RedditIsALostCause

Reconciliation of results was challenging, and findings should be treated with caution given differences in methods and measures, and discrepancies in operational definitions of the bans themselves. For example, the results of two studies supporting bans for improved academic outcomes were restricted to low-achieving students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds… That is, they found that high-achieving and economically advantaged students were less likely to benefit academically from mobile phones use in class, as compared to their disadvantaged peers

Beland and Murphy (2016) examined exam scores in secondary school students and found that in schools which imposed a mobile phone ban, exam scores improved by an average 0.07 standard deviation, pre- to post-ban. Importantly, this effect was driven by the finding that students in the lowest quintile of prior academic achievement made a gain of approximately 14.23% of a standard deviation in test scores, while for students in the top quintile, test scores were unrelated to the ban.

Despite the variability of findings, it seems that in some circumstances there are some negative, although small, impacts of mobile phone use on academic outcomes. This suggests that restrictions on mobile phones in schools might be beneficial for some students’ academic achievement but make no difference to others.

Considering the ban largely concerns itself with CLASSROOMS in South Korea — a place where students are SUPPOSED TO LEARN, y’know, where the principle concern is academics — I’d say that their findings support the ban more than anything else.

Furthermore, TWO studies showed increases in bullying/cyberbullying while the MAJORITY showed decreases in such harassment — but the study still postures itself in a way that hypothesizes why it increases and further hypothesizes that phones shouldn’t be banned to prevent that POSSIBILITY.

The answer is simple if you read your own linked study and actually use your brain while doing so. It’s clear the authors entered into this metastudy with preconceived biases from their “narrative” and highly suggestive “findings” which you cherry-picked your own conclusions from to support your odd, logically questionable comment. And again, you don’t need a study by some rando people to conclude that phones are just not needed and possibly harmful at school for children.

Again, put your iPad down dude, you probably got a kid to go parent. Otherwise, go touch grass :)

God I hate tiny screen. I truly find myself so much happier without tiny screen.

I grew up in the 00’s/10’s so I’m grateful to remember a time before the iPhone lol. Even the early iPhone/Androids were okay.

But now, it’d just an addiction propagating (gambling, gaming, porn, doomscrolling) and parasocial relationship creating metal+glass brick with the added bonus of corporate and government surveillance and a duty to respond to emails and work calls lol.

You make great points by the way. You comment on tiny screen addiction is what got me thinking about how much I hate smartphones these days.

Good point. It could be that! It could be both as well - Bella and the writers.

All I know is that one of the parties involved in Ellie’s portrayal messed with the formula and made it a lil worse than S1.

(っ˘ڡ˘ς) love u for this

Younger children (ages 6-11) shouldn’t have more than a basic “Ladybug-esque” phone, their parents should largely be coordinating playdates between friends and supervising them during anyways — so there’s no need to text.

Tweens, IMO, can start getting a real phone but parents need to step up and lock that shit down. No social media, no adult sites, no ability to contact strangers.

Then, as the kids learn and become more responsible, the parents should start unlocking features as privileges upon a showing that child understands the internet, its permanency, and how it can be a useful tool but also a possible addiction/source for harm.

I’d say when the children are in their teens, social media should start to be unlocked BUT monitored. I really think the big social media companies are just evil and don’y care about protecting children at all, so it’s up to the parents to ensure that.

Then when the kid becomes an adult, their parents have no say and hopefully the parents prepared them well for the real world!

I say this as an adult who had technologically illiterate parents as a child and thus I had free access to the internet and the birth of modern social media around the age of 11 or 12 lol. I saw shit that definitely left impressions on my brain (r/watchpeopledie on reddit) and was also almost groomed by a stranger lol. I imagine the internet would be even worse for my younger self’s brain nowadays.

Overall, I think more in-person socialization would be better for everyone of all ages.

Ah yes, if [unnamed vague concept] of German “educational” “experts” say so then it MUST both be an 1) honest report of findings, and 2) objectively correct facts. Opinion changed. Boom done.

Just kidding.

Thats stupid, and even if they are real and think so, I think they are stupid then lol.

Banning phones means banning phones. It’s hard for kids to sneak a brick of bright light when they’re in a classroom of their peers facing the teacher, so noone will be missing out on anything so long as the teachers properly enforce the new rule.

I think it likely that there will be more positive outcomes by forcing children to socialize face-to-face which is natural and especially important at that age.

Your comment essentially boils down to: Some people think we should just let kids do whatever they want and don’t worry about discipline, rules, or things needing a “right place and the right time.” You reek of “millennial/ipad-kid parent” lol.

What?? What absurd scenario are you referring to? What situation could they create that would require the kids to have phones to “handle it themselves” instead of finding the nearest adult teacher/admin and getting help?

If there’s an earthquake — I hope people/children are more concerned about getting to safety rather than calling mommy and telling her that they are about to die because rather than get to safety they got distracted by their phone calling her.

After the earthquake, if it’s catastrophic, the parents know where the kids are. Hint: AT THE FUCKIN’ SCHOOL. And they will likely need to go pick them up anyways.

What kind of stupid thought process led you to believe you’re making some sort of intelligent point here? Get real, touch grass.

Nah, I did read it, it’s just clearly an opinion piece. Who are “conservative critics”?

Even then, just because conservatives are bitching about yet another thing, doesn’t mean that democrats/liberals aren’t also doing some bitching/grumbling.

Uh oh, someone lack critical thinking skills perhaps? Just because one dude is asserting a group holds an opinion or does one thing doesn’t mean it’s truthful and/or correct lol. That’s an easy way to fall for propaganda my guy.

And I don’t know why you’re quoting pieces of the article to me as if I care. Again, I read it — I just really REALLY don’t give a fuck about what Trump does or does not think. I’m not some reactionary liberal who reads online that Trump disapproves of a thing and subsequently decides I must oppose him by gaslighting myself into liking the thing he hates or vice versa.

It’s a shit logo. It’s not a result of “woke” values, it’s just bland corporate slop aimed at reducing potentially off-putting (in the mildest sense possible, as in “too much too look at for a logo”) marketing/branding material.

I LOATHE how my leftist/liberal/democrat peers take the bait on things and live purely as reactionaries rather than staying focused on actually important shit like the Epstein files, wealth inequality, and corporate enshittificatiom of our lives.

Stop caring if conservatives don’t like woke things. Of course they’re not going to like woke things. They also just tend to label things they don’t like as woke whether it actually is woke or not. Here, the logo is not woke, yet they call it woke because it objectively looks like shit and they want to associate “woke” with “shit”. I’m not falling for the trick, but plenty of conservatives are and plenty of dems are taking the bait and effectuating the Streisand effect for this garbage.

I don’t even get why you made your comment tbh? Was this supposed to be a “gotcha”?

Agree on all accounts. I got perma-banned for making fun of the conceptual average Reddit user. Now I’m here. That website is a hollow shell of what it once was.

As predicted, their stock going public INSTANTLY made the website 10x shittier. Bots, propaganda, karma-farming, tyrant power-tripping mods/admins, misinfo, and algorithmic front page is just too much.

Didn’t play the games so I have no reference, but I thought Season 1 was excellent! The third episode had me fuckin’ bawling my eyes out lol. I thought it was a stellar episode! Overall touching, wholesome, etc. The vibe Season 1 also seemed more “real” (in the event fungus zombies were to become real.).

Idk if/how much Season 2 was true to the game but I didn’t really enjoy it.

Bella’s acting fell flat imo, it seemed like she couldn’t shake being constantly awkward on screen. The story focus on Ellie’s gf’s pregnancy was weird and all of the dialogue surround it was pretty shit. I personally found it rather disjointed to have that one episode end in a stanky fingering scene — like they’d be so fuckin dirty bro, and are the characters supposed to be so naïve/ignorant that they don’t consider maybe the pregnant girl could get a very inconvenient UTI in a dangerous place? My girlfriend took personal issue with the makeup, hair, and clothing choices by the showrunners lol. It overall felt like the writers didn’t know what they wanted or what they were doing but felt as if they should shoehorn therapy-talk/themes in it at every corner.

I personally wished we got more zombies or story behind the militia group.

At a certain point, you’d essentially be feeding a super-staph infection the now useless antibiotics as a supplement for it to grow lmao.