4 ms·

Best bit of advice I got when becoming a new parent was from a retired teacher in my church. “When you see a class of 11 year olds it’s impossible to say who go

Best bit of advice I got when becoming a new parent was from a retired teacher in my church. “When you see a class of 11 year olds it’s impossible to say who got wooden toys, who was breastfed, who had limited screen-time. But you can always tell who had a loving family.”

ismail 5y ago
Relationships > Everything Else
mikaraento 5y ago
This is very true. However, it's likely to be correlation rather can causation. Loving parents pass on loving genes. I recommend Judith Rich Harris's book "The Nurture Assumption" on the topic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption)
- blowski 5y ago
  If one were really able to measure the impact on a human's life, then it's all about nudging small probabilities in an extremely chaotic system. As a parent, though, I'd say that providing a loving environment in which your kids can grow up is both the factor most under your control and that will have the biggest impact. Thus, anything done through that lens is likely to help, and anything done for some other reason less so. But you can't systematise "provide a loving environment" into a series of rules, and that's what makes parenting so f**ing hard.
- watwut 5y ago
  > However, it's likely to be correlation rather can causation. Loving parents pass on loving genes. Emotionally neglected kids have issues even if their biological parents had great "loving genes" whatever it is.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    That seems reasonable to believe. However it would be difficult to prove, because this configuration will rarely exist in reality. People whose genes bias them toward traits we think of as "loving" will tend to actually be loving, and therefore their children will not be emotionally neglected. I don't know if I could express certainty either way on this proposition. (For anyone who thinks it's impossible for loving-ness to be genetically programmed, read about the domesticated silver fox experiment.)
    - nzmsv 5y ago
      A child can be genetically loving, but beaten down by a poor environment. Have you never seen someone suddenly thrive after leaving abusive parents, bosses, or partners?
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        No, I have not personally witnessed that. Even if I did, I don't know if I could possibly ascribe that effect to "genetic loving-ness" as a general rule. That would seem to be jumping to conclusions far more than I'm personally comfortable with. That being said, nothing in my prior comment denied this possibility, I merely expressed uncertainty as to whether it's the primary explanation of the traits we see.
    - watwut 5y ago
      > However it would be difficult to prove, because this configuration will rarely exist in reality. This was super normal after war, when the world was full of orphans. And specifically in UK where the kid could be taken into system easily - sometimes simple because there was only dad or parent was single. This was super normal when mothers died often. Or when single mothers had to leave their kids with cheap caregivers to work or be in those abusive houses.
- bildung 5y ago
  I'd advice reading a book like "The Gene Illusion" by Jay Joseph as a similar pop-science book taking the opposite position.
xxs 5y ago
You can also say who had access to regular trainings and/or ability to play outside.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Regular training in what?
  - xxs 5y ago
    I could have been clearer, indeed: any spots, physical exercise.
watwut 5y ago
> When you see a class of 11 year olds it’s impossible to say who got wooden toys, who was breastfed, who had limited screen-time. I definitely can tell 11 years old with limited "screen-time" vs unlimited one.
- OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
  How's that? Because it's going to be basically impossible to single out this variable in a kid. First, not all 'screen time' is the same. You see the traits in a kid you know has unlimited screen time and ascribe that to the screen time and not the other parenting decisions that lead to those traits. For example, screen time as a babysitter, only TikTok or mobile games, never talking about their screen time, etc. There's likely kids you don't think have unlimited screen time that actually do, but because of other parenting decisions, it doesn't result in the same traits. For example, encouraging their kid to read with their screen time (books are on kids tablets now), watch science videos, talking to their kids about what they're doing with their screen time, doing screen time with them, etc. This is why psychology and sociology studies are so hard, because it is almost impossible to isolate a changing variable in testing.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I am like, how often are you in contact with kids? Also, the kid who has unlimited screen time and uses majority of it for reading and educational videos is something I never met.
    - OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
      I have one. The second one describes my kid. All unlimited screen time means is that I don't set a limit on it. They can decide to do other stuff and they usually do. I have a Kindle Fire they basically only use in the car, otherwise they'd rather play with friends, or do crafts. The tablet gets pretty boring when you're basically doing it alone.
      - smokey_the_bear 5y ago
foxyv 5y ago
I don't know if we can even tell that much. I've seen kids come out of abusive, dirty, and poisonous homes that not even a cockroach would touch. They turned out both loving and generous. I've also seen kids come out of beautifully kept homes that were loved and taken care of. The same kid would steal the wheels off your car while sticking a knife in a retiree. People are just like that. Almost completely random. That generous and loving kid could go on to become an evil jerk who scams people out of money. That thieving monster could become an amazing musician who converts to pacifism and volunteers in nursing homes. We aren't static frameworks that are formed by genetics, nurturing, or environment. We are shape shifters.

ismail 5y ago

Relationships > Everything Else

mikaraento 5y ago

This is very true. However, it's likely to be correlation rather can causation. Loving parents pass on loving genes. I recommend Judith Rich Harris's book "The Nurture Assumption" on the topic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption)

blowski 5y ago
If one were really able to measure the impact on a human's life, then it's all about nudging small probabilities in an extremely chaotic system. As a parent, though, I'd say that providing a loving environment in which your kids can grow up is both the factor most under your control and that will have the biggest impact. Thus, anything done through that lens is likely to help, and anything done for some other reason less so. But you can't systematise "provide a loving environment" into a series of rules, and that's what makes parenting so f**ing hard.
watwut 5y ago
> However, it's likely to be correlation rather can causation. Loving parents pass on loving genes. Emotionally neglected kids have issues even if their biological parents had great "loving genes" whatever it is.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  That seems reasonable to believe. However it would be difficult to prove, because this configuration will rarely exist in reality. People whose genes bias them toward traits we think of as "loving" will tend to actually be loving, and therefore their children will not be emotionally neglected. I don't know if I could express certainty either way on this proposition. (For anyone who thinks it's impossible for loving-ness to be genetically programmed, read about the domesticated silver fox experiment.)
  - nzmsv 5y ago
    A child can be genetically loving, but beaten down by a poor environment. Have you never seen someone suddenly thrive after leaving abusive parents, bosses, or partners?
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      No, I have not personally witnessed that. Even if I did, I don't know if I could possibly ascribe that effect to "genetic loving-ness" as a general rule. That would seem to be jumping to conclusions far more than I'm personally comfortable with. That being said, nothing in my prior comment denied this possibility, I merely expressed uncertainty as to whether it's the primary explanation of the traits we see.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > However it would be difficult to prove, because this configuration will rarely exist in reality. This was super normal after war, when the world was full of orphans. And specifically in UK where the kid could be taken into system easily - sometimes simple because there was only dad or parent was single. This was super normal when mothers died often. Or when single mothers had to leave their kids with cheap caregivers to work or be in those abusive houses.
bildung 5y ago
I'd advice reading a book like "The Gene Illusion" by Jay Joseph as a similar pop-science book taking the opposite position.

xxs 5y ago

You can also say who had access to regular trainings and/or ability to play outside.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Regular training in what?
- xxs 5y ago
  I could have been clearer, indeed: any spots, physical exercise.

watwut 5y ago

> When you see a class of 11 year olds it’s impossible to say who got wooden toys, who was breastfed, who had limited screen-time. I definitely can tell 11 years old with limited "screen-time" vs unlimited one.

OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
How's that? Because it's going to be basically impossible to single out this variable in a kid. First, not all 'screen time' is the same. You see the traits in a kid you know has unlimited screen time and ascribe that to the screen time and not the other parenting decisions that lead to those traits. For example, screen time as a babysitter, only TikTok or mobile games, never talking about their screen time, etc. There's likely kids you don't think have unlimited screen time that actually do, but because of other parenting decisions, it doesn't result in the same traits. For example, encouraging their kid to read with their screen time (books are on kids tablets now), watch science videos, talking to their kids about what they're doing with their screen time, doing screen time with them, etc. This is why psychology and sociology studies are so hard, because it is almost impossible to isolate a changing variable in testing.
- watwut 5y ago
  I am like, how often are you in contact with kids? Also, the kid who has unlimited screen time and uses majority of it for reading and educational videos is something I never met.
  - OldTimeCoffee 5y ago
    I have one. The second one describes my kid. All unlimited screen time means is that I don't set a limit on it. They can decide to do other stuff and they usually do. I have a Kindle Fire they basically only use in the car, otherwise they'd rather play with friends, or do crafts. The tablet gets pretty boring when you're basically doing it alone.
    - smokey_the_bear 5y ago

foxyv 5y ago

I don't know if we can even tell that much. I've seen kids come out of abusive, dirty, and poisonous homes that not even a cockroach would touch. They turned out both loving and generous. I've also seen kids come out of beautifully kept homes that were loved and taken care of. The same kid would steal the wheels off your car while sticking a knife in a retiree. People are just like that. Almost completely random. That generous and loving kid could go on to become an evil jerk who scams people out of money. That thieving monster could become an amazing musician who converts to pacifism and volunteers in nursing homes. We aren't static frameworks that are formed by genetics, nurturing, or environment. We are shape shifters.