Republican proposes paying poor women to have their tubes tied and paying rich women to have more kids

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I just fniished reading the book Freakonomics. It makes an interesting, quantitative argument about parenting and obsessive parenting.

Basically, what the data show is that parenting "skills" really don't matter too much. What matters much, much, much more is WHO the parent is - and this has been determined by the time the child is born. For example - well off, well educated, more mature (older) parents who put their kids on a basic "auto pilot" are more likely to produce "successful" children than parents who are less well off, more poorly educated, and younger who obsess about getting their kid into the right school, providing an enriching environment, etc. etc.

In other words, 10 or so factors that were THOUGHT to be correlated with school performance, many were not. The ones that were had to do with WHO the parents were, not HOW they parented.

It went on to say things like, statistically speaking:

• programs like headstart had no positive effect
• mother's age at birth of first child was a primary factor
• poorness affects whites the same way it affects blacks
• moving poor black kids into better schools had no effect on performance (when other factors were the same)
• school integration has no effect (when other factors are the same)
• adopted kids were more likely to do poorly, even with rich parents (genetics)

In other words, all this stuff we seem to think matters, really doesn't.

Based on this information - the solution seems clear. Rather than developing programs to help poor kids do better in school, we should be developing solutions to improve the economy, and economic capability of the poor, doing anything possible to encourage young women not to have babies, and other sorts of things. It is also clear that parents shouldn't stress themselves out being all obsessed about parenting and giving their kids every opportunity under the sun.

I just found it interesting, because the info is based on the data, not moralism and other completely subjective BS.

Statistics are funny things. The Bell Curve is an example. Secondly, it's not moralism and subjective BS that contradicts the findings of that economist. For one, how does an economist become an expert in the field of sociology? There have been numerous studies into parent/child relationships and I've give far more credence to those who've actually dedicated their lives to studying human behavior than an economist turned author.

[IAMX 3,055]

I just fniished reading the book Freakonomics. It makes an interesting, quantitative argument about parenting and obsessive parenting.

Basically, what the data show is that parenting "skills" really don't matter too much. What matters much, much, much more is WHO the parent is - and this has been determined by the time the child is born. For example - well off, well educated, more mature (older) parents who put their kids on a basic "auto pilot" are more likely to produce "successful" children than parents who are less well off, more poorly educated, and younger who obsess about getting their kid into the right school, providing an enriching environment, etc. etc.

In other words, 10 or so factors that were THOUGHT to be correlated with school performance, many were not. The ones that were had to do with WHO the parents were, not HOW they parented.

It went on to say things like, statistically speaking:

• programs like headstart had no positive effect
• mother's age at birth of first child was a primary factor
• poorness affects whites the same way it affects blacks
• moving poor black kids into better schools had no effect on performance (when other factors were the same)
• school integration has no effect (when other factors are the same)
• adopted kids were more likely to do poorly, even with rich parents (genetics)

In other words, all this stuff we seem to think matters, really doesn't.

Based on this information - the solution seems clear. Rather than developing programs to help poor kids do better in school, we should be developing solutions to improve the economy, and economic capability of the poor, doing anything possible to encourage young women not to have babies, and other sorts of things. It is also clear that parents shouldn't stress themselves out being all obsessed about parenting and giving their kids every opportunity under the sun.

I just found it interesting, because the info is based on the data, not moralism and other completely subjective BS.

Statistics are funny things. The Bell Curve is an example. Secondly, it's not moralism and subjective BS that contradicts the findings of that economist. For one, how does an economist become an expert in the field of sociology? There have been numerous studies into parent/child relationships and I've give far more credence to those who've actually dedicated their lives to studying human behavior than an economist turned author.

Sociology is really just a branch of psychology that uses observation of societal trends (being in society, anyone can observe these things) and yes, indeed, statistics. My first day of Sociology class entailed the reasons why women lost their virginity (well, there were reasons guys did too, it just wasn't very interesting as we all had one answer). In the end, we just learned that Sociology is really more of a common sense study.

Edited September 26, 2008 by SRVT

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sociology is really just a branch of psychology that uses observation of societal trends (being in society, anyone can observe these things) and yes, indeed, statistics. My first day of Sociology class entailed the reasons why women lost their virginity (well, there were reasons guys did too, it just wasn't very interesting as we all had one answer). In the end, we just learned that Sociology is really more of a common sense study.

Maybe Sociology isn't quite the right field of study, but if the author, Steven Levitt, is concerned about human behavior, why not look at the numerous, in depth studies on parent/child relationships? It seems a bit presumptuous to say all along, everyone else had it wrong and me, an economist, is finally going to shed light on this issue. He may invoke some interesting thoughts, but again, I'm going to give far more credence to the experts in the fields of study (Behaviorial Psychology, etc), than an economist turned author when it comes to human behavior. And to be fair to all economists, I would consult them over psychologists when it comes to economic issues.

[bhajishah 4]

Is it me or is this country going commie????

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Wait--what about the rags-to-riches stuff? Isn't that a central component of the American psyche? Is this admitting defeat?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wait--what about the rags-to-riches stuff? Isn't that a central component of the American psyche? Is this admitting defeat?

You nailed it, sister!

[akdiver 3]

Wait--what about the rags-to-riches stuff? Isn't that a central component of the American psyche?

So was the concept of taking responsibility for oneself. We can see what happened to that...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wait--what about the rags-to-riches stuff? Isn't that a central component of the American psyche?

So was the concept of taking responsibility for oneself. We can see what happened to that...

Youngsters are suppose to take care of themselves? At what age does personal responsibility kick in? Conception?

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

i simply cannot fanthom what kind of thinking would even consider this plan.

how did this guy ever get elected?

Daniel

[akdiver 3]

Youngsters are suppose to take care of themselves? At what age does personal responsibility kick in? Conception?

Huh??

[IAMX 3,055]

Is it me or is this country going commie????

It sure is. Government in bed with corporations, suppression, secrecy, sounds a lot like a Stalinist dream.

Funny how the people who are so scared of big government passively let it go by because the people letting it happen say the bullshit they want to hear.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Youngsters are suppose to take care of themselves? At what age does personal responsibility kick in? Conception?

Huh??

If a child is born into a poor family, it's not personal responsibility that will pull that child out of poverty. Secondly, poverty is not a condition from lack of responsibility nor does it permeate from offspring.

[akdiver 3]

If a child is born into a poor family, it's not personal responsibility that will pull that child out of poverty. Secondly, poverty is not a condition from lack of responsibility nor does it permeate from offspring.

...and...I somehow said it was?

[IAMX 3,055]

Sociology is really just a branch of psychology that uses observation of societal trends (being in society, anyone can observe these things) and yes, indeed, statistics. My first day of Sociology class entailed the reasons why women lost their virginity (well, there were reasons guys did too, it just wasn't very interesting as we all had one answer). In the end, we just learned that Sociology is really more of a common sense study.

Maybe Sociology isn't quite the right field of study, but if the author, Steven Levitt, is concerned about human behavior, why not look at the numerous, in depth studies on parent/child relationships? It seems a bit presumptuous to say all along, everyone else had it wrong and me, an economist, is finally going to shed light on this issue. He may invoke some interesting thoughts, but again, I'm going to give far more credence to the experts in the fields of study (Behaviorial Psychology, etc), than an economist turned author when it comes to human behavior. And to be fair to all economists, I would consult them over psychologists when it comes to economic issues.

For economic issues I'd just trust everything against what corporations collectively suggest is good. Forget the sociologist and economist.

Seriously though, regarding the tubes tied issue we only need one ounce of morality and two ounces of Constitutional law studies. If conservatives believe in stare decisis, this wouldn't be allowed. If they have the morals they say they do, this wouldn't be allowed.

As we both know Republicans are as good at being moralists as teens are keeping their pants on via abstinence, or pastors keeping their hands out of teens pants.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If a child is born into a poor family, it's not personal responsibility that will pull that child out of poverty. Secondly, poverty is not a condition from lack of responsibility nor does it permeate from offspring.

...and...I somehow said it was?

Ah, ok. My bad. I thought your inference to lack of personal responsibility was a jab at those who are poor.