On Monday The Washington Post ran a story with this headline: “Teens who spend less time in front of screens are happier — up to a point, new research shows.”
What the article does not tell us (but the abstract does) is the that the study had 1.1 million participants. Well that seems like a good thing, doesn’t it?
The problem is that with a sample that large almost any correlation will be statistically significant. For example, according the Post account, the correlation between texting and happiness was r = -.05. Typically a correlation of the this magnitude would be described as “none or very weak.”
peakmemory 
This looks like statistical cherry-picking! The reporters need to take a statistics class or check out Deborah Mayo’s blog on rigorous statistical testing: https://errorstatistics.com/?wref=bif
I sent a note to the Washington Post reporter, I’ll report back if she responds.
Keep us posted!
What ?
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. (British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli)