This is a classic case where a popular account flatly contradicts the actual study.
The popular account, linked above, is titled "Old men who use computers less likely to get dementia", implying a cause-effect relationship. The article goes on to strongly imply a cause-effect relationship: "Men who use computers as they enter their winter years have a better chance of avoiding dementia than those who don't ..."
The original paper includes this phrase: "Randomised trials are required to determine if the observed associations are causal." For those unfamiliar with technical writing, this means "we have no idea whether the association between computer use and dementia is a cause, an effect, or a coincidence."
Someday, psychology may become a science. But there's no present evidence for that outcome, only counterevidence.
1 comment
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 14.1 ms ] threadThe popular account, linked above, is titled "Old men who use computers less likely to get dementia", implying a cause-effect relationship. The article goes on to strongly imply a cause-effect relationship: "Men who use computers as they enter their winter years have a better chance of avoiding dementia than those who don't ..."
The original paper (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...) is titled "Older Men Who Use Computers Have Lower Risk of Dementia" (Emphasis added).
The original paper includes this phrase: "Randomised trials are required to determine if the observed associations are causal." For those unfamiliar with technical writing, this means "we have no idea whether the association between computer use and dementia is a cause, an effect, or a coincidence."
Someday, psychology may become a science. But there's no present evidence for that outcome, only counterevidence.