You did not just relay an opinion you heard on the radio. You didn’t even it frame it as that. Your initial reply stated your opinions as if they were objective facts lol. I don’t know why you kept arguing with me if you agreed the whole time lol. Tryna gaslight me as if I started this little back and forth between us is crazy. Buh-bye weirdo.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Good, I’d probably have done way better in high school if my phone hadn’t been there (and if I’d gotten my ADHD dX and Adderall rX back then). No reason to have them on you if you’re a student. Parents and family can call the school if there’s an emergency.
Oh you’re telling me a nearly 100% culturally and ethnically homogenous country is gasp not meshing well with government sponsored immigration programs? Color me surprised.
Japan is notoriously “xenophobic” (I don’t necessarily think xenophobia is a bad thing but that’s a different discussion) towards even tourists sometimes despite their economy relying heavily, in part, on tourism.
I can’t imagine they already worked-to-the-bone crowded populations of Japanese cities would be too excited to have an influx of people willing to work for the cold, soulless corporations for less money.
Imo, slow trickle immigration is ideal, it lets immigrants assimilate/integrate into the culture/country they have decided to move to. Personally, I would never think about visiting a country, let alone immigrating, without becoming intimately familiar with cultural norms, their language, and the interests/hobbies/pasttimes of the “native population”.
Sounds like a mess.
It was both a retail store and restaurant. Both sections were “Southern Hospitality” themed minus any confederate or hateful shit. Think biscuits and gravy, maybe some bluegrass, farmin’.
I went a decent amount with my fam as a child and I always found it cozy and interesting. Never been as an adult.
[Other Party]’s general population is totally upset about something [Our Party] thinks is good or even doesn’t give a fuck about!
We must be reactionary over the most trivial stupid shit and bicker and deflect from [List of Enormous Issues and Catastrophes], and create a new issue for everyone to point fingers about!
/s
Personally, I think it looks terrible and I’m a die-hard lefty/socialist/liberal whatever you wanna call me. I don’t eat there and don’t give a fuck about them, but this media attention over this “controversy” has pushed me to form an opinion on something I wouldn’t otherwise care about — and honestly if conservatives hate it, then fuck, I agree with them for once because it looks fuckin’ soulless and terrible lol.
Conservative backlash? Are we really putting all the apparent public distaste for the rebrand on the conservatives? I personally haven’t seen any conservatives or conservative-coded people complain at all; in fact, I thought the “outcry” (more like grumbling imo) was bipartisan and something that progressives and conservatives both disliked.
But again, I feel as though in a reaching effort to make conservatives look even worse than they already do, many democrats and associated talking heads are forcing this story that conservatives are so pissed about it.
I’m left as hell and voted for Harris so I hope that gives some perspective when I say that I also think the logo and overall brand look like tasteless, soulless corporate slop. It’s what all corps have done and will always do, simplify and dilute any individuality to appeal to the broadest possible market possible, and we shouldn’t applaud that.
IDGAF about Cracker Barrel and never eat there, and were it not for media pundits accusing conservatives of being pissed, I don’t think I ever would’ve known. That said, if it’s gonna be pushed in my face for brand awareness and marketing, then yea, it looks like shit and I want to eat there even less than before.
Congrats everyone, you’re falling for engagement bait and doing the advertising for Cracker Barrel for free.
The drivers for sure. I live in a major metropolitan area on the east coast and at the intersection of three jurisdictions.
My home state’s drivers are slow as molasses and geriatric or are obviously foreign and didn’t take U.S. driver’s ed.
Across the river is a bunch of sheltered drivers who I normally pity. Their city is usually walkable or transit-able so driving is not something you could even expect them to be good at.
And then there’s the adjacent state which is notoriously home to some of the worst drivers in the US who genuinely, routinely make me fear for my life when they’re in my proximity on the road lol. Hate those drivers.
Other than that, I think the culture of my home state is much warmer and friendly while the adjacent state is nice but the people are also a bit more standoffish and cold. Home state is a barren wasteland of awful roads and data centers, adjacent state has so much green space and well-developed communities.
Hardly a luxury. Don’t have kids if you’re not going to plan around having kids. And if you have kids and plan poorly don’t start going “woe is me” to strangers on the internet about how hard your life is based off your own life choices. Get out of my dm’s you stalker lol.