Upstairs Downstairs: How Children Get Raised, by Social Class

[Trausti]

Libby Anne of Love, Joy, Feminism: Positive Parenting

What's interesting here is her recognition of these two styles of parenting.

Obedience, Empathy, and the Laundry Hamper from Libby Anne:

Every parent wants their children to learn certain values and exhibit certain behaviors. It’s just that just what those values and behaviors are varies. The pew survey found that consistently conservative parents tend to see teaching religious faith and obedience as most important while consistently liberal parents instead value teaching empathy, curiosity, tolerance, and creativity.

noting Teaching the Children: Sharp Ideological Differences, Some Common Ground | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Which supports my assessment of higher-income parenting as stereotypically liberal and lower-income parenting as stereotypically conservative.

First, higher-income parents encourage their children to follow their dreams. They encourage critical thinking and support expression of likes, dislikes, feelings, and thoughts, and then give them opportunities to pursue those interests. Lower-income parents tend to emphasize toughness and pride in the face of adversity. They emphasize rules that must not be broken, and then let the children figure out the rest on their own.

Some pollsters wanted to measure how authoritarian their subjects were, as part of finding out who likes Donald Trump's candidacy and who doesn't (The rise of American authoritarianism - Vox). They settled on parenting:

1. Independence or respect for elders?
2. Obedience or self-reliance?
3. To be considerate or to be well-behaved?
4. Curiosity or good manners?

What does this have to do with your OP?

 

[lpetrich]

So families should never rely on sources of income like

• Inheritances
• Savings
• Investments
• Insurance payments
• Court-settlement payments

These are all sources of income that are disconnected from work, and by ronburgundy's arguments, these have very debilitating effects.

First, I never said that income disconnected from work has debilitating effects. I said that some negative effects are plausible ...

Is that all you can do? ronburgundy, you can do better. So the next time you wake up, you ought to consider not getting out of bed because "some negative effects are plausible" of you doing so.

Second, only the inheritances are disconnected from work.

Only on a long-term perspective, and only in some cases. One can save or invest an inheritance.

Savings and investment -- and also selling assets -- are income from ownership. Insurance claims and court settlements are income from status. Neither is income from work in a direct sense.

IOW, they have zero in common with being handed a free check for doing nothing but existing.

Pure ideological hairsplitting.

- - - Updated - - -

Libby Anne of Love, Joy, Feminism: Positive Parenting

What's interesting here is her recognition of these two styles of parenting. ...
[/list]

What does this have to do with your OP?

Because it adds to my OP's descriptions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except an awful lot of it is simple neglect, not an inability to spend enough time with the kid.

Evidence?

It's more of an issue for those on welfare.

Evidence?

Do latch key kids exhibit the same supposed deficits?

Irrelevant--the real problem is neglect in infancy.

 

[zorq]

Did you completely miss the part about the monkeys in the OP? Conditioning has been shown to be at least as important if not more so than genetics when predicting the success of children.

 

[lpetrich]

All the alleged genetic evidence that Trausti has cited is hand-waving that Gregor Mendel would have laughed at. Maybe I was asking too much when I was asking for specific genes and their variants, but I want at least the sort of evidence that Gregor Mendel had discovered in his pea plants.

 

[lpetrich]

Spare The Rod? PsychTests’ Study Reveals That Strict, Authoritarian Parenting Does Not Produce Well-Behaved Children
I searched for more work on this subject, and I found Patterns of Competence and Adjustments among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Families - 1990 - ED324557.pdf

Research by PsychTests.com indicates that using an Authoritarian parenting style, characterized by strict boundaries but little encouragement and support, can do much more harm than good.

Here’s an understatement: Parenting is complex. Many parents feel that it’s necessary to be strict; they want to keep their children safe and out of trouble, and perhaps even prepare them for the “real world.”

That's the authoritarian style.

Here are the styles:

• Authoritarian parents tend to set strict rules and boundaries, but rarely praise or encourage their children. Good behavior may or may not be rewarded, but bad behavior is punished without fail.
• Permissive parents tend to be supportive and encouraging, but are also quite lenient. If they do set rules, they generally don’t enforce them too firmly.
• Authoritative parents are responsive and encouraging, yet firm. They support their children’s individuality and opinion, but they also set reasonable rules and boundaries, and most importantly, consistently enforce them.
• Uninvolved parents are neither responsive nor demanding. They offer little in the way of support and often fail to set rules and boundaries for their children. Their parenting approach tends to be rather negligent.

Permissive = Indulgent
Uninvolved = Neglectful

.	+ rules	- rules
+ support	A'ive	P'ive
- support	A'ian	U'ved

Here are the numbers:

What	A'ive	A'ian	P'ive	U'ved
P-C rel: excellent	73%	2%	23.5%	1.5%
P-C rel: "so-so"	52%	17%	21%	10%
P-C rel: poor	15%	62%	8%	15%
C beh: good	74%	5%	19%	2%
C beh: bad	35%	29%	29%	7%
Uncond love	98%	61%	96%	54%
Praise C, show love	96%	53%	97%	57%
F at table	71%	50%	62%	37%
P's on s.p. about C's	86%	52%	81%	64%
P's trust C's do right	77%	37%	80%	50%

P = parents, C = children, rel = relationship, beh = behavior
Parents love their children unconditionally
Praising a child, letting them know that they are loved
Family sitting at a table, discussing the day
Parents on the same page about raising their children
Parents trusting their children to make the right choices

“Despite the fact that Authoritarian parents make it a point to set strict rules and boundaries and keep their children in line ... (above numbers indicating their failure) ... We absolutely believe that setting rules and boundaries is essential - it’s what Authoritative and Authoritarian parents do best. But without love and support to balance things out, Authoritarian-raised children will learn to fear their parents or purposely rebel, and with time, may even grow to resent them.”

“Authoritative-raised children, on the other hand, tend to have higher self-esteem, develop more secure attachment styles in their relationships, are more self-reliant, possess higher emotional intelligence, and are better at solving problems. Although some would say that there is no ‘right’ way when it comes to childrearing, research has shown time and again that firmness, responsiveness, and support tend to have a positive impact on children.” concludes Dr. Jerabek.

That 1990 paper I linked to has similar conclusions. It found this ranking for good results to bad ones:

A'ive
A'ian, P'ive
U'ved

I think that we need a better name for "authoritative", since it's too much like "authoritarian".

 

[Juma]

Is the data self-reported? Interviews of all family members?

 

[lpetrich]

Is the data self-reported? Interviews of all family members?

I've given my sources. If they are good about reporting on research, then they will give their methods, like what you asked about.

 

[ronburgundy]

First, I never said that income disconnected from work has debilitating effects. I said that some negative effects are plausible ...

Is that all you can do? ronburgundy, you can do better.

It's not all I can do, but it is all I have to do to expose your claims as bogus unsupported pseudo-science. The fact that getting free money is not only not related to parents spending quality time with their kids and that it is also tied to countless other variables with unknown effects means that absolutely no valid inferences can be drawn from your data to any potential effects of any attempt to increase parenting time via wealth redistribution policies. The fact that you could offer no counter-argument other than the kind of thing offered by a drunken frat boy posing as tough in a bar fight, shows how effective it was.

Besides, it isn't all I did. I also, pointed out that many parents are lousy at parenting and lousy people in general and thus more time spent around them would likely cause harm to their kids. Thus, there is not even a sufficient basis to presume a reliable relationship between "more time with parents" and developmental impact, and none of your studies show such a reliable impact. In addition, I pointed out that (once again) that your theory predicts the very implausible result in which chronically unemployed welfare parents raise better adjusted kids than parents who work full time and spend less time with their kids.

Second, only the inheritances are disconnected from work.

]Only on a long-term perspective

IOW, only in the ways that actually matter for the similarly long-term impacts on psychological development in question.

One can save or invest an inheritance.

In in those small % of cases, it is no different than inheritance, which as I said means you have only one thing on your list that validly can be characterized as getting money disconnected from work, and most people do think that it could have negative impacts.

Savings and investment -- and also selling assets -- are income from ownership. Insurance claims and court settlements are income from status. Neither is income from work in a direct sense.

No "direct sense" is required. Any sense of connection, whether indirect or long-term, refutes your false presumption that they are inherently "disconnected from work". When they are independent things from inheritance (as they usually are), then the what was owned was from work, and it takes actions and efforts (aka "work") by the owner to use what was owned in particular ways that increase the value of what was owned. Your "income from status" claim is meaningless nonsense. Insurance is similar to investments and typically entails taking money that was earned and putting forth the effort to direct it towards obtaining insurance that protects loss of things that were owned due to one's prior work. Court settlements are recouping of previous income or value lost due to someone else's actions, iow, it is something you already owned, typically by having worked for it, being returned to you.

IOW, they have zero in common with being handed a free check for doing nothing but existing.

Pure ideological hairsplitting.

No, purely objective factual delineation of critical differences, as opposed to the sloppy, vague, abuse of language and false-equivocations in your arguments that are the hallmark of snake-oil pseudo-science.

 

[lpetrich]

Is that all you can do? ronburgundy, you can do better.

It's not all I can do, but it is all I have to do to expose your claims as bogus unsupported pseudo-science. ...

It's your argument by invented scenarios that's the pseudoscientific one.

For instance, one can point to nobles and aristocrats as "proof" that living off of unearned income is a Good Thing.

 

[lpetrich]

Is the data self-reported? Interviews of all family members?

I must concede that my earlier response was rather lazy. I decided to read Spare The Rod? PsychTests’ Study Reveals That Strict, Authoritarian Parenting Does Not Produce Well-Behaved Children and Patterns of Competence and Adjustments among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Families - 1990 - ED324557.pdf.

The first one is entirely self-reported by parents.

The second one is partially self-reported, with the studied adolescents doing the reporting of their parents' styles. That one also featured assessment of the adolescents' psychosocial development, school achievement, internalized distress, and problem behavior. Those ratings were presumably from various others who were acquainted with the studied adolescents.

 

[Kharakov]

As any parent can tell you, children will do what they want. Who hasn't been acquainted with someone in life whose parents made them do sports, or take piano lessons, or whatever the parents wanted to craft their child into? But once childhood ended, that person quit those activities because they hated them. Now look to those parents who let their children be, and the child took up the sport, instrument, or study of whatever they wanted. And excelled. Parental involvement didn't matter.

Tiger Woods is a perfect example of this.

 

[Kharakov]

She later states:

Many a black person has seen a white child yelling at his or her parents, while the parents calmly respond, gently scold, ignore, attempt to soothe, or failing all else, look embarrassed.

I can never recount one time, ever seeing a black child yell at his or her mother in public. Never. It is almost unfathomable.

So from a conservative standpoint, these American blacks are much better at parenting than these American whites.

It has nothing to do with skin color.

African American children were observed to have bruises much less frequently than white children (P<.007).

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh, and you conveniently deleted the part where your thesis predicts that kids on public assistance whose parents are un/under-employed should be better socialized than kids whose parents who work full time.

I bet dollars to donuts that the exact opposite is true.

Betting is not necessary.

Rice University School Literacy and Culture -- The Thirty Million Word Gap

On average, children from families on welfare were provided half as much experience as children from working class families, and less than a third of the experience given to children from high-income families. In other words, children from families on welfare heard about 616 words per hour, while those from working class families heard around 1,251 words per hour, and those from professional families heard roughly 2,153 words per hour. Thus, children from better financial circumstances had far more language exposure to draw from.

In addition to looking at the number of words exchanged, the researchers also looked at what was being said within these conversations. ... For children from working-class families this ratio was two encouragements to one discouragement. Finally, children from families on welfare received on average two discouragements for every encouragement.

He's already supplied data showing you're correct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you completely miss the part about the monkeys in the OP? Conditioning has been shown to be at least as important if not more so than genetics when predicting the success of children.

The point is that things other than too much time spent seeking food can be at work.

 

[lpetrich]

Did you completely miss the part about the monkeys in the OP? Conditioning has been shown to be at least as important if not more so than genetics when predicting the success of children.

The point is that things other than too much time spent seeking food can be at work.

Why don't you try to research this issue? Or would that require work?

Loren Pechtel, look at how much research I've done, as opposed to spouting one-liners. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out which represents a better work ethic: lots of research or armchair one-liners.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is that things other than too much time spent seeking food can be at work.

Why don't you try to research this issue? Or would that require work?

Loren Pechtel, look at how much research I've done, as opposed to spouting one-liners. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out which represents a better work ethic: lots of research or armchair one-liners.

The point is your research doesn't show that neglecting the kid while searching for food is not the only cause.

 

[RavenSky]

Why don't you try to research this issue? Or would that require work?

Loren Pechtel, look at how much research I've done, as opposed to spouting one-liners. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out which represents a better work ethic: lots of research or armchair one-liners.

The point is your research doesn't show that neglecting the kid while searching for food is not the only cause.

The point is that you have failed to actually refute anything he has posted.

 

[Toni]

Libby Anne of Love, Joy, Feminism: Positive Parenting

What's interesting here is her recognition of these two styles of parenting.

Obedience, Empathy, and the Laundry Hamper from Libby Anne:

Every parent wants their children to learn certain values and exhibit certain behaviors. It’s just that just what those values and behaviors are varies. The pew survey found that consistently conservative parents tend to see teaching religious faith and obedience as most important while consistently liberal parents instead value teaching empathy, curiosity, tolerance, and creativity.

noting Teaching the Children: Sharp Ideological Differences, Some Common Ground | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Which supports my assessment of higher-income parenting as stereotypically liberal and lower-income parenting as stereotypically conservative.

First, higher-income parents encourage their children to follow their dreams. They encourage critical thinking and support expression of likes, dislikes, feelings, and thoughts, and then give them opportunities to pursue those interests. Lower-income parents tend to emphasize toughness and pride in the face of adversity. They emphasize rules that must not be broken, and then let the children figure out the rest on their own.

Some pollsters wanted to measure how authoritarian their subjects were, as part of finding out who likes Donald Trump's candidacy and who doesn't (The rise of American authoritarianism - Vox). They settled on parenting:

1. Independence or respect for elders?
2. Obedience or self-reliance?
3. To be considerate or to be well-behaved?
4. Curiosity or good manners?

Which makes sense in some ways. Rich people can afford luxuries of (certain) mistakes while even small infractions can be disastrous for those who are less economically secure--both in the immediate effect and also societal penalties which fall far more harshly upon the poor than upon the rich.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is your research doesn't show that neglecting the kid while searching for food is not the only cause.

The point is that you have failed to actually refute anything he has posted.

Showing that it doesn't address the point is enough.