|
posted by dennisn on November 4th, 2007 at 10:43PM
I believe it has been statistically proven that parents don't matter much during the course of a child's formative years -- what does matter is genetics ("hereditary intelligence"); but good or bad parenting plays a relatively inconsequential role.
|
posted by dsk on November 5th, 2007 at 9:39AM
>I believe it has been statistically proven that parents don't matter much during the course of a child's formative years
I think you got that screwed up. Here's a relevant quote from 'Freakonomics':
But this is not to say that parents don't matter. Plainly they matter a great deal. Here is the conundrum: by the time most people pick up a parenting book, it is far too late. Most of the things that matter were decided long ago--who you are, whom you married, what kind of life you lead. If you are smart, hardworking, well educated, well paid, and married to someone equally fortunate, then your children are more likely to succeed.
I'm sure genetics plays a role, but its not the whole story.
By the time the adopted children became adults, they had veered sharply from the destiny that IQ alone might have predicted. Compared to similar children who were not put up for adoption, the adoptees were far more likely to attend college, to have a well-paid job, and to wait until they were out of their teens before getting married. It was the influence of the adoptive parents, Sacerdote concluded, that made the difference.
|
posted by dennisn on November 5th, 2007 at 10:51AM
I sortof agree -- insofar as anybody who comes into contact with a child is a potential teacher for the child, yes, we are all responsible for the nurturing of the children we meet. However, the older the child gets, the less likely this is the case; the student evolves into a teacher. So, although society be blamed for "affecting a parent's means to foster", as you say, (since that would imply that the adult/parent is blaming society for his nature), it can be blamed more directly for the influences it exerts on the child.
(P.S. -- "all stats aside" isn't a good way to start an argument ;] -- it suggests an unwillingness to accept objective measurements)
|
posted by Nylorac on November 5th, 2007 at 3:09PM
Well, I meant to suggest an unwillingness to grant a causal relationship between 2 factors just because some stats "showed" there to be some correlation, or no correlation. I don't think stats are that objective. I'd need to know more about the selection process in place before judging the epistemic value of some putative "evidence".
|
|
posted by dsk on November 5th, 2007 at 10:59AM
>(P.S. -- "all stats aside" isn't a good way to start an argument ;] -- it suggests an unwillingness to accept objective measurements)
Heh.. well what you did is worse!
You didn't have stats to back you but you said you did!
|
|
|
posted by dennisn on November 5th, 2007 at 10:25AM
Touché.
|
|
posted by Nylorac on November 5th, 2007 at 10:00AM
All stats aside, if we were to actually factor in the role of parents and parenting in the learning skills of children (because it is the ability to learn that is presently in question), then this would open up a floodgate of factors because we'd have to consider all those things that affect a parents' means to foster an environment for a child. We may as well blame ... collectively everyone in our society for the increasing level of stupidity. (or decreasing intelligence. It depends on how you want to see it.)
|
|
|
posted by Nylorac on November 5th, 2007 at 8:34AM
Yeah, that sounds familiar. I think that in some former post.
|
|
