« Moral Juxtaposition of the Day | Main | The Morality of Hacking »

June 10, 2013

Coffee Snorters, Poetic Justice Edition

Our head keeps telling us this was wrong, but we're having trouble seeing past the delicious schadenfreude. So: karma or crime? VC asks, you decide:

"If this is your husband," wrote a Facebook user on Wednesday, "I have endured a 2 hour train ride from Philadelphia listening to this loser and his friends brag about their multiple affairs and how their wives are too stupid to catch on. Oh please repost ..." And people did -- the post currently has over 27,000 shares.

Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuucy, jou got some 'splainin' to do...

Whilst doing some research on ADHD and the medication of children diagnosed with it, the Editorial Staff came across this interesting tidbit:

Around the world, societies show remarkable agreement. Kids aren’t expected to show much self-discipline until they reach the 5-to-7 transition.

In a famous study, psychologist Barbara Rogoff and her colleagues reviewed 50 different cultures to discover when ordinary people think kids are capable of self-control and ready to meet responsibilities (Rogoff et al 1975).

The researchers considered a wide array of criteria, including these:

• The age at which people think kids are capable of making rational decisions and showing common sense

• The age at which people make a special effort to teach kids manners, etiquette, morals, and social taboos

• The age at which kids are included in games that require adherence to the rules.

• The age at which people expect kids to learn the practical and technical skills modeled by adults

The results suggest that regular people don’t demand much executive control from young children.

The majority of societies surveyed didn’t expect to observe common sense and rationality before the age of 6.

In most places, kids weren’t even asked to play rule-based games until they were at least 6.

And the most common age at which people began making a special effort to teach kids social rules was 7 years.

So it seems awkward to try to diagnose a child with ADHD while he’s still in preschool. Or even first grade. Behavior that is entirely normal and age-appropriate might get labeled as ADHD.

Also, this:

If kindergarteners are getting diagnosed with ADHD because they have a real psychological disorder—and not because they show developmentally-normal signs of immaturity—then there should be no correlation between a child’s age and her diagnosis.

In other words, the youngest kindergarteners should be no more likely than the oldest kindergarteners to get diagnosed with ADHD.

But that’s not what he found.

The youngest kindergarteners were 60% more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than were the oldest kindergarteners.

Interesting. The relative age effect has been studied in several contexts: sports, chances of becoming a CEO, academics. In many cases, the relative age effect appears to confer an initial advantage that often declines over time. We recall reading once that a startling number of successful CEOs are dyslexic. Isn't there an ancient Chinese parable about this?

Maybe so, maybe not.

If this is "typical", we've got bigger problems than Islam:

Before his conversion (and for some time after it, until he rededicated himself to Islam), he was drinking, smoking, using drugs, and indulging in promiscuity – in other words, he was a relatively typical, rudderless early twentieth-century American male.

Regional word maps.

Posted by Cassandra at June 10, 2013 07:06 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4641

Comments

Not having kids or grandkids, I am really out of it. I find myself shocked that they've been diagnosing kids with ADHD at pre-school age. Speechless.

Posted by: TexanTex at June 10, 2013 09:43 AM

I suppose the article meant "early twenty-first century male"?

Posted by: TexanTex at June 10, 2013 09:48 AM

I suppose the article meant "early twenty-first century male"?

Kind of makes one wonder, doesn't it?

*sigh*

I find myself shocked that they've been diagnosing kids with ADHD at pre-school age. Speechless.

I wish I could say I were shocked. Every weekend I see tons of parents who don't seem to have the first clue how to deal with their own children. It's plain they have so little practice that they have no idea how to handle ordinary parenting tasks.

When my DIL graduated from school, she got a job at a local day care center during the day. Some of the parents used to hire her on the weekends so they could go away for some "me time" on the weekends....


....after not seeing their preschool-aged children all week.

The mind boggles.

Posted by: Cass at June 10, 2013 10:39 AM

1. Stupid people that say stupid things out loud in public deserve to reap the rewards of their stupidity.

2. As a society, we are *waay* overmedicated, and I'm deeply disturbed by how many people think it's hunky dory aok to put young children on psychotropic drugs to lessen an often modest behavioral issue.

Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at June 10, 2013 06:54 PM

With regards to the social media shaming, the biggest problem we have is that at best we're getting the point of view of only one of the participants. At worst, we're getting a complete fabrication. And the readers have no way of verifying the story unless they were present. Let's say I do not like someone, or just think it would be funny to make someone else's life a living hell (because that NEVER happens, right?). I take their picture, and post it to social media sites with the story how this person made the most horribly racist rants imaginable. Or that they were bragging how they raped someone. Sure, in a reasonable world, that would be libel, but good luck proving it. And as the saying goes, a lie is halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its pants.

But even assuming you're telling the complete truth, no one can independently verify it. So it will be judged solely on the basis of the reader's personal biases. Which will likely make the poster a villain to some and a hero to others. And as the target of the shaming is likely anonymous, that leaves the only target for vitriol as the poster.

So my ultimate point is it really is no surprise that posters of this kind of social shaming frequently get backlash. They're the only identifiable participant, and at least some of the readers will take issue against them.

Posted by: MikeD at June 11, 2013 08:56 AM

With regards to the social media shaming, the biggest problem we have is that at best we're getting the point of view of only one of the participants. At worst, we're getting a complete fabrication.

That's part of the wrongness I saw. The other problem I saw was that even if this guy is guilty as sin, public exposure of his perfidy (meant to shame and punish him) might well shame and punish innocent third parties.

Can you imagine the horror of learning your husband has repeatedly been unfaithful because half the civilized world (we use this term with some irony) has reposted or re-tweeted his misdeeds?

What if this man has children? Should they learn that their father is a un scumbag sans pareil on Facebook?

I don't understand people who think that the cosmic forces of justice that govern the Multiverse can't possibly succeed without their (usually ill considered) assistance. The story made me uncomfortable because such a big part of me was standing up clapping... for all of 5 seconds.

The other part of me, not so much.

Posted by: Cass at June 11, 2013 09:38 AM

The story made me uncomfortable because such a big part of me was standing up clapping... for all of 5 seconds.

I don't think that's something to necessarily be ashamed of. I think it's human nature to welcome punishment of a scoundrel. It's only upon reflection that we realize that the issue may not be cut and dried that we "sober up". I think you should only feel guilty if AFTER you consider that there will be innocent victims of this kind of shaming you continue to cheer. That's indicative of knowing callousness.

Posted by: MikeD at June 11, 2013 11:45 AM