[bccdee]

Education has been under the axe for years. Declining test scores are more likely to be the product of No Child Left Behind than the iPhone.

> You keep ignoring: the basic science of creativity

"Basic science" is something of an oxymoron here. Measuring creativity is anything but basic. You're appealing to intuition—an intuition I share to some extent, but not one that we can call scientific

> The idea you can't see a relationship between three year-old impairment and teen loss of learning

I can see how there might be a relationship. There also might not be: Some kids are late bloomers, and the children in this study hadn't even gone to preschool yet.

Where's the meta-analysis finding a causal link between smartphone use and impaired cognition in teens? If you want to talk about science, you can't extrapolate things like this based on how you figure they're probably working. Science is empirical.

> Your statements are only narrative and narrow, you pretend to grasp ideas and information

You're getting awfully aggressive¹ about this. Have you considered putting your phone down?

[1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2254-9625/15/6/98

[mallowdram]

Science isn't simply empirical. There are five other stages to theoretic knowledge and your reasoning suggests you don't know how to discuss ideas scientifically. You exclude statements to make claims. I said, attention erosion AND test score decline. You chose to make a narrative claim using No Child Left Behind, and picking one of the conditions. Yes there is a basic science of creativity (there is also a complex), we have indexes of creative erosion in the mid-20s.

When you can revisit these ideas with a scientific manner, then I can respond. Until then you are just spinning narratives.

[bccdee]

> When you can revisit these ideas with a scientific manner, then I can respond.

Ironic that you would level a criticism like this while touting "non-empirical science," whatever that is.

> You chose to make a narrative claim using No Child Left Behind

Do me the courtesy of paraphrasing my claims accurately. I said the drop in test scores you're attributing to phones could more plausibly be caused by NCLB, which is a carefully couched statement that doesn't actually draw any concrete conclusions.

I'm gesturing broadly at the absence of conclusive evidence, and you're telling me you don't need conclusive evidence to make definitive statements. I'm hardly the one spinning narratives here.

[mallowdram]

There are few conclusions in science, you should know that, there's merely a next theoretic stage. We don't know the origins of the AIDS virus or SARS-CoV-2. It took 30 years to prove cigarettes definitively caused cancer after the first Doll & Hill 1956 study, but we could see the connections. Same here, we can see the connections beginning in 2017, and now we have over 200 studies that suggest and prove in parts and piecemeal like the Doll & Hill study that phones are bad for kids.

Gesturing broadly at a lack of conclusive evidence is simply naysaying the connections that educators, child development experts, neuroscience researchers are detailing. If you can't counter their connections and simply sit on the ledge of denial, you ain't thinking, you're in denial.

Stay in storytelling.