[Children from small families tend to be higher academic achievers. They have more monies which means more access to books and other forms of intellectual paraphernalia in their homes. They also interact with their parents more.]
Studies have consistently validated and substantiated that children from large families tend to be lower academic achievers while children from small families are the high academic achievers. Children from large families tend to drop out of school while children from small families are more likely to continue their education.
Children from large families tend to have lower intellectual development because they mainly interact with each other and seldom with their parents. Conversely, children from small families tend to have more advanced vocabularies and have an advanced level of intellectual development because their parents, not siblings are the main teachers and interactors. Here are the links which substantiate these findings.......
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-a … g-families
http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.asp?i … ume=53;...
http://www.articles.chicagotribune.com/ … _two-child
[Children from large families mostly interact with each other. Parental involvement is little or next to nonexistent. Also there is little monies for the necessities, let alone monies for books and other forms of intellectual stimulation. Intellectual attainment is oftentimes not emphasized in large family environments as opposed to small family environments where there is a marked emphasis on intellectual achievement.]
I come from a large family where everyone is above average in intelligence. Yet none of us are high acheivers in anything. I have met some pretty high achievers, yet high intelligence doesn't seem to be much of a factor. It seems pretty random to me. Look at someone like Nikola Tesla. Giant brain, yet almost a complete failure in his lifetime, depending on how you look at it. He gave us the computer basically, yet died a miserable pauper.
Large families also tend to be more socioeconomically impoverished than small families who tend to be more socioeconomically affluent. Both factors and variables have a huge impact upon children's academic achievement. Poverty has a deleterious effect upon children's academic achievement. Children from impoverished environments do not have the intellectual accoutrements to succeed as opposed to children from more affluent homes where there are books and other forms of stimulation.
Also children in large family environments have a different psychology and approach to life than children from small families. The large family environment is often a hardscrabble, survivalist one where emphasis is placed on the bare rudiments of life-food, clothing, shelter, and basis survival. Children from large families are not exposed to the better things of life such as culture and the appreciation of beauty. They tend to be extremely rough about the edges.
Children from small families have the monies to be exposed to the better things of life. They are exposed to cultural and intellectual things through participating in varied activities such as dancing and music lessons in addition to attending plays and perhaps, foreign travel. Children from small families have an edge culturally and intellectually over children from large families. I have seen this firsthand. Children from small families have an academic, intellectual, and cultural edge which is far superior than that of children from large families.
Intellect is inate. Something you are born with. it has nothing to do with how a person was brought up. It has to do with intelligence, not how you behave at the opera.
Could it be more to do with the responsibility of the parents?
As another poster has said intellect is to do with physiology not economics.
Can stupid parents have intelligent children? Of course that can. Can stupid parents direct their children in a direction that their intellect requires? Maybe not.
There are plenty of large families with high achieving children and there are plenty of small families with stupid children.
Most children will follow the example of their parents and there will always be those parents who have little if any responsibility about their own lives, is it responsible for someone to have 11 kids with no means of supporting them? And would they understand the responsibility towards those children anyway.
I fear these studies are undertaken to give results that those who undertake them wish them to show.
"Children from small families have the monies to be exposed to the better things of life."
No they don't, but then the "monies" used to purchase "the better things in life" don't come from a printing press. Children from small families do indeed have currency to purchase more toys, more education, more clothes, etc. but none of these are "the better things in life". The child sitting at home in his designer clothes and playing with his Xbox or riding his own 4 wheeler around the yard is not experiencing the better things in life; the child in holey jeans, playing in the dirt with his siblings, parents and other friends is.
It occurs to me that while the phrase "I'm bored - there's nothing to do!" is common to all children, it seems far more frequent in kids with lots of toys but few (if any) siblings. Wonder why?
Not true, I am only child and WAS NEVER bored as a child. I also know many ONLY CHILDREN who were not bored. Only children know how to entertain themselves. It is children w/lots of siblings who are always asking what should they do next. I should know, I had cousins who were always asking what should THEY DO next.
Why won't people admit that children from small families(1-2 children per household) have it MUCH better socioeconomically, mentally, emotionally, academically, and psychologically than children from large and very large families(6 and more children per household). The latter receive little or no parental attention. They have to raise themselves and each other. They are left to their own devices and are unsupervised. They tend to gravitate towards deleterious activities such as gangs and juvenile delinquency. Many daughters of large families tend to become involved in dangerous relationships because of lack of parental affection and attention
Saw this firsthand from cousins, aunts, and associates. It is unwise to argue and to present baseless counterpoints to the argument at hand. If one wants to know about the detriments of large families, simply read sociological and psychological articles and books. I studied the family in college, both small and large. I also read extensive books on small and large family life. Children from large and very large families tend to be woefully disadvantaged while children from small families tend to be advantaged.
Given adequate food and care, it depends on the meaning of "advantaged"
Only children are indeed advantaged from a socioeconomic view. From an educational viewpoint.
Mentally, emotionally and psychological viewpoints, not so. Only when your goal in life is to money and things will the only child have any real advantage. When the goal is love and family they are the big losers in the game.
Money is very important in life. More money= more choices, less money=less choices. Money is the difference between a good quality of life and living in squalor, from hand to mouth. Yes, it is good to have money. Money can afford better food, opportunities, and a better quality of care. Money means ownership over one's life.
Without money, nada! I learned this as a child at my father's knee. He came from a poor, large family and became middle class. He taught me the value of achievement, money, education, and the importance of small families. He asserted that smart people are ambitious, he had a disdain for people who did not value ambition and socioeconomic success. Love won't help one when one is penurious, homeless, and on the streets, lousy and wondering where you will live next or if you will survive another day; neither will family as they have their own problems and woes. Money is ALL one has. I live in the real world where money matters. I 'm DONE with this discussion. Love DOES NOT pay one's rent, bills, or puts food on the table,GROW UP and GET REAL!
I am so happy that you are finally going to shut up and stop insulting an entire socioeconomic group.
Being poor is NEVER good for people. It demoralizes them, gives them an inferior quality of life. It puts them at the mercy of other people. Poor people are treated worse, disrespected, receive inferior education, food, clothing, and medical care.
Poor people do not own their lives but have to accept what others dish out to them. I had friends who were poor, they HATED it. My mother grew up poor and in a large family, she HATED it and IMPROVED her life. Right thinking people who grew up poor and in poverty DON'T want to be poor and oftentimes get out of poverty and penury in order to have a better socioeconomic life.
Poverty and being poor AREN'T glorious. Jeez.......... why do you think that many poor people gravitate towards illegal activities to make money? They had no other way to make money and are sick of living in poverty. A lot of people who are born poor and from large families become educated; middle, upper middle, and upper class; and have small families to insure a much better life for themselves and for their children. They DON'T repeat their childhood pattern.
NO ONE in his/her right mind loves being impoverished and poor.....The premise of people being happy and content being poor is inverse logic at its best!
Right?! I wonder how she's allowed to bash poor parents on hubpages all the time and make us all out to be stupid and irresponsible. Wonder if she knows I'm poor BECAUSE I'm educated... would've been better off learning a trade then going to college.
Btw, all the links in your article are broken. They prove nothing.
-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-the one with the holey jeans is living at the lowest possible denominator possible. He/she is living in poverty and socioecnomic struggle. He/she probably have poor medical and health care and living in squalor.
The one with the clothes and playing with the xbox has it much,much, much better in life. He/she knows how to appreciate his/her company and is developing intellectual skills, particularly if the game is complex. He/she has better educational opportunities and medical care. He/she can better afford more nutritional and better quality of food instead of powdered, canned, and government food. He/she is exposed to more cultural and intellectual things in life. He/she is more versed than the holey, impoverished, dirty, and ill-kempt chid. Small families are immensely beneficial for parents and especially children. Large families are deleteriously detrimental to children. Intelligent, educated parents DON'T have large families but small.
The holey kid playing with the massive siblings is probably unlikely to complete his/her secondary education. He/she has to probably drop out of school to help support his/her family. He/she will probably work at a menial or Mcjob for the rest of his/her life, continuing the impoverishment that he/she grow up in.
Meanwhile, the child with the xbox will be GOING PLACES. He/she has the money to continue his/her education. He/she will most likely be a high academic achiever because of the cultural and intellectual activities he/she was exposed to in his/her formative years. He/she DOES NOT have to drop out of school to support his/her family. He/she is likely to continue his/her education at the college and/or postgraduate level. You see the HOLEY CHILD W/MASSIVE SIBLINGS will be working for the XBOX CHILD. HA HA. Don't HATE on the more advantaged child. XBOX child has it made while HOLEY child does not and have to take and endure life's crumbs.
XBOX children are the MOST SUCCESSFUL ONES in life!
You are so totally stereotyping the poor. I have known so many GOOD families who are poor. Happy child hoods are absolutely possible when you are poor. I know this for a fact. I LIVED it. People don't have to be rich to love their children. Children learn to use thier IMAGINATIONS when they have to find something to do for themselves.
There is something wrong with YOU.
Not at all. Poor children are not happy. Children born into poverty are disadvantaged in more ways than way. They have poor health and medical care. They have inferior clothing and food. They are culturally bereft. They are oftentimes low academic achievers because they do not have the resources in their environments. What you have presented is inverse logic.
If it takes money – at all- to sustain human life, then where did all the people who invented money come from?
If she wanted to know this answer, she’d research it. This isn’t a question. This is another one of her rally cries to prove that poor parents are terrible people. This isn’t research - none of these answers cite their sources, nor would they be expected to as an off-the-cuff response to a HubPages question – it’s all about your opinion. If your opinion agrees with her views then she’ll whole-heartedly agree with you and tell you how very smart you are, and if not she’ll call you irresponsible and unintelligent. She has no problem calling parents negligent and stupid – be they poor, disabled, mentally challenged, diagnosed with emotional or behavioral issues, an addict or in recovery, or a parent who didn’t plan to have the child they did…show of hands for how many of us she’s already prejudged as irresponsible, incapable and unintelligent parents through this insane need to repost a question 1,000 different ways to illicit the same ego-satisfying response. If this was about race, she’d sound like a bigot. How does she get to bash poor parents on HubPages every day based on class?! For the height and depth of the vocabulary she uses, she sure seems unenlightened about how to sustain a human life, what makes a person worthwhile, or why we don’t all readily kneel before the almighty dollar.
Money can’t buy you health. Money can’t buy you sanity. Money doesn’t guarantee you’ll pay attention to your children, or develop their talents. Money doesn’t ensure love. Money doesn’t mean the food you eat is nourishing, the water you drink is clean, or that your living quarters are in good condition. Money isn’t the source of life energy – the sun is – and it shines on everyone equally regardless of their bank balance.
I don’t know what her deal is with trying to prove that poor parents are terrible, stupid people. Maybe her old man left her for a welfare recipient. Maybe she’s trying to justify abortion. Maybe she’s struggling with her own sexual preferences, or trying to feel better about buying the lie they sold her. Whatever it is, it drives her maniacally to spend a ton of time here making sure hubbers agree that poor parents suck.
Sorry about that. However, there are many articles on the internet regarding the subject. I have also read countless sociological books and did studies in college(sociology major) which attest to the fact that children from smaller families tend to be more socioeconomically advantaged and they also tend to be high academic achievers. Besides familial and socioeconomical factors, there is a greater and equal ratio of parent-child.
The data has changed over time. What was true in the research literature several years ago is not being replicated in current research.
While past studies suggested that children with few siblings had access to more resources and therefore demonstrated higher levels of achievement, current research shows that children with multiple siblings have more people to provide social support.
And, in fact, current research shows that there is a small but significant positive effect on math scores for children from large families---and because they are more likely to have siblings who have studied the same math and can provide not only support, but tutoring and/or homework help.
Ah ha, many children from large families are also drawn into more negative activities because of their siblings. Still, you cannot deny it , no matter how hard YOU may try. Children from smaller families are still the highest academic achievers because their parents taught and educated them. Parents, as adults, have MORE extensive education and life experience, than a mere sibling, who is also a child himself/herself. A study done by the social psychologists, R. Zajonc, indicated that the more siblings per household, the LOWER the intellectual level of the child.
Inductive and deductive logic will tell one that siblings are children themselves and they do not have the extensive education and experience that a parent, as an adult, has. Parents, as adults, have more experience and education that any sibling has. Children in large families MAINLY interact with their siblings. As siblings are children themselves, these children will have the most elementary and rudimentary vocabulary and speech patterns. Children from small families, au contraire, MAINLY interact with ADULTS, their parents. They are constantly interacting with their parents through discussons and teachings. As a result, children from small families have a more advanced vocabulary.
Case in point, in my elementary school, we children who were from small families had advanced vocabularies at early ages. One girl, another only child, read 7 grade levels beyond her grade. Another only child was fluent in three languages by the time she was 8. All of us were on honor rolls. In my household, discussions, conversations, and teachings were a part of my life. My parents were my friends and confidante as well as parents. I could discuss anything with them and was encouraged to do so. As a result, I had an adult outlook early.
Contrast this to the students who came from large families. They were C to D students. They were poor readers. One read at 5 levels below her grade. All of them were placed in the slow class. They were unruly students. None of them interacted with their parents. They could be described as feral; they raised themselves and each other. None of the other children wanted to be around them. Even the teachers considered them to be problematic. I remember one of the teachers telling one such girl that she would be a hoodlum like her siblings and she was trash and would amount to nothing. These were the children who routinely started fights with other children. NEED I say more. No, perhaps not.
An important thing to remember: Our personal experiences do not constitute the big picture; our personal experiences are generally not representative of the aggregate experience of the world. Our personal experiences are not scientific and cannot and should not be considered to be applicable to all circumstances.
There is no research-based scientific evidence that supports the notion that siblings raised in functional environments and in functional families draw each other to negative conduct.
There is no research-based scientific evidence to support the notion that simply because someone has fewer kids than someone else that they are more educated and/or have had more life beneficial experiences. In fact, very current research and census data demonstrates a current trend: Better-educated and higher-income couples are having more children than their working-class peers. Large families (of 4+ kids) are "in" for so-called "upscale" couples.
In addition and let's be honest:
What you are repeatedly describing in your posts are not large families, but dysfunctional families; families with severe socio-economic and emotional deprivations. What you are repeatedly describing in your posts has not resulted because a child has siblings, but because a child is struggling in an environment---that includes his/her parents, that is in itself dysfunctional.
The fact of the matter is that many kids from large families do very well. They behave in school; they speak properly; they can read and do math at their grade level. They go to college, get jobs, and go on to raise their own successful families.
-1,000,000,000,000,000,000, not true at all. There have been studies which authenticate this. Children from large famlies fare much worse than those from small families. Poverty is much more prevalent in large families than it is in small families.
What is not true at all?
That our personal experiences are not applicable to everyone and everything?
That some families, regardless of size, are dysfunctional?
That census data shows that affluent young couples are now trending toward having larger families?
That what you are describing are dysfunctional families rather than large families?
That many kids from large families demonstrate achievement?
So is the ONLY functional family---the only family construct with any value in this world is, then, the family that has:
Two parents who are confident in themselves and who surround themselves with equally confident others;
A preoccupation with money and a focus only on money/material wealth;
A preoccupation and a focus on academic achievement defined as being on the honor roll;
And, demonstrated insistence that the 1 kid has (from a very early age) an "adult" outlook on life.
Disagree right down the line. I have holey jeans, myself - I use them working around the house or wading the river, fishing. It does NOT indicate I am poverty stricken; it indicates I care not for designer clothes or keeping up with the Joneses. Nor am I living in squalor; I just find holey jeans appropriate for some activities. That you do not merely indicates that you will spend your money for things you don't need, simply in a sad effort to show you're better than other people. IMO, anyway - I have a very low opinion of the fashion market and people that are slaves to it.
So you missed the entire point. You are on record in these forums as placing a very high value on money, but others do not. The best things in my life are not my nice home or the RV in the driveway; it is my 4 siblings, my two sons, their wives and 6 grandchildren. None of us go to bed hungry or cold, none of us lack for what we need to live comfortably. All of us are on a budget and are careful what we spend.
And all of us put great effort and time in getting together; we enjoy the other's company far more than a new hat to impress the neighbor with. In fact, we just returned from a week camping on the coast (where I wore my holey jeans climbing over the rocks while beachcombing in the tide pools and playing in the surf with my 5 year old grandson), with some additional neices and nephews; 21 of us in all. It will, without doubt, be the highlight of the year and far surpasses what pleasure I get from looking at my bank account.
Recognizing that a large bank account is necessary for happiness for some poor people, it is not so for others. If the cost of that big account is to never have had my siblings I will pay that price gladly.
Respect for individuality, Xpress life, go with the flow
The best things in this life are my kids and grandkids...all of them; so many of them that when we vacation as a family---a very functional family, we need a caravan of vehicles and several hotel rooms to accommodate us all; so many of us that we over-run restaurants when we all sit down to eat together...
Just cause you studied the topic does not make you an expert on the topic. You would think in all your studies you would have an open mind on the subject matter, and listen to the people, maybe cross reference, and stop shooting people down when they give their opinion, experience, or constructive criticism. No one is right or wrong on this topic, because their is no correct answer. EVERYONE is different.
Exactly...and every family is different be it large or small.
Every only child is different; every child with siblings is different.
Statistics describe only the sample population studied and can suggest trends, but they are not and should not be understood as the absolute and/or definitive answer to a question or solution to a problem or description of a group.
Agreed! Done! No hard feelings toward YOU GUYS. LOVE YOU!
Hahah, this is why I like arguing/debating with you. I can be as spirited as I want and I know you won't hold grudges, which is very nice, considering there are people on this website who dislike me even when I have never really interacted with them directly.
I firmly believe that some families---without reference to size or socioeconomic status, value achievement (educational or otherwise) and that some families---again without reference to size or socioeconomic status do not value achievement. Family size is NOT a determinant of success. Money is NOT the determinant of success. Choice is NOT the determinant of success.
Encouragement and support for what it takes---and it takes many things, to achieve are determinants of success.
Money is not everything. It deeply saddens me to think that anyone would believe that "money is all one has" in the real world or that people without socioeconomic "success"---whatever that is, should be viewed with disdain.
And yet, there is good news: Money is not everything. Family and the joys that we know with them---no matter how many or how few of them there are, is everything.
I have spent 37 years teaching. And the fact is that the kids with money and choices living in affluence are no more likely to achieve than kids living in poverty and without many material choices in the poorest of conditions.
More affluent parents teach their children the value of education and achievement. They see the importance of education and achievement in their lives and impart this teaching to their children. More affluent children are more likely to achieve as more monies equal more opportunities to achieve their academic goals. Also, more affluent children are more exposed to intellectual and cultuiral things which are educations in themselves. Affluent parents tend to be more educated and they also tend to have smaller families. In small families, children have more monies allotted for their education and cultural activities.
More impoverished parents do not teach their children the value of educatoin and achievement. In fact, in many impoverished homes, such things are discouraged by the parents. The average impoverished parents does not care whether their children are educated or not. All they are interested in is pure instincitual and basic survival. Children in impoverished homes are inculcated with the premise of the streets and their own respective lower socioeconomic culture whatever that may be.
Children in poor homes are hardscrabble and are left to their own devices. They are often unsupervised by ther parents. As we all know, poorer families tend to be larger. So the situation in such environments are multiplied by the factors of poverty and large families. Such children have to often work early to supplement family income. Many are lucky if they finish high school as education is on a low priority in such homes. College is totally out of the question as they must work FULL-TIME after finishing high school, if NOT before. Yes, money is a FACTOR. Again, more monies+ smaller families= much more opportunities; less monies+ larger families=much less or no opportunities.
How very odd. As the single child of affluent parents, you have been taught to value money over familial love; the same way your parents assigned value.
Whereas I was one of 5 children and was taught family and love trump money every time; the same way my parents assigned value.
And to this day, both of us retain our same basic value system. I recognize that money is valuable and necessary, just as (I assume) you recognize that family and love are valuable and necessary, but both prioritize them differently.
How very, very odd that we both receive pleasure from what we were taught is valuable.
Family love and money are both important to me. I believe that ALL people should have AT LEAST a middle class standard of living. That is why I avidly support Planned Parenthood and routinely donate to charities both clothwise and monetary to help poorer families. I even help poorer members of my extended family. I am extremely close to my parents(father now deceased) and to my aunts and uncles, cousins, first and more distant. My cousins and I are ALWAYS in contact with each other.
I LOVE my family but I also believe in small families so that each child can have a better quality of life and opportunities without poverty. In fact, I have a cousin with siblings whose material outlook makes me look like a minimalist. She loves designer clothes. I like good things; does not matter whether it is designer or not. I only buy things when THEY are ON SALE. One can describe me as frugal. Material things are good but I value intellectual and educational things more. Nice to have this discourse, Wilderness, Have a Blessed Night!
You cannot love your family; as it consists on only parents you do not have a "family" to love in the sense I mean. You will never know the love of adult siblings for each other.
Which is probably a large part of why you don't value it more highly - you cannot possibly understand what it is like. And I have at least some of the same problem; there have been only short periods in my life when money was not a concern, when I felt that I wanted something I could just go and buy it and even then a purchase over $1,000 was something to think hard about.
HOW DARE YOU PERSONALLY ATTACK ME and say I do not have a family. I do have a family. I am devoted to my parents and they to me. We worked together and did things for each other. I enjoyed my family life. Besides my parents, I had loving aunts, uncles, and cousins whom I am close to this day. What YOU have presented is typical large family "logic" in that family MUST have siblings. BS!
What you have presented is typical large family animus against only children. Family does not HAVE TO consist of a conglomerate of siblings. Family is people who love and care for each other. I have THAT in spades. There are only children out there who have warm and loving relationships with friends, cousins, and other relatives. Siblings DOES NOT a family make.
My parents and I are family. Again, family does not consist of a conglomerate of siblings. When will YOU PEOPLE from large families realize this? Childree and 1-child families are FAMILIES, believe it or not! I am right about YOU PEOPLE from large families. People from large families are highly prejudiced against childlfree, 1-child, and 2-child families. Erroneously, they DON'T consider such people to be family. That is SO sad. My family was rich and loving. I had assess to my parents in ways you people from large families did not. Small families ROCK!
People from large families have routinely criticized and knocked people from small families although studies have shown that small families do better. Now that studies have confirmed what I have known about large families and now large families are being criticized, THE CROWD now go into ATTACK mode. You from large families regularly talk about small families. NOW ,it is YOUR turn to be critiqued and talked about. What goes around, COMES around!
Siblings hold a place that aunts, uncles and cousins can never fill. I know - when we have a family reunion it is now approaching 200 people over 5 generations. I have a slew of cousins and other relatives on just the maternal side.
But they are not, and cannot be, siblings. In rare cases when brought up in close proximity they can come close, but there is still a difference even then.
It is not always so - most of the people I know do not have the close relationship with their siblings that I do, but then few people will remain married for the 37 years I have, either. Nevertheless, without siblings one can never know the bond that can develop there.
That does not, of course, mean that such relationships are all there is in life, or even the most important to everyone. There are other goals, other priorities; several of my nieces/nephews have decided not to have ANY children, and cost is one reason. It doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it different and that's OK.
Just as it's OK to value nuclear family more than money. Both have advantages, both have disadvantages, and as long as the disadvantage does not become life-controlling (as in extreme poverty or chasing the $ to the exclusion of everything else) there is absolutely nothing wrong or deficient in someone having different priorities.
So it is not "better" to have zero or one child over 3 or 4; it is just different. Now, I do have to say that having a dozen kids is a different story even though that, too, has definite advantages even today. We are no longer an agrarian society where those kids help support the families needs, and those needs are nearly impossible for a single person to meet when the family is so large. There is a limit, just as there is a limit in the desire for more money - so many small families are so preoccupied with collection of money that the single child suffers greatly as neither parent has any time left for the child. Just earning money, and all the money in the world will not replace a parent. When extremes are considered, neither zero nor a dozen children is likely to be the "best" choice.
Exactly. What are parents teach us to value stays with us throughout our lives. I find it profoundly saddening that a parent would teach a child that money and material wealth is all that matters in the so-called "real world".
Not sad at all but smart and prudent. Virgin Island Dad was RIGHT! Money is important in the culture. Anyone who does not think so should be homeless with NO money for one to six months, then he/she will change THAT tune that money is unimportant.
I did not say that money was not "important". What I said was that money is NOT everything. Money is NOT all that matters. There is a big space between a modest income and no income; between a modest lifestyle and being homeless.
I think what people are saying is that (in one way or another) we are not affluent people; we have come from families with more than one child or have chosen ourselves to have more than one child AND that despite the fact that being from families with more than one kid or having more than one kid meant sharing the pie---and each person having a smaller or more modest piece of that pie, we believe that it was worth it. We believe that the benefits of family---even when family means cutting up the pie into more pieces and therefore everyone in the family getting "less".
The experiences of family was worth whatever money we didn't have.
Do you have any data to support your opinions?
Economic affluence is not guarantee of success or achievement AND it most certainly does NOT guarantee happiness.
Here are some facts based on research:
"Faced with unrelenting pressures to excel ... many children develop stress-related symptoms such as insomnia, stomach aches, headaches, anxiety, and depression," notes Suniya S. Luthar, author of "The Culture of Affluence: Psychological Costs of Material Wealth," a study published in the November/December 2003 issue of "Child Development."
Children of affluent families often experience a variety of problems that are now being called "Affluenza".
And according to education.com: "Affluenza is the term used to explain the problems and dysfunction that occur when individuals are in pursuit of money, wealth, and material possession at the expense of other sources of self-esteem and contentment." This obsession can result in children who have a variety of social and psychological problems, including difficulty building and maintaining genuine friendships, decreasing sensitivity to the needs of others, and a false sense of entitlement. Children with affluenza can also have a hard time managing frustration or delaying gratification, and they might be reluctant to engage in any activity that requires hard work and sustained effort."
For additional factual information:
http://www.education.com/reference/arti … e_Benefit/
Lets put the scientific mumbo jumbo and studies aside...because parenting isn't scientific. We don't need to be told about parenting no matter the size, it is the parents right no one else's. who cares about what studies say? It is just an educated guess and opinion. I know that every family is its own separate case and their isn't enough categories to fit in these silly statistics. Some are to ignorant to open their eyes. No one can argue about my family because they don't know...same goes for other families. Unless you are personally involved with all of our families than you don't know anything, except what you read in books.
I have seen a lot of your posts on this subject and I'm sure the statistics you quote are statistically valid for what they measure as success, even though not inevitably true in individual cases. I'm sure you agree.
A country which has families that can support themselves is always more stable, healthy and satisfied.
These posts always remind me of a story I heard long ago about a country that had a high birth rate among the illiterate and poverty stricken population.
The government decided they needed to educate the poor people about the negative effects of rampant reproduction.
They printed up a series of posters to make their point, but since most of the poor people could not read, they used pictures without words, that would be easily understood.
On the left side was a picture of a poor, undernourished, dirty and ill-clothed family with many children. On the right was a smiling couple with only two children, who looked healthy, well fed and nicely clothed.
The people looked at the the pictures and seriously considered the message.
The most common reaction was: "Look at those poor people-- they only have two children."
I have studied this subject extensively in college as a sociology major. I have also read books and periodicals on the subject. My parents came from very large,poor families; however, they became middle class. I also attended school with some children who came from poor and large families. They exemplified what I have discussed and delineated about children who were poor and from large famlies.
These children raised themselves, had little or no individualized attention. Cultural and intellectual activities were to them as Roman civilization was to a Hun. They were also low academic achievers. They were the ones who depended upon the school for their medical and health care. Oftentimes the only way they would eat is to have school breakfasts and lunches from our donations.
The large families I knew would be classified as impoverished or worst. There was a classmate who was one of 20 children. She was extremely poverty stricken. NONE of the children, except for me and another girl, would befriend her. She and her family had no clothes except for donations. The majority of large families I knew were that way. One classmate who was one of 6 children HAD NO lunch money, the money she got were from the more affluent children at the school.
So I KNOW what I am talking about. Children from large families are in the majority of cases impoverished or near poverty while children from small families are in the majority of cases more likely to be middle class or better!
I'm not disagreeing with you and your extensive, educated research, I'm just saying that there will always be some who disagree or see things differently.
GM the time has come for you to cite an actual source. With all these studies and books on the subject of which parents are stupid, wrong, and negligent, surely you could cite one...??? Can't wait to read it.
And to cite a source that is not and does not rely on personal experiences as a schoolchild.
There are many books on the subject at hand; however, YOU will insist to believe WHAT YOU want to believe. It is apparent by YOUR post. There have been countless studies done to demonstrate that poverty is detrimental to children's emotional, mental, and psychological development. Surely you as an educated person knows this. Also, large families are also detrimental to children in myriad ways.
There are BOOKS out there on the subject. YOU TWO just do not want to accept the truth of the situation. Just remain in THE DARK. End of subject. It is similar to missionary trying to enlighten an unbeliever. No matter how hard the missoionary tries, the unbeliever will persist in his/her erroneous ways and remain in the darkness. That is ALL I have to say.
No, see, I asked for info and you came back "you just do not want to accept the truth of the situation". But see, I asked for the source of your info, so this accusation of not wanting the truth is like a step behind. Please advance your argument to the next relevant response and proceed.
And you really shouldn't elude to your Jesus complex until you've strengthened your first argument on how it's scientifically proven some socio-defined groups of parents suck more than others. Please, one insane argument at a time.
I can't believe that one is a text book. While these articles do cite sources, they then take their own liberties to speculate what they mean. Another opinion piece does not a credible source make. I will need to review the case studies themselves before verifying and discussing their credibility, but these articles misuse information to fit their preconceived notions. I guess just because you cite a case study doesn't mean you're constructing a credible article.
But you did cite sources, and I've learned something from it. I was unaware a whole school of elitist thought existed on how money makes one a better person. I can see it's place - it does help to perpetuate the green machine. I just can't believe so many have bought into this idea. You're several steps off a truthful path. Money will never make one more capable and functional in their reality then they are willing to learn.
Why are you so against money? It seems that you have a less than positive attitude towards money. ?Not to get of course, do you believe in the Law of Attraction?. The law maintains that what you believe regarding life and situations, you tend to attract. People are responsible for their circumstances in life, believe it or not. We MAKE our destiny. I was taught that by my father who did not believe in making excuses. I was raised to take responsibility and to make things happen and that excuses is a cop out and a sign of laziness. Too many people today make excuses instead of DOING.
I also did extensive study on poverty, the culture of poverty, social class, and family size in my sociology classes. I majored in sociology. I also read a lot of books on these subjects beyond class. I just do not ramble on, I base my hubs on firsthand experience from family members and through the books I have read in addition to the sociology classes I have taken in college. There is also a book regarding the parentified child which describes large family life, particularly for the oldest child. I have studied the large family extensively and read many books on the subject. My mother was from a very large family so the extended family members were field study. I also had friends from large and poor families, again field study again. So I KNOW about these things.
Well that one's easy - because money is evil.
The source of life energy comes from the sun, not from money, yet somehow the banks have convinced the people that MONEY is CURRENCY. CURRENCY is ENERGY, and that comes from the sun to ALL of US the SAME! That's what's really going on here. So to convince people that they are worthless without money is to enslave them by tricking them out of their inheritance - that we all have the same opportunity to survive, and to survive well, during our lifetime here.
Money doesn't make our food, water, or shelter. Money doesn't "make the world go 'round" - the sun does! But money DOES make our food mutated, our water contaminated, and our shelter toxic.
I'm here to remind people of their ability to be and be well. I'm here to empower the people and restore their sense of well-being. This is why I am so against money. Remember - your ABILITY is your TRUE WORTH. Sketch and cook always. Be well.
Honestly GM, I am SO tired of you posting these threads. You continually cite supposed studies about how us kids with siblings are poor, bumbling idiots with aching souls and not a chance in the world for success. When people argue differently, you instantly cite anecdotal evidence and ignore all other presented anecdotal evidence (you probably think posters with siblings are more likely to be pathological liars).
When it comes to this topic (one that is NOT as big of a deal as you want to make it out to be) you don't want to discuss it. You want to crow again and again that you are an only child and thus somehow superior to the rest of us. These threads are useless, repetitive and prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that you think anyone whose parents had procreative sex more than once are shameful and that their kids are probably disease infested scum.
Give it up, it's tiresome.
If you get to constantly whip out your anecdotal evidence, here's mine:
Second of five kids, grew up in upper middle class. Love all my siblings, had a blast with them. My parents gave me plenty of attention. Aced the ACT, got good grades, going to a good school, have a decent college job and am completely happy and fulfilled in life.
A childhood best friend who was a single child? Grew up to be miserable, only could get into community college, lives at home, never got enough positive attention from her parents, never learned how to interact in situations where she couldn't get her way. Jobless.
Only children that I knew. All went to college and graduate school. One has a Ph.D. in chemistry, has a high paying job. One has a Masters in Social Work, has a high paying and powered job, being a director in a hospital. One is a medical doctor. All except for one is single. There are much more, too may to mention. Some are married with children and some are single. One of my former bosses at work, an only child, has a postgraduate degree in Social Psychology. All of these women were honor students in their high schools, college, and postgraduate school.
Large families that I knew. One girl, one of 20, dropped out of high school, last I heard, is on welfare with six children. Another girl, also one of 20, got pregnant in high school, dropped out; working in menial, minimum wage jobs. A third girl, one of 6, got married at 16, now has eight children living in subsidized housing. Another one, one of 7, also did not finish high school, working at a menial job. My cousin, who is one of 8, got pregnant thrice and not married; also did not complete high school. Another cousin in the same family, got pregnant twice and not married; also did not complete high school. My aunt, one of 10, got pregnant at 16, unmarried. Another aunt, in the same family, also had a teenage pregnancy. Most of these girls were poor students in their high schools. They never attended college.
And for some of my own anecdotal evidence: My parents did not attend college and were from large families who survived the Great Depression. I was raised in a low-income, close-knit typical mid-century American family. I didn't get a lot of money or material things, but I got lots of attention. I had a basically "normal" happy childhood. I graduated near the top of my high school class---along with the kids from big families whose parents were also uneducated and working-class men and women from equally big families; many of us got scholarships to college; most of us are now enjoying a middle-class life.
We, like so many Baby Boomers across American in cities, suburbs, and rural towns grew up in a working-class, low-income families. Most of our neighborhood friends came from large families with modest incomes. Many were poor---many immigrants and refugees from the old Soviet Union; many were the children of people who had survived concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Of our group of neighborhood kids---almost NONE are criminals or otherwise dysfunctional.
They, like me, almost all of us have happy and fond memories of our working-class childhoods where there might not have been a lot of money or material things, but there was a lot of love, kinship, and community.
We are happy regular people. We have good jobs and live the basic happy American life.
I have to disagree with the statistics. I have a large family and we do live in poverty, but my children are very educated and have great hygiene. We are very hands on parents, and we support each other equally. My children do not have to raise themselves, they just have to be happy, healthy, respectful children. They don't need to worry about grow up issues, because we protect the, from that! We give them individuality, and allow them to dream. We teach them power is knowledge, and dreams are never easy to come by, but not impossible to achieve. All they have to do is not give up, it takes determination and self motivation. If we can't afford something, than we don't need it! We are humble and happy! We teach them not to worry about trends or materialistic things- because what's important in life is morals, respect of others as well as self, manners, and working hard. I have a beautiful family and feel blessed everyday that I open my eyes. Not ALL families fit in the statistics, it's just stereotyping. We teach not to judge, not to assume, not to lie, not to cheat, and not to steal. We teach them not follow, but to lead their own paths, not to worry what others think, because it doesn't matter. We lift up, we encourage, we strengthen, and we never give up trying.
Disagree ALL you want. The statistics are true! Children from large families raise themselves. Parents of large famlies are not hands on. They delegate the raising of their children on the oldest child. I know and have seen this. Also, in large families, some children are going to be waysided, cast aside, and neglected while others will receive the benefits of parental love. Everyone knows this. Please do not rationalize, I can see through this rationalization. I have done studies on the small and large family in college and have read countless books on the subject. However, you did admit what I have known about large families all along. You stated that you were in poverty. As studies confirm, an overwhelming majority of large families are either in poverty or near poverty. What you have presented is inverse logic.
What statistics? All of your links are broken.
Shanna, besides studying the subject of the family in college, I have firsthand experience of large famlies throughout my life and it is NOT pretty! Why do YOU think that families have become smaller? Hmmmm. This pro-large family argument is similar about extolling the virtues of proper nutrition to an obese person. The obese person is going to forever explain that he/she is in the best of health when obviously he/she is NOT but he/she refuse to acknowledge it! Again, small famlies are BETTER ! Enough said! Smell the coffee, the typical large family is impoverished. Shanna, you have seen this also. Don't deny it!
Again, where are the statistics?
I found this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic … azier.html
which cites several studies that prove that families with more than one child may be better off.
Your turn for cold, hard facts.
Simply saying that small families are better is NOT "enough said." In fact, hardly anything has been said at all.
Also, no offense, but college was a while ago for you. What you might have studied would most likely be very out of date and therefore not relevant toward discussion.
Also, please don't cite this:http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6489p0rr;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print
I mean, c'mon, this was out of date when it was published in 1989 (using data from 1955? Really? That's just sloppy research). It's ridiculously out of date now. Please tell me you aren't using such poor resources.
Okay, HERE it is for all you large family people:
http://www.time.com/magazine/article/0, … 30,00.html
http://www.familyresource.com/parenting … -down-only
Books to read on the subject:
You and Your Only Child: The Joys, Myths, and Challenges of Raising an Only Child-Patricia Nachman, Ph.D. & Andrea Thompson
One and Only: The Freedom of Having an Only Child-Lauren Sandler
The Case for the Only Child: Your Essential Guide by Susan Newman, Ph.D
Parenting an Only Child: The Joys and Challenges of Raising Your One and Only-Susan Newman, Ph.D.
BTW, famous only children include:
Charlize Theron, actor, director, Academy Award winner.
Robert DeNiro, actor
Lauren Bacall, screen legend
Condoleeza Rice, ex-Secretary of State
Lauren Bush, presidential wife
Chelsea Clinton, news reporter
Hedy Lamarr, actor and inventor
Kiernan Shipka, actor
Frank Sinatra, actor and singer
Natalie Portman, actor, Academy Award winner
Joy Behar, talk show host and comedian
Betty White, television icon and legend
Need I say more. DON'T YOU EVER KNOCK only children. We only children are as good as YOU PEOPLE FROM LARGE FAMILIES-it's about TIME you know that!
Also there is a magazine specializing in only children, ONLY CHILD, you people from large families should subscribe to it. Maybe you would learn something about only children and that only children are okay.
1. What does your first link have to do with anything?
2. You cited Smosh? Really? Smosh? REALLY? Have you SEEN their videos? You DO know Smosh is a website and Youtube account run by a handful of boys who just want to make people laugh? All credibility just flew out the window.
3. That smosh citation isn't really anything new, it just cites your second link.
4. Your second link provides information about studies that proves children with siblings are just fine.
EDIT: I noticed you edited your list of "sources" in response to my valid criticisms. Next time get some ACTUAL, CREDIBLE sources before you post them, huh?
To steal your own words: Maybe you would learn something about children with siblings and learn that they are okay.
I don't understand your silly biases toward families private reproductive decisions. Let them do what they want and get over the fact that each family is different and the amount of siblings one has is NOWHERE near as important as you want to make it out to be. People have been surviving for thousands of years in a variety of family situations and we're not all pyschopathic cannibals, so that speaks volumes for how well a variety of family types work.
When have I knocked only children? Never. I could care less if someone is an only child or has five thousand and one siblings. Get over your self-victimization. You're the only one here trying to make people seem bad and look bad. I think you have some sort of inferiority complex and you're desperate to prove yourself by making up these outlandish generalizations about people with siblings.
Because honestly, most people (regardless of the number of siblings they have) don't give two flips about how many children other people decide to have.
Oh, and providing a list of only children proves nothing. There are just as many, if not more famous people who have siblings. Which proves...oh...that's right...nothing.
So yes, you DO need to say more.
Also, most people would have made this thread once, twice MAYBE three times tops. I think you're on your tenth? Really, you just look like you have some unhealthy obsession with the fact that you don't have siblings. Definitely supports the inferiority complex and desire to be a victim theory I've got going about you.
Again statistics, and studies isn't toward all families. Some only children are not okay, dysfunctional, and alone...some are okay and well off. Not all families fit in these studies or statistics.
I am blessed to have sibling. A friend forever, a playmate growing up, and so much more...my children too have each other and are blessed.
YOU SIBLING PEOPLE don't realize that every child has siblings. Only children are fine. You are free to criticize only child but when the shoe is on the other foot, YOU ATTACK! As I have stated before, it is the people from large families who have the most animus toward small families and particulary only chlldren. They also have an underlying animus towards childfree couples. Written about that numerous times. YOU ALL have proven my point! Only children are blessed. They are not in a cocoon, they have cousins and friends. Siblings are not everything.
Here is something about siblings that you people do not wish to acknowledge but it is true:
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/study- … s-are-less
I am undoubtedly blessed to be an only child and would not change it for the world!
No, we haven't. You're the one who started this thread. You're the one who has started countless threads attacking people with siblings, implying they are stupid, that not being rich is bad, that they are useless and amount to nothing...
You're the only one with an underlying issue here. I would suggest seeing someone to talk about why you feel so defensive about being an only. And why you care so much. And why you need to make this thread three billion times. And why this is such a big problem for you. It's not healthy. You've got some imagined war going on between people with siblings and people without. Get a grip on reality.
I'm here to defend myself from unfair and untrue stereotyping. I don't give a flip if you're an only or if someone is childless. That's their business.
Their is no point to be proven. No one is saying big families are better than small or that siblings are better than an only child, you are! All we are saying is your studies and statistics is B.S. no one family fits in these categories...may only be a few that do. But that's what they are is statistics, no solid ground to stand on. You think it's a game or accomplishment, debate, or something to be won here, but you are too close minded to read what anyone has to say about your theory.
I read the article you linked. The most important comment made in the article and one that seems to at least partially derail it and your thesis:
"But when I read the results of a study like this, I have to wonder: Is it that siblings are really the cause of unhappiness, or is it just that they are the easiest source of tension for a kid to fixate on?"
Studying in books doesn't amount to crap unless you have experienced it and personally seen several cases; but even with that...it still DOES NOT speak about ALL families or most...statistics is B.S., because you would have to account for majority of the world.
Using the word "better" to define and/or describe difference is most problematic and unfortunate.
Some families are more functional than some other families. There are many small families that are dysfunctional and unhappy; there are large families that are dysfunctional and unhappy. But, whether you can accept it or not, there are some families that are functional and happy---regardless of their size and material wealth.
No, what I have is personal experience. I don't care about the statistics! My children are raised by my husband and myself, we ARE HANDS ON, and our children are very educated, very clean, healthy, happy, and does not carry any burdens of being an adult. They each have their own responsibilities called chores like I had growing up. All they have to worry about is homework, and chores, the rest is enjoying their childhood. Money does not have anything to do with raising your child the way society sees fit. I've seen personally a single parent with a single child with poor education and hygiene. It has nothing to do with the size of your family, it has to do with parenting. People are so blinded by the almighty dollar that they forget some of us don't care about man's manipulation...we choose to live humble.
"DON'T YOU EVER KNOCK only children. We only children are as good as YOU PEOPLE FROM LARGE FAMILIES-it's about TIME you know that!"
Ok, THERE's the inferiority complex I've been waiting to see. I get you now. GM, it's who YOU are, not what group you belong to, that determines your worth. What you PERSONALLY are capable of makes you functional in this world - and what you are not equates to dysfunction.
GM - what do you know how to do? Like, do you make anything yourself, or do you buy everything?
I was a highly accomplished professional woman before my retirement. I love to sketch and cook. I also do not have an inferior complex. I am highly respected in my community and by family members. Any other personal attacks! Keep it up!
You'd like me to keep it up - keeps you company, doesn't it, only child, no children? Look at all this ATTENTION!!
You do bother me. Your articles have called me a bad, stupid, and neglectful parent for being poor and you personally told me to go "live in my poverty-laden consciousness". It's alright, I have a good time here, but still, what the hell?!
You and your negative portrayal of parents in poor and large families raising their young in this country are in violation of HubPage rules on publishing hateful articles. These articles are opinionated pieces of hateful biased rants, not credited scientific research.
Everyone's living a life full of benefits and challenges, and for the most part we don't choose if we're rich or poor. It may very well be we don't choose our circumstances at all. It's not about how much stuff you have - it's about how much peace you have. You seem to have none. I bet if you sketched and cooked more, you'd find some.
And if you think YOU'RE rich .... hahaha. You're sense of entitlement is misplaced. You do know how the Federal Reserve works, right? Nobody here is rich. Not even close.
Live YOUR life and mind YOUR own business! BTW, you are not poor. You are a businesswoman who owns a tea business who is doing a thriving business on the internet! People who own businesses are FAR from poor. What do YOU classify as poor? Businesspeople would not be classified as poor or impoverished. You are middle class!
Seriously, you have made 6 threads about this topic alone on the first three pages of the topical forums. SIX! And that's just counting the past week, because you've made mannnnnny other threads about this topic.
It's not like there are a bunch of threads bashing only children or anything. It's not even like you're trying to defend yourself from them. It's just you being ignorant, close-minded, obsessive and defensive about a non-issue. I don't understand why you have to make this thread so often, without sources, to bash people who have siblings---all without provocation? Seriously, it speaks very poorly of you and your education.
You just like to play the victim.
I know children from large families throughout my life who were impoverished. They told me themselves how they hated being part of a large family, being on the outside looking in. How they had to depend upon assistance and donations to stay afloat. NO CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT. I also contribute to charities to help such children and volunteer to help and teach them. I have seen it firsthand.
As I have said before, I remember a classmate, a friend, who was one of 20 children. Her family was so indigent that if it were not for donations from charities and the more affluent children in the school, her family would sink through the cracks. She was a frequent visitor to my house as she related to me that visiting me was the only time she had privacy.
Here is something to substantiate the theme of this thread:
http://voices.yahoo.com/why-high-intell … ters-small
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/Child … ave-Higher
http://www.healthychildren.org/.../page … ilies.aspx
It seems to me someone has personal demons to overcome. I don't see how someone who is educated, bragging about college studies can be so close minded and childish. I am done arguing with a fool who doesn't want to see what others are trying to help out in your so called studies. Your too blind, narrow minded, and too worried about being right in a topic that has no right or wrong answer too, except for personal opinions. You need to reevaluate yourself and your studies. The only thing I see is a very ignorant person having a temper tantrum. Just cause you had a bad experience, or your friends, doesn't mean that it is the same for all cases. Read your threads, read the comments of your fellow readers, listen, and open your mind. you will never learn anything without listening or having an open mind. keep telling yourself the wrong thing doesn't make it correct. Didn't they teach you about what theories and statistics were in school? Not absolute!!!
In 34 hours, more than 100 posts, what great responses and discourses.Again, thank YOU all!
Quote: [Children from small families tend to be higher academic achievers. They have more monies which means more access to books and other forms of intellectual paraphernalia in their homes. They also interact with their parents more.]
Studies have consistently validated and substantiated that children from large families tend to be lower academic achievers while children from small families are the high academic achievers. Children from large families tend to drop out of school while children from small families are more likely to continue their education.
These two paragraphs are utter poppycock. I graduated top of my class with a 3.94 GPA, made a 92 on my ASVAB at 17, and tested out in the 96th percentile on SATs....get your facts straight. Large families often homeschool with mom or dad teaching. This leads to strong academics and great family bonding. I come from a family of 7 kids.... again get your facts straight.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
The large family of 6 or more children is becoming outmoded. The large family usually have a diametrically different culture and milieu to that of the small family. Parental interaction is rare to nonexistent. As a result of this little or none parental...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 15 months ago
According to an article from Business Insider, a study done by researchers Juhn & C. Andrew Zupann of Houston University along with Yona Rubinstein of the London School of Economics, children born into large families have lower likelihoods to succeed because with each additional child in the...
by Stacie L 5 years ago
After suffering a devastating miscarriage in December 2011, Michelle Duggar is trying to get pregnant again with her 20th child. The 19 Kids and Counting reality TV mom says she and husband Jim Bob Duggar are hoping to be "blessed" with another...
by Nichol marie 14 months ago
What is your Sterotype when you see a large family of 4 children or a small family of just 1 childDo u judge I dont judge on family size at all or those without children at all but I guesse this is a thing now
by Justamama 7 years ago
Anyone here have a "large family"?What is considered large?I have ten.
by Raymond Philippe 5 years ago
Is having more than two children unresponsible?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|