Deadful

Deadful , 2 months ago

Sorry, but that's not what the actual JAMA research study says:

Greater early-life digital media exposures may be associated with atypical sensory processing. Further research is needed to understand why early media exposure is associated with specific sensory-related behaviors, including those seen in autism spectrum disorder, and if minimizing screen media at a young age can improve subsequent sensory-related outcomes.>

To me, making the jump to say "Screen time directly linked to autism and ADHD" based on the data in this study is like a research paper noting "American football playing is associated with specific types of head trauma, including the types seen in car accident victims, but further research is needed to understand why" and then writing an article saying "AMERICAN FOOTBALL PLAYING DIRECTLY LINKED TO CAR ACCIDENTS!!!"

Here is a link to the actual research paper instead of a badly written sensationalistic article if anyone is interested:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2813443

Deadful , 2 months ago

It says absolutely nothing about autism and ADHD, as you can see:

Findings: In this cohort study, early-life television or video exposure was associated with atypical sensory processing in low registration, sensation seeking, sensory sensitivity, and sensation avoiding domains of the Infant-Toddler Sensory Profile, after controlling for perinatal and demographic variables; results differed by age at exposure.

I copied and shared the portion of the summary that provides interpretation for the findings because it's the only place where autism is noted, ADHD is totally absent.

Deadful , 2 months ago

I think you are forgetting that correlation does not imply causation. I know it gets said often around here, but apparently it's because people don't understand what it means.

Is there an atypical sensory response that appears to increase with television exposure in young children according to this study? Yes.

Can an atypical sensory response be a part of the diagnostic criteria for autism? Yes

Does this study, with its limited criteria and scope, make any viable substantive connection between television exposure and autism? No.

Because of the (understandable) limitations of the research criteria, they aren't even able to prove that less television exposure would improve these outcomes, and they readily admit that.
Is it because "THE MAN" won't let them TELL THE TRUTH about what is REALLY going on, or is it dangerous, misleading, and unscientific to say things that can't be proven as if it's fact?

As someone who has worked and continues to work with several doctors in a medical research environment I can assure you that there is a fair amount of bias at play in these types of studies and money is often the driving force. I personally have seen two lead research physicians, one I had performed testing for, get quietly "asked to leave" our institution when it was revealed that they had a private stake in a medical company that they refused to disclose when testing their products.

The point I'm trying to make is that bias in research is bad and publications need to be doing more to defend against it, not less. "Reading between the lines" in research has led to countless people being injured and killed.
For example, Andrew Wakefield was struck from the UK medical registry and barred from practicing medicine after England's GMC found that Wakefield had been dishonest in his research in his '98 paper published to the Lancet claiming a connection between vaccinations and autism. They also determined he had acted against his patients' best interests, mistreated developmentally delayed children, and had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant" in order to earn as much as $43 million a year selling testing kits. Despite this and no other researchers being able to reproduce his findings this dangerous misconception still lives on when people like Robert Kennedy go on Joe Rogan and help us "read between the lines" by regurgitating this self-serving and harmful bullshit narrative, encouraging parents not to vaccinate their kids.

Deadful , 2 months ago

Ok, I admit my last reply was a little scattered because I wrote it over the course of half a day, so I'm going to attempt to deescalate things and do a better job of explaining my perspective without getting so lost in the weeds.

Feel free to disagree with me on this point but it sounds to me like we have a misunderstanding about what atypical sensory processing is. Atypical sensory processing is a symptom of autism and may be associated with ADHD, but they are not types, or examples of, atypical sensory processing. Atypical sensory processing is it's own stand alone issue and is not always related to ADHD. Furthermore, it's just one part of the spectrum of issues that need to be identified for a formal autism diagnosis, which is why I was adamant that insisting that one must mean the other is present, in my opinion, is inappropriate and misleading.

I would also like to argue that using the proper terminology is important in making sure that data isn't misunderstood. I feel that it's just fine to note what the studies findings are, which is that screentime can be damaging to young minds, without evoking ADHD and autism unnecessarily.

I do want to apologize for making an unnecessary call to authority and I can see how that may have come off douchey. The point I was attempting to make by doing that is that researchers can't always be trusted not to put their thumbs on the scales in their research summaries knowing that people will jump on certain buzz words and run with it to make their study get more clicks. I know because that's happened with studies I've been a part of (again, I realize you have no reason to believe me. Just explaining what I was attempting to convey.) Thankfully, they have to be more careful with the actual data documentation, but even then depending on the publication there's wiggle room. Because of this fact, I think it's important that we read less into these types of studies and not more. That's why I suggested that even though autism is mentioned in the summary, I don't feel it's presence represents a direct relationship because the study data itself does not support this association. The summary even says so. I think the only reason the word is included is to encourage articles like the one you originally posted to make unverifiable claims for them.

Finally, I brought up the Wakefield thing because despite being discredited years ago, millions of people still believe that there's a connection between vaccines and autism because of the fact that pop science magazines don't get fact-checked the same way clinical research journals do. They can say a study says whatever they want, whether it does or not, and 99% of people are only going to read the headline and assume it's the truth without looking any deeper.

I understand that in this particular instance, no one is being physically harmed because of what I see as a false equivalence, but I do think it can be harmful if someone were to read this article and then look down on a parent of an autistic child because they think they got that way from sitting in front of too much television. That's clearly not how autism works but you wouldn't know that by reading this article.

I hope you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from and for what it's worth, I wish you well in life.

Deadful , 2 months ago

God I hope not!

Deadful , 2 months ago

As far as I can tell, I'm actually in the vast minority in that I use the service on a family plan and with my DJ gear. Streaming for DJs is being removed from family plans and it now requires me to pay for an individual plan + $9 a month in addition to what I'm already paying for the wife and kids, so I'm thinking about canning it.

Deadful , 2 months ago

As far as I can tell, I'm actually in the vast minority in that I use the service on a family plan and with my DJ gear. Streaming for DJs is being removed from family plans and it now requires me to pay for an individual plan + $9 a month in addition to what I'm already paying for the wife and kids, so I'm thinking about canning it.

Deadful , 2 months ago

Of course I'm just speaking for myself, but I personally have several reasons for not wanting podcasts in the app (when I say podcasts I'm mainly talking about the video verity.)

The main reason is because I am on a family plan and my middle school daughter uses the app for music. We used to have Spotify, but when they added podcasts essentially it became a video streaming free for all and I would find my daughter watching "podcasts" that were just people shouting profanity over video game streams and tik tok compilations. On top of being young, she has a neurological disability and Spotify turning the social media faucet on full blast was more than she could handle. She was sneaking to watch these videos instead of doing her school work and sleeping and it was really starting to affect her life. We switched to Tidal because it did not have those features and she went through some withdrawal but she is much healthier now that she's back to just jamming to music.

That ties into another point which is that nowadays anyone can throw a video together and call it a podcast regardless of the quality or content. Setting aside that I already have 8 different ways to watch this content on various audio and video streaming apps as it is, including podcasts on Tidal feels like a complete diversion from their marketing strategy of being the place to go for the very highest quality music. The small number of in-house music focused shows they feature now fit the brand well and I think they would lose their identity if they change that.

I could go on but this reply is long enough.

Deadful , 2 months ago

For the record, I wasn't one of those people. I prefer to have a dialogue over punishing people for having an opinion, unless that opinion is harmful in some way.