The correlations on the population level are from observational data, mostly cross sectional. Like in nutrition research, those often yield illusory links, created by confounding factors.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Okay Rolf, but what about I.Q.?
-
I hope, at least reading my posts raises intelligence.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Time on social media = less time on other, productive, things. Dopamine, anyone? "Methodologically rigorous"... See below. I admit it is unclear whether the total number of participants was 500, or whether 500 were among the total larger number. For the moment, I don't buy it.pic.twitter.com/RMCCfkr8Wo
-
It's a longitudinal study, which means the total participant number was n=500, each of whom was resurveyed once a year from the age of 13 to 20 (8 x 500 = 4000 completed surveys). Haven't seen anything else like this.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Wow that's so hard to believe
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"at the intra-individual level." Even if n=500 and samples=8 are adequate, this is quite a narrow finding. (Which of course doesn't mean it's not a valuable contribution! Most "methodologically rigorous long-term studies" are narrow. But your summary statement goes much too far.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.