5 Comments on “Episode 367: May I Approach the Bench?”

1. Sarielthrawn Jul 13th 2015 6:14 pm #

   Hi gang!

   I haven’t finished listening yet but Matt’s point about people thinking they know more than they do sounded familiar and it turns out the effect has a name – the Dunning-Kruger effect:
   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

   I was thinking while you were discussing the two articles about ‘screens’ that one of the big factors (I think but I don’t really know) could be that parents and especially poorer parents with less time need to use the screens as pseudo babysitters.

   Whether this is a ‘good’ or ”bad’ thing I can’t say but I recall Louis CK saying that he didn’t let his girls watch tv like his mum did but the reason was essentially ’cause she was poor and he had money.

   Could these anti-screen pieces be just another way of blaming the poor and working class for all that’s wrong with the world?

   Great podcast so far guys.
   ST

   Reply

   • Josie M. Jul 18th 2015 8:41 am #

     “Could these anti-screen pieces be just another way of blaming the poor and working class for all that’s wrong with the world?”

     Not necessarily all that wrong with the world, but certainly what New York Times subscribers think is wrong with our culture.

     I’m thinking also of the absurd (and sexist) outrage when Kim Kardashian was a guest on a recent epsiode of Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me, or relatedly, all the non-sports-watching people who suddenly care about the ESPYs because her stepmom got one.

     Reply

   • Josie M. Jul 18th 2015 9:46 am #

     Actually, that’s one of the exact points that the 538 article makes:

     “But all these studies have an obvious problem: the amount of TV children watch is not randomly assigned. In the general population, kids who watch a lot of TV — especially at young ages — tend to be poorer, are more likely to be members of minority groups and are more likely to have parents with less education. All these factors independently correlate with outcomes such as executive function, test scores and obesity, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the effects of television from this research.”

     Reply

2. Margo Jul 14th 2015 7:32 pm #

   “Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter” was published in 2006, but I thought of it as I listened to today’s podcast.

   http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Bad-Good-You-Actually/dp/1594481946

   If I recall the book correctly, the writer proposes the following: if in a counter-factual universe the video game predated the book, the books would be seen as a great pacifying evil draining the spirit and fine-motor skills of children. Passively reading instead of using their hands! The Horror!

   (You like Amazon links, yes? I think you’ve mentioned that)

   Reply

3. Josie M. Jul 18th 2015 9:45 am #

   This was one of my favorite resent episodes, because I really like when you pick a topic that lets you sort our your broadly defined philosophical differences. Also, it figures you’d have a discussion of social science without the professional social scientist around.

   I don’t want to wade in to the whole Go Set A Watchman thing, in part because as a librarian in the South I’m kind of over it (I mean, we started this discourse -drink- months ago).

   As someone who used to work with teenagers, I loved Pete’s comment about how he’s more interested in the experiences of kids being raised by parents who read parenting blogs, than he is in talking to parents about what they’ve read is good or bad for their kids. I like it because I think it’s important to have empathy for children and to take what young people feel seriously. As the Minneapolis hip-hop artist Dessa once sang/rapped, children aren’t as simple as we like to think. (Also I quoted it on my blog.)

   Reply