Parent or Super Parent?

Scar’s research suggest that a child’s development is in no way affected by the time spent with the parent, insinuating the outcome will be the same weather one hour or twenty hours a day is spent with the child due to genetic and heredity traits. The idea behind this is to convince the parent that the time spent with the child will not change the child’s identity, thus relieving the pressure of high expectations.

 I would focus on the following needs: health, nutrition, motor function, social development, synaptic pruning, plasticity, the brain’s ability to adapt and social development in order to convince parents it is okay tom be normal rather than average. As a parent myself, I would notice the missing pieces like: bonding, trust, and identity issues when under the scope.   

I do not agree with Scarr’s findings downplaying the parent’s role in raising children. The theory focuses little to no value on the parent’s role and the long term effects, and fails to mention the influences of bonding, role models, relations, and self-purpose, which may or may not be connected to how the parents view themselves. The brain’s ability to assimilate and accommodate are major factors in a child’s upbringing as well as the environment, likewise, I am sure the child would be able to adapt to life without certain variables, but how will that child cope with emotions or solve problems?  Would the child be able to trust or establish healthy relationships?

I would be the wrong individual to use for promoting this theory because I do not believe everything I read; therefore the evidence would not sway me. For myself, the time spent with the child as well as the bond developed is irreplaceable.