Skip to main content

They're Called Cell Phones Because The Phone is of Out Hot Cell Eat The Phone

    (The title is a reference, if you don't understand, don't worry about it.)

    These two articles are a bit more linked than normal, as one is a direct response to the other. Though aside from the fact that they both talk about phones and are written in English, there aren't many comparisons I can make, they differ from each other quite severely.
    First, and most obviously, their stances on cellphones are direct opposites. The one titled "Have Smartphones Destroyed A Generation?" Is, shockingly (not really,) thinks that the impact smartphones have on the youths is negative overall, whereas the response, "No, Smartphones are Not Destroying a Generation" thinks that this is not the case (another shocking revelation, I know)

    There are also some more minor differences in format, for example, the response is much shorter than the paper it's responding to, which I appreciate greatly because my attention span is garbage. The sources the original work links to are, most often, other papers about this subject, whereas the response mostly links to... definitions of words. Well, okay, there are a good few number of links to actual sources, but I don't think I needed one for the word "teen."

    One thing I found odd from the initial paper was its pseudo-idolization of stuff like teen pregnancies and underage substance abuse. It called out that this was a good, thing but it's still sends mixed messages when you're trying to write about how it's bad teens aren't doing as much anymore and half of the stuff you point to are things they probably shouldn't be doing.

    There's also this line from the original article "There’s not a single exception. All screen activities are linked to less happiness, and all nonscreen activities are linked to more happiness." that seems like it's overgeneralizing just a TAD. Like, really? ALL screen activities are linked to less happiness? ALL nonscreen activities are linked to more happiness? "Well I learned that a meteor is about to crash into earth and kill everyone, but at least I read it in a newspaper! If I had learned about it on my phone I might've gotten more upset, thank goodness I dodged that bullet!"

    For my own experience with cellphones, my friends have pretty tight schedules, so the most we can really "hang out" together is by texting. I don't have Snapchat, Instagram, Tiktok, Facebook, or Twitter on my phone. I mostly just browse Tumblr and chat on Discord, so if I gave it up for a day I would definitely be inconvenienced, but I don't think I'd be particularly affected beyond that.

    As for an ultimate lesson? I suppose it would be that cell phones are alright, certainly not the greatest but not the worst, either. I'd say that the number one rule of data can be applied in this situation: never confuse correlation with causation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Real Killer Whale Was the Friends We Made Along the Way.

     1: Morality is a mostly human-made invention to categorize actions and behaviors of other humans as either desirable (good) or undesirable (bad). Morality is not a binary, obviously there's a lot of grey area, in fact, most of it is grey-area, but my larger point is that ascribing it to stuff that isn't human gets messy. Is a lion "bad" for eating an elk? Is water "good" for hydrating us? Is lightning "a douche" for turning my hotdog into ash? The answer to all of these is, probably, no.      This was a longwinded way of saying that I don't think Tilikum was the villain in this situation. Were they the victim? Broadly speaking, yes. SeaWorld, famously, is a factory for marine-mammal misery, and if the article is anything to go by, Sealand was basically the equivalent of orca hell, “If you pen killer whales in a small steel tank, you are imposing an extreme level of sensory deprivation on them,” .     The villain of this story, in my op...
Post a Comment
Read more

Did I find THE best sources for my topic? Realistically, no.

     Here are the two sources I selected for this discussion:     1:  https://www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html     2:  https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-monty-hall-problem/      Now, let's go through the CARS for each of them.     The speed of light one doesn't fail the credibility check, but it doesn't exactly pass it, either. The author is not anonymous, and has a background in science, but it's ecology, not physics. The Monty Hall one, I think, fails the credibility check, as I could not find an author.     Both are fairly accurate, the Monty Hall one even having a minigame where you yourself play through the scenario. The light-speed one was posted only one year ago, though the Monty Hall one was posted six years ago (though, I don't think fundamental aspects of statistics tend to change over time).      Both are also reliable, being internally consistent, and spea...
Post a Comment
Read more

Haha wow pandemics seem pretty scary, good thing one of THOSE has never happened.......

     I wouldn't exactly call dystopia a "trending" genre, they've been around for quite awhile. I've read most of hunger games, as well as one and a half books from the maze runner series. Brain scientists seem to attribute the popularity to the developing brain, specifically the rise of emotional complexity/exploration.     Looks to be about some sort of flu that wipes out practically everyone.     My best guess is that the "The bright side of the planet moves towards darkness" line connects to how dystopias are often set in the future? I have no idea what "There is too much world" could mean, it sounds like the person wants  the world to end, but that doesn't really fit with dystopia since that word has a negative connotation. If they want the world to end, and then the world ends, it would be a utopia (for them, at least.)     As I write this, I'm on page 6. My main thought right now is how bad plastic snow would be for your long-ter...
Post a Comment
Read more