4 ms·

Follow-up studies showed that these differences in language and interaction experiences have lasting effects on a child’s performance later in life. That's qui

by cb18 11y ago

Follow-up studies showed that these differences in language and interaction experiences have lasting effects on a child’s performance later in life. That's quite a leap to say "this caused that," rather than them both just being a side-effect/characteristic of something else. It is the height of shoddy science to look at correlated data points and proclaim a conclusion. But of course, much of what falls under 'social science' especially these days is shoddy.

gohrt 11y ago
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 >>> Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials Abstract Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. ... Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall. Results: We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention. Conclusions: As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute. <<<
- cb18 11y ago
  Not sure what your point is... If mine wasn't clear to you, the article starts with a claim that this 'word gap' is the cause of effects observed later in life. It's easy to see the attraction of this, simply talk to kids more, then better adults right? This is hardly cutting edge research, this has been floating around for some time, long enough for people to do some 'interventions,' of talking to kids more and the like, what did they find? Not much difference. Back to the drawing board then right? Nope, not in social science, in social science if the results don't match our desires, we keep trying to beat the square peg into the round hole until they do! What makes this shoddy science is that they assert the 'word gap' to be the cause with no evidence of it being so, and ignore other explanations, things like perhaps there are heritable 'psychological proclivities' that lead to parents raising a child in a particular way, the child inherits some portion and arrangement of these 'psychological proclivities' from the parent, these same 'psychological proclivities' then have an effect on the things observed later in life. So if the social scientists want to do something productive instead of ignoring or bemoaning the fact that there are genuine differences among people, they could explore ways of structuring societies and institutions such that better results for people of all 'psychological proclivities' can be achieved.
- hackaflocka 11y ago
  This is fantastic. I wasn't aware of this paper -- thanks for the pointer. This paper needs to get more attention in academia.
stevesearer 11y ago
I agree that just looking at only the Word Gap and Socioeconomic Status probably doesn't tell the whole picture. If those were the only two levers that mattered, it would be easy to assume that giving people money would close the gap, but it is likely a combination of many factors - some of which likely stem from socioeconomic status - and others which stem from other reasons. Some of the other data points that would be interesting to know would be: 1) whether or not the child has a parent or full-time caretaker in the home 2) does the child attend preschool 3) how much television/videos does the child watch 4) how regularly the child is read to
closed 11y ago
What you're getting at is important, and described really well in a recent article by Judea Pearl on Simpson's paradox [here](http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r414.pdf http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r414.pdf). Namely, because they didn't manipulate words spoken directly the evidence for more words causing an increase in performance is conditional on your/their beliefs about the structure of the world. I would say that many scientists are good at acknowledging this, though they may get over eager and forget to emphasize the point once they get to their discussion (or when an article is summarizing a piece of research). Whenever I read observational research, I just mentally insert "under a set of structural assumptions about the world" before every statement like the one you listed above, and everything is okay again :).
abandonliberty 11y ago
It's frustrating because they didn't have to resort to the unfounded conclusion. There's tons of evidence around stereotype threat/self-talk and performance[0] so there's a strong argument that being exposed to fewer words, and far more negative words, won't help these people be successful. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat

by cb18 11y ago

gohrt 11y ago

http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 >>> Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials Abstract Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. ... Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall. Results: We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention. Conclusions: As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute. <<<

cb18 11y ago
Not sure what your point is... If mine wasn't clear to you, the article starts with a claim that this 'word gap' is the cause of effects observed later in life. It's easy to see the attraction of this, simply talk to kids more, then better adults right? This is hardly cutting edge research, this has been floating around for some time, long enough for people to do some 'interventions,' of talking to kids more and the like, what did they find? Not much difference. Back to the drawing board then right? Nope, not in social science, in social science if the results don't match our desires, we keep trying to beat the square peg into the round hole until they do! What makes this shoddy science is that they assert the 'word gap' to be the cause with no evidence of it being so, and ignore other explanations, things like perhaps there are heritable 'psychological proclivities' that lead to parents raising a child in a particular way, the child inherits some portion and arrangement of these 'psychological proclivities' from the parent, these same 'psychological proclivities' then have an effect on the things observed later in life. So if the social scientists want to do something productive instead of ignoring or bemoaning the fact that there are genuine differences among people, they could explore ways of structuring societies and institutions such that better results for people of all 'psychological proclivities' can be achieved.
hackaflocka 11y ago
This is fantastic. I wasn't aware of this paper -- thanks for the pointer. This paper needs to get more attention in academia.

stevesearer 11y ago

I agree that just looking at only the Word Gap and Socioeconomic Status probably doesn't tell the whole picture. If those were the only two levers that mattered, it would be easy to assume that giving people money would close the gap, but it is likely a combination of many factors - some of which likely stem from socioeconomic status - and others which stem from other reasons. Some of the other data points that would be interesting to know would be: 1) whether or not the child has a parent or full-time caretaker in the home 2) does the child attend preschool 3) how much television/videos does the child watch 4) how regularly the child is read to

closed 11y ago

What you're getting at is important, and described really well in a recent article by Judea Pearl on Simpson's paradox [here](http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r414.pdf http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r414.pdf). Namely, because they didn't manipulate words spoken directly the evidence for more words causing an increase in performance is conditional on your/their beliefs about the structure of the world. I would say that many scientists are good at acknowledging this, though they may get over eager and forget to emphasize the point once they get to their discussion (or when an article is summarizing a piece of research). Whenever I read observational research, I just mentally insert "under a set of structural assumptions about the world" before every statement like the one you listed above, and everything is okay again :).

abandonliberty 11y ago

It's frustrating because they didn't have to resort to the unfounded conclusion. There's tons of evidence around stereotype threat/self-talk and performance[0] so there's a strong argument that being exposed to fewer words, and far more negative words, won't help these people be successful. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat