You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Clarity comments on Towards cause priotisation estimates for child abuse - Less Wrong Discussion

-6 Post author: Clarity 21 June 2016 12:30AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (16)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Clarity 22 June 2016 11:32:09PM 0 points [-]

I can't find any references to this online. Given its controversial I call bullshit.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 23 June 2016 01:55:43AM *  1 point [-]

Here are some relevant references from the book:

When investigators actually go and look, rather than just declare that we are products of childhood, the lack of strong continuity from childhood to adulthood is what hits you between the eyes. This is a major discovery of life-span developmental psychology. “Change” is at least as good a description as “continuity” for what happens to us as we mature. For good reviews of this very large literature, see M. Rutter, “Continuities and Discontinuities from Infancy,” in J. Osofsky, ed., Handbook of Infant Development, 2d ed. (New York: Wiley, 1987), 1256–98; H. Moss and E. Sussman, “Longitudinal Study of Personality Development,” in O. Brim and J. Kagan, eds., Constancy and Change in Human Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), 530–95; G. Parker, E. Barrett, and I. Hickie, “From Nurture to Network: Examining Links Between Perceptions of Parenting Received in Childhood and Social Bonds in Adulthood,” American Journal of Psychiatry 149 (1992): 877–85; and R. Plomin, H. Chipuer, and J. Loehlin, “Behavior Genetics and Personality,” in L. Pervin, ed., Handbook of Personality Theory and Research (New York: Guilford, 1990), 225–43.

or

Especially instructive is the finding that divorce itself is heritable. If you have an identical twin who divorces, your chances of divorce increase sixfold, whereas a divorced fraternal twin only increases your chances of divorce twofold. See M. McGue and D. Lykken, “Genetic Influence on the Risk of Divorce,” Psychological Science 3 (1992): 368–73.

or

See D. Finkelhor, “Early and Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse,” for a recent review. Three longitudinal studies are R. Gomes-Schwartz, J. Horowitz, and A. Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse: The Initial Effects (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990); A. Bentovim, P. Boston, and A. Van Elburg, “Child Sexual Abuse—Children and Families Referred to a Treatment Project and the Effects of Intervention,”. British Medical Journal 295 (1987): 1453–57; J. Conte, “The Effects of Sexual Abuse on Children: Results of a Research Project,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 528 (1988): 310–26. For the better prognosis in children than in adults, see R. Hanson, “The Psychological Impact of Sexual Assault on Women and Children: A Review,” Annals of Sex Research 3 (1990): 187–232. For ripping off the scars and even manufacturing them out of whole cloth, see D. Kent, “Remembering ‘Repressed’ Abuse,” APS Observer 5 (1992): 6–7. For the effect of lengthy litigation, see D. Runyan, M. Everson, D. Edelsohn, et al., “Impact of Legal Intervention on Sexually Abused Children,” Journal of Pediatrics 113 (1988): 647–53.

Comment author: Diadem 23 June 2016 08:40:43AM 0 points [-]

Your claim was that child abuse and trauma have barely any influence on adult life. This is clearly an extraordinary claim, that requires evidence to be taken seriously.

Your evidence are three quotations, two of which only contain more links, and the third is about the heritability of divorce, which has nothing to do with your claim.

So in other words you have given zero evidence for your claim. Maybe there is some evidence to be found in one of the many citations you gave, but without knowing which one or what to look for it would take many hours to investigate this. That is not a reasonable burden to place on your readers, given the prior unlikeliness of your initial claim. I'm not saying you should make an airtight case for your claim in a single post, but at the very least you should give us some reason to put in further effort.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 24 June 2016 01:17:16AM 1 point [-]

To be exact, the claim from the book is except for severe PTSD, there is little influence, and in case of PTSD the healing works the same way for adults as for children (and possibly slightly better in children) - so "childhood" trauma is not in any way "special" compared to adult traumas.

As for evidence, why don't you just go and read the book itself? Reading that chapter is on the order of 20 minutes of easy reading. Sorry, but I have better things to do than repeat what is already written elsewhere.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 29 June 2016 09:45:03PM 0 points [-]

Your claim was that child abuse and trauma have barely any influence on adult life. This is clearly an extraordinary claim, that requires evidence to be taken seriously.

There have been significant longitudinal studies that comprehensively measure many dimensions of well-being over an amazingly long time-frame and these also support this claim.

A good book on these studies and what we might learn from is Aging Well: Surprising Guideposts to a Happier Life from the Landmark Study of Adult Development by George E. Vaillant.

Otherwise I wouldn't dismiss claims from 'What we can change and what we can't' easily just because not enough refs are quoted. Read for yourself. Also you migth want to look at lukeprogs http://lesswrong.com/lw/3nn/scientific_selfhelp_the_state_of_our_knowledge/

Comment author: Clarity 23 June 2016 02:22:56AM -2 points [-]

The 1st and third quote blocks merely reference other sources without summarising them. This leads to a wealth of insubstantiated evidence and holds back efficient evaluation of its truth value.

The second claims something is heritable, but every human trait is heritable by definition. The wording implies the divorce is attributable to the status of having an identical twin that is divorced, which is underdetermined and moreover, twin studies aren't interpreted so simply. So, I expect that the author is a poor biostatistician and wouldn't take their word on the 1st and 3rd claims from these exerpts alone.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 23 June 2016 02:33:11AM 0 points [-]

The 1st and third quote blocks merely reference other sources without summarising them.

The book has summaries in the content (these were just footnotes). So I'd maybe recommend you just read that chapter from the actual book.

The second claims something is heritable, but every human trait is heritable by definition.

Arguing "By Definition"

Is living in Africa heritable? I'm sure if you try, you can understand what is the author is trying to say without picking on his words.

Comment author: gjm 23 June 2016 11:02:34AM -2 points [-]

Is living in Africa heritable?

How sure are you that the answer is no?

I mean, obviously it "should" be no. But suppose you attempt to answer that question using the same machinery generally used to estimate heritability. What answer will come out? Bear in mind, e.g., that it is rather rare for identical twins to live on different continents. (C.f. Cosma Shalizi here and here. The former is long and discusses many other things; search for the heading "Cultural transmission".)

(I agree that "every human trait is heritable by definition" is a pretty silly thing to say.)

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 24 June 2016 01:30:46AM 0 points [-]

How sure are you that the answer is no?

I didn't mean to suggest this question has a valid answer, but rather to point out that the phrasing is ambiguous.

C.f. Cosma Shalizi here

The quote I gave above from the book says:

If you have an identical twin who divorces, your chances of divorce increase sixfold, whereas a divorced fraternal twin only increases your chances of divorce twofold.

So I think the criticism from the article you linked doesn't apply.