[Mobius]

Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.

Personal experience is enough.

[NGTM-1R]

Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.

Personal experience is enough.

Yes, because you're making a statistically proveable assertion.

[Blue Lion]

Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.

Personal experience is enough.

Yes, because you're making a statistically proveable assertion.

What statistical assertion has anyone made in this argument? Why isn't the other side talking out of it's ass too?

[Mobius]

Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.

Personal experience is enough.

Yes, because you're making a statistically proveable assertion.

Stop talking as if everything depends on statistics.

I know the differences between the ways to educate children and teenagers, and I'm 5 years younger than you. May I know why you need statistics to carry on a discussion whose subject should be pretty clear to you?

Behaving like that makes you sound like a person with no experience in Real Life^TM. Throwing in statistics usually helps, but asking for them in this discussion is ridiculous.

[TrashMan]

While Max is pulling a delightfully inane Persecuted Hegemon on us, you're just talking out of your rear end. You have neither ancedotal experience nor statistics.

Do you need anything other than logic to recognize this?

Are you denying points 1 and 2?
If not, then the conclusions from them are rock-solid.
If so, then you are blind and ignoring something that is common knowledge.

[The E]

1. Culture infulences the develpoment of people, especially young people

Given.

2. Not all cultures are equal

Given.

Ergo, it stands to reason that young people won't behave the same in different cultures.

Probable.

It also stands to reason that some ways of bringing up kids are better than others.

Unproved assertion.

If your kids are showing less and less respect, are becoming more spoiled and agressive or downright emo - then buddy, you got problems. Or should I say, your culture has problems.

Unproved assertion. Does not follow from previous arguments.

[Mobius]

Common knowledge is the keyword here...

[iamzack]

I think America's biggest culture issue is too much religion forced down the throats of people who might otherwise be perfectly normal.

After all, countries which have much less religiosity are also more peaceful and progressive. Hmm...

Maybe Trashman et al is on to something.

[Blue Lion]

It also stands to reason that some ways of bringing up kids are better than others.

Unproved assertion.

There is no way to determine the effects of raising a child?

[General Battuta]

Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.

Personal experience is enough.

Yes, because you're making a statistically proveable assertion.

Stop talking as if everything depends on statistics.

I know the differences between the ways to educate children and teenagers, and I'm 5 years younger than you. May I know why you need statistics to carry on a discussion whose subject should be pretty clear to you?

Behaving like that makes you sound like a person with no experience in Real Life^TM. Throwing in statistics usually helps, but asking for them in this discussion is ridiculous.

AAGH THE FAILURE OF INTELLECT

Look. Statistics describe reality. Personal experience doesn't -- it's largely an illusion constructed by flawed cognitive heuristics.

If you want to figure out the differences between how to educate children and teenagers, you need to go out and collect data on which methods are most effective, and, hopefully, do experiments to establish a correlation.

NGTM-1R is right. You are wrong. You are the one being ridiculous, since statistics are the only thing that can advance discussions like this.

[The E]

There is no way to determine the effects of raising a child?

There is no way to determine whether a given way of raising a child is superior to another, IMHO.

[NGTM-1R]

What statistical assertion has anyone made in this argument? Why isn't the other side talking out of it's ass too?

Admittedly, they have not, but they at least bothered with anecdotal evidence.

Stop talking as if everything depends on statistics.

I know the differences between the ways to educate children and teenagers, and I'm 5 years younger than you. May I know why you need statistics to carry on a discussion whose subject should be pretty clear to you?

Behaving like that makes you sound like a person with no experience in Real Life^TM. Throwing in statistics usually helps, but asking for them in this discussion is ridiculous.

Hilarous. Horrible. Hilarrible?

Everything does depend on statistics wherever they are available. Certainly science does. If you want to prove something, you're going to need some form of math, and the social sciences, that usually means statistics. Anecdotal evidence like this is all well and good, but it is rightfully distrusted when it conflicts or when the belief is demonstrated to be practically hereditary.

Do you need anything other than logic to recognize this?

Are you denying points 1 and 2?
If not, then the conclusions from them are rock-solid.
If so, then you are blind and ignoring something that is common knowledge.

Common knowledge. That's quite a dangerous phrase. Ether was once common knowledge. So was the flat earth, the geocenteric universe. It's a pretty shibboleth of the conservative/paleoconservative mindset you have, to be sure. But it's foolish.

I'm denying your points.
If I am, the conclusions are not rock-solid. (Poor wording kills arguments.)
If so, then you are blind and ignoring something obviously unscientific. (Poor wording kills arguments!)

[Blue Lion]

What statistical assertion has anyone made in this argument? Why isn't the other side talking out of it's ass too?

Admittedly, they have not, but they at least bothered with anecdotal evidence.

Then why is everyone jumping on these guys calling them wrong if the other side can't prove any of theirs either?

I saw a lot of people jump on Trashman and Lib about the stuff they said about kids but those who did only had personal experience of their own to argue with. So why are we ragging on these guys for not having statistical data? They could be right

[Mobius]

AAGH THE FAILURE OF INTELLECT

Look. Statistics describe reality. Personal experience doesn't -- it's largely an illusion constructed by flawed cognitive heuristics.

If you want to figure out the differences between how to educate children and teenagers, you need to go out and collect data on which methods are most effective, and, hopefully, do experiments to establish a correlation.

NGTM-1R is right. You are wrong. You are the one being ridiculous, since statistics are the only thing that can advance discussions like this.

Statistics are generic. You'll hardly find a fully detailled statistic.

Are you aware of their worrying levels of generalization? Statistics inform about the average, not about the specific. Each person is different from the others, so throwing in something like "76% of teenargers does this, 24% does that" with no kind of reference to their age (1), to the specific place where they live (2), to the cultural context of that place (3), to the school they attend (4), to their neighbours (5), to their friends (6), to their families (7), to their dedication to school (8), to wheter or not they learn bad behavior from TV (9), videogames (10), the internet (11)...

That's 11 variables and there are more. Statistics would hardly take more than 3 of them in consideration, despite the fact that they have pretty much the same importance. Now go and make assumptions.

People are not numbers. At least, not always.

There is no way to determine whether a given way of raising a child is superior to another, IMHO.

True, but people should know what's good and what isn't. Stuff like "Should my child listen to classical music to increase his IQ?" isn't anywhere near "Should I allow him to use drugs, drink alcohol and stay with mediocre people?".

[The E]

Statistics are generic. You'll hardly find a fully detailled statistic.

Are you aware of their worrying levels of generalization? Statistics inform about the average, not about the specific. Each person is different from the others, so throwing in something like "76% of teenargers does this, 24% does that" with no kind of reference to their age (1), to the specific place where they live (2), to the cultural context of that place (3), to the school they attend (4), to their neighbours (5), to their friends (6), to their families (7), to their dedication to school (8), to wheter or not they learn bad behavior from TV (9), videogames (10), the internet (11)...

That's 11 variables and there are more. Statistics would hardly take more than 3 of them in consideration, despite the fact that they have pretty much the same importance. Now go and make assumptions.

People are not numbers. At least, not always.

Assumption 1: By generalizing information, it becomes possible to determine whether a given trend is global, or local. TrashMan et al. claim that the behaviour of young people is degenerating globally, when all they have are local observations. Statistics could be a massive help to determine if they are right.

[Flipside]

Remembering that until about 5-6 generations ago, 'teenagers' were married with kids, usually lots of kids.

Teenagers have only really existed for about 3 generations, which is why teenage pregnancy is a growing problem, because until about 75 years ago, it was known as 'pregnancy'.

[NGTM-1R]

Then why is everyone jumping on these guys calling them wrong if the other side can't prove any of theirs either?

I saw a lot of people jump on Trashman and Lib about the stuff they said about kids but those who did only had personal experience of their own to argue with. So why are we ragging on these guys for not having statistical data? They could be right

The "Those Damn Kids Through The Ages" post earlier in the thread more or less proved they are taking a posistion that is more or less hereditary in nature, which is more damning as an argument than anything they have yet produced. So, by the (admittedly low) standards of the evidence available, they're still losing.

Statistics are generic. You'll hardly find a fully detailled statistic.

Are you aware of their worrying levels of generalization? Statistics inform about the average, not about the specific. Each person is different from the others, so throwing in something like "76% of teenargers does this, 24% does that" with no kind of reference to their age

And if you missed the logical snapper in that statement, don't buy any bridges in brooklyn.

'cuz, you know. Teenager is a reference to their age.

(1), to the specific place where they live (2), to the cultural context of that place (3), to the school they attend (4), to their neighbours (5), to their friends (6), to their families (7), to their dedication to school (8), to wheter or not they learn bad behavior from TV (9), videogames (10), the internet (11)...

That's 11 variables and there are more. Statistics would hardly take more than 3 of them in consideration, despite the fact that they have pretty much the same importance. Now go and make assumptions.

Which is why they have seperate, smaller studies on each variable (most of which are against you, for the record).

[Blue Lion]

Then why is everyone jumping on these guys calling them wrong if the other side can't prove any of theirs either?

I saw a lot of people jump on Trashman and Lib about the stuff they said about kids but those who did only had personal experience of their own to argue with. So why are we ragging on these guys for not having statistical data? They could be right

The "Those Damn Kids Through The Ages" post earlier in the thread more or less proved they are taking a posistion that is more or less hereditary in nature, which is more damning as an argument than anything they have yet produced. So, by the (admittedly low) standards of the evidence available, they're still losing.

But you don't even know they're wrong?

You're telling me there is little evidence, and almost everyone is running anecdotal... so how can you claim one is right over another?

[peterv]

From propaganda and debating techniques:

Demand a simple answer when this is not possible:
"Okay, if God didn't create the universe, tell me how it got here."
(The obvious answer is another question: "But who created God? How did God get here?")

[Mobius]

Assumption 1: By generalizing information, it becomes possible to determine whether a given trend is global, or local. TrashMan et al. claim that the behaviour of young people is degenerating globally, when all they have are local observations. Statistics could be a massive help to determine if they are right.

Find a statistic that takes in consideration at least 5-6 of the 11 variables mentioned in my previous post and let me know.

It's nearly impossible to have a specific vision of a complex problem by using statistics, only. If all you need is a bunch of numbers, go for it.

'cuz, you know. Teenager is a reference to their age.

It's quite funny how you pretend 14 years old and a 18 years old to behave the same, for the sake of the statistics.

Which is why they have seperate, smaller studies on each variable (most of which are against you, for the record).

Those studies are specific, too specific, because they're not widespread. They take many variables in consideration, but the problem is that they don't analyze that many teenagers. As result, all major assumptions come from the classic "If 5 out in 80 teenagers do this, then 50,000 out in 800,000 do this" - it's all a game of numbers and percentages which doesn't really help... and you know why? Because there are many problems, not only one, leading to certain behaviors. Vague assumptions would end up with something like "Videogames are bad for children and teenagers", and we all know of bogus this assumption is due to the various nature of games (genre, series, etc. etc.).

By "accurate" I mean "about 100% reliable".

Far from accurate stat = several thousand people

Partially accurate stat = several hundred people

Very accurate stat = several dozen people

From propaganda and debating tequeniques:

Demand a simple answer when this is not possible:
"Okay, if God didn't create the universe, tell me how it got here."
(The obvious answer is another question: "But who created God? How did God get here?")

Let's limit this debate to the other thread...