Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://aus.social/users/justanotheramy/statuses/113507352692530160">Just Another Amy (justanotheramy@aus.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:49 JST</a><a href="https://aus.social/@justanotheramy" title="justanotheramy@aus.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/285746-48-20241006072005.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Just Another Amy" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Just Another Amy</a><div><a href="https://aus.social/@justanotheramy/113507321263488659" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/248666" title="erici@social.sdf.org">Eric Ireland</a></li></ul></div></section><article><p><a href="https://social.sdf.org/@erici">@erici</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/@camwilson">@camwilson</a> <br>I guess we’ll see. But we know what lines pushed his buttons, don’t we?</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/4002667#notice-7870235">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-11-19T17:22:49+09:00" title="Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:49 JST">about 7 days ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/notice/7870235" rel="external" title="Sent from gnusocial.jp via ActivityPub">gnusocial.jp</a></span></span><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/notice/7870235">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3521134">In this response essay, I'll present the two main problems I see with the skeptics' approach, as exemplified in Odgers' review: 1. Odgers is wrong to say that I have no evidence of causation 2. Odgers' alternative explanation does not fit the available facts. Share 1) Odgers is wrong to say that I have no evidence of causation Odgers' central claim is that I have mistaken correlation for causation and that I have "no evidence" that social media is a cause, rather than a mere correlate, of the current epidemic of adolescent mental illness. Odgers says that I am just "making up stories by simply looking at trend lines."</a></label><br><a href="https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/349/512/708/950/original/87ce929a16c4984f.jpeg" rel="external">https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/349/512/708/950/original/87ce929a16c4984f.jpeg</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Just Another Amy (justanotheramy@aus.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 17:22:49 JSTJust Another Amy
in reply to
- camwilson
- Eric Ireland
@erici @camwilson
I guess we’ll see. But we know what lines pushed his buttons, don’t we?
In conversationabout 7 days ago from gnusocial.jppermalink
Attachments
1. In this response essay, I'll present the two main problems I see with the skeptics' approach, as exemplified in Odgers' review: 1. Odgers is wrong to say that I have no evidence of causation 2. Odgers' alternative explanation does not fit the available facts. Share 1) Odgers is wrong to say that I have no evidence of causation Odgers' central claim is that I have mistaken correlation for causation and that I have "no evidence" that social media is a cause, rather than a mere correlate, of the current epidemic of adolescent mental illness. Odgers says that I am just "making up stories by simply looking at trend lines."
  https://mediacdn.aus.social/media_attachments/files/113/507/349/512/708/950/original/87ce929a16c4984f.jpeg

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice