5 ms·

I wasn't aware she was controversial. Can you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious

by thecrims0nchin 2y ago

1bent 2y ago
I'd never heard of her, so I checked wikipedia. Try that.
- thecrims0nchin 2y ago
  Thanks
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  The only thing that stands out as controversial about her books was: > In the book [Expecting Better, 2013], Oster argues against the general rule of thumb to avoid alcohol consumption while pregnant, contends that there is no evidence that (low) levels of alcohol consumption by pregnant women adversely affect their children. This claim, however, has drawn criticism from the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and others. I don't have any strong opinion on the topic of the claim[0], but the way it is reported as having "drawn criticism from [Some National Organization Specializing in Arguing the Opposite of the Claim]" in my experience pattern-matches in favor of the claim. So beyond that, what's exactly so controversial about her books? -- [0] - Like everyone, I've had "zero alcohol while pregnant or breastfeeding" message drilled into me for decades, and that's my prior, though I've personally heard an experienced gynecologist, widely respected in the region, giving pregnant women allowance for a small glass of champagne for New Year's Eve...
  - vharuck 2y ago
    I've come to see "No alcohol while pregnant" as the better simple rule. The alternative is "No more than X drinks in a day, and no more then Y drinks over your pregnancy." There will be a lot of people failing to remember the numbers (especially after a drink), the numbers vary by body type, the effects vary a lot between pregnancies for no known reason, drinking impairs decision-making, and the bad outcomes harm somebody besides the mother. Public health guidelines targeted at non-professionals need to be simple. Same idea behind telling somebody who just wants a retirement fund to park their money in a managed portfolio, then ease those investments into safer stuff close to retirement. You could totally explain things in more detail, giving them more options and better opportunities, but most people are likely to not understand enough to safely do it. (I probably explained it incorrectly, which would reinforce my point of the general public's ignorance.)
    - rolisz 2y ago
      > Public health guidelines targeted at non-professionals need to be simple. And that's how you lose their trust. Just telling me to do simple X when it's clear to me from my own experience that sometimes not-X is better for me will make me think your overly simplifying and that your advice is not to be trusted, no matter your credentials.
arrowsmith 2y ago
I could write a longer review but people on Goodreads have already done it for me. Try going here and filtering for one-star reviews, I agree with them all: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40121328-cribsheet?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=BiMBtTCJ3G&rank=1 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40121328-cribsheet?ac=1&... It's a book for neurotic, middling-IQ soccer moms who obsess over things that don't matter. Utterly vacuous.
- alan-hn 2y ago
  Its no surprise that an economist cherry picked and used anecdote to support their writing. It's one of the least rigorous fields out there whose practitioners are primarily used to green light whatever policy a politician deems fashionable or appropriate
  - arrowsmith 2y ago
    Indeed. Economics is the art of using meaningless spreadsheets and number-crunching to justify the decisions you were going to make anyway. Oster's book is a great example of how.
    - Apocryphon 2y ago
      It sounds like you’re getting mad at someone for reading Malcolm Gladwell or Freakanomics. It might be NYT bestseller middlebrow pop science that you find facile and contemptuous but a lot of people do not. And the author doesn’t even indicate how Oster informed his parenting. Seems overly dismissive of the article.
      - arrowsmith 2y ago
        You're right, I regret my original, snide comment. It's barely relevant to the article and I should have known it would derail the thread. Too late to undo it now, but lesson learned.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
shkkmo 2y ago
It's not that she is particularly 'controversial', it is that she is biased and misleading. She is an economist who wrote a book that misrepresents, ignores and twists science what does know about childrearing and then presents that with a high level of confidence.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  This is a projection. Oster seems to do the opposite, cast skepticism on overconfidence of certain ideals using data as a guide, or criticizing the lack of it or the rigor of studies leaned on.
bitshiftfaced 2y ago
If I remember correctly, the tide began turning against her when she advocated for reopening schools during covid. Also, in her book, she concluded that there wasn't compelling evidence for abstaining from drinking small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy.
- wisemang 2y ago
  Is there compelling evidence for that?
  - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
    I was under the impression that it's more a matter of how this makes some folks extremely uncomfortable. From what I've seen, they haven't been able to point to any good evidence to the contrary, other than the general idea that absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence. There's also the idea that some expecting mothers might not care to understand the little details and as a result take it as a pass to drink at levels we know to be harmful.

I wasn't aware she was controversial. Can you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious

1bent 2y ago

I'd never heard of her, so I checked wikipedia. Try that.

thecrims0nchin 2y ago
Thanks
TeMPOraL 2y ago
The only thing that stands out as controversial about her books was: > In the book [Expecting Better, 2013], Oster argues against the general rule of thumb to avoid alcohol consumption while pregnant, contends that there is no evidence that (low) levels of alcohol consumption by pregnant women adversely affect their children. This claim, however, has drawn criticism from the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and others. I don't have any strong opinion on the topic of the claim[0], but the way it is reported as having "drawn criticism from [Some National Organization Specializing in Arguing the Opposite of the Claim]" in my experience pattern-matches in favor of the claim. So beyond that, what's exactly so controversial about her books? -- [0] - Like everyone, I've had "zero alcohol while pregnant or breastfeeding" message drilled into me for decades, and that's my prior, though I've personally heard an experienced gynecologist, widely respected in the region, giving pregnant women allowance for a small glass of champagne for New Year's Eve...
- vharuck 2y ago
  I've come to see "No alcohol while pregnant" as the better simple rule. The alternative is "No more than X drinks in a day, and no more then Y drinks over your pregnancy." There will be a lot of people failing to remember the numbers (especially after a drink), the numbers vary by body type, the effects vary a lot between pregnancies for no known reason, drinking impairs decision-making, and the bad outcomes harm somebody besides the mother. Public health guidelines targeted at non-professionals need to be simple. Same idea behind telling somebody who just wants a retirement fund to park their money in a managed portfolio, then ease those investments into safer stuff close to retirement. You could totally explain things in more detail, giving them more options and better opportunities, but most people are likely to not understand enough to safely do it. (I probably explained it incorrectly, which would reinforce my point of the general public's ignorance.)
  - rolisz 2y ago
    > Public health guidelines targeted at non-professionals need to be simple. And that's how you lose their trust. Just telling me to do simple X when it's clear to me from my own experience that sometimes not-X is better for me will make me think your overly simplifying and that your advice is not to be trusted, no matter your credentials.

arrowsmith 2y ago

I could write a longer review but people on Goodreads have already done it for me. Try going here and filtering for one-star reviews, I agree with them all: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40121328-cribsheet?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=BiMBtTCJ3G&rank=1 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40121328-cribsheet?ac=1&... It's a book for neurotic, middling-IQ soccer moms who obsess over things that don't matter. Utterly vacuous.

alan-hn 2y ago
Its no surprise that an economist cherry picked and used anecdote to support their writing. It's one of the least rigorous fields out there whose practitioners are primarily used to green light whatever policy a politician deems fashionable or appropriate
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  Indeed. Economics is the art of using meaningless spreadsheets and number-crunching to justify the decisions you were going to make anyway. Oster's book is a great example of how.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    It sounds like you’re getting mad at someone for reading Malcolm Gladwell or Freakanomics. It might be NYT bestseller middlebrow pop science that you find facile and contemptuous but a lot of people do not. And the author doesn’t even indicate how Oster informed his parenting. Seems overly dismissive of the article.
    - arrowsmith 2y ago
      You're right, I regret my original, snide comment. It's barely relevant to the article and I should have known it would derail the thread. Too late to undo it now, but lesson learned.
  - slothtrop 2y ago

shkkmo 2y ago

It's not that she is particularly 'controversial', it is that she is biased and misleading. She is an economist who wrote a book that misrepresents, ignores and twists science what does know about childrearing and then presents that with a high level of confidence.

slothtrop 2y ago
This is a projection. Oster seems to do the opposite, cast skepticism on overconfidence of certain ideals using data as a guide, or criticizing the lack of it or the rigor of studies leaned on.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago

If I remember correctly, the tide began turning against her when she advocated for reopening schools during covid. Also, in her book, she concluded that there wasn't compelling evidence for abstaining from drinking small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy.

wisemang 2y ago
Is there compelling evidence for that?
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  I was under the impression that it's more a matter of how this makes some folks extremely uncomfortable. From what I've seen, they haven't been able to point to any good evidence to the contrary, other than the general idea that absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence. There's also the idea that some expecting mothers might not care to understand the little details and as a result take it as a pass to drink at levels we know to be harmful.