5 ms·

The best part about being a mature parent is that you have much more control over how you raise your kids. No way in hell did I ever trust teachers, grandparent

The best part about being a mature parent is that you have much more control over how you raise your kids. No way in hell did I ever trust teachers, grandparents, coaches, etc. over my actual parents. My parents were in their 30s when I was born. Their skepticism not only decoupled them from depending on people they didn't trust, but their perspective rubbed off on me and set me up for success. Older parents have no problem showing their kids the reality of the world early on. Individualism is not a bad thing at all if only you could convince all these people stuck in the past. This world will fall apart if we don't focus on higher quality parenting from the actual parents. Since long ago we've been saying we don't want "kids raising kids". My parents weren't the only ones thinking this way.

rayiner 3y ago
[flagged]
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > It’s just something old white guys said in the 1960s without support, like Jungian archetypes and things like that. It is that, but it's not just that; the concept is attested farther back. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola#Disputed https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola#Disputed > Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man. If Voltaire invented it from whole cloth, that's still the 18th century. Though on your topic, Piaget is an amazing example of someone just inventing a completely ridiculous theory, doing experiments that fail to support it, and getting it enshrined as wisdom anyway.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    Oh man Piaget. Responsible for bad information on kids for both Object permanence, and abstract reasoning. His views on egocentrism at least seem not as obviously wrong as those two; not sure what modern studies have to say.
- visarga 3y ago
  Can confirm, have 3 kids. Parenting doesn't have much to do with how kids turn out. The genetic factor is more important. Not just genes of the two parents, but also how they recombine and surface various traits. Best thing to do is to let the kid discover who they want to be. Observe and support their explorations.
  - baq 3y ago
    Yeah, have 4 and 90% of my psychological strength is spent in making them not do bad things like punch their siblings in the face for looking the wrong way. I'm now resigned to the Sun Tzu principle: if you cannot lose, you'll win - just want to make sure I'm eliminating the obviously losing paths and they'll need to walk the successful paths themselves or I'll end up in an institution.
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  I 100% disagree. On the average it may be 100% right, but of you zoom in, you will see a bunch of problems. For example: - kids turning out really poorly if they have bad parenting. Magnitude matters too. - I suspect the data is not capturing kids that literally died (is the fentanyl crisis over? Are those kids counted?) - some parenting groups likely have lopsided outcomes (Ie kids from yougest parents may turn out badly, while those from older parents may not be impacted at all) In conclusion. Outcomes are strongly tied to genetics up to a breaking point, where if the "parenting" variable is so deficient, things go bad, fast. My contention is that parenting doesnt matter at all on average, except that when it does, it's the main determinant for outcome. And further, i posit that this parenting variable is increasingly worse over time.
- circlefavshape 3y ago
  > It’s just something old white guys said in the 1960s without support Oh please. You think the nature versus nurture argument was invented in the 60s? You think that a pop psych article from a behavioral geneticist is the last word in the matter?
  - dr-detroit 3y ago
    [dead]
- program_whiz 3y ago
  Sorry to nitpick this, but there is a subtle flaw in this thinking. The main argument of the article is that our experiences in the world (e.g. having a good teacher, getting bullied, parenting, etc) don't account for much difference in our personalities and genetically determined proclivities in the long term. Although the article says only half of personality / psych traits are genetically determined, which is still substantial imo, so the argument isn't strong enough to say "parents don't matter" even by the arguments in the article. >> Research shows that inherited DNA differences account for about half of the differences for all psychological traits — including personality. >> The notion that parents have much to do with how kids turn out is a myth This is a much broader claim that the evidence does not support. Nourishment, physical activity, mental development, emotional support, getting a good education, avoiding the wrong paths, these are things that parents facilitate that absolutely affect "how a kid turns out". Sure, you can't force your kid to be enthusiastic about sports if they aren't, but having good parents that foster interests and development is a huge difference in "how a kid turns out". Are you asserting low-income and neglected children have equal outcomes to those with stable households, access to resources, and good parenting? I would say your statement is a broad generalization unsupported by the flimsy article you reference, and contradicted by all available evidence. Just one small one: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/fastfact.html
  - JamesBarney 3y ago
    Have you found any studies that show that shared environment makes a "huge difference" on broadly how a kid turns out? I haven't seen any. And that cdc site isn't evidence. If you look through any of those studies it's all correlational. So they have literally 0 power to differentiate outcomes driven by genetics vs shared environment.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    The other half is mostly unshared environment (peers, etc.) Of course the parents affect both indirectly. But parenting style matters very little compared to genetics and who your kids are around.
    - 3y ago
- arkey 3y ago
  > The notion that parents have much to do with how kids turn out is a myth. This is honestly fascinating. It's obviously not true, just by taking into account the consequences of it being actually true. Am I missing something? The study says, at some point "We would essentially be the same person if we had been adopted at birth and raised in a different family.". Are they limiting this to the genetic composition of a person? It seems they refer to the character, behaviour, overall identity... which to me sounds unbelievably absurd. I mean, being raised by a single mom vs. being raised by an Army dad MUST introduce some differences, right? And what about all the studies about the consequences of father absence? Oh, all criminals were going to be criminals regardless? Come on.
  - JamesBarney 3y ago
    > "We would essentially be the same person if we had been adopted at birth and raised in a different family.". If you look at twins that are raised apart this is freakishly true. Twins raised apart have outcomes that are far closer than 2 unrelated kids raised together. > And what about all the studies about the consequences of father absence? If you look at children with an absent father vs children with a dead father you find that 80% of the effect disappears in the second group. And that still doesn't entirely eliminate the genetic component because genes influence behavior that can lead to death. This strongly suggests that sharing genes with a deadbeat dad is worse for you than not being raised by a father.
    - arkey 3y ago
      > This strongly suggests that sharing genes with a deadbeat dad is worse for you than not being raised by a father. I find that the implications of this being true are very troubling. Maybe you could attribute the outcomes to the difference between your father abandoning you vs. your father unfortunately passing away? I'm sure both cases would have different effects on a person. I have the hope that someone with a deadbeat dad being adopted by a caring family will have a better prospect than someone thrown into the system.

rayiner 3y ago

[flagged]

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> It’s just something old white guys said in the 1960s without support, like Jungian archetypes and things like that. It is that, but it's not just that; the concept is attested farther back. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola#Disputed https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola#Disputed > Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man. If Voltaire invented it from whole cloth, that's still the 18th century. Though on your topic, Piaget is an amazing example of someone just inventing a completely ridiculous theory, doing experiments that fail to support it, and getting it enshrined as wisdom anyway.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Oh man Piaget. Responsible for bad information on kids for both Object permanence, and abstract reasoning. His views on egocentrism at least seem not as obviously wrong as those two; not sure what modern studies have to say.
visarga 3y ago
Can confirm, have 3 kids. Parenting doesn't have much to do with how kids turn out. The genetic factor is more important. Not just genes of the two parents, but also how they recombine and surface various traits. Best thing to do is to let the kid discover who they want to be. Observe and support their explorations.
- baq 3y ago
  Yeah, have 4 and 90% of my psychological strength is spent in making them not do bad things like punch their siblings in the face for looking the wrong way. I'm now resigned to the Sun Tzu principle: if you cannot lose, you'll win - just want to make sure I'm eliminating the obviously losing paths and they'll need to walk the successful paths themselves or I'll end up in an institution.
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
I 100% disagree. On the average it may be 100% right, but of you zoom in, you will see a bunch of problems. For example: - kids turning out really poorly if they have bad parenting. Magnitude matters too. - I suspect the data is not capturing kids that literally died (is the fentanyl crisis over? Are those kids counted?) - some parenting groups likely have lopsided outcomes (Ie kids from yougest parents may turn out badly, while those from older parents may not be impacted at all) In conclusion. Outcomes are strongly tied to genetics up to a breaking point, where if the "parenting" variable is so deficient, things go bad, fast. My contention is that parenting doesnt matter at all on average, except that when it does, it's the main determinant for outcome. And further, i posit that this parenting variable is increasingly worse over time.
circlefavshape 3y ago
> It’s just something old white guys said in the 1960s without support Oh please. You think the nature versus nurture argument was invented in the 60s? You think that a pop psych article from a behavioral geneticist is the last word in the matter?
- dr-detroit 3y ago
  [dead]
program_whiz 3y ago
Sorry to nitpick this, but there is a subtle flaw in this thinking. The main argument of the article is that our experiences in the world (e.g. having a good teacher, getting bullied, parenting, etc) don't account for much difference in our personalities and genetically determined proclivities in the long term. Although the article says only half of personality / psych traits are genetically determined, which is still substantial imo, so the argument isn't strong enough to say "parents don't matter" even by the arguments in the article. >> Research shows that inherited DNA differences account for about half of the differences for all psychological traits — including personality. >> The notion that parents have much to do with how kids turn out is a myth This is a much broader claim that the evidence does not support. Nourishment, physical activity, mental development, emotional support, getting a good education, avoiding the wrong paths, these are things that parents facilitate that absolutely affect "how a kid turns out". Sure, you can't force your kid to be enthusiastic about sports if they aren't, but having good parents that foster interests and development is a huge difference in "how a kid turns out". Are you asserting low-income and neglected children have equal outcomes to those with stable households, access to resources, and good parenting? I would say your statement is a broad generalization unsupported by the flimsy article you reference, and contradicted by all available evidence. Just one small one: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/fastfact.html
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  Have you found any studies that show that shared environment makes a "huge difference" on broadly how a kid turns out? I haven't seen any. And that cdc site isn't evidence. If you look through any of those studies it's all correlational. So they have literally 0 power to differentiate outcomes driven by genetics vs shared environment.
- rayiner 3y ago
  The other half is mostly unshared environment (peers, etc.) Of course the parents affect both indirectly. But parenting style matters very little compared to genetics and who your kids are around.
  - 3y ago
arkey 3y ago
> The notion that parents have much to do with how kids turn out is a myth. This is honestly fascinating. It's obviously not true, just by taking into account the consequences of it being actually true. Am I missing something? The study says, at some point "We would essentially be the same person if we had been adopted at birth and raised in a different family.". Are they limiting this to the genetic composition of a person? It seems they refer to the character, behaviour, overall identity... which to me sounds unbelievably absurd. I mean, being raised by a single mom vs. being raised by an Army dad MUST introduce some differences, right? And what about all the studies about the consequences of father absence? Oh, all criminals were going to be criminals regardless? Come on.
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  > "We would essentially be the same person if we had been adopted at birth and raised in a different family.". If you look at twins that are raised apart this is freakishly true. Twins raised apart have outcomes that are far closer than 2 unrelated kids raised together. > And what about all the studies about the consequences of father absence? If you look at children with an absent father vs children with a dead father you find that 80% of the effect disappears in the second group. And that still doesn't entirely eliminate the genetic component because genes influence behavior that can lead to death. This strongly suggests that sharing genes with a deadbeat dad is worse for you than not being raised by a father.
  - arkey 3y ago
    > This strongly suggests that sharing genes with a deadbeat dad is worse for you than not being raised by a father. I find that the implications of this being true are very troubling. Maybe you could attribute the outcomes to the difference between your father abandoning you vs. your father unfortunately passing away? I'm sure both cases would have different effects on a person. I have the hope that someone with a deadbeat dad being adopted by a caring family will have a better prospect than someone thrown into the system.