I recently caught a glimpse of a podcast interview with Jonathan Haidt, where the host (Dax Shepherd) was trying to defend Generation Z as not just being alright, but in fact “thriving”, compared to previous generations. I thought Haidt’s response was so poignant that it was worth typing out and sharing the exchange:

Shepherd: Gen Z’s teen pregnancy rate is 78% lower than ’91’s. 31% of Millennials drink regularly, only 18% of Gen Z. A third of Gen Z doesn’t even drink — this has never been observed, they’re completely abstinant. They are more frugal than Millennials. They are more health-conscious. They have better nutritional practices. They have better exercise–

Haidt: Where are you going with this Dax?

Shepherd: Here’s where I’m going with this: you have decided to kind of focus on a singular thing. I could easily make the argument that yes, this obsession with social media and the phone although [it] may have produced this thing… are we not then going to credit this thing with this huge leap forward this generation’s taken? All this promising stuff we know about them? I know of the anxiety and depression figure, but to me that’s one metric out of like six, and they’re thriving in the other departments.

Haidt: Well you said they’re “thriving.” That’s an interesting–

Shepherd: Improving.

Haidt: Okay; on a number of metrics, their behavior is better. On a lot of the self-destructive metrics, their behavior is better. That’s all true. Now, does that mean they’re “thriving”? Why are they not drinking? Why are they not driving cars? Why are they not dating?

Shepherd: Why aren’t they getting pregnant…

Haidt: Why are they not getting pregnant? Why do you think it is? Is it because they’re so wise? They decide ‘you know what, these are risky…

Padman: Because they’re not with other people.

Haidt: They’re not doing anything. If you’re just on your bed all day long, scrolling through social media, then you’re not going to be doing any of those things…

You can find the full podcast here — the relevant dialogue happens around 1:26:00.

The ostensible subject is of course the effect of social media, but I think the principle of the danger of protectionism goes far beyond Gen Z’s unique position, and the sort of social isolation they have collectively experienced thanks to the digital world they have been thrust into. The fact is that social media has essentially achieved what many had been trying to do, by statistically offsetting risk through systems that would “nudge” people away from “bad” behaviors — both Christian, and secular humanist.

The concern is so old that it goes back to one of the ancient, great works of philosophy — Plato’s Republic — which speaks in mythic language about the risk of those who are raised in a “just city” of being unable to choose virtue for themselves, whenever they are taken outside of the constraints of their upbringing:

And when he had spoken, he who had the first choice came forward and in a moment chose the greatest tyranny; his mind having been darkened by folly and sensuality, he had not thought out the whole matter before he chose, and did not at first sight perceive that he was fated, among other evils, to devour his own children. But when he had time to reflect, and saw what was in the lot, he began to beat his breast and lament over his choice, forgetting the proclamation of the prophet; for, instead of throwing the blame of his misfortune on himself, he accused chance and the gods, and everything rather than himself. Now he was one of those who came from heaven, and in a former life had dwelt in a well-ordered State, but his virtue was a matter of habit only, and he had no philosophy. And it was true of others who were similarly overtaken, that the greater number of them came from heaven and therefore they had never been schooled by trial, whereas the pilgrims who came from earth, having themselves suffered and seen others suffer, were not in a hurry to choose.

Aside from completely disproving any allegations of political literalism, the “Myth of Er” we see in book 10 emphasizes Plato’s belief in the importance of philosophy, rather than mere indoctrination and brainwashing, for the salvation — or, perhaps, formation — of a human soul.

Now, paradoxically, the point puts anyone who wishes to save Gen Z in a somewhat awkward position: is it truly best for the young folks to protect them from the internet? The point almost shifts the conversation into a question of framing: what is protecting whom from what? Does the internet protect the next generation from the risks and dangers of reality? Or are we looking at physical interactions as a kind of salvation and protection against these new dangers of the internet? It’s a challenge that will have to be sorted out… but maybe not one that can easily be sorted out on someone else’s behalf.

…not because the internet is positive, or even neutral, but that it is now an entity which exists and which has to be dealt with, and which children cannot be sheltered from (at least, not forever).

However, it might be a point to contemplate, both for Christian traditionalists as well as Left-Wing systematizers, who wish to protect the youth through a network of imposed, cultural safety rails that will guide them toward either God and virtue, or toward affordable healthcare (respectively). Their general failure to achieve their ends (insofar as the desired ends are not mere influence, but control — statistical or otherwise) does not necessarily bar them from some future, Pyrrhic success, especially if they take up the tools of the internet to aid them in their broad, social mission of salvation.

One can only hope that Generation Er, with its isolation from the normal risks and experience of ordinary social interaction, has at least acquired enough skill with the internet (as a kind of compensation, perhaps) to avoid the plans of their misguided elders to protect the youth from themselves.