6 ms·
>That the link between digital tech use and psychological distress is inconclusive would have come as a big surprise to me five years ago. I think it's not so
by carlmr 5y ago
>That the link between digital tech use and psychological distress is inconclusive would have come as a big surprise to me five years ago.
I think it's not so surprising since everybody "feels" this is true. Making people look where they can confirm their bias.
I'm not saying it's not a thing, but I think this is an issue with a lot of studies that look at something where people either do it and don't want to feel good or bad about it or have some beliefs about it being good or bad, e.g chocolate/wine/eggs are good/bad for you.
- Avamander 5y agoThe thing that actually is surprising is how many researchers don't even mention why they've excluded the possibility of a reverse correlation in their studies.
- nerdbaggy 5y agoLike the worse your mental health is the more you are on your phone?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- taneq 5y agoOr the more you enjoy the idea of shooting people in the face, the more time you're likely to spend playing video games involving shooting people in the face?
- Avamander 5y agoYep, things like that. I would at least appreciate adding a disclaimer, that this behaviour might be a symptom of some other issues for example at school.
- em500 5y agoI think you meant to write "reverse causation"? Correlation is by definition symmetric and directionless. If the researchers make no causation claims, they don't need to be concerned about the direction of causation. I haven't followed the field, but it's hard for me to imagine published research in serious academic journals where causation claims are made without at least some discussion about the direction of causation and hidden confounders.
- netizen-936824 5y agoIt is likely that the poster was referring to a negative correlation. While incorrect terminology was used, correlations do have direction. https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/173276/is-it-correct-to-refer-to-a-negative-correlation-as-an-inverse-correlation https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/173276/is-it-corre... https://study.com/academy/lesson/negative-correlation-in-psychology-examples-definition-interpretation.html https://study.com/academy/lesson/negative-correlation-in-psy...
- hervature 5y agoNegative correlation also known as anticorrelation does not mean there is a "direction". Simply, it is a scalar number and not a vector. Don't add to the confusion of terminology by using a colloquial definition of "direction" to mean it can be negative or positive. We could have defined correlation to be in [0,1] and your sense of direction would be very confusing.
- netizen-936824 5y agoThank you for the clarification, you are absolutely correct that its positive or negative rather than having a direction.
- Avamander 5y agoProbably, not my first language. > If the researchers make no causation claims But sentences like "kids using their phones more than x hours a day are on average sadder" very much imply one.
- moss2 5y agoThe true corruptor of youth is that satanic D&D "role-playing "game""
- taneq 5y agoYou've clearly confused cause and effect here, I think it's obvious that the youth have corrupted D&D. :P
- smitty1e 5y agoI'll just go ahead and pocket that template. Thanks!
- hoseja 5y agoHave you seen the modern editions? They certainly have.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoI think most players would disagree
- irjustin 5y agoIt's the same thinking that links violent video games to violent behavior. The causality fits very well into our world view. It also gives a very "simple fix". Limit video games, limit screen time, limit X. When the real problem is significantly harder. Social, governmental, institutional and systemic racism. If there's a real, reproducible, verifiable link, I'm all game for it, but when the problem is so wide spread and the answer is so simple, it really needs to be reproduced across multiple studies. Because rarely is the problem + solution truly that simple.
- bschne 5y ago> When the real problem is significantly harder. Social, governmental, institutional and systemic racism. While I don't question that systemic racism is real, I don't quite see the link here. Isn't the kind of violence video games get blamed for more commonly committed by non-minority people who have mental health issues and/or were "social outcasts" rather than racially motivated? I mainly remember the topic as coming up in connection with school shootings and the likes, not potentially racial hate crimes. 100% agree on the looking for simple (and comfortable to admit!) fixes though. It is so much easier to say "we made a mistake letting kids play these games" than it is to face the truth that some people are either completely left behind by society or descend into incomprehensible madness for no comprehensible reason.
- nonameiguess 5y agoI believe what they mean is the majority of violent crimes committed by youth in the United States is committed by kids in historically redlined, segregated neighborhoods where the school system is non-existent, public services and infrastructure is falling apart if there at all, all the fathers have been arrested, the police and citizenry are openly antagonist to each other, so drug trade and criminal gangs are the best shot they have at participating in any kind of a community at all. Solving that will go a lot further than worrying about the comparatively tiny number of suburban white kids shooting up their schools. Note that "systemic racism" here doesn't need to mean any individual involved in this is still racist. It can just mean the lasting after-effects of institutional racism from decades ago that we never bothered trying to actively undo and just hoped everything would get better when we told the institutions they could no longer legally be racist.
- the-dude 5y agoFat makes you fat.
- Ygg2 5y agoNot necessarily. Eat only fat and you'll enter ketosis, where most of your fat will be converted into sugars.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- xondono 5y agoThat’s the point of GP. It’s not true, but it sounds reasonable.
- Ygg2 5y agoBut why comment at all, if they are agreeing?
- binchou 5y agothe italics are working as scare quotes here
- mewpmewp2 5y agoTo add to the discussion?
- AussieWog93 5y agoTowards the end of the 20th century, as the obesity epidemic was starting to become a real concern, the general layman's (and possibly medical?) understanding in Western countries was that to lose weight you should consume less dietary fats. This lead to a lot of low-fat diets and products that advertised themselves as "99% fat free", "fat reduced" etc. - many of which contained extra sugar. Of course, now we know this belief was not only wrong, but harmful. At the time, though it "felt" true. I am almost certain this cultural phenomenon is what GP was referencing.
- binchou 5y agoAt least one explanation for use of social media etc. is that people do it because they enjoy it. Maybe there's just a certain level of enjoyment that flips a switch that tells us to stop? Could there be a set of "things people feel bad about enjoying because they're simply too stimulating and fulfilling that we can't help but conclude that they're bad? Think chocolate (sin!), masturbation (sin!), sleeping late (lazy!), staying up late etc.