Curt Adams writes:
>>http://homenet.andrew.cmu.edu/progress/research.html
>>
>>I find it thoughtful, careful, and persuasive. Contrary
>>to speculation on this list, the study gives clear
>>indications of direction of causality. Furthermore,
>>the study fits with my experience.
>
>I can't find any good indications of direction of causality. Indeed, the
>path analysis in Figure 1 explicitly assumes that internet usage
>affects followup psychological status and not the other way around.
Huh? Isn't there an arrow from the the lower left social/psych box straight to the internet use box?
>The claim for causality is that initial loneliness and depression
>weren't associated with later internet use. However, depression *was*,
>it just wasn't significant. A non-significant p value is not evidence
>for no association; you need to look at confidence intervals, which
>weren't provided.
>>I'll share this excerpt from their discussion section: ...
>This is a plausibility argument, not evidence.
Of course.
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-8614