3 ms·

If you draw your test sample from private schools and $500/month apps, your conclusions are going to be pretty skewed.

by bccdee 1y ago

renewiltord 1y ago
Are they? Supposedly screens kill focus and yet private school children are using screens and they aren't defocused. At best you could argue that the effect is that screens affect focus so little that if you're able to pay $500/month you can completely obviate the effects.
- bccdee 1y ago
  How do you know they aren't defocused, relative to other comparable private schools? Anyway, when people say screens affect focus, they don't mean that it's an inherent property of LCD displays. They mean the things people do on screens—youtube, games, social media—are a potent distraction. It's metonymy.
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    They didn't say "affect focus". They said "kill focus". If the answer is "a 99.99th percentile child will test at the 99.98th percentile" then we can go ahead and say that, but clearly the effect size is not large or else it would have shown up. If screens had a significant effect on focus, then we should see it in these children. If they have an effect, clearly the effect is weak and either easily dealt with by good pedagogy or it does not exist. We're sitting here postulating massive effects and then we don't see massive effects. The effects, if they exist, must be incredibly small in order for these kids to be testing at the high levels they are. I say this as a parent who has kept his daughter from screens and probably will. This stuff always comes up "Oh it absolutely kills focus" "Well, then why doesn't it for these kids?" "Actually, by kill focus I meant that it has a mild negative effect on focus which is not detectible and easily overcome by good teaching even if it were detectible which it isn't and also I didn't mean that screens kill focus. I meant that social media etc. on devices with screens do that" "Okay, so teaching with screens is fine" "oh no, screens absolutely kill focus" Christ.

If you draw your test sample from private schools and $500/month apps, your conclusions are going to be pretty skewed.

by bccdee 1y ago

If you draw your test sample from private schools and $500/month apps, your conclusions are going to be pretty skewed.

Are they? Supposedly screens kill focus and yet private school children are using screens and they aren't defocused. At best you could argue that the effect is that screens affect focus so little that if you're able to pay $500/month you can completely obviate the effects.

bccdee 1y ago
How do you know they aren't defocused, relative to other comparable private schools? Anyway, when people say screens affect focus, they don't mean that it's an inherent property of LCD displays. They mean the things people do on screens—youtube, games, social media—are a potent distraction. It's metonymy.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  They didn't say "affect focus". They said "kill focus". If the answer is "a 99.99th percentile child will test at the 99.98th percentile" then we can go ahead and say that, but clearly the effect size is not large or else it would have shown up. If screens had a significant effect on focus, then we should see it in these children. If they have an effect, clearly the effect is weak and either easily dealt with by good pedagogy or it does not exist. We're sitting here postulating massive effects and then we don't see massive effects. The effects, if they exist, must be incredibly small in order for these kids to be testing at the high levels they are. I say this as a parent who has kept his daughter from screens and probably will. This stuff always comes up "Oh it absolutely kills focus" "Well, then why doesn't it for these kids?" "Actually, by kill focus I meant that it has a mild negative effect on focus which is not detectible and easily overcome by good teaching even if it were detectible which it isn't and also I didn't mean that screens kill focus. I meant that social media etc. on devices with screens do that" "Okay, so teaching with screens is fine" "oh no, screens absolutely kill focus" Christ.