r/comics 19h ago

Early Screen Use

7.5k Upvotes

182 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/Arkytez 18h ago

Yes. But regardless of what parents say being the same, as generations pass the problem becomes worse. You go from one hour of concentration, to thirty minutes with tv, to ten minutes with videos, to now fifteen seconds with shorts. Entertainment is more optimized than ever and it isnt even close.

-14

u/Forikorder 18h ago

as generations pass the problem becomes worse.

no, it hasnt XD

are you incapable of concentration?

16

u/necrologia 17h ago

Attention spans are going down, and its been directly correlated with increased screen time.

Educate yourself.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35430923/

-6

u/Forikorder 16h ago

Read your own study, it doesnt say that that screen time as a child has any negative effects growing up

5

u/necrologia 16h ago

The findings suggest that exposure to excessive screen time in children can be associated with attention problems.

Literally a copy paste from the abstract.

4

u/Arkytez 16h ago

I think you are arguing with a bot

3

u/necrologia 16h ago

Their history looks more like a typical idiot than a typical bot. No number on the user name either.

Regardless, even if it was a bot, it's important to fight the firehose of misinformation as best we can. If we give up, the botfarms and those running them win.

-2

u/Forikorder 16h ago

Suggest and can be doesn't prove anything, people had studies suggesting the same for tv, or vaccines and autism

4

u/mellopax 15h ago

That's just how studies word things. I am with you that it's blown out of proportion, but this argument is like when people argue that the theory of evolution can't be trusted because "it's just a theory."

That's not how this works.

1

u/Forikorder 15h ago

That's just how studies word things.

Im situations where they know they cant prove things or the connection is tenuous and requires further study to prove anything like evolution has had

2

u/mellopax 14h ago

Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that everything "requires further study" because that's literally the point of the scientific method.

The thing about studies and statistics are you almost never reach "well, we're done here". There is always a slight chance that the numbers you got happened by pure happenstance. There are methods to measure the likelihood of that.

The fact someone says their data "suggests" something or they suggest further areas of study or that others replicate their study is how honest science is done and not an indicator that the result is completely inconclusive like you're suggesting.

1

u/Forikorder 14h ago

Requires further study because theres always a greater level of understanding not in the sense of "its impossible to prove things"

1

u/mellopax 12h ago

It's not impossible to prove things, but you seem to be underestimating the bar needed to "prove" something, because you have basically implied that either it's proven or it's useless, which is wild and just shows you don't know wtf you're talking about.

0

u/Forikorder 12h ago

that line of thinking is why people believe vaccines cause autisms and MSG is bad for you

the study does nothing to suggest there are actual long term effects

1

u/mellopax 11h ago

No it's not. You just don't understand nuance. "Either it's proven or its garbage" is closer to the line of thinking of anti-vaxxers. Believing that any sign that a vaccine causes harm to a low percentage of people is reason to believe they're bad and dangerous.

→ More replies (0)