5 ms·

What are your specific methodological concerns? The model the authors build is a multi-level regression model. They attempt to establish independence between th

What are your specific methodological concerns? The model the authors build is a multi-level regression model. They attempt to establish independence between the covariates but do note specifically that: "In turn, this suggests that the contributions of internet access and use on well-being were independent of the covariates we selected for, and thus might indicate causal relations. (Although we highlight the evidence here for causal claims is less than thin.)" I think it would be more useful, especially on a forum known to have a strong opinion on a topic, to establish alternate theories that match these observations and independence relations.

_mlbt 2y ago
There are an impossible amount of variables at play here. Localities where Internet is pervasive in comparison to areas where it isn't might as well be another planet. I'm not convinced that this study proves what is claimed.
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  Please firm up your claims. You're getting dangerously close to saying "no amount of evidence can dispel me of my preconceived conclusion" which is pseudoscience. Science is about uncovering evidence then creating theories to fit this evidence. When new evidence arises, old theories are discarded and new theories are created which explain new evidence. It's not about saying "you can't convince me of your conclusion so I'll ignore your evidence."
  - tivert 2y ago
    > You're getting dangerously close to saying "no amount of evidence can dispel me of my preconceived conclusion" which is pseudoscience. He is not.
  - cma 2y ago
    Did they control for Amish?
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    What are ALL the variables that affect well being? Does the scientific community even know? This is what I take issue with in this study.
    - wasteduniverse 2y ago
      [dead]
yen223 2y ago
I believe X The study shows ～X I am never wrong Therefore, the study must be wrong.
- _mlbt 2y ago
  Please don't resort to ad hominem attacks. As an Internet user I would actually prefer the conclusions of this study to be correct. Also, I am wrong about things. A LOT. I am completely comfortable admitting that. However, I find it to be extremely unlikely that the design of this study is sound. I'm not convinced that the scientific community even knows what all of the variables that determine your level of well being are, much less having the ability to account for them in a study like this. As I have repeatedly stated elsewhere in this thread, in regions of the world with pervasive Internet access there are many, many factors that lead to increased well being, and conversely, in regions of the world without pervasive Internet access there are many, many factors that lead to decreased well being. This study has accounted for some of the obvious variables here, but certainly not all of them.
  - relativ575 2y ago
    You called the criticism "ad hominem", but your own criticism of the study lacks any substance. How about look at their method [0], and/or the method of the polls that their findings are based on [1], and justify your opinion that the design of this study is not sound. If you can't provide concrete debunks then your complain is nothing but hot air. [0] - https://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/a2exdqgg#s2 https://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/a2exdqgg#s2 [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20220319202108/https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/165404/World_Poll_Methodology_112219.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220319202108/https://news.gall...
    - _mlbt 2y ago
      Their method cannot account for all of the variables that affect well being because no one fully understands what all those variables are, much less having the ability to account for them in a study like this. Per your links they accounted for just 6 variables, not nearly enough to make the stated conclusion with any confidence: > In addressing our second research question, our aim was to approach the independent contributions of internet access and use on well-being. To that end, we adjusted for plausible (and available) covariates in our models that might otherwise mask or bias any independent contributions of internet access on well-being or create spurious associations. We chose six variables to represent such potentially confounding factors that have been previously considered important in the literature on well-being (): the respondent’s income (e.g., ), educational (), work (), and relationship statuses (), their ability to meet basic needs for food and shelter, and whether or not they reported having health problems ().
rcxdude 2y ago
I would say specifically that controlling for other variables is tricky when there are a lot of them that strongly correlate: it's very easy to still have a residual effect after trying to remove them. So if those other factors are much stronger effects, it should increase the standards of evidence for smaller factors.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  “Correlation does not imply causation” has become a catch phrase that people whip out just to disagree. It’s fine to disagree, but at least write a sentence to say why. If you can’t say why, then just take it as an interesting anecdote.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nordstreem 2y ago
[flagged]

_mlbt 2y ago

There are an impossible amount of variables at play here. Localities where Internet is pervasive in comparison to areas where it isn't might as well be another planet. I'm not convinced that this study proves what is claimed.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago
Please firm up your claims. You're getting dangerously close to saying "no amount of evidence can dispel me of my preconceived conclusion" which is pseudoscience. Science is about uncovering evidence then creating theories to fit this evidence. When new evidence arises, old theories are discarded and new theories are created which explain new evidence. It's not about saying "you can't convince me of your conclusion so I'll ignore your evidence."
- tivert 2y ago
  > You're getting dangerously close to saying "no amount of evidence can dispel me of my preconceived conclusion" which is pseudoscience. He is not.
- cma 2y ago
  Did they control for Amish?
- _mlbt 2y ago
  What are ALL the variables that affect well being? Does the scientific community even know? This is what I take issue with in this study.
  - wasteduniverse 2y ago
    [dead]

yen223 2y ago

I believe X The study shows ～X I am never wrong Therefore, the study must be wrong.

_mlbt 2y ago
Please don't resort to ad hominem attacks. As an Internet user I would actually prefer the conclusions of this study to be correct. Also, I am wrong about things. A LOT. I am completely comfortable admitting that. However, I find it to be extremely unlikely that the design of this study is sound. I'm not convinced that the scientific community even knows what all of the variables that determine your level of well being are, much less having the ability to account for them in a study like this. As I have repeatedly stated elsewhere in this thread, in regions of the world with pervasive Internet access there are many, many factors that lead to increased well being, and conversely, in regions of the world without pervasive Internet access there are many, many factors that lead to decreased well being. This study has accounted for some of the obvious variables here, but certainly not all of them.
- relativ575 2y ago
  You called the criticism "ad hominem", but your own criticism of the study lacks any substance. How about look at their method [0], and/or the method of the polls that their findings are based on [1], and justify your opinion that the design of this study is not sound. If you can't provide concrete debunks then your complain is nothing but hot air. [0] - https://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/a2exdqgg#s2 https://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/a2exdqgg#s2 [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20220319202108/https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/165404/World_Poll_Methodology_112219.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220319202108/https://news.gall...
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    Their method cannot account for all of the variables that affect well being because no one fully understands what all those variables are, much less having the ability to account for them in a study like this. Per your links they accounted for just 6 variables, not nearly enough to make the stated conclusion with any confidence: > In addressing our second research question, our aim was to approach the independent contributions of internet access and use on well-being. To that end, we adjusted for plausible (and available) covariates in our models that might otherwise mask or bias any independent contributions of internet access on well-being or create spurious associations. We chose six variables to represent such potentially confounding factors that have been previously considered important in the literature on well-being (): the respondent’s income (e.g., ), educational (), work (), and relationship statuses (), their ability to meet basic needs for food and shelter, and whether or not they reported having health problems ().

rcxdude 2y ago

I would say specifically that controlling for other variables is tricky when there are a lot of them that strongly correlate: it's very easy to still have a residual effect after trying to remove them. So if those other factors are much stronger effects, it should increase the standards of evidence for smaller factors.

2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
“Correlation does not imply causation” has become a catch phrase that people whip out just to disagree. It’s fine to disagree, but at least write a sentence to say why. If you can’t say why, then just take it as an interesting anecdote.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nordstreem 2y ago

[flagged]