4 ms·
Kids who own phones have poorer reading comprehension scores VS those who don't
- Markoff 3mo agoObviously reading improves reading and if kid has phone it doesn't read (books), but plays games or watch videos. Though study found one benefit - if kid is non-native speaker they can improve their English by using the phone (in English). Link to original study https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/16/8/1263 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/16/8/1263
- estearum 3mo ago> Obviously reading improves reading and if kid has phone it doesn't read (books), but plays games or watch videos. We've been wrong about "obvious" things many many times before. And even in this article they refer to some evidence that hints in the opposite direction as this "obvious" mechanism. > One showed that texting benefits the skill of grasping meaning; the other showed texting to be a negative influence on basic reading mechanics at the letter and word level. (FWIW, I largely agree with you that this is obvious, but we should try to build our knowledge from the basics regardless)
- bcjdjsndon 3mo ago> One showed that texting benefits the skill of grasping meaning; the other showed texting to be a negative influence on basic reading mechanics at the letter and word level. But doesn't texting involve reading still? How could you not read yet text? It's a different dialect to typical printed prose, but it's language,they communicate all the same.
- bcjdjsndon 3mo ago> and if kid has phone it doesn't read (books) I haven't read a physical book in about a decade. I read everyday. How is this possible?
- mikestew 3mo agoDid OP specify physical books?
- bcjdjsndon 3mo agoHed have said screens or ebooks if he meant otherwise
- mikestew 3mo agoNot at all, "books" could also specify "long form writing". When I say I read a book, I don't specify "e-book", I just say, "finally finished Project Hail Mary".
- bcjdjsndon 3mo ago> Not at all, "books" could also specify "long form writing". If you really reach for it, sure. We were talking about screentime. Books are books. When have books really meant anything other than a physical book or maybe a bookmakers book?
- Markoff 3mo agoDo you read books on phone? There you have your answer. I am also assuming you are not a child from 3rd or 6th grade, so not exactly sure how is your comment relevant to study about kids with phones. Somehow I would think adult HN reader will have better self-control over video/game usage than 3rd/6th grader.
- bcjdjsndon 3mo ago> Do you read books on phone? Books typed up or scanned into Ebooks, sure. Books, no.
- potatototoo99 3mo agoControlled for confounding variables right? Right??
- estearum 3mo agoWhy don't you read the study and raise the specific confounders you think are missing? The answer is universally "no", there's no such thing as "controlling for [all] confounding variables" without blinded randomization. But we unfortunately have to rely on observational studies to try to understand the world. At least to understand what specific questions can justify the cost and complexity of a randomized study. So yeah, of course there are confounders. Some are controlled in this study and others are not. Which are the important ones you think are missing?
- bcjdjsndon 3mo ago[flagged]
- estearum 3mo agoWhat gave you the impression I'm mad? I'm providing a useful comment explaining why the answer to the zero-value "controlling for confounders right? harharhar" top Reddit comment is always "no." Unless it's a randomized study, the answer is no. But that doesn't mean it doesn't tell us information. This is helpful information for anyone who wants to transcend midwit internet snark and understand how scientific knowledge is built.
- qwerpy 3mo agoI appreciated your comment and especially liked the way you characterized the original commenter. Everyone going for low effort points here is cheapening the discussion, like that R website we hate being compared to.
- bcjdjsndon 3mo ago
- pu_pe 3mo ago[dead]
- mahmoudilyan 3mo agoUnfortuantely, this is true
- Bridged7756 3mo agoI don't partake in the whole "dopamine addiction" nonsense, but you can literally feel your cognitive performance getting worse the more you use your phone. Not only infinite feeds, also shopping at the tip of your fingers, at all times, the possibility of immediately searching, finding something. Even your interests completely change; suddenly reading is boring and something you have no energy for. Movies and TV Shows are boring. Videogames are not rewarding. Like a switch, I suddenly start reading again, enjoying these things the moment I block all such immediate-hit distractions from my phone. I think phones are the real issue. Even if you have unlimited access to whatever short form apps, eshopping, information on a computer, it's the ease of being able to immediately get a hit as you lie comfortably in your couch, or while you wait for something, that's the issue. No time to simmer in your thoughts, or to be able to put in some effort to get a reward. We are lazy by nature, smartphones exploit that to make profits, and as a consequence to that, we rewire our brains to prefer the seamlessly of just scrolling down ad infinitum.
- tim-projects 3mo agoMy phone use is completely different to this. I mainly use it as a reading and text communication device. A phone is just a computer.
- deaux 3mo ago> Even your interests completely change; suddenly reading is boring and something you have no energy for. Movies and TV Shows are boring. Videogames are not rewarding. Like a switch, I suddenly start reading again, enjoying these things the moment I block all such immediate-hit distractions from my phone. What are you doing on your phone if not reading? Are you watching short TikTok/Instagram videos or something?
- jansport123 3mo agoi quit watching short form videos recently and my attention has come back - like i can actually read books and watch long videos and just let my mind think for much longer. It's incredibly damaging what algorithmic feeds are doing to people's minds.