I have a slightly different theory, which is that being constantly online (and especially on social media, which is how all kids in high school seem to interact at all hours of the day) causes tons of anxiety and stress.

It's not necessarily that social media is 'bad' per se, as it is very unbalanced -- it triggers that dopamine rush in that part of the brain that says 'be social, your life depends on it', but then the brain never gets back the true feedback that it needs (eye contact, body language, tone, facial expressions). It's like the equivalent of eating empty carbs.

Imagine a vicious cycle where parents see kids are stressed -> parents become more protective and keep them inside -> kids spend even more time on technology.

We know from research that exercise, getting into nature, spending time with people in person all lower stress levels and are good for you, but it seems like the trend is to go the opposite way.

> We know from research that exercise, getting into nature, spending time with people in person all lower stress levels and are good for you,

could you provide some links? IIRC introverts do not always get lower stress levels from such activities and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any science showing "getting into nature" provide any benefits except bug bites, sunburns, and hay fever

There's actually quite a lot of research showing benefits of being in/around nature - here's a newsified collection of links http://www.businessinsider.com/scientific-benefits-of-nature...

Honestly, that's quite brilliant.

I see the type of behaviour and that sense of entitlement, the fragility, here. Very often. It's chronic. It's systemic. I didn't grow up this way. In Europe, growing up as a kid you fought your way through and you learned to cope with the trauma and the stress or be left in the dust. No matter what social class you came from. And it was often the case that if you came from higher social class you'd land in trouble or in a conflict with kids from the working class very quickly: "the trouble would find you" without you looking for it and before you knew it, you had to fight for your right to be left in peace. Blood splattered everywhere, literally. You broke their nose or a few teeth and you were left in peace thereafter. If you didn't fight physically, you fought mentally: outsmart or face the stigma. That turned out to be a key ingredient later on in dealing with failure as an adult: fail. Fail harder! Shrug it off. Succeed.

The sensitivity here is enough to make a person despair; things I'd just shrug off and carry on growing up, essential for forming a psychologically healthy and mentally strong personality often get labeled as uncivil or rude here. I often roll my eyes in disbelief. This isn't good for you. As the old saying goes: "grow some skin" (or a pair!) Learning to cope is an essential part of being a normal person, instead of being a hypersensitive daisy. You can't just label everything which you don't like as "uncivil" or "rude" and even it if is, overcome it and internalise, don't institutionalise.

It is interesting that they look at the impact on college student behavior rather than society as a whole.

I am far more terrified by the idea that newly trained cops are so fragile that they think perceived rudeness is a mortal threat.

What a brilliant article!

Protecting populations from risk certainly feels good in the short term - but at what long term cost?

Is our overapplication of antibiotics making us more at risk?

Is quelling disappointment encouraging more in the long run?

Is preventing skinned knees encouraging greater harm in the future?

So much of popular society seems to focus on the short term risk avoidance at the expense of the long term benefit.

On the other hand, we do live longer with less crime and easier lives.

Where is the right balance?

That's a bad analogy. Candy razors pretty much never happened. Participation trophies are everywhere.

Halloween candy is to participation trophies as razor blades are to the dangerous consequences of said trophies.