5 ms·

Bryan Caplan’s Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids is worth a read for anyone who is taking parenting too seriously. Developmental psychologists have brainwashed

Bryan Caplan’s Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids is worth a read for anyone who is taking parenting too seriously. Developmental psychologists have brainwashed the public into thinking children can be ruined by insufficiency dedicated parenting. But for generations developmental psychologists were Lysenkoist hacks who didn’t realize their studies were confounded by basically all mental traits being extremely heritable. The most important influence parents have on their children is at conception. If you want a smart kid, choosing a very smart mate is far more effective than any amount of mostly ineffective enrichment activities. If you really care so much about the social status of your future children, marry well to a person high in the traits you value, preferably from a family high in said traits. Then have a lot of kids. Chances are one of them will achieve something! Don’t get caught in the extracurricular signalling racket/cargo cult. Let the kids do what they want within reason. Public school will be fine. If you don’t want to ferry your kid around to various enrichment activities, don’t. Your time has value too. You care for your children; you do not serve them. In most cases the kids don’t want to to do them anyway and will develop their own interests they will be far more enthusiastic about.

ashleyn 7y ago
Neither of my parents are particularly "bright" and today I work as a computer programmer. I'm skeptical of this premise.
- luckylion 7y ago
  High heritability does not mean that there's a formula that you can apply to predict what a child "inherits". It's about probabilities in great numbers, not about individuals, hence the advice from ZhuanXia on what to do to increase the odds and then roll the dice a lot (have a lot of children) to increase the odds for a perfect roll in one of them.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Who can afford it though? Environment matters too. But if you can afford it, why not. Few can though, kids are expensive in time and money, and to get money you spend time...
- deogeo 7y ago
  A source for the heritability claim, to allay your scepticism: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-... It shows the heritability of intelligence at age 26 as 88%. Perhaps you're one of the 12% (forgive the statistically meaningless phrase - you get the idea). Or perhaps you underestimate your parents.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Likely the latter. Do not conflate renumeration or political views with intelligence, curiosity or just street smarts. All of these forms of intelligence are genetically valid, but phenotype is determined by environment. You may get a great farmer, or you might get a researcher depending on environmental conditions... So yes, they do matter a lot on outcome. If you haven't found a computer early, there could be a problem of you being outmatched and not proceeding alongside that path.
- jriot 7y ago
  Being employed as a computer programmer does not mean you are bright.
api 7y ago
The first thought that came to mind here was that emphasizing heritability will lead to racism, nepotism, sexism, inherited classism, etc. This is merely an observation independent of how strong heritability actually is. Then I realized that the developmental / nurture model favored by most of today's intellectuals combined with brutal meritocracy does the same thing, but with a layer of personal blame and a huge quacky market for developmental aids of dubious effectiveness. The fundamental issue is that society has become much more competitive and stratified, with the easier middle class path vanishing. That is going to create brutal competitive stratification regardless of what model (heritability or nurture) best characterizes the rules of the game. Yet paradoxically we are in an age of extreme abundance where goods, services, and money itself (low interest rates) are cheaper than ever before. Abundance is creating scarcity. Something is very very wrong.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  We’re not wired for “enough”. Our evolutionary past never had abundance, so we we evolved to compete, so we compete. Don’t worry, though, our material abundance will soon come to an end as population increases. And then we’ll be well adapted to our level of material prosperity again.
  - bittercynic 7y ago
    We're extremely adaptable, and in some cases can re-wire ourselves to appreciate abundance and ease up on the competition at least to some degree. Maybe it's possible to learn to live better.

ashleyn 7y ago

Neither of my parents are particularly "bright" and today I work as a computer programmer. I'm skeptical of this premise.

luckylion 7y ago
High heritability does not mean that there's a formula that you can apply to predict what a child "inherits". It's about probabilities in great numbers, not about individuals, hence the advice from ZhuanXia on what to do to increase the odds and then roll the dice a lot (have a lot of children) to increase the odds for a perfect roll in one of them.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Who can afford it though? Environment matters too. But if you can afford it, why not. Few can though, kids are expensive in time and money, and to get money you spend time...
deogeo 7y ago
A source for the heritability claim, to allay your scepticism: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-... It shows the heritability of intelligence at age 26 as 88%. Perhaps you're one of the 12% (forgive the statistically meaningless phrase - you get the idea). Or perhaps you underestimate your parents.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Likely the latter. Do not conflate renumeration or political views with intelligence, curiosity or just street smarts. All of these forms of intelligence are genetically valid, but phenotype is determined by environment. You may get a great farmer, or you might get a researcher depending on environmental conditions... So yes, they do matter a lot on outcome. If you haven't found a computer early, there could be a problem of you being outmatched and not proceeding alongside that path.
jriot 7y ago
Being employed as a computer programmer does not mean you are bright.

api 7y ago

The first thought that came to mind here was that emphasizing heritability will lead to racism, nepotism, sexism, inherited classism, etc. This is merely an observation independent of how strong heritability actually is. Then I realized that the developmental / nurture model favored by most of today's intellectuals combined with brutal meritocracy does the same thing, but with a layer of personal blame and a huge quacky market for developmental aids of dubious effectiveness. The fundamental issue is that society has become much more competitive and stratified, with the easier middle class path vanishing. That is going to create brutal competitive stratification regardless of what model (heritability or nurture) best characterizes the rules of the game. Yet paradoxically we are in an age of extreme abundance where goods, services, and money itself (low interest rates) are cheaper than ever before. Abundance is creating scarcity. Something is very very wrong.

toasterlovin 7y ago
We’re not wired for “enough”. Our evolutionary past never had abundance, so we we evolved to compete, so we compete. Don’t worry, though, our material abundance will soon come to an end as population increases. And then we’ll be well adapted to our level of material prosperity again.
- bittercynic 7y ago
  We're extremely adaptable, and in some cases can re-wire ourselves to appreciate abundance and ease up on the competition at least to some degree. Maybe it's possible to learn to live better.