Does having children make you happy?

[mheslep]

Not having read all the responses to the post, just responding to the question.

No, having children is not the path to happiness. But, having children is a way to lead a life with a purpose beyond your own self interest. This can be a source of happiness (and a deep familiarity with every other emotion) to those who care more for their children than themselves. It can be source of misery for those who care more for themselves than they do their children.

Yep, I'll sign on to that. Well said Drankin.

 

[Kerrie]

Not having read all the responses to the post, just responding to the question.

No, having children is not the path to happiness. But, having children is a way to lead a life with a purpose beyond your own self interest. This can be a source of happiness (and a deep familiarity with every other emotion) to those who care more for their children than themselves. It can be source of misery for those who care more for themselves than they do their children.

Yes, well stated.

 

[BobG]

This can be a source of happiness (and a deep familiarity with every other emotion) to those who care more for their children than themselves. It can be source of misery for those who care more for themselves than they do their children.

Unless they're on a plane together and the oxygen masks drop down.

 

[DanP]

not everyone was cut out to be parent, and that's regardless of how "prepared" you are. Some people just don't have what it takes..

hapiness is a choice, like all things in life. you either choose to be happy with your circumstances or not. If you see misery, you will be misery. If you see joy, you will be joy.

There's a hallmark card for you

"sorry you got knocked up"

happiness (or lack thereof) may very well be in a significant % genetically determined.

 

[DanP]

"Re: Does having children make you happy?"

Having MiH's children would make me happy.
Does that count?

Would this make your wife happy too ?

 

[DanP]

It's a goal to work toward. World overpopulation is the reason I only had two children. I'm not kidding.
It's not so much cutting off at exactly two, but more to raise awareness of the serious problem of overpopulation. In 1850 the world population was only 1 billion, today it is almost 7 billion and growing.

The bad part is that educated humans like you only have 2 children. While in some parts of the world they reproduce like rabbits. Id rather have the world overpopulated with the children of educated man, than with the children of half -savages.

 

[Zantra]

happiness (or lack thereof) may very well be in a significant % genetically determined.

studies to support this...?

Assuming no psychological disorders (manic, etc) Someone with a good chemical balance should be able to achieve happiness if they so desire...

 

[DaveC426913]

Would this make your wife happy too ?

I didn't say my happiness would be long-lived. Or my life.


(P.S My instinct was to say Evo instread of MiH, because she's actually here in this thread. I wasn't sure if that would make it funnier or less funny.)

 

[DanP]

studies to support this...?

Assuming no psychological disorders (manic, etc) Someone with a good chemical balance should be able to achieve happiness if they so desire...

Yes, even for humans with no psychological disorders. Happiness has a significant genetic component. And so it's depression for that matter. It's something which is taught nowadays in most psych 101. It doesn't mean that hapiness is invariant, it mainly means that it's skewed toward a genetically set point. Some humans will be by default happier than others.

You can listen to this lecture from Prof Paul Bloom at Yale:

http://oyc.yale.edu/yale/psychology/introduction-to-psychology/content/sessions/lecture20.html

This is no link to research, but I don't have at hand any papers which led to this conclusion and unfortunately no time to dig them. But if you listen to the lecture you will be able to track down enough research on your own.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The bad part is that educated humans like you only have 2 children. While in some parts of the world they reproduce like rabbits. Id rather have the world overpopulated with the children of educated man, than with the children of half -savages.

And the more children you have, the harder it is to raise them the right way. So not only do you overpopulate the world by having so many children, those children will grow up and have a greater chance of just being a burden on society, along with the 10+ kids they'll most likely eventually have.

 

[DanP]

And the more children you have, the harder it is to raise them the right way. So not only do you overpopulate the world by having so many children, those children will grow up and have a greater chance of just being a burden on society, along with the 10+ kids they'll most likely eventually have.

There is a overemphasizing in the role of parenting in the development of children. While counter-intuitive, developmental psychologists have arrived to the conclusion that parents only have a relatively reduced contribution to how the children will develop into an adult. The major contribution comes from the child's peers during the developmental process.

Again, it doesn't mean that parenting does not have any influence whatsoever, it means that is way less important than the society at large thinks to be. "Good parenting" is a catch phrase which is slowly very reduced in importance. The main impact coming with number of children is of economic nature.

 

[leroyjenkens]

There is a overemphasizing in the role of parenting in the development of children. While counter-intuitive, developmental psychologists have arrived to the conclusion that parents only have a relatively reduced contribution to how the children will develop into an adult. The major contribution comes from the child's peers during the developmental process.

Again, it doesn't mean that parenting does not have any influence whatsoever, it means that is way less important than the society at large thinks to be. "Good parenting" is a catch phrase which is slowly very reduced in importance. The main impact coming with number of children is of economic nature.

Poor parents make the most children and also seem to make the worst parents. Children basically only see their parents for like the first four years of life, then control almost everything the child does for years after that, even who they associate with to some extent. I don't see how that could have little effect on how the child develops.

 

[mheslep]

There is a overemphasizing in the role of parenting in the development of children. While counter-intuitive, developmental psychologists have arrived to the conclusion that parents only have a relatively reduced contribution to how the children will develop into an adult. The major contribution comes from the child's peers during the developmental process. [..]

I think that is a mistaken summary. I'd say that absent strong and effective parenting, then childhood development is dominated by any number of external factors including peers, media, etc.

 

[DanP]

Poor parents make the most children and also seem to make the worst parents. Children basically only see their parents for like the first four years of life, then control almost everything the child does for years after that, even who they associate with to some extent. I don't see how that could have little effect on how the child develops.

As I said, is counterintuitive, and something not many ppl are aware of. And even if they are made aware, they blank out and refuse to believe. I think it's normal, for generations the dogma of good parenting stood. They don't like this truth.

Nevertheless, research in developmental psychology indicates exactly the fact that parents has a relative minor role on how the children will turn out to be as an adult. And a truth doesn't have to be liked.

 

[DanP]

I think that is a mistaken summary. I'd say that absent strong and effective parenting, then childhood development is dominated by any number of external factors including peers, media, etc.

No, really no.

 

[leroyjenkens]

As I said, is counterintuitive, and something not many ppl are aware of. And even if they are made aware, they blank out and refuse to believe. I think it's normal, for generations the dogma of good parenting stood. They don't like this truth.

Nevertheless, research in developmental psychology indicates exactly the fact that parents has a relative minor role on how the children will turn out to be as an adult. And a truth doesn't have to be liked.

If the parents are controlling which peers the child associates with, then the parents play more of a role than the research accounts for.

 

[DanP]

If the parents are controlling which peers the child associates with, then the parents play more of a role than the research accounts for.

You'd be surprised :P

 

[Gokul43201]

Dan, you've got 4 posts worth of asserting a defending a claim, with nary a link or citation to the conclusions you speak of. This may all be covered in some kindergarten-level course in developmental psychology, but to us folks, it's still clearly not a trivial truth and therefore needs substantiation via reference.

 

[DanP]

Dan, you've got 4 posts worth of asserting a defending a claim, with nary a link or citation to the conclusions you speak of. This may all be covered in some kindergarten-level course in developmental psychology, but to us folks, it's still clearly not a trivial truth and therefore needs substantiation via reference.

Sure, audit developmental psychology course. Probably even Psych 101 at any serious university will cover some of the material.

Ill refer you to the same course I did in an earlier thread (Dr. P. Bloom course at Yale) :

http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/introduction-to-psychology

Please note that this is general discussion, and therefore I do not feel obliged to present further references.

 

[robster641]

Having kids is a blessing finding babysitters isn't :'(

 

[jackmell]

Please note that this is general discussion, and therefore I do not feel obliged to present further references.

That's a good point Dan. It is just general discussion. But it's important. You stated:

"While counter-intuitive, developmental psychologists have arrived to the conclusion that parents only have a relatively reduced contribution to how the children will develop into an adult. The major contribution comes from the child's peers during the developmental process."

I feel that's not the general consensus of developmental psychologist but rather is the view of only a minority. Why they would believe this I'd be interested in knowing as I believe parents have a major impact in their children's lives. I have a son and daughter. Am I wrong to believe I can have a significant impact on how they grow up? Also, they make me happy. :)

Here's a reference where the author states the majority of developmental scholars do believe parents affect their child's psychological growth.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/1/S1/164/

 

[leroyjenkens]

Please note that this is general discussion, and therefore I do not feel obliged to present further references.

Why does it matter where on a forum a discussion takes place?
Can I say "aliens have nipples" and you have to believe me with no proof because I said it in the general discussion subforum?

 

[DanP]

Why does it matter where on a forum a discussion takes place?
Can I say "aliens have nipples" and you have to believe me with no proof because I said it in the general discussion subforum?

Thats exactly the idea. I don't give a nickel if anyone believes or not. I don't ask you to believe me. I am not interested in convincing anyone. I stated an opinion and I presented in my last post a track wider than a motorway (Paul Bloom's course as a starting point). Follow it if you want to learn more about some interesting issues, and make your own mind about them.

 

[mheslep]

Sure, audit developmental psychology course. Probably even Psych 101 at any serious university will cover some of the material.

Ill refer you to the same course I did in an earlier thread (Dr. P. Bloom course at Yale) :

http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/introduction-to-psychology

Why Bloom's Intro to Psych course in particular? Have you taken his class, or read his material, or are you asserting that most any Intro to Pysch course (versus a Developmental course) would support your claim? In the case of this course, do you mean that Lecture 5 "The Development of Thought" would support your assertion?

 

[DanP]

I feel that's not the general consensus of developmental psychologist but rather is the view of only a minority. Why they would believe this I'd be interested in knowing as I believe parents have a major impact in their children's lives. I have a son and daughter. Am I wrong to believe I can have a significant impact on how they grow up? Also, they make me happy. :)

Here's a reference where the author states the majority of developmental scholars do believe parents affect their child's psychological growth.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/1/S1/164/

Interesting but:

quoting from article linked above, "The Role of Parents in Children's Psychological Development ", section INDICATORS OF FAMILY RELEVANCE

persuasive source of support for the significance of family experience is found in follow-up studies of young children who suffered serious privation, usually the result of war, and were later adopted by nurturant families. Many of the orphans produced by World War II and the Korean conflict, who had extremely fragile bonds to any caretaker in their early years, appeared to develop well after adoption by loving foster parents.17,18 More recently, a group of children who had spent the first year in depriving orphanages in Romania were adopted by nurturant British parents. When they arrived in London, they were emaciated and psychologically retarded, as one would expect, given their harsh experience. However, when they were evaluated several years later, after adoption by middle-class parents, a majority, although not all, were similar in their intellectual profile to the average British child (Michael Rutter, personal communication, 1998).

IMO this, in the form it's written is void of any value whatsoever. It doesn't support either position.

For example, why did the children taken from my country's foster homes in UK ?
Due to family or due to a normal social life fit for their age ? i.e, the question is not elucidated. What was the determining factor ? Parenting or a normal social interaction with peers ?

 

[leroyjenkens]

Thats exactly the idea. I don't give a nickel if anyone believes or not. I don't ask you to believe me. I am not interested in convincing anyone. I stated an opinion and I presented in my last post a track wider than a motorway (Paul Bloom's course as a starting point). Follow it if you want to learn more about some interesting issues, and make your own mind about them.

You made it sound like discussions in the general discussion subforum don't need references, implying other subforums do. I just thought it's strange to grant different subforums different rules regarding discussions.
And that's a lot of material to sift through to find the answer to the specific topic at hand. If someone wants to know the meaning of a word, I don't tell them to read the entire dictionary until they come to it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Thats exactly the idea. I don't give a nickel if anyone believes or not. I don't ask you to believe me. I am not interested in convincing anyone. I stated an opinion and I presented in my last post a track wider than a motorway (Paul Bloom's course as a starting point). Follow it if you want to learn more about some interesting issues, and make your own mind about them.

That's an unreasonable demand, isn't it? That anyone hoping to read the reference supporting your claim have to go through a one-semester course in psychology? Could you not at least point to the relevant lecture?

And if you weren't interested in convincing anyone we wouldn't have had the back-and-forth "is too" ... "is not" debate that we witnessed above.

Also, what you stated was not an opinion. An opinion is something like "I believe that blah is bloo" as opposed to "Sorry, but that's just the way it is."

And finally, posting in GD doesn't recuse you from having to support statements of fact, especially those which are claimed to be scientific statements of fact. Were that the case, every wandering crackpot would get away with posting his/her pet theory in GD.

PS: Not comparing you with wandering crackpots.

 

[DanP]

Why Bloom's Intro to Psych course in particular? Have you taken his class, or read his material, or are you asserting that most any Intro to Pysch course (versus a Developmental course) would support your claim? In the case of this course, do you mean that Lecture 5 "The Development of Thought" would support your assertion?

I audited his material. I think you should audit the all set, but the debate on "mum and dead ****ed me up" is in Lecture 13 , "Why Are People Different?: Differences ". It's a great course and a good starting point in any further exploration for example behavioral genetics, human motivation and social psychology.

You could try to find developmental psychology courses as well, but I am not sure if you will find too many on internet, as opposed to intro Psych. Berekely may have a developmental course and one on developmental psychopatology on their podcasts , but I am not sure.

You could also try to audit a course in Social psychology, specially sections dedicated to self and self-awareness, and how social identity is built. Try to find UCLA's Matthew Lieberman social psych course, its excellent and if i recall correctly it does talk about development of self.

Make up your own mind on it. I am not going to tell you that parents do not count at all, what I tell is that their role is way less pronounced than the dogma says.

 

[mheslep]

Thats exactly the idea. I don't give a nickel if anyone believes or not. I don't ask you to believe me. I am not interested in convincing anyone.

Of course you do, or you wouldn't go about responding to disagreement with
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2722634&postcount=77"
and
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2722891&postcount=87"

[...]I stated an opinion[...]

If you had in fact just stated an opinion, ala "I think/believe parenting is minor/overrated/secondary/useless ...", no problem, but you did not:

Nevertheless, research in developmental psychology indicates exactly the fact that parents has a relative minor role on how the children will turn out to be as an adult. And a truth doesn't have to be liked.

 

[mheslep]

I audited his material. I think you should audit the all set, but the debate on "mum and dead ****ed me up" is in Lecture 13 , "Why Are People Different?: Differences ".

Thanks

Make up your own mind on it. I am not going to tell you that parents do not count at all, what I tell is that their role is way less pronounced than the dogma says.

Now that's a fair enough expression of opinion.