...In Argument Theory. Not in the current context though, as the poster (hi there) expressed something quite different. Details around, if the original post does not suffice.
What I meant is there literally: you have to «investigat[e] the paths of causation», which is meant to mean, you cannot (should not) practically fight the full correlated context, but the specific cause.
I.e., in the picked metaphor: "you do not blame life for death" - find specific causes and curb them.
Which, by the way, if the "«midwit»" reference were still applicable, is beyond "IQ", because what was expressed is meant to be "in the set of basics" - yet to appearance absent in the article. I expressed that the article seems to miss that basic point.
I.e., the idea that "smartphones and social media" would be detrimental is extremely cheap, as if saying that "heating is polluting" - yes, and also useful, so you identify the weak parts and try to act on them.
Thanks - but I was actually looking for a constructive article if from the FT, which requires avoiding a cheap early stopping in the class of "entrepreneurs are at risk of distress".
Lack of analytic depth in the identification of strict causes that brings the article author to solutions like "«educate»" (to what?), "fight «addiction»", "pause then just stop", "have an age limit enforced". In the parallel: "entrepreneurs: know the risk, fight your drive to be a workaholic, take a vacation and maybe you will decide that it is a better life". And if you wanted to be on HN - well, let us see your documents (we'll check your age).
...Post naturally related to my other reply nearby.