The Power Of Plausibility: That Explains Everything
- The White Hatter
- 2 days ago
- 8 min read
Caveat: This article is the second instalment in our three-part series, “Why We Push Back Hard Against the Prevailing Narrative and Advocate for a More Balanced Approach.” (1)
Increasingly, we are seeing headlines and articles warning that technology is “damaging kids’ brains” or that screens are putting an entire generation at risk. These claims spread quickly because they trigger fear, and fear is powerful when parents are trying to protect their children or when narratives are used to advance a political agenda. The result is often confusion, guilt, and the feeling that simply allowing a child to use technology is a failure of parenting.
People often ask why we at The White Hatter push back when statements are labeled “research-based” without meeting basic standards of scholarship. Much of what circulates online blends selective data, catchy graphics, and emotionally loaded language that does not reflect what the cited research actually says. When health, youth, and technology are involved, precision matters. Facts matter and due diligence matters, particularly when messages come from people in positions of trust.
For parents and caregivers, the goal should not be reacting to viral statistics or alarming headlines. It should be understanding what the evidence actually shows, what it does not show, and how that information applies to their own child. Clarity supports better decisions than fear ever will.
Parents deserve context, not panic. This article walks through two recent and concrete examples where headlines and commentary fail to reflect what the research actually found. In both cases, the evidence was stretched, oversimplified, or misrepresented, then amplified in public discussions about youth, teens, technology, the internet, and social media, often leading parents and caregivers to accept claims that the research itself does not support.
EXAMPLE #1:
The “Gaming, Loneliness, and the 15 Cigarettes a Day” Claim
This past week, a Canadian internet safety advocate reposted an anti-gaming graphic on their social media platform, which also included the following striking statement:
“Studies show chronic loneliness is as dangerous as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.”
It is an attention grabbing comparison. It is also one that deserves closer examination, especially when these claims are used to shape conversations about youth, technology, and mental/physical health. This was especially important in this case given that the thesis of the graphic was that gaming causes loneliness, and loneliness is as dangerous as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.”
At The White Hatter, we have already written about what research actually tells us about loneliness and technology use. (2) Still, given how often this specific statistic appears in media, presentations, and social posts, specific to youth and their use of technology, we wanted to trace it back to its source origin.
What we found matters for parents and caregivers who want facts rather than misinformation or disinformation.
Where the “15 Cigarettes a Day” Claim Comes From
This comparison surged in popularity throughout 2023 and appeared in news articles, opinion pieces, and social media posts across Canada and internationally. (3) Almost every article cited the claim back to a single source, the 2023 report “Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation.” (4)
That report was released by the Office of the Surgeon General in the United States and aimed to highlight the public health importance of social connection.
On page four of the report, the following line appears:
“The mortality impact of being socially disconnected is similar to that caused by smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day, and even greater than that associated with obesity and physical inactivity.”
At face value, that statement sounds definitive. However, the the key question that now needs to be asked is, “what was the research that this statement was based on?”
The Surgeon General’s report cites a 2017 paper titled “Advancing Social Connection as a Public Health Priority in the United States.” as the source for this quote (5) We reviewed that paper closely.
Here is the important distinction parents and caregivers should understand about this paper.
The 2017 study does not directly measure loneliness and equate it to smoking 15 cigarettes per day. It does not compare individual smokers to lonely individuals, nor does it calculate cigarette equivalent risk.
Instead, the paper reviews a broad body of population level research showing that weak social connection, which can include isolation, limited social integration, and loneliness, is associated with a higher risk of early mortality, something that we do not disagree with, and good research supports. The authors note that the strength of this association is “comparable”, at a population level, to other well-known risk factors such as smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity. However, comparable does not mean identical, it does not mean causal, it does not mean interchangeable, and this nuance matters!
Why Oversimplified Comparisons Can Mislead
Statements like “loneliness is as deadly as smoking 15 cigarettes a day” are powerful because they are simple, emotional, and easy to repeat. The problem is that they collapse complex research into a single dramatic sound bite to generate clicks, or to push an agenda.
Loneliness is not a toxin in the same way cigarettes are. Smoking has a direct biological pathway to disease. Social disconnection operates through multiple indirect confounding pathways that interact with mental health, physical health, stress, access to support, and life circumstances.
When these distinctions are lost, parents and caregivers may be led to believe that any form of solitude, such as gaming alone, or reduced social interaction carries the same health risk as heavy smoking. It’s a huge reach to suggest research supports that conclusion.
Loneliness and social isolation are real concerns, for adults and youth alike. They deserve thoughtful attention, not exaggerated comparisons.
Research consistently shows that strong, meaningful social connections support well being and resilience. It also shows that technology’s role in loneliness is nuanced. For some youth, online spaces reduce isolation. For others, they can contribute to withdrawal. Context matters, and every youth and teen are different.
As Dr. Patrick Markey, a clinical psychologist and well respected researcher specific to online gaming, stated during COVID:
“Self-quarantining has made it clear that screens help prevent social isolation. They allow friends, coworkers, and family to talk to each other. They have always done this. Contrary to fears of the past, screen are not destroying a generation but, today, they are helping save one”
Again, context matters!
Poor information makes it harder for parents and caregivers to make balanced, informed, and confident decisions. It also risks shaping policy in ways that don’t actually protect young people.
There is no credible, evidence-based research showing that screen use or gaming causes chronic loneliness at a level comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. That claim is not supported by the science.
EXAMPLE #2
“A new study confirms School cellphone bans can boost test scores”
You may have seen headlines or social media posts claiming that banning cellphones in schools dramatically boosts learning. (6) Some even suggest that phones are a major reason kids are struggling academically.
A recent large study from Florida is often cited to support those claims. So what does the research actually show when you look past the headlines?
The short answer, the academic impact is real, but extremely small, and this is why context matters specific to what “boost test scores” actual means.
Researchers examined an undisclosed district of Florida schools that introduced cellphone bans and tracked student test scores over time. (7) They compared results before and after the bans and against schools that did not change their policies. It should be noted that the “research” used to create the headline was actually an “Edworking discussion paper” that has not been peer reviewed or published in a research journal.
Because the cohort used in this paper involved a very large number of students, the results are statistically precise. This is a good thing, and that part matters! However, what matters more for parents and caregivers is whether the changes are meaningful in real life.
After two years of a cellphone ban in the Florida school district that participated in this research, and after crunching the numbers specific to the “effect size” in the above noted discussion paper, students scored about 0.6 to 1.1 percentile points higher on standardized tests.
To put that into perspective:
A student at the 50th percentile might move to the 50.6th or 51st percentile
There was no grade-level jump
There was no dramatic academic turnaround
There was no evidence of major learning gains
This is a detectable change, but not one most families or teachers would notice day to day.
Researchers often use something called an “effect size” to show how strong a result really is when it comes to the social sciences. In this study, the effect size is about 0.01 to 0.02.
For context:
0.10 is considered small
0.25 is medium
0.40 is large
These results are far below what researchers would call “small.” In plain language, the academic impact of cellphone bans on test scores is negligible.
Large studies can find statistical significance even when the real-world effect is tiny. This is a common issue in education research.
Statistical significance tells us the result is unlikely to be random. It does not tell us whether the result actually matters in daily life.
This study found a measurable effect, however, it did not find a meaningful one, there is a difference!
This research does not show that:
Phones are destroying education
Banning phones fixes learning problems
Test score declines are mainly caused by student devices
Those claims go far beyond what the evidence supports.
What it does suggest
Cellphone restriction may help reduce distractions in certain classrooms, especially for some students. That can be useful for classroom management. This is something that we STRONGLY support, and that the good evidence based peer reviewed research supports.
A factual and practical takeaway for parents based on this discussion paper. If your child’s school introduces a cellphone ban, it is unlikely to hurt and may make classrooms feel calmer. But it is not a magic fix. However, if the ban were removed tomorrow, this research suggests test scores would barely change. If it were perfectly enforced, test scores would still barely change.
Both case studies show how research can be selectively framed or overstated to advance a political narrative. In each example, the underlying evidence is more limited and nuanced than the claims being made publicly, yet that complexity is stripped away in favour of messages that are more emotionally persuasive than factually accurate.
Parents deserve clarity, not fear. Understanding what the research does, and does not, say helps families guide their teens toward healthy, mindful tech habits rooted in facts, not sensational headlines.
Every so often a headline appears that warns technology is “damaging kid’s brains”, or that screens are putting an entire generation at risk. These stories spread fast because they spark fear, and fear is powerful when you’re trying to make good choices for your child, or to support a political agenda. The result is often confusion, guilt, and a sense that you’re doing something wrong simply for allowing your child to use technology.
In the third and final article in this series, we will look at research on cognitive warfare and influence strategies, and examine how these concepts align with the patterns behind the growing wave of headlines suggesting that technology is “damaging kid’s brains” or putting an entire generation at risk.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References
