Sure the phones are to blame and not the shitty world with never ending economic crises and wars everywhere and probably unhappy, stressed out parents fighting all the time.
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
204 points (85.9% liked)
Technology
59223 readers
3057 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
Social media is designed to be a vice. Its not suprising it causes depression
Unethical twin studies are illegal for very good reasons, but I'd be curious about the results of the following hypothetical (albeit flawed) study:
-
Twin 1: raised in a small village fishing/farming community that disallows internet access, but allows full unfettered access to a vast library.
-
Twin 2: raised in a heavily populated coastal city with a smartphone from age 6.
A constant, instant stream of knowledge of horrific things happening hundreds or thousands of miles from you, and the barrage of social media toxicity, must come a negative mindset about the world. I don't see any way it doesn't. Sure there is wholesome and humble content on every platform, but the vast majority is either neutral or negative, and negativity generally spreads much faster than neutral or positive; it's the human condition.
It affects everyone, but your reality will be much different if it's been affecting you since you could, quite literally, remember.
I've seen multiple grassroots efforts of insightful teens who recognize this and are going dumbphone-only. Those kids are the future I'd place my bet on.
Also, the fact that technology makes it easier to actually collect data on stuff like depression etc and people are more encouraged to speak about it, as opposed to previous "it's life, man up and take it" generations' attitude...
the size of the relationship is often statistically small, which has led some researchers to conclude that these new technologies are not responsible for the gigantic increases in mental illness that began in the early 2010s.
Anyway, here's 8500 words about why we are blaming cell phones anyway.
(Surely it's not also the terrible economic landscape, hyper-competitive education system, or the collapse of community institutions...)
%90 of the teenagers who said they are depressed also have phones. Much significance, many r, wow p value
It’s all of those. As a father of teenagers, I can definitely add a subjective opinion that phones are TERRIBLE for teenagers. It reinforces all their fears and multiplies all their false certainties.
false certainties
As a fellow father of teenagers, I agree and want to thank you for introducing me to this phrase. I didn't have a simple phrase for "doesn't care about school, thinks he will be a millionaire by age 20."
One unfortunate aspect I've found is that (n=1) a grounding involving taking away phone time besides one hour in the evening until grades improve doesn't provide all that much motivation to improve grades. An allowed hour because complete social isolation is not a helpful punishment.
It does, however, greatly improve mood and ability to focus and think through problems. I had the same false certainties as a teenager - that's a failure on us (the parents), and goes beyond smartphones, but grades are important.
'Grades are important' is not something I ever thought I would say, but as an old person I understand now... It's not the grade itself, it's what the grade represents - foresight, seeing the bigger picture, and effort and commitment to something.
This study found a link between screen time and autism by looking at TV exposure among very young children, nevermind phones and tablets.
https://www.earth.com/news/toddler-screen-time-linked-to-atypical-sensory-behaviors/
It makes sense in a way. How we process the world might be a bit messed up with we were exposed to lots of bright shapes and loud sounds doing impossible things before our senses were fully developed.
Sorry, but that's not what the actual JAMA research study says:
Greater early-life digital media exposures may be associated with atypical sensory processing. Further research is needed to understand why early media exposure is associated with specific sensory-related behaviors, including those seen in autism spectrum disorder, and if minimizing screen media at a young age can improve subsequent sensory-related outcomes.>
To me, making the jump to say "Screen time directly linked to autism and ADHD" based on the data in this study is like a research paper noting "American football playing is associated with specific types of head trauma, including the types seen in car accident victims, but further research is needed to understand why" and then writing an article saying "AMERICAN FOOTBALL PLAYING DIRECTLY LINKED TO CAR ACCIDENTS!!!"
Here is a link to the actual research paper instead of a badly written sensationalistic article if anyone is interested:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2813443
What does the paragraph above the one you posted say? The paragraph under the header "Findings"
It says absolutely nothing about autism and ADHD, as you can see:
Findings: In this cohort study, early-life television or video exposure was associated with atypical sensory processing in low registration, sensation seeking, sensory sensitivity, and sensation avoiding domains of the Infant-Toddler Sensory Profile, after controlling for perinatal and demographic variables; results differed by age at exposure.
I copied and shared the portion of the summary that provides interpretation for the findings because it's the only place where autism is noted, ADHD is totally absent.
I mean, if you think that they aren't talking about ADHD and autism there, after reading the article and the study, well okay then.
The paper comes as close to saying 'direct link' as these papers ever do. It's quite difficult to prove a direct link and there are consequences for using that language inaccurately, when you're publishing in a respected journal (at least there is supposed to be)
Pop-sci articles are usually going to try to hook readers with their headlines. Not being beholden to the same standards, they are free to read between the lines, as it were. One could say that because it's not held to the same standard, it's BS but there's a lot of substance there to refute. It not an op-ed piece.
Its an important article that shouldn't be ignored (there are other sources if you don't like that author,) and if people want more details, they can get to the JAMA investigation from the link provided at the end.
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.
I think you are forgetting that correlation does not imply causation.
Really? Then I think you didn't read or understand my previous reply.
or is it dangerous, misleading, and unscientific to say things that can’t be proven as if it’s fact?
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.
As someone who has worked and continues to work with several doctors in a medical research environment
I was wondering when the appeal to authority would come. Your assurance, as an internet rando, is meaningless. You oughta know that already.
“Reading between the lines” in research has led to countless people being injured and killed
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.
Yeah, give kids easy to use pocket computers to access social media curated by algorithms designed to increase anxiety/engagement and "games" that are single-player gambling simulations, all of which harvests their data just to better learn how to manipulate them, and wonder why kids feel anxious, isolated, or depressed.
This hurts the over-25s too, just to lesser degrees because their brains are fully developed.
Sure, it's the phones and not the fact the Earth is burning while all the people with power are too focused on growing their money piles by exploiting people.
People can't afford houses, kids and the planet might not have a future.
But sure, yeah, it's the phones.
Think about it, without the kids having a way to fact check everything they would have to believe whatever they say, and that leads to my favourite problem solving method, propaganda!
"If we take away their phones, they can't know it's all on fire!"
Yeet
It might be beneficial for younger kids to not be aware of every global catastrophe, don't you think?
"Let us not prepare you for the world you're born into"
You mean in the sense where overexposure to news makes someone generally paranoid, combined with the fact that a massive fire in colombia is not likely to enrich their perceptions or help them understand the world around them any better?
I said young kids, not all kids. Learn to read.
You actually said "Younger kids" . Younger is defined as "having lived or existed for only a short time."
Maybe you should learn about Reddings Postulates
Maybe you should learn about contextual communication. Most of us aren't pedantic English majors
view more: next ›