3 ms·

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 thi

by _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 ().

by _mlbt 2y ago

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 ().