[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