# Twin Lessons: Have More Kids, Pay Less Attention to Them"



## XanaduMama (May 19, 2006)

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/04/11/twin-lessons-have-more-kids-pay-less-attention-to-them/

dh sent me this article today, and I must say I'm intrigued. Maybe I just want someone to tell me to have more kids







, but I've also been feeling very burned-out and stressed about parenting lately and feeling like what I'm doing isn't working.

I see some problems with this particular entry (not least the comparison of Haitians to wolves: wtf?!), but I think this could be an interesting conversation. Any thoughts?


----------



## Veronika01 (Apr 16, 2007)

A professor of economics telling the rest of the parenting community that being detached from your children is the way to go and attachment parenting is a waste of time and will make no difference to the adult your child will become. It's his opinion. End of story.


----------



## XanaduMama (May 19, 2006)

Well, I guess I'm interested to hear whether we think this approach is compatible with AP: I'm not convinced that it's not, despite the (irrelevant & distracting, IMO) celebration of CIO etc. The details here are less interesting to me than the overall issue: how to free oneself from the paralyzing (and stressful) belief that every little aspect of parenting is somehow constitutive of the adults they will grow into? I don't think this is *necessarily* opposed to AP, whatever its author may believe (and I don't think he suggests that AP is altogether a "waste of time"). Continuum Concept, for eg, seems to advocate something similar: not micromanaging one's kids, not being overly child-centered at the expense of everything else. I'm struggling with this as my kids get older--I'm a firm believer in AP during babyhood, but how does one transition to something less...I don't know...obsessive in the later years?

Having two kids that are so incredibly different, and have been from day 1, has made me realize how much of their personalities is hardwired, something I would never have believed before having kids. But obviously that doesn't mean just throwing up one's hands and leaving them to it... So how to balance one's own emotional health with the needs, as they manifest themselves, of one's children?


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Oh look. another person who equates letting babies scream as "easy parenting". No, wait, let me be more precise, a person with kids who wind down when they cry instead of getting more and more desperate promoting screaming babies as "easy".

But passing over that, I wonder what Mr. Caplan would have to say about:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/13/science/la-sci-kids-daycare-20100514

Pretty major nurture difference with a measurable outcome difference.

ETA: NOT, just to be clear, a difference that should in any way affect a family's decision to use or not use daycare. The differences were minor, I'm just commenting on the fact that they exist at all.


----------



## 2lilsweetfoxes (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XanaduMama*
> 
> Well, I guess I'm interested to hear whether we think this approach is compatible with AP: I'm not convinced that it's not, despite the (irrelevant & distracting, IMO) celebration of CIO etc. The details here are less interesting to me than the overall issue: how to free oneself from the paralyzing (and stressful) belief that every little aspect of parenting is somehow constitutive of the adults they will grow into? I don't think this is *necessarily* opposed to AP, whatever its author may believe (and I don't think he suggests that AP is altogether a "waste of time"). Continuum Concept, for eg, seems to advocate something similar: not micromanaging one's kids, not being overly child-centered at the expense of everything else. I'm struggling with this as my kids get older--I'm a firm believer in AP during babyhood, but how does one transition to something less...I don't know...obsessive in the later years?
> 
> Having two kids that are so incredibly different, and have been from day 1, has made me realize how much of their personalities is hardwired, something I would never have believed before having kids. But obviously that doesn't mean just throwing up one's hands and leaving them to it... So how to balance one's own emotional health with the needs, as they manifest themselves, of one's children?


I read into it something like this: you can prune and fertilize, but in the end, you cannot turn a daisy into a rose. Both are lovely, but they are not the same.

I've realized that there is only so much you can do raising children. Give them the tools they need to be the best daisy or rose they can be...and maybe your child is a tulip. Case in point: my kids have no interest or aptitude in sports. DH grew up in a very sports-oriented family. DD1 is more artistic. We have laid off sports (at least competitive--she should still keep active just because its good for her), and encourage her artistic endeavors.

We are trying to do better about giving the kids fewer toys, especially ones that do the thinking and creativity for them, and more materials with which they can decide what they are and how to play with them. I'm not above telling any of my kids to get out of my face for a bit...they aren't any less loved because I don't dance attendance upon them 24/7. I am extremely introverted and after dealing at work with people all day, I need some time to decompress and i can only take so much. I also don't "set up" activities (as well as the fact I can set something up, and they get other ideas--DD might glue the sticks and beads and puffs into a picture, DS might decide they are friends and carry them about, doing who knows what--stimming on them, and baby might decide they make a nice snack for the dog. and they end up spread all over the house. Or the set-up activity is completely ignored.).


----------



## SweetPotato (Apr 29, 2006)

I found both articles interesting-- a huge difference being that the article in the OP was written by a father justifying his own parenting choices, while the latter was written objectively by a scientist without the personal agenda. I'll freely admit that I'm one of the obsessive parents who the first author would say is wasting time and energy on my child-- and I honestly have often thought that I wished I could feel good about "convenience parenting" so that I might feel like I could handle another child. As it is though, I'm committed to treating my dd like a human being, not like an accessory (I am reminded of Paris Hilton carrying that dog around in a purse). That's not to say that I feel obligated to entertain her every minute of the day, but unlike the children of the first author, she was not fed out of plastic bottles or left to cry alone in the dark. Though some of our choices have required more effort, I do believe that the extra connection and depth of relationship and respect that exists in my family is a good thing for all of us. (And I don't necessarily think that everyone having more kids is the best idea either-- but I won't get into that can of worms)

ETA: After re-reading my post, it's pretty obvious that the first article pushed some of my buttons. I think that's kind of parallel to my main problem with it-- not (only) whether one agrees or disagrees with the content of the article, but just that it's so subjective. I can find it mildly entertaining and thought-provoking as an opinion piece, but it doesn't hold any scientific weight in my mind because of the author's personal involvement. (just like, even though I am a scientist myself, I am drawn to articles extoling the virtues of only children because that's where my emotional capital lies--- people can selectively choose scientific studies that seem to uphold all number of things- especially when you're looking at a subject with as many variables as parenting)

and yes, OP- I definitely see your point in wanting to figure out how to find balance. I wish I had an anwer there, because it's something I have struggled with- I almost felt like I let my "self" be consumed with motherhood, and I'll be honest that that's a big part of what's holding me back from having another child. But I don't regret the choices I made with my daughter, because I made them based on what I truly believed that she needed-- and I do think that's my job. Sometimes I envy parents whose kids seem to need less, but I wouldn't trade my dd, or our amazing relationship, for anything.


----------



## mtiger (Sep 10, 2006)

The first article reminded me how I and so many I know were much less uptight with subsequent children than we were with our first. Being a relaxed parent is easier, more fun, and... I think... better for the child(ren).


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Well I think he lost me when he considered "leave them alone" as valid for babies. But I will say that after toddlerhood, and to a lesser extent during, leaving your kids alone is a great idea. I like the term "serenity parenting" too. Kids are who they are basically regardless of us, but I think responding to their needs as babies gives them a level of security that helps the be happier. And I think when they're older, letting them take care of many of their needs themselves and not being their entertainment helps them achieve happiness. So I guess if he'd focused on a different age group, I'd be with him. But not babies.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

For the most part I liked the article(except for the Ferber bit). They aren't a detached family. They enjoy hanging put together.

My dh and I both had rough childhoods. He grew up in a war zone and I was neglected and abused. Our kids have had a blessed life -- extended nursing, gentle discipline, relaxed homeschooling, ect. They are freakishly like us, complete with the same quirks and anxieties. It turns out that some things that I thought were true about myself aren't just because my parents screwed up so much, but because of basic hardwiring.

I still think ap is the way to go, but not because it causes kids to turn out a different way. It just feels right in my heart.

I do think it's ok for parents to just relax and go for a swim or watch tv with their kids, and that seemed to be his main point.


----------



## Freeman (Sep 16, 2005)

I only read the first article. As a parent of twins myself (plus two other young children) I can forgive the author for ten minutes of "Ferberizing." I don't think that this limited Ferberizing is likely to change the type of adults the author's twins are likely to become.







To some extent, when you are a parent of multiples, you have to give up some AP principles, or at least compromise. The Parenting Multiples forum here is full of threads like this - how do you balance being an attached parent with being a parent of multiples, where two twinfants desperately need you at the same time? I am sure this influences the author's perspective. If you don't give a little as a parent of multiples, esp. if you have little support around you, then you could very well be headed for disaster. Having twins and nursing twins while still trying to care for 2 other small children has been the biggest challenge of my life by far.

The problem that I have with his article is that the author doesn't offer any scientific references for the "twin studies" he mentions. He argues that since identical twins raised in different homes show striking similarities as adults, our parenting doesn't substantially affect the adults our children become. I seriously doubt that an identical twin raised in a neglectful, abusive, and/or improverished home would become the same adult as the identical twin raised in a loving, encouraging environment filled with opportunities. I believe that some of our qualities are heritable, but some are in large part a product of our environment.

That said, my older two children seem pretty different but gew up in a similar environment -- the difference being that the older child got to be an only child for 3 years, while his brother will never know this experience of undivided attention. I believe we are hardwired to a certain extent.


----------



## Freeman (Sep 16, 2005)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan*
> 
> Oh look. another person who equates letting babies scream as "easy parenting". No, wait, let me be more precise, a person with kids who wind down when they cry instead of getting more and more desperate promoting screaming babies as "easy".
> 
> ...


I've read this article before. While it sounds somewhat alarming at first glance, in the end:

"*The differences between kids who logged long hours in day care and those who did not were slight.* When answering questions that

measured their impulsiveness, teens rated themselves about 16% more rash in their behavior for every additional 10 hours they spent per week in

day care as a preschooler. In terms of risk-taking, *the link to time spent in day care was more marginal*: Ten more hours a week in daycare

prompted the average teen to answer one out of 30 questions with an admission of more risky behavior."

Also, 60% of the kids in the study were in low-moderate quality daycare. I don't begrudge the sharing of the research in the article, but I could do without the somewhat alarmist rhetoric implying that "daycare kids" are destined to have problems. There could be several other factors that could affect a child's behavior when the child has two working parents as opposed to a working parent and a stay-at-home parent -- not just daycare.


----------



## MamaMunchkin (Feb 3, 2011)

Quote:


> From the article:
> 
> But twin research has another far more amazing lesson: With a few exceptions, the effect of parenting on adult outcomes ranges from small to zero


I do see his point that there's a limit of what parents can do to ensure their children's wellbeing. There's always the nature part in the nature-vs-nurture equation, luck plays role as well. I accept that despite all my best efforts as a parent - there's no guarantee on anything.

But I don't know how much parenting/attention is enough or not. I don't know where the tipping point is - the point where a bit more parenting is enough but a bit less is probably not enough. Doing the most parenting I can renders this concern moot.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freeman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Oh dear, I wasn't posting that to say that anyone should make daycare decisions off of that, just pointing out that if 10 hours difference has a noticeable result in the teen years, there's probably more differences than Mr. Caplan realizes between twins raised entirely with one parenting style or another. Note also that the article mentions risky behavior but doesn't clarify if it's risky like drinking or risky like snowboarding =D.

Really the problem with looking at long term studies to shape parenting behavior is why should the child suffer in the moment? Whether doing CIO with an infant, or keeping a 3 year old home all day who desperately wants/needs more time with friends their age, they won't have statistically significant results over an entire population in 20 years, but for the individual kid all they know is that they are sad and there's no help.

Off the top of my head, I suspect that the twin studies never checked to see if one twin believed that hitting people smaller than you is okay if they're also your child and the other didn't. Plenty of people who seem like perfectly normal adults otherwise, of whom one could say "they turned out just fine" hold that absurd belief.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Off topic rambling....

OOoo, I'd also love to know if they've done a twin study with 1/2 the twins in public school, and 1/2 homeschooled. Because given the number of waking hours spent in school, that's a major component of nurturing from 5 to 17 or 22.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan*
> Really the problem with looking at long term studies to shape parenting behavior is why should the child suffer in the moment? Whether doing CIO with an infant, or keeping a 3 year old home all day who desperately wants/needs more time with friends their age, they won't have statistically significant results over an entire population in 20 years, but for the individual kid all they know is that they are sad and there's no help.


I'm wondering if I read the same article as everyone else. Here's is another quote from it:

"Focus on enjoying your journey with your child, instead of trying to control his destination. Accept that your child's future depends mostly on him, not your sacrifices. Realize that the point of discipline is to make your kid treat the people around him decently-not to mold him into a better adult."

I think he's spot on. I never left my kids to cry to sleep train them, but other than that, I have a lot in common with him. He talks about relaxing with his kids, reading books together, and spending time with his wife while the kids watch cartoons. This isn't a heartless, disconnected dad. This is someone with balance.

He isn't talking about not parenting, he's talking about letting go of outcomes and living in the moment. It's really a very healthy way to look at things.


----------



## lizziebits (Sep 3, 2007)

I read the replies and thought the guy was going to be heartless. In actuality, I agree with very much of what he says. He sounds like a great dad. I've also read articles that expressed that research has shown what parents do or don't do really doesn't matter all that much. Of course, I don't have a link at the moment, but I find that idea very comforting -- it can be paralyzing thinking that every decision we make as parents could potentially negatively affect our children.


----------



## Cyllya (Jun 10, 2009)

The problem with this article is that it makes this statement: *"But twin research has another far more amazing lesson: With a few exceptions, the effect of parenting on adult outcomes ranges from small to zero."* But this is not true.

Here's in an article about why it's not true, and from an author who's nice enough to cite the research, none the less!

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200810/straight-talk-about-twin-studies-genes-and-parenting-what-makes-us-who-w

But the most obvious reason it's not true was admitted by the original article. He says, "The key point to keep in mind is that *twin research focuses on vaguely normal families in the First World*. It doesn't claim that kids would do equally well if they were raised by wolves or abandoned in Haiti. But look on the bright side: If you are a vaguely normal family in the First World, the science of nature and nurture shows that you can lighten up a lot without hurting your kids."

This is what science calls a "sampling bias." None of the articles I've read about twin studies have actually specified what "normal" means, except that it's not "abusive" or "raised by wolves." But what about attachment parenting? Homeschooling? Unschooling? Radical unschooling? Taking Children Seriously? Unconditional parenting? Indulgent parenting aka trustful parenting? Gentle discipline? The first page full of spanking statistics Google gave me makes it look like it's fairly abnormal to never spank your kid if you're in a country where it's legal to do so.


----------



## LiLStar (Jul 7, 2006)

Here's what I come away with.. I assume he's a working parent? and did he say it took his 7 years to convince his wife to have another? And that having lots of kids is "easy".. well, it sounds like maybe his wife disagreed  And when he said he was hoping for twins for the next pregnancy, it made me wonder, does his wife hope that? she's the one who has to go through the pregnancy! I'm sure a twin pregnancy is physically difficult. No matter how laid back and relaxed a parent you are, its not going to be easy! Worth it, sure, but to imply that all we have to do is chill out a bit and parenting will be cake? Nah. Don't buy it.


----------



## physmom (Jun 15, 2009)

Personally, I rather enjoyed the article... well, except for CIO, which just makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> For the most part I liked the article(except for the Ferber bit). They aren't a detached family. They enjoy hanging put together.
> 
> ...


Linda what you wrote really struck a chord with me. DH and I have both had some seriously traumatizing experiences in our childhoods (although we did also have loving parents at the same time so it's a strange dynamic). For much of my life I explained away my nightmares, my fears, my anxiety because of these events that happened in my childhood. However, as DD gets older I've founded that she exhibits much of my same behaviors and her childhood has been significantly LESS stressful. Yes, she has gone through some changes that other kids her age have not (move, giving up a beloved pet, different language) but her anxiety seems to be almost on par to what I dealt with. It's really made me rethink a lot of the nature vs. nuture in our children.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freeman*
> 
> I only read the first article. As a parent of twins myself (plus two other young children) I can forgive the author for ten minutes of "Ferberizing." I don't think that this limited Ferberizing is likely to change the type of adults the author's twins are likely to become.


FWIW, I don't believe CIO is going to damage a child into adulthood. That's never been why I'm so against it. I simply believe it makes a parents connection to the child in the moment worst, which makes parenting more difficult in the immediate future (also I wonder if it might delay speech slightly due to a child's primary form of communication being ignored?). It's also something that I believe goes against our natural evolution/God-given instincts, so why would we ignore our instincts (basically, a similar thought I have to breastfeeding)? My best friend did CIO with her kids. It makes me cringe and it's a topic we've just agreed NOT to discuss. I still think she's a wonderful, loving mother and we're strongly considering having her and her husband be my child's godparents (but that's now, AFTER the baby stage is over!







).

I definitely have NO experience with multiples and I think everyone can understand that you can't necessarily parent the same way. I was in AWE of a friend of mine who was nursing TRIPLETS! I seriously don't know how she did that and I definitely can't say I would be able to pull off the same in her position. I never had supply issues but I found nursing to be extremely demanding emotionally for me with 1 so with 3, wow, I just can't imagine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freeman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I know this is not what sapphire_chan meant but I just wanted to add that I've seen low quality daycare first hand. We went to a home daycare once to check it out for DD. It was SCARY (as in run for the hills scary). There were kids up to age 3 there, not a one said a WORD when we entered, they didn't interact with DD at all, and they barely moved the entire time we were there. I have no clue what those children were like before entering daycare but I can certainly believe that place adversely affected their growth!







DD's been in daycare before for very brief periods of time and I can tell you those places were wonderful, they had loving caregivers and you better believe they formed strong attachments to those children. I DO think a daycare/schooling environment (even absolutely wonderful schools/daycares) can be enormously stressful on some kids (cough-my kid in particular-cough!) but I think those are immediate affects unlesss it's something where the child is seriously not getting their needs met (very advanced or delayed children, for example).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan*
> 
> Really the problem with looking at long term studies to shape parenting behavior is why should the child suffer in the moment? Whether doing CIO with an infant, or keeping a 3 year old home all day who desperately wants/needs more time with friends their age, they won't have statistically significant results over an entire population in 20 years, but for the individual kid all they know is that they are sad and there's no help.


----------



## mambera (Sep 29, 2009)

I agree with this article very much as well.

And I also don't think that a limited amount of CIO would cause long-term damage, at least not against the matrix of an otherwise loving and responsive environment. That's not why I wouldn't do it; I wouldn't do it because it is confusing and distressing to the child *in the moment* and it is not worth it to me to put my kid through that. But maybe parents under more pressure than I (like moms with twins) would have a different cost-benefit calculus.

On daycare, I find it interesting that everyone on this thread assumes the increased risk-taking in daycare children is a bad thing. I would prefer my kids to be more on the assertive, risk-taking side than on the shy and conservative side. If having to hold their own in a supervised community of children promotes that, I'm all for it personally. But I do think that the differences among day cares are so great that studies of just 'day care vs no day care' are not bound to turn up very much that is meaningful.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mambera*
> 
> On daycare, I find it interesting that everyone on this thread assumes the increased risk-taking in daycare children is a bad thing. I would prefer my kids to be more on the assertive, risk-taking side than on the shy and conservative side. If having to hold their own in a supervised community of children promotes that, I'm all for it personally.


I wondered what they meant by "risking-taking." Trying out for something that is competitive is taking a risk. Signing up for a class that you aren't quite sure you can do is taking a risk. Speaking up to a bully is risk taking. The first time one goes downhill skiing, they are risk taking.

One of my DDs has some special needs that put her in the category of avoiding all risk because her fear and anxiety response are out of wack (she's on the autism spectrum). Risk taking is a positive trait when it is balance with a little judgment, and when we (the adults) value what the child is taking a risk for.


----------



## impchild (Nov 23, 2006)

risk taking when measured by scientists is usually things like unprotected sex, jumping off buildings, doing drugs, and speeding. things that risk the life of the teen.


----------



## puffingirl (Nov 2, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LiLStar*
> 
> Here's what I come away with.. I assume he's a working parent? and did he say it took his 7 years to convince his wife to have another? And that having lots of kids is "easy".. well, it sounds like maybe his wife disagreed  And when he said he was hoping for twins for the next pregnancy, it made me wonder, does his wife hope that? she's the one who has to go through the pregnancy! I'm sure a twin pregnancy is physically difficult. No matter how laid back and relaxed a parent you are, its not going to be easy! Worth it, sure, but to imply that all we have to do is chill out a bit and parenting will be cake? Nah. Don't buy it.


I heard the guy on NPR this morning and said the same thing to DH.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

I think it's an interesting article. I think he's referring to some things I see on here sometimes that amaze me. Like in that big house cleaning thread a while back. Or some discussions about time alone or grown up time. People who literally can't find a way to vacuum or watch a movie with their partner because they devote 24/7 to hands-on face to face care of their kids.
Quote:


> We enrolled them in an activity or two, but they spent a lot more time watching cartoons while we relaxed. Our family specialized in activities that were literally "fun for the whole family": reading books together, playing dodgeball in the basement, going to the pool for a swim.


I don't see how that can be a bad thing!


----------



## SeattleRain (Mar 15, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *D_McG*
> 
> I think it's an interesting article. I think he's referring to some things I see on here sometimes that amaze me. Like in that big house cleaning thread a while back. Or some discussions about time alone or grown up time. People who literally can't find a way to vacuum or watch a movie with their partner because they devote 24/7 to hands-on face to face care of their kids.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle with AP, I'm definitely not as hands-off as many parents I know IRL but I'm definitely not as 24/7 as many parents here. I just can't handle it. I love my baby and I'm totally connected to him, but I need my own space as well. I think his phrase "pay less attention to them" is tongue in cheek, but the message resonates with me. While I think the major decisions that you make for your child in terms of how you structure your parenting (you're not going to spank, you're going to nurse, you're not going to CIO, etc.) are important and shape how your child turns out, I don't think every little decision has enduring reprocussions. For example, I have a SIL who micromanages every little morsel her child puts in his mouth so that its extremely nutritious and doesn't allow any TV. In turn, she spends much of her day managing food, feeding him, and arguing about food or personally entertaining him because she doesn't have TV as an outlet. I feel bad for her sometimes. We don't need to totally micromanage our children. We need to teach our children to be independant and play on their own or eat on their own (within reason) or else they'll turn into these children we all know who must have a parent available for entertainment or else they don't know what to do with themselves.

For the reader who said that the theory doesn't apply to babies, I totally disagree. My baby can often be found crawling around the house by himself, picking toys out of his toy bin by himself, and occupying himself for an hour or more while I do my WAHM work, or simply cook dinner. I cannot be found stacking blocks for literally 8 hours a day just because Daniel likes to do that. I'm a very active participant in his life (obviously) and I consider myself to be a very gentle parent, but I also allow Daniel to have time by himself, whether its to play in his crib quietly at the end of a nap (even though I could rush right in when he wakes up, lest he cry) or feed himself in his highchair while I cook. It's just easier this way.


----------



## Dandelionkid (Mar 6, 2007)

I totally see your point. Haven't read the article yet but right with you sistah! I read something on MDC that made me realize: I do feel that my kids are like a batch of cookies and if I just do the recipe exactly right, they will turn out right. Way too much pressure and not realistic at all. If the article helped your guilt and pressure lessen that it was probably exactly what you needed to hear at the moment. I will read it when I get a moment.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XanaduMama*
> 
> Well, I guess I'm interested to hear whether we think this approach is compatible with AP: I'm not convinced that it's not, despite the (irrelevant & distracting, IMO) celebration of CIO etc. The details here are less interesting to me than the overall issue: how to free oneself from the paralyzing (and stressful) belief that every little aspect of parenting is somehow constitutive of the adults they will grow into? I don't think this is *necessarily* opposed to AP, whatever its author may believe (and I don't think he suggests that AP is altogether a "waste of time"). Continuum Concept, for eg, seems to advocate something similar: not micromanaging one's kids, not being overly child-centered at the expense of everything else. I'm struggling with this as my kids get older--I'm a firm believer in AP during babyhood, but how does one transition to something less...I don't know...obsessive in the later years?
> 
> Having two kids that are so incredibly different, and have been from day 1, has made me realize how much of their personalities is hardwired, something I would never have believed before having kids. But obviously that doesn't mean just throwing up one's hands and leaving them to it... So how to balance one's own emotional health with the needs, as they manifest themselves, of one's children?


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Loved the article.

I identify as AP but I consider myself a slacker mom. They're not mutually exclusive for me. AP is not martyrdom and AP has nothing to do with how much intensity you put into parenting. I don't think you have to overly structure your kids' days or be constantly interacting with them to have a connected family. All things in moderation.


----------



## Hannah32 (Dec 23, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SeattleRain*
> 
> For the reader who said that the theory doesn't apply to babies, I totally disagree. My baby can often be found crawling around the house by himself, picking toys out of his toy bin by himself, and occupying himself for an hour or more while I do my WAHM work, or simply cook dinner. I cannot be found stacking blocks for literally 8 hours a day just because Daniel likes to do that. I'm a very active participant in his life (obviously) and I consider myself to be a very gentle parent, but I also allow Daniel to have time by himself, whether its to play in his crib quietly at the end of a nap (even though I could rush right in when he wakes up, lest he cry) or feed himself in his highchair while I cook. It's just easier this way.


Wow, we keep agreeing today! : )

As we speak, my 10 month old is ripping apart some unwanted magazines and entertaining himself while I surf the web (standing up so computer will be out of his reach). Am I going to drop whatever I'm doing the second he gets bored and fusses? Um no. Because he has to learn how to handle life on his own sometimes. Now, I spend plenty of time playing with him, reading to him, taking him for walks and holding him. But I cannot and will not devote every waking moment to him. Because that would make me miserable.

My hubby and I read the article, and found the guy a little self-congratulatory. My hubby called him a tool, LOL. But I do think he has a point. Part of the reason why parenting is so stressful is because modern families feel a lot of pressure to be accomplish some set of objectives with their children, whether its AP or just helicopter-type stuff.


----------



## SeattleRain (Mar 15, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hannah32*
> 
> Wow, we keep agreeing today! : )
> 
> ...


Hehe, we must be on the same wavelength. I also found him a little self-congratulatory. I think we sometimes dwell so much on every little detail that we forget that women have been having children for many, many, many years. There were babies born in medieval Europe in countrysides or babies born in caves in the Middle East. Surely they didn't spend every waking moment stacking blocks and teaching their 9month olds to read lest they get behind. I'm sure that they also weren't wholly preoccupied with the smallest fuss or with every morsel the baby put in their mouth, lest it ruin their breastfeeding relationship.


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

I've read Caplan's book and read his blog regularly---I was an econ major in college---and I agree with a lot of what he says. His ferberizing doesn't even bother me because I recognize that based on all the twin and adoption studies he referred to, if any of his kids weren't having it with the sleep training, they would have just kept on screaming and not put up with it. 10 minutes of crying isn't going to cause a baby irreparable harm. While I don't do cry it out with my kids, my newborn probably cries that much in or longer in the car when we're running errands.

What he really drills into you in his book is simply that in the battle of nature vs. nurture, nurture wins out pretty much every trime---assuming of course you are the average family living in the first world and not abusing your kids. If you look at it on the margin, nurture does very little to improve your child's IQ, future, income, happiness or whatever. Parents (and society) tend to overestimate how much they affect their kids' success or failure or personalities and really, acknowledging that there is very little you can do about it is very freeing. You worry less about OMG--my kid isn't reading at age 2 or whatever and just learn to enjoy your kids and enjoy raising them.

At any rate, I recommend reading the book, especially if you're on the fence about having more kids or (as in my case), just had a newborn and are sitting there going "how could I possibly have any more?" It was really a refreshing read and probably the most important thing I got out of it is the fact that when kids were surveyed and asked what was the one thing they could change about their parents, they said they wished their parents were happier and less stressed. So despite the fact that my inclination is to be a total b*tch when I haven't gotten enough sleep, I'm really trying to just be in a better mood and let more things slide so I can just relax and be in a better mood around my kids. Totally worth it.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Seriously? An economics professor is now a parenting expert because he had a couple of kids and read a couple of studies (really, how many identical twins have been raised separately then studied?). Glad he is happy with his choices in life, but to make any sweeping statements based on that very limited experience is kind of silly. How is he even giving parenting advice?

Parenting in a way that teaches kids they are inherently valued and loved unconditionally can definitely impact them into adulthood. How we do that will look different in each family based on that particular family's beliefs, values, and personality. AP or not AP, just love your darn kids! That is MY expert opinion. I am now an expert because I know a lot of kids, including but not limited to my own four. Some of the kids I know are twins, do I get bonus points?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I'm the one who said "leave them alone" doesn't apply to babies, and I still say that. Letting a baby crawl around within your view for a while doesn't equal leaving them alone to me. In contrast, my 9-year-old wakes up in good weather, goes outside, occasionally shows her face when she's hungry or needs to empty her bladder, and comes in at night grubby and sweaty. I do not entertain her and she is very much left alone to do her own thing. But babies need much closer care, even if they crawl and explore sometimes. They're also in arms a lot, and I very strongly feel that CIO is not in their best interest or neutral. They need that additional attention at that age, and the nighttime parenting.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

I assume this was a typo and you meant "nature wins out pretty much every time," because the rest of what you say here points to that.

Another very popular book was Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. Did you read that? He makes a cogent argument for nurture, with his thousand hours of practice idea. So does Richard Nisbett in Intelligence and How to Get It--he points out that studies have shown many adopted children are more intelligent, because their parents pay more attention. Basically, we mystify intelligence and inherent qualities and pretend that it doesn't matter whether children have access to opportunities, that adult-child interaction is unimportant, and so on--but there's a lot of support for nurture as the key factor.

I'm not arguing for people to have fewer children or that being relaxed is a bad thing. I wish I had more children and I enjoy relaxing with the one I'm lucky enough to have. I think relaxed parenting can still be attentive, and that parents are capable of paying attention to more than one child at a time! That's all a good lesson. I'm saying that Caplan's, and your, underlying idea here is wrong. Nurture is critical. The more time and positive energy parents can invest in their children, the smarter children will come out. I don't think we need to pressure our kids or overload them with activities, but to say that we don't have much of an impact is just ridiculous.

Also, I disagree with his philosophical point about discipline being something you do to improve the child's behavior in the present rather than their future as an adult. I definitely care whether my child acts considerately in the present, but I have my eyes on the prize and that prize is his independence. There are different, non-abusive modes of discipline in first-world countries, and some are better than others at emphasizing verbal development. It's not all a crap shoot.

Why is it that the WSJ has started publishing these crazy parenting articles? They were the first to break the Tiger Mother thing, too, weren't they? Is the point of WSJ style capitalism that we should stop putting so much energy into nurturing children?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Geist*
> 
> I've read Caplan's book and read his blog regularly---I was an econ major in college---and I agree with a lot of what he says...
> 
> What he really drills into you in his book is simply that i*n the battle of nature vs. nurture, nurture wins out pretty much every trime*---assuming of course you are the average family living in the first world and not abusing your kids. If you look at it on the margin, nurture does very little to improve your child's IQ, future, income, happiness or whatever. Parents (and society) tend to overestimate how much they affect their kids' success or failure or personalities and really, acknowledging that there is very little you can do about it is very freeing. You worry less about OMG--my kid isn't reading at age 2 or whatever and just learn to enjoy your kids and enjoy raising them.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtiger*
> 
> The first article reminded me how I and so many I know were much less uptight with subsequent children than we were with our first. Being a relaxed parent is easier, more fun, and... I think... better for the child(ren).


Yes! I LOVED the article, I too tossed the ferber part out of my mind, but you can't agree with everything all of the time.

I don't see how being "obsessive" is at all AP. To me the article wants us to enjoy our children so that they can enjoy their lives and their families. I think when we're uptight over every detail ie eating every bite of food on the plate and being banned from television we're just really missing the point of parenting.

Thanks for sharing OP.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FreeRangeMama*
> 
> *Seriously? An economics professor is now a parenting expert because he had a couple of kids and read a couple of studies (really, how many identical twins have been raised separately then studied?). Glad he is happy with his choices in life, but to make any sweeping statements based on that very limited experience is kind of silly. How is he even giving parenting advice?*
> 
> Parenting in a way that teaches kids they are inherently valued and loved unconditionally can definitely impact them into adulthood. How we do that will look different in each family based on that particular family's beliefs, values, and personality. AP or not AP, just love your darn kids! That is MY expert opinion. I am now an expert because I know a lot of kids, including but not limited to my own four. Some of the kids I know are twins, do I get bonus points?


RIght, just like all of us here at MDC.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood*
> 
> RIght, just like all of us here at MDC.


But this is a message board. We come here to swap ideas about parenting. And we certainly don't pay money to people for their posts. If we did it would be a valid comparison. He is writing books and blogs. Poising himself as an "expert" whose advice we should follow. Is he a child development expert of some sort? No, he is an economics professor. Maybe his has some good ideas, but I take them with the same grain of salt that I do with posts on MDC.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FreeRangeMama*
> 
> But this is a message board. We come here to swap ideas about parenting. And we certainly don't pay money to people for their posts. If we did it would be a valid comparison. He is writing books and blogs. Poising himself as an "expert" whose advice we should follow. Is he a child development expert of some sort? No, he is an economics professor. Maybe his has some good ideas, but I take them with the same grain of salt that I do with posts on MDC.


I haven't paid him a cent. If anybody else feels he has an expert opinion and wants to support his work, more power to him and them.


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

Yes, typo from a sleep addlled mama brain! Nature wins out pretty much every time---with things like intelligence, it's not even a competition. I've also read Gladwell's outliers and the thing is that the 10,000 hours study isn't the same as surveying adult twins and adopted kids and asking them how happy they are with their life, seeing how successful they are or measuring their IQ. Also, Caplan talks a lot about what he calls "fade-out." For example, while nurture does have an effect on IQ when the babies are younger, by the time they reach a certain age, the effect is gone. Parents can influence their children (think of Tiger Woods' dad making him play gold and the Williams sisters' dad making them play tennis) and alter their paths, but obviously not without the cooperation of the children. And also, it should be noted, his book discusses outliers. Woods' dad or Williams' dad probably don't fall within the typical, average parent range.

As for the person wondering how many twins who were adopted out studies there could be, you've rather misunderstood how the studies work. He explains it much better in the book, but I'm going to give a shot at it. Basically, twin studies compare two types of twins: identical (100% same genes) and fraternal (50% same genes). Any differences between the identical twins can be seen as due to nurture while any differences between the fraternal genes can be seen as nature. Then the adoption studies compare adopted children to the children they were raised with. This group especially showed a lot of fade out effect: they might be more successful or well off or whatever until their mid-20s and after that point, they started to resemble their biological family (whom they had never met) more than their adopted family. Basically, when he gives results in the book, he uses the "switched at birth senario" to explain it: You and your identical twin are born in a hospital, but your twin is switched out for another baby (your accidently adopted sibling), so you're raised together (receiving the same nurture despite different genes) while your twin is raised apart (this would be the nature effect).

so if you look at the section where he discusses intelligence, he first looks at the Minnesota Study of Twins Read apart (sample size 100, featuring twins and triplets who were given two IQ tests) and the results where this: if you did better than 80 of the population on both tests, you should expect your separated identical twin to do better than 72% on the test and 74% on the second. Compared to the control group of twins reared together, the effect of nurture was barely there. Your adopted sibling in the switched at birth scenario do better than 56% on one test and 50% on the other.
if the result is in the 51st and 55th percentile, the result is considered small, if it's 56th to 65th it's considered moderate and anything above 65th is considered strong. And this isn't just one study. He cites 4 that shows the same effect for intelligence. You'd have to read the book in order to get all the information he posts about why twin studies are really good and basically the BEST you can get when studying nature vs nurture (or I can link to a blog post: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/08/twin-studies.html

I also have to add that it's also important to "think like an economist" to fully understand where he's coming from. Economists think on the margin instead of looking at the entire picture. So instead of saying, "I want to get my kid every possible IQ point possible, no matter how much the cost" an economist would look at it and say, what is the cost of each additional IQ point and is it worth it? If a point of IQ cost (to put it in simple terms I'll use money though obviously you can't buy them!) $5, I'd probably go for it. Afterall, I've spent $5 on stupider things. $50? Eeeeh maybe. $500? No. $5000? Definitely not! It's the same thing wit parenting. If you're going from 0 units of parenting to buying 1 unit of parenting, the marginal benefit for you and your kids are going to be HUGE but the marginal cost probably not very small. Now, pretending the maximum number of units of parenting you can buy is 100, how much are you willing to give out for that 98th and 99th and 100th point? How much benefit are you and your kids going to get out of it? What if they would prefer having some time to themselves? What if your marriage is suffering because of it and everyone is super stressed because mom is pissed all the time because she's not getting enough sleep? Look at the marginal cost and benefit of your parenting choices and not just the whole picture that says "this is what I have to do to be a good parent and anything less is failing and my kids will end up homeless."

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
> 
> I assume this was a typo and you meant "nature wins out pretty much every time," because the rest of what you say here points to that.
> 
> ...


----------



## lindberg99 (Apr 23, 2003)

I was surprised when I figured out this guy's twins were only what, 9 yo? The way he was writing, I thought he was talking about older children, like in their 20's and looking back on it. Like when he said "We enrolled them in an activity or two, but they spent a lot more time watching cartoons while we relaxed. Our family specialized in activities that were literally "fun for the whole family": reading books together, playing dodgeball in the basement, going to the pool for a swim." Doesn't that sound like he is looking back on it all?


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

He could be looking back on it...what they did 3 or 4 years ago vs what they're doing now, or whatnot.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Thanks for responding to my comment. I'm still not following, though:

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Geist* 

Yes, typo from a sleep addlled mama brain! Nurture wins out pretty much every time---with things like intelligence, it's not even a competition. I've also read Gladwell's outliers and the thing is that the 10,000 hours study isn't the same as surveying adult twins and adopted kids and asking them how happy they are with their life, seeing how successful they are or measuring their IQ.

Are you saying that nurture beats nature every time only with things like intelligence, where it's not even a competition, whereas with other things, like happiness, it's different? Or did you mean that nature wins out every time, and you just mistyped it again? Because if you're arguing that nurture is more important than nature, you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with Caplan, at least in part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Geist* 
Also, Caplan talks a lot about what he calls "fade-out." For example, while nurture does have an effect on IQ when the babies are younger, by the time they reach a certain age, the effect is gone. Parents can influence their children (think of Tiger Woods' dad making him play gold and the Williams sisters' dad making them play tennis) and alter their paths, but obviously not without the cooperation of the children. And also, it should be noted, his book discusses outliers. Woods' dad or Williams' dad probably don't fall within the typical, average parent range.

But the point of Gladwell's book is that outliers become outliers not because they are brilliant and unusual, or even because their parents pushed them, but because they have access to resources, like a tennis court, a piano or a computer on which to practice.

Thanks for the link to the twins study and the summary of the results--very helpful.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Geist*
> 
> I also have to add that it's also important to "think like an economist" to fully understand where he's coming from. Economists think on the margin instead of looking at the entire picture. So instead of saying, "I want to get my kid every possible IQ point possible, no matter how much the cost" an economist would look at it and say, what is the cost of each additional IQ point and is it worth it? If a point of IQ cost (to put it in simple terms I'll use money though obviously you can't buy them!) $5, I'd probably go for it. Afterall, I've spent $5 on stupider things. $50? Eeeeh maybe. $500? No. $5000? Definitely not! It's the same thing wit parenting. If you're going from 0 units of parenting to buying 1 unit of parenting, the marginal benefit for you and your kids are going to be HUGE but the marginal cost probably not very small. Now, pretending the maximum number of units of parenting you can buy is 100, how much are you willing to give out for that 98th and 99th and 100th point? How much benefit are you and your kids going to get out of it? What if they would prefer having some time to themselves? What if your marriage is suffering because of it and everyone is super stressed because mom is pissed all the time because she's not getting enough sleep? Look at the marginal cost and benefit of your parenting choices and not just the whole picture that says "this is what I have to do to be a good parent and anything less is failing and my kids will end up homeless."
> 
> Which is all extremely silly, since parenting doesn't actually work that way. I mean, it's also the reason that admitting nurture makes a difference doesn't require you to stand over the child forcing him to practice the piano. I just don't think it's a binary choice between being relaxed and accepting and helping the child realize his or her potential, and I'll never be able to swallow the idea that all achievement is due to the individual's inherited qualities.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

OK, so, I went to this blog post you linked, and it was a critique of an article in Slate, which dismisses twin studies as eugenics. So I went to the article in Slate and read it, too. Then I read the comments, which included, to my surprise, some pretty heavy-hitting academics, and were the most revealing part of my reading.

http://www.slate.com/id/2301906/pagenum/all/#add-comment

(Anyone clicking the link: there are a LOT of comments!)

What I gleaned from all of that was that twin studies are NOT unambiguously "the best you can get when studying nature vs. nurture" but 1. one of many kinds of studies of nature vs. nurture, and people conducting twins studies put their work into a broader context; 2. not an uncontroversial source of data, even among specialists (though the Slate author was not a specialist and probably didn't understand the current work on twins very well.) The comments are loaded with links and citations and there does not seem to be agreement about the significance of the studies even among knowledgeable people.

When I read Intelligence and How to Get It, I couldn't understand why Richard Nisbett felt the need to write it. Why summarize the overwhelming evidence that nurture matters? The Bell Curve was debunked, wasn't it? Um, no. Apparently nature vs. nurture is a live debate.

Even though I essentially agree with Caplan that parents shouldn't be over-involved (well, of course, once you say "over" involved, it's too much, right?) and that fears about nurture shouldn't prevent people from having more children. I just don't think you can say "oh, twin studies are the best thing ever, so nature is more important than nurture and you can let your kids watch TV instead of making them do their homework."

It's pretty similar to breastfeeding, actually. We have a lot of evidence that children who are breastfed are healthier, but since mothers who nurse tend to be more affluent and highly educated and to do many other things to ensure their children's health even in the absence of affluence, I've read intelligent people arguing that breastfeeding isn't really the key factor. But there's no evidence at all that *not* breastfeeding has any benefits! From a parent's point of view, an investment in nurture has to pay off.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Geist*
> And this isn't just one study. He cites 4 that shows the same effect for intelligence. You'd have to read the book in order to get all the information he posts about why twin studies are really good and basically the BEST you can get when studying nature vs nurture (or I can link to a blog post: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/08/twin-studies.html


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

Alright, so this is third time I'm going to try to reply to this. Hopefully my keyboard won't mistakenly decide I want to close this tab, the window, or destroy the universe and will actually let me post 

Quote:


> Are you saying that nurture beats nature every time only with things like intelligence, where it's not even a competition, whereas with other things, like happiness, it's different? Or did you mean that nature wins out every time, and you just mistyped it again? Because if you're arguing that nurture is more important than nature, you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with Caplan, at least in part.


No, sorry, another typo. Nature and nurture need to start with different letters. I went and edited. Intelligence has a strong nature effect. Other traits that he lists as having nature effects (varying from small to strong) include various measures of success (income, education), happiness, character traits, and values. Nurture affected a few things like age of first sexual activity for girls, but not for boys. It also affected labels (whether one called themselves a Catholic, Baptist, Jew, Hindu, etc or political party label), but not political beliefs. And as I mentioned earlier, the biggest nurture effect was how kids felt about their parents. That had nothing to do with nature and all to do with how the parents raised their children. You'd have to read the book to get the actual results. In one of my replies, I tried posting a lot of the information but that all disappeared and it's too time consuming to try to do again.

Quote:


> I mean, it's also the reason that admitting nurture makes a difference doesn't require you to stand over the child forcing him to practice the piano. I just don't think it's a binary choice between being relaxed and accepting and helping the child realize his or her potential, and I'll never be able to swallow the idea that all achievement is due to the individual's inherited qualities.


I know, I'm not saying it is a binary system, but a lot of parents think it is. A lot of parents think that if they aren't 100% with their child all of the time and constantly nurturing and paying attention to them, their children won't reach their full potential. What the twin and adoption studies suggest is that this isn't the case. As long as you're an average parent (in a first world country), your kids will be fine and they will reach their full potential. The idea of thinking on the margin is simply a way to maximize the benefits while minimizing the costs. You mention breastfeeding in your second post and I would consider that to be a good example of marginal parenting. Your baby benefits the most from breastfeeding in the first 6 months of life. There are still benefits afterwards, but the largest benefits are in the first 6 months. So, if you really don't like breastfeeding but want your kid to still reap the benefits of it, the logical choice would be to maximize the benefits while minimizing the costs and breastfeed the first 6 months while formula feeding the 6 months there after. I breastfed until my son was 2 years and 3 months because I liked breastfeeding, had no difficulties and was a stay at home mom, so my marginal benefit and marginal costs were different.

Quote:


> What I gleaned from all of that was that twin studies are NOT unambiguously "the best you can get when studying nature vs. nurture" but 1. one of many kinds of studies of nature vs. nurture, and people conducting twins studies put their work into a broader context; 2. not an uncontroversial source of data, even among specialists (though the Slate author was not a specialist and probably didn't understand the current work on twins very well.


But that's pretty much the same with any scientific study or theory. Caplan does include a section discussing twin and adoption studies and why he believes them to be some of the best studies for studying the influences of nature vs. nurture as well as a critique on "environment" and the like

Quote:


> I just don't think you can say "oh, twin studies are the best thing ever, so nature is more important than nurture and you can let your kids watch TV instead of making them do their homework.


But that's not what Caplan says. What he does say is that it's okay to let your kid watch an hour of television and it's not going to hurt anything--it might even be good because it gives kids a valuable source of cultural literally and gives the parents a break. He specifically mentions that none of this means that genes are destiny (if they were, there would be no difference at all between twins in the switched at birth scenario), but he does say that the nature vs. nurture debate is settled in favor of nurture (and it does seem that things like IQ are pretty firmly in the nature field). But he also quotes from one of his favorite books on the topic, The Nurture Assumption:

:



> Quote:
> 
> 
> > People sometimes ask me, "so you mean it doesn't matter how I treat my child?" They never ask, "So you mean it doesn't matter how I treat my husband or wife?" and yet the situation is similar. I don't expect that the way I act toward my husband is going to determine what kind of person he will be ten or twenty years from now. I do expect, however, that it will affect how happy he is to live with me and whether we will still be good friends in ten or twenty year


Honestly, on the whole, I thought his book was pretty similar to what Dr. Sears recommends in his baby book simply because the general attitude is one of flexibility, not rigidity and "if it doesn't work, change it!"

Quote:We have a lot of evidence that children who are breastfed are healthier, but since mothers who nurse tend to be more affluent and highly educated and to do many other things to ensure their children's health even in the absence of affluence, I've read intelligent people arguing that breastfeeding isn't really the key factor. But there's no evidence at all that *not* breastfeeding has any benefits! From a parent's point of view, an investment in nurture has to pay off.

And it does pay off with a strong bond with the child. Honestly, I'm not sure which category breastfeeding should go into: nature or nurture. Before there was formula, all babies were breastfed, it was the way nature provided to feed kids, so it didn't become an act of nurture until you could choose formula, so perhaps it fits in both nowadays. Also, I like the way LLL phrases it: it isn't that breastmilk makes babies smarter, it's that formula makes them dumber because breastmilk is what they're supposed to be fed. Not that I'm dissing all formula feeders. The fact that we can feed our kids formula and they not only survive, but thrive and grow and there are plenty of smart and successful people who were formula fed (I'll flatter myself and include myself in that category ). So I just see that as more evidence that humans are really quite resilient and while nurture is important, nature is even more so.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Sorry you're having struggles with the forum software. It used to be more straightforward--I'm finding the quote function now requires a rudimentary knowledge of CSS, which is really OTT.

(css= cascading style sheets and ott=over the top!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Geist* 
Intelligence has a strong nature effect. Other traits that he lists as having nature effects (varying from small to strong) include various measures of success (income, education), happiness, character traits, and values. Nurture affected a few things like age of first sexual activity for girls, but not for boys. It also affected labels (whether one called themselves a Catholic, Baptist, Jew, Hindu, etc or political party label), but not political beliefs. And as I mentioned earlier, the biggest nurture effect was how kids felt about their parents. That had nothing to do with nature and all to do with how the parents raised their children. You'd have to read the book to get the actual results. In one of my replies, I tried posting a lot of the information but that all disappeared and it's too time consuming to try to do again.

According to Caplan and the twin studies he cites, which I cannot blithely accept, intelligence has a strong nature effect. According to many other writers, nurture is the key factor in academic achievement and IQ testing. I just read all the bickering from all the psychologists on the two sides of the twin studies divide, and abstracts of the articles insisting that twin studies are inherently skewed. This doesn't pass the smell test.

I still remember people I grew up with telling me that of course The Bell Curve was right. (This was a famous book about racial inferiority published to the shame of the United States in the late 1980s and accepted by the media as true.) Then a decade later several social scientists published books debunking it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Geist*
> And it does pay off with a strong bond with the child. Honestly, I'm not sure which category breastfeeding should go into: nature or nurture. Before there was formula, all babies were breastfed, it was the way nature provided to feed kids, so it didn't become an act of nurture until you could choose formula, so perhaps it fits in both nowadays. Also, I like the way LLL phrases it: it isn't that breastmilk makes babies smarter, it's that formula makes them dumber because breastmilk is what they're supposed to be fed. Not that I'm dissing all formula feeders. The fact that we can feed our kids formula and they not only survive, but thrive and grow and there are plenty of smart and successful people who were formula fed (I'll flatter myself and include myself in that category ). So I just see that as more evidence that humans are really quite resilient and while nurture is important, nature is even more so.


Actually, feeding babies formula is one of the things we do in the US that may be killing them. The WHO just posted its findings on neonatal deaths. The US was in 28th place and now its in 41st place, and breast feeding may be one of the key reasons:

http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/08/us-child-mortality-rates-rank-41st-in-the-world/

(Other things people worry about on MDC may also be reasons for neonatal mortality, like not carrying babies to term, high rates of c/s, and so on.)

Of course we all know lots of people who survived being fed formula. We also know lots of people who survived riding around in cars without car seats, or seatbelts, who were exposed to second-hand smoke in the womb and in infancy. We wouldn't choose to do those things. Why not? After all, it's only a marginal difference, right? I feel like I'm being barraged with articles explaining to me why I shouldn't want my kid's playground to be too safe -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/science/19tierney.html --

because it's not like most people who fell off playground equipment died. Just some of them. Articles about how if I make my child too happy now, he will be miserable later. (See: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/how-to-land-your-kid-in-therapy/8555/ ) Lots and lots of articles which I don't have to cite here because they were all originally posted as citations here, about why it doesn't matter if you breastfeed.

You know, I also nursed my kid until he was 3 and a half, and I do not believe for a second that you nursed your kid until he was over two just because you liked it. I also just happen to like reading books on physics out loud and making nutritious lunches in which no foods touch and listening to the plots of all the Captain Underpants books. It's so relaxing.


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

Quote:


> You know, I also nursed my kid until he was 3 and a half, and I do not believe for a second that you nursed your kid until he was over two just because you liked it. I also just happen to like reading books on physics out loud and making nutritious lunches in which no foods touch and listening to the plots of all the Captain Underpants books. It's so relaxing.


Wow that's a rather snarky and rude response. Now I wonder why parents do so many things "for the children" if it's apparently going to make them so bitter. I'm glad I can look back on nursing with fond memories instead of saying, god, what a miserable experience that was.

Oh and it wasn't hte forum software, but my keyboard. It often decides to close tabs and windows because too many liquids have been spilled on it and have shortcircuited some things


----------



## purslaine (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
> 
> Another very popular book was Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. Did you read that? He makes a cogent argument for nurture, with his thousand hours of practice idea. So does Richard Nisbett in Intelligence and How to Get It--he points out that studies have shown many adopted children are more intelligent, because their parents pay more attention. Basically, we mystify intelligence and inherent qualities and pretend that it doesn't matter whether children have access to opportunities, that adult-child interaction is unimportant, and so on--but there's a lot of support for nurture as the key factor.


That is what I was thinking. Last I heard success in school was very closely linked with parents values towards education. If you grow up with people who do not value education and your community as a whole does not value education - hey! You are much less likely to graduate!

Nature is important - but he seems to be sweeping nurture under the rug and I think he is wrong to do so. You can be relaxed while still acknowledging that nurture might play a role. As nurture is the only variable we can control in nature and nurture I do think we should attempt to parent thoughtfully.

I think the nurture/nature thing is a false dichotomy. You do not have to pick one or the other - and taking either to an extreme is not healthy.

Nurture only - hey, it does not matter what you do with the kids! They will be what they will be. Lets parents off the hook a bit too much, and reality does not seem to support this (haven't you ever seen anyone with a lot of baggage due to their family of origin?)

Nature only would be exhausting and guilt ridden for the parents, which is not good for either the parent or child.

BTW, Captain optimism (darn quote feature is not working!) I absolutely nursed to 3 years with each child because we enjoyed it. If I did not enjoy it, I would have tried to hang on till 1 yr or so for health reasons - but I did enjoy it so we kept doing it. No other reason.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, I didn't hate nursing until three and a half, and I actually enjoy reading physics to my kid, along with quite a few other things that I never liked before I had him. He makes a lot of things enjoyable that weren't before I knew him. Algebra--I never thought I would be excited to read about algebra, and it's still not inherently exciting, but how can I not be excited when my third-grader wants to learn about it.

But if I didn't enjoy it, I'd do it anyway, you know? Because I love him and I think what I do will make a bigger difference than merely sharing my genetic inheritance.

(Which, you know, I'm still trying to figure out the whole "enjoys arithmetic and yet is obviously my child" thing.)


----------

