Parenting Doesn’t Matter (Or Not As Much As You Think)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligenc...
Join our mailing list to be first to hear about our London events: bit.ly/2G6gwKt
__________________________
‘Raising Happy Kids‘, ‘The Conscious Parent‘, ‘How to Talk so Kids Will Listen‘: Books like these, along with magazines, television shows and childcare experts, are all part of the multibillion-pound parenting industry. Follow our advice, they promise, and you can shape your children to be joyful, resilient and successful.
But what if it’s all bunk? What if parenting doesn’t make much of a difference at all to the way our kids turn out? That’s the argument that will be made by the genetics experts in this major Intelligence Squared debate. We all know about the nature vs nurture argument, but it’s only recently that evidence has emerged revealing just how much of who we are is influenced by our DNA - from our personality and our likelihood of developing mental illness to how well we do at school. We might think that certain parenting styles produce certain kinds of children - for example, that overprotective parents cause their offspring to be anxious. But in fact, research suggests that these traits are manifestations of the same genetic influence working in both the parents and children. Of course, you should be loving, kind and supportive towards your children. After all, you want to have a good relationship with them. But don’t imagine that anything that you do or don’t do, short of seriously damaging them, will have much effect on the kind of person they turn out to be.
But others would argue that this ‘genetic determinism’ is too extreme a position. Yes, our genes influence our basic personality type, but this is very different from the claim that who we turn out to be is written in our genes at birth and that parenting doesn’t make a difference. In fact, many psychologists believe that hereditary traits are malleable and that our life experiences determine which ones come into play. So, for example, a child born with a genetic disposition towards alcoholism may never turn to the bottle if she has a happy and stable childhood that sets her up well for the vicissitudes ahead. And research shows that even extremely damaged children, such as the ones found in Romanian orphanages after the fall of communism, can thrive in the care of well trained foster parents if intervention happens early enough. No one is claiming that children are pieces of clay that we can mould as we like, but good parenting matters and it can make a huge difference to the happiness and wellbeing of our offspring.
So just how important is parenting?
Follow Intelligence Squared on:
Twitter: bit.ly/2y94Cvc
Facebook: bit.ly/2SFF8z4
Instagram: bit.ly/2LJ9Czw
Eventbrite: bit.ly/2JSStBi
Listen to our Podcast: bit.ly/2MfsXrq
a good debate, which reminds me the reason why i like to watch these is not to see one side defeat the other, but to listen to what everyone has to say, and learn about the subject as a whole. Great fun and a lot to think about.
Those two ladies spent half their presentations arguing against the other presenters rather than arguing the idea. It was a little disappointing hearing all the jags they took at them lol.
The smartest men make the smartest women look stupid. That is also a scientific fact on IQ distributions
The old ad hominem attacks. Proof they have no real argument
I like how the first speaker put it. That parents are shepherds, not engineers. It really seems like the most profound impact a parent can have is when they traumatize their children. When the effect is not negative, it's negligible.
That’s why this topic is so difficult stupid people. They can’t handle that they really have very little control/impact AND their mistakes early on cannot be undone.
The most important part of a child’s life is 0-3 being in a healthy loving but structured home with BOTH PARENTS.
Any parent who willingly subjects their child to the trauma of a broken home is inflicted trauma on their child in favor of their own selfish feelings. They gotta grow up
The "parenting matters" side basically just appeals to emotions. They skip twin studies and any other good studies and right away go for examples like "Don't you audience members feel that your parents matter?". It's a good point, but they are talking about personal biased emotions not actual effects. They are 2 different things. It would be like a debate about God and one side appealing to the feeling of God. Yeah, it's there. But so what?
She is only right when it comes to nutrition. Parents control nutrition for the child hence make a difference.
It's not even a good point as humans are experts at finding causes for their behavior.
A parent can only directly control their child's nutrition whilst they are in the home. As soon as the child has recourse to their own autonomy regarding what they eat, that control is no longer 100%@@MegaWarell
Exactly! They’re the irrational lower iq folks who can’t handle the reality of data and research.
It’s actually a mental illness I think
Parenting Doesn’t Matter (Or Not As Much As You Think)
(-> It is the part inside the parentheses, which makes this debate a fools errant.)
The conclusion... Parenting does matter although this might not be in the way you thought
You're forgetting the part where it barely matters.
The parenting cop-out vibe is real.
Good parenting is best, bad parenting is not as responsible for bad results, as many think. However, having no parents and being brought up by the state, is a complete disaster, in virtually every case.
bad parenting is one of the worst things that can happen to a human being
@@meoneandonly_ No because it's not right for you to determine a bad parent. No it's not right for a child to suffer from a bad parent buuuuut then again what freedoms do we have if we tell people who can or cannot have kids and how they need to raise them.
@@armandoc.3150 Of course its right to judge bad parents... the state can take away your child in extreme cases as well if you dont meet the most basic minimum standards of good parenting. Of course there is more than one good way to raise a child, but there are certain things that responsible parents will never do. If they do it, they are bad parents - im not telling anybody how to raise their child but nothing can stop me from pointing out bad parenting when i see it
@@meoneandonly_ Yea I agree with what you are saying because you missed my point. What I mean is there is no way to make a fair law for that because we can judge all we want but to make rules to how parents should be and the right to steal a child away is not right and it always results from government force.
As I said in the previous comment it's not right to determine a bad parent and I mean that legally not morally but morals are a factor too. You may feel like a good parent and know what a good parent is but if the government sets those standards and you dont fit that then oh well how you feel we cant trust you with a kid or this place isnt safe for a kid lol
@@armandoc.3150 Ok, thanks for clarifying the understanding...I wasnt talking about the law, but I partly agree with you - except that I think that certain boundaries have to be established where the law has to step in if crossed.
For example, parents that are addicted to chemical drugs and/or engage in drug trading to such a degree that the health of the child is affected, then the child has to be under the custody of someone else until at least one parent is healthy again.
There have been instances of people just forgetting their child in the next room and letting it starve to death because they went on a meth binge for days.
Sexual abuse of your children should be another obvious example where lawful force must be applied in the interest of the child.
Tragedies like these can sometimes be prevented and in that situation, the law has to step in.
At around 1:02:00 one of the guys asks for evidence of something and the lady laughs and side eyes him lol. Yea I guess asking for evidence is laughable.
The audiences laughs too...
@@michaelrichardson8291 what's your point? A lot of people think e evidence is laughable?
@@michaelrichardson8291 "..."
@@josephc.5317 That the room as well as the speaker inferred humour from the comment, which apparently you didn't pick up on. Your comment about her giving 'side eyes' is whats truly laughable from the context.
@@michaelrichardson8291 yea your right asking for evidence is laughable
Both panellists against the proposition were personally antagonistic towards their opponents during opening statements. It looked bad on them. I"d say, speculatively, that they didn't appreciate attempts by men to tell them about child development or whether their individuality as women matters much in children's outcomes. They felt belittled, perhaps, by their opponents' assertions. The response was pompous. I mean, why behave badly if you're free of personal resentment?
yes thank you, my thoughts exactly.
Nice projection there, how do you know the have any resentment whatsoever? I would be likely to consider it is you who is the one with resentment.
I just wrote a comment saying essentially the same thing. Absolutely spot on.
@@michaelrichardson8291 the resentment towards "Robert" is noticeable. They directly call him out and pick apart statements of his that they cherrypock without context rather than making their own arguments.
@@josephc.5317 Direct callouts and cherry picking, for arguments sake I'll agree, doesn't equal resentment.
Emotions vs Logic
The pivotal question is not whether "parenting" matters but rather to what extent and in what way it has an effect on the development of our personality, which anyway is difficult to measure and quantify. Despite extensive research on this topic, we are still groping in the dark and can only make assumptions. At least so far. So I think all we can say is: "Both nature AND the environment matter". 😀
However, in one point I definitely disagree with the two ladies and that is, for me, parenting begins after birth and not at the moment of conception.
Here's a perspective to consider. The DNA you receive through the mixing of your parents' genes code for how your brain will respond to all stimuli in the womb and onward. Unless traumatised, alterations in that initial neural structure and its development is not significant, otherwise we would not be able to maintain a sense of self. However, small adjustments, some of them epigenetic, induced by your environment certainly have effects on how an individual will respond to various stimuli.
What does this all boil down to? Our genes give us our foundation, and outside of extreme circumstances, that foundation remains fairly intact over our lifetime. However, filters of memory can have an overriding effect on genetic expression, which parents employ to guide your genes in the most beneficial direction.
For example, a child who is predisposed towards aggression can be stimulated to develop control over the aggression. That does not mean that the aggression disappears, but that a filter has been setup in the brain to counter the base impulse response. The stronger the genetic predisposition, the more difficult it is to create the filter, and vice versa.
Great argument!
Generally, we may not consider prenatal maternal status as parenting.
Semantic questions like that are so useless.
Wei, great point
that should be called gestating advice
It’s not. The feelings based clowns will include anything to try to beef up their no data argument
I feared this would be an opinion fest, but there was some scientific discussion in there.
I love this video. People have such a difficult time coming to terms with the fact that general personality is inherited or at least is innate. Look at the theory of evolution. People had such a difficult time for a century that processes could have occured without an intelligent agency. We think the agency of parenting HAS to make a difference, but it mostly does not. It matter that' you have parents that feed you, love you, and keep you sheltered. Basic stuff, but as far as outcomes of personality and stuff....it may not.
Good to see a socialist (going by your profile pic) accepting the role of genetics. I don't know why so many on the left are so reluctant to accept this.
That said, heritability studies of incarceration or lifetime earnings tend to find a bigger role for shared environment, so I guess the consequence of having a certain personality is influenced by parenting style even if your personality itself is not.
@@WorthlessWinner Oh, Communists love Darwinism, man. Have you ever read Lenin?! He almost treats Darwin as a god.
@@WorthlessWinner Addition: Same for Mao.
@@AbdunK99
lmaooooo
It’s basically cultural brainwashing from an early age. So many people feel (not think) that they can in fact be anything. They can’t. We’re all limited by our dna and inherited characteristics.
I feel like they're all mostly in agreement, and the differences lie in their assumpions about the audience's presumptions, and the interpretation of this vague motion.
Re fathers. Fathers are very important. As a daughter my father talked to me about everything, history politics, life's meaning and because of that I never thought I wasn't allowed to use my mind because I was female.
Your dad seems like a great guy but maybe you just inherited his intelligence.
Judith Rich Harris showed how negligible the influence of parenting is. It was her position that nurture equated with the parental influence overlooks the far greater impact of siblings and peers on the moral development of children. Bullying is the perfect illustration of this, here in its adverse or afflictive capacity.
Parents are protective and nurturing, but teachers, siblings and peers are also compassionate.
The debate suffers from not specifying what ‘influence’ means. Who we “are” is a dubious equivalence of “what influenced our development,” itself unmeasurable in its generality.
I would argue that the matriarchal prerogative, or core of present day feminism, is based on the conviction that what parents, especially mothers, do is critical. Not just influential but actually indispensable and determinative of outcome. Therefore the authority of mothers cannot be contravened or challenged. This goes beyond women-are-the-equal-of-man to mothers-are-more-important- than-fathers. Because they have the superior weightier responsibility women have the moral high ground. This is the matriarchal prerogative, that is, the ethos of the protective mother responsible for the effeminization (= infantilization) of our schools, college campuses, and society at large, including the work-place.
The Moderator did such an amazing job!
Is it significant that those on the nature side of debate are men whereas those on the nurture side are women?
Men are more likely scientists, women are more likely socialist wishful thinkers.
The debate is not nature vs. nurture, but the importance of nature and nurture (except parenting) vs. the importance of parenting.
I think women have a lot more anecdotal evidence for how children with mother who don't cope develop. Whereas men can often have a narrow perspective based of broader stats. Honestly I think both genetics and parenting are equally important.
Most moms really don't like to see themselves as not essential in every way to the lives of their children. For dads it's not as big an emotional impact to know that you cannot educate a child to become a certain thing in life.
Both sides have a point. The moral of the debate is genes determine one’s potential while parenting or environment provides the resources and opportunities to realize the potential.
I have seen this debate a few times before in other places. Very few times thought and it's still worth showing the modern science in this area as most laymen don't know anything about it.
But I would love such a debate for teachers and the teaching effect. It's of course pretty much the same debate I just think it will illustrate new points.
Yeah seems the guys are looking at normal people, raised in normal families. I think the women are pointing out the importance of raising a child in a loving way so they are making their argument for the outliers that the men's study doesn't include. My own experience is "people like what they know" so who raises you can effects the knowledge that your exposed to, but how someone processes the world around them and internalize it emotionally may have a lot to do with genetics. Though I would have to say the woman on the left is talking from a more emotional tone, and she is also more informed about the outliers which is a career choice she made, it's her knowledge base and her argument is more emotional. Emotions take priority over reason based on how that works in the brain, a person has to be in a safe calm place for emotions to calm down before they engage reason. So emotional arguments have more appeal or sway. The human brain is wired to remember negative emotions over normal emotions, so the importance of a loving environment is over stated in this argument. Which to me is where gender politics seems to fall over, the imaginary victim, as it's overstated to take control of situations where it's not a real problem.
Behavioral geneticists don't deny that extremes like abuse have an effect on the individuals who experience them, but given how thankfully rare those extremes are, they have a negligible effect on the average when you look at a large group of randomly selected people. The outliers exist, but they don't disprove the general rule.
@Darin Douglas This is perfectly said. Moreso- we are a culture that VALUES emotions more than reason unfortunately
The women are just making arguments to the exceptions and emotional points. They offered no empirical data to refute the other side.
The robots are right, they just suck at explaining it in a human level. God! I miss hitchens lol.
Robots. Droll, that. Yes, all four, in fact, are inadequate at framing the overall importance of their findings within the question at hand, making you wonder why. The moderator could do it for them with ease, and must be biting his tongue. It'd be less frustrating for us if he could play the lion tamer a little, and have the authority to ask questions, demand answers, switch around from one panellist to the other, etc.
Hey, if you miss Hitchens, try his brother Peter (who wrote incisively on cannabis earlier this month). I myself ignored this advice for a few years and regret it a bit.
I was picking a jury in a case that I was a defendant and after I picked 6, a woman sat in the 7th juror chair and before I could ask her any questions she asked the judge to be dismissed from participating as a juror in the case because I reminded her so much of her own son that she could not be impartial. The judge let her go and it turned out she had the same birthday as my mother.
That is the most telling thing about this talk is the audience - look at them, THEYRE OLD.
TOO OLD TO HAVE KIDS. This helps nothing if the information doesn’t get to perspective parents!
Parenting is extremely important. Just ask any child, after you take their parent's away from them. They want their Mom, Dad, , Brother's or Sister's, They want the entire family that they once belonged to.
Yeah but that's not the point of this debate
Some kids actually hate their family environment 😂
It’s not. Apparently you’re one of the data and research deniers in favor of your own hubris
Disregarding the topic argued for a moment, I'd like to focus on the methodology used for a second. The female panelists are here definitely rhetoricians par excellence! They seem to know their voting audience well and are deliberately choosing their words so as to affect them. However, their arguments are extremely fallacious and their use of rhetorics seems misplaced in the mouth of a scientist. If their work and research is indeed as good as they claim it to be, they needn't resort to such manipulative and intellectually abhorrent behavior. I find it to be complete anathema to me.
She seemed to interpret the question totally differently to Plomin, arguing that you need a womb for a child to develop as if that has any bearing on parenting styles effecting variation in people's traits. She also showed that really extreme environments like abuse can have an effect, but that doesn't say much about the average person. The stuff that goes on in the womb is usually considered "non shared environment" as it isn't something parenting style has much influence over, genes have a bigger impact on it than anything, but she presents it as the main evidence parents matter. Gotta admit I laughed out loud when she said psycho-analysis is on her side.
It proves plomins argument about dna. So much of the audience just doesn’t possess the cognitive ability to see past their feelings
The ladies should have read a statistics book before the debate.
That requires work
It's both. And the adopted children could their similarities be based on the effects of being adopted?
No. The data showed otherwise
So many Spartans together in one place to debate!
Lol, wasted Plomins time
Exactly. The 2 clucking hens provided NO data or research to support their claims. It’s such a disgusting waste of time. The moderator really sucked at getting the 2 sides to genuinely debate the IDEAS.
Describing the experience of the fetus in the womb and then labeling that as parenting is very odd to me. This debate is about nature vs nurture but it's specific to parenting and not the other environmental factors that the against side brings up in their opening remarks.
three identical strangers documentary concludes the opposite
No, it doesn't. They're almost identical with a few tiny differences, they were all even very predisposed to depression. You listened to the conclusion of the few that denied the data and don't like the idea of biology shaping us (it's called confirmation bias, because you yourself don't like that idea).
It was a debate in the true sense of the word!
No it wasn’t. One side immediately started getting personal rather than attack the ideas
If you're interested in the behavioral genetics research, I recommend Bryan Caplan on the Podcast, Rationally Speaking.
rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs144-bryan-caplan-on-does-parenting-matter.html
Actually, Parenting is genetic by our species. Case closes. There could be a host of genes coding for “parenting behavior”
My sister-in-law's daughter is in a wonderful long term female/female relationship.
A child was born 2 years ago and what a wonderful person he is.
They're trying for a second child now.
Meanwhile the sis-in-law, 67, is being asked to increase the frequency of her involvement along with the other grandmother with child 1, as both daughters work, and cannot cover unexpected work and medical appointments.
The daughters , both in senior government management jobs apparently can't afford private childcare but rely on 15 hours "free" government paid childcare, which does not cover delivery at 8 am or collection at 6 pm, so it requires both grandmothers to chip in. Grandma 1 lives 25 miles away, Grandma 2 has an erratic lifestyle with boyfriends.
Granddad 1 is captain of a golf club, you got it, and Granddad 2 is severely disabled and living on his own.
So all in all the parents are happy but there is dislocation being caused to the grandparents,
What a pompous intelligence halved lecture this is in this context.
Without this context it is still pompous.
It must be the parents being able to cope and being happy and being able to afford their choices that is paramount to bringing happiness to the child.
X
They’re bad parents. They’re intentionally inflicting their child to an unnatural existence devoid of the critical father figure required (especially for a boy) for development. Then choosing to prioritize their career over time with the child while asking others to assume responsibility.
It’s disgusting
This is an easy conclusion...
Children adopted suffer high rates of depression and suicide.. why?
Because a key component is missing 'birth origin attachment to the parents'.. same as children raised in a one parent household who suffer greatly in depression & anxiety.
What exactly are we trying to reach in the next generation is the important question..
Are we wanting individuals who can hang degrees on walls, productivity and income?
Is that what we desire in a community, I highly disagree..
We should strive for compassionate, caring, loving, tender, nurturing communities, who value one another equally, who don't value an object higher then a human.
We seen humanity at it's worst... Wars, stealing, genocide, slavery, starvation, ravaging women...
All for the sake of economic growth..
So what do we desire our communities to be filled by?
Individuals that meet standards of Productivity or individuals who met standards of compassion for others?
Not only do parents matter greatly but so do strong community bonds.
The Good Morning America woman thinks like an undergrad. She also tries to pull on your heartstrings without earning it. Her opponents rely on rhetoric too, but much less. Her ally is in between.
really? I thought her ally was the worst, her arguments were all emotional and anecdotal
Yes, her arguments were flimsy. Possibly my attention wandered at times while she was talking. @@Vgallo
"The middle classes aren't better at raising children‚ they're better at buying neighbourhoods." - Dr. Amos Wilson
Since the role of genetics and non shared environment are known already, I expected from the "environmental" side some new data, eg some meta analysis on studies finally _controlling for the genetic factor_ .
But the two ladies talked about feelings, tried to make points based on show of hands, talked about development in the womb and other off topics, and one seems to not understand the concept of outlier. ( Also, they gave me the impression to think that the subject is somehow a matter of opinion.)
I wonder, are they even researchers? Or they were , maybe?
At least one talked about her "clinical experience" or something like that, so I guess she doesn't know that essentially "experience" doesn't count because it's ridden with all the human available biases...
But were actual researchers available on "their side" at all?
While I agree about genetics but parenting does matter in the development of a child
In my culture parenting is a village affair where everyone is parenting the child
You cannot ignore abuse and neglect because these factors do affect a child
If you place identical twins in different environments where one is raised with regular parents and one is in an abusive environment
They might be different as adults
And is that not the real definition of the argument
To me it’s about differences in parenting that matter
If it did not matter then we would not have sociopaths
@@lodunsi Up to a point, parenting is surely essential. The extreme: if segregate your children in an empty room forever, the genetics become more and more irrelevant.
Afak the most established and reproduced studies in heritability still are twins & adopted children studies (despite advancements in DNA studies etc); now, for their nature there are filters upstream (adopting family situation, adoption tribunal judgments...) which tend to cut out extreme situations in parenting. So the studies apply to "reasonably normal" situations.
Second caveat: the findings say that genetics have a major, often predominant role (often 50i-70% of the variance) in basically all the features besides religious and political leaning; the rest is environment, but often is a lot of "non shared environment" aka "we don't know": it's typically not a systematic education system, not wealth, not a type of school, type of eating in the family, not even company (statistically - and roughly - speaking) ... it's some non systematic factor, not emerged (yet?).
If one could use nature as a greater influence on what makes people suffer or enjoy, that would be nice, because we would then have less ideological debates about guilt or incompetence of parents, that is, the tendency to denigrate other people. Insofar as the natural sciences would simply say that parenthood is negatively overrated in some way, I would not object to genetic findings.
But as a rule, geneticists do not do this, or why should we invest in human genetic research at all, if not to find a later application? Either to "augment" people or to use their genetic disposition as an opportunity to decide on life or death already in the womb. Or to exert influence on insurance law or liability issues? But if the genetic predisposition then also intends to make statements about a person's intelligence or limited possibilities, I think we still have an ethical problem with those we already have. As one of the panel discussants so aptly said, the 30% nurture, which would exist alongside the 70% inheritance, is the touchstone on the scales.
This is just a despicable debate. The genetic side provides data, research, and facts to support their base.
The other side provides NOTHING to refute those claims. No counter data or studies. NONE
At 1:25:00 ish she refused to provide any data or explanation to explain the twin studies 🙄
I love how they include the pregnancy period as nurture not nature. Sapolsky does the same. As is the only way you can get the nurture to 50.00000001%.
But if you speak to a human and say "nature V nurture" they hear nurture as them reading to their children, music lessons, making them do their homework... all the examples given in the talk.
So perhaps the titles should be "once you've given birth, your job is done". That would be 70%++ true. In regards to life outcomes. But that isn't saying you shouldn't read a bedtime story to your child. But be aware that you are doing that to make yourself feel better, not to make your child more educated.
And even of this remaining 30%, peer group is more important than parenting.
"Nurture" in this sense is used as a synonym for "environmental = not encoded in DNA sequence" variation." Which probably confuses people because most of "nurture" seems to be stuff like "random cell divisions in the womb"
Imagine not realizing that genetics just dictates your specific response, not the degree of inflection of such elements. Parenting does influence the second, but it can’t effect something that isn’t there. That is genetic. We are always looking at things from a specific frame of reference that reinforce our own beliefs. Dropping your own beliefs to get a more cohesive image, rather than pushing your own to promote a book would show you how time and reality works together. This is yet another weak attempt by dinosaurs to walk away from their own contributions. Every person believes outlandish things, some intellectual children see this in their parents and are not taken seriously. So it’s forced on them by children. Tell me how that doesn’t influence the future?
Beautiful questions. The audience is brilliant.
Both are right.
Nope
2 min in and the moderator has ''poisoned the well'. thanks, but no thanks.... out
Hes terrible
I am not sure the women are entirely clear on whether they talk about environment or socialization when they talk about parenting.
Environment is part of nature, not nurture - while of course it is a parent's job to prepare and maintain a proper environment as part of their parenting, these are not the same things.
Deedless Deity I think you are wrong. Nature refers to genes. Nurture is the environment you were brought up in.
What all these people have in common is that to all of them and from their limited perspective, everything looks like a nail.
So what's your point?
Thank you
the women missed the whole point in my personal opinion.
These "for the motion guys" have very inhuman opinion. Practically they say you don't have to be a good, honest caring parent, because it does not matter. The low IQ parents have low IQ children, and noting and nobody can change it. This is not true. I know a couple, they were cleaners, and their children had a very god teacher at the elementary school, and the child became interested the books, science, literature. He became a teacher-librarian. He became a very smart intelligent person. And there are other similar cases too. Unfortunately there are awful lot of cases when the parents are really very smart, but because they were negligent, their child became a failure.
Saying that someone has an "inhuman opinion" is not an argument. Nor is it valid to use personal anecdotes as evidence.
Clearly we weren't listening to the same debate.
"inhumane" opinions may seem mean or dislikeable. But many laymen are confused about the moral doctrines vs. actual science. What you feel should be the case may not be the case. For example, I may feel that woman should be as tall as men as that would be fair in my eyes. It doesn't make it true. And no matter how much I feel it the facts don't change.
Can't parenting be a synonym for environment, therefore the systems we live in would have the greatest effect on our development?
Carelessly thought out. It's only a part of the environment, so don't make it a synonym. Second, to use 'therefore' is to wildly jump the gun, also called beggaring the question. One side in the debate denies your assertion. That's why the debate happened. You must offer an argument you expect to convince the unconvinced or even hostile.
A Marxist, are you? I notice they think they understand everything about people and society, having read some Marx and Marxists. It's not that easy, as wide reading and experience would probably show you. Try not to be anyone's disciple. It's a doomed enterprise and it's undignified. No one has all the answers.
Let even your favourites always be under a sort of probation. And scout contrary views. Cheers.
@@dixonpinfold2582 I'll agree it was poorly worded but I believe my argument is sound. Parents responsible for providing a loving and safe environment for there children and can only accomplish that if external factors allow. I also believe if a loving and safe environment is provided parents are not required.
I'm no ones disciple and Marx criticized capitalism with good reason capitalism is dooming our planet allowing for no enterprise.
Marx will probably be proven right some day and I'm familiar with contrary opinions. Thanks
Marx was largely correct in his analysis of economic matters and the faults of capitalism. The West has partly taken his views into account in their adoption of welfare and unemployment insurance schemes, wealth redistribution, regulation of business, and public education. Of this, there ought to be more, but at present it is weakening. I hope this can be reversed and that capitalists will be further saddled by taxation.
His ideas on society were much less valuable. I think he bizarrely overestimated the malleability of human nature, for example stubbornly ignoring the facts that people wish to breathe free from authority and always want the best for their children. Your suggesting parents could be dispensed with horrifies me. It's simply inhuman.
May I suggest a widely varied program of serious reading not omitting Orwell and Solzhenitsyn. There's nothing to fear. If you read something and despise its thought and message, throw it on the fire. Let me share a warning from 1984: 'If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face---forever.' Remember that 100 million Russians and Chinese were put to death in the last century, many within living memory. Best regards.
@@wuweimarx1725
@@dixonpinfold2582 I'm familiar with Orwell and I'll look into Solzhenitsyn. if were recommending author's I would suggest Richard Wollf and PeterJoseph
okay, thanks.@@wuweimarx1725
It's to bad Gabor Mate wasn't invited to this debate.
The worst parent of all is the state.
Random?
If we want a clear image of the parents being discussed here, consider the following signature tunes of TV shows and pop songs which entertained them:
1: Blaniity blank, blankity blank.
Blankity blank, blank.
Blankity blank, blank.
Blankity blank, blank. Blankity.
Blankity blank, blank.
Blankity blank, blank.
Blankity blank, blank.
Blankity blank, blank. Blankity baulk, Blankity Blank.
The pop songs faired no better with such classics as:
Bee Bop a Lula.
Goo ka choo.
Twist and Shout.
All of which produced a generation of "jilted johns" and indeed Janes. Are these the kind of parents being discussed here? Perhaps the neurotic progressive middle-class Christians are what they have in mind here. I must confess (speaking of church) I, for one am rather less than impressed. Maybe some clarity of the kind of rare parents being discussed may provide a little clarity to the debate.
Absolutely brilliant. This may be the best comment I have ever read on youtube. Who the hell is this guy?
He forgot to mention that those triplets were very different emotionally. He also forgot to mention one of those triplets committed suicide.
Then they ended up identical, wouldn't you say?
'skin in the game' is becoming really annoying. I hear somebody say it at least once every day.
And when someone uses it, they always pause slightly to see the effect, expecting to enjoy an impressed or intimidated reaction.
It's so matey. You expect to hear 'innit' a within a moment or two.
I consider "assigned sex" to describe the sex your born with as politically motivated hate speech.
Much of your personality, maybe the vast majority of it if not all, can be attributed to genetics.. your parents' personality. Indeed how receptive you are to nurture! Nurture wont work if you're not receptive to it.
All nurture can do it help you learn to respond to the environmental influences in accordance with your personality
Toby Young - gag - 1:18:00 ish
33:48 so true lol
The title is true. I've always been an artist, from metal band frontman and chief songwriter, to stand-up comic. And even now I'm starting my first novel in a series of novels; and my brutal mercenary philistine parents couldn't care less about anything I've ever done since I haven't a mote of interest in finance -- or should I say, organized self-seeking. Me raving about Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Mozart, Napoleon, Hugo, Eliot, Tennyson, Ibsen, Shaw, Henry James, Stevenson; even Sagan and Hawking: ideas are plain meaningless to them. I'm so spiteful about their zero support and invariable ridicule I'm actually going to cut them off from any of my success, which I will definitely have -- I've worked so hard the world owes it to me -- since I don't want them to justify their senseless, not self-aware, history-shunning selves.
Don't worry about being a parent.. both of you can work yourselves into the ground trying to pay off a house.. while a 22 year old representative of the state (teacher/child care worker) with no life experience, puts your son in a dress and forces a curriculum on him.. You will be too busy paying tax and mortgage interest to notice 😁
It's maybe hard to believe, but it is all about destroying/weakening society and the natural family unit through feminism, LGBTQPNSFGVCG, mass migration, etcetera.
The rooth of this agenda is the Frankfurt school. Search for: The architects of western decline - a study on the Frankfurt school and cultural Marxism (RUclips Raed Saleh)
Way too much emotional arguments and personal attacks from the ladies. Meh.
Do a twin study where one kid is malnutritioned. Will be "funny" to see the IQ-impairment.
Of course nurture plays a role, there is no "It's one thing 100% therefore don't look at the other".
Good parenting gives you your psychological wisdom to operate in the world.
Nobody who acknowledges that genetic differences account for a substantial portion of the *observed variance* in behavioural traits denies this.
Yes, it's clearly both. In my view, genetics is akin to hardware, parenting to software. Bad parenting is like installing Pong on a Cray.
The issue isn't whether nuturing plays a role, but where PARENTING plays a big role. I can't believe how many people miss that.
@@Myndir Yes, the panel, esp. those on the right hand side, and a lot of commenters were/are talking past each other.
The men were saying personality type, with all its consequences, cannot much be swayed by parenting. The women seemed to miss that, defending parenting as making a big difference in lives. The men never denied that it does, denying just that it makes you a different person in character. Women's self-image is very tied up in their self-serving if understandable view that they are all-important in children's outcomes. The thought that they might not be so important is crushing to them.
Men can be thoughtless assholes, but women have much less ability on average to look at things without instinctively factoring in their self-interest in the matter, and so they resist seeing the truth in anything that might harm their personal advantage or that of their side. When boys are growing up this is gradually knocked out of them---not just at school, by other boys and their fathers but often, ironically, by their mothers, who tell them, over and over, to 'be a man.' It's a major cause of divorce, and it's a pity. How much it's innate and how much it's socialization, I don't know.
Sorry to go on at length and off topic quite a bit, but the debate brought all this to the front, I thought. Cheers.
Stop flogging your book ffs. Aren't you embarrassed?
We live in such a soulless, spiritually dead society that totally overlooks how much the outside world looks to corrupt us.
Yes parenting matters, you need someone to look over you, teach you, and help you as you mature into an adult.
Not everything is biological. Human existence goes far beyond the carnal or the corporeal. I’m afraid Westerners have lost that.
INDEED!
Genetics are the "outlier" factor... The Biological platform is still important but
Social Interaction still seems to be a prime mover for the development of a human beings psyche.
Since you say so it must be true.
Wrong question!
How do you make parents happy in raising kids, doh!
The topic is silly, one always has to argue from a set of standards, no one would have this argument if we still had children working in factories and in general being slaves to their parents. Its just a position taken from the current state of culture. I don't think the solution is to 'ease up'. Afterall its the most difficult job in the world, people should know that before becoming parents. Better to have a reflecting parent then one who simply 'does' things-
Even if i can see the danger in putting to much pressure on the parents, its an even bigger danger to let them off the hook this way. Adults are so easily conviced by other adults, its good that we have some speaking for the children..
You misunderstand the argument because you don’t understand what heritability is.
@@ashleigh3021 enlighten me. I could say the same without argument. "You misunderstand the argument because don't understand what morality is"
39.51
The woman on the panel believe in nurture and the men believe in nature. Which is predictable and in itself is an argument favoring nature.
Clearly you know very little about statistical inference
Clearly you know very little about humor.
Blake Schmidt It’s not funny.
@@colecschmidt Are you trying to say your comment was intended as a joke? Even assuming your honest, I've seen so many comments to that effect used earnestly in internet debates it's no wonder I couldn't tell
Shachar H Well like all jokes, there is a grain of truth to it. It’s very predictable and almost a stereotype that men will argue for the nature, more conservative thing and woman for the nurture, more liberal thing.
I guess I’m very cynical and find a panel drawn strictly along predictable gender lines to be funny.
I’m also guessing the men are geneticists/
evolutionary biologists and the woman are pure psychologists or anthropologists.
Very important the social environment, the school, media and the FRIENDS. The homosexuality is not genetic, but environmental. The media and the schools advertising transgender and homosexual people, the strong homosexual lobby, homosexual friends, the so called political correctness are the major cause of developing the homosexual sexual behavior.
Iq2 dont seem want to put most recent debate. anti zionism is anti semitism debate? what happened?
If your nurture contains carbs, you get fat. That happens on both sides of real vs adopted, so it looks like nurture does not matter, but it is the main thing. That is why we need science, not big groups with generalizations and lousy books.
"If your nurture contains carbs, you get fat."
Tell that to the Kitavans and the Okinawans. They must be about to get very fat very soon!
Nurture comes from genes. Which is why even how you eat is heritable or how parents feed you is heritable.
in short, the female speakers outperformed the male speakers both in their arguments and public speaking skills
everyman How so? What false claims did the male speakers make?
No response. Typical.
Nope. They didn’t even follow the basic rules of debate.
Population of humanity is nothing but a Petri Dish filled with independent individuals to be studyed, & tested & turned into science projects. For the amusement of thoae studying, testing, & analyzing them.
We don't just stop there. Sometimes we eat baby-head stew. I add turnips, Marsala wine, garlic, and bay leaf. Mmmm. --- Sincerely, A Scientist
@L. C. In all seriousness, I see scientists just as I see people at large---most pretty good, some disgusting. Most nice, some evil.
And I am not a scientist (although I have a science education) nor truly pretending to be one. The comment was a joke in the same spirit as the OP (would-be comical overstatement with a hint of seriousness). Cheers.
Tell me you’re afraid of research and data without telling me you’re afraid of research and data 😂
Tell me you’re afraid of research and data without telling me you’re afraid of research and data 😂
Tell me you’re afraid of research and data without telling me you’re afraid of research and data 😂
I wont watch this, but the premise is similar to "you dont need money to be happy". Pseudoscience.
Lol
"I won't watch this, but I will give my opinion."
I don't get it? What points are pseudoscience? Yes, parents don't matter and money doesn't make you happy. But there are degrees to it. You need a minimum amount of parenting and money to reach the max happiness. After that it doesn't matter.
The problem with parenting isn't the extent to which it matters but the fact that it is an impediment to natural development, as is the education system. Were this not the case then neither society nor the world would be as fractured and divided as they so clearly are. Parenthood and certainly Motherhood should be regarded as obscenities.
Babies are unable to survive without a parent feeding and caring for them.
Children learn basic skills from their parents like not using violence to get what they want.
Life skills like self care, cooking, cleaning and academic skills like reading and writing start with your parents.
Parents provide moral guidance and help their children to navigate the world they live in
Parents, mother's especially, provide for the emotional needs of their children. They are a safe place, someone to run to if you are hurt or scared.
Parents are there to protect you from the dangers of the world.
All these things and so much more are provided to children by parents.
Did you raise yourself?
Feed yourself?
Change your own nappies?
Cloth or even dress yourself?
Did you provide your own shelter?
Pay for anything before adulthood?
Did you pull your knowledge of right and wrong from thin air?
Were you born with the ability to read and write?
Did you work out all by yourself how to operate in this big world we live in?
"Parenthood is an obscenity"
What utter crap.
@@ZoomahZoomah I will be more than happy to correct all the glaring errors in your response if your parents (especially your mother) provided you, through all these things you cited with the confidence to provide your name when attempting to critique my perfectly logical observation. Unless of course, your parents failed in that.
@@MrAndrew535 "I'd be more than happy to correct all the glaring errors in your response"
Go ahead. Correct me.
Give me a compelling argument why "parenting especially motherhood is an obscenity"
@@ZoomahZoomah There are two ways in which the aforementioned are obscene, the first being subjectively obscene and the other requiring rather more detail in communicating the points effectively, however in both cases, you first need to demonstrate the strength of your own conviction in this matter by submitting your own name in full as I have done.
Having full confidence in my own position in the absence of the kind of parenting recommended by both sides of this debate I am keen to press on if you have comparable confidence in the position you inherited.
@@MrAndrew535 you still written nothing of substance. If you have a point to make then make it. Otherwise stop wasting my time