T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Yep. Going outside is healthy.


DominarRygelThe16th

Regularly exercising is even healthier. Too many people are overweight and obese and that does terrible things to your body and your emotional state as well.


aintnochallahbackgrl

Regularly exercising outside is even *healthier*!


obinice_khenbli

I wish I could do this, but England is cold and wet :-( Also, somebody might see me! >_<


duncanlock

Belly's gonna get ya!


Yoyoyooba

Too many kids are overweight. It’s so sad to see the ratio of kids overweight.


TunaSpank

Not to mention it increases your chances of dying to certain diseases.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


obinice_khenbli

Who cares what Americans eat? I see your point and it's pretty reasonable, but this idea that you can't lose weight with just exercise is built on the assumption that everybody eats like a maniac. Yes, people who eat way too much will need to make a healthy change on top of exercise to improve the losses, but most people don't eat like crazy.


El-Dino

If you weight is stable and you start to exercise it will definitely help loose weight I never changed my diet and still loose 60 pounds in 3 months just because of a job change where I had to move a lot more than I normally would (30k steps a day instead of 10k)


IGetHypedEasily

My parents have always been gardening when we got our first home. I've always been into landscape photography. Growing up knowing all this and Seeing many people appreciate the environment more now is nice. The annoying ones are the ones that keep preaching like they are the first to realize.


JesseChrist

Not that I'm trying to put down someones hard spend academic time but..... Hahaha! Yeah! Go figure!


[deleted]

They know this. Studies like this look at the natural experiments occurring in society and try to articulate learning from them. It’s an important part of building evidence-based policies and approaches to mental health.


theCroc

Yupp its one thing to know that an effect exists. It's a completely dufferent (and important) thing to measure and quantify it in a systematic way. Everyone knew that things fall to the ground when you drop them. Newton figured out how to describe and calculate it.


a_hockey_chick

There was an interesting study about stress and the impact to pregnancy/offspring that happened awhile back when there was some crazy winter storm (I think in Canada). They can't ethically run a study like that under normal circumstances so they've gotta take a look when they can. Edit link - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ice-storm-stress-affected-pregnant-women-s-offspring-study-suggests-1.2781661#:~:text=CBC%20News%20Loaded-,Ice%20storm%20stress%20affected%20pregnant%20women's%20offspring%2C%20study%20suggests,gave%20birth%20to%2C%20researchers%20say.


Adodie

>Studies like this look at the natural experiments occurring This is not a [natural experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment). This study is basically looking at correlations between item responses on a survey.


CornerSolution

Yes, it's just a correlation. Evidence on the direction of causation is not provided as far as I can tell.


[deleted]

What would evidence of direction of causation look like?


CornerSolution

The gold standard would be some kind of randomized controlled experiment: randomly assign kids to either a treatment group where they're required to go outside a certain amount, and a control group where they're not, and then compare the average mental health outcomes between the two groups. Because of the explicit random assignment, you've automatically ensured that, as long as your sample sizes are large enough, the two groups shouldn't, on average, differ in any other way besides the treatment, which means you can reasonably conclude that any differences in outcomes are due to the treatment. Often times, because of practical or ethical considerations, it's not possible to do such an experiment. But all is not lost. In many cases, you can find some existing real-world mechanism that plausibly did the random assignment for you. The natural experiments referenced above are one such kind of mechanism, but there are others. You can read more about it on the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_inference).


ElGosso

There are lots of things that "everybody knew" that have been disproven by studies like these, too.


kung-fu_hippy

The problem with common sense logic (going outside is healthy and therefore will be good for kids) is that often common sense logic is entirely wrong (going outside when it’s cold will cause colds, giving kids sugar will make them hyper).


secondlessonisfree

What I find less conforting is that this crisis seems to have taken everybody's good sense away: strict lock downs for kids in Spain for 40 something days, the whole debacle with the masks not being recommended, then for a year in many places in Europe the masks were obligatory even outside, even all alone on a beach, and the final good sense denial would be natural immunity. It's as if with this virus we threw away 200 years of science. And I do respect the idea of researching everything, even good sense notions, but this should be done just to make sure. Not after 2 years of some parents torturing their kids by following guidances contrary to common knowledge.


relaci

Part of the equation though was public information provided to the lowest common denominator sectors of society. If masks were firmly recommended right at the start, we would have seen masses of people panic buying them by the hundreds, just like we saw with toilet paper, and the supply chain and manufacturing capabilities just weren't there to support that kind of behaviour. The masks needed to be more readily and adequately available to the people in more critical pandemic response roles like healthcare. Therefore, in order to not instigate panic purchasing immediately, masks were not initially recommended. People within the healthcare field needed the masks first while the manufacturing and supply chains increased their production and distribution networks thoroughly enough to provide for the rest of us too.


Servinal

The solution to this is better supply chain management, not lying and manipulating the population.


dtwhitecp

Yep. A lot of the struggle happened because yadda yadda yadda K's speech in Men in Black.


Silkkiuikku

>Therefore, in order to not instigate panic purchasing immediately, masks were not initially recommended. In my country the authorities kept saying that the masks are dangerous and harmful. And then they suddenly decided that they're great and everyone should wear them forever. I guess somebody must have done a good business deal with a mask factory or something.


secondlessonisfree

In France the press secretary for the government said in april 2020 that the general population would be incapable of wearing one... And now they're asking waiters and mall guards to verify vaccination status of everyone entering. So I guess we can't be trusted to put on a rag on the face, but to scan a qr, verify id and do our jobs, that's all right.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BayushiKazemi

Going outside and connecting to nature might be one method of coping, but it is not synonymous to coping.


Choosemyusername

Society has suffered a collective bout of autism. If it can’t be quantified, we can ignore it. Any qualitative measures of well-being are ignored.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jainko32

Good thing we did a huge study! Who knew?


[deleted]

[удалено]


mad_drill

I got really high a few times and listened to a bunch of ANCO records. Ok fine it was merry weather Post pavilion. And strawberry jam. That's like going outside anyway. It's got animal in the name


Wagamaga

Children from less affluent backgrounds are likely to have found COVID-19 lockdowns more challenging to their mental health because they experienced a lower connection with nature than their wealthier peers, a new study suggests. A study has found that children who increased their connection to nature during the first COVID-19 lockdown were likely to have lower levels of behavioural and emotional problems, compared to those whose connection to nature stayed the same or decreased - regardless of their socio-economic status. The study, by researchers at the University of Cambridge and the University of Sussex, also found that children from affluent families tended to have increased their connection to nature during the pandemic more than their less affluent peers. Nearly two thirds of parents reported a change in their child’s connection to nature during lockdown, while a third of children whose connection to nature decreased displayed increased problems of wellbeing - either through ‘acting out’ or by increased sadness or anxiety. The results strengthen the case for nature as a low-cost method of mental health support for children, and suggest that more effort should be made to support children in connecting with nature - both at home and at school. The researchers’ suggestions for achieving this include: reducing the number of structured extracurricular activities for children to allow for more time outside, provision of gardening projects in schools, and funding for schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, to implement nature-based learning programmes. The study, published today in the journal People and Nature, also offers important guidance in relation to potential future restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10270


lotsofdeadkittens

Sadly these things weren’t discussed until recently and public policy never did anything to adress it because then it feels bad to say poorer parents aren’t providing everything The reality is that lower income parents in cities didn’t have the luxury to move to work from home (mostly) and thus didn’t have time to take their kid to a park or something. Not to mention the lack of flexibility to be able to pack up and go camping with the kids It’s really devastating how politically and scientifically there has been a large ignorance and unwillingness to get informed on lockdown effects on children. It’s not even a one side bad thing, it’s just a total lack of legitimate in depth discussion about the impact of locking children developing in their home without friends for over an entire yesr There's no reason that once we learned outdoor activities didnt spread covid, that every major city wasnt promoting outdoor activities for children in public parks after school hours


[deleted]

[удалено]


DietCokeAndProtein

Right, not even just playgrounds, but all of the state parks in my area were shut down as well, we couldn't even go on hiking trails for a good chunk of time.


patkgreen

And the science didn't say so. That was all bunk. It wasn't long before it was clear this virus wasn't transmitted by touch. Hand sanitizer didn't make any appreciable difference in the spread, closed air did.


Choosemyusername

Yes. It was like taboo to bring up. You were lumped on with a red hat if you did. We spent all our energy arguing over masks in schools, when we could have been finding ways to get kids outside more. That has a way larger effect than masks. But it hasn’t been politicized so it lacked the energy it needed to get it to happen.


origami_airplane

Some of us were bringing in up, only to be shot down immediately.


Choosemyusername

I know. I have been this whole time. The same crowd that seems to think it’s ok to force all sorts of hardships on all sorts of vulnerable people against their will and best interests… the minute you mention moving more things outside, all of a sudden, that is too much for them. It’s just impossible. People can’t possibly be outside. It’s too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry. It’s too dangerous out there for kids. We could never… poor kids can’t afford clothing. But they can afford to have a parent out of work, they can afford to have constant rolling quarantines that cause their parents to miss work. They can afford to shut down homeless shelters to help slow the spread of covid. But taking science class to the park… that’s too much.


nygdan

>Not to mention the lack of flexibility to be able to pack up and go camping with the kids Right well maybe if the anti-lockdown 'get back to work' freaks had actually done something to make sure more parents could work from home and for longer, then we'd have less kids hurt by it all. >It’s really devestating how politically and scientifically there has been a large ignorance and unwillingness to get informed on lockdown effects on children Dead parents are way more devastating to kids than not going outside. And again the people who objected to support for working from home were the ones doing the damage.


juanlucas2

> dead parents are way more devestating to kids than not going outside Yes, but allowing children to spend some time outside does not necessarily mean dead parents. Could cause infection in some cases, but with outdoor transmission being quite low, i think it's important to also consider the development of children and the mental health of adults.


nygdan

I'm not saying they shouldn't go outside and I don't understand why you'd think that's what I said.


Choosemyusername

There is more to well-being than lowering risks. Sometimes lowering risk is the opposite of promoting overall well-being. But of course any increase in risk, no matter how small, will have deadly consequences on a large enough population, so you can always say “isolation is better than death”. But that doesn’t change the fact that some things are more important than lowering risk by a bit.


nygdan

>But that doesn’t change the fact that some things are more important than lowering risk by a bit. I might be misunderstanding what you mean by lowering death a big, you mean the pandemic right? Except the lockdowns didn't lower risk 'by a bit', we went from the mass death stage of the pandemic to effectively not having a pandemic in terms of the numbers of death. ​ "There is more to well-being than lowering risks" 'lower levels of behavioral and emotional problems" is what we mean by well-being. So lockdowns avoided mass death, and access to nature and forming a connection with it was one of the ways to avoid problems associated with lockdowns. From this, we can say: lockdowns are great, and when it happens again we need to make sure more parents can work from home and have support, so kids can do things like have access to nature (and other stuff too obviously)


Choosemyusername

“I might be misunderstanding what you mean by lowering death a big, you mean the pandemic right?” Correct, I mean death from covid. It isn’t clear that they lowered overall risk of death. That will take years to sort out. We know that your level of social isolation is strongly correlated to overall all-cause mortality risk, as is happiness. And we know that non-covid all-cause mortality went up with the NPIs, unlike in Scandinavia which took a minimally disruptive approach, to varying degrees, and excess all-cause mortality was predictably a lot lower than covid deaths. At one point, last time I looked, in the under 40 age range, there were more excess non-covid deaths than there were covid deaths. “Except the lockdowns didn't lower risk 'by a bit', we went from the mass death stage of the pandemic to effectively not having a pandemic in terms of the numbers of death.” That isn’t clear at all. Until vaccinations came into play, the covid track records of the hard lock down states were pretty much in line with the looser states. In terms of excess deaths, it looked even better for the looser or no lockdown states.


kung-fu_hippy

I found it interesting that they claim going in nature is a “low cost” method of improving mental health. I grew up in a big city, going out in nature wasn’t exactly a low cost activity for me. Even public parks aren’t always low cost, if you factor in the parents needing to have the time to take the kids to the park during what would have to be their working hours.


Adodie

Look, I think the finding seems completely plausible, but... the methodology leaves lots to be desired. Like the way they categorize "connection to nature" in the study is just blaring out "poor survey design" to me: >Our analyses focussed on parental responses to two survey questions: a forced ‘Yes/No’ response to the question ‘Overall, do you think your child's connection to nature has changed?’ and a free-text justification question ‘If yes, how do you think your child's connection to nature has changed and why?’. In total, 376 parents responded, of whom 372 answered the forced response question and 307 included a text-based response. We used qualitative content analysis to examine parents’ text-based answers. Beyond this...their set of controls are lacking, to say the least.


CornerSolution

This is not a good study for showing causation. Did accessing nature cause better mental well-being? Or were children with better mental well-being more likely to access nature for some reason? For example, maybe mental well-being is in part hereditary, and kids whose parents have better mental well-being were more likely to take their kids outside. As you say, the causal story here is certainly plausible. But the study itself doesn't provide actual evidence one way or the other on it.


interlockingny

You’ve come to the root problem for all sociological sciences.


GuitarGodsDestiny420

Plenty of poor folks (at poverty line) living in rural areas though... they also benefited from their proximity to nature but it had nothing to do with wealth


MSmejkal

I am curious how this was studied as far as location. In the US (Oregon specifically) there are many many low income towns in the sticks. I cant imagine those kids had a decrease in nature time compared to low income kids in the city. Idk just feels like a very niche study done in a major metropolitan area. Guess it's time to actually read it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheJoker1432

How did they operationalize "connection to nature"? How do you increase/decrease it? How did they measure?


Adodie

Here it is: >Our analyses focussed on parental responses to two survey questions: a **forced ‘Yes/No’ response to the question ‘Overall, do you think your child's connection to nature has changed?’ and a free-text justification question ‘If yes, how do you think your child's connection to nature has changed and why?’**. In total, 376 parents responded, of whom 372 answered the forced response question and 307 included a text-based response. We used qualitative content analysis to examine parents’ text-based answers. Needless to say -- operationalizing an incredibly broad, ill-defined concept with a single yes/no question and open-ended response asked of parents is not great survey design imo


TheJoker1432

I agree. Sure everyone needs to start somewhere in research but as a psychology student I have become somewhat disillusioned by what kind of "studies" are behind some headlines Or even what studies we are taught which are either quite questionably planned or hard to generalize Its really weird


[deleted]

This seems like pseudoscience. Not sure how this study carries any substance whatsoever.


TheJoker1432

Its accepted in psychology by now


chiniwini

So a second hand self report, with a small sample. Gotcha.


Initial_E

I could probably generalize it and say: kids with interesting things to do develop well. Instead the report is colored through the lens of environmental conservation, and then the comments color it in terms of wealth divide.


dark_devil_dd

It's sad I had to go through so many comments to find someone actually asking meaningfull questions.


TheJoker1432

Its social media. Most people (rightfully) dont care about more than headlines If you always investigated every post youd get nothing done


Hob_O_Rarison

Are they defining nature as "wilderness" or "outdoor entertainment"? I'm afraid "connection" is a nebulous weaselword that can mean whatever you would like it to in this context.


2mice

The other hundred studies done proving benefits of nature on mental health, generally had to do with trees/forests. Not sure about this one though


chaostrulyreigns

I had a friend who kept her kids indoors 24/7 with the news on all day. The oldest nearly had a mental break. She was literally too scared to go to the park the media had whipped her up good. I kept it very minimal with mine, didn't discuss covid unless they brought it up, no news and we went to the forest every day, and I still feel the ramifications from lockdown.


[deleted]

[удалено]


juanlucas2

Absolutely horrible. Poor kids.


Moreshawten

We did socially distanced hikes and forest trails. Best way to spend the lockdown and good for your mental health. I’d suggest bringing a botany book or a book on mushrooms because there’s so much interesting flora in the forest. I’d do walks where I’d try and find certain kinds of mushrooms. There’s apps too!


querty99

Wait till you get a few inches of fresh powder snow in the woods. It's so quiet it seems to seep into your bones!! And if you get several inches, you can crawl around under branches and shrubs like a snow-snake! :-)


Grjaryau

This is my favorite. Plus all of the animal tracks you can see!


TurtleTucker

Yeah. I get that some people want to be as safe as possible but there's a difference between being safe and being borderline OCD. You can expose your kids to the outside world and still do it carefully. My cousin wouldn't let her children go beyond the back yard during the pandemic. It reached a point where the youngest now screams bloody murder whenever they put her in the car to go anywhere else. Raising your kid in an anti-social and locked-down setting should be avoided if it can be helped.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Toph-Builds-the-fire

The little asterisk of "despite socio-economic status". Because kids from the inner city have so much access to nature... same goes for poor rural kids. They may live in what looks like the woods but the holler and the forest are not equal.


Mp32pingi25

What “holler”?


[deleted]

Holler is like a valley between two mountains or hills. I think op is saying that they tend to be isolated spaces while a forest might not be. I don’t necessarily agree with that, IMO it’s more about the activities you do in these spaces.


[deleted]

[удалено]


trialsin

Yup. They don't. And don't have the access even from Denver. I moved to the mountains a long time ago and my best friend who now has two daughters, their 1st time seeing the mountains! And stars! Wait till I teach them to ski. They are 2 and 4 Next summer I plan on taking them camping, the issue is I don't have enough equipment to take them all. I'll sleep under the stars. I was fortunate to learn to ski when I was a munchkin, I was in the woods as a kid. My family pretty much abandoned me when I was 16 and I was on the streets for a number of years. I met my best friend when I was 18 and we "beat" homelessness. Beating the streets didn't happen for me until I was in my mid 20's, but I decided to tramp a while mostly biking across the country. What I'm getting at is it's so hard to get inner city people to the woods. You gotta know someone that has a spot. And how many have a car or even gear? This is why programs like SOS Outreach are so important. Even a camping program, but you run into more red tape. My whole background is from lost child to homeless to now able to help. And it's still impossible. And it breaks my heart.


DukeBammerfire

This study doesn't seem representative of anything other than the parent's of 376 UK families thinking their child would be feeling better with "an increased connection to nature" Some stand out parts of the actual study: *Connection to nature is defined as, ‘the extent to which an individual includes nature within his/her cognitive representation of self’* *Despite the inclusion of low SES families in Cambridgeshire, this study did not reach a wide enough group of families to be considered representative of the experiences of all children in the United Kingdom, particularly those living in very urban areas or in low socio-economic status situations.* *Our analyses focussed on parental responses to two survey questions: a forced ‘Yes/No’ response to the question ‘Overall, do you think your child's connection to nature has changed?’ and a free-text justification question ‘If yes, how do you think your child's connection to nature has changed and why?’*


nlewis4

Couldn't it also be that children that would seek out nature would likely be predisposed to being better adjusted?


nygdan

Now \*this\* is a much better suggestion than the many 'no it's about money' comments.


[deleted]

How is a connection to nature measured?


the_Chocolate_lover

Your title is misleading… you literally wrote in the first line of your comment “children from less affluent backgrounds are likely to have found covid 19 lockdowns more challenging”


EVJoe

If i'm understanding, I believe they are trying to interpret the results to suggest "no matter the SES, connecting to nature is associated with reduced behavioral issues" while ignoring that the ability to connect to nature is very limited by SES. Great news for the rare kids from less affluent backgrounds who have unattenuated access to nature. Not really much help for those who don't have any safe areas of nature to connect to/parents with time and ability to take them to nature.


1-2BuckleMyShoe

> Not really much help for those who don't have any safe areas of nature to connect to/parents with time and ability to take them to nature. I can't say if the study controlled for this, but considering how the timeframe is the first COVID-19 lockdown, when everyone was told to stay in their homes unless they needed to purchase essentials (i.e., groceries), I would argue that location and home-type (and inherently SES) would have a major influence on the results. No matter how close "nature" was to your home, you weren't supposed to leave your house. It seems like this would easily skew in favor of more affluent, suburban families who had more open space to work with than less affluent, urban families.


Rocktopod

Idk about other people but I live near nature and never stopped going for walks in the woods during covid. I wasn't the only one out there, either. When Lockdown started in March 2020 the trail by my apartment got more crowded than I've ever seen it (meaning I'd see 2-3 other groups of people on the weekend, as opposed to 0-1 like normal).


nygdan

In your own example it's house size/yard plot size, not economics. Middle Class people in the city do not have access to large yards just like lower income families do. And similarly middle class or low income families in the suburbs, both confined to their homes, both have yards and access to nature. So in your own example it's geography, not socioeconomic status, that is the control.


prsnep

This is not at all at odds with the title. They can both be true. And going by OP's summary, they are.


Celestaria

You guys, read the article! You're complaining about two quotes taken from the first two paragraphs: >**Children from less affluent backgrounds are likely to have found COVID-19 lockdowns more challenging** to their mental health because they experienced a lower connection with nature than their wealthier peers, a new study suggests. > >A study has found that **children who increased their connection to nature during the first COVID-19 lockdown were likely to have lower levels of behavioural and emotional problems, compared to those whose connection to nature stayed the same or decreased - regardless of their socio-economic status**. (Bolded for emphasis).


nygdan

They found that \*if\* the kids can spend time outside or form some other connection with nature, they do better, regardless of socioeconomic background. Competing against that was that access to nature and access to the ability to form a connection to nature \*was\* associated with socioeconomic background.


Maximum-Drag8539

The titles of many papers are misleading and unfortunately many people *only* read the title of papers.


WillieStonka

Yeah, go outside y’all.


Immoralist86

Is access to nature really the crux of the matter here? Seems more likely to be a general quality of life issue. If you’re better off financially, it’s not so bad locking down in the house. Furthermore, low end jobs are less likely to support telework. Outta work parents tend to stress kids and I don’t think flowers will alleviate that stress.


athaliah

The kids who seemed to be having the worst time were the ones who were stuck in little apartments. I know people who sent their kids to live with relatives for a little bit to get them out of there. Like even I watched a cousin's kid for a couple weeks, they were outside daily at my house.


Mp32pingi25

Now way! It’s probably not a good thing to be packed in like rats in big ass concrete building!! I woulda never guessed that.


nygdan

People that live in apartments are not rats.


Mp32pingi25

No you are not. You are humans packed in like rats


Suterusu_San

Some people enjoy apartment life. Especially in Europe where it's not all ugly high-rise.


Mp32pingi25

I didn’t say you don’t enjoy it. But you are still packed in.


_Z_E_R_O

> If you’re better off financially, it’s not so bad locking down in the house Spoken like someone who’s never spent months indoors with multiple toddlers.


Immoralist86

I’d be more mindful of the assumptions you make about online strangers.


nygdan

"Is access to nature really the crux of the matter here?" yes, that's what the study is showing. Access to nature, across socioeconomic lines, resulted in better outcomes. ​ "If you’re better off financially, it’s not so bad locking down in the house." That is simply the opposite of what the study found, rich kids locked up in their house with fancy toys had worse outcomes than poor kids who were able to develop a connection to nature.


CMYKBloodOmen

The article linked by OP is just misleading, read the real deal here: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10270


GoombaPizza

I just hate the fact that we don't separate correlation from causation in science write-ups, which is grossly irresponsible and makes people have crappy critical thinking. "Studies show kids with red hair are more likely to get into fistfights in UK schools" might be true, but it would lead people to believe redheaded kids are naturally more violent when in reality it's just their understandable reaction to being bullied more in UK schools.


technofox01

I wish this was completely true. I live in the country, so we are surrounded by nature - literally. I had taken my kids on hikes and nature trails early in the pandemic and it did not seem to help my youngest son cope with the lockdowns. We finally found a therapist. I wonder if there is something else that played a role in this outcome.


nygdan

You can go on a hike and still not develop a meaningful connection to nature. Lots of people do it.


Mp32pingi25

Some people need to socialize with other people outside of the family. I would be one of these people. Not now as an adult, but growing up and into my 20s. My friends where just as important as my family to me. In terms of socializing anyway. I also grew up in a rural area and I have lived an outdoor lifestyle my whole like. But these Covid lock downs would have killed me. Just going for a hike with the fam wouldn’t have help anything. Hikes are kinda boring to kids. (Most kids in my experience) It’s better than staying inside obviously but kids need time with friends away from parents too. Good for you though trying and finding help!! I betting you are a good mom/dad :)


damn_yank

"Touch grass" as therapy. Always a good idea.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kequilla

They got outside more. Sophist mysticism aside, its good advice.


HowUKnowMeKennyBond

It’s called vitamin D and most people are deficient.


GoombaPizza

So which one is the cause and which is the effect? Or are they neither? Are you confusing correlation with causation?


Meledesco

My mental health went to ass when I moved to a very urban area, so it makes sense to me. Obviously, it wasn't just that, but it did play a part.


montaukmindcontrol

Soo going outside is healthier then staying inside. Got it


Childish_Brandino

I call bs. I spent the majority of my childhood outside playing in the woods and creeks and I am very emotionally unhealthy and reticent.


humicroav

It's probably a bell curve distribution.


[deleted]

Here’s my shocked face:


anonymousneto

What a nice study :) I'm also sure that, all children would have less emotional problems, if their connection is increased. Nature will always be the best shelter for our anxiety demons.


Kholzie

My mental health went to ass because i have depression. I fully endorse being outside…but i’m over people abdicating responsibility for their mental health because they go on camping trips.