So, does this mean parents should ban sweets entirely?I am sure that we'll see a contradictory study soon sponsored by the Nestle corporation conducted in the vicinity of Hershey, PA.
Not necessarily, Moore said. A possible explanation for the candy-violence association is that giving children sweets and chocolate regularly may prevent them from learning to delay gratification. That, in turn, may encourage impulsivity, which is linked to delinquency.
"We think that it is more to do with the way that sweets are given to children rather than the sweets themselves," Moore said. "Using sweets to quiet noisy children might just reinforce problems for later in life."
8 Ekim 2009 Perşembe
Daily Candy Intake Leads to Crime?
This is one of those studies which may turn out to be an excellent example of "correlation does not equal causation." But researchers from Cardiff University are claiming that daily candy intake leads to a significantly increased risk of being convicted of a violent crime by 34. The researchers are careful to avoid blaming the sugary snacks themselves.
Kaydol:
Kayıt Yorumları (Atom)
This strikes me as being very much a "correlation doesn't mean causation" study, just like the one they did recently that found that the more overweight a kid is, the less intelligent or lower IQ.
YanıtlaSilEveryone is trying to make all bad behavior or impulses attributable to genes or something "scientific" so that they can go in a surgically remove all the bad stuff and make the world a utopia. Don't want crime? Take out the genes that make you crave sweets.
It won't work, but they keep trying. And it's a bit scary. At what point will we be in "A Clockwork Orange"?