4 ms·

Unrelated to the laptops. Also, please don't link low quality sources (Yahoo) on HN.

walterbell 8mo ago
> Unrelated to the laptops From the article: In written testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath said that Gen Z is less cognitively capable than previous generations, despite its unprecedented access to technology.. Horvath blamed.. tendency to get off-track as a key contributor to technology hindering learning. > low quality sources Fortune Magazine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_(magazine) The publication was founded by Henry Luce in 1929. The magazine competes with Forbes and Bloomberg Businessweek in the national business magazine category and distinguishes itself with long, in-depth feature articles.
- bob001 8mo ago
  Which is all fluff until someone links to a peer reviewed study.
  - walterbell 8mo ago
    https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volum... Citing Program for International Student Assessment data taken from 15-year-olds across the world and other standardized tests, Horvath noted not only dipping test scores, but also a stark correlation in scores and time spent on computers in school, such that more screen time was related to worse scores.
    - bob001 8mo ago
      Let's see what this study actually says, shall we? > Students who spent up to one hour per day on digital devices for learning activities in school scored 14 points higher in mathematics than students who spent no time, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and this positive relationship is observed in over half (45 countries and economies) of all systems with available data. That sounds like school laptops to me.
  - qsera 8mo ago
    >peer reviewed study.. So you trust the peer, but not the author? How come?
    - bob001 8mo ago
      The peer review process provides a minimal level of verification, and the paper provides details that can be directly looked at.
      - qsera 8mo ago
        >The peer review process provides a minimal level of verification But this is only true if you trust the peer more than the author. Because both the author and the peer are not accountable to you or to mostly none. So "peer review", without any other qualification is as good as shit. Every time I see people go "BUT IS IT PEER REVIEWED !??" I can't help but chuckle.
        bob001 7mo ago
        > But this is only true if you trust the peer more than the author Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. Not one. Not the other. The failure mode is that BOTH are untrustworthy and not that EITHER is untrustworthy on their own. This is different from no peer review where the author is a single point of failure. There is furthermore the overall system of peer review with some level of checks within it if a peer or author end up being visibly untrustworthy. Not perfect however the same can be said for every single part of human society. > Every time I see people go "BUT IS IT PEER REVIEWED !??" I can't help but chuckle. And I sort of chuckle at people like you who don't realize that all of human society if built on the exact same vague fuzzy framework. It's not about absolutes but about levels of trustworthiness and system level checks. Edit: In this case, for example, the quote is based on a study that the speaker did not publish. The study actually says the exact opposite. So now there's THREE levels of trust that can cross verify. The speaker, the original study authors and the peer reviews. In this case the speaker clearly is not trustworthy as their own source material disagrees with them. Had I simply blindly trusted the speaker this would not have been evident but due to having a study I can verify.
  - juggerl6 8mo ago
    [dead]
magicalhippo 8mo ago
Original source is https://fortune.com/2026/02/21/laptops-tablets-schools-gen-z-less-cognitively-capable-parents-first-time-cellphone-bans-standardized-test-scores/ https://fortune.com/2026/02/21/laptops-tablets-schools-gen-z...
- selectively 7mo ago
  Also a low quality source.
toomuchtodo 8mo ago
Yahoo is a common, accepted source: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=yahoo.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=yahoo.com
snayan 8mo ago
laptops are to cognitive capabilities as syringes are to heroin overdoses. It's just one of the many delivery mechanisms for brainrot in the 21st century.
- NateEag 8mo ago
  There are two you can take with you into a classroom: * laptop * smartphone
- selectively 7mo ago
  Something very wrong with you.

> Unrelated to the laptops From the article: In written testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath said that Gen Z is less cognitively capable than previous generations, despite its unprecedented access to technology.. Horvath blamed.. tendency to get off-track as a key contributor to technology hindering learning. > low quality sources Fortune Magazine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_(magazine) The publication was founded by Henry Luce in 1929. The magazine competes with Forbes and Bloomberg Businessweek in the national business magazine category and distinguishes itself with long, in-depth feature articles.

bob001 8mo ago
Which is all fluff until someone links to a peer reviewed study.
- walterbell 8mo ago
  https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volum... Citing Program for International Student Assessment data taken from 15-year-olds across the world and other standardized tests, Horvath noted not only dipping test scores, but also a stark correlation in scores and time spent on computers in school, such that more screen time was related to worse scores.
  - bob001 8mo ago
    Let's see what this study actually says, shall we? > Students who spent up to one hour per day on digital devices for learning activities in school scored 14 points higher in mathematics than students who spent no time, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and this positive relationship is observed in over half (45 countries and economies) of all systems with available data. That sounds like school laptops to me.
- qsera 8mo ago
  >peer reviewed study.. So you trust the peer, but not the author? How come?
  - bob001 8mo ago
    The peer review process provides a minimal level of verification, and the paper provides details that can be directly looked at.
    - qsera 8mo ago
      >The peer review process provides a minimal level of verification But this is only true if you trust the peer more than the author. Because both the author and the peer are not accountable to you or to mostly none. So "peer review", without any other qualification is as good as shit. Every time I see people go "BUT IS IT PEER REVIEWED !??" I can't help but chuckle.
      - bob001 7mo ago
        > But this is only true if you trust the peer more than the author Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. Not one. Not the other. The failure mode is that BOTH are untrustworthy and not that EITHER is untrustworthy on their own. This is different from no peer review where the author is a single point of failure. There is furthermore the overall system of peer review with some level of checks within it if a peer or author end up being visibly untrustworthy. Not perfect however the same can be said for every single part of human society. > Every time I see people go "BUT IS IT PEER REVIEWED !??" I can't help but chuckle. And I sort of chuckle at people like you who don't realize that all of human society if built on the exact same vague fuzzy framework. It's not about absolutes but about levels of trustworthiness and system level checks. Edit: In this case, for example, the quote is based on a study that the speaker did not publish. The study actually says the exact opposite. So now there's THREE levels of trust that can cross verify. The speaker, the original study authors and the peer reviews. In this case the speaker clearly is not trustworthy as their own source material disagrees with them. Had I simply blindly trusted the speaker this would not have been evident but due to having a study I can verify.
- juggerl6 8mo ago
  [dead]

magicalhippo 8mo ago

Original source is https://fortune.com/2026/02/21/laptops-tablets-schools-gen-z-less-cognitively-capable-parents-first-time-cellphone-bans-standardized-test-scores/ https://fortune.com/2026/02/21/laptops-tablets-schools-gen-z...

selectively 7mo ago
Also a low quality source.

toomuchtodo 8mo ago

Yahoo is a common, accepted source: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=yahoo.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=yahoo.com

snayan 8mo ago

laptops are to cognitive capabilities as syringes are to heroin overdoses. It's just one of the many delivery mechanisms for brainrot in the 21st century.

NateEag 8mo ago
There are two you can take with you into a classroom: * laptop * smartphone
selectively 7mo ago
Something very wrong with you.