Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 259 posts

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#121

Post by Foobar8568 »

dash2 wrote: post #13

The fact that they "controlled" for genetics using polygenic scores already is a strong sign of low quality research. Polygenic scores are powerful, but they contain very large amounts of noise compared to the true genetic effects. Controlling for genetics using them is like controlling for income by asking whether the respondents own a Porsche. Also, be aware that Scientific Reports is, if not quite a predatory jour…

Pattern recognition+spacial rotation+quick answer to stimuli+repetitive tasks or short term memories, several IQ components are testing these. Kids might have higher IQ because of video games, but poorer to everything else that matters.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#123

Post by dash2 »

boloust wrote: post #94
dash2 wrote: post #13

The fact that they "controlled" for genetics using polygenic scores already is a strong sign of low quality research. Polygenic scores are powerful, but they contain very large amounts of noise compared to the true genetic effects. Controlling for genetics using them is like controlling for income by asking whether the respondents own a Porsche. Also, be aware that Scientific Reports is, if not quite a predatory jour…

Is there a reason to consider the use of a noisy signal as a strong sign of a low-quality study, without addressing whether the noise is correlated with the outcome? Do we think this study would be improved if it did not control for genetics at all?

It wouldn't be any worse. The question isn't whether the noise is correlated with the outcome. The question is whether the denoised variable would be much more correlated with the outcome (yes), and whether that would change the effect of the focal variable.

In any case, it's a weird thing to control for in a panel study. Why not just use per-person fixed effects? That would eliminate all effects that are constant across individuals.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#124

Post by wing-_-nuts »

michaelt wrote: post #107
d3ckard wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any case, using CoD as an example does not exactly show good will. I personally believe in huge gains from gaming, based on personal experience (so obviously n = 1, read further accordingly). Platformers train hand-eye coordination and pattern recognition, strategies teach resource management, RPGs about optimization and adopting growth mindset, racing games require long-time concentration, puzzlers and adventure…

> Platformers train hand-eye coordination and pattern recognition, strategies teach resource management, RPGs about optimization and adopting growth mindset... Sure - and joining the high school football team teaches teamwork, self-discipline, dealing with adversity, appearing before crowds, nutrition, fitness, etc etc So what?

Video games are available to people of all abilities. You certainly can't say the same of football (indeed, with concussions, one might question if this lowers intelligence over the long term)

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#125

Post by conqueso »

objektif wrote: post #45

What are some good apps and games to have your 3-5 yo play? I can definitely see TV making them more and more mentally inactive.

I am very out of touch w/ the current world of gaming, but in my past experience Nintendo has always been the 'healthiest' platform. The games are full of beautiful animation and great music - truly works of art, and aren't violent and/or trying to get them to buy things.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#126

Post by dash2 »

jgalt212 wrote: post #88
dash2 wrote: post #13

The fact that they "controlled" for genetics using polygenic scores already is a strong sign of low quality research. Polygenic scores are powerful, but they contain very large amounts of noise compared to the true genetic effects. Controlling for genetics using them is like controlling for income by asking whether the respondents own a Porsche. Also, be aware that Scientific Reports is, if not quite a predatory jour…

> In general, these guys have correlations, not causation You can say that for almost every human study that's not drug based, or very short-term.

No.

* There are tons of randomized controlled trials of policy measures (malaria bednets, minimum income). Many measure long-run outcomes.

* Natural experiments can measure long-run effects. In economic history, sometimes that means centuries.

* Many other designs are plausibly causal. The right instrumental variable, or a regression discontinuity design. In some cases, even a simple diff-in-diff with panel data. This design, nope.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#127

Post by mrtksn »

snarfy wrote: post #108
mrtksn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall, when I was a kid the games were extremely addictive for me and I couldn't just quit playing unless I absolutely have to. I had emotionally very similar experience when quitting smoking, the feeling that if I just can have this one more smoke I will be satisfied and live happily thereafter is very similar to the desire to have one more round. So I wouldn't call games "not addictive". If anything, watching so…

My addiction to video games led me to software development. Addiction is a peculiar thing. Anything that makes you feel good is inherently addictive. People get addicted to biting their fingernails. Is it bad to be addicted to reading? Or working out? If gaming is making your synapses fire faster, if for nothing more than to increase your IQ score (which is based on speed), is it a bad addiction? Addiction is a compu…

Not every addict makes something out of their addiction but every addict gives a lot of their potential away, often their health too.

A lot of people become software developers without being addicted to games. Great software developers bring things on the table that they learned doing stuff that is not software development, gaming is one of those but people are capable to do so many great things.

Nerding over something is cool but when it becomes an addiction, it's dangerous.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#128

Post by NateEag »

objektif wrote: post #41
NateEag wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget relaxing - sometimes it's nice to distract the kids so I can, say, cook dinner without them literally hanging off my legs.

I can't even go to the bathroom in peace. How do you guys manage time for yourself??

I mostly don't.

I get a few hours after they're in bed and before I go to bed in which to cram cleanup, catching up with my wife, and other bits of essential life maintenance.

It does get easier as they age. Our youngest is three, so I have a while before the "hanging off my legs" phase is done, but I can remember the era of newborns, when I could be interrupted at any moment, and I couldn't count on an entire hour to myself at any point during the day or night.

(FWIW, a big part of making this work is shifting your mindset to appreciate the little things and recognize how precious they actually are. At this point I cherish being woken up by a wailing toddler and rocking her back to sleep, because I know I won't get many more moments in my life when she's a tiny little bundle snuggled up and cozy against my chest, and it's truly magical when I manage not to be hung up on anger over being woken up at 3 AM.)

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#129

Post by wing-_-nuts »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #118
bamboozled wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about neither TV or computer games and doing things outside like fishing, hiking, scouts, riding bikes etc ?

This always gets discussed whenever gaming or screen time comes up. Kids below a certain age can't do this stuff on their own anymore in a lot of places. Your neighbors will call child protective services on you. This leads to kids being raised indoors, or only in enrolled events, because parents can't spend all of their time outdoors with the kid. Then when the kid is old enough to be outdoors on their own without s…

So let them call? Letting your children roam unattended is not child abuse, especially if the child is old enough to reasonably keep themselves safe.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#130

Post by dash2 »

DeathArrow wrote: post #109
dash2 wrote: post #13

The fact that they "controlled" for genetics using polygenic scores already is a strong sign of low quality research. Polygenic scores are powerful, but they contain very large amounts of noise compared to the true genetic effects. Controlling for genetics using them is like controlling for income by asking whether the respondents own a Porsche. Also, be aware that Scientific Reports is, if not quite a predatory jour…

Good points. If you'd want to find the impact of Digital Media on children's IQ, how would you proceed?

A first shot would be a look at the introduction of digital media in particular places or times. Some people have done this with the internet by using e.g. distance to an ADSL exchange as an instrument.

Or, a randomized controlled trial. If it has an effect worth caring about, then it's worth running an experiment on. A real positive or negative effect would be a big deal for policy.

Post reply on HN