Does having children make you happy?

[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.

 

[Moonbear]

If you don't have kids you either go out for beer yourself, or you just plain don't need beer.

With kids, it sometimes seems a constant balancing act between coffee and beer, just to stay alive each day. Guess in a way it's like grad school.

Wow! Now I'm really glad I never had kids. What would I turn to if I already have a constant balancing act between coffee and beer?

But, true, without kids you don't need to send anyone out for beer because you can still go out to bars.

It was rough for a while, because all my friends had young children and suddenly weren't allowed out to play anymore, or at least not without 3 months of planning, schedule juggling, permission from their spouse, and an early curfew. It's tough to be the only unmarried person without kids who doesn't have the next 6 months scheduled and just wants to go out TONIGHT because it was a hard day at work and you want to be a little social.

It's improving now. Now many of them have teenagers, so the teens can be left alone a few hours or can fend for themselves to microwave dinner or some such if they want to go out. Then there are the divorcees who only have to worry about schedules every other weekend, two weeks in the summer and alternating holidays. Then there's the other half of the divorcees who get to go out every other weekend, two weeks in the summer and alternating holidays. So, yeah, life gets more fun for everyone again.

 

[DanP]

Wow! Now I'm really glad I never had kids. What would I turn to if I already have a constant balancing act between coffee and beer?

But, true, without kids you don't need to send anyone out for beer because you can still go out to bars.

Yeah, I agree, life is funny and great for a unmarried and childless person.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

I checked out the lecture transcript, and really, it's not necessarily supporting Judith Harris' view, just putting it out there as ONE explanation, and a controversial one at that, which it is. A blatant omission in Judith Harris' "theory" is that she rejects out of hand the notion of a feedback loop, because for some reason, she seemed simply uncomfortable with a loop. In everything she describes, there is very much a possibility that there is a cycle of reinforcement between parent and child and not that it is all unidirectional, but she seems to want to force the view that all influence must be in one direction.

She also tends to dismiss other studies with evidence that is addressing a different point, and not directly contradicting the initial study. For example, in talking about birth order, she rejects that the time a first born is raised with the full, undivided attention of new parents is going to be beneficial to the first born child because asking parents later in life which child they favor resulted in them overwhelmingly favoring the youngest child. What's to say that BOTH aren't important? Maybe being favored a bit more later on in life compensates for never being the sole focus of your parents' attention for any length of time?

And, while peers certainly influence kids' behavioral development too, don't "good" parents also influence selection of peers? Mine certainly did. It seems well-recognized that kids do things their peers do (but then where did their peers get that from?), but a strong parental contribution is who they permit you to interact with as peers. I know, at least from my own upbringing, if I made a new friend at school, there was a screening process of some sort through which my parents decided if their parents were suitably responsible and a good influence for me to visit their home, or if my friend had to come to my house to play, or if I was allowed to spend time with them at all.

Again, in all these cases, it's true that it's difficult to separate cause and effect since there is two-directional interaction. But, Judith Harris really seems to want to reject any influence at all simply because it's hard to tease apart cause and effect, and refuses consideration that it could be BOTH cause and effect in a feedback loop of parent-offspring interactions.

So, I don't think Judith Harris' views are widely accepted among developmental psychologists. Just skimming through the articles in the current edition of Developmental Psychology shows that this is far from a consensus view or closed case.

 

[mheslep]

I checked out the lecture transcript, and really, it's not necessarily supporting Judith Harris' view, just putting it out there as ONE explanation, and a controversial one at that, which it is.

Same here, read and listened and that was also my take, though given the scorn Bloom heaped on the have-dinner-with-the-family study/poll I had the impression that Bloom leans towards Harris' view point.