Best bit of advice I got when becoming a new parent was from a retired teacher in my church. “When you see a class of 11 year olds it’s impossible to say who got wooden toys, who was breastfed, who had limited screen-time. But you can always tell who had a loving family.”
I don't know if we can even tell that much. I've seen kids come out of abusive, dirty, and poisonous homes that not even a cockroach would touch. They turned out both loving and generous. I've also seen kids come out of beautifully kept homes that were loved and taken care of. The same kid would steal the wheels off your car while sticking a knife in a retiree.
People are just like that. Almost completely random. That generous and loving kid could go on to become an evil jerk who scams people out of money. That thieving monster could become an amazing musician who converts to pacifism and volunteers in nursing homes. We aren't static frameworks that are formed by genetics, nurturing, or environment. We are shape shifters.
If one were really able to measure the impact on a human's life, then it's all about nudging small probabilities in an extremely chaotic system.
As a parent, though, I'd say that providing a loving environment in which your kids can grow up is both the factor most under your control and that will have the biggest impact. Thus, anything done through that lens is likely to help, and anything done for some other reason less so. But you can't systematise "provide a loving environment" into a series of rules, and that's what makes parenting so f**ing hard.
That seems reasonable to believe. However it would be difficult to prove, because this configuration will rarely exist in reality. People whose genes bias them toward traits we think of as "loving" will tend to actually be loving, and therefore their children will not be emotionally neglected. I don't know if I could express certainty either way on this proposition.
(For anyone who thinks it's impossible for loving-ness to be genetically programmed, read about the domesticated silver fox experiment.)
> However it would be difficult to prove, because this configuration will rarely exist in reality.
This was super normal after war, when the world was full of orphans. And specifically in UK where the kid could be taken into system easily - sometimes simple because there was only dad or parent was single.
This was super normal when mothers died often. Or when single mothers had to leave their kids with cheap caregivers to work or be in those abusive houses.
A child can be genetically loving, but beaten down by a poor environment. Have you never seen someone suddenly thrive after leaving abusive parents, bosses, or partners?
No, I have not personally witnessed that. Even if I did, I don't know if I could possibly ascribe that effect to "genetic loving-ness" as a general rule. That would seem to be jumping to conclusions far more than I'm personally comfortable with.
That being said, nothing in my prior comment denied this possibility, I merely expressed uncertainty as to whether it's the primary explanation of the traits we see.
How's that? Because it's going to be basically impossible to single out this variable in a kid. First, not all 'screen time' is the same.
You see the traits in a kid you know has unlimited screen time and ascribe that to the screen time and not the other parenting decisions that lead to those traits. For example, screen time as a babysitter, only TikTok or mobile games, never talking about their screen time, etc.
There's likely kids you don't think have unlimited screen time that actually do, but because of other parenting decisions, it doesn't result in the same traits. For example, encouraging their kid to read with their screen time (books are on kids tablets now), watch science videos, talking to their kids about what they're doing with their screen time, doing screen time with them, etc.
This is why psychology and sociology studies are so hard, because it is almost impossible to isolate a changing variable in testing.
> For example, encouraging their kid to read with their screen time (books are on kids tablets now), watch science videos, talking to their kids about what they're doing with their screen time, doing screen time with them, etc.
I totally agree with this. Simply shunning "screen time" isn't setting kids up for success, in my opinion. Modern tablets have replaced a heaping ton of stand-alone devices we used to use back in the day. They replaced books, games, TV's, etc.
In my opinion parents are in uncharted territory with modern computers. None of us grew up with a device that replaced as much as these things have. Our job as parents is to educate kids on how to leverage these amazing new devices.
Not all screen time is the same. Helping kids understand the different between gut-rot crap on youtube vs. some educational game is very important. Getting them to play on the tablet with their peers is important. Etc. These devices are gonna be a central part of their adult lives... best to set them up for success.
> Helping kids understand the different between gut-rot crap on youtube vs. some educational game is very important.
I've had a lot of frustration in this department because most of the quality edutainment games are from 15-20 years ago. We've just stopped making progress here and just gone backwards by saying 'screen time is inherently bad, limit it as much as possible'. It's harder for parents to make good choices when it's all Caillou and no Daniel Tiger for options.
All unlimited screen time means is that I don't set a limit on it. They can decide to do other stuff and they usually do. I have a Kindle Fire they basically only use in the car, otherwise they'd rather play with friends, or do crafts. The tablet gets pretty boring when you're basically doing it alone.
