4 ms·

It’s interesting but doesn’t seem to address the correlation / causation thing. It may be that other attributes of the kids, parents, family, or socioeconomic c

It’s interesting but doesn’t seem to address the correlation / causation thing. It may be that other attributes of the kids, parents, family, or socioeconomic context lead to earlier smartphone use and also worse mental health / happiness later in life.

croemer 2y ago
Came here to say this. This blog was founded to convince others of the harm of smartphones. It's not unreasonable to imagine that the authors have significant confirmation bias. Everything they claim needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. Haidt is also marketing his book via the blog. It would be much more credible if he designed proper scientific studies and punished them in relevant Journals after peer review. The fact he doesn't publish properly is consistent with my hunch that his claims wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
em500 2y ago
It's kind of addressed in section 5: "We cannot be certain that the correlations shown in the data are evidence of causality, but we think it is appropriate for those who care for children to act on the preponderance of the evidence (which is the standard in a civil trial) rather than waiting for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the standard used in a criminal trial." It's not that social (or medical) researchers are unaware that observational studies can't establish causation, but in most cases when studying human reactions nothing better is feasible. For a proper randomized controlled trials even voluntary enrollments are problematic: the researcher needs to choose and randomize the treatment. How can that ever be implemented for a sufficiently powered study of smartphones/social media use for children (or adults)?
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  “We can’t do real science because it would be too expensive, so we’ll just assume that what we are trying to prove is true.” I hate it, and we need to figure out something better. We use this same method in diet research, too.
jimbokun 2y ago
Jonathan Haidt has covered the correlation/ causation question very rigorously. The case that smart phones and social media specifically have an impact is very strong.

croemer 2y ago

Came here to say this. This blog was founded to convince others of the harm of smartphones. It's not unreasonable to imagine that the authors have significant confirmation bias. Everything they claim needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. Haidt is also marketing his book via the blog. It would be much more credible if he designed proper scientific studies and punished them in relevant Journals after peer review. The fact he doesn't publish properly is consistent with my hunch that his claims wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

em500 2y ago

It's kind of addressed in section 5: "We cannot be certain that the correlations shown in the data are evidence of causality, but we think it is appropriate for those who care for children to act on the preponderance of the evidence (which is the standard in a civil trial) rather than waiting for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the standard used in a criminal trial." It's not that social (or medical) researchers are unaware that observational studies can't establish causation, but in most cases when studying human reactions nothing better is feasible. For a proper randomized controlled trials even voluntary enrollments are problematic: the researcher needs to choose and randomize the treatment. How can that ever be implemented for a sufficiently powered study of smartphones/social media use for children (or adults)?

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
“We can’t do real science because it would be too expensive, so we’ll just assume that what we are trying to prove is true.” I hate it, and we need to figure out something better. We use this same method in diet research, too.

jimbokun 2y ago

Jonathan Haidt has covered the correlation/ causation question very rigorously. The case that smart phones and social media specifically have an impact is very strong.