Social scientists disagree…
…on the effect of single motherhood.
Statistics are tremendously manipulable, depending on what you want to say.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…on the effect of single motherhood.
Statistics are tremendously manipulable, depending on what you want to say.
Tried it. Didn’t like it. Can’t recommend it.
Looks and sounds like a very good example of confirmation bias.
Jordan Peterson would recommend a multivariate analysis to find out what is really going on.
I think Manhattan Contrarian, who writes occasionally about poverty in America, would argue that our statistics about who is and is not poor are inaccurate due to the refusal/failure to count government subsidies and handouts that are available to the poor.
Net/Net: This study and its conclusions are a poor vehicle on which to base adjustments to public policy.
P.S. Ms. Hymowitz does a very eloquent and succinct job debunking the value of comparisons to Denmark.
Heather has a mommy, and where’s daddy?
Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature.
I want my daddy back, daddy back, daddy back, please.
Another ‘study’ full of BS.
And one that could care less about the actual welfare of children.
I’ve mentioned before that I was raised by a single mother. She was a business woman – a beauty shop, which was in the building where we lived. She was right there at home all the time. She taught my brothers and I that we needed to help out. We all had chores and she made sure we did them or we were punished. There were various men (Scoutmaster, coach, National Park Ranger, WWII vets, etc.) in the village who helped us learn the things that most boys learn from their fathers. In looking back I have been eternally grateful that they were willing to impart their knowledge and skills to us.
In spite of my experience, I can see how difficult it is for children in single parent homes to be successful. There are just many important influences missing from their lives.
Encouraging single parent families through government welfare, where the government becomes the patriarch, misses the mark. It takes more than economic sustenance to provide a child with the values and skills needed to become a successful adult.
Hmmm. I’m sure I recently read somewhere that the deleterious effects on a child resulting from having been raised in a home with only one parent was universally acknowledged. That was too good to be true.
When done right they are hard to argue with, but when presented to math illiterates, yeah studies can say anything… duh.
the “effects” have long been known with the first knowledge coming after WWI not feminism.. That kind of let them know what would happen later, and if you read the Harvard paper on soviet feminism and the population collapse, a major differences is the soviets made abortion illegal for the harm it did, while we let it go for the progressive benefits of population control and so on…
this is what forced change to the schools and everyone had a pet idea of how to take care of the kids, and even used ideas from places we are now becoming.
-=-=-=-=-=
anyway… every single mother who is successful teaches her sons one thing, they have no place nor reason to be… other than selfish pursuits (which then creates the scary gang family hell of matriarchies) – and this is also instilled in any female children as why want a dad around for the kids, so much easier than dealing with another person, and sharing choices, etc.
and the unsuccessful ones dont show a better picture either or message given that this ones message is the bad choice that created a worse outcome..
not that anyone notices…
Social scientists disagree……
Statistics are tremendously manipulable, depending on what you want to say.
Which is why when I hear “Scientists say..” and when it is subsequently revealed that we are talking about Social “scientists,” I roll my eyes.
Statistics are tremendously manipulable, depending on what you want to say.
I would disagree. They are calculated correctly, or not. They are used appropriately, or not. They are considerably less apt to the hand of a deceiver than words are.
Selective citation of statistics to support a narrative that would be discredited by a fuller picture, is no different from selective citation of any fact whatever.
It took me a long time to realize that while numbers rule the physical world, it is words that rule the human world.
My profession is most succinctly expressed as “use math to solve problems”. And what I learned is that the people who want to use my solutions will never understand if I did the math right or not. I have to persuade them in another way.
It matters immensely, to me, that I get the math right. But that will have no bearing whatever on if the solution is ever implemented. If the solution is unpalatable, it will never be adopted no matter what the math says.
I became much more effective at my work after learning this the hard way.
The least productive arguments, the ones most likely to lead to poor decision making, are those that are made without reference to numbers. Every argument ever made that offers an anecdote to counter a statistic is an example.
“Women are not either shorter than men. Sally is 6′ 2″, and Fred is only 5′ 9″.”
Yes, well, it is not true that every single woman is shorter than every single man, that is not what the statistic claims. And yet if tallness is very important to what you need, you are going have men vastly overrepresented.
And if, for some reason, a society chooses to close its eyes to this fact, and insist that all the tall-person positions be filled 50% female, then a lot of perverse incentives and dishonesty are going to be required. And all through failing to engage a quantitative argument in favor of an anecdote.
If scientists agree, they are wrong. If scientists disagree, they are wrong.
The US Marine Corps have dropped a physical fitness endurance test for graduation. This was folded back into the overall fitness qualifications, which makes it easier to pass females as combat troops.
This is all intended to make it easier to Gramsci march the US military. After all, if they were serious about creating combat ready units, they would create homo only, male only, female only, teenager only, units. As those have been proven to be relatively effective on the only field of test that matters: the field of battle.
There are numerous studies showing the detrimental effect of single parent families headed by women on the children. The children are involved early and often with social workers, the police and the juvenile court system. Statistically rural blacks and whites have about the same crime rates, but inner city blacks have much higher crime rates than whites. What’s the difference? Inner city children have no fathers around.
Agree with Frederick.
“Scientists say”=the Vicar of Christ and the religious priesthood says the dogma is….
Statistics are only easier to manipulate in the sense that most people don’t like math and get scared of it. Thus they may begin questioning the MSM when the MSM says the sky is red, but if the MSM vomits out a bunch of numbers and math equations, then the American public goes into tv watching mode ; )
Which is to say, they become brain dead self righteous zombies that think their Authorities make them smart through obedience.
It goes beyond the fact that most people don’t like math and are scared of it; although that may be true. Most of us have neither the time, nor the expertise, to independently verify complex statistical data and critique analysis of it. So, we depend on the professionals to interpret and present them in a form that is useful to the layman. It perhaps enhances credibility if the professional includes some representation of the data in decipherable form. But, for the most part we accord validity based on our perception of the honesty and competence of the professional. Until, of course, we learn not to.
I think many deduce from their own empirical observation that a single parent household is more at risk of being fraught. It was evident during my own youth, when many fathers were away at war.