71–80 of 137 posts
Not so sure about this; would need to read the whole paper. "No evidence" could just mean that causality could not be proved (admittedly very difficult to prove), which doesn't mean that there is indeed no causality. I'm not sure I'd trust this researcher any more than I'd trust any other single paper on the topic; and the preponderance of papers has shown there is a link though the details may be in dispute. What is…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think skepticism is warranted since (1) This study is specifically NOT making the claim "social media is definitely fine and good for kids," so really more like skepticism at anyone trying to draw a conclusion of "...and therefore we should let Instagram off the hook :)" and (2) There is a reasonable case to be made that a lot of adults say that social media makes them miserable, and therefore that probably extends…
This is a very long way of saying "I already believe it's true from anecdotal evidence and so will viscously critique anything that doesn't agree with my position." This paper can be wrong, but you're clearly not open to even the possibility that it's not.
I think there's a solid chance it's true. I also think it's interesting that there's a discrepancy between studies like this and public perception of social media (i.e., that it's bad for kids). So I enjoy trying to feel out that discrepancy and what might be causing it.
Walking around in a society were some people live in 3 million euro mansions and others in ghettos. Kids aren't stupid I'm amazed suicide rates aren't higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The If Books Could Kill podcast did a good episode about this topic and Haidt's book in particular: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2040953/episodes/15546366-the-anx... >
What they said on "If Books Could Kill" is an extremely thorough trouncing of Haidt's narrative and the methodologies of the researches he utilized in that book. The summary is this: The uptick is adequately explained by changes to mandatory reporting requirements for screening questions of mental health for teenagers from Obamacare and increased access to healthcare for those teenagers.
Anecdata isn't useful, but each of three children in our family experienced "externally observable" and self-reported improvements to their "mental health" each and every time they were banned from devices they used for "social media time", with immediate regressions/worsening once the bans were over. You could say maybe they needed better friends, and I wouldn't argue that, but that's three very different teenagers…
Not so sure about this; would need to read the whole paper. "No evidence" could just mean that causality could not be proved (admittedly very difficult to prove), which doesn't mean that there is indeed no causality. I'm not sure I'd trust this researcher any more than I'd trust any other single paper on the topic; and the preponderance of papers has shown there is a link though the details may be in dispute. What is…
[flagged]
I’m fully open to the idea that social media is uniquely harmful to humans. But the burden of proof should be on the side claiming unique harm, not the other way around.
I hate big tech and social network-effects monopolies as much as the next guy. But history would suggest those shouting “this time is different” tend to be wrong when it comes to what the kids are doing these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they said on "If Books Could Kill" is an extremely thorough trouncing of Haidt's narrative and the methodologies of the researches he utilized in that book. The summary is this: The uptick is adequately explained by changes to mandatory reporting requirements for screening questions of mental health for teenagers from Obamacare and increased access to healthcare for those teenagers.
So mental illness rose steeply in girls and not so much in boys since 2012, and more in liberals than conservatives, since 2012 and this is adequately explained by increased reporting requirements?