Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way, Linda and lkb, the concept that you are struggling with -- the basis for untangling correlations -- is called "factor analysis." This is the technique that gives insight into which variables are causative.
I am a researcher who has a fairly good grasp of statistics. In anything other than the social sciences, we would be more likely to use PCA.
If you really want to debate the stats, post the studies referred to, and we can discuss data analyses.
No, you are quite wrong again. Moreover, I don't care anything about your anecdotal observations and uninformed explanations. Did it ever even occur to you that the students you see at your school are not drawn at random from the population, i.e. that they attend a gifted school only after deliberate screening? Read the book yourself if you want a competent explanation of the correction for SES, and read the papers cited on page 158.
OK clearly you do not grasp the information well enough to explain it yourself.
BTW, you tried to give a ridiculous example as if teen mothers were the norm (when clearly they are not). At least my "anecdotes" are real world examples. Want the actual numbers?
Look, just because you are parroting an author who is rehashing someone else's research does not remotely mean either you or he are correct. I get it you do not have any access to peer reviewed lit. I do. Just give me the name of the study since you are apparently incapable of a scientific explanation yourself.
Well, in view of the grotesque and incompetent misrepresentation of Murray's work, it might be best to let him speak for himself:
"No matter what the outcome being examined -- the quality of (long list), or any other measure of how well or poorly children do in life -- the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married. Divorced parents produce the next best outcomes. Whether the parents remarry or remain single while the children are growing up makes little difference. Never-married women produce the worst outcomes. All of these statements apply after controlling for the family's socioeconomic status (footnote 14, Chapter 8, citing numerous references supporting this). I know of no other set of important findings that are as broadly accepted by social sciences who follow the technical literature, liberal as well as conservative, and yet are so resolutely ignored by network news programs, editorial writers for major newspapers, and politicians of both major political parties."
You can see this at work here, in this thread, by the near-hysterical responses by people, perhaps divorced mothers themselves, who reject this set of findings without even reading the work in question.
By the way, lkb, regarding my own grasp of method -- I have a PhD in a highly quantitative field, and you will find copies of my published work in just about every university library in the English-speaking world. How about you?
OK clearly you do not grasp the information well enough to explain it yourself.
BTW, you tried to give a ridiculous example as if teen mothers were the norm (when clearly they are not). At least my "anecdotes" are real world examples. Want the actual numbers?
Look, just because you are parroting an author who is rehashing someone else's research does not remotely mean either you or he are correct. I get it you do not have any access to peer reviewed lit. I do. Just give me the name of the study since you are apparently incapable of a scientific explanation yourself.
First of all, I did not claim that teen mothers were the norm. Rather, I said that a sure road to poverty is that of a teen mother giving birth to illegitimate children. No? Not true? Quite a difference, unless your objective here is simply to be quarrelsome, in which case just about anything can be misrepresented for the sake of an argument.
About your anecdotes -- do you not understand that anecdotes drawn from a school for the gifted have no relevance at all to the characteristics of the general population? This is a very serious error on your part!
Regarding my access to literature, I have access to virtually everything published, through the services of a "top ten" university library. Surely you understand how this works, and that most journal literature is now on-line.
This thread has become a prime example of statistical obfuscation.
This is often used as a distraction to avoid putting attention on more disturbing foundational issues.
It is, however, very effective at spinning off the majority of the posters, leaving only the 'academically gifted' to rattle around in their own obfuscation.
The question is 'What does this portend for America's future?'
This thread has become a prime example of statistical obfuscation.
This is often used as a distraction to avoid putting attention on more disturbing foundational issues.
It is, however, very effective at spinning off the majority of the posters, leaving only the 'academically gifted' to rattle around in their own obfuscation.
The question is 'What does this portend for America's future?'
You can make fun if you like (and really that says more about you than not) but your own question is not clear.
First of all, I did not claim that teen mothers were the norm. Rather, I said that a sure road to poverty is that of a teen mother giving birth to illegitimate children. No? Not true? Quite a difference, unless your objective here is simply to be quarrelsome, in which case just about anything can be misrepresented for the sake of an argument.
About your anecdotes -- do you not understand that anecdotes drawn from a school for the gifted have no relevance at all to the characteristics of the general population? This is a very serious error on your part!
Regarding my access to literature, I have access to virtually everything published, through the services of a "top ten" university library. Surely you understand how this works, and that most journal literature is now on-line.
So you are not claiming that coming from a two parent family only benefits those who are below average intelligence? REally?
Because if THE most important factor in the success of a child, is the presence of a second parent, than it does not matter what part of the distribution we are applying that statement to.
So you are not claiming that coming from a two parent family only benefits those who are below average intelligence? REally?
Because if THE most important factor in the success of a child, is the presence of a second parent, than it does not matter what part of the distribution we are applying that statement to.
Did you read the passage I just quoted from Murray's book Coming Apart? Where did I, or Murray, claim that the presence of a second parent is "THE" most important factor? Really, it would be helpful if you would stop your misrepresentations.
This thread has become a prime example of statistical obfuscation.
This is often used as a distraction to avoid putting attention on more disturbing foundational issues.
It is, however, very effective at spinning off the majority of the posters, leaving only the 'academically gifted' to rattle around in their own obfuscation.
The question is 'What does this portend for America's future?'
George, I love your last name
You might enjoy reading Murray's Coming Apart if you are interested in this topic. The book, however, starts strong but falls apart toward the end. Neither Murray nor anyone else can predict the future with any hope of accuracy, and I am skeptical of some of his predictions and prescriptions for many of the same reasons that lkb has already mentioned. On the other hand, his command of the literature, his data, and his analysis presented in the first part of the book are as solid as a rock -- that's the book's value, in my opinion.
Did you read the passage I just quoted from Murray's book Coming Apart? Where did I, or Murray, claim that the presence of a second parent is "THE" most important factor? Really, it would be helpful if you would stop your misrepresentations.
Parroting a highly questionable and politically biased secondary source is nothing more than the adult version of the telephone game. And as likely to be wrong. Post the cites for the studies or admit you have no idea if the man you are parroting is correct or not.
Which by the way is not how science works. What you are trying to do is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority as if your talking head was an expert. He is not. He has not published anything peer reviewed on the subject himself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
