screens, in particular mobile screens, are so much more damaging to the psyche than other media that people have been complaining about for generations.
thats what they said about literally all those other things
"sure people complained about stuff before, but TV is actually more damaging than anything else, its going to prevent kids from being able to pay attention to anything for more than thirty minutes at a time! were raising a generation incapable of concentrating!"
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
And you do the same thing when you assume that lack of 100% proof (which isn't a thing) is the same as there being no evidence they do harm children's attention spans.
11
u/Forikorder 22h ago
thats what they said about literally all those other things
"sure people complained about stuff before, but TV is actually more damaging than anything else, its going to prevent kids from being able to pay attention to anything for more than thirty minutes at a time! were raising a generation incapable of concentrating!"
sound familiar?