4 ms·

> The most common reason middle class+ people say they aren't having children is because they don't have enough money, but it's simply untrue. Source? https:/

> The most common reason middle class+ people say they aren't having children is because they don't have enough money, but it's simply untrue. Source? https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-exp... This seems to say because they "don't want to"

somenameforme 2y ago
Your own source would be a good example. That study is 'p-hacked' to create a headline. They inexplicably limit the group they're talking about to those who say that they are unlikely to ever have children, which is a subset of the people who are not having children. It looks like they had to cull off about 60% of their sample. So a more accurate headline would be "people who don't plan to have kids say they don't want to have kids." Most people are going to think they're talking about all people, as you did here. The age sample is also probably intentionally biased. Having the age range be 18-49 is illogical. The reasons for an 18 year old not planning to have kids matter far less (from a social point of view), and have far less meaning/certainty, than an e.g. 30 year old saying the same. Most studies are broken into reasonable age buckets because of this. 18-49 is not reasonable for fertility issues. Even with their heavily biased sample, they only get 57% of their "young" group saying they just don't want to (and only 31% of the older group), whereas you get 79% saying they want to "afford the things they want", 75% saying "saving for the future", and so on.
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  > Your own source would be a good example You say this then go on to shit on it and then only agree with parts that support your argument? > they are unlikely to ever have children This reports the same thing: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s... > That study is 'p-hacked' Not typically how p-hacking is used? > Having the age range be 18-49 is illogical It looks like they selected the buckets on the criteria of being adults and physically able to have children. > 18-49 is not reasonable for fertility issues I guess? It probably made the survey easier to conduct though. > Even with their heavily biased sample Why is their sample biased? It was a survey of that population.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    No, you're not understanding. Amongst all people that are not having children there are two subsets - those that plan to never have children, and those that are unsure or plan to have children - just not right now. Those numbers Pew is publishing are only from the former. This is what I meant by saying that their headline is most aptly stated as, "[a very slight majority of] people who don't plan to ever have kids say they don't want to have kids." This is essentially what p-hacking is. By organizing variables in a certain way, you can create statistically significant results to say basically whatever you want them to say. A huge tell-tale sign of p-hacking is constraining one's sample in ways that don't really make sense and/or are likely to be misleading. The thing we were discussing is 'why people aren't having kids.' This is very different than why 'people who don't plan to ever have kids aren't having kids.'
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      > This is essentially what p-hacking is. By organizing variables in a certain way, you can create statistically significant results to say basically whatever you want them to say. Do you know what statistically significant results means?
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        Yes, and it doesn't mean "true" as you might think. There's a great demo of p-hacking here. [1] It's based on real data too, which makes it extra fun. Your goal is to prove that one party or another being in power leads to a stronger economy. That statement is almost certainly false as you can quickly see by how awkward it is to "prove" it. But you'll find when you arrange your variables in certain ways you can indeed find statistically significant evidence to "prove" literally whatever you want. But again the one tell-tale sign somebody like me would notice from your study is 'why in the world would you limit it to that sample'? Well because that sample gives you the answer you want! It's science, baby! [1] - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/
        2y ago

somenameforme 2y ago

Your own source would be a good example. That study is 'p-hacked' to create a headline. They inexplicably limit the group they're talking about to those who say that they are unlikely to ever have children, which is a subset of the people who are not having children. It looks like they had to cull off about 60% of their sample. So a more accurate headline would be "people who don't plan to have kids say they don't want to have kids." Most people are going to think they're talking about all people, as you did here. The age sample is also probably intentionally biased. Having the age range be 18-49 is illogical. The reasons for an 18 year old not planning to have kids matter far less (from a social point of view), and have far less meaning/certainty, than an e.g. 30 year old saying the same. Most studies are broken into reasonable age buckets because of this. 18-49 is not reasonable for fertility issues. Even with their heavily biased sample, they only get 57% of their "young" group saying they just don't want to (and only 31% of the older group), whereas you get 79% saying they want to "afford the things they want", 75% saying "saving for the future", and so on.

someothherguyy 2y ago
> Your own source would be a good example You say this then go on to shit on it and then only agree with parts that support your argument? > they are unlikely to ever have children This reports the same thing: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s... > That study is 'p-hacked' Not typically how p-hacking is used? > Having the age range be 18-49 is illogical It looks like they selected the buckets on the criteria of being adults and physically able to have children. > 18-49 is not reasonable for fertility issues I guess? It probably made the survey easier to conduct though. > Even with their heavily biased sample Why is their sample biased? It was a survey of that population.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  No, you're not understanding. Amongst all people that are not having children there are two subsets - those that plan to never have children, and those that are unsure or plan to have children - just not right now. Those numbers Pew is publishing are only from the former. This is what I meant by saying that their headline is most aptly stated as, "[a very slight majority of] people who don't plan to ever have kids say they don't want to have kids." This is essentially what p-hacking is. By organizing variables in a certain way, you can create statistically significant results to say basically whatever you want them to say. A huge tell-tale sign of p-hacking is constraining one's sample in ways that don't really make sense and/or are likely to be misleading. The thing we were discussing is 'why people aren't having kids.' This is very different than why 'people who don't plan to ever have kids aren't having kids.'
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    > This is essentially what p-hacking is. By organizing variables in a certain way, you can create statistically significant results to say basically whatever you want them to say. Do you know what statistically significant results means?
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Yes, and it doesn't mean "true" as you might think. There's a great demo of p-hacking here. [1] It's based on real data too, which makes it extra fun. Your goal is to prove that one party or another being in power leads to a stronger economy. That statement is almost certainly false as you can quickly see by how awkward it is to "prove" it. But you'll find when you arrange your variables in certain ways you can indeed find statistically significant evidence to "prove" literally whatever you want. But again the one tell-tale sign somebody like me would notice from your study is 'why in the world would you limit it to that sample'? Well because that sample gives you the answer you want! It's science, baby! [1] - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/
      - 2y ago