[Spivak]

Why is skepticism warranted? It's not an extraordinary claim by any stretch. The claim that social media does harm your mental health is the one that needs strong evidence supporting it. This reads like copium, you've set your priors all the way to "it's obviously true you can't convince me otherwise." Which then of course everything refuting it has to be literally air-tight, there's no way you hold that standard for other things.

I think the reasonable read for someone who's priors are set to believe it's true would be, "Interesting, I guess the effect size isn't as pronounced and obvious as I'd previously assumed."

[elicksaur]

> We uncovered significant factual errors, including inaccuracies in effect sizes, sample sizes, and study inclusion/exclusion criteria, which were used to conclude that the impact of social media use on mental health is indistinguishable from zero.

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/fundamental-flaws-part-3

[gopher_space]

There were factual errors specific enough that the erroneous data could be used to support opposing conclusions?

Everything about this lit review (sorry, meta-analysis) gets weird in the conclusions. It's like reading anthro papers written before the 70s.

[Spivak]

Yes, that's academic discourse for you. Why do you assume this critique is more authoritative than the paper? Would you dismiss the critique if it was the other direction?

[ordu]

Neither is more authoritative, but if we lay aside science to rely on our common sense, then we'll get to "we don't really know, but my guts say me that X is true", aren't we? If we look at the scientific consensus once again, we'll see that there is no scientific consensus. So the whole situation boils down to "we don't really know".

[Spivak]

I agree! Which is why I'm so surprised that folks feel so strongly one way or another about it when there's been so little consensus. To me the jury is very much still out on this one.

[xboxnolifes]

Sounds like skepticism.

[spondylosaurus]

I think skepticism is warranted since

(1) This study is specifically NOT making the claim "social media is definitely fine and good for kids," so really more like skepticism at anyone trying to draw a conclusion of "...and therefore we should let Instagram off the hook :)"

and

(2) There is a reasonable case to be made that a lot of adults say that social media makes them miserable, and therefore that probably extends to kids too, if not even more so.

Like, for example, stuff about teen suicides that are linked to various happenings on social media: it's true that those happen. It's also true that teen suicide rates are higher now than they were a few decades ago. It's not definitively true that they happen in higher numbers than they would've without social media (e.g., teen bullying just has a new outlet), but it's also fair to suspect that there might possibly maybe be a connection, even an indirect one.

No single study is definitive, including this one!

[mike_hearn]

Instagram starts off the hook by default. If there's no evidence it's causing a problem, then there's no hook for it to be let off to begin with.

> No single study is definitive, including this one!

We default to the null hypothesis of no effect. It's not good scientific practice to assume a thing is true and then assert (for any study) that because it's just one study it can't convince you otherwise. This particular paper is at any rate not a study at all, it's a meta-analysis. So what it's saying is that they reviewed a lot of research and there's no evidence.

[Spivak]

This is a very long way of saying "I already believe it's true from anecdotal evidence and so will viscously critique anything that doesn't agree with my position."

This paper can be wrong, but you're clearly not open to even the possibility that it's not.

[spondylosaurus]

The comment you're replying to is shorter than my original comment where I spitballed five different hypothetical scenarios to explain why the the paper's conclusion could be true?

I think there's a solid chance it's true. I also think it's interesting that there's a discrepancy between studies like this and public perception of social media (i.e., that it's bad for kids). So I enjoy trying to feel out that discrepancy and what might be causing it.

[Spivak]

Which is why I said it reads like copium. It seems like you have an unwavering position that social media is bad for people's emotional states and mental health. And when presented some new evidence that challenges this belief your immediate response was to come up with a bunch of ways your core belief could still hold given the new evidence.

That to me isn't coming at it with an open mind or with curiosity. Is it not interesting that there's maybe a different larger effect that explains people's observations?

[spondylosaurus]

The idea that there's maybe a different larger effect is precisely what's interesting to me! Maybe I failed to communicate that effectively. (I'm feeling a little under the weather today, which never helps.) But I'll also point back to the final line of my first comment:

    And maybe none of those are true! But I'm curious to see if there's something unexpected going on.

[jjulius]

>Which is why I said it reads like copium to me.

Fixed that for you. It reads like an open mind, or at the very least an attempt at one, to me. Keep on keeping on, OP.

[mistermann]

> This...

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

[mistermann]

> This reads like copium, you've set your priors all the way to "it's obviously true you can't convince me otherwise." Which then of course everything refuting it has to be literally air-tight, there's no way you hold that standard for other things.

This phenomenon is part of the reason I'm skeptical of most any study, because I doubt the researchers don't have the same problem.