Gay footballers...

[Monty13 2,231]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

No-one said it was better for the single-parent household to be created by divorce. I'm simply saying that when such research is done showing how a married couple is better for the child such as the links you've put in for discussion, they miss out the divorced and widowed in the statistics for the married despite the divorced and widowed being married to reach that state. They are therefore cherry-picking in the process, which therefore puts their conclusions into question.

Deliberately omitting divorced and widowed people from marriage stats is generally how this research is made.

No-one here is disputing the negative effects of divorce (or, if we're talking single-parent families, death of a parent, so widowed). It's been well documented in longitudinal studies that divorced people require years to get back to similar levels of happiness/contentment to before their marriages. However, this is exactly how much of the pro-marriage stuff is spun to make it look far better. 

When such research starts putting the divorced/widowed back in with the rest of the marriage group, where they should be, marriage tends to look a fair bit worse. Now I won't say it's better for the kid to have a single parent in all cases, but I suspect a kid with a single parent but other good role models (sports coaches / teachers) could do just as well if not far better than a kid with two parents who are not in a great relationship. Such studies can never hope to take such varied factors into account. There was one survey about twenty years ago looking at people who were famous enough to merit a column in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, whether infamous or famous. It turned out around third of them had lost a parent before the age of 15.

This article is not about single-parent families - but about how the overwhelming majority of pro-marriage research has serious flaws, so any research using these is inherently shaky at best. By definition, that includes research into single-parent families.

Cracking the Code: How to Think Critically About Reports of the Alleged Superiority of Married People | Psychology Today United Kingdom

Ok I’ll bite. Genuine question, do you have any other sources for your opinion other than Bella DePaulo? It’s pretty obvious from a quick skim of her website she’s in no way objective and is very much focussed on pushing an agenda. It’s great to have multiple sides of an argument put forward but she has a clear agenda which seems to just match with your own. I don’t see any peer reviewed work of her own on show?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

5 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Ok I’ll bite. Genuine question, do you have any other sources for your opinion other than Bella DePaulo? It’s pretty obvious from a quick skim of her website she’s in no way objective and is very much focussed on pushing an agenda. It’s great to have multiple sides of an argument put forward but she has a clear agenda which seems to just match with your own. I don’t see any peer reviewed work of her own on show?

Very few researchers have studied single people at all, so there are very few sources. Your other main one would be Elyakim Kislev. To a lesser extent Joan DelFattore (who mainly looks at singles discrimination from a medical perspective) and Wendy Morris would also be in there re. stigmas. Paul Dolan also looks at it somewhat too, and he has the benefit of being in the UK.

Problem is, there's not the same interest in the singles yet. So what you get is biased stuff against them.

On the other hand, you'll find plenty of institutions, generously funded, pushing marriage over everything. And they use the flawed methodologies I have consistently pointed out, showing why there are issues with taking them at face value.

Edited July 22, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[horsefly 4,298]

59 minutes ago, Renskay said:

No. That is a very ignorant deduction from what I just said to you and stupidly cold on a human level to even suggest that a person growing up without the natural nurture of two parents in a home gets the exact same benefits if you just throw enough money at them.

You completely ignore the mental aspects are quite obviously linked to single parent households, that obviously don't solely happen just because you don't have enough money. if that were so ALL poor households would replicate the same results to the same extent which they do not.

I'm afraid you also ignore the massive amount of evidence that shows the damage done to children as a result of domestic violence. It's of course wonderful for a child if it has two parents engaged in a loving and supportive relationship. It is a disaster for the child if their parents are engaged in a relationship characterised by domestic violence.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

Of course there will be situations where leaving a marriage is necessary for the safety of a spouse and/or children. That doesn’t mean this exception to the norm is indicative of the situation more widely 

[canarydan23 4,060]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

No, I'm saying that when pro-marriage research is done, they always leave those who were initially married out. The point there is the family was a two-parent one in the past. Furthermore, who's more likely to feel abandoned - a kid that lost a parent through divorce or death and actually had that second parent to start with, or a kid that didn't have one in the first place?

This also brings up other problems that such research can't really resolve. Some single-parent families may then become two-parent ones again. How does the kid react after that? (Which brings us to another weakness, as many studies are not longitudinal, they don't measure the same people over time and if anything tend to merely be a snapshot of people at a point in time).

It doesn't make it cherry-picking though, does it?

This is one of those subjects where people get a little bit militant and cognitive dissonance plays a very heavy part. People start from a position of defending their life choices and go from there. As a consequence, they dismiss research and evidence that doesn't fit their agenda as fundamentally flawed and advocate for contrary data and ignore it's own inadequacies. I mean, I hadn't heard of Bella DePaulo until you bought her up in this thread, but it hasn't taken too much research to reach the conclusion that she's not entirely free of an agenda and gives of more than a whiff of the possibility of bias.

At the end of the day, with an ever-aging population, society needs pro-creators and all governments have by way of incentives is money. However, I'm not entirely convinced that it is entirely pro-married or pro-cohabiting couples. It's all anecdotal, but I won't be alone in knowing "couples" who declare that they are not and claim to be living apart to enjoy more preferable benefits income. There certainly isn't the monetary incentive for those people to live in a "traditional" two-parent household.

Though I interpret that you are more put out by the fact the tax system penalises single people. However, the costs of raising the children that are essential to become workers to pay pensions, including childless and single people's pensions, from birth to 18 is calculated at over £75,000, excluding housing costs. You mention that couples have the advantage of having two incomes, but a second income comes at the costs of childcare which is not included in that £75,000. There are nurseries that charge £70 a day to care for a child (and they don't charge by the hour, it's a half day or full day or nothing). To put that into context, someone on a £22,000 salary for a full-time job would have to give almost their entire take-home pay just to pay for the nursery fees.

The idea that the single people or childless are hard done by doesn't really sit with my lived experience.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

It doesn't make it cherry-picking though, does it?

This is one of those subjects where people get a little bit militant and cognitive dissonance plays a very heavy part. People start from a position of defending their life choices and go from there. As a consequence, they dismiss research and evidence that doesn't fit their agenda as fundamentally flawed and advocate for contrary data and ignore it's own inadequacies. I mean, I hadn't heard of Bella DePaulo until you bought her up in this thread, but it hasn't taken too much research to reach the conclusion that she's not entirely free of an agenda and gives of more than a whiff of the possibility of bias.

At the end of the day, with an ever-aging population, society needs pro-creators and all governments have by way of incentives is money. However, I'm not entirely convinced that it is entirely pro-married or pro-cohabiting couples. It's all anecdotal, but I won't be alone in knowing "couples" who declare that they are not and claim to be living apart to enjoy more preferable benefits income. There certainly isn't the monetary incentive for those people to live in a "traditional" two-parent household.

Though I interpret that you are more put out by the fact the tax system penalises single people. However, the costs of raising the children that are essential to become workers to pay pensions, including childless and single people's pensions, from birth to 18 is calculated at over £75,000, excluding housing costs. You mention that couples have the advantage of having two incomes, but a second income comes at the costs of childcare which is not included in that £75,000. There are nurseries that charge £70 a day to care for a child (and they don't charge by the hour, it's a half day or full day or nothing). To put that into context, someone on a £22,000 salary for a full-time job would have to give almost their entire take-home pay just to pay for the nursery fees.

The idea that the single people or childless are hard done by doesn't really sit with my lived experience.

It does make it cherry-picking - quite clearly, in fact. It's quite literally picking a specific set of subjects out who previously satisfied the criteria. The comparison with a medical trial where someone is missed out because they had negative side-effects is very accurate.

Agree with some of the rest, just note that the same notion of cognitive dissonance is especially true of the pro-marriage lobby, and OECD stats already make it very clear re. how single and childfree people are ignored by government.

I think the main thing here is that pro-marriage/nuclear family research has been alive and well for decades. Critiquing it is only a relatively new state of affairs. On top of that, so few people lived outside a nuclear family that no-one ever thought of studying them, let alone carrying out longitudinal studies. That brings us back to Monty's question - DePaulo is pretty pioneering as far as studying single people goes. Maybe, in fifty or so years, we'll have far more really focusing on it. Kislev looks like the next one.

It's only now that we're slowly beginning to see that the assumptions underlying them were nowhere near as accurate as surmised. That's all.

Edited July 22, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[Monty13 2,231]

Just seems a very pointless argument you guys are having. 

Logically two loving supporting parents, who work well together, financially support and develop their children together are going to have better results than one parent however good.

That doesn’t mean that every two person parental unit is a success or that every single parent will be a failure. There will be plenty of great single parent units that outdo poor dual parents.

Just means if everything is optimal of course you would want a two parent family.

Statistics are of course going to favour two parent units because it’s easier for them to be successful as they are closer to optimal, but that’s it, it’s a statistical argument that makes logical sense when looking at large data sets. It’s not a rule for success.

I’m not sure I even follow the argument taking place if I’m honest as it’s leapt from tax to marriage to children, although finding it rather fascinating while nothing else is going on.

[canarydan23 4,060]

12 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It does make it cherry-picking - quite clearly, in fact.

It really doesn't. If you want to research outcomes on children raised exclusively by two-parent families (the same two parents who were together at the time of your birth) you only select children raised by two-parent families. If the parents are divorced but you were once a two-parent family, then you no longer fit that dataset. It's not cherry-picking, it's narrowing the scope for the purposes of a research study. It's perfectly logical and sensible thing to do. The topic of research is children raised exclusively by two-parent families, the minute those two parents decouple, the children are ineligible for the study.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

It really doesn't. If you want to research outcomes on children raised exclusively by two-parent families (the same two parents who were together at the time of your birth) you only select children raised by two-parent families. If the parents are divorced but you were once a two-parent family, then you no longer fit that dataset. It's not cherry-picking, it's narrowing the scope for the purposes of a research study. It's perfectly logical and sensible thing to do. The topic of research is children raised exclusively by two-parent families, the minute those two parents decouple, the children are ineligible for the study.

This isn't about researching outcomes on those raised exclusively by two-parent families though. It's showing how comparisons between two and one-parent families based on the whole notion of marriage are inherently flawed due to clear technical reasons.

If you were once a two-parent family, you were married. Therefore, you are part of the marriage stats, for good or ill. If you subsequently decide, as a single person, to have a kid later, then sure, that's a single-parent household. Fair enough. Marriage was not involved there.

Furthermore, as said before, effects of divorce and losing a parent through death are very well documented. However, by lumping those purely in the one-parent household figures will also clearly skew the stats, particularly if those are only recently affected.

Which brings up another flaw in some of the older research, but by no means all - but it's one to watch out for. Some studies do show those who have always been single. Some less well-designed ones lump in the divorced and widowed in with the always single! So, not only are they moved away from the married, they've been lumped in with the always single, who generally do quite well!

[chicken 2,624]

2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Just seems a very pointless argument you guys are having. 

Logically two loving supporting parents, who work well together, financially support and develop their children together are going to have better results than one parent however good.

That doesn’t mean that every two person parental unit is a success or that every single parent will be a failure. There will be plenty of great single parent units that outdo poor dual parents.

Just means if everything is optimal of course you would want a two parent family.

Statistics are of course going to favour two parent units because it’s easier for them to be successful as they are closer to optimal, but that’s it, it’s a statistical argument that makes logical sense when looking at large data sets. It’s not a rule for success.

I’m not sure I even follow the argument taking place if I’m honest as it’s leapt from tax to marriage to children, although finding it rather fascinating while nothing else is going on.

Funny thing is, in the olden days, when divorce was incredibly frowned upon and when there was only one "bread winner" in the house - there were still problems, they just weren't allowed to be discussed.

My parents divorced in the '90's and it was still met with "frowns". So we are only really talking about 20-25 years, or a single generation of change. That's not really enough. Many issues were simply not addressed back then.

Anyone who has more than a passing knowledge of all this will know of child development and the issues around poor attachments as well as the impact of trauma on children and young people. These are the fields I have worked with for nearly 15 years. I can tell you know it isn't as simple as an absent parent or both parents etc.

But by all means, believe in political soundbites that are designed simply to win votes and don't come from a place of knowledge or care.

[chicken 2,624]

7 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I own several properties, so for me high property prices and high rents are absolutely brilliant - keep getting divorced folks. 

I join with the 🤢🤮 response.

Stamp duty causing the property bubble... Everywhere is saying it is supply and demand. Sure, the stamp duty line 'might' be part of that, but for several years now there has been more demand than there are properties to buy. And this is an important issue.

We get told there aren't enough houses and more are needed - but where is everyone living right now that wants to buy a house? How many of them are in rental properties? High rents are one of the reasons motivating people to look to buy, because mortgages are cheaper.

Then add in to the issue that many first time buyers struggle for so long as they can't compete with wealthy landlords or people buying 2nd homes etc to rent out.

So, you see, in many ways, landlords are very much part of the problem.

[Monty13 2,231]

22 minutes ago, chicken said:

Funny thing is, in the olden days, when divorce was incredibly frowned upon and when there was only one "bread winner" in the house - there were still problems, they just weren't allowed to be discussed.

My parents divorced in the '90's and it was still met with "frowns". So we are only really talking about 20-25 years, or a single generation of change. That's not really enough. Many issues were simply not addressed back then.

Anyone who has more than a passing knowledge of all this will know of child development and the issues around poor attachments as well as the impact of trauma on children and young people. These are the fields I have worked with for nearly 15 years. I can tell you know it isn't as simple as an absent parent or both parents etc.

But by all means, believe in political soundbites that are designed simply to win votes and don't come from a place of knowledge or care.

I literally have no idea how what you’ve said relates to what I have. 

[Badger 2,405]

21 minutes ago, chicken said:

Stamp duty causing the property bubble.

Don't forget Help to Buy!

[chicken 2,624]

16 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I literally have no idea how what you’ve said relates to what I have. 

Essentially that a lot of very unqualified people are passing judgement on single parents throwing around unsubstantiated statistics from an unverified blog and others are just weighing in with their opinion.

As someone who works with children and young people and has done for nearly 15years, a lot of what is being said is not based on any form of facts.

All that has been displayed on this thread is someone expressing a belief that opposes one of the central tenants to our society - freedom of expression - and then derails the thread, taking it off topic.

Some of the opinions expressed on here are exactly why in football we continue to have issues. Raheem Sterling was targeted by the press/media for similar things earlier in his career. People expressing that LGBTQ+ issues and awareness don't need promoting with "propaganda". Right now is a quite sickening time in football in that sense.

Just like taking the knee, the vast majority of fans support it, but the few bigoted fans boo it and shun, of all things, rainbow laces as if it attacks their own sexuality.

What a sorry state of affairs to be in, it's 2021, not 1921.

[Monty13 2,231]

Just now, chicken said:

Essentially that a lot of very unqualified people are passing judgement on single parents throwing around unsubstantiated statistics from an unverified blog and others are just weighing in with their opinion.

As someone who works with children and young people and has done for nearly 15years, a lot of what is being said is not based on any form of facts.

All that has been displayed on this thread is someone expressing a belief that opposes one of the central tenants to our society - freedom of expression - and then derails the thread, taking it off topic.

Some of the opinions expressed on here are exactly why in football we continue to have issues. Raheem Sterling was targeted by the press/media for similar things earlier in his career. People expressing that LGBTQ+ issues and awareness don't need promoting with "propaganda". Right now is a quite sickening time in football in that sense.

Just like taking the knee, the vast majority of fans support it, but the few bigoted fans boo it and shun, of all things, rainbow laces as if it attacks their own sexuality.

What a sorry state of affairs to be in, it's 2021, not 1921.

So nothing in relation to what I said, ok, explains why I was confused.

[chicken 2,624]

22 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

So nothing in relation to what I said, ok, explains why I was confused.

Everything in relation to what you were saying.

How "logically" a nuclear family is better.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

Chicken nobody is judging single parents, many of whom do heroic jobs in raising kids. The argument is that children nevertheless do better with both parents - as statistics prove (there will always be exceptions to the rule) ergo marriage is a positive thing for society and ought to be encouraged. We can’t shy away from facts just in case they hurt feelings in any quest for truth 

[Yobocop 1,098]

9 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Talk about an ignorant inability to debate.

1. Being tired of lgbt propaganda does not equate to being tired of lgbt people. 

Hence I could introduce you to gay friends who detest the smug virtue signalling propaganda 

2. You not I suggested harming lgbt people. What a horrid thought. Are you hiding deep hatred? Or were you just trying to smear me and hate label in a desire to silence me?

 

The equivalent of the statement ‘I have black friends so how can I be racist’ 

it’s 2021 

[Monty13 2,231]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

Everything in relation to what you were saying.

How "logically" a nuclear family is better.

Except that specifically isn’t what I said was it?

I said: Logically two loving supporting parents, who work well together, financially support and develop their children together are going to have better results than one parent however good. 

Logical because that’s what all the evidence says. Two great parents are better than one great parent however great. There’s a number of ways you can break out the advantages of two person teams v one person, there’s plenty of evidence on better decision making, availability of time and the development benefits, likely financial security advantage to name a few.

I specifically said that the optimum situation is logically better, because it is, that’s what optimum means. There’s nobody arguing that a one parent family is optimum, I’d love to see the evidence of how that could possibly be the case, there’s just way too many advantages to two v one at the highest level of performance. 

Then I specifically made the point that not all two person families are optimum and better, because they aren’t. Having two people does not automatically make a highly functioning parental unit. Which means a high functioning individual parent will be better than an underperforming parental pair. Again statistically obvious.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Graham Paddons Beard

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

The facts are that out of thousands of professional footballers currently employed , a tiny fraction have come out . Which says that football doesn’t create an environment where players feel comfortable to do so. It really it as simple as that . 
And as for the housing market in Norwich - don’t get me started . It’s red hot . 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

29 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

The equivalent of the statement ‘I have black friends so how can I be racist’ 

it’s 2021 

Thank you for informing me about the date - there was me thinking it was next year. 
 

And I disagree - I was merely pointing out that even some gay people are fed up with the whole media rainbow agenda- which highlights the earlier point I made that one can support gay rights without delighting in woke politics of self identity  

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

23 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

The facts are that out of thousands of professional footballers currently employed , a tiny fraction have come out . Which says that football doesn’t create an environment where players feel comfortable to do so. It really it as simple as that . 
And as for the housing market in Norwich - don’t get me started . It’s red hot . 

Meanwhile gays are over represented in acting, the arts and ballet. Perhaps there are much less than you suspect and that is also partly the reason? As others have stated/ a gay footballer in the current climate could earn an absolute fortune commercially and would be unlikely to face much discrimination 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

Just now, Dean Coneys boots said:

Meanwhile gays are over represented in acting, the arts and ballet. Perhaps there are much less than you suspect and that is also partly the reason? As others have stated/ a gay footballer in the current climate could earn an absolute fortune commercially and would be unlikely to face much discrimination 

I have a strange feeling DCB you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this . I’ll leave you to it .

 

[horsefly 4,298]

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

Except that specifically isn’t what I said was it?

I said: Logically two loving supporting parents, who work well together, financially support and develop their children together are going to have better results than one parent however good. 

Logical because that’s what all the evidence says. Two great parents are better than one great parent however great. There’s a number of ways you can break out the advantages of two person teams v one person, there’s plenty of evidence on better decision making, availability of time and the development benefits, likely financial security advantage to name a few.

I specifically said that the optimum situation is logically better, because it is, that’s what optimum means. There’s nobody arguing that a one parent family is optimum, I’d love to see the evidence of how that could possibly be the case, there’s just way too many advantages to two v one at the highest level of performance. 

Then I specifically made the point that not all two person families are optimum and better, because they aren’t. Having two people does not automatically make a highly functioning parental unit. Which means a high functioning individual parent will be better than an underperforming parental pair. Again statistically obvious.

That's a very strange use of the word "logical" which is specifically a term that applies to the form of an argument such that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses. In that respect it simply doesn't follow that, "Logically two loving supporting parents, who work well together, financially support and develop their children together are going to have better results than one parent however good." It surely doesn't take too much thought to recognise that this isn't true. Leaving aside the contentious term "better results", let's consider the example of Marcus Rashford. I expect there are any number of players in league one who were brought up by two loving, financially comfortable, parents, do you really want to say that "logically" they must be superior to Marcus Rasford who was brought up by one impoverished parent? Seems a rather absurd conclusion to me.

[Monty13 2,231]

31 minutes ago, horsefly said:

That's a very strange use of the word "logical" which is specifically a term that applies to the form of an argument such that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses. In that respect it simply doesn't follow that, "Logically two loving supporting parents, who work well together, financially support and develop their children together are going to have better results than one parent however good." It surely doesn't take too much thought to recognise that this isn't true. Leaving aside the contentious term "better results", let's consider the example of Marcus Rashford. I expect there are any number of players in league one who were brought up by two loving, financially comfortable, parents, do you really want to say that "logically" they must be superior to Marcus Rasford who was brought up by one impoverished parent? Seems a rather absurd conclusion to me.

Ok I’ve clearly not explained my position in a good way, so let me clarify I’m talking statistically not anecdotally.

Thats why I said results. I’m talking statistical results not some theoretical individual, according to the weight of evidence the likely result for both child and parents will be better if there are two exceptional parents.

Nothing precludes great kids with bright futures being raised out of one person families and I’ve been saying that, but it’s statistically less likely and the reason is logical, because one person raising a kid is statistically at a distinct disadvantage to two people. They have to work so much harder or be extremely privileged to have the same advantages as less privileged couples. 

Will there be situations where the single parent outperforms the dual, or course there will it’s statistically likely as well, it’s just less likely when you compare average to average.

The same reason statistically there will be extremely privileged couples who had all advantages and gave them to their kids and things didn’t turn out well.

Because it’s complex. Doesn’t change the fact if you wanted to start a family the evidence suggests the best environment for that is with someone else, if you get that partner right.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

That's a very strange use of the word "logical" which is specifically a term that applies to the form of an argument such that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses. In that respect it simply doesn't follow that, "Logically two loving supporting parents, who work well together, financially support and develop their children together are going to have better results than one parent however good." It surely doesn't take too much thought to recognise that this isn't true. Leaving aside the contentious term "better results", let's consider the example of Marcus Rashford. I expect there are any number of players in league one who were brought up by two loving, financially comfortable, parents, do you really want to say that "logically" they must be superior to Marcus Rasford who was brought up by one impoverished parent? Seems a rather absurd conclusion to me.

That's not how it works. Look at it like texas hold em, being raised by a single parent is a bit like getting a queen of spades and a four of hearts, whilst the player opposite from his two parent family is sitting on pocket jacks. 

You'd rather have the jacks as you'll win more often, but plenty of times a queen or a couple of fours will show up in the river.

[horsefly 4,298]

10 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

That's not how it works. Look at it like texas hold em, being raised by a single parent is a bit like getting a queen of spades and a four of hearts, whilst the player opposite from his two parent family is sitting on pocket jacks. 

You'd rather have the jacks as you'll win more often, but plenty of times a queen or a couple of fours will show up in the river.

I'm afraid that analogy has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Better to focus on actual cases of actual people don't you think! In what way is it appropriate or even helpful to compare parenting to a card game? Analogies are notoriously problematic and I have to say that this one is never going to establish any worthwhile comparison.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid that analogy has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Better to focus on actual cases of actual people don't you think! In what way is it appropriate or even helpful to compare parenting to a card game? Analogies are notoriously problematic and I have to say that this one is never going to establish any worthwhile comparison.

Probably a bit more useful than "Marcus Rashford was raised by a single parent so the idea that children are better served by two parent families is bunkum".

I have absolutely zilch against single parents, in fact I have more respect for them because they have such a more difficult job (or, in other terms, have been dealt a tough hand?).

But putting my super-freakonomics hat on, statistically children raised in two parent families are less likely to wind up homeless or in prison.

It better be true, because I have turned down some 8s and 9s in my time in order to keep my "traditional" family together. If it turns out I could have banged them and my kids not suffered then I will be thoroughly miffed.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Same thing again though - the correlation/causation issue kicks in so at best anyone is just best-guessing. Are they less likely to end up homeless / in prison due to it just being a two-parent family and the extra resources it brings (also through legal means supported by the state)? By design, those studies and research could never answer that question properly at all. It's vague approximation at best.

My suspicion is that you'll find a better link between actual state of poverty/resources and the environment the child is brought up in, but all that's doing is potentially being a more accurate correlation/causation issue and not resolving the fundamental problem with the research. And unless you start randomly making people married and ensuring everything is equal beforehand (which, let's face it, is impossible when dealing with people), there will always be factors getting in the way.

In short, you'll never get a study which adequately proves the notion they try to hoist. There are simply far, far too many other potential variables with people to simply boil it down to just one. Which is a key reason why sociology and the "soft sciences" have suffered from a problem with rigour for ages - there's only so much you can do with purely scientific approaches.

Edited July 22, 2021 by TheGunnShow