Well, there it is. But it’s hard for me to believe that every anecdotal case I know of just happens by chance to be an outlier in the same direction.

This is what so many people, including social science researchers, badly want to hear, I wonder.

But I’ve been wrong before.

Imagine someone did a study and found that businesses function best if their employees didn’t spend too much time at work. Shall we count the absurdities? I’ll go for two.

1. What they’re doing there matters.
2. Businesses in trouble will ask their employees for more time to try to fix it. This won’t always work, but asking them to spend less in these cases is probably not wise.

But a caveat has to be put forth that this is a cohort study of people with kids starting in 1968, and I think we all know even white demographics have changed massively since then in America.

The larger issue I think is that this levels a blow to the idea that a SAHM’s most important function is to spend massive amounts of sheer time with the kids, as the ones doing it these days are usually quite exhausted and stressed (which the study says are bad for the kids even if mom’s home).

Or just income in adulthood?

Children of divorce are made desperately unhappy by it at the time, and they never really get over it in most cases. We are being told not to worry about that, because it doesn’t affect their odds of eventually owning a BMW.

The technical term for this is “humanism”, I think.