Live data from Hacker News

'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

philly.com

251–260 of 265 posts

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#251
post #221
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We do know that alcohol poses some risk to a developing fetus. That's all I was assuming. No, we don't. We know that a lot of alcohol poses some risk to some foetuses. We don't know that X drinks a week poses any risk to all foetuses. Maybe it's just harmful to foetuses who are compromised in some way? Maybe it's just harmful to foetuses with a genetic disposition to harm? Maybe it's not harmful at all? We don't kn…

No, we don't. Sure we do; you go on to say the same thing. You're just emphasizing the "we don't know" part, while I was emphasizing the "there might be some risk" part. We do not know that there is no risk, which, given that alcohol use is avoidable, is the point. Some research is just poor quality. Yes, that's true. But the belief that alcohol might harm a developing fetus isn't just based on research. It's also ba…

Small amounts of alcohol may even be beneficial. You may never find out if precaution is mindlessly carried out in absence of evidence.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you decide to ignore those in your study because you want to study something specific then you should make it very, very clear. There are a lot of things researchers want . They write grant proposals to study things which they can, at the beginning of the study demonstrate the possibility of obtaining a useful unambiguous conclusion. I don't get the impression that the researchers misrepresented their study. Is t…

If you decide to ignore those in your study because you want to study something specific then you should make it very, very clear. I don't know how cavalle could be more clear: s/he's not judging the study design, but rather the popular report of the study results.

Is the newspaper report non-factual? It even mentions the researcher's caveat not to use cocaine during pregnancy.

"Hurt, who is also a professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, is always quick to point out that cocaine can have devastating effects on pregnancy."

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#253
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't. Sure we do; you go on to say the same thing. You're just emphasizing the "we don't know" part, while I was emphasizing the "there might be some risk" part. We do not know that there is no risk, which, given that alcohol use is avoidable, is the point. Some research is just poor quality. Yes, that's true. But the belief that alcohol might harm a developing fetus isn't just based on research. It's also ba…

Small amounts of alcohol may even be beneficial. You may never find out if precaution is mindlessly carried out in absence of evidence.

I already allowed for that case; I said (several levels upthread) if there's a benefit to the mother that outweighs the risk of harm to the child, then the alcohol use is justified.

That said, AFAIK whatever benefits have been found for alcoholic beverages are not due to the alcohol, but to some other substance that happens to be in the beverage (for example, antioxidants in red wine). If there is a way to get the other substance without the alcohol, that would seem to be preferable since it eliminates the risk without sacrificing the benefit.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you decide to ignore those in your study because you want to study something specific then you should make it very, very clear. There are a lot of things researchers want . They write grant proposals to study things which they can, at the beginning of the study demonstrate the possibility of obtaining a useful unambiguous conclusion. I don't get the impression that the researchers misrepresented their study. Is t…

>Does your personal experience involve having read news articles like the one we're discussing, or watching television news covering the subject? I suppose technically, yes. But it also comes from my father working as a neonatologist and my own experience working with severely disabled children, many of whom were crack babies or suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, throughout my 20s. > which after some time appears…

> This study does not show that cocaine has a negligible effect. It shows that cocaine has a less than poverty effect for children that make it to term. Big, big difference.

You're right, I overstated my claim. The effect is negligible with respect to the effects of poverty.

> Cocaine causes increased rates of premature birth

The studies you've linked do not support your statement. The studies say that cocaine use is associated with, not that cocaine is the cause.

re: [1] I never disputed that PT infants have developmental problems.

re: [2] "Studies revealed that in most domains, the neurobiological effects of PCE play a subtle role, with effects no greater than other known teratogens or environmental factors. Associations between PCE and negative developmental outcomes were typically attenuated when models included conditions that commonly co-occur with PCE (eg. tobacco or alcohol exposure, malnutrition, poor quality of care)." and "Preconception and prenatal cocaine use is commonly associated with poor pregnancy outcomes with psychosocial, behavioral, and risk factors, such as poverty, poor nutrition, stress, depression, physical abuse, lake[sic] of social support, and sexually transmitted infection. Illicit drug use during pregnancy is a major risk factor for maternal morbidity and neonatal complications."

re: [3] "Cocaine use during pregnancy was associated with significantly higher odds of preterm birth"

re: [4] "Prenatal cocaine exposure is significantly associated with preterm birth, low birthweight, and small for gestational age infants."

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#255
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having little to eat and poor schools do not keep a child from learning from others. There is ready access to the internet through libraries in the U.S. with a wealth of information online, and a lot of books on the shelves there also. If you take away all genetic factors (tendency towards aggression, lower intellectual capacity, etc.) and environmental factors (is the child worried about being shot, peer pressure…

I appreciate that you are trying to refute my argument, but just saying that someone does not know what they are talking about has got to be one of the least intelligent ways of doing so. Explain to me exactly how I am wrong. I see no other comments by you in this thread, so I have no idea what you are thinking. I'm not a mind reader.

This conversation is now a day old. Given current levels of attention spans, I am not sure that a response at this time would be useful, but nonetheless, you are right and I do owe you one.

First, I should point out that I speak from experience: I have been one of those poor children and have known many of them. I have experienced not having enough to eat and attended poor schools. Fortunately for me, these experiences were relatively short lived. However, because of those experiences, I retain a keen interest in the state of poverty, poor people, and how they live. Now, on to your points.

> Having little to eat and poor schools do not keep a child from learning from others. There is ready access to the internet through libraries in the U.S. with a wealth of information online, and a lot of books on the shelves there also.

Obviously there are exceptions, but most poor schools do not have internet access for the students or computers for them. If they do have a library, it is generally inadequate and most are not encouraged to use it. The greater problem, however, is the issue of hunger; it is very hard to concentrate or develop one's self in a hungry state. Adults can, and do learn, to deal with the state of hunger but children do not. A hungry child is only interested in one thing and when the state of hunger persists, will adapt, however they must, to a life of hunger. That generally means they will make what we would consider poor choices.

> If you take away all genetic factors (tendency towards aggression, lower intellectual capacity, etc.)

Tarring poor people (or any other sort, for that matter) with some sort of genetic failing is a convenient way to explain why they are less successful than you are, but unfortunately sidesteps a whole set of other reasons (historical, social, political, geographic) than generally has a far greater impact on one's life than genes. I was born in Africa and was lucky enough to have parents who eventually ended up in the United States where I availed myself of the opportunities, etc. I am proud of my intellect and have achieved much because of it, but I would never claim that I succeeded merely because of it. I have met many smart people who were simply not as lucky as I have been to make that claim.

> and environmental factors (is the child worried about being shot, peer pressure to join a gang or get into drugs or alcohol, etc.), then in the end it is more about parenting and community, not about poverty.

Here, the combination of factors listed seem to point to an urban American child. Problem is, there are many poor children in other countries who do not face these same pressures and yet, still have the same outcomes.

Parenting helps a lot. Community helps a lot. But if the lack of them were the problem, we'd see far less poverty than we do.

I'm afraid I've gone on for too long and will have lost some readers, but I hope this better explains my earlier posting and why I claimed that you did not speak from a knowledgeable position.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#256
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh. You don't think "Think of the Children" is part of the "Women need to be controlled" category? This is also where we get the notion that there is a magical mystical maternal mojo. Women are resources, not players.

> You don't think "Think of the Children" is > part of the "Women need to be controlled" > category? Here are a few "Think of the Children" scenarios: - Preventing child pornography - Preventing child abuse - Preventing children from hearing 'bad words' - Stopping children from gaining access to violent video games I fail to see how any of these is about 'controlling women.' I don't see how being generally concerned…

> I fail to see how any of these is about 'controlling women.'

Because you're looking at it in terms of public policy and law making (which is appropriate; "Think of the Children" is precisely such a public face). How do these scenarios play out in a domestic environment?

> How do we get this from "Think of the Children" + "Women Need to be Controlled?"

Because fathers are not expected to have such a strong connection to their children. The chain of command is "Man -> Mother -> Child". A woman's first and foremost responsibility, in this way of thinking, is the well-being of the child. Only when she can't handle it does she appeal to the man. The obedience of the child derives directly from the obedience of its mother.

Thus, the man's job in parenting is to provide from afar. He does not sully his hands by dealing with silly emotional issues; he brings bread home and punishes any misbehavior that isn't dealt with by the mother.

In this model of the world, the mother is useful only as an intermediary to handle messy things like diaper-changing and doctor visits and crying. She is the hammer that pounds down the nail. This particular role and objectification must be justified. That justification is that there is a Super Special Bond of Specialness that makes her uniquely qualified so that no one else could usurp her place.

Honestly, there is so much cultural detritus to point out as context that, if I made dealing with sexism my life's work, I could probably put together a book or two on the subject.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#257
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate that you are trying to refute my argument, but just saying that someone does not know what they are talking about has got to be one of the least intelligent ways of doing so. Explain to me exactly how I am wrong. I see no other comments by you in this thread, so I have no idea what you are thinking. I'm not a mind reader.

This conversation is now a day old. Given current levels of attention spans, I am not sure that a response at this time would be useful, but nonetheless, you are right and I do owe you one. First, I should point out that I speak from experience: I have been one of those poor children and have known many of them. I have experienced not having enough to eat and attended poor schools. Fortunately for me, these experienc…

> Obviously there are exceptions, but most poor schools do not have internet access for the students or computers for them. If they do have a library, it is generally inadequate and most are not encouraged to use it.

I appreciate your response, but I believe that your experience is based of your childhood in Africa. In our local county library we probably have 30-40 computers available for free internet access. This was not the case 10 years ago, so perhaps you should visit the public library in the area of the U.S. where you believe that there is a lack of internet access and I would be surprised if at least one computer is there with internet access that could be used. I would bet that there is, and I doubt people would be discouraged from using it.

> Tarring poor people (or any other sort, for that matter) with some sort of genetic failing is a convenient way to explain why they are less successful than you are...

You missed my point entirely, I'm afraid. I don't think that poverty is genetically linked to lack of success. Poverty is not genetic. What I was saying was that if you have a group of people that are less intelligent because they are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent, then that group has a greater likelihood of being less successful and therefore poorer.

> Here, the combination of factors listed seem to point to an urban American child.

Everything I've been arguing about is about the U.S. I am definitely not speaking about Africa or other parts of the world, and I'm sorry that you took it that way. I think that there are a lot of places in the world in worse condition than in the U.S. I am only making the arguments I make here because throwing money at poverty does not help. It must be applied with care and education and guidance are even more important, at least when people are willing to listen and be taught. Unfortunately, some cultures and peoples are not interested in changing.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#258
"Poverty is a more powerful influence on the outcome of inner-city children than gestational exposure to cocaine," Hurt said at her May lecture.

And yet somehow immigrants (Nigerian, Vietnamese, Romanian, Armenian) living in poverty somehow find a way to work hard enough to become successful. They make their own outcome. Why is it only the impoverished Americans that cannot succeed.

I think we have to look here at what it takes to succeed.

1. Dedicated parent(s). Two of them (a mom and a dad) can do far more than one so probability of success rises if both stick around. These inner city kids almost NEVER have a dad in the picture. This leaves mom to work or she is a complete welfare loser and probably on drugs too.

2. Standards/Morals. One bad choice can ruin a person's life. We all have turning points in life where we choose to take a hit off a pope, or pass on it. Have unprotected sex, or abstain. Assault someone, commit a robbery, ETC. These choices have a ripple effect on the rest of our lives.

3. Hard work. Why work if you can live off of the dole? Why work for white people and help their society since they are so racist? (this is a common attitude).

Immigrants come to America with almost nothing. They see opportunity though. They work hard and succeed. They stick together. Dad does not leave, mom does not smoke crack or sleep around. They have values, morals and a strong work ethic. This is what separates immigrants living in poverty and your more typical inner city situation in Philadelphia.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#259
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This conversation is now a day old. Given current levels of attention spans, I am not sure that a response at this time would be useful, but nonetheless, you are right and I do owe you one. First, I should point out that I speak from experience: I have been one of those poor children and have known many of them. I have experienced not having enough to eat and attended poor schools. Fortunately for me, these experienc…

> Obviously there are exceptions, but most poor schools do not have internet access for the students or computers for them. If they do have a library, it is generally inadequate and most are not encouraged to use it. I appreciate your response, but I believe that your experience is based of your childhood in Africa. In our local county library we probably have 30-40 computers available for free internet access. This…

btw- just to be clear, I think that Africa deserves a lot more aid that it is getting, and the the U.S. has a lot of areas that could use more money- one of our largest cities, Detroit, just went bankrupt. And with atheism spreading through government, entertainment, and media support, the money given by the world's largest charity, the Catholic church, has started to go down because fewer are giving, which will affect the entire world. We definitely don't need to stop giving. We need to start giving. But the progressive, statist agenda in the U.S. unintentionally adds layers and layers of bureaucracy that poorly administer this money. I would be in favor of putting more money towards U.S. teachers (which should not be tenured but should be higher paid) and education in-general, and even smart housing programs that don't colocate the poor, but not welfare.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#260
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This conversation is now a day old. Given current levels of attention spans, I am not sure that a response at this time would be useful, but nonetheless, you are right and I do owe you one. First, I should point out that I speak from experience: I have been one of those poor children and have known many of them. I have experienced not having enough to eat and attended poor schools. Fortunately for me, these experienc…

> Obviously there are exceptions, but most poor schools do not have internet access for the students or computers for them. If they do have a library, it is generally inadequate and most are not encouraged to use it. I appreciate your response, but I believe that your experience is based of your childhood in Africa. In our local county library we probably have 30-40 computers available for free internet access. This…

My responses are based knowledge of poverty in many parts of the world. I mentioned my childhood in Africa because my knowledge of it is deeper than that of most people discussing the issue. In addition, as I mentioned, I have a keen interest in the topic beyond my personal experiences.

The question of why poor people don't take advantage of the amenities available to them or, in other words, pull themselves up by their bootstraps (in this case, using computers with free internet access) does come up. The answer is that some do. But it is not the solution for everyone, just as it is not the solution for the rest of society. You might and I would, but I am an exception and would not expect others to follow the same paths I have.

On the issue of genetics, I understand you to be saying that only the stupid are poor. Sorry, genetics don't work that way and poor people aren't all stupid. There is just as much variation in their ranks as in others.

In any case, I think further discussion of the topic would be unproductive so I'll stop here.

Post reply on HN