Sociologists study the impact religion has on child development

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Do children raised by religious parents have better social and psychological development than those raised in non-religious homes? In a new study, researchers found that religion can be a mixed blessing for children as they get older....

Bartkowski also highlighted one notable limitation in their recently published study. "Some religious groups may more effectively balance soft skill development and academic excellence than others...

Bartkowski said a major takeaway from this new study is that religion is an important influence, generally for good and sometimes for ill, as children navigate their way through the grade school year

To read more:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190207123220.htm

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I'd say it's more than religion.

It's learning about traditional morality applied with relative morality. It's learning about past mistakes and their takeaways. It's learning judgment and wisdom.

I went to Jewish Sunday School where the Old Testament stories were used to teach right and wrong, ethics. Stuff like Delilah betraying Samson as he loved her, trusted her and she literally sold him out. That kind of lesson has stuck with me all these years. While I'm not Jewish anymore, I still respect the ethics lessons I was given.

In other words, being Jewish didn't make me moral or ethical. It was learning how to treat other people in different circumstances.

[guillaumeb]

3. Good points.

On the other hand, an unethical person can always find a way to interpret the Bible, or other holy books, in such a way as to justify what the person wishes to do.

[Bretton Garcia]

9. Which suggests the Bible is never very clear

And therefore is not very reliable

[guillaumeb]

20. It suggests that people claim many reasons

as justification for what they will do anyway.

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. Wrong again.

What researchers found was a set of corelations between what third grade teachers thought of their students and the religiosity of those students' parents. The representativeness of these correations warrants further investigation. Unfortunatey, due to the the manner in which the data was collected, it is unlikely the PI will be able to follow up to see where those students are now.

[guillaumeb]

4. Argue with the authors. eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. No doubt someone else already is.

Did you actually read the paper, or did you just read the reporter's interpretation of the paper?

[MineralMan]

8. Guess.

You're right.

[guillaumeb]

17. Did you read the article?

If so, how do you interpret this declarative statement?

John Bartkowski, professor of sociology at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), Xiaohe Xu, professor of sociology at UTSA and chair of the Department of Sociology, and Stephen Bartkowski, from the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness Services at the Alamo Colleges District, recently published an article called, "Mixed Blessing: The Beneficial and Detrimental Effects of Religion on Child Development among Third-Graders" in the journal Religions.

The comment to which you refer is from one of the authors of the article.

[Major Nikon]

38. Glad you asked

The principal author is a professor at a UT satellite institution and has recently worked his way up from an even smaller college. He appears to make a bit of money on the side publishing about the merits of evangelicalism, which suggests a significant bias on the subject matter.

One can guess the same uncommon last name of the two authors suggest they are related, probably brothers, and the 3rd author works in the same department as the principal author. Kinda makes you go, hmmm.

Then you look up the journal in question and discover it's an obscure journal to unread to even have an impact factor from a notorious pay-for-play publisher with virtually no credibility due to a peer review process which is little more than a sausage factory that pumps out pseudo-science for $200-300 a pop.

[Cartoonist]

42. Busted!

Good research. Thanks for exposing this as a puff piece and not a serious study.

[trotsky]

44. But...but...but...

It says something that guillaumeb really wants to be true, so that means it's great research, right?!? RIGHT?!?!?!!

[Major Nikon]

46. Even then only the part he likes

We must pretend the other parts don't exist.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=308300

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. Question:

Do you think there is more information in the publication than article? Information that might, I dunno, give you some insight into the researchers' experimental methods?

It's OK. I'll wait.

[Major Nikon]

47. You can reference the full study

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/1/37/pdf

The first clue something might be junk science is consideration of where it's published. The publisher is a well known purveyor of junk science. This indicates their "peer-review" process is almost certainly complete shit.

One of the co-authors has the same unusual last name, so they are almost certainly related. The 3rd co-author is one of the principal author's co-workers.

The next thing you'll notice is the author is primarily referencing his own work, which is another red flag for junk science. Some of it is just books he wrote, which unlike the rest doesn't even pretend to be peer-reviewed.

If you look at the other sources referenced in the study, pretty much the only ones who have any degree of legitimacy were those used to point out the negative outcomes of religious indoctrination.

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. It all leads back to the same point.

If he's publishing in MDPI, it's because he can't get his work accepted anywhere else. Why? Because the "experimental" design is shitty and the conclusions are completely fucked. Why? Because the author hasn't actually done any field work; he's just pulling data from a 20 year old survey. Why? Because he can't get funding to do a field study. Why? Because he has no publications. Start over from first sentence.

[Major Nikon]

49. It's a pay-to-play journal

Which means the author pays to have the study published. Not all pay-to-play journals are bad, but the one's that are decent typically start out at a $1500 fee which covers the costs of legitimate high quality peer review and publication costs. MDPI journals typically charge $200-300 which right away tells you they aren't paying much for peer review and more likely are publishing just about anything brought to them which inevitably leads to the promotion of junk science masquerading as real science.

I think the why is much simpler. The author has a side business of writing non-peer reviewed books, probably in hopes that his university will accept them and charge hapless students hundreds of dollars for it as a textbook. No doubt he will then use that book to further prop up his next "research" project further building on the house of cards.

This guy is nothing more than a scam artist that many universities tolerate for one reason or another. The main difference is this one throws in the promotion of evangelicalism, which no doubt creates an environment where people are going to be overly cautious about calling bullshit for fear of allegations of intolerance.

[trotsky]

50. Damn, even by gil's standards this has been a spectacular wreck of a thread.

[Lordquinton]

5. The study only counted a very vague Religious data point

Also did not track numerous other factors like socio-economic status, race and some other important points. It's an interesting start, but very limited in scope.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. It also assumes Third Grade teachers are qualified to evaluate childhood development.

Dubious. At. Best.

[Bretton Garcia]

10. It did suggest some intellectual failures in some religious students though

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Might be interesting for a follow up study. If not following the same group, then another. Next time using a more scientific method.

[Major Nikon]

12. It's not even all that interesting

The lead author is a pseudo-academic who publishes books nobody reads that promote evangelicalism thinly veiled as academia. The "study" is predictably published in a shitty journal that nobody references from a shitty publisher with a dubious reputation for publishing pseudo-science so long as the authors pay their fees to have it published.

So-called "studies" like this one read like pulp fiction.

[Bretton Garcia]

57. We might consider this study as say, an anecdote

Or only marginal evidence. But I'd love to see a more professional study. Following up its preliminary assertion that religion often hinders the intellectual, academic growth of children.

[Major Nikon]

11. Shit study published in a shit journal

The so-called "study" you are referencing is published by a notorious junk science Chinese predatory pay-to-play publisher.

Even if the source of your "study" wasn't complete shit (and it is), there still wouldn't be much reason to believe it. Psychology studies published even in the best journals are only reproducible a little over 1/3rd of the time.

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks for that information.

I read the paper. It didn't really meet academic standards. I'd have rejected it for using non-standard parameters having to do specifically with religious concepts.

I wonder if the OP read the journal article.

[Major Nikon]

14. ...

[MineralMan]

15. Perhaps so.

Guillibility is not a virtue.

[guillaumeb]

19. Neither is belief peserverance.

If this study had said that religion was definitely a negative factor, one might assume that it would already have been posted here.

[Major Nikon]

23. It does say that

So it seems you've made a poor assumption.

[guillaumeb]

25. Were you reading between the lines?

[Major Nikon]

26. Did you even read the 3rd paragraph in your own excerpt?

The so-called junk science "study" goes on to explain what they meant by that, had you bothered to read the actual lines, much less between them.

[guillaumeb]

27. Dod you read all the ay down?

Bartkowski also highlighted one notable limitation in their recently published study. "Some religious groups may more effectively balance soft skill development and academic excellence than others. Regrettably, our data set does not inquire about denominational affiliation, so we cannot say if children from Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim or other denominational backgrounds are especially likely to strike the delicate balance between social psychological development and academic excellence," Bartkowski explained.

[Major Nikon]

29. So you think this somehow magically changes the negative outcomes mentioned to positive ones?

Or are you simply trying to impeach your own source which was never really all that great to begin with?

[guillaumeb]

32. There are questions about whether religion is a net positive or a negitive.

If you prefer to focus exclusively on math and science, I understand. But science without ethics can lead to very bad outcomes.

[Major Nikon]

34. WTF is anything you're saying have to do with what anyone else is talking about?

Your assertion was, and I quote:

If this study had said that religion was definitely a negative factor, one might assume that it would already have been posted here.

To which I accurately pointed out from your own source that it does:

However, students' performance on reading, math, and science tests were negatively associated with several forms of parental religiosity.

Focus on your own source, Gil, instead of trying to pretend you didn't regurgitate another train wreck of a thread.

[guillaumeb]

35. And the 50/50 reproducibilty factor, to which you attached so much weight?

And still, you obviously ended your reading before the end of the article.

But I understand your need to attack religion.

[Major Nikon]

37. Focus

If you don't want to talk about your assertion, it's not hard to figure out why.

[guillaumeb]

18. So we should atke all articles referenced here dealing with decining numbers of theists

as perhaps having a 1 in 3 chance of being credible?

[Major Nikon]

22. I'm not sure how many here are too stupid to figure out the difference between a study and a survey

Much less a study that deals with a soft science vs hard statistical data.

So if by "we" you mean all of us, then my direct answer to your question is no.

[guillaumeb]

24. Reference some data to make your points.

If you reject any surveys that you dislike, and support those that agree with your already determined opinion, is there not a term for that?

I recall a few here praising surveys that purport to show that theism is declining. Are those surveys also soft science? Or, do they magically become hard statistical data because you wish to believe that the conclusions are true?

[Major Nikon]

28. I think you make my point quite well

If you don't understand the difference between an academic study and hard data, there's not much point in debating the merits of one vs the other.

[guillaumeb]

30. So you have no evidence, only assertions.

Understood.

[Major Nikon]

31. Focus

I posted my evidence. You obviously didn't understand it.

[guillaumeb]

33. So do you reject this study because, in a 50/50 possibility framework,

it does not support your pre-determined outcome?

[Major Nikon]

36. No

Had you bothered to actually read the Nature article I reference you'd see they were talking about high quality studies published in reputable journals by highly respected academics. Even then the reproducibility rate was only 39%, not "50/50".

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University in California, says that the true replication-failure rate could exceed 80%, even higher than Nosek's study suggests. This is because the Reproducibility Project targeted work in highly respected journals, the original scientists worked closely with the replicators, and replicating teams generally opted for papers employing relatively easy methods — all things that should have made replication easier.

So as far as a shit "study" published by a shit Chinese pseudo-science publishing factory by some obscure dude who had to include his even more obscure brother on the author list it seems reasonable to put the chances for reproducibility somewhere around a fart in a hurricane.

I reject this study because it's garbage and there's really no reason whatsoever to take it seriously.

[trotsky]

45. Damn dude, you really gotta learn the first rule when you find yourself in a hole.

Quit digging.

Although I do appreciate the comedy show of seeing you humiliate yourself again, so thanks for that!

[MineralMan]

51. Here's the thing about junk "scientific" journals:

They're junk. For example, here's a link to the American Journal of Homeopathy:

https://homeopathyusa.org/journal.html

It's a "peer-reviewed" journal. The problem is that all of those "peers" who are reviewing articles are homeopaths. Homeopathy is not a science. It's a bogus theory of therapeutical use of diluted materials that have such a high level of dilution that none of the principle ingredient even exists in the final dilution.

So, no matter how many reviews by "peers" are done, the initial premise in all of the research is false. If a "remedy" appears to work, it is because the patient got better through natural healing processes. Homeopathy is useless.

Yet, this journal exists, and it frequently referenced by proponents of homeopathy. Because it is "peer-reviewed" that is supposed to lend credibility to the worthless research being done.

Reviews of research articles done by people who are unqualified or who hold the same views as the author, are worthless. Publications that publish such articles are also worthless. The number of "pay-to-publish" pseudo-scientific journals out there is growing, with more being published each year. Citations from them appear in all sorts of bogus websites and blogs. But the information is false that is included in those journals, just as the "research" done on homeopathy is worthless.

Theology-leaning journals are even worse. No matter how many "peers" review what is published in them, the basic premise that some deity exists somewhere negates all conclusions reached. There is nothing of science in them. It is all self-serving god-bothering.

And yet, people will persist in posting citations, third-party articles, bloggery, and other assorted nonsense that is based on such bogus journals.

[Voltaire2]

16. The headline right below your post.

More than 100 Southern Baptist youth pastors convicted or charged in sex crimes

[guillaumeb]

21. Focus.

[Voltaire2]

40. On the effects organized religion has on children?

Ok. See up thread.

[Major Nikon]

39. Sounds like someone doesn't want to talk about the negative impacts

Even the ones mentioned by his own OP.

Very telling that.

[littlemissmartypants]

41. It always is. nt

[guillaumeb]

53. Similar to when some here complain when I post about China?

And ask what is the point?

Is it like that?

So, what does it say about those here who complain when I post about China, and its Government?

And. some of them are commenting here. How ironic.

[Major Nikon]

54. ...

[guillaumeb]

55. Unless you deny what has happened in the China posts,

and if you do so deny, there is no point in talking further.

Unfortunately for your little cartoon, the responses are still there for everyone to read.

[Major Nikon]

56. ...

[MineralMan]

52. A word or two about scienceddaily.com from Wikipedia:

Science Daily is an American website that aggregates press releases and publishes lightly edited press releases (a practice called churnalism) about science, similar to Phys.org and EurekAlert!.[1][2][3]

The site was founded by married couple Dan and Michele Hogan in 1995; Dan Hogan formerly worked in the public affairs department of Jackson Laboratory writing press releases.[4] The site makes money from selling advertisements.[4] As of 2010, the site said that it had grown "from a two-person operation to a full-fledged news business with worldwide contributors" but at the time, it was run out of the Hogans' home, had no reporters, and only reprinted press releases.[4] In 2012, Quantcast ranked it at 614 with 2.6 million U.S. visitors.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceDaily

Unlike publications such as Nature, Scientific American and other magazines that publish articles based on genuine research, Science Daily publishes press releases from all sorts of journals about the articles in them. It does not discriminate between legitimate and "pay-to-publish" journals, nor does it select source journals of proven value.

It is not a reliable source for reliable research information.

The identical article/press release also appears as a link on religionnews.com: