<p>Observation is experimentation. But yes, I would agree that the article, statistically and scientifically speaking, is hardly rigorous.</p>
<p>I check Facebook more than once every 15 minutes and I was an excellent student. I need frequent breaks to refresh my mind before reviewing what I read, which leads to better retention for me, personally. Although I never really needed to study for most of my courses due to an excellent memory to begin with.</p>
<p>There is honestly no point in debating over the article in question because it offers no credibility to discuss. We would have to search for and read the actual published paper in order to discuss validity and reliability. And for the person who said you have to be an expert in the field to understand the paper, well, that’s just silly - as long as you understand the experimental design, the data collection process that was used, and the statistical tests that were used, you can analyze the findings and determine if you agree with the author’s interpretation or not. Psychologists often draw from studies in sociology, political science, neuroscience, and other fields, despite not being “experts” in those fields. Converging evidence is important, and not all evidence will come from your specific field. If you only read articles in your field, you will have a very narrow perception - only one piece of the pie.</p>
<p>I never said correlation is not causation, but this study, as controlled as it tried to be, was still largely observational. And if the students knew they were being watched, that certainly affected their behavior. Maybe they weren’t taking studying as seriously since they knew they were part of an experiment and the desirability effect took place - to do what was expected, not what they’d usually do. And if they didn’t know they were being watched, then the study was not controlled. That’s why more studies will need to be done to test for each of these factors before we can make any sense of the data. Social networking websites are still relatively new, so there are not nearly enough published research to draw persuasive conclusions.</p>
<p>Yes, observational studies are still experiments, but controlled studies are necessary to test for causation.</p>
<p>…I clicked on this link from the main page and did not realize until now that it was posted in the high school life forum, so I now understand where the AP stats and “expert” arguments are coming from.</p>
<p>I would agree. I was also saying that the intent of the article was a controlled environment (not that they succeeded by any measure). Getting a truly controlled environment can be a challenge, especially when dealing with people.</p>
<p>I came from the main page as well - I just wanted to point out that the “causation != correlation” fallacy doesn’t apply to this particular study (whatever its other faults may be).</p>
<p>You guys don’t know how much more hours of sleep I would get if I didn’t have a Facebook…</p>
<p>Bah, more like College Confidential forums kills grades. You have no idea how long I’ve obsessed over stats while I was supposed to study.</p>
<p>^ oh do you have another account? … it’s very convenient to waste time on internet, that’s the problem for me. i won’t vilify any specific sites. this thread seems to have generated some involved discussion, oddly enough.</p>
<p>@mf0605: exactly, the CC forum is so addicting. In fact I’m supposed to be studying right now but instead im on CC–“sigh”</p>
<p>There is a big difference between a scientific study using the appropriate analytical techinques and someone’s personal opinion posted in what was previously indicated as a blog. Far too many people seem to infer that just because something is posted on the internet, it must be true. Where the author starts out with an opinion and then only looks at evidence which supports his opinion or doesn’t use the proper research techniques, I don’t consider that credible or scientifically valid. </p>
<p>Before the days of the internet, newspapers used to call them ‘editorials’ and everyone knew the difference. Nowadays, I am not sure that people know how to separate the two.</p>
<p>I would disagree completely. I check Facebook usually once an hour, from when I get home till I go to sleep. I have maintained a high 4.60 GPA (where a 5.0 is a weighted A, and a 4.0 is a unweighted A), got a 34 ACT and 2330 SAT, am an AP Scholar with Distinction, hold 5-6 leadership positions, and am going to be matriculating at one of the nation’s most prestigious and competitive universities. I sincerely doubt that Facebook is the cause of “killing grades”, rather, low quality work is. I can, with ease, do calculus or read a chapter in a novel while on Facebook or watching TV. Still can get an A.</p>
<p>People are going to work for what they want (ex. good grades, straight As, etc.) or they aren’t. That’s completely up to them; Facebook just provides a medium for one’s time.</p>
<p>^Agreed. While studying for Calc III, Diff Eq, or Econometrics I either was playing music, watching TV, viewing Facebook, or some combination of the three. I received As in all of those challenging courses…</p>
<p>[Facebook</a> addicts may have lower self-esteem, says study - Tech Talk - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57410108-501465/facebook-addicts-may-have-lower-self-esteem-says-study/]Facebook”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57410108-501465/facebook-addicts-may-have-lower-self-esteem-says-study/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Hearst Magazines”>Hearst Magazines;
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Hearst Magazines”>Hearst Magazines;
<p>Why helping Mark Zuckerberg getting richer?</p>
<p>
I kinda disagreed with this. I do have a preference to “multi-task” (really people?) and sometime switch back and forth. But facebook nothing more than the tv and video games of the previous generations. We just need to overcome these short attention span.</p>
<p>I don’t really believe it. I spend all day on Facebook and rarely get below a 90 on tests.</p>
<p>Personally, I think netflix is a bigger culprit to bad grades.</p>
<p>Netflix is simply tv…</p>
<p>^but it gets you hooked onto movies more</p>
<p>Not really, If you plan yourself then NO.</p>
<p>Movies? Does it have twilight? Harry Potter? Star Wars? Lord of the rings? Hunger Games? Wrath of the titans? jk jk, But I watch more tv series then movies. So far my favorite things that I watched on Netflix was Sherlock Holmes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not too sure about your reasoning ability though. Just because something hurts people’s work on average doesn’t mean that some people can’t still do well.</p>