7 ms·

> Less in one's control, their parents were financially successful or were in competitive positions (e.g. were professors or physicians), so they may have learn

> Less in one's control, their parents were financially successful or were in competitive positions (e.g. were professors or physicians), so they may have learned these strategies from them, versus inventing them independently. As I grow older, I see a huge divide between those who have/had parental support vs those who don't/didn't. It doesn't even take financially or professionally successful parents. Many of my peers had middle-class parents working normal jobs who just loved unconditionally + put effort forward... the difference between them and those who had less than ideal upbringings is typically vast. Having loving parents who teach, model, and promote healthy discipline habits is paramount for a kid's success. Unfortunately many children don't win that lottery.

plonk 4y ago
> Many of my peers had middle-class parents working normal jobs who just loved unconditionally + put effort forward... the difference between them and those who had less than ideal upbringings is typically vast. Do you mean their career success, or their personalities in general?
- peterangular 4y ago
  Both. Positive upbringings helped those folks navigate everything in life better from simple chores like laundry, to relationships, to school, to careers... etc. People are more healthy when they're in an environment that promotes emotional/educational growth vs. when they're forced into a survival mentality. Those who had the opportunity to grow in safety have an easier time socially vs. those who had to navigate turbulent childhoods. Much of it is just trust
  - creakingstairs 4y ago
    I always didn’t understand how some of people were so positive/nice all the time and I thought they were really good at faking it. Then one time I spent a bit of time with their family and immediately understood why. > Much of it is just trust You are absolutely right. There was so much trust between the kids and the parent. You could tell from the way they act and talk around each other. That experience was very enlightening for me.
  - a9h74j 4y ago
    > navigate everything in life better Presumably there are many factors. One worth considering could be "frustration tolerance" as a construct or capability.
- new_stranger 4y ago
  Not OP, and just opinion, but I've seen markedly different career and personality/friend/family success. They seem like talented happy people able to take on a wide variety of challenges and do well. The friends with troubled upbringing often do find success in one area of life, but they seem unstable overall and often crash or stall in multiple other areas.
pvarangot 4y ago
I tell myself it's the difference between starting adulthood at 14 or whenever your family fails you, and starting it at 24 or 26 after college. The extra years of "streetwise" usually come at an expense of early onset of burnout, for various reasons. Leaving your shell with the energy to take over the world at 26 usually results in more productive endeavors than when you are a teenager.
- peterangular 4y ago
  Agree. > The extra years of "streetwise" Let's acknowledge exactly what "streetwise" is... it's the ability to operate in unsafe and not ideal environments in a way that maximizes personal safety. It's a privilege to not have to be "streetwise" in regards to your parents/upbringing. So many kids are just out there trying not to get their asses beat only to get steamrolled by a crippled education system that has no resources to help them. The setback that comes along with "streetwise" is immense
  - dvtrn 4y ago
    “setback” Interesting. I was nodding in somewhat agreement until this, because as a city kid I don’t see it as a set back, just another tool in the utility belt of life. That said, if all one has are ‘street-smarts’ (just like if all one has is ‘book-learning’) well, it may just mean the pivot point is they’re just gonna have a different calculus for getting by, than someone on the opposite end.
    - peterangular 4y ago
      I'm contextually referring to those kids who have to learn "street-smarts" in the home as a survival mechanism. The same "street-smarts" you're valuing should never be something that is required of a child in their home, against their parents. When it is a constant in your life to stay "street-smart" it is a setback because it drowns out other intelligence - this happens with abusive parents. Although related, I am not referring to the traditional city kid's need for some "street smarts" - I'm referring to unsafe environments at home/with parenting which I specifically stated in parent comment: > Let's acknowledge exactly what "streetwise" is... it's the ability to operate in unsafe and not ideal environments in a way that maximizes personal safety. > "streetwise" in regards to your parents/upbringing --- My overall point is if one has to get "street-smart" because of what is happening at home... that's heinous because children should be safe, and I 100% see it as a setback inflicted on the child.
dfxm12 4y ago
I think part of this that is important enough to be individually specified is that knowing you have parents who will keep a bed for you and put food on the table for you in case you take a (business, career, whatever) risk and it doesn't pay off as well as you had hoped is a huge advantage. Not having to worry about that stuff, whether it's immediately after graduating from high school or college or when thinking about taking all your money and investing it in yourself/your new business venture is liberating. Of course, this require two things of the parents, to put forth the effort like you say, and also to have the means to support a dependent.
- peterangular 4y ago
  You're afforded way less risk when you don't have a safety net. There's also the emotional part of still being accepted even though you stumble... without parents you're missing a literal cornerstone of support
random-human 4y ago
>> As I grow older, I see a huge divide between those who have/had parental support vs those who don't/didn't. This really gets lost in the traditional nuclear family argument. From personal experience, having both biological parents in the same house doesn't mean a healthy family environment, and no amount of moralizing is going to wish it into being. Also overlooked is the impact one can have through simple acts of support and empowerment. Had a High School teacher that let me into a photojournalism class that was already full (the school admins denied my schedule transfer after we had moved to the 'correct' side of the street (literally) and into an upper middle class school district). This teacher simply allowed me to be socially-weird-awkward-me and set a basic structure to thrive in (eventually winning state and national awards with the school newspaper). By giving me (and others) a chance to show we belonged and could compete helped build my self-esteem after it had been consistently torn down at home. Didn't know it then, and doubt that teacher has any idea, but it changed the course of my life. I think I'm more a practical realist or even a cynic about life and society than I am optimistic - still, that experience reminds me to try and build others up and pay that empowerment forward
- jollybean 4y ago
  The data is conclusive on Single Parent vs. Two Parent and it's not even close. The 'moralizing' is from those who want to equivocate. This is also from deep life experience myself, with close family and colleagues. In everything but the best scenarios: 'Everything Is Hard' in a single family household, whereas things 'Can Be Hard' in regular family scenarios. I think a 'single mentor' can make a big difference, but nowhere near most of the other things put together. And FYI I don't think parents provide very good 'professional mentorship' for the most part. They're there for other reasons. i.e. if I found out that a mom was coming to pick up her kids laundry and leave some meals because 'Uni Exams' ... I will be $1000 immediately that kid will do well without knowing a single other thing about that family or situation. Not a guarantee of anything, but an easy bet.
  - ggm 4y ago
    > if I found out that a mom was coming to pick up her kids laundry and leave some meals because 'Uni Exams' ... I will be $1000 immediately that kid will do well without knowing a single other thing about that family or situation. Not a guarantee of anything, but an easy bet. Narrow bet, yes. But I'd put $100 on them having high risk of entitlement issues and being an overweight office stinker who is a loner, because they never learned to wash, cook and manage their time. Not certain, but this is a pattern with risks: kids need to learn self reliance in the ordinary.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Many of my peers had middle-class parents working normal jobs who just loved unconditionally + put effort forward... the difference between them and those who had less than ideal upbringings is typically vast. I think it's definitely a starting handicap, no doubt about it. But I'd be very wary in telling those people - if any are reading this - that they're just not going to be successful. Without getting too touchy feely - I definitely had un-supportive, unstable, conditionally-loving parents. Was it a setback? Yes. Would I be financially ahead of where I am now had they been better? Probably. But you know what, I'm doing alright. Maybe not by HN silicon valley standards well ahead of the curve in my little first world country. Never lost ambition even if I stumbled a lot along the way. So yeah if you're younger, and reading this, and a bad childhood is still messing with your mind - please don't think all hope is lost. It will be harder but not impossible.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  > But I'd be very wary in telling those people - if any are reading this - that they're just not going to be successful. If they're reading this, they're already the type of person trying to find success. It's important to remember that a lot of these results about families and finances are _statistical_. There are a myriad of other factors, whether known or not, that lead to success and anyone reading this who thinks they aren't cut out for success should never let that get to them. I also grew up in a similar family to you, but (other than the crazy amount of times I've gotten lucky) I distinguished myself from my peers in my income-depressed area by being excited and interested in trying to get out of my circumstances. Most didn't. So if you're reading this and worried you aren't as far ahead as your peers, don't. The fact that you're worried will go a long way.
  - annyeonghada 4y ago
    >by being excited and interested in trying to get out of my circumstances. There are a lot of people who are "excited and interested" and never amount to anything because of the above mentioned "circumstances" that you were able to overcome, given a series of factors: natural predisposition, hard work, luck, gravity of the initial conditions and so on. Textbook survivorship bias.
agumonkey 4y ago
Family lineage is a strong force in personal life and society too. The emotional baggage inherited forbids a lot of people to live fully or even healthy.
eru 4y ago
Btw, your observations are perfectly compatible with parental support not actually doing anything for you, and everything being genetic. The kind of parents who are organised enough to give you support, or probably also the kind of people who give their kids the genes to be organised and productive. It's still a lottery in either case.
- _blu 4y ago
  That's not actually true. If you look at personality tests based on Big 5/Neo-Pi, which are the most accepted in psychology, scores on conscientiousness and the underlying factors like "order" can be completely opposite to the parents
  - annyeonghada 4y ago
    >can be Yes, "can". Because we are not clones of our parents. It doesn't mean that conscientiousness hasn't something like 60-80%of hereditability.
    - pseudalopex 4y ago
      Studies say 20-70% for different measures.
    - _blu 4y ago
      again, that's not true. It can be argued that it can't be proven beyong 50%, which means that it's a toss-up and parents with low conscientiousness have children with high scores. Also, this trait is not indicative to success, even if it correlates. Too high is also a negative, just as too low is.

plonk 4y ago

> Many of my peers had middle-class parents working normal jobs who just loved unconditionally + put effort forward... the difference between them and those who had less than ideal upbringings is typically vast. Do you mean their career success, or their personalities in general?

peterangular 4y ago
Both. Positive upbringings helped those folks navigate everything in life better from simple chores like laundry, to relationships, to school, to careers... etc. People are more healthy when they're in an environment that promotes emotional/educational growth vs. when they're forced into a survival mentality. Those who had the opportunity to grow in safety have an easier time socially vs. those who had to navigate turbulent childhoods. Much of it is just trust
- creakingstairs 4y ago
  I always didn’t understand how some of people were so positive/nice all the time and I thought they were really good at faking it. Then one time I spent a bit of time with their family and immediately understood why. > Much of it is just trust You are absolutely right. There was so much trust between the kids and the parent. You could tell from the way they act and talk around each other. That experience was very enlightening for me.
- a9h74j 4y ago
  > navigate everything in life better Presumably there are many factors. One worth considering could be "frustration tolerance" as a construct or capability.
new_stranger 4y ago
Not OP, and just opinion, but I've seen markedly different career and personality/friend/family success. They seem like talented happy people able to take on a wide variety of challenges and do well. The friends with troubled upbringing often do find success in one area of life, but they seem unstable overall and often crash or stall in multiple other areas.

pvarangot 4y ago

I tell myself it's the difference between starting adulthood at 14 or whenever your family fails you, and starting it at 24 or 26 after college. The extra years of "streetwise" usually come at an expense of early onset of burnout, for various reasons. Leaving your shell with the energy to take over the world at 26 usually results in more productive endeavors than when you are a teenager.

peterangular 4y ago
Agree. > The extra years of "streetwise" Let's acknowledge exactly what "streetwise" is... it's the ability to operate in unsafe and not ideal environments in a way that maximizes personal safety. It's a privilege to not have to be "streetwise" in regards to your parents/upbringing. So many kids are just out there trying not to get their asses beat only to get steamrolled by a crippled education system that has no resources to help them. The setback that comes along with "streetwise" is immense
- dvtrn 4y ago
  “setback” Interesting. I was nodding in somewhat agreement until this, because as a city kid I don’t see it as a set back, just another tool in the utility belt of life. That said, if all one has are ‘street-smarts’ (just like if all one has is ‘book-learning’) well, it may just mean the pivot point is they’re just gonna have a different calculus for getting by, than someone on the opposite end.
  - peterangular 4y ago
    I'm contextually referring to those kids who have to learn "street-smarts" in the home as a survival mechanism. The same "street-smarts" you're valuing should never be something that is required of a child in their home, against their parents. When it is a constant in your life to stay "street-smart" it is a setback because it drowns out other intelligence - this happens with abusive parents. Although related, I am not referring to the traditional city kid's need for some "street smarts" - I'm referring to unsafe environments at home/with parenting which I specifically stated in parent comment: > Let's acknowledge exactly what "streetwise" is... it's the ability to operate in unsafe and not ideal environments in a way that maximizes personal safety. > "streetwise" in regards to your parents/upbringing --- My overall point is if one has to get "street-smart" because of what is happening at home... that's heinous because children should be safe, and I 100% see it as a setback inflicted on the child.

dfxm12 4y ago

I think part of this that is important enough to be individually specified is that knowing you have parents who will keep a bed for you and put food on the table for you in case you take a (business, career, whatever) risk and it doesn't pay off as well as you had hoped is a huge advantage. Not having to worry about that stuff, whether it's immediately after graduating from high school or college or when thinking about taking all your money and investing it in yourself/your new business venture is liberating. Of course, this require two things of the parents, to put forth the effort like you say, and also to have the means to support a dependent.

peterangular 4y ago
You're afforded way less risk when you don't have a safety net. There's also the emotional part of still being accepted even though you stumble... without parents you're missing a literal cornerstone of support

random-human 4y ago

>> As I grow older, I see a huge divide between those who have/had parental support vs those who don't/didn't. This really gets lost in the traditional nuclear family argument. From personal experience, having both biological parents in the same house doesn't mean a healthy family environment, and no amount of moralizing is going to wish it into being. Also overlooked is the impact one can have through simple acts of support and empowerment. Had a High School teacher that let me into a photojournalism class that was already full (the school admins denied my schedule transfer after we had moved to the 'correct' side of the street (literally) and into an upper middle class school district). This teacher simply allowed me to be socially-weird-awkward-me and set a basic structure to thrive in (eventually winning state and national awards with the school newspaper). By giving me (and others) a chance to show we belonged and could compete helped build my self-esteem after it had been consistently torn down at home. Didn't know it then, and doubt that teacher has any idea, but it changed the course of my life. I think I'm more a practical realist or even a cynic about life and society than I am optimistic - still, that experience reminds me to try and build others up and pay that empowerment forward

jollybean 4y ago
The data is conclusive on Single Parent vs. Two Parent and it's not even close. The 'moralizing' is from those who want to equivocate. This is also from deep life experience myself, with close family and colleagues. In everything but the best scenarios: 'Everything Is Hard' in a single family household, whereas things 'Can Be Hard' in regular family scenarios. I think a 'single mentor' can make a big difference, but nowhere near most of the other things put together. And FYI I don't think parents provide very good 'professional mentorship' for the most part. They're there for other reasons. i.e. if I found out that a mom was coming to pick up her kids laundry and leave some meals because 'Uni Exams' ... I will be $1000 immediately that kid will do well without knowing a single other thing about that family or situation. Not a guarantee of anything, but an easy bet.
- ggm 4y ago
  > if I found out that a mom was coming to pick up her kids laundry and leave some meals because 'Uni Exams' ... I will be $1000 immediately that kid will do well without knowing a single other thing about that family or situation. Not a guarantee of anything, but an easy bet. Narrow bet, yes. But I'd put $100 on them having high risk of entitlement issues and being an overweight office stinker who is a loner, because they never learned to wash, cook and manage their time. Not certain, but this is a pattern with risks: kids need to learn self reliance in the ordinary.

LAC-Tech 4y ago

Many of my peers had middle-class parents working normal jobs who just loved unconditionally + put effort forward... the difference between them and those who had less than ideal upbringings is typically vast. I think it's definitely a starting handicap, no doubt about it. But I'd be very wary in telling those people - if any are reading this - that they're just not going to be successful. Without getting too touchy feely - I definitely had un-supportive, unstable, conditionally-loving parents. Was it a setback? Yes. Would I be financially ahead of where I am now had they been better? Probably. But you know what, I'm doing alright. Maybe not by HN silicon valley standards well ahead of the curve in my little first world country. Never lost ambition even if I stumbled a lot along the way. So yeah if you're younger, and reading this, and a bad childhood is still messing with your mind - please don't think all hope is lost. It will be harder but not impossible.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
> But I'd be very wary in telling those people - if any are reading this - that they're just not going to be successful. If they're reading this, they're already the type of person trying to find success. It's important to remember that a lot of these results about families and finances are _statistical_. There are a myriad of other factors, whether known or not, that lead to success and anyone reading this who thinks they aren't cut out for success should never let that get to them. I also grew up in a similar family to you, but (other than the crazy amount of times I've gotten lucky) I distinguished myself from my peers in my income-depressed area by being excited and interested in trying to get out of my circumstances. Most didn't. So if you're reading this and worried you aren't as far ahead as your peers, don't. The fact that you're worried will go a long way.
- annyeonghada 4y ago
  >by being excited and interested in trying to get out of my circumstances. There are a lot of people who are "excited and interested" and never amount to anything because of the above mentioned "circumstances" that you were able to overcome, given a series of factors: natural predisposition, hard work, luck, gravity of the initial conditions and so on. Textbook survivorship bias.

agumonkey 4y ago

Family lineage is a strong force in personal life and society too. The emotional baggage inherited forbids a lot of people to live fully or even healthy.

eru 4y ago

Btw, your observations are perfectly compatible with parental support not actually doing anything for you, and everything being genetic. The kind of parents who are organised enough to give you support, or probably also the kind of people who give their kids the genes to be organised and productive. It's still a lottery in either case.

_blu 4y ago
That's not actually true. If you look at personality tests based on Big 5/Neo-Pi, which are the most accepted in psychology, scores on conscientiousness and the underlying factors like "order" can be completely opposite to the parents
- annyeonghada 4y ago
  >can be Yes, "can". Because we are not clones of our parents. It doesn't mean that conscientiousness hasn't something like 60-80%of hereditability.
  - pseudalopex 4y ago
    Studies say 20-70% for different measures.
  - _blu 4y ago
    again, that's not true. It can be argued that it can't be proven beyong 50%, which means that it's a toss-up and parents with low conscientiousness have children with high scores. Also, this trait is not indicative to success, even if it correlates. Too high is also a negative, just as too low is.