Affluence

[Hazir]

Yes Wiggin I am familiar with helicopter parenting. It can have some effects on the skills of the child. But if you think that you are going to be of a bigger influence on your children than for example their peers you've got a big surprise coming your way.

And at the risk of causing a lot of offense : not everyone who took his own life had shitty parents. Just think about it.

[wiggin]

Work ethic, intelligence, well-rounded knowledge, interest in asking and answering questions, social skills. It's hard to acquire all of those in an environment that caters to the lowest common denominator. Even sociopaths who get an Ivy degree seem to do quite well in the modern economy. I'm not convinced empathy is useful when it comes to the job market or maintaining social ties with the upper-middle/upper class. It might be useful for moral reasons, but that's a separate argument.

I'm puzzled that you think my only goal is to make my kid do well in the job market or 'maintaining social ties with the upper class'. Obviously I'd like to raise children who are contributing productively to making the world a better place, and that certainly requires the skills and attributes you listed. But life is about a lot more than having a good job. I want them to be good people. There's a lot of different angles through which I'll be working on that, but one I haven't quite figured out is the aforementioned problems of relative affluence. Why on earth would I be satisfied with kids who just got good jobs?

I'm not as cynical as Hazir when it comes to the role of nurture. The bigger issue with nurture is how limited your options are unless you're willing to make massive (and potentially counter-productive) life changes. If you want some realistic recommendations (beyond the ones already offered), make them work for objects and activities they value. Self-entitlement is a worse flaw than a lack of empathy. Make them choose between those same objects and activities to demonstrate the importance of making hard choices and taking ownership of one's decisions.

Sure, obviously that will be the case - I'm not a fan of handouts to kids. But I don't think it's an either-or. I don't have to trade keeping my kids from being self-entitled for giving them some empathy. Frankly, I think keeping kids from being entitled is a lot easier - just don't give them much of anything beyond necessities and make them work for what they want.

I'm not convinced helping poor people will teach them the lesson you want to teach. It might teach them the importance of helping those in need, but might also teach them that they're superior to those people, that they wouldn't face the same problems, because they're morally superior. Interaction between equals would teach the lesson about empathy, but you don't get that in a soup kitchen. Maybe something like a team sport or activity that integrates people from a wider range of social classes.

Yes, certainly such interactions help. I know that my broadest peer experiences growing up were in such circumstances. But even then, it was still a bit of a selection - really poor kids can't afford hockey gear, or music lessons, or whatever. You might get exposed to the top 30 or 40% of families, which is better than nothing, but it still isn't much.

Yes Wiggin I am familiar with helicopter parenting. It can have some effects on the skills of the child. But if you think that you are going to be of a bigger influence on your children than for example their peers you've got a big surprise coming your way.

And at the risk of causing a lot of offense : not everyone who took his own life had shitty parents. Just think about it.

Hazir, perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here (and I'm also not sure where helicopter parenting comes into this). I'm well aware that there are a lot of factors partially or entirely out of my control, and that there are no guarantees of success even on the more prosaic 'will my kid do all right in life?'. Let's imagine that 50% of outcomes are genetic, 40% are environmental that are largely out of my control (other than big choices about where we live, where they go to school, etc.), and 10% are environmental stimuli more tightly controlled by me and my wife. That 10% isn't determinative, but it certainly can make a hell of a big difference. Sure, there are good or great parents who end up with suboptimal outcomes, and some parents who don't do a good job might still have fantastic kids. But I believe that you can make your chances a lot higher using careful consideration and making deliberate choices in how you raise your kids.

I've already made a lot of those choices, subject to changing circumstances, but this thread is about one choice I haven't yet figured out. It is guaranteed to work? Far from it! Raising someone as complex as a kid, especially given the myriad competing priorities in life, is really difficult. No one has a magic formula that always works. But I think it's best to consider the goals and formulate a reasonable plan to achieve that goal, even if circumstances beyond my control may mean I end up failing. I'd much prefer this approach to just figuring it out on the fly.

[Loki]

I'm puzzled that you think my only goal is to make my kid do well in the job market or 'maintaining social ties with the upper class'. Obviously I'd like to raise children who are contributing productively to making the world a better place, and that certainly requires the skills and attributes you listed. But life is about a lot more than having a good job. I want them to be good people. There's a lot of different angles through which I'll be working on that, but one I haven't quite figured out is the aforementioned problems of relative affluence. Why on earth would I be satisfied with kids who just got good jobs?

You mentioned the importance of them being prepared for the future. For all we know, that would require being a great yes-man. The bigger point is that things like the quality of education are under your complete control, with obvious benefits. Giving up those benefits for a shot at a desirable social skill doesn't sound like the best trade-off to me. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but that I wouldn't go out of my way to address it (as heartless as that sounds).

I just remembered an interesting piece of research that showed kids are remarkably good at picking up signals from their parents. If they see you treating everyone equally, they'll think that's the right thing to do. Which means regularly being in situations where you can demonstrate this trait. Telling them "x is wrong" doesn't really work.

Sure, obviously that will be the case - I'm not a fan of handouts to kids. But I don't think it's an either-or. I don't have to trade keeping my kids from being self-entitled for giving them some empathy. Frankly, I think keeping kids from being entitled is a lot easier - just don't give them much of anything beyond necessities and make them work for what they want.

Individually, the traits might be relatively easy to encourage. The problem is doing them all at once. Everything has trade-offs (see my first point).

Yes, certainly such interactions help. I know that my broadest peer experiences growing up were in such circumstances. But even then, it was still a bit of a selection - really poor kids can't afford hockey gear, or music lessons, or whatever. You might get exposed to the top 30 or 40% of families, which is better than nothing, but it still isn't much.

Honestly, I don't think someone can really appreciate what it's like to be really poor (and non-white) unless they live that life. It's not the poverty per se, but all the other things that come with it (being treated with suspicion, people not seeing the potential in you, the interactions with cops/authority, short-term outlook on life, etc.). Being able to understand 30-40% is the best you can realistically hope for.