hn_throwaway_99
5 hours ago
While I have definitely seen many instances of reporters coming with a preconceived narrative, and then just wanting quotes that further that narrative, I could barely get through reading this article. The author seems to want to dump on competing narratives for why kids seem to have trouble with long form reading, but then brings all her own biases and essentially lays them out as fact with 0 evidence. Take early on in the article:
> She, in turn, ascribes these instructional choices to the oppressive presence of standardized testing and the Common Core. And cell phones, always cell phones.
The evidence that cell phones are hugely detrimental to the development of young people is pretty overwhelming these days, and no amount of old, out-of-context quotes taken from earlier "technological panics" will change that. I think the works and research of Jonathan Haidt do an excellent job digging into the effects of cell phones on kids.
And don't even get me started on the "Kids don't want to read the old classics because they're dense and hard to read, they're just challenging the white male patriarchy!" Spare me...
hitekker
2 hours ago
I would also add that the actual Atlantic article does not seem to misrepresent or reference the OP at all https://archive.md/R9uqH.
Presented as is, no one did the OP dirty. This article is a bait-and-switch.
fragmede
an hour ago
Jonathan Haidt's work is not without controversy though, and he's pushing a certain viewpoint on order to sell his book.
Nature has a review that's basically calls him intellectually dishonest in his analysis.
someguydave
4 hours ago
“ The evidence that cell phones are hugely detrimental to the development of young people is pretty overwhelming these days”
Then it would be easy to furnish a few links to source this claim
briandear
3 hours ago
Here you go:
Impact of mobile phones and wireless devices use on children and adolescents’ mental health: a systematic review
hn_throwaway_99
4 hours ago
[flagged]
dang
3 hours ago
Please don't cross into snark or personal attack. The GP could have been more polite but your response is a noticeable step flameward. We're trying to go the opposite direction here.
someguydave
4 hours ago
Haidt’s evidence is weak https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evide...
hn_throwaway_99
3 hours ago
Haidt is not the only one with lots of evidence. This article got a lot of responses on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34993912
Edit: Also, Jonathan Haidt responded to the article you posted, and he also posted Aaron Brown's follow up to that: https://x.com/JonHaidt/status/1664082247274713092