5 ms·
I don't know your motivation, but your remarks do not match my reading of the article. The dismissed studies came from children in unrepresentative conditions (
by tgv 18d ago
I don't know your motivation, but your remarks do not match my reading of the article. The dismissed studies came from children in unrepresentative conditions (ignoring the fact that this kind of data is extremely noisy and that studies in social sciences are notoriously bad).
It's also not "both-sides-ism." The main anti-daycare fear mongering seems to center around the idea that it's bad for your children, but the opposite is suggested by the article.
Sorry you wasted minutes.
- bonsai_spool 18d agoWhen one conducts research, she selects a setting where an outcome is likely to be visible. For new drug approvals, one selects patients who are as sick as reasonably attainable (ie before unrelated secondary effects arise) The fact that the very needy children benefit the most in no way implies that other children will be harmed. To make that statement without data is irresponsible for the authors, and I don’t see their data anywhere. So this is essentially both-sides-ism. They present one reasonable if flawed idea and its totally unreasonable counterpart