5 ms·

Do Parents Matter?

21 points by tyn 17y ago

xenophanes 17y ago
Whether a child attends school, or is allowed to spend time with peers, is up to his parents. Therefore parents matter.
- gcheong 17y ago
  The article does not state that parents do not matter at all, just that, when all the evidence available from studies conducted is considered, they matter less than what is normally assumed.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    The title here asks if parents matter at all.
    - gcheong 17y ago
      Yes, but the discussion should focus on the actual article, no? Otherwise, why not just make it a Ask HN?
      - xenophanes 17y ago
        Well, the article said look how influential peers are. But whether peers are influential is controlled by the parents. Some parenting techniques allow peer influence, and others simply don't. When they say peers are influential, they mean peers are influential in the context of certain common parenting techniques, but not others. Which kind of defeats their claim that parenting doesn't matter so much. Certain types of (non-violent) parenting suppress the influence of peers completely, but no types of (non-violent) peers could suppress the influence of that sort of parenting at all.
        gcheong 17y ago
        "Certain types of (non-violent) parenting suppress the influence of peers completely, but no types of (non-violent) peers could suppress the influence of that sort of parenting at all." Wow, I guess she must have completely missed the studies showing this. From the article: "Despite the reduction in physical punishment, today’s adults are no less aggressive than their grandparents were. Despite the increase in praise and physical affection, they are not happier or more self-confident or in better mental health. It’s an interesting way to test a theory of child development: persuade millions of parents to rear their children in accordance with the theory, and then sit back and watch the results come in. Well, the results are in and they don’t support the theory!"
        xenophanes 17y ago
        It's not a matter of studies, it's a matter of parents having full control over who young children meet or do not meet, whether the children leave the house or not, etc
        gcheong 17y ago
        I get the feeling we must have not read the same article as the one I read was all about what the studies show (or rather don't in this case).
        xenophanes 17y ago
        My point is not about studies. Maybe you haven't read my comments closely. Which part of this do you disagree with: There exists at least one parenting technique which completely negates the influence of peers, namely not letting the kid out of the house.
bbgm 17y ago
Probably more than anything else in the world. I wouldn't be close to where I am, or who I am, without mine, and that's an observation that I can extend to pretty much everyone I know well.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  You observed where you would be without your parents? You have an abstract theory, partially supported by some observations you haven't detailed, and which you haven't argued for or clearly stated.
  - bbgm 17y ago
    I am pretty sure I would be a different person, perhaps even better, but my character, as I understand it, has been shaped by my parents. Part of that comes from them staying out of my way when it came to certain decisions that would impact the rest of my life (in India parents can get very pushy about going into certain field) and allowing us to have our disagreements (and we have many). I don't need to argue for my observations. I experienced them and quite enjoyed growing up with them.
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      I don't need to argue You don't need to argue, but if you want to find the truth of the matter, then it might help to argue. Through arguing, but not through asserting, we can sometimes learn that we have mistaken ideas and change our minds.
      - bbgm 17y ago
        Don't disagree there, but you cannot explain evening spent talking, Sunday mornings watching birds, Friday evenings in the library, walks explaining why leaves are green and the beauty of mathematics. In other words, how do you distill 20 years into an argument, when no one else was there to experience a second of it? I can't.
alyx 17y ago
If we take evolution as our the model for our species then parents and parenthood are vitally important to the survival of the species. At certain times peers might play a bigger role in forming who we are but to say that consistently peers are more important than parents, I think, is incorrect.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  Some studies of the most closely related primates suggest that peers may be more important for them than parents are, as well as for humans. How many people posting here are parents? I have four children. Since I have had my second child, I have cherished the saying I learned from another parent: "Parents of one child believe in nurture, and parents of two or more children believe in nature."
  - gcheong 17y ago
    No children, but if I did I have the feeling I'd one of those parents welcoming the findings of this researcher.
edw519 17y ago
Yea, right. Every time I was influenced by my peers to do something stupid, I used the acid test, "Will my father kill me?" He's gone now, but I still use that test. That's influence.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  A brief googling shows that impulsiveness is believed to have a genetic component.
- donaq 17y ago
  I agree. Furthermore, I don't think Asian teachers necessarily have a special knack for controlling kids. I behaved well in class (I'm Asian, btw) because I knew my mother would beat the shit out of me if she heard anything bad from my teachers about me.
  - flashgordon 17y ago
    actually it was worse (in a good way) for me.. My mother used to work in my school (as a maths teacher). And she was in charge of timetable duty every year... And lo behold she was my maths teachers every year. Certainly made sure she had an eye on me at all times. Damn!
  - thismat 17y ago
    My parents were the same way. There was a very clear line drawn, and we knew the consequences for crossing it, thus we didn't (too often at least).
run4yourlives 17y ago
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. I'm not seeing any. Here's a quick counterpoint that speaks to the "norm": Almost to a man, every sports icon I can think of cites the influence of parents in their lives. (I'm talking real icons here, not T.O. types that happen to be gifted.) I'm not ready to accept this theory without significant evidence.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  Why do you think that sports icons know anything about what influenced their lives?
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Why do you think they don't? They are at the top of their game. The effect of years of passion, skill and above all, hard work. Pretty much exactly like an entrepreneur. One would think that along the way they have been able to surmise and account for many of the things that got them there. I've yet to see one that doesn't have extremely dedicated and supportive parents, notably fathers.
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      I suspect they usually don't because human psychology is non-obvious, and most of them don't spend much time learning about psychology. I think you will agree with me that even many experts make large mistakes in their views on human psychology, as the linked guy has done.
- frossie 17y ago
  She is certainly not presenting extraordinary evidence. For example she claims that modern child rearing methods have no effect because there are still the same number of violent people in society - as if everybody is being raised according to the latest child rearing methods! I live in a rural area with a lot of poverty and trust me - what I see in the playground as far as parent-kid interaction is not what Dr Sears has in mind. She is also terribly inconsistent. She says "The belief that parents have a great deal of power to determine how their children will turn out is actually a rather new idea" and then goes on to say in the old days, kids used to be beaten not praised. Well I have news for her - parents used to beat kids because they though they were affecting the way the kids would turn out! It was the same idea, just different methods. The idea that the parent (or whichever adult is in loco parentis - culturally not always the biological parent) goes back millenenia. Why were Spartan children taken away from their mothers, if their mothers were not thought to have influence on their upbringing? As to the issue of adopted children not being "like" their parents - maybe not in personality, but I am willing to bet that a child adopted out of a primitive tribe by a pair of geeks will learn how to use a computer pretty damn fast. Is that of no effect on the child's life? Obviously by now it is generally accepted that children come out the way they do through a combination of pre-desposition (genetics), adult influence (eg. parenting and teaching) and peer/social influence. But saying parents don't matter at all seems to be a step backwards.
timdellinger 17y ago
For another great article on Judith Harris, see Malcolm Gladwell's 1998 piece in the New Yorker: http://gladwell.com/1998/1998_08_17_a_harris.htm http://gladwell.com/1998/1998_08_17_a_harris.htm
nickcharlton 17y ago
Our parents form the basis for all other attachments we are able to form with people. Our parents form the basis of how humans are able to interact with others. I certainly disagree with "So if you want to improve the way children behave in school—for instance, by making them more diligent and less disruptive in the classroom", I think most people can see a correlation between poor quality parenting and badly behaved children. Inside or outside the home. This certainly proves it's point when the average family of University (or College) child age is shown demographically. (Assuming that you exclude financial issues). Parents have far too great an influence over their children to not matter. This research certainly hinges on undermining the whole of attachment theory, and Freud's work on personality types. If parents did not support certain behaviours then they wouldn't develop. I think that this research on it's own represents a narrow minded view of later development, not something which explains how parents shape their children. Parents do matter because they create who we are today. Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_Theory
- lena 17y ago
  There is a good book about why parents matter, that addresses Harris's ideas: Hold on to Your Kids by Gordon Neufeld, a clinical psychologist. See: http://www.gordonneufeld.com/book.php http://www.gordonneufeld.com/book.php
soundsop 17y ago
The point of the article is kind of subtle. The research is pointing out that excluding genetic factors, parents don't really matter. So parents do matter in the sense that they are the gene providers but not in the sense that they are the jean providers.
verdant 17y ago
I had to do some research for a paper a few years ago that reminds me of this - I learned that juvenile delinquency statistics could not be correlated across income level, race, or geography. However, once family situation was taken into account (stable two parent households vs. other situations), a correlation was found. I definitely believe parents matter. And, as an aside, some parents have no choice but to raise children single, and they do a great job. It just isn't the ideal situation, according to research.
swillden 17y ago
I've recently come to the same conclusion, at least with my daughter. My wife and I seem to be able to exercise greater influence over my sons, but it's become clear that my daughter's peers exert vastly more influence over her than we can -- and she has unfortunately chosen a set of friends who have a very negative influence. By "negative" I don't mean "funny hairstyles", I mean hanging around with them, or even just talking to them over the phone or via computer, has pushed her into depression, self-injury, complete disregard for school, etc. Ultimately it lead to a suicide attempt, at which point we shifted from trying to be influential, supporting parents to unabashedly controlling her life. She's 13. We're attempting to intervene with medication and professional counseling to help with the depression and injury. We're also attempting to remove the negative peers from her life by removing her from school (homeschooling) and controlling who she's allowed to spend time with. It's helping, but modern technology has created some challenges. Like most geek homes, mine is filled with technology, and my kids are adept in its use. I've had to block Facebook and all of the free e-mail services on the kids' computers, but short of intensively supervising her computer usage there's effectively no way to cut off that avenue of communication with her negative friends. I finally resorted to writing a script that notifies me whenever she logs in, and then hacking the GNOME remote desktop tool so that it doesn't display a notification when I remotely connect to her desktop. Oh, we've used the low-tech solution of putting the computer in a public area of the house and paying attention, but that just means she has to pick the right moment. Knowing that I may be virtually looking over her shoulder at any moment, and there's no way she can know when that's happening, seems to have closed off that avenue. Finally. When she's at home. However, phones have proven much more difficult. We've taken her cellphone away, and the home phone has no long distance service (her problem friends happen to be outside the local calling area; she had to cast a wide net to find a group this bad), but my home office line does, and there are three other cellphones around the house, not to mention that all of her local friends and cousins have cellphones. Short of keeping all of our phones locked up and not allowing her out of the house, there's effectively no way we can keep her from getting in touch with her friends. And these friends are so important to her that there seems to be no punishment, no bribe, no consequence that will keep her from contacting them. Without modern communications technology, it's unlikely that she ever would have found this group of negative peers, and it's certain that we as her parents would be able isolate her from them. As it is, as long as she's willing to sneak behind our backs, it is effectively impossible for us to control her access to them. We can limit it significantly, of course, but unless we could watch her every minute of every day, as soon as our backs are turned she'll find a way to contact them. So far, reducing her communication with them seems to be limiting their effect on her. The anti-depressants are having an effect as well, and the therapy seems also to be helping her to understand herself and her value a little better. However, as you can imagine, the constant close supervision and tight control is also basically destroying our relationship with her, and reducing our ability to directly influence her thinking to zero. She sees us as the enemy. That saddens us greatly, but we don't see any other option. She was in a downward spiral last year and we intervened aggressively and she pulled out of it. Then she convinced us that she could handle herself if we relaxed the grip. We did, and within three months she attempted suicide (which her peers think is cool). So, this has been long and rambling, but the point is that my anecdotal experience with my daughter supports this researcher's claims. Our influence over our daughter's behavior and thinking is minimal at best, and I'm questioning whether it was ever as great as we thought it was. Our influence over her environment is substantial and we're working that influence for all it's worth. I guess we'll know in a few years if that approach worked. Well, sort of. We'll only know the results of what we do. There's no way to know what might have happened if we'd acted differently. That, of course, is the hard part of being a parent. You can only do what you think is best, and there's really no way to know if you're doing the right things, or how much what you're doing even matters. Still, you have to do the best you can.

Do Parents Matter?

21 points by tyn 17y ago

xenophanes 17y ago

Whether a child attends school, or is allowed to spend time with peers, is up to his parents. Therefore parents matter.

gcheong 17y ago
The article does not state that parents do not matter at all, just that, when all the evidence available from studies conducted is considered, they matter less than what is normally assumed.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  The title here asks if parents matter at all.
  - gcheong 17y ago
    Yes, but the discussion should focus on the actual article, no? Otherwise, why not just make it a Ask HN?
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      Well, the article said look how influential peers are. But whether peers are influential is controlled by the parents. Some parenting techniques allow peer influence, and others simply don't. When they say peers are influential, they mean peers are influential in the context of certain common parenting techniques, but not others. Which kind of defeats their claim that parenting doesn't matter so much. Certain types of (non-violent) parenting suppress the influence of peers completely, but no types of (non-violent) peers could suppress the influence of that sort of parenting at all.
      - gcheong 17y ago
        "Certain types of (non-violent) parenting suppress the influence of peers completely, but no types of (non-violent) peers could suppress the influence of that sort of parenting at all." Wow, I guess she must have completely missed the studies showing this. From the article: "Despite the reduction in physical punishment, today’s adults are no less aggressive than their grandparents were. Despite the increase in praise and physical affection, they are not happier or more self-confident or in better mental health. It’s an interesting way to test a theory of child development: persuade millions of parents to rear their children in accordance with the theory, and then sit back and watch the results come in. Well, the results are in and they don’t support the theory!"
        xenophanes 17y ago
        It's not a matter of studies, it's a matter of parents having full control over who young children meet or do not meet, whether the children leave the house or not, etc
        gcheong 17y ago
        I get the feeling we must have not read the same article as the one I read was all about what the studies show (or rather don't in this case).
        xenophanes 17y ago
        My point is not about studies. Maybe you haven't read my comments closely. Which part of this do you disagree with: There exists at least one parenting technique which completely negates the influence of peers, namely not letting the kid out of the house.

bbgm 17y ago

Probably more than anything else in the world. I wouldn't be close to where I am, or who I am, without mine, and that's an observation that I can extend to pretty much everyone I know well.

xenophanes 17y ago
You observed where you would be without your parents? You have an abstract theory, partially supported by some observations you haven't detailed, and which you haven't argued for or clearly stated.
- bbgm 17y ago
  I am pretty sure I would be a different person, perhaps even better, but my character, as I understand it, has been shaped by my parents. Part of that comes from them staying out of my way when it came to certain decisions that would impact the rest of my life (in India parents can get very pushy about going into certain field) and allowing us to have our disagreements (and we have many). I don't need to argue for my observations. I experienced them and quite enjoyed growing up with them.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    I don't need to argue You don't need to argue, but if you want to find the truth of the matter, then it might help to argue. Through arguing, but not through asserting, we can sometimes learn that we have mistaken ideas and change our minds.
    - bbgm 17y ago
      Don't disagree there, but you cannot explain evening spent talking, Sunday mornings watching birds, Friday evenings in the library, walks explaining why leaves are green and the beauty of mathematics. In other words, how do you distill 20 years into an argument, when no one else was there to experience a second of it? I can't.

alyx 17y ago

If we take evolution as our the model for our species then parents and parenthood are vitally important to the survival of the species. At certain times peers might play a bigger role in forming who we are but to say that consistently peers are more important than parents, I think, is incorrect.

tokenadult 17y ago
Some studies of the most closely related primates suggest that peers may be more important for them than parents are, as well as for humans. How many people posting here are parents? I have four children. Since I have had my second child, I have cherished the saying I learned from another parent: "Parents of one child believe in nurture, and parents of two or more children believe in nature."
- gcheong 17y ago
  No children, but if I did I have the feeling I'd one of those parents welcoming the findings of this researcher.

edw519 17y ago

Yea, right. Every time I was influenced by my peers to do something stupid, I used the acid test, "Will my father kill me?" He's gone now, but I still use that test. That's influence.

jacoblyles 17y ago
A brief googling shows that impulsiveness is believed to have a genetic component.
donaq 17y ago
I agree. Furthermore, I don't think Asian teachers necessarily have a special knack for controlling kids. I behaved well in class (I'm Asian, btw) because I knew my mother would beat the shit out of me if she heard anything bad from my teachers about me.
- flashgordon 17y ago
  actually it was worse (in a good way) for me.. My mother used to work in my school (as a maths teacher). And she was in charge of timetable duty every year... And lo behold she was my maths teachers every year. Certainly made sure she had an eye on me at all times. Damn!
- thismat 17y ago
  My parents were the same way. There was a very clear line drawn, and we knew the consequences for crossing it, thus we didn't (too often at least).

run4yourlives 17y ago

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. I'm not seeing any. Here's a quick counterpoint that speaks to the "norm": Almost to a man, every sports icon I can think of cites the influence of parents in their lives. (I'm talking real icons here, not T.O. types that happen to be gifted.) I'm not ready to accept this theory without significant evidence.

xenophanes 17y ago
Why do you think that sports icons know anything about what influenced their lives?
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Why do you think they don't? They are at the top of their game. The effect of years of passion, skill and above all, hard work. Pretty much exactly like an entrepreneur. One would think that along the way they have been able to surmise and account for many of the things that got them there. I've yet to see one that doesn't have extremely dedicated and supportive parents, notably fathers.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    I suspect they usually don't because human psychology is non-obvious, and most of them don't spend much time learning about psychology. I think you will agree with me that even many experts make large mistakes in their views on human psychology, as the linked guy has done.
frossie 17y ago
She is certainly not presenting extraordinary evidence. For example she claims that modern child rearing methods have no effect because there are still the same number of violent people in society - as if everybody is being raised according to the latest child rearing methods! I live in a rural area with a lot of poverty and trust me - what I see in the playground as far as parent-kid interaction is not what Dr Sears has in mind. She is also terribly inconsistent. She says "The belief that parents have a great deal of power to determine how their children will turn out is actually a rather new idea" and then goes on to say in the old days, kids used to be beaten not praised. Well I have news for her - parents used to beat kids because they though they were affecting the way the kids would turn out! It was the same idea, just different methods. The idea that the parent (or whichever adult is in loco parentis - culturally not always the biological parent) goes back millenenia. Why were Spartan children taken away from their mothers, if their mothers were not thought to have influence on their upbringing? As to the issue of adopted children not being "like" their parents - maybe not in personality, but I am willing to bet that a child adopted out of a primitive tribe by a pair of geeks will learn how to use a computer pretty damn fast. Is that of no effect on the child's life? Obviously by now it is generally accepted that children come out the way they do through a combination of pre-desposition (genetics), adult influence (eg. parenting and teaching) and peer/social influence. But saying parents don't matter at all seems to be a step backwards.

timdellinger 17y ago

For another great article on Judith Harris, see Malcolm Gladwell's 1998 piece in the New Yorker: http://gladwell.com/1998/1998_08_17_a_harris.htm http://gladwell.com/1998/1998_08_17_a_harris.htm

nickcharlton 17y ago

Our parents form the basis for all other attachments we are able to form with people. Our parents form the basis of how humans are able to interact with others. I certainly disagree with "So if you want to improve the way children behave in school—for instance, by making them more diligent and less disruptive in the classroom", I think most people can see a correlation between poor quality parenting and badly behaved children. Inside or outside the home. This certainly proves it's point when the average family of University (or College) child age is shown demographically. (Assuming that you exclude financial issues). Parents have far too great an influence over their children to not matter. This research certainly hinges on undermining the whole of attachment theory, and Freud's work on personality types. If parents did not support certain behaviours then they wouldn't develop. I think that this research on it's own represents a narrow minded view of later development, not something which explains how parents shape their children. Parents do matter because they create who we are today. Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_Theory

lena 17y ago
There is a good book about why parents matter, that addresses Harris's ideas: Hold on to Your Kids by Gordon Neufeld, a clinical psychologist. See: http://www.gordonneufeld.com/book.php http://www.gordonneufeld.com/book.php

soundsop 17y ago

The point of the article is kind of subtle. The research is pointing out that excluding genetic factors, parents don't really matter. So parents do matter in the sense that they are the gene providers but not in the sense that they are the jean providers.

verdant 17y ago

I had to do some research for a paper a few years ago that reminds me of this - I learned that juvenile delinquency statistics could not be correlated across income level, race, or geography. However, once family situation was taken into account (stable two parent households vs. other situations), a correlation was found. I definitely believe parents matter. And, as an aside, some parents have no choice but to raise children single, and they do a great job. It just isn't the ideal situation, according to research.

swillden 17y ago

I've recently come to the same conclusion, at least with my daughter. My wife and I seem to be able to exercise greater influence over my sons, but it's become clear that my daughter's peers exert vastly more influence over her than we can -- and she has unfortunately chosen a set of friends who have a very negative influence. By "negative" I don't mean "funny hairstyles", I mean hanging around with them, or even just talking to them over the phone or via computer, has pushed her into depression, self-injury, complete disregard for school, etc. Ultimately it lead to a suicide attempt, at which point we shifted from trying to be influential, supporting parents to unabashedly controlling her life. She's 13. We're attempting to intervene with medication and professional counseling to help with the depression and injury. We're also attempting to remove the negative peers from her life by removing her from school (homeschooling) and controlling who she's allowed to spend time with. It's helping, but modern technology has created some challenges. Like most geek homes, mine is filled with technology, and my kids are adept in its use. I've had to block Facebook and all of the free e-mail services on the kids' computers, but short of intensively supervising her computer usage there's effectively no way to cut off that avenue of communication with her negative friends. I finally resorted to writing a script that notifies me whenever she logs in, and then hacking the GNOME remote desktop tool so that it doesn't display a notification when I remotely connect to her desktop. Oh, we've used the low-tech solution of putting the computer in a public area of the house and paying attention, but that just means she has to pick the right moment. Knowing that I may be virtually looking over her shoulder at any moment, and there's no way she can know when that's happening, seems to have closed off that avenue. Finally. When she's at home. However, phones have proven much more difficult. We've taken her cellphone away, and the home phone has no long distance service (her problem friends happen to be outside the local calling area; she had to cast a wide net to find a group this bad), but my home office line does, and there are three other cellphones around the house, not to mention that all of her local friends and cousins have cellphones. Short of keeping all of our phones locked up and not allowing her out of the house, there's effectively no way we can keep her from getting in touch with her friends. And these friends are so important to her that there seems to be no punishment, no bribe, no consequence that will keep her from contacting them. Without modern communications technology, it's unlikely that she ever would have found this group of negative peers, and it's certain that we as her parents would be able isolate her from them. As it is, as long as she's willing to sneak behind our backs, it is effectively impossible for us to control her access to them. We can limit it significantly, of course, but unless we could watch her every minute of every day, as soon as our backs are turned she'll find a way to contact them. So far, reducing her communication with them seems to be limiting their effect on her. The anti-depressants are having an effect as well, and the therapy seems also to be helping her to understand herself and her value a little better. However, as you can imagine, the constant close supervision and tight control is also basically destroying our relationship with her, and reducing our ability to directly influence her thinking to zero. She sees us as the enemy. That saddens us greatly, but we don't see any other option. She was in a downward spiral last year and we intervened aggressively and she pulled out of it. Then she convinced us that she could handle herself if we relaxed the grip. We did, and within three months she attempted suicide (which her peers think is cool). So, this has been long and rambling, but the point is that my anecdotal experience with my daughter supports this researcher's claims. Our influence over our daughter's behavior and thinking is minimal at best, and I'm questioning whether it was ever as great as we thought it was. Our influence over her environment is substantial and we're working that influence for all it's worth. I guess we'll know in a few years if that approach worked. Well, sort of. We'll only know the results of what we do. There's no way to know what might have happened if we'd acted differently. That, of course, is the hard part of being a parent. You can only do what you think is best, and there's really no way to know if you're doing the right things, or how much what you're doing even matters. Still, you have to do the best you can.