Tanay Katiyar
@adigitaltanay.bsky.social
📖 PhD @ University of Cambridge
🔬 Social Media / Mental Health / Anthropology / Evolutionary
Psychiatry / Cognitive Science
🎙️ Co-parenting the @cognitations.bsky.social
podcast
🔬 Social Media / Mental Health / Anthropology / Evolutionary
Psychiatry / Cognitive Science
🎙️ Co-parenting the @cognitations.bsky.social
podcast
In fact, juvenile mortality is quite high in certain small-scale societies. Do we want to revert to that? Prolly not!
November 25, 2025 at 5:39 PM
In fact, juvenile mortality is quite high in certain small-scale societies. Do we want to revert to that? Prolly not!
But we need to start somewhere.
Re what's the point of this work: it should be viewed more as a response to the public sentiment of blaming everything on the technology itself. I agree that the pendulum shouldn't be swung the other way as well where everything's blamed on industrialisation.
Re what's the point of this work: it should be viewed more as a response to the public sentiment of blaming everything on the technology itself. I agree that the pendulum shouldn't be swung the other way as well where everything's blamed on industrialisation.
November 25, 2025 at 5:39 PM
But we need to start somewhere.
Re what's the point of this work: it should be viewed more as a response to the public sentiment of blaming everything on the technology itself. I agree that the pendulum shouldn't be swung the other way as well where everything's blamed on industrialisation.
Re what's the point of this work: it should be viewed more as a response to the public sentiment of blaming everything on the technology itself. I agree that the pendulum shouldn't be swung the other way as well where everything's blamed on industrialisation.
Second, yes, we don't always want to revive the natural baseline and make the naturalistic fallacy. Rather, this should be viewed as an intuition pump for potential interventions, that work for the population on average and that could be implemented in digital spaces. Yes, individual differences ...
November 25, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Second, yes, we don't always want to revive the natural baseline and make the naturalistic fallacy. Rather, this should be viewed as an intuition pump for potential interventions, that work for the population on average and that could be implemented in digital spaces. Yes, individual differences ...
And in fact, Nikhil pointed out the exact point you make - harassment can be horrific offline in certain hunter-gatherer groups. So point well taken;
November 25, 2025 at 5:39 PM
And in fact, Nikhil pointed out the exact point you make - harassment can be horrific offline in certain hunter-gatherer groups. So point well taken;
Hi Erin, thanks so much for this thoughtful engagement with our work - in sum, I agree with the main criticisms: first, this might ignore the fact that things are worse off offline that online spaces protect against. We acknowledge this completely in the caveats section (see below):
November 25, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Hi Erin, thanks so much for this thoughtful engagement with our work - in sum, I agree with the main criticisms: first, this might ignore the fact that things are worse off offline that online spaces protect against. We acknowledge this completely in the caveats section (see below):
WOOO! Congratulations Marius :)
November 14, 2025 at 10:51 AM
WOOO! Congratulations Marius :)
A key thing to note here is that you need to let the likert scale cutpoints also vary across each item. If I recall correctly, the brms syntax should be Question_Score | thres(gr = Question Type) ~ (1 + Predictor_of_interest | Question Type)
Hopefully, this should clinch it :)
Hopefully, this should clinch it :)
November 12, 2025 at 11:04 PM
A key thing to note here is that you need to let the likert scale cutpoints also vary across each item. If I recall correctly, the brms syntax should be Question_Score | thres(gr = Question Type) ~ (1 + Predictor_of_interest | Question Type)
Hopefully, this should clinch it :)
Hopefully, this should clinch it :)
The random intercept will then tell you how similar/distinct each item in the index + the random slope will indicate whether your fixed effect varies strongly across each item in the index
November 12, 2025 at 10:06 PM
The random intercept will then tell you how similar/distinct each item in the index + the random slope will indicate whether your fixed effect varies strongly across each item in the index
I see. If that is the case, I would just forget the categories and model each question jointly as a multilevel ordinal model:
Question_Score ~ (1 + Predictor_of_interest | Question Type)
where score is 0-3 for each question and ques type is the distinct items in the index....
Question_Score ~ (1 + Predictor_of_interest | Question Type)
where score is 0-3 for each question and ques type is the distinct items in the index....
November 12, 2025 at 10:06 PM
I see. If that is the case, I would just forget the categories and model each question jointly as a multilevel ordinal model:
Question_Score ~ (1 + Predictor_of_interest | Question Type)
where score is 0-3 for each question and ques type is the distinct items in the index....
Question_Score ~ (1 + Predictor_of_interest | Question Type)
where score is 0-3 for each question and ques type is the distinct items in the index....
Of course, this presumes that there is an inherent ordering between the categories, which may or may not appropriate
November 12, 2025 at 8:57 PM
Of course, this presumes that there is an inherent ordering between the categories, which may or may not appropriate
Depending on the spacing, you could then speculate as to why it is probability of going from 1 to 2 on this index is very very different from the probability of going from 2-3? Paul Burkner has a nice vignette on using monotonic predictors in brms
November 12, 2025 at 8:55 PM
Depending on the spacing, you could then speculate as to why it is probability of going from 1 to 2 on this index is very very different from the probability of going from 2-3? Paul Burkner has a nice vignette on using monotonic predictors in brms
I guess this depends on whether you want to model this as a dependent variable or as a predictor. If it is the latter, you could just model it is a monotonic predictor and the model will automatically figure out that the spacing between the categories is not equidistant.
November 12, 2025 at 8:55 PM
I guess this depends on whether you want to model this as a dependent variable or as a predictor. If it is the latter, you could just model it is a monotonic predictor and the model will automatically figure out that the spacing between the categories is not equidistant.
Tagging similar other folks: @matti.vuorre.com @mjcrockett.bsky.social @m-b-petersen.bsky.social @danmirea.bsky.social @danielnettle.bsky.social @lucyfoulkes.bsky.social @candiceodgers.bsky.social @machterberg.bsky.social @hshawberry.bsky.social @eckles.bsky.social @mitchprinstein.bsky.social
November 6, 2025 at 11:29 AM
Tagging folks who might be interested: @randynesse.bsky.social @ehbea.bsky.social @kristensyme.bsky.social @ehemmott.bsky.social
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Tagging folks who might be interested: @randynesse.bsky.social @ehbea.bsky.social @kristensyme.bsky.social @ehemmott.bsky.social
Also, huge thanks to @hugoreasoning.bsky.social for initially guiding my thinking beyond negative effects of mismatch
+
@manvir.bsky.social whose WIRED article provided initial inspiration for this piece, and without whom I would have never properly discovered evo psychiatry: tinyurl.com/3cah4jwx
+
@manvir.bsky.social whose WIRED article provided initial inspiration for this piece, and without whom I would have never properly discovered evo psychiatry: tinyurl.com/3cah4jwx
It’s Easy to Blame Mental Health Issues on Tech. But Is It Fair?
A popular narrative says devices make us depressed. Research with remote Amazonians adds more depth to the story.
www.wired.com
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Also, huge thanks to @hugoreasoning.bsky.social for initially guiding my thinking beyond negative effects of mismatch
+
@manvir.bsky.social whose WIRED article provided initial inspiration for this piece, and without whom I would have never properly discovered evo psychiatry: tinyurl.com/3cah4jwx
+
@manvir.bsky.social whose WIRED article provided initial inspiration for this piece, and without whom I would have never properly discovered evo psychiatry: tinyurl.com/3cah4jwx
To read further, here's the link to the open-access version of the article: doi.org/10.1037/rev0...
APA PsycNet
doi.org
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
To read further, here's the link to the open-access version of the article: doi.org/10.1037/rev0...
Second, it potentially provides design recommendations
(16/n)
(16/n)
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Second, it potentially provides design recommendations
(16/n)
(16/n)
@zephoria.bsky.social once quipped: "All too often, it is easier to focus on the technology than on the broader systemic issues that are at play because technical changes are easier to see.
IMO, an evolutionary framing makes these broader systemic issues much much much easier to see!
(15/n)
IMO, an evolutionary framing makes these broader systemic issues much much much easier to see!
(15/n)
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
@zephoria.bsky.social once quipped: "All too often, it is easier to focus on the technology than on the broader systemic issues that are at play because technical changes are easier to see.
IMO, an evolutionary framing makes these broader systemic issues much much much easier to see!
(15/n)
IMO, an evolutionary framing makes these broader systemic issues much much much easier to see!
(15/n)
Relatedly, we also state explicit predictions that follow from our perspective. It should be mentioned that early evidence on phone bans seems to support these predictions
(14/n)
(14/n)
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Relatedly, we also state explicit predictions that follow from our perspective. It should be mentioned that early evidence on phone bans seems to support these predictions
(14/n)
(14/n)
This has ripple effects on the public discourse as well!!!
(13/n)
(13/n)
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
This has ripple effects on the public discourse as well!!!
(13/n)
(13/n)
While complementary, we point out some unique benefits of taking an evo perspective here:
First, it helps establish a theory-driven baseline of human behavior
(12/n)
First, it helps establish a theory-driven baseline of human behavior
(12/n)
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
While complementary, we point out some unique benefits of taking an evo perspective here:
First, it helps establish a theory-driven baseline of human behavior
(12/n)
First, it helps establish a theory-driven baseline of human behavior
(12/n)
Now, some will point out that we could reach this end-point without taking an evolutionary perspective. And as we acknowledge in the paper, scholars before us have indeed done so (check out work by @sonialivingstone.bsky.social @zephoria.bsky.social )
(11/n)
(11/n)
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Now, some will point out that we could reach this end-point without taking an evolutionary perspective. And as we acknowledge in the paper, scholars before us have indeed done so (check out work by @sonialivingstone.bsky.social @zephoria.bsky.social )
(11/n)
(11/n)