The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#2[flagged]
Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#3[flagged]
10/10 comment.
Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#4You mean Instagram?
Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#5I'll bite. Maybe it's not the iPhone itself, but social media.
I have seen studies about damages that social media can cause in behaviours. This might be one of them.
Smartphones are the catalyst to social media consumption as we know. Like people contantly on their phones everywhere instead of interacting with other people, for example.
Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#6Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#7Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#8"Entropy-balanced Poisson and synthetic difference-in-differences event studies"
LMAO does the author really take themselves seriously as they type that.
This author has no understanding of statistical methods. This sort of article is the reason why people distrust science. Not because the scientific method is flawed, but rather because nonsense like this get published.
Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#9So... Let me get this straight.
Because people who had iPhones during the AT&T exclusive period has less kids...
They think there is no other possibly explanation besides the iPhone, because they looked at similar groups on different networks and in different areas that didn't yet have coverage for iPhones?
It definitely couldn't have been due to richer people having iPhones and having less kids, or people preferring iPhones who weren't going to have kids anyway??
Why definitely not? And why definitely iPhones or Smart Phones or whatever?
Re: The iPhone explains 33–52% of fertility decline among women aged 15–44
#10"Entropy-balanced Poisson and synthetic difference-in-differences event studies" LMAO does the author really take themselves seriously as they type that. This author has no understanding of statistical methods. This sort of article is the reason why people distrust science. Not because the scientific method is flawed, but rather because nonsense like this get published.
[deleted]