41–50 of 137 posts
The APA has lost it's credibility some time ago with it's political stances. It doesn't take a researcher to see a correlation between phone time and youth issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I think it also correlates with poor environmental and financial outlook on the future, more pressure to perform well in activities or academically, stricter rules around going outside and doing things on your own or friends without scrutiny, among other things.
Yes but then why would it impact girls far more than boys?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I think it also correlates with poor environmental and financial outlook on the future, more pressure to perform well in activities or academically, stricter rules around going outside and doing things on your own or friends without scrutiny, among other things.
Yes but then why would it impact girls far more than boys?
The APA has lost it's credibility some time ago with it's political stances. It doesn't take a researcher to see a correlation between phone time and youth issues.
Ah, lost their credibility since 1960? Isn't there entire point of the APA "Council of Representatives" to issue policy statements on things like abortion, the rights of mentally ill, human trafficking and such?
I thought that was a big part of the entire purpose. What changed "some time ago"?
Skepticism is warranted here (as is the reminder that lack of evidence isn't definitive evidence against ), but I think the specific takeaway is interesting: social media use does not predict mental health problems in youth Which could indicate any number of things: - Social media use by itself doesn't predict mental health problems because kids without mental health problems also use social media. - Social media use…
I think the reasonable read for someone who's priors are set to believe it's true would be, "Interesting, I guess the effect size isn't as pronounced and obvious as I'd previously assumed."
The APA has lost it's credibility some time ago with it's political stances. It doesn't take a researcher to see a correlation between phone time and youth issues.
Jonathan Haidt, who's been driving a lot of the work against social media for kids, directly refutes these findings in this post https://www.afterbabel.com/p/fundamental-flaws-part-3 .
Even a simple sentence like, "Ferguson did both of these things and his findings thus do not “undermine” our causal claims; he failed to accurately test our causal claims," comes across as scathing compared to the paper.
I don't want to sound unscientific, but when a paper is directly in conflict with what is obviously true, it's OK to use common sense.
If it's "obviously true", then it should be easy to author your own paper that proves whatever is "obviously true". Or maybe reality isn't so easy?