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

141–150 of 172 posts

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

#141

Post by spywaregorilla »

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?

On top of that, skimming the results I see an effect size of 40 fewer words, not statistically significant.

Paper doesn't really support the headline.

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

#142

Post by cryptica »

There is no life when money is tight. It's just constant struggle for survival. There is no time or energy for engaging in any 'non-essential' behavior.

I had a lot more humor a decade ago but nowadays I have no surplus energy to make any jokes and I can barely laugh at anything aside from dark humor.

I only think about two things these days:

1. Securing a decent income (through honest means).

2. Reset of the corrupt economy.

I see the two as intertwined. Everything I think about and do is about these two things. #1 is not possible for me (and many people) without #2.

It's sad that a lot of people are starting to fall in the same category and it's affecting their interactions with family members in such a profoundly negative way.

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

#143

Post by Markoff »

People spending less time at home with children and more time in work to meet ends, end up talking less to children, that's really shocking revelation.

And even if you have sometimes same hours as wealthier person you are more exhausted from the crappy job to open mouth at home.

This study was clearly done by wealthy people they need to study this to find out.

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

#144

Post by dmos62 »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #42
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.

I grew up in a fairly poor home and it was similar. My parents sometimes acknowledged that we were poor, but they otherwise seemed to pretend it wasn’t true. Asking for something that cost money was practically punishable - instead of saying no, we still can’t afford that, it was construed as rude and selfish. This kind of sensitivity and denial around financial difficulties is common but very unhealthy for both the…

Couldn't agree more. I'll offer my own generalization. We generally feel what close ones are feeling, whether it's verbalised or not. If you are too ashamed to share something, or too scared, or whatever, what the other feels is exactly that feeling that you're trying to hide. Maybe you wanted to protect that close one from the feeling, but instead you're teaching him that that feeling cannot be accepted or transformed into something good. That feeling is something to avoid, to hide from, to numb yourself to. And, a final obvious point, it's not about the actual worldy situation, but about how we act in it. This applies to anything you can't accept.

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

#145

Post by throwaway0a5e »

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.

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

They're generally not referred to that way outside discussion of behaviors addicts engage in to get their fix and the discussion is limited in scope to addicts.

Making the generalization that everyone refers to the poors as meth heads serves the same ideological needs as generalizing the poors as addicts albeit to a different end.

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

#146

Post by SerLava »

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?

Damn, why can't I just have my Washington N-words, political correctness has gone too far

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

#147

Post by relaxing »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #141
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?

On top of that, skimming the results I see an effect size of 40 fewer words, not statistically significant. Paper doesn't really support the headline.

How did you arrive at a calculation of statistical significance from “40 fewer words”?

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

#149

Post by randomdata »

oblio wrote: post #132
randomdata wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two 29 hour jobs would result in a 58 hour work week, and thus the worker would be considered to work full-time.

I think it's more likely that a lot of poor people have a main job, frequently with a number of hours that prevents them getting all the benefits of a full time job (think 35 hours instead of 40) and then they work extra, on the side, to be able to make ends meet. So legally they'd only show up as working 15-20-35 hours and in fact they'd work 60 hours a week.

The referenced dataset is about employment, not jobs. Hours worked in a week would not be affected by how many different employers one has. The distinction is if they work 1 to 34 hours (part-time) or 35 or more hours (full-time).

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

#150

Post by spywaregorilla »

relaxing wrote: post #147
spywaregorilla wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On top of that, skimming the results I see an effect size of 40 fewer words, not statistically significant. Paper doesn't really support the headline.

How did you arrive at a calculation of statistical significance from “40 fewer words”?

40 fewer words is the average effect size.

Statistical significance is a measure of the likelihood of getting that effect size by random if the two approaches didn't actually affect the outcome. With a large enough sample size, an effect size of 1 fewer word could be "statistically significant", even if it is practically meaningless.

In this case they got a p-value of 0.1 iirc. So assuming there's nothing special about the circumstances, you'd expect to get samples this different 1 in 10 times you ran the experiment by luck alone.

Post reply on HN