this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
204 points (85.9% liked)
Technology
59095 readers
3505 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you are forgetting that correlation does not imply causation. I know it gets said often around here, but apparently it's because people don't understand what it means.
Is there an atypical sensory response that appears to increase with television exposure in young children according to this study? Yes.
Can an atypical sensory response be a part of the diagnostic criteria for autism? Yes
Does this study, with its limited criteria and scope, make any viable substantive connection between television exposure and autism? No.
Because of the (understandable) limitations of the research criteria, they aren't even able to prove that less television exposure would improve these outcomes, and they readily admit that. Is it because "THE MAN" won't let them TELL THE TRUTH about what is REALLY going on, or is it dangerous, misleading, and unscientific to say things that can't be proven as if it's fact?
As someone who has worked and continues to work with several doctors in a medical research environment I can assure you that there is a fair amount of bias at play in these types of studies and money is often the driving force. I personally have seen two lead research physicians, one I had performed testing for, get quietly "asked to leave" our institution when it was revealed that they had a private stake in a medical company that they refused to disclose when testing their products.
The point I'm trying to make is that bias in research is bad and publications need to be doing more to defend against it, not less. "Reading between the lines" in research has led to countless people being injured and killed. For example, Andrew Wakefield was struck from the UK medical registry and barred from practicing medicine after England's GMC found that Wakefield had been dishonest in his research in his '98 paper published to the Lancet claiming a connection between vaccinations and autism. They also determined he had acted against his patients' best interests, mistreated developmentally delayed children, and had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant" in order to earn as much as $43 million a year selling testing kits. Despite this and no other researchers being able to reproduce his findings this dangerous misconception still lives on when people like Robert Kennedy go on Joe Rogan and help us "read between the lines" by regurgitating this self-serving and harmful bullshit narrative, encouraging parents not to vaccinate their kids.
I don't normally reply like this but i'm not wasting time on composition.
Really? Then I think you didn't read or understand my previous reply.
What is dangerous, misleading and unscientific about alerting parents as soon as possible that screen time has been linked to atypical sensory processing, the most popularly known examples by a country mile being ADHD and autism? Have other studies shown screen time to be beneficial to young children? Who are you shilling for, Sesame Street? lol
I would argue that it's unethical not to inform parents using terminology that they are familiar with, even if it is not going to be accurate in each case.
I was wondering when the appeal to authority would come. Your assurance, as an internet rando, is meaningless. You oughta know that already.
Except pop-sci magazines aren't research.
And finally, you're statements about research bias and the crap about Wakefield, Kennedy and troglodyte Rogan is false equivalence and obvious baiting. See sentence above. Unlike the situation you describe, you haven't called into question this research, only the article.
I guess we'll know eventually if we should've been warning people away from screen time for young kids a lot more forcefully.
Ok, I admit my last reply was a little scattered because I wrote it over the course of half a day, so I'm going to attempt to deescalate things and do a better job of explaining my perspective without getting so lost in the weeds.
Feel free to disagree with me on this point but it sounds to me like we have a misunderstanding about what atypical sensory processing is. Atypical sensory processing is a symptom of autism and may be associated with ADHD, but they are not types, or examples of, atypical sensory processing. Atypical sensory processing is it's own stand alone issue and is not always related to ADHD. Furthermore, it's just one part of the spectrum of issues that need to be identified for a formal autism diagnosis, which is why I was adamant that insisting that one must mean the other is present, in my opinion, is inappropriate and misleading.
I would also like to argue that using the proper terminology is important in making sure that data isn't misunderstood. I feel that it's just fine to note what the studies findings are, which is that screentime can be damaging to young minds, without evoking ADHD and autism unnecessarily.
I do want to apologize for making an unnecessary call to authority and I can see how that may have come off douchey. The point I was attempting to make by doing that is that researchers can't always be trusted not to put their thumbs on the scales in their research summaries knowing that people will jump on certain buzz words and run with it to make their study get more clicks. I know because that's happened with studies I've been a part of (again, I realize you have no reason to believe me. Just explaining what I was attempting to convey.) Thankfully, they have to be more careful with the actual data documentation, but even then depending on the publication there's wiggle room. Because of this fact, I think it's important that we read less into these types of studies and not more. That's why I suggested that even though autism is mentioned in the summary, I don't feel it's presence represents a direct relationship because the study data itself does not support this association. The summary even says so. I think the only reason the word is included is to encourage articles like the one you originally posted to make unverifiable claims for them.
Finally, I brought up the Wakefield thing because despite being discredited years ago, millions of people still believe that there's a connection between vaccines and autism because of the fact that pop science magazines don't get fact-checked the same way clinical research journals do. They can say a study says whatever they want, whether it does or not, and 99% of people are only going to read the headline and assume it's the truth without looking any deeper.
I understand that in this particular instance, no one is being physically harmed because of what I see as a false equivalence, but I do think it can be harmful if someone were to read this article and then look down on a parent of an autistic child because they think they got that way from sitting in front of too much television. That's clearly not how autism works but you wouldn't know that by reading this article.
I hope you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from and for what it's worth, I wish you well in life.