June 11, 2012

When ‘studies’ are substituted for God or common sense [Darleen Click]

Will the acolytes still adhere to the conclusions when studies go against their political ideology?

Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in his decision overturning Proposition 8 that social science had disproven the idea that children benefit from being raised by their mom and dad in a marriage. The American Psychological Association has issued a proclamation to that effect, allegedly based on a neutral study of scientific evidence.

Today in the Social Science Journal, as Charles C. W. Cooke reports over on the home page, two new studies were published that challenge these assumptions and launch us into a new phase of the scientific debate.

Professor Mark Regnerus, the author of the New Family Structures Survey project, has published a study that is not only the largest and most comprehensive, it is only the second study based on a probability sample. Scientifically this is huge. (I am told there is a study just published in the Journal of Marriage and Family on education that also uses a probability sample. I’ll track that down.)

On 25 of 40 outcome measures, adult children who reported their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship fared poorly compared to children raised by intact biological married parents. This should surprise no one. It doesn’t mean that gay parents are bad parents. Plenty of kids raised outside of intact married families do fine. Nonetheless, this new research tends to affirm that the ideal for a child is a married mom and dad.

Same-sex marriage advocates have declared it “settled science” that having two-same sex parents makes no difference, or are even (in the case of lesbian couples) better than “a woman and man with a traditional division of family labor.”

You know, much like Anthropogenic Global Warming climate change science is “settled.”

Having and promoting ideals doesn’t negate the legitimacy or success of other arrangements. The majority of cigarette smokers will never get lung cancer, but we urge our kids, family members and friends not to smoke.

What isn’t legitimate is for those who cannot, or will not, reach that ideal to spend their time and effort trying to destroy it by all means necessary.

Posted by Darleen @ 7:54am
115 comments | Trackback

Tags: , , ,

Comments (115)

  1. in addition we’ve found that certain traditional families produce offspring what score better on “outcome measures” than other traditional families

    since most kids are raised by traditional families we should study these families for so we can create social policies what preference the ones what score best on the outcome measures

  2. The review by Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University finds that much of the science that forms the basis for the highly regarded 2005 official brief on same-sex parenting by the American Psychological Association (APA) (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf) does not stand up to scrutiny.
    Like Warren’s scholarship? Or the totality of “Studies” deaprtments?

  3. Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus’ descriptive analysis,” cautions Professor Cynthia Osborne from the University of Texas at Austin. “Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage, or living with a single parent. Or, it is quite possible, that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining ‘normal relationships’.”

    There is no problem. But if there is, it’s the h8r’s fault!

  4. If the social sciences actually held knowledge which would advance (with certainty, since that’s what knowledge is supposed to do) the well-being or flourishing of humankind, why on earth has social science withheld this knowledge from humankind? Which they must have done — at least to the extent that even they complain of the lack of human flourishing in their midst? On hypothesis, the social sciences have no such ‘knowledge’, or are not, in short, sciences at all, but pretenses to knowledge. And if pretenses, then fooled by their own doctrine and therefore pursuing an object they cannot obtain, gallivanting off across the country-side after a wind egg. To the loss of one and all.

  5. As my former adviser in computer science said once at a faculty meeting, “Have you ever noticed that anything that calls itself a science, isn’t?”

  6. - Thus the term pseudoscience.

  7. - OT, The media coverage on Caddell’s outing of Donilin…. *crickets*

  8. I’ve read quite a few “studies” on the effect of same-sex parents on kids, and the study parameters were laughably inadequate. So bad, in fact, that even a humanities puke such as myself could see right away that they were laughable.

    They’d recruit their study families by placing ads in gay-audience magazines and websites, for example, and the sample size would be 5-12 families.

    The kids in the families wouldn’t be born to the lesbian/gay couple—they were born into a conventional marriage that dissolved, and so the kids knew both their mothers and fathers.

    The measurements they took included counting how many times the kids got sent to therapy (which depends entirely on the parents’ decisions, not on whether the kids are doing poorly) or in asking kids if they were proud of their parents’ sexual orientation.

    High standards indeed. I’m know I’m sold.

    Or, it is quite possible, that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining ‘normal relationships’.”

    They used to say that about children of ordinary divorce, back in the day when divorce was stigmatized.

    Which, it totally isn’t anymore. Have the ill effects receded?

    Furthermore, in Scandinavia—where there’s no stigma against anything, including same-sex marriage—gay and lesbian couples still have higher divorce rates, and the lesbians have the highest divorce rates of all.

    Where’s your god now?

  9. Where’s your god now?

    Lining up a long-range asteroid shot from outside the plane of the ecliptic, and yours?

  10. OT: So, homosexuality… the great question remains. Is it genetic, environmental, or merely the result of Satan finger-banging newborns in the ass?

    (skip ahead to the last 2 minutes or so)

    h/t Ann Barnhardt

  11. Lining up a long-range asteroid shot from outside the plane of the ecliptic, and yours?

    Day-um. Small world!

  12. UPDATE: Tonight’s ‘Hannity’ show on Fox News will feature Pat Caddell and this exclusive story from “The Victory Sessions” at 9:00 PM ET.

    - If you can stand Hannity’s smarmyness it should be worth watching, if for no other reason tthan o see if it triggers an agitprop response from the Moscow in DC media.

  13. Too much “bang,” not enough whimper. Mine’s arranging for a 200-miler to just sidle up and grope Mother Gaia like a TSA screener.

  14. - Alinsky is also dead – God</i?

  15. Opps

  16. If you can stand Hannity’s smarmyness…

    You are too kind, sir. I call Sean “stupid” and leave it there.

  17. Is it genetic, environmental, or merely the result of Satan finger-banging newborns in the ass?

    That third one I’ve never heard mentioned in the literature.

    If you can solve the great Nature vs. Nurture question, John, the world will beat a path to your door.

  18. If you can solve the great Nature vs. Nurture question, John, the world will beat a path to your door.

    Because it must needs be one or the other, and Volition?

    Puh-leeze!

  19. For those who are inclined to need cut and dried answers to life’s great mysteries, the answer is “yes”.

    Me, I am more nuanced and don’t believe we are immutable.

  20. - I tend to avoid deep questions of that nature.

    - I’m still working on just how long egg potato salad really keeps in the refrigerator, and what 7/11 coffee beans are actually made from.

    - In other words, the great mysteries of our time.

  21. it wouldn’t keep very long in my fridge I don’t think

  22. In other words, the great mysteries of our time.

    And if not great, then at least relevant.

  23. it wouldn’t keep very long in my fridge I don’t think

    - I just know I’ll be sorry for asking this, but what the hell…..Why is that feets?

  24. It’s the carbs, BBH. The carbs are a-callin’ our friend happy with their siren song of tasty goodness.

  25. My friend gave me a quart of his homemade potato salad on Friday. The salad portion is half miracle whip and half sour cream and some spices, and the potatoes and egg are swimming in it.

    There is still a tad left, but there won’t be tomorrow.

  26. I made potato salad a couple of days ago. Potatoes, eggs, celery, red onion, dill, creaole mustard and (drumroll, please) Baconnaise. It is fantastic. I’m going to have to make more tomorrow.

  27. Creole is not spelled like that.

  28. - Now all you need cranky, is some succulent falling-off-the-bone babyback ripd and some maple-syrup laced baked beans with some grilled onions and smoked bacon thrown in. The master summertime dish.

    - You can sit in the back yard, sipping a julip, and listen to your arteries slamming shut.

    - But who cares, it’s just to damn good.

  29. What was left of my potato salad has now been reduced by half.

  30. - Can we all come eat at your housr leigh?

  31. Yes you can, BBH. I also grill tasty ribs to serve with baked beans and cornbread along with the aforementioned potato salad. I’ll even make a green salad for all of you health nuts out there.

  32. - Maybe we could have a PW summerfest.

  33. - I just know I’ll be sorry for asking this, but what the hell…..Why is that feets?

    I’ll tell you why potato salad doesn’t keep for long in my fridge. I eat it. In fact, most times it never gets to the fridge.

    I don’t buy potato salad very often or in large amounts.

  34. - In your case McGehee, I would have guessed it wouldn’t even make it to the fridge.

  35. - There’s an echo in here.

  36. I see McGehee is using his awesome editing powers on himself.

  37. Hubs loves him some potato salad. I usually make it throughout the summer, but I get a little tired of it even if it is tasty. I’d rather have corn on the cob.

    It’s a real PITA to cook for my family. Hubby likes farm food: meat, potatoes and gravy. But, hates German food like potato pancakes. Sonny likes asian food, and pretty much hates stuff like pot roast, gravy, stew, etc, but loves him some potato pancakes. Though they both like biscuits. It’s a trial, I tells ya.

  38. - My Sonny eats anything including the wrapper it came in, and being half asian, he loves Korean/Chinese, but really theres nothing he won’t eat. But he’s also a good cook.

  39. My eldest is like that. He’ll be home this summer so we’ll get to cook together. The other two can just suck it up.

  40. A couple of weeks ago we had a Sunday dinner of duck, baby red potatoes, and butternut squash, then the next day the wife decided to make potato salad from the leftover reds, and I suggested she add a bit of the butternut.

    Very delicious.

  41. - Sounds good LB.

  42. - McGehee probably feels like he fell into a “Cooking with the Fockers” chat room.

  43. yes if carbs make it through the door of my place god bless em they’re not long for this world

  44. Have you tried spaghetti squash, happy? It makes a passingly decent substitute for pasta. Handy instructions for cooking it are on the labels that are stuck to them.

  45. I’m in the “will eat anything” category. Didn’t use to like liver, but even that’s tasty these days.

    Except for brussel sprouts. I don’t even know what they taste like, I start gagging before they hit my tongue. ‘Course, they aren’t really food, so there’s that.

  46. Heh. I’ll teach you all to hit refresh before you reply to me!

  47. Though BBH obviously knows me too well. STOP SPYING ON ME!

  48. I’ll try the spaghetti squash on the weekend

    it can’t hurt really

    what I’ve found best though is to do the low-carb thing in the form of salads salads salads and then cheat every other day or so with those diety yogurts and low-fat plain kefir, since i can’t get past my cravings for dairy

    cooking and food prep and grocery shopping seems to backfire in that it makes me think more about food than i would otherwise

  49. brussel sprouts don’t have to suck Mr. Hunter they can be very tasty

  50. I never did make that indian lady’s crab salad btw… i still have the shallots on top of the fridge

  51. Jesus, I’m surprised there aren’t already 300 comments in this thread.

    BTW, chip chip cheerio from jolly old England!

  52. - Progress? Here.

  53. - I think you’re confuding me with LB feets. I loves all veggies.

    Yo Mike.

  54. Why can’t you eat dairy? What kind of crazy restrictive diet is this? Just cut out bread, potatoes, rice and noodles and call it “close enough!”

  55. Hi Mike! Did you go to London to see the Queen?

  56. Heh, no, I came here to do archival rsearch, Leigh. But I did attend some Diamond Jubilee celebrations out in Oxfordshire (which is where I’m staying)!

  57. How fun! I love doing research, the more archival, the better. I hope you took pictures of all the Union Jacks at the pub. England is so awesome with all the old buildings and the Roman Road and the longboats in the canals.

  58. As a matter of fact, the friends’ house where I’m staying happens to be located on an old Roman road: Icknield Road in Goring-on-Thames.

  59. How cool! It’s amazing that the Roman road is still there and we can’t seem to build an interstate that will last six months without turning into a mess of potholes.

  60. OT: Just got back from a sexual harassment lecture.

    Nice thing about working back here with the engineers: they guys would need a script and six months of coaching before they could muster anything approaching sexual anything, let alone harassment.

    Over in marketing, however, you gotta watch out for THEM.

  61. Just cut out bread, potatoes, rice and noodles and call it “close enough!”

    that’s what I ended up doing dairy is carby but I don’t do well without it

  62. For those who are inclined to need cut and dried answers to life’s great mysteries, the answer is “yes”.

    Me, I am more nuanced and don’t believe we are immutable.

    by leigh

    Actually Leigh the answer is 42. (he said displaying his geekness)

  63. Also, this weekend I saw some forum in Istanbul that was broadcast by France 24, where they were talking about the EU’s problems, and it consisted of a Turk, a Brit, an Irishman, a Spaniard, and the moderator. People in the upper echelons of EU bureaucracy (plus the Turkish outsider).

    Conducted entirely in English (hah!), the moderator asked “if Germany just needs to get over itself” and stop being all twitchy about risk.

    The answer? Yes, yes it does. Then a lot of empty palaver. Then the Brit rapturously recounts how he went back and read the writings of the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) of the EU, and noted the wonderful idealism that flowed therefrom, and reckoned they all just needed to get back some of that idealism.

    At no point did they come within six galaxies of questioning their initial premises—whether the Euro was a good idea, or the EU, or welfare states, or anything that might have caused the problem in the first place. Just astoundingly banal, fluffy statements.

    The Euro failed fast enough that most of the geniuses who thought it up are still in charge.

    They are soooo screwed.

  64. dairy is carby but I don’t do well without it

    You’re in luck, there is carb-free ice cream (Braum’s calls it “Carb-Buster”) and almond milk out there. I spy milkshakes.

  65. I do this sometimes… NG says it’s disgusting though but for me it does the trick

    it’s kinda pricey I think they want almost $5 a pint for it, but it’s a nice option

  66. More on the cave-families and their modern alternatives.

    So the single-mother revolution has left us with the following reality. At the top of the social order is a positive feedback loop, with kids raised in stable, high-investment, and relatively affluent homes going to college, finding similar mates, and raising their own children in stable, high-investment, and relatively affluent homes. At the bottom is a negative feedback loop, with kids raised by single mothers in unstable, low-investment homes finding themselves unable to adapt to today’s economy and going on to create more unstable, single-mother homes.

  67. is a positive feedback loop, with kids raised in stable, high-investment, and relatively affluent homes going to college, finding similar mates, and raising their own children in stable, high-investment, and relatively affluent homes. At the bottom is a negative feedback loop,

    they’re both positive feedbacks

    “Positive feedback is a process in which the effects of a small disturbance on a system include an increase in the magnitude of the perturbation.[1] That is, A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A.[2] In contrast, a system that responds to a perturbation in a way that reduces its effect is said to exhibit negative feedback.”

    wiki

  68. relatively affluent homes going to college

    in this day and age definitely positive feedback:

    How The Bowyer Family Played The College Tuition Bubble

  69. Ms. Hymowitz needs to look up the meaning of feed-back loops.

  70. They’re both positive feedback loops, but one has a negative result.

    Ergo, negative feedback loop! O_o

  71. So the single-mother revolution has left us with the following reality. At the top of the social order is a positive feedback loop, with kids raised in stable, high-investment, and relatively affluent homes going to college, finding similar mates, and raising their own children in stable, high-investment, and relatively affluent homes. At the bottom is a negative feedback loop, with kids raised by single mothers in unstable, low-investment homes finding themselves unable to adapt to today’s economy and going on to create more unstable, single-mother homes.

    so how much of this is caused by the fed gov’t involvement?

  72. if only the single mom culture had a negative feedback. cutting gov’t involvement in their lives would do it.

  73. If the argument is that both social situations appear to be stable, then both are likely negative-feedback systems. The question for the people at the bottom is discovering what inputs are causing the stability and correcting them.

  74. If the argument is that both social situations appear to be stable, then both are likely negative-feedback systems.

    they’re both unstable see: tuition bubble and gov’t spending. and they are both reenforced by fed gov’t participation.

  75. add positive feedback to unstable. there are few negative feed backs in this culture no except for pw.

  76. The problem is so many people now are dependent on government subsistence, and as a culture we have developed such high expectations, that cutbacks are going to create real misery, whether the dependency was/is justified originally or not.

    When real bad times hit, I mean, add runaway inflation and cutbacks in entitlements to our current high unemployment, energy costs, and the housing crisis, we’ll see more civil unrest and crime. It’s going to get ugly, get ready for it.

  77. Cranky gets it right. Positive feedback loops are unusual in nature. Negative feedback loops are the norm.

  78. Positive feedback loops are unusual in nature.

    yes that explains green energy, tuition bubbles, housing crashes, public sector union’s compensation, social security, medicare/caid et al

  79. I’m using the term as it is used in biology and engineering, not in a rewards/punishment sense.

  80. “If the argument is that both social situations appear to be stable, then both are likely negative-feedback systems”

    one is

    “I’m using the term as it is used in biology and engineering, ”

    not like the other

  81. If the government input causes stability at a certain point, then that is still stability, though not in a sense nr means. The stability of a system is related to all inputs, whether or not those inputs are well-considered or sustainable.

    If the government input is withdrawn, I would expect both systems to move to a new stable point.

    The fact that government input tends to distort all systems is not part of my very simple (and simplified) statements.

    I guess my ultimate point is that the writer should be more careful with the analogies she uses lest she be labeled a dumbass.

  82. I’m using the term as one would apply it to engineering.

  83. …my ultimate point is that the writer should be more careful with the analogies she uses lest she be labeled a dumbass.

    Yes. That’s why I said she needs to look up what feedback loops mean. There are several applications of the terms “positive feedback loops” and “negative feedback loops” and she is using the terms incorrectly, no matter how you look at it.

  84. System is one of those words. Adam Smith used it famously. It’s damned hard to recall an instance in which the framers used it, though it’s not beyond possibility they did so somewhere or other. Still, it grates almost as much as lifestyle.

  85. Culture! is another.

  86. I often use scheme because I like it more for some reason I haven’t given much thought to but is there really much difference between the greek “schema” (no idea on the proper spelling) and the modern “system”?

    I don’t find anything particularly corrupting with the word.

  87. If the government input causes stability at a certain point

    no gov’t involvement tends to create bubbles as rent seekers gloom onto the political arena. see ethanol or sugar. buying congress is cheaper than producing more efficiently. gov’t involvement is positive feedback.

  88. The part that wasn’t caused by the federal government was caused by the mass media.

  89. “System is one of those words. ”

    could be in the epa thread:

    A thermodynamic system is a precisely defined macroscopic region of the universe, often called a physical system, that is studied using the principles of thermodynamics.

    All space in the universe outside the thermodynamic system is known as the surroundings, the environment, or a reservoir. A system is separated from its surroundings by a boundary which may be notional or real, but which by convention delimits a finite volume. Exchanges of work, heat, or matter between the system and the surroundings may take place across this boundary. Thermodynamic systems are often classified by specifying the nature of the exchanges that are allowed to occur across its boundary.

    wiki

  90. If we’re going to talk physics, I’m out since I fall in know-next-to-nothing group.

  91. System needn’t be corrupting in itself, I agree, and Smith seemed to have in mind another component in his man of system, namely hubris. System wouldn’t of itself cause hubris or hubristic behavior I don’t think. But it wasn’t a part of the political scheme to which we’d prefer to adhere, though I suppose in might be added somehow, though not without some difficulty.

    On the other hand, it fits quite nicely with some other political schemes, organically even, having been present as a part of the whole from their inception.

  92. Leigh, I used to be there. But I was “next to” because I knew less than nothing — as in, I didn’t know any better than to ask questions.

    Got me into all kinds of trouble. Now I know stuff I shouldn’t, because I’m not a registered and approved Scientist®.

  93. If we’re going to talk physics, I’m out since I fall in know-next-to-nothing group.

    no thermodynamic systems are interesting because you need the potential between “hot” and “cold ” to produce “work”. look at north korea “the workers paradise” there is a very small element of the society which is “rich” and the rest being “poor”. there’s very little potential in such a society. think of 2 waterfalls: one has a drop of 1 inch and one dropping 100 feet; which one pushes more water through?

  94. McGehee, I have actually read some stuff about physics, but most of it, except the really simple stuff, is over my head.

    sdferr, “values”. Boo!

  95. that’s why it is so distressing to see baracky pulling all the avenues of “work” off the table(except the green scams). shutting down energy sources is taking the potential out of a society.

  96. except the really simple stuff,

    like what f=ma?

  97. Sandburg had it wrong: it wasn’t fog, but foggy-like socialism that crept in on little cat feet. The damned thing won’t move on either.

  98. lee

    Except for brussel sprouts. I don’t even know what they taste like, I start gagging before they hit my tongue.

    It’s amazing what can happen to brussels when they are cooked very slowly (+40 minutes very very low heat) in bacon fat (and that crispy bacon is later crumbled back in at serving)

  99. very very low heat

    the piigs economy

  100. Not to disrupt the flow here but I did want to make mention of the earlier comments on “science” (sdferr, cranky, and bbh near the beginning).

    I find some people in my field to be quite foolish in this regard. Is econ a science? I’d say no. Not at all. Yes, it uses math. That’s it. One could use math to generate interesting paintings or music (people do that both instinctively and with thought, I believe) but those aren’t sciences.

    So why would one want to call econ a science? Probably because they want people to think they’re smart and worthy of respect, you know, like scientists are. But, in making this sort of category error they’re loudly proclaiming their foolishness.

    This just confuses me. I don’t understand these people.

  101. bh, though it’s somewhat far afield, here are systemata and schema in Liddell-Scott.

  102. Econ is voo-doo, bh. Of course that depends on which school of thought you land in. Keynesians: bad.

  103. Is econ a science? I’d say no

    is “agw/climate change science”? the study of economic inputs and outputs is science. ask harding/coolidge/jfk/reagan. it works because it doesn’t depend on “ameritopia”. effen “green energy and unicorn farts” won’t save us.

  104. Thanks, sdferr.

  105. Keynesians: bad.

    proggslim distortion of keynes did dat

  106. Kings win the Stanley Cup! Take that Debbils!

  107. “This just confuses me. I don’t understand these people.”

    - bh, elitists seek to repeal the law of human nature because its messy, peskily unpredictablem and stubbornly unchangable, thus they sew the seed of their own failure.

    - They cast the argument in terms of “rising above” our natural human impulses, which they have decided is the most important benchmark of evolution. They are true believers in this famtasy, its their gospeh and religion, and they are as fixated and zeleous in their beliefs as the most repacious preist.

    - Systems, biological or otherwise, can be said to be stable if they reach a condition of equilibrium, and remain so for an extended period of time.

    - The Dinosaurs achieved a stable condition, more or less, for many millions of years, but eventually outside influrnces destroyed the ‘stability’ of their system, and they perished.

    - This is the way things work in nature as opposed to the way the elites wished they worked. As long as these people are allowed anywhere near aspects of society that govern our future we’ll suffer, and we already have more than enough things to deal with as it is,

  108. - Can I get an amen….

  109. Since we’ve kinda slapped pseudo-science around a bit, here’s a bit of Don Boudreaux having his go. See also his link to Will Wilkinson’s beating up on Timothy Noah. Good stuff.

  110. Mrs. Click inadvertently came up with a great title for a traditional values book.

    God is common sense

    or

    “God” means “common sense”

    I’d read either one of them, even though I’m not very religious.

  111. The folks from GLAAD were busy yesterday but today they want you to know this study is flawed, scientifically. Or hateful. Or whatever, but not right. How can the fabulous not be fabulous parents?

  112. Not to disrupt the flow here but I did want to make mention of the earlier comments on “science”[.]

    I find some people in my field to be quite foolish in this regard. Is econ a science? I’d say no. Not at all. Yes, it uses math. That’s it. One could use math to generate interesting paintings or music … but those aren’t sciences.

    So why would one want to call econ a science? Probably because they want people to think they’re smart and worthy of respect, you know, like scientists are. But, in making this sort of category error they’re loudly proclaiming their foolishness.

    This just confuses me. I don’t understand these people.

    The essay to read is Jacques Barzun’s “Science and Scientism.”

  113. Link to the Mark Regnerus study as html and as a pdf.

Leave a Reply