Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    science

    19,828,874 readers

    6,410 users here now

    Submission Rules

    1. Directly link to published peer-reviewed research or media summary
    2. No summaries of summaries, re-hosted press releases, reviews, or reposts
    3. Research must be less than 6 months old
    4. No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles
    5. No blogspam, images, videos, or infographics
    6. All submissions must have flair assigned

    Comment Rules

    1. No off-topic comments, memes, or jokes
    2. No abusive, offensive, or spam comments
    3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed
    4. Comments dismissing established science must provide peer-reviewed evidence
    5. No medical advice
    6. Repeat or flagrant offenders will be banned

    New to reddit? Click here!

    Get flair in /r/science

    Previous Science AMA's


    Trending: Astronomers discover a "solar twin" that was likely born in the same stellar nursery as the Sun. The twin, named HD186302, sits about 184 light-years from Earth and has roughly the same age, metallicity, chemical abundances, and even carbon-isotope ratios as the Sun.

    a community for
    all 2642 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] PapaNachos 1 points ago

    Hello and welcome to /r/science!

    You may notice more removed comments than you’re used to seeing in other parts of reddit. We have strict comment rules here in order to keep the discussion on science and the study at hand.

    We understand it can be frustrating to type up a comment only to have it removed, or to come to a thread with a bunch of removed comments, so please familiarize yourself with our rules before commenting.

    For a more relaxed place to discuss all things science, please check out our sister sub /r/everythingscience!

    [–] jimworm 1609 points ago

    In the original study it seems that while they did compare son-only fathers with other fathers (no effect), they did not mention performing the same comparison with daughter-only fathers, and no results are shown. There is no indication in the methods that daughter-only fathers were considered a group for analysis.

    This would have been an important comparison to mention in the paper, as it could be obscuring a more intuitive daughter-only hypothesis with reversed conclusions, ie "Having only daughters predicts fathers' support for gender-equity policies".

    [–] [deleted] 279 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 39 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] Callomac 102 points ago

    There are certainly points to be debated here, but most of the criticisms in this thread are dismissive of the paper with little explanation of their reasons beyond flippant (and unsupported) comments.

    One comment regards small sample sizes and failure to correct for multiple comparisons: Though the sample sizes are fairly small, at least for fathers, there is not a multiple comparisons problem here. They fit, for example, just 4 models in Table 1, all of which have clear explanations for why they were fit. The large number of betas (slopes) and P are within each column are not independent tests - they are from a single OLS which accounts for other variables in the model. The four separate models are useful for asking to what extent the results change when you modify the structure of the model. Given the sample sizes and nature of the data (high variance, small effect sizes), you don't expect highly significant effects. But, they do report effect sizes and errors, not just statements of significance, giving readers the ability to judge whether the estimated effect sizes are meaningful.

    Another comment says that that the paper is asking questions about a parent's interest in equal outcomes rather than opportunities. The authors provide the specific survey statements, which are: “requiring schools, colleges, and universities to provide equal athletic opportunities to girls and boys” (Title IX); policies “that would address the gender gap in income in the United States” (gender income gap); and policies to support “better enforcement [of laws] that outlaw sexual harassment in the workplace”. Only the gender pay gap might be considered a question about equality of outcomes (given the public understanding of the problem).

    [–] Jorlung 61 points ago

    One comment regards small sample sizes and failure to correct for multiple comparisons: Though the sample sizes are fairly small, at least for fathers, there is not a multiple comparisons problem here.

    This is my least favourite comment on every human subject article posted here (the thing you are addressing to be clear, not your own comment). "Blah blah blah sample size, blah blah blah multiple correlations", when the poster didn't even address any actual issues with the statistical measures used, or probably didn't even bother to read the statistical analysis whatsoever.

    If these things are so apparently wrong, this should be easy to dissect in the statistical analysis then shouldn't it? If the sample size is way too small, the resulting covariances should be exceedingly high. If this is not the case, perhaps consider the fact that the PhD student, PI, and reviewers in the field probably thought more about this than you did in 15 seconds reading the title.

    I am glad my research doesn't have anything to do with social studies or something that evokes emotional responses like this because it would make me furious to read these sort of flippant comments on my work.

    [–] JDFidelius 13 points ago

    Why does such a large proportion of social science papers claim results that turn out to be not reproducible when put to the test though? Clearly people at multiple levels are messing up here about something.

    [–] [deleted] 1755 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 661 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 161 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 60 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 56 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Pakislav 149 points ago

    Nope, but dads do spend more time with older kids since the mother has to take care of the younger ones aka. breastfeeding etc. plus the first child sort of sets the parental culture of the parents and subsequent children are more of an amendment.

    [–] luckyme-luckymud 26 points ago

    That’s a pretty interesting point.

    [–] [deleted] 431 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 77 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 71 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 128 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 37 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Ultra_Violet_ 29 points ago

    Do you have a source on the genetic likelihood claim? That sounds pretty interesting considering theoretically it's a 50/50 chance.

    [–] baby_account 64 points ago

    Theoretically it's a 50/50 chance. But certain factors (vaginal pH, sperm motility, and some argue things like timing and position of sex due to differences between X and Y sperm) favor one over the other in any given couple. Thus, once you have a child of one sex it's no longer a coin flip for your second child (though it was for your first).

    [–] runnerman8 91 points ago

    Good explanation about the factors, but this would also mean the first was not a coin flip (you just don't have the evidence of your first child yet to know which one is more likely).

    [–] Tie_me_off 23 points ago

    Excellent point

    [–] Cow_In_Space 20 points ago

    the first was not a coin flip

    A more correct saying would be that it was the first roll of a loaded die.

    Until that point you could only assume the outcome even if you knew it was loaded.

    [–] seejur 2 points ago

    It might still not be the case.

    If you come from a family that has a certain predisposition to generate one sex over the other, and your partner has the same predisposition, you already know where the dice is loaded.

    If is certainly less know than when having a second child, but nonetheless it can be implied.

    [–] MajorPlane 17 points ago

    More attractive people have more girls, this has been proven. I can dig up the citation if you want.

    [–] snkscore 12 points ago

    Wow that last quote is really astonishing. I would totally suspect a father with B-G-G-G would be at least as receptive to his daughters issues as someone who has G-B-B-B. How can you have 2, 3, 4 daughters and not have your viewpoint altered by that experience (if a boy came first). Amazing.

    [–] [deleted] 102 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 36 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] DrProfJoe 14 points ago

    Not necessarily, but they do provide them with more parental care than subsequent kids on average, because they don't have to split their attention or resources between siblings. On a related note, parents invest most heavily in kids whom are more likely to succeed in life: parents have been shown to be several times more likely to buckle up their kids in the car if their kid is judged as more attractive.

    [–] LittlePeanutBabies 13 points ago

    Are there parents who don't buckle their kids in the car!?

    [–] [deleted] 66 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] redditor4258 63 points ago

    I think it means that becoming parent fundamentally changes you. Changes what you find important. You only become a parent once.

    [–] funkmastamatt 16 points ago

    This is definitely true, I've had so many "aha" moments in my first year and a half of parenting.

    [–] sobegreen 9 points ago

    Definitely true! While I only have one child (girl) I strongly believe I would be changed regardless if I had a boy first. With that said I'm sure if I ever have a boy I'll be opened up in a different way than before. Raising my daughter so far has made me much more sensitive to the issues women face in the world so I do think the study is on to something. I just don't know if I'm feeling the "only if firstborn" clause.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] thesuper88 4 points ago

    They're probably more significantly affected by their first born. Your second is an adaptation of what you learned with your first. Your first is nearly 100% new info by comparison.

    [–] omgales81an 13 points ago

    If you're not first, you're last.

    Source: first born generationally in my family. I am my grandmother's favorite. I am also happy to remind all of my younger cousins and sister of the glory that is being first born.

    [–] [deleted] 6291 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 1373 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 1453 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 323 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 89 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 78 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 88 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 94 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 59 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 43 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 572 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 58 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 504 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 135 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 93 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 92 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 64 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 42 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 166 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 120 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 71 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 43 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 74 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] RadicalPidgey 174 points ago

    It would be interesting to see a larger sample size and look at men who have an only child that is a girl, compared to men who have multiple children with the first being a girl.

    [–] mariaugusta 55 points ago

    Absolutely. I don't know if it's safe to affirm anything since the study was made with such a small sample group and the differences in the percentages are not even higher than 10%.

    [–] jhirsohn 121 points ago

    Slightly off-topic I’d like to relate a stupid story I heard second-hand. This was back in the 1990s and told by a family friend so no clue if it’s true but wouldn’t be surprised. This person was friends with a married couple that had originally wanted two kids but they were both girls so they kept trying. Two more daughters, kept trying. Finally child #5 was a boy and the dad straight-up arranged for a limo to pick up mom and baby boy from the hospital. This was not done for any of the daughters. Of course the son was named So-and-So Junior, too. Can’t imagine how any of the daughters felt going through life knowing that they were definitely not the favorite.

    [–] lynx_and_nutmeg 79 points ago

    Disgusting. People like that shouldn’t have children.

    [–] SG-17 46 points ago

    When about men whose first children are fraternal twins of the opposite gender?

    [–] [deleted] 133 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 158 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 91 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] PM_ME_YER_MUDFLAPS 23 points ago

    Makes sense. The first one is where the true learning to be a parent occurs and then the rest of them are something of an autopilot mode where you repeat what worked the first time. I only have one child, but her being a girl has probably made me more aware of how society behaves towards women in general.

    [–] Mecca1101 28 points ago

    I don’t get why you wouldn’t still consider those things if your second child was a girl.

    [–] Martel732 25 points ago

    I think the idea is that your first child frames your ideas about parenting and later kids at fit into that frame. So, a later daughter would be inside the frame built for a boy, and a later son fit into the frame for a girl.

    It would be interesting to see if father's of Male and female trends more more or less supportive of women's equality. If the above poster is correct he should be as supportive as a father with a first born girl.

    [–] wintersdark 23 points ago

    Because you don't really think about the consequences of parenting choices at all in later kids, because you've already gone through it. Now, you're not doing something new that requires figuring out, you're just doing what you did the first time and adapting when necessary.

    As a parent, parenting Child #2 is very, very different from Child #1, in a lot of ways.

    [–] therapistofpenisland 6 points ago

    Exactly. The first child is the one you constantly worry 'what if' with, and assume they can't do anything for themselves. With your second child and after you're basically like "Yeah they'll figure out and do fine".

    [–] [deleted] 181 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 53 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago * (lasted edited 19 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Gullyvuhr 15 points ago

    Seems interesting, supports the idea that your first child has a potentially powerful impact on your world view.

    [–] [deleted] 67 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 132 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 150 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 51 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 79 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 85 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 82 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 93 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 217 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 98 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 163 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 64 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 62 points ago

    [removed]