4 ms·

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 "Th

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.

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.