23 ms·
I never know what to make of these kinds of studies. The author has full license to decide what "categories" will be part of their spectrum and what their defin
by mtowle 13y ago
I never know what to make of these kinds of studies. The author has full license to decide what "categories" will be part of their spectrum and what their definitions will be, and then further to interpret every data point by themselves. The former you can review and question, the latter you cannot.
So let's question the former:
>Kim decided that for her study, she would both parse further the different dimensions of the Eurocentric profiles and create new ones that better fit the styles of the East Asian families.
Oof. Two biases don't make a right.
>The responsiveness that’s considered an aspect of “authoritative” parenting, for example, was broadened to include both positive and negative attributes: warmth and hostility. Control, she would write, has “multiple facets … positive control is measured by parental monitoring and democratic parenting; negative control is measured by psychological control and punitive parenting.”
The Stasi were a form of positive control, apparently. Just kidding -- kind of. Suffice it to say none of the above are so mutually exclusive that they should be put in categories called "positive" and "negative."
- WalterSear 13y agoGo read the actual study then rather than the article, and find out how she justified her decisions. Most likely, she based them on definitions that were defined and validated by multiple previous studies before her, or presents research demonstrating validity of her claims. From my time in academia, I can assure you spend most of your time and writing justifying your decisions, and a whole load of very critical people have to agree with your judgement before something gets published.
- mtowle 13y ago>Go read the actual study then rather than the article, and find out how she justified her decisions. If you've got $11.95 to spare, I'll take you up on that. Unfortunately all that's available is the abstract. But if you want me to analyze that, I will. 232 words, not counting the copyright. 122 unique. 'Tiger' occurs 7 times -- 4th behind 'parenting' (15), 'the' (12), and 'and' (9). My analysis concludes that Kim doesn't just have something she wants to say, she has something she wants the public to hear. I.e., right or wrong, Kim has an agenda. >Most likely, she based them on definitions that were defined and validated by multiple previous studies before her I don't see how; she openly states in the quoted section of the parent comment that her delineation of categories was aimed at challenging the standard in the field. >a whole load of very critical people have to agree with your judgement before something gets published. In this case, it was the fine people over at the AAJP. The Asian American Journal of Psychology. Most def not a journal oriented toward "their version" of the truth, I'm sure.
- gertef 13y agoWhat is "their" version?
- mtowle 13y agoI don't know, what's "Asian American Psychology"? Must be new. They didn't have it when I was in school.
- WalterSear 13y agoFind out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5684360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5684360
- gwern 13y ago> If you've got $11.95 to spare, I'll take you up on that. Unfortunately all that's available is the abstract. Here you go! http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/85192141/2013-kim.pdf http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/85192141/2013-kim.pdf By the way, there are many resources available for getting academic papers; you didn't mention Google Scholar, which is a great resource, but that wouldn't have helped here, but fortunately there are Russian sites and there are a number of groups dedicated to jailbreaking papers on request such as Reddit's /r/scholar or Wikipedia's Resource Request.