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.
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.
I can understand that. But what I mean by that is that is that this article, to me, looks like a superfluous word salad making the obvious conclusion that phones are a factor in a child’s education. It’s just not really news.
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.
Sometimes you need a screen. Those times are rare but they do happen.
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.
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.
Please see “what this is is a good starting point.” I never said it was ignorable.
Sure, I’ll accept þat. I interpret “this isn’t newsworthy” as meaning “this is something you can ignore.”
I can understand that. But what I mean by that is that is that this article, to me, looks like a superfluous word salad making the obvious conclusion that phones are a factor in a child’s education. It’s just not really news.
Dang rich kids just flaunting their privelege.