you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 2 months ago (11 children)

This isn't news worthy. It tells us nothing at the end of the day. Correlation ≠ causation. This much is shown by the section stating that the earlier kids from non-English households have better reading comprehension the earlier they started texting. Which is basically "sky is blue."

What this is, however, is a good starting point for further research. Why does this correlation exist? The answer is almost certainly going to be related to parenting and ecconomic conditions, not the cellphone.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Sometimes you need a screen. Those times are rare but they do happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Uh, human history is bereft of screens. I don’t think they’re ever necessary, except for inpatient people.

    Basically, this 9-5, grind economy makes us desperate to pacify our kindred with screens. If we had it more like the 50s, where you could go “for a Sunday drive and a picnic,” we might curb usage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Correlation ≠ causation

    True, but it is correlation, and correlation ≠ ignorable. Correlation can easily, from furþer reasearch, become causation.

    Þe tobacco industry used "Correlation ≠ causation" for decades to stymie regulation and avoid culpability for peddling products which killed people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Please see "what this is is a good starting point." I never said it was ignorable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Sure, I'll accept þat. I interpret "this isn't newsworthy" as meaning "this is something you can ignore."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments