Obama: Console era a concern for education

[sieanr]

Kasz216 said:

I don't think you understand what moving the goalposts mean and are saying that simply because you think it sounds insulting.

Nor does it seem like you understand how basic research works... I mean do you understand how they accounted for socio-economic status in this study?

They didn't apply a formula.  They simply split up the rich kids and the poor kids.   They compaired rich fat kids, with rich fit kids.

They also compaired poor rich fat kids, with poor fit kids.  

This leads to MANY counfounding variables that leads the research to ruin.

 

1) Parental involvement as stated.  Fit kids are much more likely to have less involved parents.  How else do you think a rich fat kid gets fat outside of genetic reasons?  Most unfit kids clearly don't have involved parents... because guess what... they are unfit!  For every kid that isn't fat because of genetics it's clear their parents aren't that involved and assertive with their child... otherwise you know... they would try and work with the kid to get his weight down.  I mean do you think a parent that is planning his sons involvement in sports, education, taking them to the library etc is also letting their kid get fat?  The parent who is meticuliously planning their childs life isn't watching his caloric intake?

2) Not all Fat kids are fat because of lack of fitness.  There are plenty kids that are unfit due to genetics.  These kids get plenty of exercise.  Additionally, there are plenty of kids that don't have to exercise at all to be fit.  There are plenty of kids that can exercise a lot and never be fat nor fit.

You dismissed a piece of evidence contrary to your opinion (hormones released during exercise promoting brain growth). You claimed the article didn't account for outside factors, then switched and said socio-economic status is a poor indicator of parental involvement (its not) and name dropped a pop-sociology book to boot. Now you're trying to discredit the testing methodology by making assumptions. Thats the definition of moving the goalpost - you've changed what the research would need to address to be valid.

Now unless you have the original journal article the link I posted drew from in front of you, any discussions on the validity of said research is meaningless. (not to mention that the article cites several studies, not just one)

You're also assuming that fit children are much more likely to have involved parents and vice versa. Thats a big leap, and I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. Maybe you could back it up?

Correlation between weight and genetics is a weak one, and the research I've seen indicates that it can be overcome by exercise in all but the most extreme cases. So again, not really relavent.