Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Extreme Internet Use Linked to Mental Illness in Teens

posted by takyon on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the correlation-vs-causation dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

More than one-third of 15-year-old children in the UK could be classified as 'extreme internet users', or those who are online for more than six hours daily outside of school.

A report from UK think-tank Education Policy Institute (EPI) states that children in the UK have a higher rate of extreme usage (37.8 percent of all UK 15 year olds) than other countries. Only Chile reported more.

The think-tank examined the relation between social media use (including online time) and mental illness:

While twelve percent of children who spend no time on social networking websites on a normal school day have symptoms of mental ill health, that figure rises to 27 percent for those who are on the sites for three or more hours a day.

Here's a hint: if one third of your kids think a certain way, it's a personality trait not a mental illness.

Source: https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/07/03/uk-teens-are-among-the-most-extreme-internet-users-world-wide/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Extreme Internet Use Linked to Mental Illness in Teens | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 39 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday July 06 2017, @10:57AM (3 children)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Thursday July 06 2017, @10:57AM (#535658)

    A collective decision for the greater good is precisely the foundation of modern society.

    And for the holocaust. Just saying.

    Education requirements, vaccination requirements, even things like requirements you wear a seat belt are society imposing rules on the individual for the greater good that, in a vacuum, only effect that individual

    The rights of individuals should only be restricted to the bare minimum required to maintain a functioning society and ensure nobody else's rights are being violated. Anything more is tyranny.

    Having increasingly large chunks of the population that are mentally, socially, and/or emotionally under developed is not a good thing.

    Neither is smoking, drinking, watching TV, or whatever else is "ruining our children" today. Deal with it, nobody has to live up to your standards.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by gtomorrow on Thursday July 06 2017, @11:26AM (1 child)

    by gtomorrow (2230) on Thursday July 06 2017, @11:26AM (#535664)

    And for the holocaust. Just saying.

    Okay, now you're just being difficult. How can you even begin to compare "collective decision for the greater good" to a (for lack of a better term) philosophy that intrinsically includes murder and hatred? No red lights go off in your reasoning? Really?

    There is a huge multi-toned difference between "rights of the individual" and "tyranny". Following your logic chasm, I supposed you can't be bothered taking a shower every now and then because it interferes with your "rights of the individual."

    Bringing this back on track, that's all we need for the future of mankind on the planet: more anti-social behaviour, staring straight into a screen instead of someone else's eyes. More Asperger's, please.

    • (Score: 1) by unauthorized on Thursday July 06 2017, @11:45AM

      by unauthorized (3776) on Thursday July 06 2017, @11:45AM (#535673)

      Okay, now you're just being difficult. How can you even begin to compare "collective decision for the greater good" to a (for lack of a better term) philosophy that intrinsically includes murder and hatred?

      I'm not. All I'm saying is that it was also done in the name of "the greater good". The underlying implication is criticism of selling an idea because it's "for the greater good", which I assumed was obvious enough not to require spelling out, but apparently it was not.

      Following your logic chasm, I supposed you can't be bothered taking a shower every now and then because it interferes with your "rights of the individual."

      Speaking of logic chasms, I fail to see how my decisions about my own life interfere with my rights. But even if I didn't take showers, how would that interfere with my rights? Nobody is going to force me to bathe, the worst people could do is avoid me and deny me entry to their property.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:26PM (#535731)

    Wearing a seatbelt is tyranny...