Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

news.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 172 posts

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#31

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

staticman2 wrote: post #28
mc32 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#32

Post by jeromegv »

mc32 wrote: post #19
blfr wrote: post #3

In the first experiment, researchers sought to observe how parents would interact with their children (in this case, 3-year-olds) after the parents were asked to describe times in which they had recently experienced scarcity. A control group of parents were instead asked to describe other recent activities. How many studies like this need to not replicate before we stop treating them seriously?

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…

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?

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#34

Post by loganfrederick »

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.

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#35

Post by [deleted] »

throwawayboise wrote: post #17
awaythro wrote: post #12

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.

It's a male thing, nothing to do with poverty.

[deleted]

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#36

Post by staticman2 »

zepto wrote: post #30
staticman2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#37

Post by BrissyCoder »

sergiomattei wrote: post #22

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.

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.

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#38

Post by mc32 »

jeromegv wrote: post #32
mc32 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

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?

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#39

Post by mc32 »

staticman2 wrote: post #36
zepto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

Re: Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids

#40

Post by h0l0cube »

blfr wrote: post #3

In the first experiment, researchers sought to observe how parents would interact with their children (in this case, 3-year-olds) after the parents were asked to describe times in which they had recently experienced scarcity. A control group of parents were instead asked to describe other recent activities. How many studies like this need to not replicate before we stop treating them seriously?

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?
Post reply on HN