..."
Thanks Carol for your comments. I agree that technology has outpaced the evolutionary design of our neurobiology and its having deleterious effects. It's pretty self evident and its prudent to be conservative about tech and social media exposure to children.
I totally understand your side-eye to breaking things down along gender lines. The author does mention that the gender disparate impact he sees in the data is because of sociogenic gender boundaries that are constructed to begin with. I tend to agree with this. When looking at basically any data, there are gender disparities. I almost never interpret this as fundamental gender differences (unless its clear, like actual anatomy) and attribute the disparities that are created from systemic patriarchy and sexism that spark the disparities from the onset.


He gives some vague platitudes about social connection and spirituality. Not really helpful.


Thanks Maria!
