maggiekb at July 23rd, 2013 11:43 — #1
jardine at July 23rd, 2013 11:56 — #2
I guess there's always Rob Ford. Wealthy family and allegedly looooooooooves crack.
vanderleun at July 23rd, 2013 12:34 — #3
Any relation between crack and poverty? Doya think?
dragonfrog at July 23rd, 2013 13:03 — #4
Not even that. I'd interpret "few" to mean "more than none, but not a lot more" - and they didn't even find that. Direct from the article: "The researchers consistently found no significant differences between the cocaine-exposed children and the controls."
ethicalcannibal at July 23rd, 2013 13:28 — #5
Now if we could get some more media attention on the effects of poverty on child development, that would be great. I know, I know, but "bootstraps!" however perhaps this might warrant some more intervention.
gjeff at July 23rd, 2013 13:45 — #6
I'd submit that the two are related (no not completely related) and are the result of a larger problem. This article is a classic example supporting the "correlation does not imply causation" rule.
These endless "studies" are not solving anything. Why not study the true cause of poverty? Why not aim some studies and the poverty industry that keeps kids and families in a poverty cycle?
I theorize that the lack of family structure (kids with one-parent missing) and and entertainment industry glorifying the wrong things is a good place to start. I'll bet we'd find a lot of causation there.
peregrinus_bis at July 23rd, 2013 13:58 — #7
Cycle is the word. Happens fast too.
borisbartlog at July 23rd, 2013 17:37 — #8
Take one group of poor African-Americans and another similar group as a control. Do a study on effects of crack, come up (almost) empty. Kudos for publishing negative results.
Then try to leverage your results by comparing them to a non-control group and drawing conclusions based on ideology. Null hypothesis fail.
If the author wanted to test hypotheses specifically on the effects of poverty, she would have needed to start with a group that was more well-off but otherwise similar. Not just 'everyone else'.
campfreddie at July 24th, 2013 09:37 — #9
Yeah, it's ridiculously flawed methodology and Popper would be spinning in his grave. Any reasonable scientist would use a time machine so they can add an extra control group to their >20 year study in order to comment on a strange result...
When your control group shows abnormal results, it's reasonable to investigate the possible causes.
borisbartlog at July 24th, 2013 11:50 — #10
But she didn't decide to 'investigate the possible causes'. She decided she knew them already, that is, she jumped to the conclusion that poverty was to blame.
peregrinus_bis at July 25th, 2013 06:29 — #11
Ah this was what I was looking for:
maggiekb at July 28th, 2013 11:43 — #12
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.