What interested me the most during the beginning of the book was that the criteria used to describe a child’s personality back when the project started was still applicable today and easily fit our modern statistical models. It was a goldmine for the researchers to be able to analyze that much data and have it be so detailed. It makes me wonder though if the original researchers only had these surveys on the children’s personalities filled out once or if they were done at multiple points throughout their schooling to track the change they went through in that critical stage of development. I also wonder if the relationship the children had with their parents was considered when analyzing the data the parents gave on the child’s personality, because often parents would want to brag about their children and make them appear a way they aren’t. Alternatively, some families with strained relationships may also paint the child in a misleading light. Having the children’s teachers also provide data on them is a good control, but how much sway is given to each provider of information on the child? I also wonder how much of the findings from the study still holds true considering the drastic cultural shifts that have occurred since the study participants were children. Technology and the mass loss of athletic and arts opportunity for children may have changed some of the baseline averages for the study if it were conducted in modern times.
I think your outlook on this aspect of the study is very interesting. Obviously we shouldn’t just assume information to be true without context, but I appreciate the way you highlighted the specific ways that the surveys during the participants’ childhoods could have been skewed. You highlighted the ways that surveys in general are generally skewed and should not be taken necessarily as fact. This puts the study in a perspective that I had not realized before I read your post. Great job!