41–50 of 60 posts
I’m sorry but this is absolute fucking bullshit. Almost everybody with preteen or teenage children can perceive this, unless they had the wisdom to protect them from it.
A general perception by someone isn't scientific evidence, though. There are plenty of ways in which this paper can be challenged, but "I don't feel like it's true" isn't one of them.
Not everyone worships at the altar of science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They discuss all of these in Section 4.
“Our study finds that if Kari or Knut increasingly like and post on Instagram or Snapchat, they are no more likely to develop symptoms of anxiety and depression. But that doesn’t mean that they are not having negative experiences on social media, or feeling addicted or excluded. Some youths may be particularly vulnerable, and those are the individuals we need to identify,” Steinsbekk says. This goes against their tit…
You could use social media a lot, and be extremely unhappy whenever you use it, and still not be clinically depressed or have an anxiety disorder.
An analogy: every time you ride a roller coaster, you are made anxious, and so is everyone else. This doesn't mean that rolle coasters "cause anxiety" - they just cause you to feel anxious while using it. There's a difference.
A lot of people who don't have direct experience with depression or anxiety disorders don't really understand what they are, and assume that they are just a stronger version of being chronically sad or chronically scared. It's not so.
Father of five with the last two in high school and middle school. We took away the phones after four years of mental health issues. After 4 months of the cutoff: were now backing down the meds and the kids are doing much better. Sorry, but I have to call bs on this study.
When people say "believe the science", I think about issues like this, where you can pretty much pick the study that supports your position and call the matter settled.
Double blind randomized controlled trial or it didn't happen.
Can I add preregistered? And big? And published in a serious peer review journal?
And check it was made in human. And check the exclusion list near the bottom of the paper. (I still remember the hidroxicloroquine paper where they get a better results in the treatment group after excluding the dead guy and other 5 bad cases. The control group has no exclusions (nor death), and was not even a real control group, juts an unrelated bunch of guys in another city.)
Anyway, for comparison, the claims that the vaccines are useful and safe come form people that was forced to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, and make a preregistered double blind randomized controlled trial in humans published in a serious peer review journal and with a lot of additional checking and paperwork to ensure it's reliable.
Once you start removing each of the check in that list, the confidence in the result start to diminish.
I’d wager that Norwegian social media is more wholesome than the toxic crap being shoved down American children’s throats.
Father of five with the last two in high school and middle school. We took away the phones after four years of mental health issues. After 4 months of the cutoff: were now backing down the meds and the kids are doing much better. Sorry, but I have to call bs on this study.
First off it's a quite high quality longitudinal study with 4 waves (different birth years) and several thousand participants, where screen time was used to quantify social media use, and mental health outcomes were quantified through interviews with mental health professionals.
It finds that "use of social media is not correlated with developing depression or anxiety".
It also finds "developing depression or anxiety is not correlated with change in use of social media".
It specifically does not say anything about whether using social media while having a mental health disorder is good or bad.
Let's suppose you swap out "using social media" with "drinking alcohol", and "10-16 year olds" with "18-25 year olds". Nobody would be surprised if you found both a) that whether a person drinks alcohol or not isn't a good predictor for mental health issues, but also b) that if you have mental health issues, reducing alcohol consumption is very good for your mental health. Both of those can be true at the same time.
Father of five with the last two in high school and middle school. We took away the phones after four years of mental health issues. After 4 months of the cutoff: were now backing down the meds and the kids are doing much better. Sorry, but I have to call bs on this study.
It shouldn't really require a scientific study to know that the longer you can keep kids away from that stuff, the better. Yes, there's also amazing educational resources online, but they can be accessed via a filtered internet connection on a home PC, where parents can have some idea of what their kids are doing online.
If kids need phones for communication, maybe an old dumb Nokia that can make calls+texts, has no internet access, is practically indestructible, and isn't a theft magnet might be a better option than a smartphone?