5 ms·

Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less

by Tichy 14y ago

Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out? Where I live there is some pressure to give your kid to kindergarden at age one (three used to be normal). We ended up giving our kid to kindergarden at age two, because we somehow convinced ourselves it would be good for his social development. But the overall feeling is: he is disappearing from our lives way too fast. Now he is in kindergarden most of the time (except afternoons and weekends). Then it will be school, and today's kids seem to be pretty stressed out with that. After school kids tend to move out, we are lucky if he even stays in the same city or country. I think if you don't enjoy your kids, there tend to be options. Giving them up for adoption would be the most radical, before that there is kindergarden and boarding schools (admittedly they cost money). I get that not everybody enjoys their kids, but I still feel sorry for those people. For me it is the best thing that ever happened to me. It makes me angry that society takes it for granted that as a normal dad I would not even see my kid much during the week, because I would be working in an office. Also for all those mums longing to work, I wonder what jobs do they have? In my personal biased opinion, most jobs suck. Perhaps they just imagine work life to be much more glorious than it really is? If what this article said is true and many people are so eager to give up their kids, I actually think the state should make that possible. Must be hell to grow up with parents who hate you.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out? This is the thesis of Bryan Caplan. He has gathered a lot of evidence (mainly from twin studies) suggesting that the specific details of how you raise your kids don't matter much [1] - your kids will turn out to be the average of their parents + regression to the mean. I.e., by age 25, the children of Amy Chua and slacker dad will turn out the same, regardless of whether Chua or slacker gets their way. WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313201221533826.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870428950457531... Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0465028616&linkCode=as2&tag=christuc-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... [1] Within the bounds of non-abusive middle class first-world parents. As one example, if both parents are religious, the child is likely to be religious. The only factor the parents have significant influence over is Lutheran vs Catholic.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I've heard about that, even own the book but didn't read very far yet. I remain skeptic. Maybe it holds for "standard parenting techniques", but I am more interested in for example the approach of László Polgár http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r He raised 3 kids to become chess grandmasters - and he announced he would do that before they were born. I don't think he was abusive either. Somehow nobody really wants to talk about that, it is weird. Perhaps it scares people to think that they might be responsible for not making their kids brilliant. And the elite might have an interest in not letting the secret out - somebody has to do the slavery jobs in society, after all. Yeah it is a bit paranoid, but I have become a bit cynical about the setup of our society. Actually it doesn't even have to be an elite trying to hold us down, I think research has shown that people are most happy if other people are not better off than they are, so people are always trying to hold each other down. Of course I wouldn't condone methods like the tiger mum (I think she is basically a criminal), but I don't think Polgar was abusive, for example. I guess if you can influence if your kid is Lutheran or Catholic, there are also other things that might have a bigger impact (even Catholic vs Lutheran might make a big difference, I don't really know? What with different work ethics?). Lutheran vs Catholic or "technical vs liberal arts" and so on? Edit: I discovered Polgar through the book "Bounce" which also talks about other cases for deliberately creating gifted kids http://www.amazon.de/Bounce-myth-talent-power-practice/dp/0007350546/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1353940584&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.de/Bounce-myth-talent-power-practice/dp/00...
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Caplan's empirical results certainly don't rule out effects from extremely non-standard (e.g., Polgar) parenting techniques. Then again, the anecdotal results of the Polgar family are also quite consistent with his thesis. Laszlo Polgar and his wife are both obsessively ambitious and quite intelligent, and Laszlo even obsesses about chess. Caplan's thesis suggests that if raised by others, the Polgar girls might merely have picked up poker or math rather than chess. If I recall Caplan's book correctly, "technical vs liberal arts" is suggested by twin studies to be primarily genetically determined. The separately raised twin of a civil engineer is far more likely to be an electrical engineer than to work in HR, for example. As for Lutheran vs Catholic, it's certainly extremely important - if your kids get it wrong, they will be tortured in hell forever.

by Tichy 14y ago

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out? This is the thesis of Bryan Caplan. He has gathered a lot of evidence (mainly from twin studies) suggesting that the specific details of how you raise your kids don't matter much [1] - your kids will turn out to be the average of their parents + regression to the mean. I.e., by age 25, the children of Amy Chua and slacker dad will turn out the same, regardless of whether Chua or slacker gets their way. WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313201221533826.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870428950457531... Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0465028616&linkCode=as2&tag=christuc-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... [1] Within the bounds of non-abusive middle class first-world parents. As one example, if both parents are religious, the child is likely to be religious. The only factor the parents have significant influence over is Lutheran vs Catholic.

Tichy 14y ago
I've heard about that, even own the book but didn't read very far yet. I remain skeptic. Maybe it holds for "standard parenting techniques", but I am more interested in for example the approach of László Polgár http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r He raised 3 kids to become chess grandmasters - and he announced he would do that before they were born. I don't think he was abusive either. Somehow nobody really wants to talk about that, it is weird. Perhaps it scares people to think that they might be responsible for not making their kids brilliant. And the elite might have an interest in not letting the secret out - somebody has to do the slavery jobs in society, after all. Yeah it is a bit paranoid, but I have become a bit cynical about the setup of our society. Actually it doesn't even have to be an elite trying to hold us down, I think research has shown that people are most happy if other people are not better off than they are, so people are always trying to hold each other down. Of course I wouldn't condone methods like the tiger mum (I think she is basically a criminal), but I don't think Polgar was abusive, for example. I guess if you can influence if your kid is Lutheran or Catholic, there are also other things that might have a bigger impact (even Catholic vs Lutheran might make a big difference, I don't really know? What with different work ethics?). Lutheran vs Catholic or "technical vs liberal arts" and so on? Edit: I discovered Polgar through the book "Bounce" which also talks about other cases for deliberately creating gifted kids http://www.amazon.de/Bounce-myth-talent-power-practice/dp/0007350546/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1353940584&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.de/Bounce-myth-talent-power-practice/dp/00...
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Caplan's empirical results certainly don't rule out effects from extremely non-standard (e.g., Polgar) parenting techniques. Then again, the anecdotal results of the Polgar family are also quite consistent with his thesis. Laszlo Polgar and his wife are both obsessively ambitious and quite intelligent, and Laszlo even obsesses about chess. Caplan's thesis suggests that if raised by others, the Polgar girls might merely have picked up poker or math rather than chess. If I recall Caplan's book correctly, "technical vs liberal arts" is suggested by twin studies to be primarily genetically determined. The separately raised twin of a civil engineer is far more likely to be an electrical engineer than to work in HR, for example. As for Lutheran vs Catholic, it's certainly extremely important - if your kids get it wrong, they will be tortured in hell forever.