Do Parents Matter?


Recommended Posts

In his best-selling book The Myth of the Rational Voter (2007) George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan demythologized the notion that American voters know what they are doing when they step into the ballot booth.

In his new book, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think, Caplan does the same for the conventional wisdom about parenting. In a world of Tiger Moms and helicopter parents who monitor and agonize over every minor activity in which their children engage, the father of three says that parents actually have minimal influence over long-term outcomes for their children. Rather than fretting over whether junior is admitted into Baby Einstein violin programs, Caplan argues that parents should relax and learn to enjoy their kids' childhood.

Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Caplan to discuss the research behind and the reception of his unconventional theory.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, but I hope it hasn't left the power of ideas by the wayside.

In my personal experience certain adults have had an impact on me, not in terms of molding, but in terms of setting me straight about what's what. The first time this happened that I recall was in middle school, when an English teacher took me aside and, noting the disparity between my intelligence and my very poor grades, warned me that while middle school grades didn't matter, I'd better shape up in high school or I'd ruin my chances at college. It was just a minute of his time but it had a big impact on how much laziness I'd permit myself in high school concerning my grades. And then of course there's the impact that Ayn Rand in my late twenties, which could have probably happened much sooner and saved me quite a lot of trouble if there had been an adult in the house who would have pointed me that way when I was a teenager.

This kind of thing -- the impact of being set straight on basic premises by a wise adult -- doesn't exactly contradict his thesis, but if he left it out, that'd be a serious fault in a book of this kind. Perhaps it's true that you can't shape a child in the sense of making them great at some particular skill or pursuit, but you sure can help them a lot by getting them started with good premises rather than bad ones, and the latter is of far more import than the former.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his best-selling book The Myth of the Rational Voter (2007) George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan demythologized the notion that American voters know what they are doing when they step into the ballot booth.

In his new book, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think, Caplan does the same for the conventional wisdom about parenting. In a world of Tiger Moms and helicopter parents who monitor and agonize over every minor activity in which their children engage, the father of three says that parents actually have minimal influence over long-term outcomes for their children. Rather than fretting over whether junior is admitted into Baby Einstein violin programs, Caplan argues that parents should relax and learn to enjoy their kids' childhood.

Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Caplan to discuss the research behind and the reception of his unconventional theory.

Ghs

Caplan is great. Where was he when I needed him? I was the opposite of a helicopter parent, more like a flimsy raft. Basically I felt, what I don't know about my kids might hurt them, but it won't hurt me. Shameful to admit but true.

We all survived.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaplan argues that the reason to have more kids is that one has much less effect on one's kids than one believes. But is that really a rational reason to procreate and multiply?

I can understand that the parental pressure to make the offspring take part in all kinds of activities may be substantially reduced, but from this one cannot infer that the kids you decide to have are going to be easy to handle.

Kaplan points out genetic disposition as an influential factor; suppose one's first child suffers from diabetes, a hyperactivity syndrome or severe neurodermitis, deciding to have a couple more kids will only increase parental work, plus there is the danger of the other children having the same genetic disposition.

What Kaplan also disregards is children with severe disabilities whose special needs require intensive parental care. In such cases, Kaplan's premise that "the kids you want are cheaper than you think" would require revision.

And some illnesses are so severe that "giving up one's favorite hobbies" is indeed what can happen to parents.

Even with children not requiring special needs - how are you going to continue hobbies like e. g. globetrotting with a bunch of kids?

As for Kaplan's "argument" that if libertarians decide to have more kids, they will increase the number of libertarians, it goes against his own premise of parents having far less effect on their kids than they think.

(But I suppose this was meant as tongue-in-cheek comment by Kaplan).

As for the contrasting model, the "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua - don't get me started on her. :angry:

I'm still fuming from reading a few months ago in the German weekly magazine Stern (Feb 3 issue, 2011), about her "methods".

I've wanted to write about this on the OL parenting thread for quite some time, but since I always try not to post when emotionally too upset about an issue, I kept putting it on the back burner.

But now that I realize that my upsetness about this mother won't subside, I'll try to work with it.

If that is true what I read in the article: that Amy Chua prevented her daughter Lulu from drinking water and from using the toilet before the child had mastered playing "The Little White Donkey" on the piano, this is child abuse, plain and simple.

Acording to the article, Amy Chua also threatened her daughters with depriving them of lunch and dinner; Tiger Mom also cruelly announced to both kids that she would burn their plush cuddle animals. Heartbreaking.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now