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

91–100 of 172 posts

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

#91

Post by wesleywt »

throwadogabone wrote: post #82
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?

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, b…

Why are the poor in the America described in terms of "meth heads"? Being poor is not a moral failure.

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

#92

Post by op00to »

taneq wrote: post #59
throwawayboise wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#93

Post by mc32 »

crooked-v wrote: post #90
throwadogabone wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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).…

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.

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

#94

Post by tqi »

h0l0cube wrote: post #76
tqi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#95

Post by kortilla »

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…

> 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.

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

#96

Post by kortilla »

techrat wrote: post #61
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…

> 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.

> and the insensitivity to it was always a problem.

For who? Moral outrage porn addicts?

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

#97

Post by jcims »

hanoz wrote: post #21

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.

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

#98

Post by peanutz454 »

DangitBobby wrote: post #13
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.

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.

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

#99

Post by h0l0cube »

throwadogabone wrote: post #82
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?

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, b…

> 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.

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

#100

Post by h0l0cube »

tqi wrote: post #94
h0l0cube wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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)

Post reply on HN