Comment by GuB-42
2 years ago
I think witnessing someone being shot is a good metric because it is factual. Either you saw someone being shot or your didn't, no ambiguity there, and no matter where you live, someone being shot is someone being shot. Not like "uninvolved parents" and "bullying" which are open to interpretation.
This metric is also a proxy for living in a violent environment. It correlates with wealth, but it is also kind of the point. Children who lived in a wealthy environment are better off as adults in terms of income. It is not that obvious, as rich kids could simply burn through their family wealth.
It’s likely strongly subject to Goodheart’s Law, however. In other words, there are probably many things you could do to improve the goal (e.g. figure out how to keep kids from seeing the violence) without improving outcomes for these kids (because they remain just as poor)
Not really? All things being equal a child that sees someone get shot will grow up more traumatized than a child that does not.
That makes intuitive sense, but that's not enough. Many untrue things make intuitive sense, especially when it comes to poverty.
Is there any research that shows that having witnessed someone get shot affects future prospects INDEPENDENT of the factors that lead to the kid witnessing someone get shot?
> This metric is also a proxy for living in a violent environment.
Probably, probably not. The probabilities of witnessing someone being shot is extremely low in both environments. If amount of people who are living in violent environment is much lower, it may be that a person who witnessed someone being shot is more probable from a good environment.
https://www.anesi.com/bayes.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZGCoVF3YvM