11–20 of 66 posts
So... 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…
So... 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…
At the end of the abstract they state the likely explanation of this seemingly spurious correlation: > National-survey evidence on time use and sexual behavior is consistent with the iPhone reducing in-person interactions, increasing pornography use, and reducing sexual frequency.
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
[flagged]
> National-survey evidence on time use and sexual behavior is consistent with the iPhone reducing in-person interactions, increasing pornography use, and reducing sexual frequency.
So... 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…
As a rule of thumb, if you look at something for 3 minutes and have some obvious questions, the scientists that looked at it for several years of their life in great detail might have had those same obvious questions as well.
So... 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…
1) A causes B
2) B causes A
3) C causes both B and A (in some order)
4) your correlation figure is bullshit (hence not counted in the 3 options, but certainly with news these days, it must be mentioned)
A famous way to illustrate where this goes wrong is to show a map which libraries that loaned out Harry Potter books, and a map of where poodles got raped. Very high correlation, and obviously an example of the 3rd option.
(obviously both were caused by population density, which leads to both library creation and poodle-related crimes. And probably non-poodle-related crimes)
I'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.
Plenty has been written about how any technological innovation leads to massive societal changes no one could foresee, and no one could avoid, but only analyze in retrospect.