I think I can hear your point through the unnecessary snark. You're implying the field is narrowed to a kind of social engineering, rather than the screen itself.
Why does the study say screen time when the effects are, ostensibly, not about the screen? Again, a conclusion/agenda in search of evidence necessarily makes biased assumptions. THIS study (as with others) mischaracterizes itself. Seems like a questionable study from the outset. This is a poor approach to analysis.
This was a commentary on the sort of person who takes the phrase "screen time" seriously—a much broader cultural and social issue than the study itself could reasonably evaluate.
Why does the study say screen time when the effects are, ostensibly, not about the screen? Again, a conclusion/agenda in search of evidence necessarily makes biased assumptions. THIS study (as with others) mischaracterizes itself. Seems like a questionable study from the outset. This is a poor approach to analysis.