C) X -> depression AND X -> smartphone
First example, X could be "strongly needs to feel included"
We can't just consider all theories equal because they are all in the realm of the possible.
Some evidence, while not proof, strongly points toward social media being the cause or at least a very strong factor.
I agree with multiple other commenters here, that banning phones in school would be a high reward chances / low risk decision.
We're talking about LOTS of kids getting their mental health damaged, but in many comments I don't hear the sense of urgency, rather a detached a almost snobbish focus on correlation != causality. I think such answers are partially missing the point.
The "smartphone change" is the "what people who don't know sociology think a sociology change looks like". It is still a sociology change, but it's the "nose in the middle of the face".
> I agree with multiple other commenters here, that banning phones in school would be a high reward chances / low risk decision.
And, surprise, I'm 100% for the ban in school too. But we need to solve the problem, not hide it. The problem can be, for example, social media. Banning smartphone at school will not solve the depression crisis, because people will still have their fix on their laptop after school, and will just maintain the toxic social media relationship dynamic in "real life" in school.
If you really care about the kids, you should understand why some people are so unhappy about having a conclusion as naive and simplistic as "let's just ban the smartphone and change nothing in the fundamental ways we are building a society, and I promise you, everything will magically be fine".
(and again, it does not mean smartphones are not part of the equation. But we need to find the real cause, and this is why correlation != causality is important. Nobody cares about the theory, people raise this argument because they know this mistake will have bad consequences)
