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

61–70 of 172 posts

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

#61

Post by techrat »

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…

> 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.

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

#62

Post by staticman2 »

zepto wrote: post #56
staticman2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

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?

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

#64

Post by seventytwo »

slavboj wrote: post #29
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?

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.

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

#65

Post by spoonjim »

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…

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/

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

throwadogabone wrote: post #49
jeromegv wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by xenadu02 »

Applejinx wrote: post #44
BrissyCoder wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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).

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

#68

Post by ALittleLight »

h0l0cube wrote: post #40
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?

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/

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

#69

Post by mc32 »

spoonjim wrote: post #65
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…

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 peo…

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.

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

#70

Post by zepto »

staticman2 wrote: post #62
zepto wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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?

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?

Post reply on HN