How to Get Kids to Do Chores: Does the Maya Method Work?

(www.npr.org)

233 points Xcelerate | 2 comments | 04 Sep 18 00:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.602s | source

Show context

zmmmmm ◴[04 Sep 18 01:38 UTC] No.17906021[source]▶

Seems like a classic "meaningless anecdote" type article. I understand why they are written this way, but it irritates me: "Let's address a common issue which mysteriously, science has not managed to solve by applying some science!" immediately followed up by "Here's a completely unscientific observation that I will imply you should interpret as some sort of evidence".

I can't help but think that such writing does more harm than good in that it probably convinces a lot of lay people that this is how scientists operate, resulting in them having little to no faith that science itself is a rigorous discipline.

replies(1): >>17907137 #

1. splittingTimes ◴[04 Sep 18 06:57 UTC] No.17907137[source]▶

>>17906021 #

I generally agree with your sentiment. But To be fair, the linked article about the scientific part of the supermom actually takes a very critical look at the scientific studies.

Also applying the principle of charity [1], you could think of it this way: the author looked at some studies, did a field trip. Now she tries an experiment at home and reports on it. She does not claim to present any rigorous scientific findings.

===

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

replies(1): >>17909165 #

2. AstralStorm ◴[04 Sep 18 14:13 UTC] No.17909165[source]▶

>>17907137 (TP) #

At least someone tried which is more than can be said about many sociology studies.

We just need this to also be reproduced in a more rigorous setting and design.

↑