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.

Alright Already

Scarr's idea of "good enough" parenting suggests parents needn't worry about being perfect, super-involved parents in order to produce the most successful kids possible; as long as they provide their children with a warm, encouraging and safe home environment, the kids are gonna turn out pretty much ok.

Scarr argues that it doesn't matter whether or not parents push their kids to join x-amount of clubs, be the top of the class, the crème de la crème, etc. If anything, parents should be more concerned with their kid's genetic make up, because genes are actually what dictate how your child(ren) will turn out. Don't waste your money on all those parenting books; children are born already coded to be who/what they're gonna be.

 Parents might not take kindly to Scarr's assertions that (with the exception of parents who are abusive/neglectful/outside of the normal range) they perhaps aren't as crucial to/in control of their children's development as they might like to think. They would need a lot of convincing before buying into Scarr's notion of "good enough" parenting. A listener might be convinced if given examples of twin/adoption studies, as mentioned in the Psychology Today article linked in Dr. Risser's prompt. They might also be swayed if they were provided with information concerning the ways genes affect behavior and IQ.

The biggest problem I find with Scarr's "there's no need to be a super-parent, it doesn't matter, do what comes naturally" argument is that it's contradictory;  so called "super-parents" are probably doing what comes naturally to them already.  Every parent (i.e. every parent within the normal range) wants their child to succeed in life, and this want for their children to have better than they did will have some impact on their individual parenting styles. Scarr's stress on one's genetic makeup is, for me, the  most convincing aspect of her argument. Our genes have incredible impact on our development, however I don't think they work independently of our environments. Nature and nurture go hand in hand, as our genes are constantly interacting with our environments.  While Scarr's argument had a few interesting points, I'm not buying it.

Should vaccines contain adamantium? I think not.

Scarr's notion of good enough parenting dictates that as long as you're not a total fuck-up, your kids are going to be just fine.  I think this is evidenced by the fact that for thousands of years, the human population has grown exponentially - if it was all about super-parenting, we probably wouldn't have made it past the age of pooping in the woods out of necessity (and not for fun).

Personally, I'd like to see more research done into absentee parents/guardians.  Obviously the chances are high that a violent father figure and/or an emotionally abusive mother figure raising a child will perpetuate an unhealthy cycle.  What are the chances that an emotionally distant but financially supportive parental unit will produce an above average child?  What of financially incapable but loving & structured homes?  Is it one thing or another that defines a "good enough" mother?  Is it a balance?

It's Not Your Fault

Sandra Scarr, a developmental psychologist, published a study in the early 90s that goes against current parenting paradigms.  Scarr stated in the study that it doesn’t matter how good of a parent you are to your kid, your kid will probably end up being a normal child.  Scarr’s study went against modern parenting philosophy, and that philosophy believed that the more time you spend with your kid, the more exceptional the child will be.  Scarr did also show that as long as you give the child love and care, the child will be normal, versus a child who is abused and neglected, that child will likely develop delinquent behaviors.

In order to show that the amount of time you spend with your child eventually has diminishing returns, you have to design a case or longitudinal study to show these diminishing returns.  Development is a combination of genetics, love, societal, and environmental factors.  Parents can control each of the elements stated previously to an extent, but they don’t have total control over every aspect of development.

I didn’t get to have a stellar childhood.  It was often traumatic and it wasn’t pleasant.  I do believe that Scarr’s notion that parents can do only so much, she is probably right.  If we believe that parents can create superchildren, then our nation should have countless superchildren.  Instead we have a nation that struggles in math, science, and reading.  We’re good at producing normal children, parents producing superchildren is just a myth.

It just reminds me of the scene in Good Will Hunting.

Good Will Hunting

Prompt for the week of September 30th

Scarr believes that family atmosphere does not dictate a child’s personality and intellectual development under normal circumstances. A child’s individual characteristics are determined by family genes and heredity.   Scarr says that all parents want the best for their children and that the thought of super parents is ridiculous.  When a parent’s maternal nature kicks in they do whatever it takes to protect their children and help them strive to be their best. This is an automatic instinct that is essential to child development.  I believe that being a “good enough” parent is extremely important to the development of children.  It is the little steps that parents allow their children to take that allow them to grow and develop into young adults.  If children are kept under constant scrutiny they may never take the next step in life for fear of failure.

Good Enough Parenting

Scarr's argument in simple terms is that extremist parents who go above and beyond to ensure their child has every possible opportunity to succeed in life really produce no better, more successful offspring than "normal" parents who provide little more than a loving, warm home environment. I am not sure it is possible to convince a parent of this. Of course most parents want the very best for their children. Providing detailed statistics, presenting studies, and throwing around numbers isn't going to do anything to convince parents that they can "slack" in their parenting and their children will still do just fine. Also, no one wants to admit that their genes play a huge role. Unfortunately, we can't choose our own and we can't change the ones our kids get from us. Is this convincing to me? Meh. I am, because of my genes, a perfectionist. Never was perfectionism thrust upon me by my parents, in fact, I was the super-kid that wished my parents had time and money to do all of the super-parenting things. Neither of my parents even attended college. So I can see both sides. I see that some genetics and some natural inclinations have a huge effect on how a child turns out. But at the same time, when I am a parent, I am STILL going to be a perfectionist. And consequently, want to be a perfectionist super parent. Even though I know it may never matter, there is a part of me that would still have to give it my best effort.

Good Enough Parents Are Good Enough

All you need to do as a parent, to raise a good child, is be "good enough". Being an average parent will have your child develop the same as being a super parent. You do not need to go out of your way to raise your child.

Your child has genetic programming that says whether or not they will be intellectual, athletic, social, fearful, etc. Even if these genetic programmings can be influenced by the parent, the child has many more influences besides the parent. Such as: schools, teachers, friends, and other aspects of society. Children learn most of their social skill outside of the home, which means parents do not play the largest role in a child's actions.

A parent will never admit they are just average because parents' strive to make the best for their children. Since most parents think this way, it is the "average" way of thinking. This would mean that raising your kid in an "average" home, compared to a "super parent" home, would be no different. I believe as long as the child sees that their parents are trying to get them the best then all children picture their parents as "super parents". So I do agree with evidence that shows average homes will raise the same children as super parent homes. 

Is "good enough" really good enough?

I have some questions on good enough parenting. First off it seems that Dr.Sandra Scarr searcher only includes middle class families.We talked about how poverty can effect people but it seems odd that Dr. Scarr would only focus on the middle class. Is it really "good enough" parenting or does it have more to do with their socioeconomic status? Also does a parent always have to be "good enough"? What would the effect be on a child if their parents were both alcoholics form the time the child 2 until they were 4 but both sought help and are now good enough parents.

I briefly read over Dr. Scarr's article she published about parenting styles. The article seems to talk a lot about IQ but not so much about behaviors and personality. It does not seem to have crime statistics on children of "good enough" parents. I would believe that "good enough" parenting compared to super parents does not have an effect on IQ, but parenting is much more then IQ.

I do think that being an active an engaged parent is important. No your kid doesn't need every new toy that come out. Kids need parents that care and are emotionally available to them. If that what Scarr believes is a good enough parent then I am with her. I think the idea of being able to be "good enough" take a lot of stress off of parents and allows them to make mistakes. I

I think Scarr's idea of a "good enough" parent is interesting. She's basically saying that as long as you show a modicum of interest in what your child does, they will turn out as well as a child who's parents' insist on micromanaging everything they do. I believe this is an amazing approach because, as a society, we tend to think that our children need this constant prodding and supervision. This idea of "super parenting", I feel, is more to do with our self obsession than any actual care to the well-roundedness of the child. Culturally, we see our children's successes and failures as a direct reflection of ourselves. When in fact, the things our children accomplish (or not) are simply a credit to them. We help guide them (ideally) but they should sink or swim on their own. There is no evidence that supports "super parenting" turning out anymore spectacular offspring, than those of the "good enough" parenting. And it wouldn't surprise me if those super parented children actually had less coping skills, or more reliance on medication to deal with everyday life. That kind of pressure seems detrimental to the over-all wellbeing of the child. I agree with Scarr.

Sept 30th prompt response

Scarr's idea that evolution has provided us, as humans, the ability and knowledge to be 'good enough' parents.  Meaning no extraordinary measures need be taken in order for our children to succeed.  We innately know how much time and effort to put forth when raising our children.  For proof of this notion we need only look at our evolutionary history and the recorded history we have available.  Human history is littered with different ideas, plans, and suggestions for how to raise your children.  Many of which differ wildly from one another yet as as species we have all survived to this point and there was not a great die off that can be attributed to one group's approach to raising children.  I personally am not 100% convinced that we all innately know how much time to spend with children, some people seem to be better prepared/equipped to be parents, but I do believe that most humans have a genetic encoding that ensures we are nurturing and, to a certain extent, selfless with our children.  I would love to see a study as outlined by my group in class conducted.  It is a study ranging over 30 years and tracks the amount of time spent with children until 18 years of age and then tracks the child's progress through life.  It would be extremely interesting to see if there is any correlation between time spent with the child and perceived success in life.  

Prompt for the week of September 30th

You have had a bit to think about Scarr's notion of "good enough" parents. For this week, talk about three things. First, in a "plain English" sentence or two, try to summarize Scarr's notion for a member of the general public. Second, talk about what evidence and/or arguments that listener would need to trust this notion. Lastly, speak to your agreement with this idea. Are you already convinced? Would the evidence/argument sway you?