Have you perchance misunderstood my post into that «Correlation is not causation»? What I meant is there literally: you have to «investigat[e] the paths of cau

Have you perchance misunderstood my post into that «Correlation is not causation»? What I meant is there literally: you have to «investigat[e] the paths of causation», which is meant to mean, you cannot (should not) practically fight the full correlated context, but the specific cause. I.e., in the picked metaphor: "you do not blame life for death" - find specific causes and curb them. Which, by the way, if the "«midwit»" reference were still applicable, is beyond "IQ", because what was expressed is meant to be "in the set of basics" - yet to appearance absent in the article. I expressed that the article seems to miss that basic point. I.e., the idea that "smartphones and social media" would be detrimental is extremely cheap, as if saying that "heating is polluting" - yes, and also useful, so you identify the weak parts and try to act on them. > and it doesn't take a ton of imagination But the article did not exercise that. And I think it would have been "kind of required". See my other reply nearby, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35102296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35102296