Replying to @⁨Pratai@piefed.ca⁩

Sorry to be so direct - this is a frankly terrible article.

The paraphrased sections are not directly cited, the quotations are extremely brief and general, and sources either are not given or only the general publication (without specifics) are given, no numbers or comparators are given. The site layout appears intentionally messy to make it harder to avoid ad or ad-placed articles. Overall this seems to be content as a pretext for ads.

For anyone clicking through because they would like to read something more thought-out, here’s an article I found by googling the name of the person quoted, which gives more details: fortune.com/…/how-did-us-spending-30-billion-doll…

This also is low on numbers, but here’s a link to Horvath’s testimony which appears to include comparator charts: …senate.gov/…/A19DF2E8-3C69-4193-A676-430CF0C83DC…

A girl looking at her laptop screenFortuneThe U.S. spent $30 billion to ditch textbooks for laptops and tablets: The result is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents | FortuneNeuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath said older generations “screwed up” giving students access to so much technology: “I genuinely hope Gen Z quickly figures that out and gets mad.”
Edited ⁨⁨Oct⁩ ⁨6⁩, ⁨2026⁩, ⁨00:52⁩⁩en

Replying to @⁨NekoKoneko@lemmy.world⁩

Yeah, this is Horvath again. My biggest complaint about his research is that it is almost entirely correlation. Horvath specifically blames “edtech” as the reason for the decline, completely glossing over what this article seems to claim as the cause, short form videos and content. Not to mention all of the other societal shifts during this time, like the effects of No Child Left behind on schools.

Anytime I see this guy trotted out and his claims said as fact I just can’t take the article seriously.