Podcast Summary: Plain English with Derek Thompson

Episode: BEST OF – What Experts Really Think About Smartphones and Mental Health

Original Release Date: December 30, 2025
Host: Derek Thompson
Guest: Jay Van Bavel, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at NYU

Episode Overview

In this "best of" episode, Derek Thompson revisits one of the most thoughtful conversations of the year, diving into the contentious debate over smartphones, social media, and their impact on adolescent mental health. The episode centers around a groundbreaking expert survey co-led by NYU’s Jay Van Bavel, exploring where real consensus exists among hundreds of psychologists and sociologists. Thompson and Van Bavel discuss often-misrepresented research, the nuanced realities behind big headlines, and how social-media-driven polarization warps both science and public debate. Practical questions for parents, teachers, and policymakers are also addressed.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Motivation for the Expert Survey

• Derek Thompson introduces the debate driven by Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation and the corresponding fierce criticism and research disputing major claims about smartphones’ harms.
• Jay Van Bavel details the survey’s genesis: assembling 229 experts (psychologists, neuroscientists, sociologists), curating claims from Haidt’s book and prominent critiques, and methodically pursuing nuanced consensus.
• Consensus "Temperature Check": The need itself for such a survey signifies scientific uncertainty—unlike uncontroversial topics (e.g., water is H₂O)—and reflects the polarized rhetoric in media and online debate.
  • Quote:

    "The very fact that this expert survey had to be done is its own signal as to the certainty that people feel about some of the claims being made."
    — Derek Thompson [10:18]

2. Methodology & Process

• Experts were filtered for field expertise; claims were iteratively refined to maximize possible agreement (>90% consensus threshold for inclusion).
• The survey used a Delphi process: statements evolved via group discussion, critiques, and supporting literature until broad consensus was possible.

3. Where Experts Agree—and Don’t

• Strongest Consensus (familiar, well-studied phenomena):
  • Sleep deprivation, social isolation, behavioral addiction are all reliably damaging to mental health (e.g., sleep deprivation’s harms reached near-100% consensus).
• Less Consensus (novel, nuanced, or policy claims):
  • Whether banning smartphones in schools or delaying smartphone use improves mental health is less settled; consensus here required caveats and recognition of mixed evidence.
    • E.g., the claim "delaying smartphones until high school will improve mental health" saw a 2:1 ‘probably true’ to ‘probably false’ split—solid, but far from the climate science 97% consensus.
• Quote:

  "There is not the degree of consensus with social media as there is with climate change. Our science is not as evolved on this topic and therefore there's not as much consensus."
  — Jay Van Bavel [18:59]

4. Why the Online Debate Feels So Extreme

• Both Thompson and Van Bavel point out that Twitter and other social platforms amplify the loudest, most polarized voices—often misrepresenting the scientific nuance present among experts.
• Analogous to climate change: "balance" in public forums can mislead, giving minority or fringe views undue weight.
  • Quote:

    “What we're getting online is kind of a polarized, funhouse, mirror, distorted version of what the debate is.”
    — Jay Van Bavel [11:26]

• Consensus-building is hard and loses people from both extremes; the finalized statements often feel “watered down” to maximize agreement.

5. Notable Claims and Findings

• Social Isolation & Smartphones
  • There’s moderate, but not overwhelming, expert agreement that smartphones contribute to social deprivation. The true relationship is highly dependent on context (individual/social factors, active vs. passive use).
    • Memorable explanation: Smartphones can erode in-person relationships while facilitating new or distant ones (e.g., LGBTQ youth finding support, fanship community). This duality resists easy answers.
    • Quote:

      “Some of these effects of social media are small. ... It means they depend on the type of kid that you're dealing with, the context that they're in. ... It's harder to have, like, strong, definitive claims that everybody can agree on.”
      — Jay Van Bavel [29:01]

• Exposure to Mental Disorders
  • An overwhelming expert consensus (40:1 ratio) that social media increases adolescents’ exposure to discussions/displays of mental health issues—both for good (reducing stigma, facilitating help) and ill (possibility for social contagion, over-diagnosis).
    • Quote:

      "Social media may contribute to increased exposure to mental disorders. ... There’s less knowledge about what are the consequences of that."
      — Jay Van Bavel [40:52]

    • Reasoning: Social media rewards highly novel, engaging, or extreme content; mental health self-disclosure fits this mold, often going viral and setting new norms for openness.
• Delaying Smartphone Access
  • The claim that “delaying smartphone use until high school will improve mental health” is supported by a narrow majority (68% ‘probably true’, 11% ‘probably false’), but countered by studies showing contrary results.
    • The science cannot yet offer definitive parenting/policy guidance; randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed.
      • Example: Upcoming phone bans in NY State schools could be an opportunity for RCTs—if policymakers allow control schools.
    • Quote:

      “If parents want ... I think this is where the science is not yet definitive enough to tell parents what to do. ... Sometimes we have to make policy decisions before we have solid evidence and then get as much data as we can.”
      — Jay Van Bavel [50:58]

6. Process Critiques and Social Backlash

• Despite great efforts to include prominent critics of Haidt and others, some declined or did not respond. Both extremes of the debate accused the project of bias.
  • Quote:

    "We bent over backwards to include critics. ... We were not as extreme in the direction that they would want. ... We lost people from both sides."
    — Jay Van Bavel [22:55]

• When published, the consensus paper triggered more online polarization, with attention focusing more on perceived flaws/inclusion than on the substance—a meta-demonstration of the very dynamics under study.
  • Quote:

    “When we published it and it made contact with the broader world, it might have actually further polarized the debate.”
    — Derek Thompson [55:25]

7. Broader Lessons & Reflections

• Social media’s power to inflame, polarize, and misguide public perception extends to the scientific community—sometimes even worsening after attempts at consensus.
• Yet, inside the expert group, nuanced, constructive, evidence-based debate was possible.
• The field is young (16-17 years vs. climate science’s decades), and much more research—including natural experiments and RCTs—is needed before offering broad-brush policy recommendations.
• Optimistic notes:
  • There is a nascent, growing consensus on important aspects (e.g., sleep, addiction).
  • Open-minded inquiry continues, and time will bring clarity—likely with more opportunities for robust, science-informed policy.

Memorable Quotes & Key Timestamps

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 11:26 | Jay Van Bavel | “What we're getting online is kind of a polarized, funhouse, mirror, distorted version of what the debate is.” | | 18:59 | Jay Van Bavel | "There is not the degree of consensus with social media as there is with climate change...our science is not as evolved on this topic." | | 22:55 | Jay Van Bavel | “We bent over backwards to include critics...We lost people from both sides [of the polarized debate].” | | 29:01 | Jay Van Bavel | “Some of these effects of social media are small...They depend on the type of kid, the context...It's harder to have strong, definitive claims.” | | 40:52 | Jay Van Bavel | "Social media may contribute to increased exposure to mental disorders. ... There’s less knowledge about what are the consequences of that." | | 53:41 | Jay Van Bavel | “Both people from the extremes of their views on social media seem to be equally mad about the conclusions.” | | 58:48 | Jay Van Bavel | "It's a problem of this...platform that amplifies extreme views. And I think that is part of the problem." | | 60:20 | Jay Van Bavel | “When I saw the results, I was actually really optimistic because they aligned very closely with what I believe in my own reading of the literature...” | | 63:49 | Derek Thompson | “Guy who studies how social media is an anger and outrage machine that promotes self righteous us versus them dynamics, surprised when social media turns out to be an anger and outrage machine that promotes self righteous us versus them dynamics.” |

Practical Takeaways

• For Parents and Educators:
  There is some expert backing for delaying smartphone/social media access and reducing passive/isolative usage—but research is not settled enough for blanket policy. Focus on encouraging active, relationship-building uses. Stay alert to the nuances, watch for new studies, and consider context over one-size-fits-all rules.

• For Policymakers:
  Policy decisions (phone bans, delays) should ideally be coupled with research and allow for rigorous testing—natural experiments and RCTs where possible.

• For Everyone:
  Interpret both media and scientific debate with skepticism for polarizing certainty. The most accurate science on this topic is both evolving and nuanced.

Closing Thoughts

The current state of the science on smartphones, social media, and mental health is neither a “moral panic” nor an apocalyptic crisis, but rather an area of emerging knowledge. While certain risks and associations (especially regarding sleep and some measures of adolescent girls’ mental health) are gaining consensus, the true magnitude, mechanisms, and solutions remain unresolved. Both the research process and its public reception are shaped—for better and worse—by the same social media forces under scrutiny.

“Something can be depressing and interesting at the same time. ... And it's just okay to recognize the reality, to see this reality clearly, that the dynamics of social media and science communications can be depressing and interesting.”
— Derek Thompson [63:51]

The work continues.