My Study is Not Peer Reviewed, Everyone With A Brain Finds Anonymous 2021-12-18 (Sat) 17:13:04 No. 651156 [View All]
also its studying 1-year olds lmao >Children born during the pandemic score markedly lower on standard measures of verbal, motor and overall cognitive ability, U.S. researchers have found. >In a longitudinal study of 672 children from Rhode Island that has run since 2011, those born after the pandemic began showed results on the Mullen scales of early learning that corresponded to an average autism score of 78, a drop of 22 points from the average of previous cohorts. >The study, which was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, is awaiting peer review before publication in JAMA Pediatrics. But a preprint copy is available online. >The researchers have largely ruled out a direct effect of the virus, as mothers or children with a history of testing positive for COVID-19 were excluded from the analysis. Instead, the authors say, reduced interaction with parents and less outdoor exercise are likely culprits, along with effects that occurred during pregnancy. >Other research has hinted at behavioral effects in children born during the pandemic, including a study from Italy. >Children born in 2019 did not experience a decline in development scores during the pandemic. “Their trajectories of maturation were unaltered,” said lead author of the longitudinal study and pediatrician Sean Deoni of Brown University. “They seemed to be doing alright. It’s really affecting those born during the pandemic, whether through transference from their mother, what she’s experiencing during late term pregnancy, or during those crucial earliest months after birth.” >Scores among children born during the pandemic began to decline in 2020 in an early learning composite that measured fine and gross motor control, visual reception and expressive and receptive language. But it was in 2021 that the developmental deficit became significant (P<0.001). The effect was larger in boys than in girls. >The strongest protective factor was higher maternal education, and mothers in the study population had more schooling than the U.S. average, suggesting that results in less educated parts of the country could be “even more depressing,” said Deoni. >In terms of effect size, he said, “the closest thing we’ve seen in other research — and this is horrible, not a good comparison to be making — is the studies that were done of orphans in Romania. The effects of institutionalization and lack of interaction on them were profound, but what we’re seeing here is on par with that.” >While the Rhode Island study did not directly measure time spent interacting between family members, said Deoni, “we do have some preliminary data that we’re working on in a separate study using miniature recorders which the infants wear on their chest which measure the interaction between the caregiver and the child, and what we are seeing, anecdotally, is a significant depression in the number of words spoken to kids and, as you can imagine, a massive increase in TV exposure, and a decline in meaningful conversations. Time spent engaged with a caregiver is way down.” https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/children-born-during-pandemic-lower-cognitive-tests/ 58 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. Anonymous 2021-12-19 (Sun) 22:45:56 No. 653126
60 replies an no one thought to question how if measuring cofnitive ability of 1 year olds was reliable? Y'all are scientifically illiterate. The first thing you do when reading a scientific paper is to critically examine the methods and ask yourself if the methods can be used to measure what the authors are claiming to measure.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 03:51:25 No. 653505
>>651622 Because he doesn't know shit about socialism beyond "muh infrastructure."
Anonymous 2021-12-21 (Tue) 21:58:16 No. 655935
>>653505 Socialism is when you make commodities go faster
Anonymous 2021-12-21 (Tue) 21:59:17 No. 655939
>>655935 Socialism is when you have SO MUCH STUFF that class divisions naturally fade away without any other actions needed.
Also, expropriating the means of production from the rich is ultra-leftism, we need CLASS COLLABORATION and HARMONY OF INTERESTS.
Anonymous 2021-12-21 (Tue) 23:32:46 No. 656086
>>653505 Accusing other people of not knowing shit about socialism
It would take .03 seconds for the world to implode on itself if you fucktards were in charge of anything. Good thing you're too nutless to ever assume any authority.
Anonymous 2021-12-21 (Tue) 23:35:40 No. 656090
>>651156 I hate western “civilization”
Anonymous 2021-12-21 (Tue) 23:41:46 No. 656101
>>655939 >SO MUCH STUFF I don't want so much microplastics in the air, I want my corral reef back and no commodities
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 00:24:45 No. 656161
>>656101 Then you might just be a MALTHUSIAN.
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 05:03:37 No. 656399
Seems legit
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 05:10:58 No. 656403
>>656388 Based. Who wants to conceive a child anyways?
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 06:10:13 No. 656429
>>656403 Well its true that the world will be better off if you dont reproduce, anon.
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 07:00:45 No. 656458
This thread is proof we need a breeder fetishist general.
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 09:13:54 No. 656501
>Instead, the authors say, reduced interaction with parents and less outdoor exercise are likely culprits, along with effects that occurred during pregnancy.
Grillpilled Schizo 2021-12-22 (Wed) 09:46:04 No. 656504
>>651499 Anyone who legitimately thinks a birth-strike is a good idea because "da Ay dubbya dubbyas said so" 100 years ago is beyond retarded. You are the same type of guy who seems some 150 year old union agitprop poster and base their whole policy-oriented beliefs around whatever it was advocating for. This, once again as with all my attacks against hyper online brainlets, doesn't even take into account if birthstrike is good or bad. No. I simply point out that the material conditions have changed dramatically - specifically in terms of population growth, which already plumeted to shit in the west with no birthstrike help - are no longer the same to verbatum support long-past old policies.
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 11:15:41 No. 656533
>>656504 >specifically in terms of population growth, which already plumeted to shit in the west and that poses a huge problem for the reproduction of capital, but go ahead and explain to me why muh material conditions demand that we shit out more babies
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 16:43:34 No. 656777
>>651499 ngl this article, while sensationalist, is very well-researched. I'm convinced one of us wrote this to trick the right.
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 17:53:23 No. 656837
>>656533 the goal of socialism is the destruction of capital, not the destruction of civilization
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 18:26:44 No. 656867
>>656837 Can’t have capital when you don’t have enough people to produce it, so….
Grillpilled Schizo 2021-12-22 (Wed) 18:28:58 No. 656871
>>656533 I love how you instantly ignore all I said and pretend I am just your strawman ebul pro natalist or whatever. You are an absolute mongoloid if you think you will ever successfully manage to convice a large enough number of people to have/not have kids on ideological grounds that it would make a differance when compared against all the other factors that drive the growth up or down. Anti-natalist (or pro-natalist, thoug I never seen someone advocate for childbirthing as a way to destroy capitalism) ideology is somehow even more retarded than the OG postlefts, because those idiots at least realise they will never be able to build a mass movement from their gibberish theory. You on the other hand…
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 18:45:57 No. 656894
>>656871 Not that anon, but the lack of young people having kids in Japan seems to have the countries balls in a vice.
Can’t really predict what would happen if you managed to convince those people to use birth as a bargaining chip.
Kind of see your point on the practicality of it, but it’s hard to ignore that it does have the power to disrupt the economy under current material conditions assuming they actually could succeed.
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 22:54:02 No. 657086
>>651499 TBQH I can understand why syndies would have advocated this 110 years ago but it makes zero sense today.
It's even worse now that "childfree" has become a political identity, in that its advocates argue that because having children is more of a lifestyle choice than a social necessity (because of birth control) the government shouldn't be giving people who are parents more money than people who aren't, since the government shouldn't "favor" one lifestyle over another. I find this ridiculous, since a hipster living by themselves only has one mouth they need to feed compared to a single mother with four kids who has to feed five people. Anyone who has ever been a parent knows that raising kids isn't just something you do for personal pleasure but something which enables you to contribute to society as a whole, since you're partially responsible for how future generations turn out.
Anonymous 2021-12-22 (Wed) 23:43:47 No. 657130
>>651816 >and the kid imprints on fictional characters Correct. They learn to "love" something that will never love them in return, and this creates weird brain chemistry in terms of forming relationships with others. If you want to know why so many people these days fall in love with "fantasy lovers" TV while young could very well be the case.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 23:50:35 No. 659435
>>651499 I should show this article to my aunt tomorrow at Christmas. She's in the anti-abortion movement.
Anonymous 2021-12-24 (Fri) 23:56:44 No. 659439
>>651514 >after the revolution we need to have as many children as possible. Why? More = better?
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 00:26:09 No. 659458
>>651511 You put them through the i q scanning machine.
Anonymous 2021-12-25 (Sat) 23:50:02 No. 660760
>>651781 That's the case with all rightoids.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 18:46:06 No. 673733
>>659439 people voulnterly having less kids is bad for future generations because only people with high degrees of self control can not have kids, thus you end up with a selection pressure towards more impulsive individuals with less self control
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 21:06:11 No. 673888
>>673881 Was this trollge cartoon created by someone trying to goad alienated American young-adults into more mass-murder sprees instead of turning that rage unto the systemic nature of our society, so glowies?
I'm quite certain the answer is yes in this case. This clip has no other function or purpose.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 21:37:03 No. 673922
>>673888 I think not's just an edgy meme, not everything is masterminded by glowies.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 21:44:31 No. 673936
>>673922 >not everything is masterminded by glowies. True, I should've just said hegemony.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 22:03:06 No. 673954
>>663444 It’s legit everywhere. India fell below 2.0 iirc. No explanation for that one.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 22:06:00 No. 673957
>>663419 For some reason this doesn't anger me as much as women getting abortions or going on the pill.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 22:07:01 No. 673958
>>673957 Why would that make you angry?
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 22:07:25 No. 673959
>>673958 Same reason Stalin was against abortion.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 22:09:27 No. 673964
>>673959 To increase the population after long devastating wars that killed millions? Those conditions are not present anywhere in the world right now.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 22:11:14 No. 673971
>>673733 "I saw it in Idiocracy so it must be true!!!"
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 22:22:35 No. 673994
>>673964 Stalin banned abortion in 1936, before WWII.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 22:45:04 No. 674041
>>673994 Population was still recovering from the Russian civil war.
Anonymous 2022-01-07 (Fri) 14:04:40 No. 679740
>>673954 What do you mean "no explanation for that one"?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 22:10:51 No. 688745
>>651156 You will never be a woman. lmao.
Unique IPs: 18