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