4 ms·

Fair enough. It is one replication attempt, so that makes it even. Jonathan Haidt mentions the same in his book The Anxious Generation but lists other similar s

Fair enough. It is one replication attempt, so that makes it even. Jonathan Haidt mentions the same in his book The Anxious Generation but lists other similar studies: > I note that one attempt to replicate the study did not find that phone location affected performance (Ruiz Pardo & Minda, 2022). But other studies have found that when phones are visible, they have disruptive effects. See Dwyer et al. (2018); Tanil & Young (2020); Skowronek et al. (2023).

Mathnerd314 2y ago
> Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions > those without smartphones had higher recall accuracy compared to those with smartphones. These seem reasonable. But they have little to do with this study, they are explained by competing attention and that smartphones also substitute for rote memorization. > the mere presence of a smartphone results in lower performance on a concentration and attention test This is more interesting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10249922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10249922/ It was conducted via videoconference though, so I wonder how much attention was devoted simply to the videoconference. And there was no effect of smartphone dependence.
Mathnerd314 2y ago
As far as the book, there is a Nature review https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 and a Polish review https://e-psycholog.eu/clanek/498 https://e-psycholog.eu/clanek/498 that say his book has no basis in science and is just cherry-picked studies and graphs. It seems Haidt has doubled down and is like "I reviewed all the studies myself" - but he didn't publish a systematic review, only these non-peer-reviewed "collaborative reviews" https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/research/collaborative-review-docs https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/research/collaborative-rev.... Whereas his detractors have done peer-reviewed SR's: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4053961 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4053961. I have seen this pattern before, in other areas of science, and pretty uniformly if it is one man (or woman) vs. the literature then the literature is right and the "lone genius" is a crackpot. But that's just scientifically, in society you can be popular even if your theories are as nutty as they come. Now there are patterns in the studies, I am sure there are interesting conclusions to be drawn, I just don't trust Haidt to do that kind of analysis.

Mathnerd314 2y ago

> Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions > those without smartphones had higher recall accuracy compared to those with smartphones. These seem reasonable. But they have little to do with this study, they are explained by competing attention and that smartphones also substitute for rote memorization. > the mere presence of a smartphone results in lower performance on a concentration and attention test This is more interesting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10249922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10249922/ It was conducted via videoconference though, so I wonder how much attention was devoted simply to the videoconference. And there was no effect of smartphone dependence.

Mathnerd314 2y ago

As far as the book, there is a Nature review https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 and a Polish review https://e-psycholog.eu/clanek/498 https://e-psycholog.eu/clanek/498 that say his book has no basis in science and is just cherry-picked studies and graphs. It seems Haidt has doubled down and is like "I reviewed all the studies myself" - but he didn't publish a systematic review, only these non-peer-reviewed "collaborative reviews" https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/research/collaborative-review-docs https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/research/collaborative-rev.... Whereas his detractors have done peer-reviewed SR's: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4053961 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4053961. I have seen this pattern before, in other areas of science, and pretty uniformly if it is one man (or woman) vs. the literature then the literature is right and the "lone genius" is a crackpot. But that's just scientifically, in society you can be popular even if your theories are as nutty as they come. Now there are patterns in the studies, I am sure there are interesting conclusions to be drawn, I just don't trust Haidt to do that kind of analysis.