What seems blatantly obvious does not always represent the underlying reality. This can also be taken as a chance to discover better solutions to a given problem than banning phones.
What seems blatantly obvious does not always represent the underlying reality. This can also be taken as a chance to discover better solutions to a given problem than banning phones.
On the flip side, when measurements don't reveal something that is completely obvious, especially in social sciences, it is very possible the measurement is measuring the wrong thing.
In this case the prevailing theory is that the phones were already banned in classes, so the schoolwide ban didn't do anything to screentime. Which, duh.
It's possible that the justification for phone bans could be along moral lines instead of data-driven. Think of how we regulate teenage sex for instance, those rules aren't based on "data" just common sense and social morals.
Why does everyone think we use our phones too much? Are we all wrong?
I’m a strong supporter of following the science. But this is a hard thing to measure. And the effects may be fairly diffuse or accumulate over time.
'Too much' for what?
In order to quantify whether something is too much, you need to quantify what an optimal or better baseline would be.
For a good life. Which is hard to quantify obviously.
What about even more phones? Keep the kids hooked up to a constant drip of tiktok 24/7