From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:26:48 GMT

In article <NmJ6PB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
(Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>> >Mothers' behavioral reports are often biased.
>> 
>> What does that have to do with performance on standardized tests?
>
>When there is no control group, and the conclusion is based solely on
>a single facet of an uncontrolled test, the value of the test is nothing.

There were children studied from single-parent and dual-parent homes,
homes with low income and high income, homes with uneducated and
well-educated mothers.  What would you consider an acceptable control
group?

>A number of studies have been produced here, along with the cites which
>allowed many to test them. They were valid, and rather unquestionably
>so. While Mr. Mott speaks of his 'longitudinal' study which crossed 3
>years, studies by more eminently qualified organizations, spanning 20+
>years, demonstrate Mr. Mott as not only incorrect, but incredibly so.

Did those studies control for income and educational level, and still
find that the number of parents was key?

>There is an old saying in science: It's rather easy to find materials
>to prove a theory --if one only looks in the right place.

>Yes, it is. Most people who have suffered divorce have experienced a drop
>in disposable income. To assert that one gender is more responsible than 
>another is a fallacious argument. Just as much as the (ex) wife suffers a
>loss in the husband's income, the husband suffers the loss of his wife's.
>
>If she wasn't financially contributing, then yes, she is probably dealing
>with a radical loss of income RELATIVE to his. But how anyone can assert
>that this is a disability VISITED by the man on the woman is plain wrong.

I think you're wandering into a different conversation.  This one was
about a study of the direct causes of some children's low scores in
reading and math.

>> >OK, Mott, your science is absolute and utterly convincing.  Just round
>> >off the figures and make the lack of money on the part of the mothers the
>> >real problem - oh, and get these mothers educated while we're at it
>> >(like it is something we can actively shove down their brains).
>> 
>> Do you have any evidence for your assertion as to his bad science?
>> You seem to be claiming that he's lying ("round off the figures and
>> make...); are you really doing that?
>
>There's a TON of it to demonstrate the inaccuracy of Mr. Mott. Consult
>your local high school.

About what?  The only place you could determine that he was playing
games with his numbers is from the original paper, and you might need
his working papers even then.

>> He didn't say anything about the solution (at least, not in anything
>> you posted); he only determined the _real_ cause of the problem.
>
>You should have put 'real' in quotes. Maybe you believe that men are always
>responsible for divorce, but I deal (daily) in many which were instituted
>by women --at no fault of the man.

Do you think it matters which parent caused the divorce?  Do you have
a study to indicate that?

He determined that, statistically, the family income and parent
educational level were much more highly correlated with children's
math and reading ability than the number of parents was.

>> >  She did notice some glaring ommissions in Mott's study
>> >and some bizarre leaps of logic (a.k.a. "faith") in his conclusions.
>> >What's that?  He got all his information from MOM!
>> 
>> I didn't notice any such statement in the stuff you posted.  Did I
>> miss it?
>
>Yes.

Please quote the part of the original posting where he said he got his
estimates of the children's reading and math ability by asking their
mothers subjective questions.

>> >  Many studies that note the educational
>> >achievement of older children of single mothers show convincingly that
>> >these kids, in general, will achieve lower than their counterparts from
>> >two-parent homes.
>> 
>> Are these studies controlled for income level and mother's educational
>> level?
>
>No.

So it's quite possible that (i) single motherhood correlates highly
with poverty, and (ii) poverty causes children not to learn as well.
These studies don't contradict Mott's.

>> >  Finally,
>> >children of one-parent homes are much more likely to be poor.
>> 
>> So maybe it is the poverty that's the problem, and not the lack of a
>> second parent.
>
>No, the problem is clearly one (in the cases depicted by Mr. Moss) that
>the problem stems from a lack of income from a second parent. To conclude
>from that only one gender suffers is pretty bizarre.

Who said anything about only one gender suffers?  The study showed
that the problem stems from a lack of income.  Period.  If there was
sufficient income (whether from an absent father paying alimony and
child support, or a single mother investment banker), the child
learned well.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids