[flagged]
Simply saying a confounding variable was missing isn't helpful because it's impossible to control for all confounding variables.
If however there was an important variable someone can think of, like maybe parents who control their kids phone use could also be more involved in their children's learning that could be a confounding variable worth mentioning to think about how valid the study is - but even then I don't know if that by itself would be enough to dismiss the study
That's the problem with studies though. My point is why defend something so ardently when we all agree it's shit but the best we have?
I am advocating for people to identify that there's a spectrum instead of just saying "oh well, every study is imperfect" which diverts attention from understanding in what particular ways is it imperfect.
Calm down Doris. You advocate for what you like but I'm just not convinced
I'm providing a useful comment explaining why the answer to the zero-value "controlling for confounders right? harharhar" top Reddit comment is always "no." Unless it's a randomized study, the answer is no. But that doesn't mean it doesn't tell us information.
This is helpful information for anyone who wants to transcend midwit internet snark and understand how scientific knowledge is built.
I'll take that as a compliment