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

71–80 of 172 posts

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

#71

Post by reader_mode »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #55
reader_mode wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#72

Post by marcusverus »

conductr wrote: post #14
hollerith wrote: post #2

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.

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-...

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

#73

Post by tqi »

h0l0cube wrote: post #60
tqi wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

#74

Post by BrissyCoder »

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'.

> 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.

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

#75

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

yann2 wrote: post #43
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #24

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.

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

#76

Post by h0l0cube »

tqi wrote: post #73
h0l0cube wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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

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

#77

Post by rossdavidh »

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?

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.

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

#78

Post by h0l0cube »

ALittleLight wrote: post #68
h0l0cube wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

> 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)

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

#79

Post by mjevans »

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?

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.

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

#80

Post by bryanrasmussen »

mjevans wrote: post #79
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?

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…

>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.

Post reply on HN