Word gap: When money’s tight, parents talk less to kids • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by enkid » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 4:16 AM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #54

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?

>>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 thr…

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.

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

#102

Post by h0l0cube » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 4:25 AM UTC

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?

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

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

#103

Post by venkat223 » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

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?

Value system is also important.As they bring up behaviour is getting moulded by epigentics on emotional levels

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

#104

Post by visarga » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 5:27 AM UTC

peanutz454 wrote: post #98

DangitBobby wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kids develop speech at different speeds, many late speakers have high IQ.

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

#105

Post by patatino » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:18 AM UTC

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.

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

#106

Post by framecowbird » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:25 AM UTC

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.

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

#107

Post by techrat » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:34 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #96

techrat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Alright. I'll bite.

Why is it so important to you to continue to use caricature mascots that other people would find offensive over something benign like animals?

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

#108

Post by CJefferson » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:47 AM UTC

reader_mode wrote: post #9

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?

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.

They did do exactly that. The article doesn't do a good job of explaining the paper.

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

#109

Post by silly-silly » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 7:05 AM UTC

wesleywt wrote: post #91

throwadogabone wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're reading his list as an 'and', read the list as an 'or'.

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

#110

Post by yupper32 » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 7:09 AM UTC

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.

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?