4 ms·

What opinion is expressed here? There's a vague implication of "this is unfounded" they cannot even be bothered to put in clear words, much less make a case for

by musage 9y ago

What opinion is expressed here? There's a vague implication of "this is unfounded" they cannot even be bothered to put in clear words, much less make a case for, while trying to make up for that by repetition. So it's not okay to "think of the children", ever, but let's play good Samaritan for what is nothing more than a meme because it's a "valid opinion". Got it.

mistercow 9y ago
The observation is that whenever kids fixate on some new activity, the previous generation will always become extremely suspicious that it's harmful. If this hasn't been borne out in the past, then we can't take those suspicions as much evidence that there's anything to worry about.
- musage 9y ago
  But we're soley not operating on "extreme suspicions because something is new" here. The letter does cite some studies, for starters. And you're mixing up "haven't always borne out exactly as predicted by the most worried people" and "have never borne out". There was a time when using x-ray machines in shoe shops seemed totally benign, like a fun, useful thing. Suspicions about that "new thing" as well as others were correct. Including here, that list starts with "comic book" and ends with "internet and facebook" addiction, which are absolutely worth studying.
  - mistercow 9y ago
    >The letter does cite some studies, for starters. Sure, but surely these suspicions would exist anyway. The fact that we're probably thinking about this because of some bias is important to note, because that bias is likely to continue affecting people's thinking moving forward. >And you're mixing up "haven't always borne out exactly as predicted by the most worried people" and "have never borne out". I don't think I am. Any randomly selected hypothesis has some possibility of being true, especially one like "is <thing that exists> harmful". The fact that some of them have been borne out doesn't necessarily mean that "new things kids like are especially likely to be bad" is a good heuristic. It's not that it's impossible that "phone addiction" is hurting kids. It's that we've seen this pattern over and over, and when people's thinking is biased, they're likely to continue believing there's a problem long after the majority of evidence suggests that there isn't. Pointing that out to raise people's skepticism is productive.
    - musage 9y ago
      > doesn't necessarily mean that "new things kids like are especially likely to be bad" is a good heuristic That heuristic is a strawman. Who employs it? Quote someone, I doubt you can. And then there's the countless new things kids like that nobody on the planet says a peep about, how do those figure in? As for "heuristics", consider the notion that if kids like something new and untested en masse, they themselves may not be able to discern what is going on, so adults need to pay attention. Full stop, that's before getting into the actual signs that this particular issue might not be all peachy. A study is just a study. You can hardly fearmonger about Apple sponsoring studies that skew the results against mobile devices. So why does this thread even exist? Because FUD exists, and even though this isn't FUD, it needs to be pre-emptively countered by false assurances in the form of memes? Last but not least, it's not as if "let's study X" is how it used to be said... so to imply the equation "let's study X" == "X is of the devil for sure!" shouldn't slip under the radar the way it does.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  And in the past, sometimes it's been a problem and sometimes it has not. It stands to reason that as we hyper-optimize for attention seeking applications we might start making things that children cannot realistically resist. Television deregulation in the US is the precedent here. Given the modest costs of these sorts of inquiries compared to the massive profits enjoyed by Apple, Google, Samsung et al, it seems like a reasonable use for corporate tax dollars is to be an advocate for the general populace and make assurances these products are not in fact harmful. Why is this such a challenging idea? No one is saying, "These are proven bad." They're saying, "We should have a definition of bad and then validate it." The idea that we're not even allowed to ask the question because it's offensive? Why, that's positively irrational.

by musage 9y ago

mistercow 9y ago

The observation is that whenever kids fixate on some new activity, the previous generation will always become extremely suspicious that it's harmful. If this hasn't been borne out in the past, then we can't take those suspicions as much evidence that there's anything to worry about.

musage 9y ago
But we're soley not operating on "extreme suspicions because something is new" here. The letter does cite some studies, for starters. And you're mixing up "haven't always borne out exactly as predicted by the most worried people" and "have never borne out". There was a time when using x-ray machines in shoe shops seemed totally benign, like a fun, useful thing. Suspicions about that "new thing" as well as others were correct. Including here, that list starts with "comic book" and ends with "internet and facebook" addiction, which are absolutely worth studying.
- mistercow 9y ago
  >The letter does cite some studies, for starters. Sure, but surely these suspicions would exist anyway. The fact that we're probably thinking about this because of some bias is important to note, because that bias is likely to continue affecting people's thinking moving forward. >And you're mixing up "haven't always borne out exactly as predicted by the most worried people" and "have never borne out". I don't think I am. Any randomly selected hypothesis has some possibility of being true, especially one like "is <thing that exists> harmful". The fact that some of them have been borne out doesn't necessarily mean that "new things kids like are especially likely to be bad" is a good heuristic. It's not that it's impossible that "phone addiction" is hurting kids. It's that we've seen this pattern over and over, and when people's thinking is biased, they're likely to continue believing there's a problem long after the majority of evidence suggests that there isn't. Pointing that out to raise people's skepticism is productive.
  - musage 9y ago
    > doesn't necessarily mean that "new things kids like are especially likely to be bad" is a good heuristic That heuristic is a strawman. Who employs it? Quote someone, I doubt you can. And then there's the countless new things kids like that nobody on the planet says a peep about, how do those figure in? As for "heuristics", consider the notion that if kids like something new and untested en masse, they themselves may not be able to discern what is going on, so adults need to pay attention. Full stop, that's before getting into the actual signs that this particular issue might not be all peachy. A study is just a study. You can hardly fearmonger about Apple sponsoring studies that skew the results against mobile devices. So why does this thread even exist? Because FUD exists, and even though this isn't FUD, it needs to be pre-emptively countered by false assurances in the form of memes? Last but not least, it's not as if "let's study X" is how it used to be said... so to imply the equation "let's study X" == "X is of the devil for sure!" shouldn't slip under the radar the way it does.
KirinDave 9y ago
And in the past, sometimes it's been a problem and sometimes it has not. It stands to reason that as we hyper-optimize for attention seeking applications we might start making things that children cannot realistically resist. Television deregulation in the US is the precedent here. Given the modest costs of these sorts of inquiries compared to the massive profits enjoyed by Apple, Google, Samsung et al, it seems like a reasonable use for corporate tax dollars is to be an advocate for the general populace and make assurances these products are not in fact harmful. Why is this such a challenging idea? No one is saying, "These are proven bad." They're saying, "We should have a definition of bad and then validate it." The idea that we're not even allowed to ask the question because it's offensive? Why, that's positively irrational.