I 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.
> 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?
i 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.
Why 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?
Sure, a drive-by "did they control for confounders???" without naming any is low-effort, and it's reasonable to ask GP to be specific.
BUT you overshot in the other direction! "There's no such thing as controlling for confounders without blinded randomization" isn't fair. Sure, randomization is the cleanest identification strategy, but it's not the only one. Instrumental variables, regression discontinuity, difference-in-differences, sibling or twin fixed effects, and natural experiments are all used in economics, and they exist because randomization is often impossible or unethical, and you have to rely on natural experiments.
(Separately, a phone-ownership study of 9yo kids has an obvious potential for selection bias. So in a sense I'm sympathetic to GP asking about confounders without naming any.
If you actually copy/pasted the "quoted" text from my comment, you will have found I said something different from what you claimed.
Virtually any study has an obvious potential for selection bias. That's why people write up how they did the study and then other people can interrogate and criticize it.
I think he had a reasonable point, I don't know if he was mad or not but that doesn't take away from the validity of his statement.
Simply saying a confounding variable was missing isn't helpful because it's impossible to control for all confounding variables.
If however there was an important variable someone can think of, like maybe parents who control their kids phone use could also be more involved in their children's learning that could be a confounding variable worth mentioning to think about how valid the study is - but even then I don't know if that by itself would be enough to dismiss the study
Uhh... there's a truly gigantic gap between the shit end of "has confounders" and the good end of "has confounders", and locating where a particular study lands on that spectrum is a foundational skill to evaluating virtually any factual claim you'll ever encounter...
I am advocating for people to identify that there's a spectrum instead of just saying "oh well, every study is imperfect" which diverts attention from understanding in what particular ways is it imperfect.
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.
I 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.
They did separate analysis based on grade level and whether English is the home language.
But they didn't control for parental education or socioeconomic status, both of which would likely be predictive of a child's reading comprehension and their chance of having a phone as a 9yo.
> 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)
> 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.
Not 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".
Do 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.
I 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.
> 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?
i 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.
My phone use is completely different to this. I mainly use it as a reading and text communication device.
A phone is just a computer.
Controlled for confounding variables right? Right??
Why 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?
Sure, a drive-by "did they control for confounders???" without naming any is low-effort, and it's reasonable to ask GP to be specific.
BUT you overshot in the other direction! "There's no such thing as controlling for confounders without blinded randomization" isn't fair. Sure, randomization is the cleanest identification strategy, but it's not the only one. Instrumental variables, regression discontinuity, difference-in-differences, sibling or twin fixed effects, and natural experiments are all used in economics, and they exist because randomization is often impossible or unethical, and you have to rely on natural experiments.
(Separately, a phone-ownership study of 9yo kids has an obvious potential for selection bias. So in a sense I'm sympathetic to GP asking about confounders without naming any.
If you actually copy/pasted the "quoted" text from my comment, you will have found I said something different from what you claimed.
Virtually any study has an obvious potential for selection bias. That's why people write up how they did the study and then other people can interrogate and criticize it.
Might as well just paste a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)#Types in every comment section ever.
[flagged]
I think he had a reasonable point, I don't know if he was mad or not but that doesn't take away from the validity of his statement.
Simply saying a confounding variable was missing isn't helpful because it's impossible to control for all confounding variables.
If however there was an important variable someone can think of, like maybe parents who control their kids phone use could also be more involved in their children's learning that could be a confounding variable worth mentioning to think about how valid the study is - but even then I don't know if that by itself would be enough to dismiss the study
> Simply saying a confounding variable was missing isn't helpful because it's impossible to control for all confounding variables
That's the problem with studies though. My point is why defend something so ardently when we all agree it's shit but the best we have?
Uhh... there's a truly gigantic gap between the shit end of "has confounders" and the good end of "has confounders", and locating where a particular study lands on that spectrum is a foundational skill to evaluating virtually any factual claim you'll ever encounter...
I am advocating for people to identify that there's a spectrum instead of just saying "oh well, every study is imperfect" which diverts attention from understanding in what particular ways is it imperfect.
What 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.
I 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.
At least there's the occasional cat on reddit
No, they didn't control for confounders.
They did separate analysis based on grade level and whether English is the home language.
But they didn't control for parental education or socioeconomic status, both of which would likely be predictive of a child's reading comprehension and their chance of having a phone as a 9yo.
Unfortuantely, this is true
Obviously 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
> 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)
> 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.
Not sure. Sounds like more study is warranted.
I guess it's about volume, I am also reading tons of articles or discussions per day and I would not say it's as good as reading books.
> 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?
Did OP specify physical books?
Hed have said screens or ebooks if he meant otherwise
Not 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".
Do 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.
[dead]