2 ms·
The HN title ("Playing video games boosts IQ in children") is editorialized and is directly contradicted by the article: > While the difference in cognitive ab
by lolinder 2y ago
The HN title ("Playing video games boosts IQ in children") is editorialized and is directly contradicted by the article:
> While the difference in cognitive abilities was a small one and isn't enough to show a causal relationship, it is enough to be notable
The original title wasn't much better ("Playing Video Games Has an Unexpected Effect on Kids' IQ, Says Study"), but it was somewhat better and should have been used instead. As submitted it sounds like someone did a controlled trial and established causality.
I'm glad to see this research done, played a lot of video games growing up and am a strong skeptic of the fear of video games. But pushing conclusions that aren't actually backed yet by the science can backfire in the long run, so it's important to state the claims accurately.
- itsdrewmiller 2y agoI think the original title is clickbait and the editorialization here is superior - I agree it would be better with a "slightly" or "may" or "is associated with", but that feels like picking nits.
- lolinder 2y agoDistinguishing between correlation and causation is not picking nits, it's one of the most important parts of science communication and is the one that is most frequently screwed up—often with terrible outcomes for public health. The original title was clickbaity, but it stopped short of identifying a specific casual effect—it merely implied that there was one, which implication is corrected when you go read the body of the article. This title conveys a complete thought about the research that is inaccurate.