Asklemmy

44173 readers

1664 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What scientific study are you waiting for that'll just shit on everything we've once thought to have believed in? (kbin.melroy.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Pyrin@kbin.melroy.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Like, we'll probably find out that eating boogers actually makes you immune to select illnesses or something crazy like that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 45 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Causal relationship between social media and degradation of basic critical thinking skills. Not just tiktok, anything in which people are primarily communicating asynchronously and has a "reward" (likes, upvotes, etc)

So Reddit/Lemmy for sure included

[–] embed_me@programming.dev 18 points 2 weeks ago

Casually closes this app, knowing I will be back in half an hour

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

nice, have an upvote.

[–] tomatolung@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

You mean like

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362607055_Impact_of_social_media_use_on_critical_thinking_ability_of_university_students

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216307841

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-010-0398-z

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131516302469

[–] mononomi@feddit.nl 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think a major issue is that nobody checks sources. Earlier, when everybody watched the news or read papers, sources were more reputable (not infallible for sure). Now any random creator can sway your opinion without that reputability. Pretty inherent to the internet as algorithms decentralise everybody into their own corner.

Ironically inspired by a Hank green video

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That agrees with my preconceived biases, for sure.

Beyond that, I think it's possible that the "sting" of negative reactions, or the perceived lack of positive reactions my possibly shape how people think.

And, you can buy that kind of engagement in bulk if you have money. You can train people to engage in different thought patterns buy buying upvotes (buying them dopamine), that would be my hypothesis.

If that's true, I think the inherent danger from a sociological standpoint could not possibly be understated.