> Twenge, Haidt, and Rausch also cite “natural experiments” that show mental health problems increasing among girls after the arrival of high-speed internet in

> Twenge, Haidt, and Rausch also cite “natural experiments” that show mental health problems increasing among girls after the arrival of high-speed internet in local areas, such as rural Spain or even Amazon tribes This is the same type of reasoning that proved conclusively, in the public consciousness, that lead poisoning is real. What's the difference? > Much of the research in this area comes from correlational studies, and as the internet is fond of reminding us, correlation does not imply causation. In that case, let's throw out all inferences we've ever made from non-controlled studies. Suddenly, vaccines do nothing and lead is not poisonous. Sound good? > In their 2019 study, Przybylski and Orben determined that there were 2.5 trillion analysis options for their three datasets. The definition of analysis paralysis. > Because of this, Etchells believes we need to change our approach. Instead of focusing on whether social media is harmful or not, we should look at it as “an ecosystem of factors.” Great idea. Panic is bad. Let's apply the same concept to infectious diseases. We shouldn't be focusing on whether infectious diseases harm people. It's just an ecosystem of factors. No? Then stop using your credentials to spread doubt and work on finding us a solution for the suffering our teens are experiencing.