Impressive parents with below average kids

[Anonymous]

The richer the family, the more likely the kids are on screens too much and on social media which sucks the life, intelligence, creativity right out of you. The rich families at our school have dedicated ipads for each kid and at age 10 they get a smartphone. I think it's kind of disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The richer the family, the more likely the kids are on screens too much and on social media which sucks the life, intelligence, creativity right out of you. The rich families at our school have dedicated ipads for each kid and at age 10 they get a smartphone. I think it's kind of disgusting.

Their oldest was whining for a phone. I wanted to yell at the kid myself and say you are not getting a damn phone and STFU. The kids kept asking for screens. Only time we had any peace was when their kids were on some type of screen or asleep. Every outing or activity we did had a lot of complaining or fighting.

[Anonymous]

There is too much emphasis on being nice to your kids. This leads to parents being overly accommodating. When parenting was harsher, lightning up a bit didn’t lead to such bad outcomes, but now that we’re expected to be nice to our kids as a baseline, they are often overly entitled brats.

I made that mistake with my oldest, but he’s really straightened himself out. Now I know I need to be much much firmer, without being mean. You don't wanna swing the pendulum back too far the other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually the parents spend more time on their careers than with the children.

+1

Successful parenting is a job in itself, if both parents have demanding careers it’s very hard to parent well.

I agree. Parents only have so much time in a day and some children are more challenging personality-wise, motivation-wise, or are neurotypical in a non-obvious way (ADD, OCD, autism) and managing that child or those children and subsequent more challenging sibling dynamics will take a lot of parental resources and may lead to more permissiveness. We know a very high powered, wealthy (both family $ and earned $), accomplished (Ivy and T-20 degrees, MD at hedge fund and partner at a top law firm; family $ may have influenced one trajectory a bit but a lot of hard work, talent, and ambition was required in both cases) couple who will have their fourth child in seven years soon. They have multiple live in nannies and neither of them ever manages more than two children at once. Their children will have a ton of resources and will have received a ton of caregiving, but a lot that will not be from the actual parents.

The oldest child now in 1st wouldn’t talk in many social situations in preschool (seemed like selective mutism) and I witnessed that child last year hurt multiple children on the playground (stepped on at least three kids’ hands and pushed a child off a play structure) during a 30-minute period when I was volunteering.

Who knows what the outcomes will be? I think the stereotype of the uber successful but distant parent is changing a bit though. I think there are a lot of parents who strive for both, but is providing a resource rich environment for a child and not being physically present a ton the same as being physically present? Is it better? Is it worse? Is it parent and caregiver dependent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually the parents spend more time on their careers than with the children.

+1

Successful parenting is a job in itself, if both parents have demanding careers it’s very hard to parent well.

I agree. Parents only have so much time in a day and some children are more challenging personality-wise, motivation-wise, or are neurotypical in a non-obvious way (ADD, OCD, autism) and managing that child or those children and subsequent more challenging sibling dynamics will take a lot of parental resources and may lead to more permissiveness. We know a very high powered, wealthy (both family $ and earned $), accomplished (Ivy and T-20 degrees, MD at hedge fund and partner at a top law firm; family $ may have influenced one trajectory a bit but a lot of hard work, talent, and ambition was required in both cases) couple who will have their fourth child in seven years soon. They have multiple live in nannies and neither of them ever manages more than two children at once. Their children will have a ton of resources and will have received a ton of caregiving, but a lot that will not be from the actual parents.

The oldest child now in 1st wouldn’t talk in many social situations in preschool (seemed like selective mutism) and I witnessed that child last year hurt multiple children on the playground (stepped on at least three kids’ hands and pushed a child off a play structure) during a 30-minute period when I was volunteering.

Who knows what the outcomes will be? I think the stereotype of the uber successful but distant parent is changing a bit though. I think there are a lot of parents who strive for both, but is providing a resource rich environment for a child and not being physically present a ton the same as being physically present? Is it better? Is it worse? Is it parent and caregiver dependent?

*meant to say ADD, OCD, or anxiety…

[Anonymous]

“Successful”, smug parents raise self-important, entitled, misbehaved and annoying snowflakes.

Our neighborhood within walking distance of a vaunted AAP ES is filled with both types.

[Anonymous]

Usually rich kids get on drugs earlier.

Source: my private school. I was a "poor" and they didn't give that stuff out for free.

Sometimes kids having too much money is not motivational and leads to spending the cash on cheap thrills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed many parents we know who are superstars in their fields have average/below average children. The kids are not motivated.

I wonder if they were born less intelligent or it is their upbringing.

We just spent the weekend with a family whose parents are some of the most intelligent kind people we know. Their kids are an absolute disaster in every way possible.

Describes my XH and former IL perfectly. Grandparents and parents were exceptional. Kids born in the 50s and 60s reaped all the privileges but are consumers rather than producers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Usually the parents spend more time on their careers than with the children.

it's 100 percent this.

I have many friends in this bucket. Sometimes the moms will step out of work for a couple of years and then the kids performance at school skyrockets, and then they go back into the workforce.

intelligence is so largely inherited, the kids have tons of potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winston Churchill's kids were mostly duds. Same with the Vanderbilts. Many descendents of high profile people lose the genetic lottery. Bad parenting can be detrimental too.

I have two amazing female friends who married duds from these types of families. It sounds truly awful to be married to this type of man and then have to deal with their families. Unfortunately, their kids are also duds.

The younger both partners are the more likely it is for wealth and access to be conflated with success and potential, even ambition. As such, I find the situation PP described is far more likely to happen when both parties and especially the woman is younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed many parents we know who are superstars in their fields have average/below average children. The kids are not motivated.

I wonder if they were born less intelligent or it is their upbringing.

We just spent the weekend with a family whose parents are some of the most intelligent kind people we know. Their kids are an absolute disaster in every way possible.

Oh come on. Hard to believe this is not a huge exaggeration. How old are their kids?

Fighting, screaming, whining, hitting, complaining, being disrespectful 75% of the time. The parents just tune out. It is like they just accepted this poor behavior and don’t know what to do with the children.

I’m surprised how such competent people can be such horrible parents.

These sound like little kids who perhaps were having a bad day. It is very, very early to call them "disasters." When you say "disasters" I thought you meant adult children in prison, not little kids who whine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually the parents spend more time on their careers than with the children.

this right here. marching around the office, pretending to be a big shot while the family life and kids are left behind.

The Royal Family comes to mind.

Same with the Trumps and Bidens. Parents on some fundamental level should be accountable for how their children turn out. The Clintons, Obamas, and Bushs seemed to do well - they had all girls, maybe just a coincidence. Hunter and Douche Jr. are male obviously.

Clintons only had one kid, Obamas two, and Bushes two. If the parents have demanding careers/lives, it probably helps to limit the number of kids as there is only so much attention you can give them.

[Anonymous]

I am convinced that the enrichment / coddling that rich and successful parents give their children sets them back. Genetics might predict IQ, but the best situation might be to hit the genetic lottery and then grow up on a farm with access to a good local library. All of the $$$ and time spent by the DCUM elite is counterproductive past nutrition, sleep, and stable home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The richer the family, the more likely the kids are on screens too much and on social media which sucks the life, intelligence, creativity right out of you. The rich families at our school have dedicated ipads for each kid and at age 10 they get a smartphone. I think it's kind of disgusting.

This isn't true. Statistically lower parental income and education levels correlate with more screen time usage by kids.

https://www.the74million.org/children-from-low-income-less-educated-families-spend-nearly-twice-as-much-time-on-screens/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9107378/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The richer the family, the more likely the kids are on screens too much and on social media which sucks the life, intelligence, creativity right out of you. The rich families at our school have dedicated ipads for each kid and at age 10 they get a smartphone. I think it's kind of disgusting.

This isn't true. Statistically lower parental income and education levels correlate with more screen time usage by kids.

https://www.the74million.org/children-from-low-income-less-educated-families-spend-nearly-twice-as-much-time-on-screens/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9107378/

And higher incomes correlate with higher intelligence and better outcomes. People don't want to know how much of life is tied up in the DNA you give your kids. As for successful people with unsuccessful kids, I wonder if some people just don't match well. For instance, I've long thought having a "spark" was nature's way of telling you that the other person is a good match. Well, the opposite could also be true.