A New Explanation For the Plight of Winter Babies 276
Ant passes along a Wall Street Journal report on research that turned up a new explanation for the lifelong challenges experienced by winter babies. "Children born in the winter months already have a few strikes against them. Study after study has shown that they test poorly, don't get as far in school, earn less, are less healthy, and don't live as long as children born at other times of year. Researchers have spent years documenting the effect and trying to understand it... A key assumption of much of that research is that the backgrounds of children born in the winter are the same as the backgrounds of children born at other times of the year. ... [Economist] Mr. Hungerman was doing research on sibling behavior when he noticed that children in the same families tend to be born at the same time of year. Meanwhile, Ms. Buckles was examining the economic factors that lead to multiple births, and coming across what looked like a relationship between mothers' education levels and when children were born." Here's a chart in which the effect — small but significant — jumps out unmistakeably.
Jumps out? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course the difference jumps out. The chart was deliberately designed to make the change jump out by not using 0 as the origin of the Y axis.
This is a very common technique for making a difference look a lot larger than it actually is.
Re:Jumps out? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jumps out? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I have little doubt that there is a real effect here, but I hate when things like this are sensationalized. There may well be an effect, but it is a small one.
Re:Jumps out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably modded you flamebait (Score:3, Informative)
The article clearly states that it was (almost) all U.S. births during a certain time-frame, data courtesy of the CDC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jumps out? (Score:5, Funny)
The moderator was probably born in January, and thus unable to get the question.
Re: (Score:2)
"The two economists examined birth-certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 52 million children born between 1989 and 2001, which represents virtually all of the births in the U.S. during those years. The same pattern kept turning up: The percentage of children born to unwed mothers, teenage mothers and mothers who hadn't completed high school kept peaking in January every year. Over the 13-year period, for example, 13.2% of January births were to teen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying, is that this article only applies to babies born north of the mason-dixie line? Babies south of there, particularly west of the Mississippi, are exposed to mild winters that on many days in Chicago and Detroit might be called "fine summer days". The day after christmas here in Dallas, a lot of people take a stroll around white rock lake in the park, because it's 70 degrees and sunny. Dallas is only 1 arc minute north of Cairo, Egypt. Similar weather can be found in populus cities like
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Noise wouldn't be periodic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Says who? Anyone who's done any kind of signal processing can tell you that there are any number of noise functions that can be periodic in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never trust a graph without error bars. But the pattern does look remarkably robust from year to year, which suggests that the noise is actually too small to be seen.
Re:Jumps out? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
The two economists examined birth-certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 52 million children born between 1989 and 2001, which represents virtually all of the births in the U.S. during those years. The same pattern kept turning up: The percentage of children born to unwed mothers, teenage mothers and mothers who hadn't completed high school kept peaking in January every year. Over the 13-year period, for example, 13.2% of January births were to teen mothers, compared with 12% in May -- a small but statistically significant difference, they say.
--end-quote
So problem is more than adequately explained by being born to a teen mother, and winter birth need not be related at all.
Winter birth is probably attributable to spring break, and the re-emergence of summer fashions (read: skimpy) and horny young guys after a hard winter.
The real story is births to teen mothers burdens not only the mother, but also the baby. Winter has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that is the real story. However, there has long been a mystery surrounding why winter babies do not do as well, and the fact that they tend, slightly, to be the children of teen mothers is an interesting explanation (hence the research and the article in the newspaper...).
Re: (Score:2)
I found it more interesting that teenage pregnancy appears to be steadily declining and years of education steadily increasing. ...unless I read that wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"horny young guys after a hard winter."
Just curious - are you old enough to remember a hard winter? I'm 53, and I only remember a couple of them.
As for the "horny young guys" - I never noticed that to be a seasonal phenomenon. Receptive, fertile females might be seasonal, but horny guys certainly are not.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you define a hard winter?
On the 43rd parallel, which isn't even very far north as far as winter is concerned:
- In the winter of 2000 it started snowing in mid-November and it did not stop until February.
- In the winter of 2004, daytimes highs hovered at no more than 30 below zero for several weeks.
- In the winter of 2007, the snowbanks could easily touch the powerlines.
- Fifteen feet of snow was the official recorded accumulation amount for the winter of 2008.
I mean, as an avid fan of winter, those j
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, the southern US experiences "snow" perhaps 22-30 hours a year. Does this study account for "hard winters" here in Dallas where we saw 48 hours of snow, before it got back up into the mid 60's?
Re:Jumps out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Much more important is the lack of error bars, they are what you can use to decide if the difference is greater than noise. However since they seem to be confident enough to include a secondary maximum and minimum, we are led to assume that the error bars are rather small. Since TFA says the study looked at 52 million children over 12 years, it sounds fairly reasonable to suggest that error bars are relatively small w.r.t atleast the primary max an min.
TFA also says that the 52 million children in the sample were all of them, making the sample 100% of the population. That should result in some pretty small error bars, indeed!
The two economists examined birth-certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 52 million children born between 1989 and 2001, which represents virtually all of the births in the U.S. during those years.
Re:Jumps out? (Score:5, Insightful)
With an n of 52 million, those charts do include error bars - They fall about +/- a thousandth of a pixel around each plotted point. The pixels themselves just cover the error bars.
As for the Y-offset... Yes, you can use that to dishonestly highlight minor difference. When you have such small differences in your dependent variable, however, as long as you make the Y axis entirely clear to the reader, it merely serves to save the viewer a trip to find a magnifying glass.
Basically, if you had a series that showed some degree of noisy periodicity and you zoomed/cropped in on one section that appears to prove your point, it counts as dishonest. When you have virtually no error and a trend that looks like cookie-cutter copies from year to year - I'd love to see the p values for this, but I'd bet it would require scientific notation to realistically print (ie, on the order of p <= 10^-12).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the being overly dramatic part that I object to. The difference may be significant, but it is small enough that in practice it means little for individuals. It's this kind of thing that has parents doing idiotic things like trying to conceive their kids in September so that they do better.
Re:Jumps out? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jumps out? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the difference jumps out. The chart was deliberately designed to make the change jump out by not using 0 as the origin of the Y axis.
This is a very common technique for making a difference look a lot larger than it actually is.
Or it could just be that using 0 as the axis would make a very unreadable graph that wasted a lot of space and didn't show the interesting portion very well.
Clearly reducing the range has the unfortunate side effect of falsely increasing the perceived significance of the results. However, given that the graphs also very clearly print the mins and maxs I'm strongly drawn to believe that the researchers where actually trying to communicate the data accurately as opposed to tricking unwary readers.
Oh, and the differences here are a 2.3% decrease in the percentage of married mothers and 1.2% increase in the number of teen mothers. Considering the topic they're analysing the effect is a lot larger than I would have anticipated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think you quite understand. Data showed that there is already a correlation between the season a baby was born in and measurable performance statistics. They have shown that some, most or all of this correlation is due to a key assumption being false;
A key assumption of much of that research is that the backgrounds of children born in the winter are the same as the backgrounds of children born at other times of the year.
Ah fuck it, I can't be bothered to explain it in full. It's too obvious.
Re:Correllation is Not Causation (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. Correlation means one of three things with regard to causation. In this case those are:
a) being born in the winter causes increased risk of health and education problems for the baby
b) the baby's increased risk of health and education problems causes him or her to be born in the winter (clearly ridiculous)
c) a third factor causes the baby to both be born in the winter and have increased risk of health and education problems.
The correlation between birth month and risk of health and education problems has been observed. This study is pointing out that the direct causative option (a) is probably not true since they have found possible third factors (c) that appear to influence birth month and are known to have an effect on the risk of health and education problems.
In other words, the study is saying, with actual data and without the childish, misunderstood slogans, the same thing you are - birth month does not cause increased risk of health and education problems.
Showing correlation is required for establishing a causative link between two observations so no, correlation studies do not "need to die." It would be nice if people (including you) understood them a little better though.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the larger correlation was also observed, but apparently ignored in the summary:
The same pattern kept turning up: The percentage of children born to unwed mothers, teenage mothers and mothers who hadn't completed high school kept peaking in January every year. Over the 13-year period, for example, 13.2% of January births were to teen mothers, compared with 12% in May -- a small but statistically significant difference, they say.
Spring break, and Back to school seem to correlate as well as anything, and both seem to correlate to higher instance of teen mothers. The numbers of teen mothers probably swamp any other significance.
Re: (Score:2)
True, the summary is poorly written - it only mentions one of three significant indicators. This IS Slashdot though. If the summaries were well written in the first place what would the editors do?
(To the sarcasm impaired: yes, I'm kidding)
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, if the summaries were well written, what would we have to argue about?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's always someone like the second poster in this thread (modded to oblivion now) who manages to read the summary and the article and still write a post criticizing the article for... saying the same thing he just did.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree my kind sir.
I didn't RTFA in question, but I know that my facts are right beyond a doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
b) the baby's increased risk of health and education problems causes him or her to be born in the winter (clearly ridiculous)
You are assuming that the time axis is positive in all cases. Do you have a proof this is the case?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but I've already shown it to you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you'd like to post a link to the supposed correlation between Saturn and the S&P perhaps we can discuss it. Is it an actual correlation? You do know that correlation doesn't mean "has an r^2 greater than some arbitrary threshold", right?
A correlation means that there IS a link between two things. An r^2 (or r) value indicates the strength of the aparent observed connection, and is also associated with a probability that the observed connection is not simply an artifact due to chance. Perhaps your
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that one wouldn't be nearly as interesting if you re-computed it with updated numbers, since the S&P 500 tanked. You don't have to cherrypick the winter birth data that way; the correlation is very robust. And now they are figuring out why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This correlation is entirely due to both series being upward-trending. Either the author (presumably you, from your nick) knew this or was being sloppy. To be fair, sloppy statistics are misleading, but this extends to more than just correlations.
Helpfully, the author provided the data.
this isn't a new explanation (Score:3, Informative)
People have been debating this explanation for decades, and studies are all over the map. It'd be more accurate to say that there is yet another new study on the subject of the relationship between season-of-birth correlates and socioeconomic factors, this one claiming that the relationship is in fact significant. There's a bunch more [google.com] studies if you'd like [google.com].
Zodiac (Score:2)
That means... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a tendency for promiscuous, uneducated teenagers to have unprotected sex during springtime and early summer. It's always easy to say this, but, duh...
Re: (Score:2)
You're on slashdot, we've never even gotten close to those 'promiscuous, uneducated teenagers', except in our fantasies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the prom (which is in June), it's Spring Break (which is in March). High schools need to be banned from taking a Spring Break. It's the CLEAR solution. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget: it's not the getting laid that distinguishes dumb and smart women, it's the getting pregnant and having a baby.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Measured data includes uncertainty (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
1... 2... 3... 5... 6... oh... wait... shit
And Yet another (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Different metric (Score:5, Interesting)
If you count backward from January, that puts conception around April/May. Right around graduation. So if you suppose the poor and less educated would be getting married and starting a family instead of getting ready for college, that might explain some of it.
It would probably be just as interesting to track the birth rates correlated to surges in beer and Jagermeister sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't change your point, though.
Also, wasn't there a surge in births after the big black-out in New York?
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of studies have shown that higher socioeconomic status correlates with higher education
3rd bump (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a secondary bump around September in each of these charts - it's much smaller but consistent every year. Fascinating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Christmas party conceptions. As opposed to the other two which are prom/graduation conceptions and back to school conceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation is NOT causation (Score:5, Funny)
The real causative in winter babies is that babies born under winter's astrological signs have shorter lifelines.
Conception in July/August (Score:5, Funny)
Winter where? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
School entrance age cutoffs, maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They should have spring admission to kindergarten! November baby here and I'm about a year older than most of my classmates.
Re: (Score:2)
I was born in December. I started 3mo early, my parents rammed me through. But I don't live in the US either, I believe their words were something to the effect of "3 months doesn't make a difference when you're already at that curve."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do winter babies get picked more in dodge-ball?
Once and for all, have we discovered the true source of the jock/nerd divide!
Mr. Hungerman? Babies? (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone else picture this guy screaming, "Get in my belly!!"?
cause and effect reversed (Score:4, Interesting)
suppose educated women (and education strongly correlates wit income and wealth) "know" htat babies are supposed to be born in the spirng.....
this would rduce the whole thing to a cultural artifact: well to do parents tell thier kids to have a spring baby, and so it goes...
Isn't this sort of obvious. (Score:3, Interesting)
People who plan their pregnancies are more likely to be educated, married, and not teenagers. People who plan pregnancies are not likely to try to target November - January, because it's cold and they won't want their babies birth close to Christmas and Thanksgiving.
Missing data? (Score:2, Interesting)
Did anyone else skim (or actually read) the 2008 paper by the researchers that was linked in the article? I notice many mentions of winter months and January but nothing about February or March (or the last week of December). In fact, the tables of data at the end of the paper list by month, but omit January, or by quarter of year, but omit the first quarter. What's the point of including data for everything except the two most mentioned time periods in one report?
Something seems bogus to me.
I don't get it... (Score:2)
Hilarious.. (Score:2)
One of kids born the hottest day in 50 years, one born the coldest day in 80 years, one between - don't see any difference. Now, of course, if I would need research funds I might start seeing the differences - heh! Or maybe it was the size of the car in which they were taken home from hospital (need a car analogy in Slashdot) - have to start the research, just have to get maybe government funding for it.
We have hospitals in the Southern Hemisphere. (Score:2)
When your wife gets to 7.5 months, take a 6 week vacation. You get to see some different fauna be it kangaroos, llamas or wildebeest. The baby is born during summer and has an exotic location on its birth certificate.
Problem solved!
It's simple (Score:3, Funny)
Birthday Blues! If my birthday was next to Christmas, I'd be depressed all the time, too.
Home Life. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Born in December (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't it feel good to be a misfit? (And to all the grammer Nazi's, that was intentional.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pity...if only you'd been born in May, you'd have been getting a 96% average!
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pity...if only you'd been born in May, you'd have been getting a 96% average!
And that significant difference would be significant!
Re: (Score:2)
I was born in June and finished my PhD while maintaining a GPA of 4.0 throughout grad school.
We've got two anecdotes... does that mean we have data now? ;)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dumb chicks put out in spring when they are horny.
Smart chicks put out when the crops are mature and it's clear there will be enough resources to feed another mouth.
It's amazing how much human behavior is hard wired into us.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it just evolved that way and despite a century of grocery stores and not getting your food from the farm directly, it has not evolved back away from it. Go figure.
Re:Born in December (Score:5, Funny)
I was born in December and pursuing double masters with GPA of 3.4 is it really bad?
I was born in June, and received a Ph.D by the time I was 27, with a 3.95 GPA. Luckily for me, part of that Ph.D training involved learning that the word data is not the plural of anecdote.
It's a good thing, too, because your comment might otherwise serve as the first brick in the foundation of my claim that summer babies are caustic and monumental shitheads that seem to spend their free time in pissing matches.
Re: (Score:2)
I was born in June, and received a Ph.D by the time I was 27, with a 3.95 GPA. Luckily for me, part of that Ph.D training involved learning that the word data is not the plural of anecdote.
Bah.
Everyone knows Geminis [astrology.com] are a smart lot (I'm one, too) so your accomplishments, while impressive, shouldn't be considered surprising. As for the OP, Sagittarius [astrology.com] is a fire sign, so if he's anything like the Sagittarians I've known, he's probably dumb as a brick, but has the capacity to work harder than everyone else.
Wh
Re: (Score:2)
I've been reading the discussion and getting it completely backwards. Damn people not specifying their hemisphere (I was born in June, but I'm a "winter baby").
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just to give an idea how silly individual data points are, here's what the data says in English:
People who are born in January will get, on average, one month less education.
Babies who are born in January are 10% more likely to have a teenager for a parent. (Note teenager means under 20)
Babies who are born in January are 3% more likely to be born to an unwed mother.
Interesting statistics, but the differences too small to really matter when comparing individuals. The fact that all of these measures aren't
Re: (Score:2)
We have more than enough evidence to conclude that
kids do better in intact 2-parent families.
Casting tradition aside isn't without a cost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Statistically, the marital status of the parents is highly relevant to the child's prospects. Children whose parents are married to one another from prior to conception clear through until the child is an adult get on average much better grades in school, are significantly more likely to consistently hold down jobs as adults, make more money on average, are significantly less likely to have a criminal record, are less likely to be smokers, and so on and so forth. These are q
Re:Unwed mothers? (Score:4, Funny)
Now, correlation is not causation. It's possible that the parent's strong marriage does not *cause* the child's good prospects and performance, but rather that both are caused by some of the same socioeconomic factors
I like the idea that it's actually a reverse correlation- that stupid children with poor prospects and bad grades cause their parents' divorces.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps if you were born in May, you'd understand about significant, but small statistical differences and how they relate to the experience of individuals.
Or to put it in more real world terms, you are like a woman reading an article saying "statistically speaking, the average man is four inches taller than the average woman" and saying "what crap! I'm taller than a lot of men I know!"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I was born in November in Minnesota and I have an IQ of ~130.
They probably weren't measuring IQ though, they may have been measuring skills such as being able to recognise that one data point doesn't confirm or deny a trend.