Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids(news.berkeley.edu)
news.berkeley.edu
Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/16/word-gap-when-moneys-tight-parents-talk-less-to-kids/
171 comments
Because people are reading this excerpt from the article without reading the paper itself, this isn't a self-survey. The survey itself is a 'manipulation'. (But I won't comment on the reproducability or value of this methodology)
> This left us with a final sample of 84 dyads, randomly assigned to either the Scarcity (n=42) or Control (n=42) conditions. Dyads across conditions did not differ in age, child or caregiver sex, caregiver education, or family income
> The caregiver and child were seated across from one another at a table. The child completed an unrelated experiment with the researcher, while the caregiver completed the Scarcity or Control manipulation survey on a tablet. When the caregiver had finished, the researcher left the room under the guise of loading a second survey onto the iPad, leaving the caregiver and child alone with a toy the experimenter happened to offer as she left. A video camera and/or tape recorder recorded their interactions.
And there was also a second experiment:
> The second experiment used [..] tiny “talk pedometer” devices worn by children that record their conversations and count the words they hear and say.
> [..] analyses revealed that parents engaged in fewer conversational turns with their children at the month’s end, a time that typically coincides with money being tight
> This left us with a final sample of 84 dyads, randomly assigned to either the Scarcity (n=42) or Control (n=42) conditions. Dyads across conditions did not differ in age, child or caregiver sex, caregiver education, or family income
> The caregiver and child were seated across from one another at a table. The child completed an unrelated experiment with the researcher, while the caregiver completed the Scarcity or Control manipulation survey on a tablet. When the caregiver had finished, the researcher left the room under the guise of loading a second survey onto the iPad, leaving the caregiver and child alone with a toy the experimenter happened to offer as she left. A video camera and/or tape recorder recorded their interactions.
And there was also a second experiment:
> The second experiment used [..] tiny “talk pedometer” devices worn by children that record their conversations and count the words they hear and say.
> [..] analyses revealed that parents engaged in fewer conversational turns with their children at the month’s end, a time that typically coincides with money being tight
>>How many studies like this need to not replicate before we stop treating them seriously?
Hard to answer this, IMO. It would be hard to stop keep versions of such anecdata from informing our personal worldviews, for example. Business knowledge is basically made out of such stuff.
Replicability, for questions like this may be the wrong bar. Should we expect a relationship between financial hardship and talking to three year olds to be the same for a group of parents in 2021 california and 1997 Tokyo?
A lot of the replication crisis is shoddy work. Bad research. But... a lot of it is a problem of the subject matter itself. It's complex, and can't be isolated. Does dumping a ton of manure in a forest result in more leaves? more flies? Hard to describe the relationship between the manure and leaves in a replicable way. You can do controlled experiments, but the lab version doesn't answer the same question... the one about complexity.
IDK... I'm not excusing the replication crisis and many of the worst affected fields do need to pay attention to the gunk they've accumulated. OTOH, we do need ways of describing relationships that are complex. "We know nothing" is insufficient.
Hard to answer this, IMO. It would be hard to stop keep versions of such anecdata from informing our personal worldviews, for example. Business knowledge is basically made out of such stuff.
Replicability, for questions like this may be the wrong bar. Should we expect a relationship between financial hardship and talking to three year olds to be the same for a group of parents in 2021 california and 1997 Tokyo?
A lot of the replication crisis is shoddy work. Bad research. But... a lot of it is a problem of the subject matter itself. It's complex, and can't be isolated. Does dumping a ton of manure in a forest result in more leaves? more flies? Hard to describe the relationship between the manure and leaves in a replicable way. You can do controlled experiments, but the lab version doesn't answer the same question... the one about complexity.
IDK... I'm not excusing the replication crisis and many of the worst affected fields do need to pay attention to the gunk they've accumulated. OTOH, we do need ways of describing relationships that are complex. "We know nothing" is insufficient.
It's not "we know nothing." It's "we have low confidence in this thing." Which is exactly what you should be willing to say if you want an accurate view of the world. You can take action of knowing something with low confidence, you just make sure it's not too extreme, and it's not incompatible with being wrong.
Well, they did two studies, with different methodology, that came to the same conclusion. I would agree that it would be better to see another group try to replicate, and the actual study link (https://psyarxiv.com/byp4k) has this:
"Data Availability: For Study 1, all materials and analysis scripts, including the protocol to be used in the case of a future replication, are available on OSF..."
But, inspecting the data closer, it does seem like the effect is not huge, and that is perhaps why the Berkeley website that is summarizing the results did not choose to mention anything about the size of the effect.
"Data Availability: For Study 1, all materials and analysis scripts, including the protocol to be used in the case of a future replication, are available on OSF..."
But, inspecting the data closer, it does seem like the effect is not huge, and that is perhaps why the Berkeley website that is summarizing the results did not choose to mention anything about the size of the effect.
It fits my world view so it must be true.
Jokin aside I've seen way better studies of this kind where the parents would wear a mic at home and they would then do a word count, word analysis, etc.
Jokin aside I've seen way better studies of this kind where the parents would wear a mic at home and they would then do a word count, word analysis, etc.
They did do exactly that. The article doesn't do a good job of explaining the paper.
Wouldn't this method have its own issues with observation awareness biases?
That's only relevant if it affects one group more than the other, maybe you can control for this or take another approach, in any case I would find the results way more convincing than a survey.
Especially considering that going through a tough time will colour your memory and memory is extremely unreliable.
Especially considering that going through a tough time will colour your memory and memory is extremely unreliable.
No they don’t know what you’re observing for specifically
idea: it could be disguised as an Alexa or Google Home
On top of that, skimming the results I see an effect size of 40 fewer words, not statistically significant.
Paper doesn't really support the headline.
Paper doesn't really support the headline.
How did you arrive at a calculation of statistical significance from “40 fewer words”?
40 fewer words is the average effect size.
Statistical significance is a measure of the likelihood of getting that effect size by random if the two approaches didn't actually affect the outcome. With a large enough sample size, an effect size of 1 fewer word could be "statistically significant", even if it is practically meaningless.
In this case they got a p-value of 0.1 iirc. So assuming there's nothing special about the circumstances, you'd expect to get samples this different 1 in 10 times you ran the experiment by luck alone.
Statistical significance is a measure of the likelihood of getting that effect size by random if the two approaches didn't actually affect the outcome. With a large enough sample size, an effect size of 1 fewer word could be "statistically significant", even if it is practically meaningless.
In this case they got a p-value of 0.1 iirc. So assuming there's nothing special about the circumstances, you'd expect to get samples this different 1 in 10 times you ran the experiment by luck alone.
No I know what statistically significant means, I was curious why you phrased it that way.
The authors listed many results, and noted whether each was significant. It seems weird that you keyed in on one measure (caregiver vocabulary) with a higher p-value, and not the other results that did suggest that when money is tight, parents talk less.
The authors listed many results, and noted whether each was significant. It seems weird that you keyed in on one measure (caregiver vocabulary) with a higher p-value, and not the other results that did suggest that when money is tight, parents talk less.
Oh I see I jumped the gun. The first result seemed close to the headline of the paper but its actually a bit different. The actual headline is from further down.
I'd still ignore it though. You see how the first 3 are under "pre registered analyses" and the significant finding is under "exploratory analyses"? That's another way of saying their experiment failed to find anything interesting so they combed the rest of the dataset to try and find something they could publish. Basically just classic p-hacking. Probably not malicious or intentionally deceiving, but p-hacking nonetheless.
If you throw your hands up and decide to check what's interesting on a 14x14 correlation matrix, you've just tested around 100 hypotheses without realizing it. If your significance threshold is 0.05, you should expect to have 5 false positives in there already.
I'd still ignore it though. You see how the first 3 are under "pre registered analyses" and the significant finding is under "exploratory analyses"? That's another way of saying their experiment failed to find anything interesting so they combed the rest of the dataset to try and find something they could publish. Basically just classic p-hacking. Probably not malicious or intentionally deceiving, but p-hacking nonetheless.
If you throw your hands up and decide to check what's interesting on a 14x14 correlation matrix, you've just tested around 100 hypotheses without realizing it. If your significance threshold is 0.05, you should expect to have 5 false positives in there already.
I already knew you’d ignore it - in your rush to dismiss you missed the section of preregistered analyses did generate statistically significant results.
Exploratory analysis is not in inherently p-hacking. Publishing exploratory analyses as such is the proper action. There’s nothing in their methodology that suggests they analyzed a large number of possibilities and discarded the high p-values. (How would that even work in this case? Run through all possible conversation topics? All possible time divisions of speech?) The exploratory topics extend naturally from their preregistered hypotheses, from speech and income to speech relating to income and speech on calendar days when income is an issue.
Your cynical take on publishing negative results is unhelpful, as the accusation of bad faith and the straw man.
Exploratory analysis is not in inherently p-hacking. Publishing exploratory analyses as such is the proper action. There’s nothing in their methodology that suggests they analyzed a large number of possibilities and discarded the high p-values. (How would that even work in this case? Run through all possible conversation topics? All possible time divisions of speech?) The exploratory topics extend naturally from their preregistered hypotheses, from speech and income to speech relating to income and speech on calendar days when income is an issue.
Your cynical take on publishing negative results is unhelpful, as the accusation of bad faith and the straw man.
> I already knew you’d ignore it - in your rush to dismiss you missed the section of preregistered analyses did generate statistically significant results.
I'm open to being proven wrong but I've reread this section a couple times and I'm pretty sure all four tests in the primary pre-registered section and both tests in the secondary pre registered section are all non-significant.
(looks like there's actually two studies here. I've only read the first)
> Exploratory analysis is not in inherently p-hacking. Publishing exploratory analyses as such is the proper action. There’s nothing in their methodology that suggests they analyzed a large number of possibilities and discarded the high p-values.
Exploratory analysis is p-hacking. p-hacking is not (always) an evil unprincipled scientist trying to push a story. It's usually a scientist without a lot of statistical knowledge trying to see what's interesting and then letting their personal biases confirm coincidences as they appear because they want to find SOMETHING. You can publish these results, but you'd better be very clear that, you know, it's not very good. They're relatively conservative as they should be in the scheme of things here, and that's good. But look at the article and the discussion its generated. Clearly some people think its a trustworthy "scientific" result.
> How would that even work in this case? Run through all possible conversation topics? All possible time divisions of speech?
You take your data, you generate a correlation matrix of everything you've got, and point your finger at the values that look high. Then you test those hot spots and find significance. Very easy. You're implying here that in order to p-hack you need to check out every possibility. Not true.
They already tested ~6 ideas. Assuming they're independent of each other (to be fair, they're not), the likelihood of finding something significant with a p value below .05, purely by chance is already 0.95^6 => 26%. That is to say, naively, if you run 4 of these studies, one of them is expected to get a positive result even if they're all bogus. If they're allowed to do exploratory tests, they're now getting the freedom to cherry pick additional options. Remember, you have to count both the things they actually test AND the things they decided not to test after seeing the correlation matrix.
If they consider an additional 3 ideas, your studies now have a 33% false positive rate. At 15 ideas you're now at a 66% false positive rate. At about 40 extra ideas you have a 90% chance of finding something significant. If everyone's doing this, then your entire field is probably bogus.
It is extremely easy to unintentionally cheat and write off 40 insignificant ideas glancing at a correlation matrix. Pre-registering ideas is critical.
and I'm harping on correlation matrices because that's probably a lot of people's first idea, but there's plenty of other ways. That is the whole point of exploratory analysis.
You can see for example that one of their exploratory analyses is what happens to the relationships when we group by income? Well, you get to test another handful of ideas, I can guarantee you that much.
> The exploratory topics extend naturally from their preregistered hypotheses, from speech and income to speech relating to income and speech on calendar days when income is an issue.
That's not remarkable at all. That's the kinds of information that existed in their dataset.
> Your cynical take on publishing negative results is unhelpful, as the accusation of bad faith and the straw man
Well I did say "Probably not malicious or intentionally deceiving" so if anyone's pushing a bad faith interpretation here I'd say it's you.
I'm open to being proven wrong but I've reread this section a couple times and I'm pretty sure all four tests in the primary pre-registered section and both tests in the secondary pre registered section are all non-significant.
(looks like there's actually two studies here. I've only read the first)
> Exploratory analysis is not in inherently p-hacking. Publishing exploratory analyses as such is the proper action. There’s nothing in their methodology that suggests they analyzed a large number of possibilities and discarded the high p-values.
Exploratory analysis is p-hacking. p-hacking is not (always) an evil unprincipled scientist trying to push a story. It's usually a scientist without a lot of statistical knowledge trying to see what's interesting and then letting their personal biases confirm coincidences as they appear because they want to find SOMETHING. You can publish these results, but you'd better be very clear that, you know, it's not very good. They're relatively conservative as they should be in the scheme of things here, and that's good. But look at the article and the discussion its generated. Clearly some people think its a trustworthy "scientific" result.
> How would that even work in this case? Run through all possible conversation topics? All possible time divisions of speech?
You take your data, you generate a correlation matrix of everything you've got, and point your finger at the values that look high. Then you test those hot spots and find significance. Very easy. You're implying here that in order to p-hack you need to check out every possibility. Not true.
They already tested ~6 ideas. Assuming they're independent of each other (to be fair, they're not), the likelihood of finding something significant with a p value below .05, purely by chance is already 0.95^6 => 26%. That is to say, naively, if you run 4 of these studies, one of them is expected to get a positive result even if they're all bogus. If they're allowed to do exploratory tests, they're now getting the freedom to cherry pick additional options. Remember, you have to count both the things they actually test AND the things they decided not to test after seeing the correlation matrix.
If they consider an additional 3 ideas, your studies now have a 33% false positive rate. At 15 ideas you're now at a 66% false positive rate. At about 40 extra ideas you have a 90% chance of finding something significant. If everyone's doing this, then your entire field is probably bogus.
It is extremely easy to unintentionally cheat and write off 40 insignificant ideas glancing at a correlation matrix. Pre-registering ideas is critical.
and I'm harping on correlation matrices because that's probably a lot of people's first idea, but there's plenty of other ways. That is the whole point of exploratory analysis.
You can see for example that one of their exploratory analyses is what happens to the relationships when we group by income? Well, you get to test another handful of ideas, I can guarantee you that much.
> The exploratory topics extend naturally from their preregistered hypotheses, from speech and income to speech relating to income and speech on calendar days when income is an issue.
That's not remarkable at all. That's the kinds of information that existed in their dataset.
> Your cynical take on publishing negative results is unhelpful, as the accusation of bad faith and the straw man
Well I did say "Probably not malicious or intentionally deceiving" so if anyone's pushing a bad faith interpretation here I'd say it's you.
> Exploratory analysis is p-hacking.
It literally is not.
It literally is not.
If you're publishing a significant result that you found after doing your exploratory analysis it is.
I'm glad you posted and took the the time to check it, because intuitively I would agree with the headline, less money = more stress = less talking (probably not for everybody, but most people will talk less when under stress, especially over time).
At the limit, this is "my parents couldn't afford proper care for a debilitating diesease" vs they could. There is one group there that would talk more.
if you're poor, broke, alcholic, meth head, on heroin, you're probably not gonna be talking to your kids as much as someone who is not.
To see that idea with a self survey is kinda hilarious. kutgw to get this stuff right.
At the limit, this is "my parents couldn't afford proper care for a debilitating diesease" vs they could. There is one group there that would talk more.
if you're poor, broke, alcholic, meth head, on heroin, you're probably not gonna be talking to your kids as much as someone who is not.
To see that idea with a self survey is kinda hilarious. kutgw to get this stuff right.
> To see that idea with a self survey is kinda hilarious
It wasn't a self survey.
> This left us with a final sample of 84 dyads, randomly assigned to either the Scarcity (n=42) or Control (n=42) conditions. Dyads across conditions did not differ in age, child or caregiver sex, caregiver education, or family income
> The caregiver and child were seated across from one another at a table. The child completed an unrelated experiment with the researcher, while the caregiver completed the Scarcity or Control manipulation survey on a tablet. When the caregiver had finished, the researcher left the room under the guise of loading a second survey onto the iPad, leaving the caregiver and child alone with a toy the experimenter happened to offer as she left. A video camera and/or tape recorder recorded their interactions.
It wasn't a self survey.
> This left us with a final sample of 84 dyads, randomly assigned to either the Scarcity (n=42) or Control (n=42) conditions. Dyads across conditions did not differ in age, child or caregiver sex, caregiver education, or family income
> The caregiver and child were seated across from one another at a table. The child completed an unrelated experiment with the researcher, while the caregiver completed the Scarcity or Control manipulation survey on a tablet. When the caregiver had finished, the researcher left the room under the guise of loading a second survey onto the iPad, leaving the caregiver and child alone with a toy the experimenter happened to offer as she left. A video camera and/or tape recorder recorded their interactions.
Why are the poor in the America described in terms of "meth heads"? Being poor is not a moral failure.
>Why are the poor in the America described in terms of "meth heads"? Being poor is not a moral failure.
They're generally not referred to that way outside discussion of behaviors addicts engage in to get their fix and the discussion is limited in scope to addicts.
Making the generalization that everyone refers to the poors as meth heads serves the same ideological needs as generalizing the poors as addicts albeit to a different end.
They're generally not referred to that way outside discussion of behaviors addicts engage in to get their fix and the discussion is limited in scope to addicts.
Making the generalization that everyone refers to the poors as meth heads serves the same ideological needs as generalizing the poors as addicts albeit to a different end.
I think you're reading his list as an 'and', read the list as an 'or'.
I just picked one, but I noticed this more than once. Either the poor are referred to as "trailer trash", "Walmart monsters" or "meth heads". It is just interesting to see how American culture is so anti being poor that it seeps into your language without you knowing.
All cultures have anti poor sentiments as well as empathetic attitudes towards the poor. What is "interesting" here is prejudice attitudes from people like you towards america.
Also stop calling Americans "interesting." Using a term like this is a deliberate insult on a culture or a person. You are examining the culture like it's a lab rat and commenting on how the behavior is "interesting."
You are not an idiot. People do not talk like this in real life by remarking on how behavior is "interesting" to the subjects face. You and others only use these terms behind the anonymity of a forum. Therefore you are aware this is insulting. Stop.
This is a common tactic used to get around the HN rules. You say "interesting" posing it as an innocent remark. It is not, you are conducting a deliberate and insulting attack on American culture here.
Also stop calling Americans "interesting." Using a term like this is a deliberate insult on a culture or a person. You are examining the culture like it's a lab rat and commenting on how the behavior is "interesting."
You are not an idiot. People do not talk like this in real life by remarking on how behavior is "interesting" to the subjects face. You and others only use these terms behind the anonymity of a forum. Therefore you are aware this is insulting. Stop.
This is a common tactic used to get around the HN rules. You say "interesting" posing it as an innocent remark. It is not, you are conducting a deliberate and insulting attack on American culture here.
The problem is that poor and broke are not like the others.
Why is there an implied assumption that only americans think being poor is a moral failure?
Do you hold an oracle which tells you which studies will not replicate, or is there some particular trait of the study that provably doesn't replicate?
This quiz will let you test how accurate you are at predicting which psych papers replicated or not. Last time I took it, I think I was at 8 or 9 out of 10. I think something close to 50% of such papers don't replicate - so it's probably a reasonable prior to just assume any given social psychology study won't replicate.
https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/
https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/
> so it's probably a reasonable prior to just assume any given social psychology study won't replicate
I'd pay that. Though in this case it's not people reading the paper, but reading the article about the paper. (On reading the paper, the findings are less conclusive than the click-baity headline, but that's almost always the case)
I'd pay that. Though in this case it's not people reading the paper, but reading the article about the paper. (On reading the paper, the findings are less conclusive than the click-baity headline, but that's almost always the case)
It's not about an Oracle. It's that the mentioning of a topic prior to some conclusion generating observation has practically never generated replicable results. Still, these studies make news all the time because they're easy to p-hack into some interesting conclusion.
Reading the study it appears they went to some pains in not revealing their intentions:
> The caregiver and child were seated across from one another at a table. The child completed an unrelated experiment with the researcher, while the caregiver completed the Scarcity or Control manipulation survey on a tablet. When the caregiver had finished, the researcher left the room under the guise of loading a second survey onto the iPad, leaving the caregiver and child alone with a toy the experimenter happened to offer as she left. A video camera and/or tape recorder recorded their interactions.
The conclusion could be that being reminded or queried about hardships has a chilling effect
> The caregiver and child were seated across from one another at a table. The child completed an unrelated experiment with the researcher, while the caregiver completed the Scarcity or Control manipulation survey on a tablet. When the caregiver had finished, the researcher left the room under the guise of loading a second survey onto the iPad, leaving the caregiver and child alone with a toy the experimenter happened to offer as she left. A video camera and/or tape recorder recorded their interactions.
The conclusion could be that being reminded or queried about hardships has a chilling effect
People are good at predicting this: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/scientis...
> People
To be specific:
> They recruited 206 volunteers—a mix of psychologists and economists, students and professors, none of whom were involved in the SSRP itself
To be specific:
> They recruited 206 volunteers—a mix of psychologists and economists, students and professors, none of whom were involved in the SSRP itself
Also to be specific, none of the volunteers needed to consult an Oracle. The factors they cite (low N, "newsworthiness") are also the same factors that would give a layperson pause.
I think if we're invoking the reproducabilty crisis, it's a bit ironic to then dismiss demographics
No, not really.
The point is that it's possible to relibly predict whether a study will reproduce based solely on the characteristics of the study.
The point is that it's possible to relibly predict whether a study will reproduce based solely on the characteristics of the study.
And a high portion of the cohort of that study were people that read academic papers as an occupation. I'm not saying that the study couldn't generalize to lay people, just that you haven't presented evidence of it
(I believe one of the early controversies that sparked the reproducability crisis was the discovery that an excess of studies were using college students as their participants, skewing their results)
(I believe one of the early controversies that sparked the reproducability crisis was the discovery that an excess of studies were using college students as their participants, skewing their results)
[deleted]
There was a report by a psychologist who said Native American mascots have a negative effect on children of native Americans.
This may or may not be the case or may be true in some specific circumstances (Redskins, for example) but may not be true for all, however, many high schools are changing their team names based on this one study/conclusion which was funded by a tribe. Which is fine, but usually when there is a conflict of interest one wants to have additional independent studies that come to a similar conclusion.
This may or may not be the case or may be true in some specific circumstances (Redskins, for example) but may not be true for all, however, many high schools are changing their team names based on this one study/conclusion which was funded by a tribe. Which is fine, but usually when there is a conflict of interest one wants to have additional independent studies that come to a similar conclusion.
If you're referring to Fryberg, Markus, Oyserman & Stone 2008, do you think that schools deciding to change their team names/mascots might have something to do with far larger and more broad cultural trends over the last couple of decades rather than these schools decisions resting primarily on the robustness and applicability (or otherwise) of this one paper?
Teams didn't change their names because of that tribe-sponsored paper, they changed their names because white people wanted them to change.
In 2016, when the main momentum of this started to come out, 9 in 10 Native Americans did not find it offensive [1]. But white people had already decided it was offensive, and white people have much more cultural influence than Native Americans, so in being perceived by white people as offensive it became offensive, to the point that just a few years later, a majority of Native Americans found it offensive [2].
But at all times through this, including today, a higher percentage of white people find the Redskins name offensive than of Native Americans. The Redskins changed their name because of pressure from white people, not because of pressure from Native Americans. More than a little ironic that even in this, Native Americans were barely listened to, while white people's feelings were considered very important.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-...
[2] https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/
In 2016, when the main momentum of this started to come out, 9 in 10 Native Americans did not find it offensive [1]. But white people had already decided it was offensive, and white people have much more cultural influence than Native Americans, so in being perceived by white people as offensive it became offensive, to the point that just a few years later, a majority of Native Americans found it offensive [2].
But at all times through this, including today, a higher percentage of white people find the Redskins name offensive than of Native Americans. The Redskins changed their name because of pressure from white people, not because of pressure from Native Americans. More than a little ironic that even in this, Native Americans were barely listened to, while white people's feelings were considered very important.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-...
[2] https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/
This is even a worse reason to change names. Someone who has no stake in it at all then takes it open themselves to represent someone else as an aggrieved entity.
And, to be clear, I'm okay with presenting evidence one way or another, but I object to willy-nilly claims and crusades.
And, to be clear, I'm okay with presenting evidence one way or another, but I object to willy-nilly claims and crusades.
> many high schools are changing their team names based on this one study/conclusion which was funded by a tribe.
Let's rephrase this.
Many high schools are changing their team names because the study brought awareness to the generally ill-considered use of ethnic mascots.
The study may have been a catalyst, but the appropriation and the insensitivity to it was always a problem.
Let's rephrase this.
Many high schools are changing their team names because the study brought awareness to the generally ill-considered use of ethnic mascots.
The study may have been a catalyst, but the appropriation and the insensitivity to it was always a problem.
kortilla(3)
> many high schools are changing their team names based on this one study/conclusion which was funded by a tribe.
I've been following the efforts to have team names changed for quite some time and have never heard of this paper, but have heard of sustained lobbying over decades from a variety of native organizations.
I've been following the efforts to have team names changed for quite some time and have never heard of this paper, but have heard of sustained lobbying over decades from a variety of native organizations.
So native Americans tribes have for the majority almost been wiped out and eradicated due to something not very far from genocide (or at the minimum, a very targeted policy of extermination)
And somehow you think that schools that have nothing to do with those people finally changing their very questionable names is due to a “conflict of interest of a psychologist”? Not because it was just racist?
And somehow you think that schools that have nothing to do with those people finally changing their very questionable names is due to a “conflict of interest of a psychologist”? Not because it was just racist?
It could be argued that using that symbolism is more a form of respect than it is a form of racism. I don't think people who decided those names actively participated in the genocide, and objectively, they used those names and that symbolism as an ideal to look up to, they used it as a warrior symbol for their team.
It could also be argued that it dilutes the image/culture/history and probably a bunch more things by wrapping it up in american plastic. I wouldn't argue with that.
It could also be argued that it dilutes the image/culture/history and probably a bunch more things by wrapping it up in american plastic. I wouldn't argue with that.
> It could be argued that using that symbolism is more a form of respect than it is a form of racism.
Broadly speaking, the symbolism being used is usually either an obvious caricature of the real thing (see: the former Washington Redskins), or uses cultural and religious elements that are at best kind of offensive in the context of being used as a sportsball logo (see: most uses of peace pipe or war bonnet imagery).
There are exceptions, but they're of the kind that generally come with either somebody actually doing the research or people of the given group actually participating locally.
Broadly speaking, the symbolism being used is usually either an obvious caricature of the real thing (see: the former Washington Redskins), or uses cultural and religious elements that are at best kind of offensive in the context of being used as a sportsball logo (see: most uses of peace pipe or war bonnet imagery).
There are exceptions, but they're of the kind that generally come with either somebody actually doing the research or people of the given group actually participating locally.
And yet... on the other hand, Indian Casino logos (on Indian land) commissioned by tribes.
As someone else mentioned most of the push against is not from American Indians/Native Americans but vicariously offended others.
As someone else mentioned most of the push against is not from American Indians/Native Americans but vicariously offended others.
[deleted]
I don’t mind changing names if it’s based on evidence, not just because someone has some crusade.
Should Aztecas Stadium change their name? What about the MN Vikings, NY Yankees, TX Cowboys? Kaiser Chiefs of ZA, Ebusa dwarfs of ZA?
Should Aztecas Stadium change their name? What about the MN Vikings, NY Yankees, TX Cowboys? Kaiser Chiefs of ZA, Ebusa dwarfs of ZA?
In your example there's no downside to changing the name, though. It's a low stakes decision. In the book "Trust- a Very Short Introduction" the author argues if the situation is "low stakes" you should need a lower level of evidence to trust someone than high stakes. While I think the author might discuss it only in the context of human interactions, I imagine you could apply the paradigm to this situation.
> It's a low stakes decision
At least not until the reactionary media's outrage machine decides to make it their current hill to die on...
Also, this is America, where sports are taken far too seriously.
At least not until the reactionary media's outrage machine decides to make it their current hill to die on...
Also, this is America, where sports are taken far too seriously.
> In your example there's no downside to changing the name, though.
Changing a name in response to a conflicted and un-valid paper is a downside in itself.
Changing a name in response to a conflicted and un-valid paper is a downside in itself.
It didn't require a scientific paper to create the mascot but you seem to be arguing it requires a "good paper" that's been validated to rename it? You are demonstrating a status quo cognitive bias.
So if someone comes up with a paper that says the opposite (that using native American names) has a proven (by the a paid study) positive impact, since it's low stakes, we should go ahead and name teams after native American tribes?
I think we were talking about high school mascots not team names. Are those two scenarios equally low stakes?
In one you change the high school mascot from a native american cartoon to an animal or something. I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with.
In the other we change... what all the teams names? Is that a equivilent scenario?
To be honest I'm finding it hard to relate to someone would care enough about a high school mascot to even need a study at all. Low stakes B.S. But that's me.
Since this topic is probably of zero importance to anyone not native american who else is going to fund it, for that matter?
In one you change the high school mascot from a native american cartoon to an animal or something. I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with.
In the other we change... what all the teams names? Is that a equivilent scenario?
To be honest I'm finding it hard to relate to someone would care enough about a high school mascot to even need a study at all. Low stakes B.S. But that's me.
Since this topic is probably of zero importance to anyone not native american who else is going to fund it, for that matter?
> I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with.
Seems like you are affirming the consequent and assuming it is harmful to native Americans.
You are ignoring the issue of the paper. If the decision is based on a scientific paper, but the paper is conflicted or unvalidated, that is harmful because of the misuse of the scientific paper.
If you want to change the mascot because of Native American’s preferences, that is a different matter.
Seems like you are affirming the consequent and assuming it is harmful to native Americans.
You are ignoring the issue of the paper. If the decision is based on a scientific paper, but the paper is conflicted or unvalidated, that is harmful because of the misuse of the scientific paper.
If you want to change the mascot because of Native American’s preferences, that is a different matter.
Has anyone else studies this topic?
If not it's kind of a catch 22 for the tribe, isn't it? Nobody wants to fund research on the topic, so when they fund research on it it's presumed invalid because of bias?
If not it's kind of a catch 22 for the tribe, isn't it? Nobody wants to fund research on the topic, so when they fund research on it it's presumed invalid because of bias?
This comment ignores the problem and seems to imply that we should accept a bad paper because the tribe is a victim of some kind.
How does that address the harm done by basing decisions on bad science?
How does that address the harm done by basing decisions on bad science?
[deleted]
Value system is also important.As they bring up behaviour is getting moulded by epigentics on emotional levels
A more repeatable study designed today might partner with smartphone megacorps and/or also use in home microphones like Alexa, etc.
The ethics considerations of microphones always on would need to be extremely stringent, and only for safety of the children or others should they be breached.
The study might also require the provisioning of basics like Internet access and such devices. Though these days Internet access is as necessary for a productive member of society as power and water are, and IMO it should be a universal right.
The ethics considerations of microphones always on would need to be extremely stringent, and only for safety of the children or others should they be breached.
The study might also require the provisioning of basics like Internet access and such devices. Though these days Internet access is as necessary for a productive member of society as power and water are, and IMO it should be a universal right.
>A more repeatable study designed today might partner with smartphone megacorps and/or also use in home microphones like Alexa, etc.
and would be done by Facebook or Google to sell the data that you need money to loan companies.
and would be done by Facebook or Google to sell the data that you need money to loan companies.
> Though these days Internet access is as necessary for a productive member of society as power and water are
No it’s not. I have an uncle who is a plumber and gets by without Internet just fine. Banks with ATMs, branch offices, and phones. Pays bills using the the mail, etc.
In the US utilities are required to offer mail options for bills, but not email or phone. Unless you work from home over the Internet or have children remote learning, it’s absolutely just a luxury.
No it’s not. I have an uncle who is a plumber and gets by without Internet just fine. Banks with ATMs, branch offices, and phones. Pays bills using the the mail, etc.
In the US utilities are required to offer mail options for bills, but not email or phone. Unless you work from home over the Internet or have children remote learning, it’s absolutely just a luxury.
As long as there is demand for a "safe" explanation for The Gap, an immense amount of spurious research will be funded and lauded.
Stop dog whistling.
There are multiple performance and outcome gaps that are unequivocal in research across multiple disciplines. There lots of debate about what causes them. None of them necessarily imply anything permanent/immutable about any group.
Plugging your ears and crying ethical foul impoverishes the discussion and all it’s observers.
You could instead add real arguments to the debate. That enriches the discussion.
Plugging your ears and crying ethical foul impoverishes the discussion and all it’s observers.
You could instead add real arguments to the debate. That enriches the discussion.
I agree with you 100% that more research is needed, but the person above me seemingly doesn’t, or they wouldn’t have made such a dismissive comment implying funding should be cut because the “true” answer is already known.
Don’t get mad at me for calling that person out. I’m the one who wants more research - they apparently already know the answer.
Don’t get mad at me for calling that person out. I’m the one who wants more research - they apparently already know the answer.
Kids know. They always know and they understand.
My family went through a bankruptcy when I was a kid. We lost the family business. My parents never told me about it, but I knew. The discussions, the fear of coming home to nothing. It's all real.
Tell your kids, explain to them. Use the difficult time to build a closer bond with them instead of leaving them in the dark.
My family went through a bankruptcy when I was a kid. We lost the family business. My parents never told me about it, but I knew. The discussions, the fear of coming home to nothing. It's all real.
Tell your kids, explain to them. Use the difficult time to build a closer bond with them instead of leaving them in the dark.
I grew up in a fairly poor home and it was similar. My parents sometimes acknowledged that we were poor, but they otherwise seemed to pretend it wasn’t true. Asking for something that cost money was practically punishable - instead of saying no, we still can’t afford that, it was construed as rude and selfish.
This kind of sensitivity and denial around financial difficulties is common but very unhealthy for both the kids and the parent.
Kids won’t hate you for having money troubles. They won’t be annoyed that you can’t buy them {cool thing} if it’s clear why you can’t. If they are, it’s another learning opportunity.
I’m doing okay now, but I share my financial mistakes with my kids when it’s relevant and try to keep conversations open about how these matters impact them now and later in their lives.
My hope is that as they age they’ll see me as a resource for help, someone to guide them through things, to recognize that their finances aren’t something to be afraid of or keep secret.
In my parent’s defence, they wanted to hide our financial situation because it scared them and they didn’t want it to scare and unnerve their kids. The trouble is though that like you said, the kids will know anyway. The lack of insight into what’s happening only makes them feel more insecure and normalizes hiding upsetting things from people you love. Good intentions only get you so far, I guess.
This kind of sensitivity and denial around financial difficulties is common but very unhealthy for both the kids and the parent.
Kids won’t hate you for having money troubles. They won’t be annoyed that you can’t buy them {cool thing} if it’s clear why you can’t. If they are, it’s another learning opportunity.
I’m doing okay now, but I share my financial mistakes with my kids when it’s relevant and try to keep conversations open about how these matters impact them now and later in their lives.
My hope is that as they age they’ll see me as a resource for help, someone to guide them through things, to recognize that their finances aren’t something to be afraid of or keep secret.
In my parent’s defence, they wanted to hide our financial situation because it scared them and they didn’t want it to scare and unnerve their kids. The trouble is though that like you said, the kids will know anyway. The lack of insight into what’s happening only makes them feel more insecure and normalizes hiding upsetting things from people you love. Good intentions only get you so far, I guess.
Couldn't agree more. I'll offer my own generalization. We generally feel what close ones are feeling, whether it's verbalised or not. If you are too ashamed to share something, or too scared, or whatever, what the other feels is exactly that feeling that you're trying to hide. Maybe you wanted to protect that close one from the feeling, but instead you're teaching him that that feeling cannot be accepted or transformed into something good. That feeling is something to avoid, to hide from, to numb yourself to. And, a final obvious point, it's not about the actual worldy situation, but about how we act in it. This applies to anything you can't accept.
Our school,as pretty much any other in the country,used to do annual photoshoots. You get a class together with the teacher, they take picture and then you pay for it. I'm missing 3rd grade photo. It was many years later when I asked my parents how come I don't have it. Turns out, I overheard some conversation on how challenging it was for them to meet the ends at the time and decided to tell at the school that I won't be buying any photos that year. My mum found it a bit odd that there was no photoshoot that year and when she questioned me about it, I did explain that we couldn't afford it( we could and I could have gotten the money for the photos). Now I have a 4 year old and I often get blown away by her reasoning.
It amazes me what my 2 year old manages to absorb and understand. Feels like there's a big disparity in their ability to observe and absorb compared to being able to articulate.
The real trick is, being able to observe and absorb is one thing, or indeed to articulate.
To CONTEXTUALIZE is a whole other ball game.
Observing has special risks when you're a small child and cannot work out yet that everything does not relate to you. There's a lot of bad stuff that can go on that's not the fault of the child, but a young enough child will still conclude 'I did that'.
To CONTEXTUALIZE is a whole other ball game.
Observing has special risks when you're a small child and cannot work out yet that everything does not relate to you. There's a lot of bad stuff that can go on that's not the fault of the child, but a young enough child will still conclude 'I did that'.
To some degree at that young age they may still experience all actors with agency as being themselves (the whole universe is me). Even after that discovery they often don't separate empathic simulation of other's emotions from their own - if someone else is angry or sad they are angry or sad.
A later trick that we often fail to master as adults is the cause-effect relationship with emotions. When we're hungry we are more likely to snap at others or be rude. When we're stressed about something we're more likely to start fights/arguments. After a tasty meal, a piece of good news, or even intimacy we are more likely to be agreeable. When questioned in the moment both kids and adults will strongly attribute these feelings to the actions of others or simply fabricate a reason on the spot, completely failing to identify the true source of the feeling. (Pedantic note: emotional states are much more complex than I can describe here so we can obviously come up with counter-examples from specific situations. This also doesn't account for personality disorders, eg narcissism).
A later trick that we often fail to master as adults is the cause-effect relationship with emotions. When we're hungry we are more likely to snap at others or be rude. When we're stressed about something we're more likely to start fights/arguments. After a tasty meal, a piece of good news, or even intimacy we are more likely to be agreeable. When questioned in the moment both kids and adults will strongly attribute these feelings to the actions of others or simply fabricate a reason on the spot, completely failing to identify the true source of the feeling. (Pedantic note: emotional states are much more complex than I can describe here so we can obviously come up with counter-examples from specific situations. This also doesn't account for personality disorders, eg narcissism).
> The real trick is, being able to observe and absorb is one thing, or indeed to articulate.
I can't make heads nor tails of this sentence but the rest of your comment seems reasonable.
I can't make heads nor tails of this sentence but the rest of your comment seems reasonable.
> I can't make heads nor tails of this sentence
?> The tricky part is that: being able to (observe, absorb or even articulate) is one thing, but to contextualize is a whole other ball game.
?> The tricky part is that: being able to (observe, absorb or even articulate) is one thing, but to contextualize is a whole other ball game.
Thanks - I have trouble trying to re-organize expressions like that into something that makes sense. Just doesn't compute.
To be fair, splitting it across two paragraphs doesn't help.
I grew up upper class with self-made parents that came from considerably less. As a result they still had the thrifty gene and that really burned a lot of anxiety into me. What helped was them talking to me about it. But I still struggled well into my late teens that I was making my family go poor any time I got some toy or game or clothes or food that I didn’t enjoy fully.
It’s why I am trying hard to find the right balance of communication with my kids. I don’t want them to waste or act spoiled and entitled, but I never want them to think we’re at risk for anything.
It’s why I am trying hard to find the right balance of communication with my kids. I don’t want them to waste or act spoiled and entitled, but I never want them to think we’re at risk for anything.
The photo looks like me on Hacker News, reading about some pseudoscience, whilst I should be playing with my daughter.
That's a good realization to have. I'm ready to ship my youngest off to college. Childhood's over.
It's killing me. I look back and know I've spent thousands upon thousands of hours of doing useless shit when I could have been spending more present time with them. We did quite a few things, travelled a lot, did many little experiments at home and whatnot, but there was so much room for more. Apropos to the article, in 2007 I learned that my partner in the company we co-founded fucked us over with the IRS, in a way that I would have been personally exposed, and it took me about five years to dig us out of it. Those were stressful times, and I'm certain it impacted how present I could be.
Anyway, now that just feels like an excuse. When I was a kid I was so intensely bored that I bugged the hell out of my parents. Kids now have distractions, and they rarely ever came to me to ask me to go do something with them. I don't know why, but ultimately I'm now convinced I misinterpreted it. And it's too late to fix.
It's killing me. I look back and know I've spent thousands upon thousands of hours of doing useless shit when I could have been spending more present time with them. We did quite a few things, travelled a lot, did many little experiments at home and whatnot, but there was so much room for more. Apropos to the article, in 2007 I learned that my partner in the company we co-founded fucked us over with the IRS, in a way that I would have been personally exposed, and it took me about five years to dig us out of it. Those were stressful times, and I'm certain it impacted how present I could be.
Anyway, now that just feels like an excuse. When I was a kid I was so intensely bored that I bugged the hell out of my parents. Kids now have distractions, and they rarely ever came to me to ask me to go do something with them. I don't know why, but ultimately I'm now convinced I misinterpreted it. And it's too late to fix.
[deleted]
A cynical explanation is that they talk less because on some level they know that talking tends to reveal needs that require money to meet.
I think if you are worried about money (or stressed in general), you will find it more difficult to engage in the sorts of conversations that are good to have with children.
List of things I have read :
- A study that a three year old's vocabulary is the best indicator of success in life
- A study that the more time parents spend talking to kids the better their vocabulary is
- This study that when money is tight parents talk less to kids
Now I am wondering if this perpetuates a cycle.
Now I am wondering if this perpetuates a cycle.
Kids develop speech at different speeds, many late speakers have high IQ.
I believe that late speakers with high IQ have generally a large vocabulary, they can speak but don't dare to speak because they feel they don't master the language.
Also I wouldn't call many late speakers have high IQ, on the contrary, the majority would have a lower IQ (or at least on the verbal part when tested at 7).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139938/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139938/
Or because they’re working multiple jobs/overtime and do all the chores themselves. Wealthier people have stay at home parents and pay other people to do the housekeeping.
> Or because they’re working multiple jobs/overtime and do all the chores themselves.
Well, the data indicate that this is not the case. For households in the bottom two quintiles of income, only 18(!)% of householders work full time in the bottom quintile, and 45% work full time in the next-lowest quintile.
source: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-income-inequality-...
Well, the data indicate that this is not the case. For households in the bottom two quintiles of income, only 18(!)% of householders work full time in the bottom quintile, and 45% work full time in the next-lowest quintile.
source: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/explaining-income-inequality-...
Does that count all jobs, or just jobs the tax man knows about?
At least over here (Poland, EU), people officially unemployed often work under the table, sometimes quite a lot, and they cannot afford the word of it to get to any public agency. Such people are unwilling to talk about it to researchers either.
(We recently had a public census, and it asked a bunch of sensitive questions around topics like employment. Despite the survey repeatedly giving assurances that this is all used for public statistics, and that data will be processed by trained personnel under strict confidentiality regulation, the people I know who are forced to skirt employment/tax rules here and there to survive, were not willing to reveal any indication of it.)
At least over here (Poland, EU), people officially unemployed often work under the table, sometimes quite a lot, and they cannot afford the word of it to get to any public agency. Such people are unwilling to talk about it to researchers either.
(We recently had a public census, and it asked a bunch of sensitive questions around topics like employment. Despite the survey repeatedly giving assurances that this is all used for public statistics, and that data will be processed by trained personnel under strict confidentiality regulation, the people I know who are forced to skirt employment/tax rules here and there to survive, were not willing to reveal any indication of it.)
>At least over here (Poland, EU), people officially unemployed often work under the table, sometimes quite a lot, and they cannot afford the word of it to get to any public agency. Such people are unwilling to talk about it to researchers either.
"Job finding office" literally asks you whether you're willing to work "under the table".
I've been asked this question when attempted to find my very first job
"Job finding office" literally asks you whether you're willing to work "under the table".
I've been asked this question when attempted to find my very first job
Not working full-time does not necessarily mean working fewer hours. Working 2 29-hour jobs and commuting between them would be vastly more time and energy consuming, yet would show up as “not working full-time”.
Two 29 hour jobs would result in a 58 hour work week, and thus the worker would be considered to work full-time.
I think it's more likely that a lot of poor people have a main job, frequently with a number of hours that prevents them getting all the benefits of a full time job (think 35 hours instead of 40) and then they work extra, on the side, to be able to make ends meet.
So legally they'd only show up as working 15-20-35 hours and in fact they'd work 60 hours a week.
So legally they'd only show up as working 15-20-35 hours and in fact they'd work 60 hours a week.
The referenced dataset is about employment, not jobs. Hours worked in a week would not be affected by how many different employers one has. The distinction is if they work 1 to 34 hours (part-time) or 35 or more hours (full-time).
[deleted]
Call it working overtime.
Exactly. They're out of the house more, when they're home they're busy trying to catch up with housework, and they're exhausted.
It's so much harder to engage with a small hyperactive child's fantasy world when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, no matter how much you want to.
It's so much harder to engage with a small hyperactive child's fantasy world when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, no matter how much you want to.
I'm eating crackers until my paycheck arrives tomorrow or the next day, and I can say for certain that its a big part of why I talk less right at the moment. The plural of (my) anecdote is not data, of course.
There are a lot of studies that show that being poor in western society is extremely mentally taxing.
Of course there can be a lot of correlating factors that also impacts the difference between wealthy and poor. But I think that anyone who has ever tried going back to living paycheck-to-paycheck after some years of financial safety can tell you just how taxing it is.
I grew up poor, but it wasn’t until I did my masters and for a brief period saw my income cut in half without adjusting my spending, that I ended up in a situation where I realised just how much not having to worry about money even once in a month truly gave me.
Of course there can be a lot of correlating factors that also impacts the difference between wealthy and poor. But I think that anyone who has ever tried going back to living paycheck-to-paycheck after some years of financial safety can tell you just how taxing it is.
I grew up poor, but it wasn’t until I did my masters and for a brief period saw my income cut in half without adjusting my spending, that I ended up in a situation where I realised just how much not having to worry about money even once in a month truly gave me.
how is it, that at the end of the money, there is always so much month left over?
Is that cynical? It seems like a reasonable guess. It was my first thought before even heading to the article or comments
Good point. Even if I sincerely care only about my children, if most of their prospective needs require money to meet, the most effective response to a lack of money is to devote more time to getting money and less time to listening.
This is what infuriates me about all the "I don't care about money, I just wish mum/dad had spent more time with us and less time working" sentiment. Sure, some parents are workaholics at the expense of their kids but I'd wager the vast majority of the time, the parents hate being away from their kids and are only doing it to meet the family's financial needs.
If someone truly believes that money isn't important, it just proves their parents shielded them from the ugly side of poverty.
If someone truly believes that money isn't important, it just proves their parents shielded them from the ugly side of poverty.
My dad is from a rural area. He doesn't know how to talk intimately or how to reveal emotions. This puzzeled me a lot and made communication between us difficult.
I found out later that most men in his village are like that. A lot of feelings are being swallowed in silence and not talked about. A real "word gap". I wonder if it has to do with poverty (it's a poor village) like the article says.
I found out later that most men in his village are like that. A lot of feelings are being swallowed in silence and not talked about. A real "word gap". I wonder if it has to do with poverty (it's a poor village) like the article says.
It's a male thing, nothing to do with poverty.
This isn't an inherently male trait, it's something that's done to boys from an early age in some societies. Men are conditioned to behave this way from an early age, and IMO it's a great tragedy.
This this this. I talk about my good and bad emotions with my sons and they realize it’s ok to have emotions rather then outbursts or tantrums. My parents messed me up good, but I am smart enough to end that cycle.
As a male who identifies with this trait, why?
Most emotions seem to just hold you back. Why cry about a situation when you should more likely focus your energy into finding a solution?
For me it's not that emotions are so much "swallowed in silence and not talked about"... it's that they're fundamentally not useful.
If I'm stressed out or sad or etc about something, that's something to be solved, not something to be sad about. Why be sad about something you can either solve or ignore?
To put it another way: You can either solve it or you can't. If you can solve it, do so. If you can't, why put energy/emotion into it?
Most emotions seem to just hold you back. Why cry about a situation when you should more likely focus your energy into finding a solution?
For me it's not that emotions are so much "swallowed in silence and not talked about"... it's that they're fundamentally not useful.
If I'm stressed out or sad or etc about something, that's something to be solved, not something to be sad about. Why be sad about something you can either solve or ignore?
To put it another way: You can either solve it or you can't. If you can solve it, do so. If you can't, why put energy/emotion into it?
This only works as long as those emotions are not hitting your core. I don't often feel affected strongly by emotions, I'm pretty sure the last time I cried for myself (and not over something that happened to someone else) is well over 10 years ago.
But that's just because nothing truly bad happened to me. Or at least, nothing bad enough to make me pity myself. Just that nothing has forced me to put energy/emotion in it, that hurt my ego enough that I'd feel worse about myself.
I think it's naive to believe that something like that could never happen to you, and it happens regularly to people around you. The universe is ruthless and cruel, and we are often helpless in the face of it. Sure some people are stronger, and some are weaker, but everyone could be broken.
Many people value different things. My girlfriend might cry if she thinks a person she met didn't like her. I'd never cry over such a thing, but that's because I don't value myself as a likeable person as much as she does. If she wouldn't cry about it, she'd feel worse as a person and I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't comfort her.
Anyway, to answer the question, because being emotional and sharing those emotions could help them deal with their pain or frustration. It's not good if we've got all these people walking around with their pain and frustration and no healthy outlet.
But that's just because nothing truly bad happened to me. Or at least, nothing bad enough to make me pity myself. Just that nothing has forced me to put energy/emotion in it, that hurt my ego enough that I'd feel worse about myself.
I think it's naive to believe that something like that could never happen to you, and it happens regularly to people around you. The universe is ruthless and cruel, and we are often helpless in the face of it. Sure some people are stronger, and some are weaker, but everyone could be broken.
Many people value different things. My girlfriend might cry if she thinks a person she met didn't like her. I'd never cry over such a thing, but that's because I don't value myself as a likeable person as much as she does. If she wouldn't cry about it, she'd feel worse as a person and I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't comfort her.
Anyway, to answer the question, because being emotional and sharing those emotions could help them deal with their pain or frustration. It's not good if we've got all these people walking around with their pain and frustration and no healthy outlet.
To be clear I'm not saying that if you've ever cried then you're not manly. And I'm not saying I've never cried. But the times I've cried are for some exceptionally emotional moments. Loss of my father, for example.
There are many who romanticize the idea of men crying over small things, and I think that's not healthy or productive. I know many people who will cry when they lose a game in their hobby of choice, for example. That kind of thing is too much IMO.
Instead of learning to have a "healthy outlet" I think people need to learn to control their emotions better.
> I don't value myself as a likeable person as much as she does. If she wouldn't cry about it, she'd feel worse as a person and I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't comfort her.
Isn't that a huge vulnerability, though? Going through life caring so much about people liking you, that you cry every time you think someone doesn't?
IMO it's way better to figure out how to not care as much in this kind of situation, than to accept that crying is a "healthy outlet". Instead of being sad and crying to release your emotions, you could instead learn to be happy regardless.
There are many who romanticize the idea of men crying over small things, and I think that's not healthy or productive. I know many people who will cry when they lose a game in their hobby of choice, for example. That kind of thing is too much IMO.
Instead of learning to have a "healthy outlet" I think people need to learn to control their emotions better.
> I don't value myself as a likeable person as much as she does. If she wouldn't cry about it, she'd feel worse as a person and I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't comfort her.
Isn't that a huge vulnerability, though? Going through life caring so much about people liking you, that you cry every time you think someone doesn't?
IMO it's way better to figure out how to not care as much in this kind of situation, than to accept that crying is a "healthy outlet". Instead of being sad and crying to release your emotions, you could instead learn to be happy regardless.
Because you carry those bad emotions with you then as baggage instead of getting over them. And then they will bias your character and the decisions you do. So your life wont be run by you, but by the hidden subconscious emotional baggage that you carry. Its like with fears, you have to face them to overcome them and then the rest is easy
> Because you carry those bad emotions with you then as baggage instead of getting over them.
That's only if you have those emotions to begin with. It's very reasonable to train yourself to not have those emotions and therefore not carry that baggage.
And that doesn't mean being a brick wall. That just means not caring as much. Going with the flow. Being happy regardless. However you want to word it.
That's only if you have those emotions to begin with. It's very reasonable to train yourself to not have those emotions and therefore not carry that baggage.
And that doesn't mean being a brick wall. That just means not caring as much. Going with the flow. Being happy regardless. However you want to word it.
Because we're not wired like that. Emotions are there, regardless like if we express them or not. We're not fully rational and the sooner we realize that, that the sooner we are at peace.
We need to talk to other people about our problems, bitch, rant, shout, cry, do all sort of emotional things to relieve stress, even if that does objectively nothing to solve our problems.
Even more so since some things just can't be solved. We're not all powerful, at the end of the day.
Not handling emotions is harmful to our mental health (including the rational machinery), to our life expectancy (especially the case for men), and also to our close ones.
We need to talk to other people about our problems, bitch, rant, shout, cry, do all sort of emotional things to relieve stress, even if that does objectively nothing to solve our problems.
Even more so since some things just can't be solved. We're not all powerful, at the end of the day.
Not handling emotions is harmful to our mental health (including the rational machinery), to our life expectancy (especially the case for men), and also to our close ones.
> Emotions are there, regardless like if we express them or not
That's not completely true. There is an option to not have those negative emotions in the first place.
That's not completely true. There is an option to not have those negative emotions in the first place.
So your don't feel sad about things you can't change, like when a loved one dies?
I tend to find that experiencing negative emotions like sadness heightens my later perception of positive emotions like gratitude.
I tend to find that experiencing negative emotions like sadness heightens my later perception of positive emotions like gratitude.
That's an extreme example that I'm not really referencing here. Of course I feel sad when something extreme happens, like a loved one dies.
A lot of people romanticize the idea of men crying over smaller things. For example, someone below said that their SO cries then they even think someone doesn't like them. I've seen people cry when they mess up in their hobby of choice. These things are just not healthy to cry about. They need to control their emotions better than that.
A lot of people romanticize the idea of men crying over smaller things. For example, someone below said that their SO cries then they even think someone doesn't like them. I've seen people cry when they mess up in their hobby of choice. These things are just not healthy to cry about. They need to control their emotions better than that.
Sorry for the super late reply but I think this question deserves an answer.
First up I'm not talking about performative emo culture. I'm saying that authentic expression of your true feelings is a key part of being a healthy human being no matter your gender. You don't have to make a scene. Just be honest. I'm also not saying you shouldn't use that energy to work towards a solution. Doing so is good and healthy.
Saying that emotions are fundamentally not useful displays, I believe, a deep lack of understanding of what emotions actually are. They're not some arbitrary human frailty, they're a finely tuned mode selection / behaviour modifier heuristic that is deeply embedded in the psyche of all mammals and (to varying degrees) all life. Emotions are deeply useful and can act as a communication channel between your conscious and subconscious.
In my own experience there's no such thing as "ignoring" emotions in the long term. You might consciously convince yourself that you're doing so but you're still building up an emotional payload based on what's happening to you and that payload will come out in some other, far less controlled way eventually. Certainly it's possible to cultivate some degree of detachment and so be less affected by the world around you but that just alters the balance, it doesn't remove emotions from your life.
To respond to a couple of your comments in posts below:
> There are many who romanticize the idea of men crying over small things, and I think that's not healthy or productive. I know many people who will cry when they lose a game in their hobby of choice, for example. That kind of thing is too much IMO.
My experience differs here and I feel this is a bit of a distraction/strawman. Being able to play games without getting overly emotionally affected by the outcome is a baseline measure of maturity for everyone regardless of gender and we're not talking about party games here. We're talking about, to paraphrase the GP of my post, "My dad [...] doesn't know how to talk intimately or how to reveal emotions." Being emotionally stunted in this way genuinely impacts your ability to live a fulfilling life.
> It's very reasonable to train yourself to not have those emotions and therefore not carry that baggage.
This is not only not reasonable, I don't believe it's even possible for most people. Either you're wired significantly differently to every human I know (which is possible) or you're not "training yourself not to have emotions", you're just in denial.
> There is an option to not have those negative emotions in the first place.
Again, unless you are very, very far from baseline this is not true.
> That's an extreme example that I'm not really referencing here. Of course I feel sad when something extreme happens, like a loved one dies.
This kind of thing is what the original conversation was talking about.
First up I'm not talking about performative emo culture. I'm saying that authentic expression of your true feelings is a key part of being a healthy human being no matter your gender. You don't have to make a scene. Just be honest. I'm also not saying you shouldn't use that energy to work towards a solution. Doing so is good and healthy.
Saying that emotions are fundamentally not useful displays, I believe, a deep lack of understanding of what emotions actually are. They're not some arbitrary human frailty, they're a finely tuned mode selection / behaviour modifier heuristic that is deeply embedded in the psyche of all mammals and (to varying degrees) all life. Emotions are deeply useful and can act as a communication channel between your conscious and subconscious.
In my own experience there's no such thing as "ignoring" emotions in the long term. You might consciously convince yourself that you're doing so but you're still building up an emotional payload based on what's happening to you and that payload will come out in some other, far less controlled way eventually. Certainly it's possible to cultivate some degree of detachment and so be less affected by the world around you but that just alters the balance, it doesn't remove emotions from your life.
To respond to a couple of your comments in posts below:
> There are many who romanticize the idea of men crying over small things, and I think that's not healthy or productive. I know many people who will cry when they lose a game in their hobby of choice, for example. That kind of thing is too much IMO.
My experience differs here and I feel this is a bit of a distraction/strawman. Being able to play games without getting overly emotionally affected by the outcome is a baseline measure of maturity for everyone regardless of gender and we're not talking about party games here. We're talking about, to paraphrase the GP of my post, "My dad [...] doesn't know how to talk intimately or how to reveal emotions." Being emotionally stunted in this way genuinely impacts your ability to live a fulfilling life.
> It's very reasonable to train yourself to not have those emotions and therefore not carry that baggage.
This is not only not reasonable, I don't believe it's even possible for most people. Either you're wired significantly differently to every human I know (which is possible) or you're not "training yourself not to have emotions", you're just in denial.
> There is an option to not have those negative emotions in the first place.
Again, unless you are very, very far from baseline this is not true.
> That's an extreme example that I'm not really referencing here. Of course I feel sad when something extreme happens, like a loved one dies.
This kind of thing is what the original conversation was talking about.
so parent is right, in some societies it's a male thing. it's cultural, but that doesn't negate the statement. and it doesn't have anything to do with poverty
[deleted]
I heard by his referred to jokingly as the Real Man Starter Kit, aka the set of values that everyone thinks are requisite.
I experienced this first-hand. Parents went through bankruptcy after my father committed credit card fraud. Both parents actually talked about money less during the period right before and after the bankruptcy.
I think the idea was that they were ashamed and did not want to worry me. But it ended up much worse as far as its negative affect on me, because the bankruptcy led to a jarring change in lifestyle for us and breeds distrust between the child-parent relationship.
If/when I'm a parent, I will be much more transparent with my kids about how the family finances work, so they can learn how to manage money responsibly.
I think the idea was that they were ashamed and did not want to worry me. But it ended up much worse as far as its negative affect on me, because the bankruptcy led to a jarring change in lifestyle for us and breeds distrust between the child-parent relationship.
If/when I'm a parent, I will be much more transparent with my kids about how the family finances work, so they can learn how to manage money responsibly.
A somewhat suspicious aspect of these claims is that not all of the studies actually attempt to isolate poverty as a causal factor of tersity, rather than tersity and poverty sharing a causal factor (which a priori seems much more likely to me). One of the studies does use time-of-month vs tersity, to attempt to control for such shared factors, but time-of-month seems like a questionably accurate (if clever) proxy variable here.
I believe it was also coupled with survey data about how many times the parents experienced financial stress.
If being more terse at the end-of-the-month can be reliably reproduced, what other causitive factor would you propose? And why would it apply to some families but not others? What hints do you have that lead you to the conclusion that poverty and terseness probably share a common cause?
If being more terse at the end-of-the-month can be reliably reproduced, what other causitive factor would you propose? And why would it apply to some families but not others? What hints do you have that lead you to the conclusion that poverty and terseness probably share a common cause?
I actually came here to say that funnily enough, my parents did the opposite. Santa even had a damn budget...
In my case, all my Dad did everday after work, was get drunk and talk about how much the kids were costing him.
Same with my dad a lot. He then found Jesus and became a hardcore dogmatic Catholic. So it went from horrible spankings to 2 hour long forced lectures or I'll slap you cause you're committing a mortal sin you sinner.
What's wrong with Santa having a budget? :-)
There is no life when money is tight. It's just constant struggle for survival. There is no time or energy for engaging in any 'non-essential' behavior.
I had a lot more humor a decade ago but nowadays I have no surplus energy to make any jokes and I can barely laugh at anything aside from dark humor.
I only think about two things these days:
1. Securing a decent income (through honest means).
2. Reset of the corrupt economy.
I see the two as intertwined. Everything I think about and do is about these two things. #1 is not possible for me (and many people) without #2.
It's sad that a lot of people are starting to fall in the same category and it's affecting their interactions with family members in such a profoundly negative way.
I had a lot more humor a decade ago but nowadays I have no surplus energy to make any jokes and I can barely laugh at anything aside from dark humor.
I only think about two things these days:
1. Securing a decent income (through honest means).
2. Reset of the corrupt economy.
I see the two as intertwined. Everything I think about and do is about these two things. #1 is not possible for me (and many people) without #2.
It's sad that a lot of people are starting to fall in the same category and it's affecting their interactions with family members in such a profoundly negative way.
Consider doctors, who are extremely busy in their profession. Although, doctors do not spend enough time talking to their children, somehow they turn out to be alright.
I am thinking, are children sensing their economic backlog way to sooner than we know ?
I am thinking, are children sensing their economic backlog way to sooner than we know ?
> Consider doctors, who are extremely busy in their profession. Although, doctors do not spend enough time talking to their children, somehow they turn out to be alright.
Is this something you know, or is it something you think is true? The reason I ask is because there are quite a lot of doctors in my extended family, and they spend a lot of time with their children. That’s obviously very anecdotal, but working long hours and sometimes being called in to perform long acute surgeries doesn’t seem to impact their family lives much.
Part of this is financial. You simply have more time when you pay other people to clean your house, do your laundry and keep your garden and can get restaurant quality take-away delivered when you’re too exhausted to cook. Aside from paying people to do things, you also expend so much less energy when you never worry about money.
Another part could be the kind of people they are. I have ADHD and while I’m well functional and have been for years, I just don’t have enough energy to lead a life that’s on equal grounds with my counterparts in other municipalities, even with medication. As a result I’ve had to balance my work-life and my career so that I only rarely work more than 37 hours in a week (paid lunch and extended travel times included) and when I do work more hours, I make sure to work less as soon as possible so that the total gets to be 37 hours per week over the year. I have absolutely no regrets sacrifice a little of my career (which is of course made easy that it is still a great career despite the sacrifices) to have more energy for my family. It did affect me when I had my first child, which is where only having energy for 1.5 full time jobs first caught up with me, and I was quite depressed I couldn’t lead the life I had planned. Once things “fell into place for me mentally” I’ve never looked back. Here, years later, I’m actively trying to find ways to work even less. The reason I use myself as an example here is because my cousin is a leading surgeon with a doctor wife and 3 children, and he is able to put as much energy into his children as I am without the sacrifices.
Becoming a doctor is extremely taxing in my country, so it goes to reason that the people who come through it are simply people who are fortune in the energy and structure department. Which could likely also helping them to have more energy over all to invest in their children.
This is anecdotal like I said, maybe the doctors in my family are just special, but unless you have some sort of data to back your claim, you might want to be careful about your assumptions.
Is this something you know, or is it something you think is true? The reason I ask is because there are quite a lot of doctors in my extended family, and they spend a lot of time with their children. That’s obviously very anecdotal, but working long hours and sometimes being called in to perform long acute surgeries doesn’t seem to impact their family lives much.
Part of this is financial. You simply have more time when you pay other people to clean your house, do your laundry and keep your garden and can get restaurant quality take-away delivered when you’re too exhausted to cook. Aside from paying people to do things, you also expend so much less energy when you never worry about money.
Another part could be the kind of people they are. I have ADHD and while I’m well functional and have been for years, I just don’t have enough energy to lead a life that’s on equal grounds with my counterparts in other municipalities, even with medication. As a result I’ve had to balance my work-life and my career so that I only rarely work more than 37 hours in a week (paid lunch and extended travel times included) and when I do work more hours, I make sure to work less as soon as possible so that the total gets to be 37 hours per week over the year. I have absolutely no regrets sacrifice a little of my career (which is of course made easy that it is still a great career despite the sacrifices) to have more energy for my family. It did affect me when I had my first child, which is where only having energy for 1.5 full time jobs first caught up with me, and I was quite depressed I couldn’t lead the life I had planned. Once things “fell into place for me mentally” I’ve never looked back. Here, years later, I’m actively trying to find ways to work even less. The reason I use myself as an example here is because my cousin is a leading surgeon with a doctor wife and 3 children, and he is able to put as much energy into his children as I am without the sacrifices.
Becoming a doctor is extremely taxing in my country, so it goes to reason that the people who come through it are simply people who are fortune in the energy and structure department. Which could likely also helping them to have more energy over all to invest in their children.
This is anecdotal like I said, maybe the doctors in my family are just special, but unless you have some sort of data to back your claim, you might want to be careful about your assumptions.
> Is this something you know, or is it something you think is true?
Totally in my head. No data to back up.
My aha moment :
> Part of this is financial.
Totally in my head. No data to back up.
My aha moment :
> Part of this is financial.
To add to this: children of expats will usually speak at least two languages.
That'll often be three languages if both parents are expats. Three languages by the time they start first grade.
They don't just now how to speak extra languages, they can really think in them too, and many times understand nuances and biases that you'd only know if you were a native of a given languages.
In EU countries there most people speak multiple languages that's not a bit deal, but in countries where most people speak a single language, that's also an enormous difference.
That'll often be three languages if both parents are expats. Three languages by the time they start first grade.
They don't just now how to speak extra languages, they can really think in them too, and many times understand nuances and biases that you'd only know if you were a native of a given languages.
In EU countries there most people speak multiple languages that's not a bit deal, but in countries where most people speak a single language, that's also an enormous difference.
People spending less time at home with children and more time in work to meet ends, end up talking less to children, that's really shocking revelation.
And even if you have sometimes same hours as wealthier person you are more exhausted from the crappy job to open mouth at home.
This study was clearly done by wealthy people they need to study this to find out.
And even if you have sometimes same hours as wealthier person you are more exhausted from the crappy job to open mouth at home.
This study was clearly done by wealthy people they need to study this to find out.
This seems like an obvious question, but did the study account for hours worked? 9-to-5 office jobs are a luxury, and poverty is strongly correlated with having to work multiple minimum-wage/gig jobs just to make ends meet.
I explain my 3-year-old everything. Of course, I leave out details and simplify, but when I take my time and explain it to her, she is satisfied. If I don't, I can see it bothering her.
Just take them seriously and talk to them.
Just take them seriously and talk to them.
But consider also:
> It is a well-documented fact that by the age of 5 monolingual White children will have heard 30 million fewer words in languages other than English than bilingual children of color. In addition, they will have had a complete lack of exposure to the richness of non-standardized varieties of English that characterize the homes of many children of color. This language gap increases the longer these children are in school. The question is what causes this language gap and what can be done to address it?
> The major cause of this language gap is the failure of monolingual White communities to successfully assimilate into the multilingual and multidialectal mainstream. The continued existence of White ethnic enclaves persists despite concerted efforts to integrate White communities into the multiracial mainstream since the 1960s. In these linguistically isolated enclaves it is possible to go for days without interacting with anybody who does not speak Standardized American English providing little incentive for their inhabitants to adapt to the multilingual and multidialectal nature of US society.
> This linguistic isolation has a detrimental effect on the cognitive development of monolingual White children. This is because linguistically isolated households lack the rich translanguaging practices that are found in bilingual households and the elaborate style-shifting that occurs in bidialectal households. This leaves monolingual White children without a strong metalinguistic basis for language learning. As a result, many of these monolingual White children lack the school-readiness skills needed for foreign language learning and graduate from school having mastered nothing but Standardized American English leaving them ill-equipped to engage in intercultural communication.
https://educationallinguist.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/what-if...
> It is a well-documented fact that by the age of 5 monolingual White children will have heard 30 million fewer words in languages other than English than bilingual children of color. In addition, they will have had a complete lack of exposure to the richness of non-standardized varieties of English that characterize the homes of many children of color. This language gap increases the longer these children are in school. The question is what causes this language gap and what can be done to address it?
> The major cause of this language gap is the failure of monolingual White communities to successfully assimilate into the multilingual and multidialectal mainstream. The continued existence of White ethnic enclaves persists despite concerted efforts to integrate White communities into the multiracial mainstream since the 1960s. In these linguistically isolated enclaves it is possible to go for days without interacting with anybody who does not speak Standardized American English providing little incentive for their inhabitants to adapt to the multilingual and multidialectal nature of US society.
> This linguistic isolation has a detrimental effect on the cognitive development of monolingual White children. This is because linguistically isolated households lack the rich translanguaging practices that are found in bilingual households and the elaborate style-shifting that occurs in bidialectal households. This leaves monolingual White children without a strong metalinguistic basis for language learning. As a result, many of these monolingual White children lack the school-readiness skills needed for foreign language learning and graduate from school having mastered nothing but Standardized American English leaving them ill-equipped to engage in intercultural communication.
https://educationallinguist.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/what-if...
Is this grounded in a peer reviewed paper?
Bilingualism - while awesome, does not track well with skill development (maths / science) in other areas even in immersion type programs where there is no further language barrier.
Non-standardized varieties of ANY language also are negatively correlated with positive outcomes. So folks speaking pidgen or strong dialects of spanish etc also struggle.
Families - even immigrant families, who go big on the monolingual thing (some parents will not speak to children in other than dominate language) have very positive outcomes - so mono-linqual is not just a white thing.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09116...
Bilingualism - while awesome, does not track well with skill development (maths / science) in other areas even in immersion type programs where there is no further language barrier.
Non-standardized varieties of ANY language also are negatively correlated with positive outcomes. So folks speaking pidgen or strong dialects of spanish etc also struggle.
Families - even immigrant families, who go big on the monolingual thing (some parents will not speak to children in other than dominate language) have very positive outcomes - so mono-linqual is not just a white thing.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09116...
nvm
Did you bother reading the title which is: "What if we talked about monolingual White children the way we talk about low-income children of color?"
[deleted]
Thank you for clearing that up.
However, I’m not sure how this idea is helpful. We can pretend everything is made up and it’s only power structures that impose reality on people but it’s not helpful. In the end you have to consider society is and will be and you can either participate in it in reality or you can cynically scoff at how it’s all make believe anyways and live miserably.
However, I’m not sure how this idea is helpful. We can pretend everything is made up and it’s only power structures that impose reality on people but it’s not helpful. In the end you have to consider society is and will be and you can either participate in it in reality or you can cynically scoff at how it’s all make believe anyways and live miserably.
Interesting article, but don't expect a fruitful discussion when you bring race into it.
Why on earth are these studies even necessary? Pressure makes you talk less to people. Just putting two remotely related words together doesn't automatically make it insightful.
Given how important parental interaction is for healthy child development (See: Language deprivation [1]), it is useful to bring up the issue so that more attention is given to this particular set of long-term effects. More attention will help social work trying to create a counterbalance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation
The poor are subject to feedback loops which keep them down. The rich get feedback loops which keep them up.
Has anyone noticed the opposite effect, talking less to your parents when money's tight?
When we suffer anxiety we turn inward and get, to a degree, autisticky.
I think that this is not really news.
I think that this is not really news.
I'm not convinced. I don't see that the methodology in any way demonstrates causation between these two variables: they've just jumped to that conclusion pretty quickly.
The only mention in the article is that the results have been "replicated elsewhere", but didn't say what the methodology of those other papers are.
The only mention in the article is that the results have been "replicated elsewhere", but didn't say what the methodology of those other papers are.
That is exactly how my ex-boss would behave!
Where does this come from? It plays extraordinarily conveniently into a left-wing narrative.
Is it so unbelievable though?
I think that this is almost a common-sense finding for anyone who has ever had money problems.
How many studies like this need to not replicate before we stop treating them seriously?