I understand that religiosity (faith and hope) is negatively correlated to intelligence, so I also understand faith driven mental models are an uphill climb to better health outcomes at scale. "It is what it is." As I mentioned, perhaps we'll have better luck next generation, when systems have improved in this regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/document...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12425

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34449007/

(edit: facts and data are not unkind, they just are, and I feel like I have been very polite in my delivery of all facts and data presented; if you are unhappy about the facts and data presented, that is an internal issue to reconcile)

That's a pretty longwinded ad hominem you've got right there.

Forgive me for not digging into your links again...fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

You're entitled to your opinion, but when you go around spouting about faith not being a good strategy and then cite a bunch of unrelated articles, you've shown that you are yourself not very intelligent (or kind).

"Faith" is fundamentally belief without knowledge. Thus you by definition have no reason to rely on it. (Although the word also gets used in situations where there is a track record to rely on but no specific evidence in the particular case.)

And you're using the wrong yardstick. What you should be looking at is the number of adverse events. STDs. Unintended pregnancies.

Everyone hopes for and has faith in their kids with regard to some actions. It could be going to class, staying out of gangs, not drinking/doing drugs. We don't know for a fact our kids will do what we hope, but we act in a way that shows we have faith in them, so as to avoid undermining their confidence.

I don't need to use the yardstick you propose. There are many confounders in aggregate data, and there are not public polls that capture the demographics and beliefs of my family. It would be a fool's errand to pretend that publicly available data is somehow more important than my own understanding of my kids.

It's funny how you think I shouldn't be able to make decisions for my children, but you seem to think that you know better than me what is right for them.

The available data indicates that you're wrong. You *think* you know, you don't.

Would it be acceptable to not belt your kids because you have faith in your driving skills? (And never mind that the one time in my life where a seat belt mattered was when I was essentially PITted by someone who didn't look left. I walked away with nothing but a pulled muscle and because I was belted my foot correctly found the brake pedal while I was spinning around and totally disorientated.)

Or how about the woman from ~30 years back that said that DUI doesn't really matter if your faith is strong enough as god will protect you.

Not belting your kids when you put them in the car is unsafe and is illegal. However, not getting your 9 year old a vaccine for STDs is not unsafe if that kid is not sexually active, and therefore not at risk for contracting the STD. As the kid gets older, the calculus changes because they are more independent. But pretty much any responsible parent has a very accurate sense of whether their 9 year old is having sex.

And the parents who have a sexually active 9 year old that they do not realize is sexually active are probably not taking them in for their regular doctor appts and vaccines.

It's not that they'll be active at 9. Rather, that you don't know when they'll be active and the ones who see this as encouraging sex will delay too long. Thus it's better to do it early.