Thanks T. Actually, that one point was pretty much the whole reason for the OP.
Another interesting stat was that the average life expectancy in China in 1950 was 44 years old (!!)
Honestly though...I put very little faith in models.
Don't take it badly, but i think that the real problem is that it creates a generation of selfish people... i have 4 sisters, one of the 1st thing who came in my education was to share... not sure that it's what parents give to their children here... maybe i'm wrong what do you think?
1 child policy sucks
i can't imagine how miserable my parents would be if they only had me
@ Tara got your point, and i respect your arguments, but they didn't convinced me...
i wanna hear what the others thinks...
lol. 无名子 is Dando for sure, but because he has adopted a different handle and avatar here he is no longer tied to the personality constraints of his alter ego: 't3h BW'. Closer to his RL persona? Who can say...? [Well...I know a few names but they wont be mentioned here... ;) ]
In other news...
At best, NGOs and private orgs may be able to 'fudge' statistics in a certain direction based on their knowlege of the reliability of prior released gubbermint figures. That is to say, where they see a government department has consistantly underestimated/overestimated values, these may be adjusted to reflect a more "RL" scenario..but this is in the very best case. Otherwise its just another case of "rubbish in, rubbish out", and thats without even accounting for rubbish processing / analysis.
Dando, the day you transcend trolldom is the day you welcome angry sky beard papa back into your black heart. lol
I don't think it's even necessary to fudge the data to deceive people.
Sorry, in this circumstance I meant fudging to actually reflect a more realistic image of the state of affairs. (As in the case of untrustworthy data which has then been 'moderated' or conservatively nudged somewhat, in either direction, to produce a more likely or reliable finding. Government statistics are, afterall, as much about face as the audi in the official's parking slot.) Knowing when, where and how gov stats lie is to know when how and where to moderate data so as to eventually arrive with better insight.
But sure...messiness and conveluted means are the middle names of any 'pr0' analyst, which is what I meant by the potential for rubbish analysis and thus further distancing from reality.
Well..that's exactly what analysts do...
If you have "pure" and correct data, you dont need to do any of this. It is only when dealing with human error (and not the negligable kind, the willful falsification type), incomplete results or knowingly incorrect data that anyone should do this.
if the results do not conform with our default hypothesis, there's always some way to moderate them to get the more reasonable / acceptable output.
Oh dear.... I wont comment on this. Breaks every rule in the book and goes against the very foundations of science. Leave that nugget out of your next sales pitch ;)
After all, the variables are chosen by people and there' s no way to have all the relevant variables without any auto-correlation, meaning there's no perfect model to simulate the RL senarios.
The only perfect model to simulate RL is RL, and if its a simulation it's not RL, so... really there is and never will be any perfect model. All you need to do is look at the weather models that MIT and Berkely's greatest boffins try to come up...they all suck balls.
little incentive for academics to do so in China
seems to apply to nearly areas of academia here :/
^ Cameron, Lisa; Erkal, N.; Gangadharan, L. & Meng, Xin (2011), Little Emperors—Behavioral Impacts of China’s One-Child Policy (University of Melbourne).
"those who grew up as only children as a consequence of the (one-child) policy (in China) are found to be less trusting, less trustworthy, less likely to take risks, and less competitive than if they had had siblings. They are also less optimistic, less conscientious, and more prone to neuroticism."
@tara My lovely, it's not because your arguments didn't convinced me that i won't change of position. I just wanna hear more point of view my sweet. So, Cause i was not convinced, i read several articles, and i just can admit that i was obviously in stereotype... my mistake...
@ tara i think they did consider the environment, it's a basic in sociology... You should probably read the article and the references to accurate your judgment... it's not a hypothesis, it's a conclusion... i have a personnel question, did you study sociology or psychology in uni???
Your experiences and observation are yours, they are related to your environment... This kind of study try to have a global vision. Hard to do, but they try to consider as much as they can a maximum of parameters...
i have too my own vision who can be wrong or right. That's why my 1st post finish by "maybe i'm wrong what do you think?" to build an opinion, i need to hear what the others said and what study said, to collect information, to have more knowledges about the question...
Have a good day my lovely and peace...
excuse me but, who are you to talk in the name of one group? And you definitely don't have the knowledges in sociology. How can you pretend to be right against an argumentation who was conduct by a doctor in sociology... even if you can have an opinion in all areas, i saw that your field is business then talk about business i'll probably believe you in this area... in socio, i'll believe a doctor in socio...
have a good week end... Peace...
obviously you re open like a "jail gate".., miss "who knows everything" i did study psychology and a bite sociology in university...
i love you ;-)
open your mind, be curious, and be cool...
sorry, i just see what you wrote... You're right about the methodology... i'm agree with you... Probably this study have many weak points and the conclusion is probably contestable... I'm just playing with words and doing Sophism with Tara... ;-)
after hearing some stories about WLIB, the forum reading is more fun. but i admit this is irrelevant.
So, on the one side we have an article written by four researchers ( Xin Meng has published extensively on economic issues within China, by the way) by the University of Melbourne, which is not exactly a shady institution. On the other side, Tara, who knows better because she's Chinese and therefore has direct experience of this issue.
Tara on why she knows better because she's Chinese and therefore has direct experience of this issue.:
My experience and observation happen to concern, to the largest extent, the underlying only children group in our generation and it is representative among the well-educated demographic. You wanted to hear what others think, shouldn't this "others" be people within this group who actually grow up with the group, live with the group every day in their lives and understand what they think, instead of some old folks that sit in a office trying to come up a story that caters to another group of people so they could have something to blame?
I'll try to stick to this otherwise I'll get carried away with your idiocies (like not seeing that it's possible to compare Chinese children who grew up as single children and Chinese children who grew up with siblings in the same period. The one-child policy in China is not universal). Basically what people here are reacting against is your way of writing off a legitimate study by denigrating an academic field (Sociology), academic research (old people in offices) and the concept of formal study itself (reading about psychology equals formal education in it). And whilst doing so you champion this salt-of-the-earth direct experience, which is basically just thinly veiled prejudice and egocentrism.
Perhaps a better way of approaching it is that the original post by Alex quoted another academic (which was then relayed by a news outlet, and is arguably less legitimate than the Carter et al. quote), which you supported without casting any aspersions on the legitimacy of the assertion. And yet when an academic source is quoted which contradicts your viewpoint, you challenge the validity of academic study in the area.
Sociology can be used for almost no good at all and shows its true heart in the context of its intended use: surreptitious manipulation of individuals or social groups. It is the psychopath’s humanities topic of interest and is at best a navel gazing academic’s pedantic fancy, at worst the study of human social weakness and how to exploit it.
Enlightened, fair and transparent leadership has no need for the study of sociology, but I digress...it is good to see Daniel in his place (the wrong), again, and returning to the thread empty handed (and headed) with nothing to add but a shower of spittle to an otherwise interesting discussion. I suppose being in the "education industry" (read: self-important english teacher) he thinks he can set us all right with his snarks and unintelligable taffy phlegm gargling....instead he is just wrong (again).
You cannot say what the study shows and how inadequate it is, whilst also saying that you haven't read it. These things are mutually exclusive.
What you (and in fact everyone, including me) are doing is speculating on the validity of that study, which is fine if you do so within reasonable parameters of probability. If we take that sentence that you've quoted:
those who grew up as only children as a consequence of the (one-child) policy (in China) are found to be blah blah than if they had had siblings.
As you, and I, have not read that study, do you think it's probable that this refers to a methodology that compares one real group to one imagined group (which is, as you have pointed out, an invention of the researchers and so practically worthless), or rather is it more probable that it compares a group of people with no siblings and a group of people with siblings whilst attempting to keep the socialising aspect the same (presumably selecting from same cities, same classes, and so on)?
Put another way, if this study is as logically flawed as you think it is based on the quote cited here, do you think that the various people involved in this study, the university that published it and the academic world that cites it are waiting for someone, like you, on an internet message board to come along and say 'I haven't read this study but it's clearly illogical and flawed'? Surely you can see how petulant you sound?
And on the topic of petulance,
Calm down dear, no one cares.
Pipe TF down and take your pseudo-thoughtful blatherings elsewhere. In your case, petulant refers to the pet sheep that was lent to you pro bono in the hope of liberating your sister.