21–30 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…
I suggest you read the abstract, at least. The fact that only AT&T had the iPhone back then resulted in a natural experiment: It was only available in certain regions. You can thus compare regions where it was available and where it wasn't, while controlling for "richer people" or "people preferring iPhones". As a rule of thumb, if you look at something for 3 minutes and have some obvious questions, the scientists th…
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…
Because correlation is not causation. If A and B correlate there's 3 options: 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 po…
That often results from p-hacking. In a world of infinite variables, if you look hard enough you are guaranteed to eventually find two completely unrelated variables that correlate with each other over a statistically significant period of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest you read the abstract, at least. The fact that only AT&T had the iPhone back then resulted in a natural experiment: It was only available in certain regions. You can thus compare regions where it was available and where it wasn't, while controlling for "richer people" or "people preferring iPhones". As a rule of thumb, if you look at something for 3 minutes and have some obvious questions, the scientists th…
That's for the good studies. Let's not pretend that all published studies are honest. Unfortunately it is quite reasonable to be skeptical about extraordinary claims such as this one.
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…
I suggest you read the abstract, at least. The fact that only AT&T had the iPhone back then resulted in a natural experiment: It was only available in certain regions. You can thus compare regions where it was available and where it wasn't, while controlling for "richer people" or "people preferring iPhones". As a rule of thumb, if you look at something for 3 minutes and have some obvious questions, the scientists th…
> 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
This does not mean that just because they had those obvious questions that they were properly resolved. Human history has a long track record of people who knew better but chose to ignore. In science there is an incredible pressure to have positive results rather than negative ones (IE nobody would care or know about this study if the title was "we looked and iphone doesn't explain 33-52% of fertility decline"
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…
Let me get this straight, I believe one needs to read a paper to get it straight.
But I fully understand your knee-jerk reaction. That was my reaction when I read the title too. However, it seems to be a surprisingly well-thought analysis where all your points are answered (controlled).
If I read it more thoroughly I'll likely find flaws on the statistical methods. But it's not like the authors didn't have common sense.
Edit: unfortunately, enough people had the same knee-jerk reaction to get this thread flagged. We really need a way to vouch a thread.
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.