3 ms·
> R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third
by mlyle 6y ago
> R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third grade is not a small positive effect. It is no effect at all.
Yes, so there was a positive effect that was no longer measurable by third grade, when we're looking at the dose response of kindergarten. (And there's other studies pointing the other way re: dose-response). And, we're talking about kindergarten in general, not the marginal benefits of higher doses of kindergarten.
That is-- if 200 mg ibuprofen is the standard of care, and we find people taking 400mg of ibuprofen have better outcomes than 200mg, then we think that probably ibuprofen is good (and 200mg would probably be better than 0). If we find taking 4000mg of ibuprofen is worse than taking 200mg, we can't really form any conclusions about the overall merits of 200mg vs. 0.
> That does not pass the sniff test for me
OK, so you don't like it. That's definitive.
> IMO, you cannot cite this study
It's not a study, it's a meta-analysis.
> in opposition to my position ("kindergarten doesn't make a significant difference for most kids")
Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark.
> It is a bad study
It summarizes all the high quality research we have on the subject, and mentions/criticizes the earlier meta-analyses (which included many more component studies and found similar magnitudes of effect).
> at least as it pertains to ECE for any non-at-risk kids.
Of course, some of the component studies were of lower risk populations.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago> Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who has been the snarky one in this convo. I'm done with you.
- dang 6y agoYou also broke the site guidelines in this thread. Please do not take HN further into flamewars, and please don't get involved in nasty tit-for-tat spats. Those are particularly tedious. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoJust to be clear, at what point did I cross the line? Just with the final comment? Or when it became a back and forth where he was being unpleasant? The way the site guidelines you cited to me are worded, I ought to stop responding even if I'm responding in good faith and trying to be polite. I just want to confirm that that's true.
- dang 6y agoYour comments contained good information and points (fine) mixed in with swipes and flamewar (not fine), e.g. "OK, so you don't like it. That's definitive." and "I'll leave it to the reader to decide who has been the snarky one in this convo." are tit-for-tat flamewar and "I'm done with you." is personally rude.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoOk, thanks. I'm sorry about this. I got frustrated because I felt like I had been responding in good faith for a whole series of comments and the other person was being rude to me in all their comments -- not just in this branch, but in the other branch of this convo where we interacted. But I should be an adult and hold my temper. I'll do better next time.
- mlyle 6y agoHonestly, I felt like your immediate dismissal of my statement about correlation with a canned response was aggressive and not conducive to further friendly discussion. The way you responded to me is the exact way I would talk to someone I intended to impatiently dismiss. If you're really interested in discussing the topic at hand, you can choose a tack that's more open to discussion (e.g. "OK, you say they're correlated, but is there any actual evidence for causation?" might be slightly aggro, but it doesn't come off as completely dismissing what the other person said or lecture them on the basics of epistemology). I'm sorry that I reacted the way that I did.
- mlyle 6y agoOK.