NYT
Study: How China’s one-child policy has affected its children psychologically
The Chinese policy that limits most families to having one child has had psychological fallout for the children born after it was instituted in 1979, economists report in the journal Science.
The researchers asked two groups of people — born just before and just after the policy was put into place — to play a set of games using real money. …
Players born after the one-child policy was instituted were less likely to pass money along than the older participants.
The researchers concluded that the “one-child-policy” players were less trusting, less trustworthy, less competitive and more risk-averse than the older ones.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
They look confused when people from other countries use words like brother, sister, or sibling.
Dusty on January 15, 2013 at 6:57 PM
They get upset because their parents don’t have to ask, “Who broke the lamp?”, because you are the only one who cold be responsible for it lying there broken on the the living room floor.
Dusty on January 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM
Sounds familiar.
forest on January 15, 2013 at 7:10 PM
Like cutting off someone’s foot and then seeing if they limp. Let’s do a study on that.
Paul-Cincy on January 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM
Nope. Universal language “who, me”?
arnold ziffel on January 15, 2013 at 7:24 PM
There are tons of ethical and moral arguments to be made against the one-child policy. A few nebulous paragraphs on an obscure study, cited without critical review by the NYT are not sufficient.
obladioblada on January 15, 2013 at 7:24 PM
We pretty much have a one to two child policy in the USA…I wonder what the long term effects will be.
CW on January 15, 2013 at 7:32 PM
LOL.
Dusty on January 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM
What? Unintended consequences? From a government policy? Nahhhh!
trigon on January 15, 2013 at 8:03 PM
Guvments iz so smart.
besser tot als rot on January 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM
Seems that’s more valid if one
is a self-supporting member of the
conservative caucasion persuasion!
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on January 15, 2013 at 8:55 PM
Not only no siblings, but no aunts, uncles, cousins, eventually anyway.
My brother married a Chinese girl and she said in China 6 adults take care of one baby, the parents and grandparents. She’s pretty in awe that I have 3, ha. Of course that is going to have a hugely different physological effect.
rose-of-sharon on January 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Of course the “findings” from this so-called propaganda farce of a “study” would apply exactly the same to only children in ‘Merka and Europe…
Couples who only have one child are certainly more laudable than the parasites who think it is their civic/religious duty to spam the taxpayers and the planet with as many of their cockroachlike offspring as possible.
Daikokuco on January 15, 2013 at 9:46 PM
If we were to turn off the valve at the source by no longer funding reproduction, so many problems would vanish. Though we’d have culture-wide shock as women suddenly found they had to care for themselves or find a mate instead of rely on Uncle Sugar.
Everyone here but the trolls knows that when you subsidize something you get more of it, right? Can I assume that much? Than is it any surprise that when we subsidize reproduction for the poor and stupid, we get more poor and stupid people?
How about unmarried mothers with illegitimate children being considered LAST for welfare instead of FIRST, and d@mn to hell any liberal who bawls about how cruel we are.
MelonCollie on January 15, 2013 at 10:50 PM