A month ago I wrote a piece explaining how the majority of research in this area is unreliable bc the measures used are fatally flawed. I sent it to the @nytimes & other major outlets. All passed. But these types of #moralpanic pieces get published almost every week. Fear=clicks
I am honestly curious to hear what @JonHaidt and @jean_twenge think about the now well known measurement issues with self-reported tech use & whether it impacts their views about the validity/reliability of their conclusions that tech is causing harm to teens.
Here’s the piece I wrote, btw, if anyone is interested. Thankfully, @ConversationUS decided to publish it:
Interesting to read @jean_twenge's critique of @OrbenAmy & @ShuhBillSkee's work (tinyurl.com/y75zg5dt) recently published in Nature. Although Twenge et al touch on the importance of how we measure digital tech use (DTU), I think the issue deserves more attention [1/9]
Twenge et al title their critique “Underestimating digital media harm.” But it’s the base of that first word (ESTIMATE) and how it relates to measurement that has important implications for the findings in this field. Most studies examining the link b/w DTU and well-being…[2/9]
rely on retrospective estimates of use. This is the method used in representative studies like Monitoring the Future and YRBSS. BUT, people are bad at estimating DTU. Which makes sense. It’s hard to estimate behaviors you do all the time! [3/9] tinyurl.com/ycjd46v8