The stress of it?
A team from Northwestern University has examined the hidden costs of parental empathy. They found that while the children of empathetic parents are better off physically and emotionally, the parents’ cells reveal chronic, low-grade inflammation. When their children suffer psychologically, empathetic parents’ immune systems take a hit.
…Children of empathetic parents also showed lower levels of inflammatory markers. Their parents were just the opposite. Their samples revealed this low-grade systemic inflammation.
I assume you know r/K, here is a paper direct from the source on the latter.
You’re smart enough to draw the connection here.
Promiscuity is bad for males.
GTFO, haters. Either swallow the redpill data or quit pretending to care about the truth.
Also, evobio arguments about fertilization don’t apply to sterile sex.
For the same reason a man’s opinion on periods is baseless, they aren’t really having it.
DAT Table 7.1
Disclaimer: I came into this topic with an open mind and I was shocked by what I found.
Before we begin: We all know social science is indoctrinated by liberal bias (9/10 hiring decisions come on), so any parenting finding they present as untouchable requires as much doubt as global warming.
Before someone goes there, I hate to say it, but I doubt Stefan Molyneux knows psych data better than a guy who worked at the APA. Having data doesn’t mean shit, it’s the quality of the data. He keeps going on about this topic in a smug self-satisfied way with reference to simplistic philosophy over the scientific method as it applies here (they do differ substantially as we’ll see) and it irritated my amygdala enough to play Devil’s Advocate and see where the data took me.
I mean, if you watch that video I linked he even committed an ad hominem attack to anyone who disagrees and the psychogenetic fallacy, as well as the fallacy of dismissal and others. You’d be triggered too.
“In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out”
THE FORBIDDEN FINDING. I could just leave it there, tbh. It’s tempting.
They refuse to control the data (confounds) properly because it would prove them wrong, that’s why the methods are dodgy. If you look at plenty of pro-liberal social studies (at least 90% of them presumably, going by hiring for research posts), the statistics are distorted to match public policy recommendations, making the studies themselves post-hoc and invalid. It’s justification for social engineering, not real science.
As in many areas of science, some researchers disagree about the validity of the studies on physical punishment. Robert Larzelere, PhD, an Oklahoma State University professor who studies parental discipline, was a member of the APA task force who issued his own minority report because he disagreed with the scientific basis of the task force recommendations. While he agrees that parents should reduce their use of physical punishment, he says most of the cited studies are correlational and don’t show a causal link between physical punishment and long-term negative effects for children.
Translation: he thinks they’re filthy liars so he showed them up with a real study (hence the meta-analysis method, the gold standard) and they have no genuine reply to this, it’s hilarious. He went on to explain their flaws too, because he’s savage.
Little known fact: You do have to prove causation. Before you start lecturing people. They cannot. What does that say? Well, what does proof involves? Statistical control of confounds, which they refuse to do for some strange reason. The same way behaviourists refuse to control for genetics in their studies, while saying out the other side of their mouths that it wouldn’t change their significant findings if they did….
This is why social science isn’t yet a real science. These people. Who ‘can’t’ do maths.
“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.”
Such obscurity is always deliberate. Part of p-hacking. Heard of that reproducibility crisis?
Liberals see all forms of physical punishment as ‘too much’. To them, it’s all ‘abusive’, like disagreeing with a black guy is ‘racist’ or a gay man refusing to shag a woman is ‘sexist’. Well technically, theoretically speaking, but really no. Not in the real world. Where the data lives.
This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of disciplinary punishment in general.
But the other researchers don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth. It’s black and white thinking from them on this subject. All bad, or all good, unlike literally any other human behaviour known to mankind. Did I mention another reason for its hot-potato status is racial differences?
Our results indicate that adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritative parenting style, regardless of their race, are less likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved parenting style. Conversely, in this study adolescents of all races who characterize their parents as uninvolved are more vulnerable to engaging in health-risk behaviors. The effects of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles differ by race. In relation to the other parenting styles, the authoritarian style is more protective for Black adolescents than it is for White adolescents; while, the permissive style is more protective for White adolescents than it is for Black adolescents. The permissive parenting style and the authoritarian parenting style appear to have an equal effect on health-risk behaviors in Hispanic teens. source
TLDR: So being anti-authoritarian is actually racist.
Don’t expect them to crack it anytime soon. Money’s on it being mediated by MAO genes. And if personality is innate after a certain point and we should accept this and tolerate differences, is it reasonable to ask people to change? Weren’t they Born This Way?
This whole debate, all this is a ruse that relates back to Authoritarianism, also called a parenting style but actually a political invention by Adorno, a personality metric to call conservatives mentally ill. It’s basically a medical label of prejudice. Adorno was an avowed Communist who worked as part of the Frankfurt School. Seriously, look it up.
No literally, he tried to make up a hodge-podge theory calling conservatives mentally ill. It’s quite funny how overtly biased he was.
Case studies, e.g. Nazis
They piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F for fascism).
Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:
• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status [DS: hierarchical]
• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs [DS: aka closed to manipulation attempts]
• Conventional, upholding traditional values
Liberals did political psychology before we did. They started it.
Still, the authors concluded that the authoritative parenting style is protective in regards to adolescent drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally (Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001). source
So it works. Literally, it works. The majority of their argument against is futile.
The whole idea of parenting styles is a joke. You know what the data shows? The still-conservative one called authoritative is the best for life outcomes. Do they follow outcomes for types of discipline? No, not really, and especially not the least-popular parenting ‘style’, permissive (lazy). Why wouldn’t liberals want to study that?
Little mentioned is the damage of the permissive (liberal) parenting style. Why? Well, it’s hardly ever researched and commented upon.
Parental permissiveness or indulgence was also associated with increased adolescent alcohol and tobacco use(22,23,27). source
Adolescents who described their mother as using a permissive parenting style were more likely to demonstrate a tendency to anticipate a more violent response to the hypothetical situation. [same source]
Sounds healthy. Mentally.
Parenting style is like learning style, it pathologizes natural differences for political gain around a kernel of truth. Mental illness is not a political pawn, nor should it be used as one. But again, which wing started that?
There is also a big difference between genuinely seeking to end unjust discrimination against those who suffer from severe mental-health issues, and making out that we’re all secretly a little bit mentally ill.
Is it to help people, as best as we can, to live normal lives? Or is it an attempt to medicalise further normal aspects of everyday life?
Casually diagnosing a misbehaving child with mental problems, such as anxiety or depression, is the equivalent of a get-out clause.
We all know overdiagnosis is a problem, mathematically, as the majority (mentally healthy) cannot be the minority (mentally unhealthy) in a Medical Model. What type of person over-diagnoses or self-diagnoses?
Corporal punishment is usually correlated with behavior problems such as antisocial behavior and aggression.24 But correlation does not equal causation. What is open to dispute are the causal influences that explain those correlations. Making valid causal conclusions from correlations involving corrective actions is especially problematic, for correlations are biased against corrective actions, a problem known as the intervention selection bias.25 This selection bias occurs because of the poorer prognosis of those selected for the corrective action compared to the better prognosis of those not needing the corrective action.
aka Stefan is wrong.
And bad kids get disciplined more, they were bad to begin with. I love how nobody asks about psychopaths either. Like evil people pop into existence at age 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
However, all kinds of nonphysical punishment also predicted higher antisocial behavior with the same controls.
Woops. That’s not to suppose to happen, is it, Stefan?
all predicted significantly higher subsequent hyperactivity, whereas physical punishment did not, β = .03, n.s. Therefore, the strongest causal evidence against customary spanking is not unique to spanking, but applies as much to most corrective actions, including most corrective disciplinary actions by parents and corrective interventions by psychotherapists.
That’s the sound of a hypothesis dying. Like a whale.
I don’t blame him for being a pacifist though. Being Canadian.
If the therapists are harming children, where’s your moral beacon?
In sum, the strongest causally relevant evidence against customary spanking yields small, apparently detrimental effects that can easily be due to a combination of several substantive and methodological factors that bias the results. Consistent with this, the first studies to use the same research methods for alternative disciplinary tactics showed similar results for corrective actions by both parents and professionals. In evaluating corrective actions by clinical psychologists, this type of evidence would not even be considered and would definitely not override the causally conclusive evidence that spanking can be effective for enforcing nonphysical disciplinary tactics, even in the most clinically defiant two- to six-year-olds.154
Spanking must be understood in the broader context of the appropriate exercise of parental authority. Numerous studies have shown the superior effectiveness of authoritative parenting, especially compared with the extremes of authoritarian and permissive parenting.174 We have recently extended that evidence by documenting that ten-year child outcomes vary greatly by these preschool parenting patterns.175
Calling a parent a Nazi is pretty extreme, yes.
The use of normative spanking did not distinguish authoritative parents from other parenting patterns, although it was used more by authoritarian parents than by permissive parents. We think that authoritative parenting can be implemented by some parents without the use of any spanking, but we have no evidence of that from our study, as all authoritative parents used spanking at least occasionally.
As this alludes, hippies still spank their kids, they just lie about it. Getting the child to lie for them could be considered a form of abuse too, if you want to play that game.
There’s a load of duh conservative wisdom too before I move on.
Spanking should never be used in an infant’s first twelve months of life and rarely, if at all, before eighteen months of age. Parents should make sure their children know that any corrective discipline, including spanking, is motivated by love and concern for them. Parents must also be certain not to administer punishment too severely, whether physical or nonphysical. Finally, all punishment should be used in such a way that reduces the need to use it in the future. Every child is different, so not all disciplinary tactics will work as well with every child—or for every situation with the same child.
Parental authority figure. Authoritative role assumption. Duh?
Authoritarian should actually be called Tyrant. If the labelling system were culturally honest and followed, I dunno, the definition of English words?
I was doing some pondering over this topic and the neurobiology that must be involved and came up with a pie-in-the-sky opinion theory. Since I’ve already established the direction the empirical evidence has headed, I wanna freestyle it to finish.
Wall of text incoming.
I was reading about the findings on spanking, and it seems to be r-types self-selecting for narcissism. As in, they don’t develop empathy, which is based on pain (all kinds) and physically structured by mirror neurons. For an example of how this pertains to modern issues, such impaired ‘theory of mind’ (low empathy) is implicated in Borderline Personality. From what I know of the brain, spanking would actively change the child’s personality (an unstudied effect, a remarkable gap in the research despite the known origin of spanking research -parenting style- being based in the personality of the parents) and this change would aim to make the child more socially humble and deferential, respecting of hierarchy, such as parental authority, (like the spanking parents themselves, making spanking a cultural meme and untouchable by liberals on this basis) and such traits are something we know to be actively K-selected. I even thought of a mechanism, most parents who spank only start once the child is of around pre-school age, wandering curious age, at the exact time of great neural pruning. What most people don’t know is that neural pruning can be triggered and directed by experiences of pain, and once those connections are gone, they’re dead forever. Pruning is vital for healthy brain development, and may be a hidden environmental factor (really epigenetic) in childhood development.
By refusing to admit any positive effects from spanking whatsoever (impossible in social science), they admit their bias, because at that exact time biologically in the child’s development, mild physical pain, no different morally than controlled exposure hand-ice studies conducted by psychologists themselves, would cause neural pruning of the decisive connections which led to that antisocial behaviour. It causes a rewiring of the brain for prosociality during the ‘window of opportunity’.
In the ‘social science’, they’ve tried to argue that spanking causes sociopathy but the genetics show there is a predisposition, so what, pray tell geniuses, is a parent supposed to do if they find their kid lighting fires? How are they supposed to discipline the child they found torturing cats or trying to kill their little sister by pushing her down the stairs? They have no answer for this, because their entire anti-scientific premise rests on All Child Are Innocent Angels Incapable of Wrongdoing, something any parent will tell you is BS. The number of abusive children is rising.
What is the social engineer’s answer to this? Does the parent require less protection, when the child is often below the age of criminal responsibility? One of the expert-given causes for such abuse is “lack of consequences for bad behavior”, what do you think that might mean? As for solutions: “There are no agencies or programs that protect parents from abusive children, adolescents or teenagers other than giving up their Parental Rights to the state they live in.” So it seems the case that if the parents refuse to use physical force altogether, the child might take the newly imbalanced power dynamic (game theory) as carte blanche and abuse the parent. Such sunny optimism as you see with the anti-spanking witch hunts fail to recognize this, despite their supposed stance against all abuse and violence. It irritates their amygdala, you see, making them ignore it. Like a child screaming in a supermarket. They’re That Parent.
If a parenting style fails to apply to all children (and you don’t know who’s pathological until they’ve killed the family cat), it fails and one cannot advise parents to undertake it in good conscience. Children are capable of great evil and not just the sociopathic ones (from ignorance, bad peer influence, genetic bequeath or sheer stupidity). If you ask real parents anecdotally, (bear in mind liberals avoid having children making their opinion dubious since they admit to hating kids in general) they’ll draw a connection between late Gen Y/ early Gen Z and NARCISSISM. Aka part of the Dark Triad. Why weren’t those connections pruned, compared to earlier generations? Many parents would say the anti-spanking initiative, and wouldn’t you know it, that generation is coincidentally the most heavily liberal known to mankind. They respect nothing and feel invincible, literally as if nothing could really harm them? ‘Import rapists? Sure! They would never hurt me!’ It would be a like a cultural version of Toxoplasmosis infection, because they speak from ignorance. Their brains are immature, but that isn’t an excuse, they aren’t insane and know logically right from wrong, and arguably that makes it worse. They follow their feelings knowing it’s wrong, the polar opposite of what the advocates of prohibition say should happen!
It’s widely recognized the rise in child narcissism is due to the Self Esteem Movement, but what caused the SEM? What new behaviours from parents, since it’s novel in children? Non-parenting parents. Genetic parents, who fail to take up the social role.
I’ll just paste this off wikipedia because I’m lazy.
A study conducted by Jean Decety and colleagues at the University of Chicago demonstrated that subjects with aggressive conduct disorder elicit atypical empathic responses to viewing others in pain. Subjects with conduct disorder were at least as responsive as controls to the pain of others, but unlike controls, subjects with conduct disorder showed strong and specific activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (areas that enable a general arousing effect of reward), yet impaired activation of the neural regions involved in self-regulation and metacognition (including moral reasoning), in addition to diminished processing between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.
Absence of punishment rewards bad behaviour. They don’t learn to control themselves and cannot morally reason, the thing the anti-spanking people rely on as the bulk of their proposition.
What appears to be pathological altruism is in fact a weakened threat recognition system, and surely it’s better to teach a child the meaning of pain and suffering in a controlled environment than wait for it to metastasize in a potentially lethal way? None of the studies, though persuasive, account for these factors. Reasoning with a bad child doesn’t work. Some children are bad, where do they think bad adults come from? They pop into existence at age 18? Why even have clinical child psychology if no intervention could ever have changed them? What are good parents of a bad egg supposed to do? Pray? Cos that’s about as reasonable as ‘reasoning’ with them – humans are not logical animals. If it won’t work on adults (Israel/Palestine, anyone?) it certainly won’t work on a toddler. We have to teach classical logic and formal laws of maths when they’re at school, far too late, the superego/conscience is already formed, so expecting them to get it earlier on or as a baby is frankly retarded. So while I hate to say it, I’m forced to conclude that spanking is justifiable in certain conditions of very bad behaviour (especially criminal) and during the window of life phase time (childhood stage) it might be corrected for. A little bad does us good, in the long term? This is the low time preference view, which is, wouldn’t you know it, the preserve of conservatives. I call it the Eustress Hypothesis.
TLDR: Fear is something you learn and liberals haven’t.
Also, I find it funny liberals don’t believe in IQ unless they’re citing spanking studies, then negligible IQ drops are totally a real thing and a huge deal (unlike IQ drops from smoking pot, which are rounding errors apparently). 5 points of difference for example could be caused by anything, it was raining today so when the kid took the IQ test again he was sad? Education boosts IQ far more than spanking supposedly drops it, so what’s the problem? If we’re playing the IQ maths game? Does it take pointing out the obvious by twisting it the other way to make the faulty reasoning clear? Did they control for parental investment (extraneous variable) or what? No, they did not. This includes reading to them and other at-home education (itself a sign of parental IQ – another confound!). The IQ difference within this study doesn’t even remain over time, in the older age group, the difference is a stonking 2.8 IQ points! Wow! At which point they stopped measuring or failed to report on the data, which isn’t odd… To clue you in on how valid this widely cited dataset is, the guy who conducted it is a sociologist. Not even a child psychologist or anything psychologist (they tend to use different methodologies, different assumptions and much weaker statistics).
According to PC dogma, even yelling isn’t allowed now. So no form of discipline is acceptable to them, the r-types. Why yelling? It causes shame and apparently no child should ever feel shame for anything. http://jezebel.com/if-yelling-at-kids-is-as-harmful-as-spanking-what-the-1455310255
Gee, which political wing hates being ‘shamed’?
Different from guilt, which is too generic and makes them neurotic and indecisive as adults. Like Catholics.
I don’t expect liberals to avoid confirmation bias, we wouldn’t want them to be triggered by facts, would we? However, I expect better from the Alt Right. Quit taking tips on aggression from a non-scientist Canadian philosopher. Quit bothering me with assumptions that his proofs are correct when the internet is right there and you should use it. Topic covered? Can we drop it now?
Instead, genetics. This jives with other findings.
Political Party Identification? Genetic.
I sense a pattern here.
You know what is real?
Propaganda and peer influence. This includes teachers. Let that sink in.
Learning cultural lessons is important (how to speak, hold cutlery), but it won’t change who you are. You can undo false beliefs but not false behaviours, and the high criminal recidivism proves this. Rehab proves this. Our soft treatment of bad behaviour has produced – more bad behaviour. The brain is a learning machine but there is only one way it can unlearn a bad lesson – pain.
As we say, dating back centuries, Bad Blood Will Out.
Want quantifiables? Your family affluence stabilizes over the generations.
White Governments want to parent new arrivals into acting like First World citizens. Magic Dirt is the 21st century Appeal to Magic Beans.
Avoid the Sociologist’s Fallacy, folks. You can’t replicate it because bullshit is unique.
Within a ‘narrow’ normal band of keeping the child physically/mentally healthy, and relatively happy, parenting doesn’t matter. He dirt child, you dirt parent. He Evil Jr., You Evil Sr.
The academic focus on parenting style was intended to damage the nuclear family via the Patriarch. It lectured like a Sunday Pastor about the evils of being authoritarian, and called it the Authoritarian Personality. You know, like not wanting your child to spend time around thugs or stay out late vulnerable to rape, which counts under the peer influence proven to be a decisive factor in their life. That was called terrible parenting because r-types don’t want the Ks to compete against their own rugrats by investing in their own future K-spawn? The sole response is to shame them for it.
Hardly any social mobility. No hypogamy. No hypergamy (the small-scale sociology theory seems to be wrong over many generations when you look at the genetics). I wasn’t expecting that. It shows psychology has its limits too, when they’re looking in the wrong place (teachers) and asking the wrong questions (how valuable is an education?).
What we see is clearly an argument for sexually selective Leagues. (Bear in mind, it would count MMV as well as SMV). It seems to be mostly genes.
The idea that this transmission of status over time has been as Clark found it squares well with another facet I discuss frequently on this blog: the fact that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on children’s outcomes.
Although parenting can let the team down if it’s atrocious (i.e. modern) and without instinct. But it seems later generations might have hope of regaining lost ground. Presumably there’s regression to mean in parenting quality, and since most people are totally forgotten by the 4th generation it’s no wonder we see no effect.
The interesting thing is that even the people who take me seriously on this point still believe that there’s something their efforts can do, beyond keeping their children fed, clothed, clean, and cognizant of the basic ways of the world. Steven Sailer frequently suggests that the outcome of poorer children, especially those of color (mostly Hispanics) would improve if they had fewer of them, and hence could afford to invest more in each, despite the fact that this doesn’t hold up in adoption studies.
It’s an oxytocin-based instinct, but it only seems that the majority of the affectionate instinct actually needs to be applied to the spouse (in both directions) to maintain the stability for the children. Another reason divorced parents are awful. Also, I wonder whether this would change the minds of any cuckolds saying they ‘don’t mind’ if a child isn’t theirs, as long as they raise them? This applies to women raising the children of former wives too.
This study found that “cultural transmission” (i.e., from parents) couldn’t explain the pattern seen in children (indeed, the parent-child correlation was negative once you removed heredity). The non-parental environment explained the variance, suggesting that other influences, such as peers, likely explain the results.
Why else do you think mothers care so much about who their child has for friends?
It can predict crime, drug use and all sorts (peer pressure).
This issue squares the matter with Gregory Clark’s results. That is, when you consider other facets, education per se doesn’t seem to mean much in the end. Apparently, you can’t teach moxie. This is revealed by the fact that every trait “going in” that shapes a person (and should be relevant to educational attainment) reliably shows absolutely no shared environment impact.
The Middle Class fallacy. Grit and resilience come into it too (the upper class have it, the middle class despise it).
You could put little Tarquin in the best school to ever exist, it won’t make him a genius.
…including one’s work preferences and interests, the presence or absence of mental disorders, and including the features of a person we think of as “character.” Parents leave no lasting effect on any of it, aside from what they bequeath to their children genetically….
The upper class try to teach their children life skills like grit too.
The middle class assumes it will just happen. Guess who wins.
We’ve all heard comparisons of our character or habits to deceased family members, right?
I would like to see hobbies compared genetically because birth order and sibling rivalry supposedly make children opt into different ones despite genetic similarity.
Who you choose to have children with is the most important decision of your entire life. No pressure.
Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!
Liberals and conservatives will be battling for a long time to come.
Bodes well for r/K.
I think this is why K-types seem so betrayed when divorced. Total speculation. I’m sure a lot of spouses cheated on would like to stone the 3rd party responsible. Religion is a good excuse to kill the competition.
(Hence the “shared environment” ≠ “all environment.”)
That needs to be made clear for the all would-be sociologists.
But that’s all OK, yes? The whole point of education is to “shape” the raw individual beyond his/her genetic predilection, right? Wrong.
Education cannot change potential, it can only improve performance up to the ceiling OF potential, how many times do I have to say this?
The problem is that everything that comes out, the adultout comes, shows a shared environment impact that is also zero.
If your parents were screw-ups and couldn’t hold a marriage together, you’ll probably be a screw-up too. It’s the circle of life.
OK, so you might be willing to accept that you can’t shape your child’s personality or values. You can’t control his major life outcomes. You can’t even control how much money he will go on to earn. But surely you can do something useful, like leave your children a lifetime of happiness, right? After all, I believe, and advise, that a parent’s key duty, after ensuring that their children grow up healthy and safe, is to ensure that each has a happy childhood. Surely that must count for something, too,? It does, in the form of fond memories of childhood.
This is so brutal. So redpill.
The lesson is choose your spouse wisely and once you’ve got them, stick with them. You can’t choose your own genetic profile, but you can damn well choose theirs! (This is why women are so selective).
One’s lifetime of happiness boils down to genes and to the fickleness of luck.
I’m one of the lucky people who can be contented in a shed.
It’s like when I was told Follow your Dreams and the money will follow! I was always like ‘but if you are happy, why do you still need the money to justify your decision?’, that art teacher did not like me, not one bit. School really is a prison but that’s news to nobody, frankly. You’re there to do a thing (pass grades) and finally they grant your release. Might as well game the system and learn other, more useful things with their resources while you’re there.
He will be who he will be. It’s only my job to help him get there, and pass on the legacies of all those who came before him. I did all I could do: I married well. Beyond that it’s in the hands of “fate”.
That’s the healthy parental attitude, not the Trophy Child, as I call them, where they need something to brag about like it’s a prize-winning pet or the Dead Dreams Model where the child is pressured to do what the parent wishes they had (a whole career, not little stuff).
The vagaries of the circumstances no doubt imbued good fortune on some and dashed the success of many others.
Whether your society (born into) was just and meritocratic, I’d wager.
But through it all, the thing that is at the root of continuity – DNA – remained the active ingredient to propagate lineages in their respective places through out the ages.
It is as it was said in the Richard Donner Superman films: “The son becomes the father, and father becomes the son.”
Superman quotes now? Epic.
Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?
TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.
In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.
You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*
He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.
The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.
Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.
Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.
It comes down to IQ grade. IQ denialism, as it was suggested by Haidt, makes about as much sense now as New Earth Creationism in biology, there is simply so much evidence.
Grades are just proxies for IQ — which most parents are too dumb to conceive of.
IQ isn’t strictly a number, it’s a grouping with an error variance. The Binet IQ was intended for school application ONLY – to ascertain how the child’s learning process could be assisted by teachers at each stage (level of work compared to their chronological age), look at modern Sets for the truest application.
If you’re at the top grouping possible for a human, as an adult, A+/200+ High Genius or basic polymath, you have all the choices. And who doesn’t want options for their child (and by ego extension, a compliment to their own genetic material) but the further down the pyramid you go, the more restricted your future prospects. These are facts.
If you wanna be an astronaut, you’d better be making As and Bs. Just because you sat in the same classroom for decades doesn’t mean you’re equal in life quality potential or entitled to the same things as adults (public school kids and pronounced failures regardless of family fortune are the amusing example).
Telling children they all have equal potential may seem nice, and the Nurture Brigade of modern teaching insist it’s fair (if you are ignorant of their status yes, in case) and necessary (see former) – but it traumatizes the average and below-average children and sets them up for a lifetime of suffering, and probable mental illness (hark! Freud’s ghost laughing in the distance). Children blame themselves when they fail or something goes wrong. Fine if the changes needed are within their control… this is rarely the case here. The self-esteem movement formed to prevent mental illness, theoretically as a shield against it, and now… many young people are popping pills.
This lie about potential doesn’t even sink in (because for this to apply, they are dumb) when they’re adults. Millennials are miserable. They see their age-peers succeed and assume (all else being equal) there is something they can do about it, and feel entitled (+) or wronged (-), that their own course isn’t going the same way (a few come up with lies i.e. their competition is cheating, or secretly evil).
n.b. IQ is computed by age, so child ones are unreliable although age 11/12 is highly correlated, it’s best to get retested as an adult and expect a small dive. Many supposed prodigies fail on this count because they were merely ahead of the curve at school (by external factors of socialisation, see Gladwell’s Outliers), and not genetically ahead (permanently ahead). Hence, prodigies seem to burn out, when in fact the fakes (harsh but true) merely crash into the wall of their genetic potential. Elements of the modern school system e.g. obedience to popular belief, lack of imagination and rote memory dependence also contribute to this false-flagging of intelligence, as it were, rewarding traits which are, in effect, the anti-genius. Lies on the other side of the IQ fence.
Puts societal dysfunction in a whole new light, doesn’t it?
Some 95 percent of male mammals have little to no interaction with their children. Homo sapiens are one of the most notable exceptions, leading some scientists to think fatherhood is an important part of what makes us human.
Tender years feminist myth. Men have higher cognitive flexibility.
While fathers do play key roles in securing the physical health of their children, they also can be important for the optimum development of psychological and emotional traits considered to be primarily human, such as empathy, emotional control and the ability to navigate complex social relationships.
Daddy Issues just got much funnier.
Unlike many other animals, humans need their fathers well beyond the act that leads to conception, researchers are coming to realize.
I’m posting this one to annoy the feminists who hate-read this blog. Hello.