4 ms·

Which is all fluff until someone links to a peer reviewed study.

by bob001 8mo ago

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 8mo 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.
      - qsera 8mo ago
        >Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. The point is that trusting two is not better than trusting one when both of them have equal chance to be malicious. > human society if built on the exact same vague fuzzy framework. May be, but we can try to call a spade a spade and not pretend that something is more trustworthy than it is.
        bob001 8mo ago
        > have equal chance to be malicious. Is A has a p chance of being malicious and B has a q chance of being malicious then the chance of them both being malicious is pq. pq <= p and p*q <= q. I'm honestly not sure why its so hard for you to understand that TWO people being malicious at the same time is less likely than either being mailicous on their own.
juggerl6 8mo ago
[dead]

Which is all fluff until someone links to a peer reviewed study.

by bob001 8mo ago

Which is all fluff until someone links to a peer reviewed study.

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 8mo 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.
    - qsera 8mo ago
      >Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. The point is that trusting two is not better than trusting one when both of them have equal chance to be malicious. > human society if built on the exact same vague fuzzy framework. May be, but we can try to call a spade a spade and not pretend that something is more trustworthy than it is.
      - bob001 8mo ago
        > have equal chance to be malicious. Is A has a p chance of being malicious and B has a q chance of being malicious then the chance of them both being malicious is pq. pq <= p and p*q <= q. I'm honestly not sure why its so hard for you to understand that TWO people being malicious at the same time is less likely than either being mailicous on their own.

juggerl6 8mo ago

[dead]