Hacker News Reader

Comment by bonsai_spool | Hacker News Reader

This is junk both-sides-ism. I wasted minutes waiting for the delivery of reasonable studies that support and oppose daycare but ended up seeing the authors repeat the trope of dismissing studies of hundreds of participants wtihout trying to understand if the experiment was appropriately powered at that sample size.

This link should be flagged and removed.

View on HN

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.

When 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

This article seems as bullshit as any parenting influencer I've ever heard while attempting to critique them...

Also the quoted influencers aren't even fringe. They're outright crackpot.

You don’t take parenting advice from the Putin aligned, red meat only eating woman who arranged to have her father put into a coma by a sketchy doctor to treat his benzo addiction?

If we can’t take parenting advice from that family, who can we trust?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com