Quote: (04-23-2013 08:40 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

I thought about posting something to this notion on the Male Hamster thread: Members here way overestimate their ability to dictate the life outcomes of their children (particularly daughters), perhaps out of some misguided extrapolation of their own self-perceived Horatio Alger loser-to-poon-king life evolution.

From twin adoption studies we know that among pretty much all cognitive/behavioral traits, genetics is the most important factor, then shared environment second, with unique environment (a subset of which is parenting) last. Even for a wide variety of political belief-related traits, which are much more malleable, genetics + shared environment still explain more than 50% of variance.

You don't want your future hypothetical daughter banging badboys and being a slut in general?

Make sure her mother isn't a slut.

Have her grow up in a good school district with no hoodrats and no thugs.

Then sit back, relax, and hope for the best.

This is patriarchal ran propaganda to go against equality.

But, I do quite enjoy the Rules For Banging My Daughter porn spoof though.

Quote: (04-24-2013 11:17 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

Quote: (04-24-2013 06:50 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Stupid, violent, abusive white-knight. He has not a single clue about either the sexual marketplace dynamics or protecting his daughter, and will probably fuck up some guy's life and end up in jail when she either chooses a jerk (not a violent or criminal guy though) or rationalizes some Beta of being one. It's like those idiots that massacred and killed a guy falsely accused of rape, entrenched in their delusional thought that they matter in the world and that women are some kind of helpless automatons unable to think for themselves.

I think it is some sort of parody to be honest, like a meme or something. I don't think a father actually wrote this. However, if I'm wrong then your points are absolutely correct.

Not unbelievable though - I recently saw something like this on the profile of a girl I know. The dad was saying something along these lines about 'boys' in his 19 year old daughter's life, just with worse grammar and even more aggressively ignorant.

Little does he know

I would classify this as prolific compound dysfunction. It's pretty revealing that our society eats this shit up.

The movie was better than the book

I have a niece and I remember back when she was attending college (she didn't finish), she was blabbing about some guy on campus who didn't have "enough money" to take her out for her liking.

I said: Well....'ole boy probably has tuition and book expenses just like you?

My niece: That ain't my problem. He asked me to go out, therefore he should have the money (clearly go this thinking from chicks on her campus)

I said: Well...did he call you back after you disclose this to him?

My Niece: No....he didn't call back

I Said: Good....'cause I wouldn't have called your ass back either.

Then I said to my younger sister (not my niece's mom...who is my other sister)....."and his ass probably graduated too!".


As for the OP....

I flat out hate that rule about "don't sigh and fidget while you are waiting on her". Fukk that.....teach your daughter be considerate dammit.

It's all a matter of circumstnaces, really; some pencil-necked dweeb dad delivering this gets a laugh...it's the 250 lb. biker that makes it stick, but even then...

Quote:Quote:

Rule One:
If you pull into my driveway and honk you'd better be delivering a package, because you're sure not picking anything up.

While the pull-in-and-honk is an alpha move that will work at the student house or the sorority house, I would hope most of us have the brains to know not to do it when you pick up a girl at her dad's place.

...though I would also hope that most of us have the brains to instruct any 18-20 year old girls to meet us at places other than their dad's house.

Quote:Quote:

Rule Four:
I'm sure you've been told that in today's world, sex without utilizing a "barrier method" of some kind can kill you. Let me elaborate, when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I will kill you.

As a red-blooded man, at most I will offer a limp 'Do you want me to get something!?' RIGHT as I'm about to slide it into your daughter, and no more...the rest is up to her; unless she explicitly says yes and halts proceedings, then I'm riding on a wing and a prayer (and your daughter's ass).

Quote:Quote:

Rule Six:
I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished with you. If you make her cry, I will make you cry.

Such a BIG, MACHO SUPER-ALPHA like yourself must have had a fun upbringing of fucking one or zero girls in concurrent rotation...Because you're so alpha, right?

As a side-note, if I were ever to have a daughter, I wouldn't know how to deal with this; I'm not being mister super 'look how big my dick is!' like this guy, but I'll definitely tell her to hold off on the sex...but if she likes the guy a lot or meets a player...? I'll have no way of knowing unless I meet the guy. I'm confused; in the west it almost seems that if you have a daughter and she becomes attractive that she's going to whore around for a few years anyways. I guess the bottom line is that once they reach a certain age you just can't control your kids, and the more you try, the more they resent you (I don't even have kids and this is all clear-as-day to me).

Quote:Quote:

Rule Seven:
As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget. If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating. My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process that can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Instead of just standing there, why don't you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car?

Thankfully in this century we have cell phones. I texted her at 5:45, said I'd be by at 7, and I'll be there around 7:20. She should be ready or very close to it at that point.

Quote:Quote:

Rule Eight:
The following places are not appropriate for a date with my daughter: Places where there are beds, sofas, or anything softer than a wooden stool. Places where there are no parents, policemen, or nuns within eyesight. Places where there is darkness. Places where there is dancing, holding hands, or happiness. Places where the ambient temperature is warm enough to induce my daughter to wear shorts, tank tops, midriff T-shirts, or anything other than overalls, a sweater, and a goose down parka - zipped up to her throat. Movies with a strong romantic or sexual theme are to be avoided; movies which features chain saws are okay. Hockey games are okay. Old folks homes are better.

...and a very very obvious oversight; if I have to tell my daughter's date about places not to take her, I mention something that this guy missed, and a place where I take every girl out on a first date; I guarantee the next person that posts mentions that they like to...

"I take her out for _________(s)."

?

Quote:Quote:

Rule Nine:
Do not lie to me. On issues relating to my daughter, I am the all-knowing, merciless god of your universe. If I ask you where you are going and with whom, you have one chance to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I have a shotgun, a shovel, and five acres behind the house. Do not trifle with me.

If I have to I will. You will never find out.

Quote:Quote:

Rule Ten:
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It takes very little for me to mistake the sound of your car in the driveway for a Black Hawk chopper coming in over a san hill near Mogadishu. When my PTSD starts acting up, the voices in my head frequently tell me to clean the guns as I wait for you to bring my daughter home. As soon as you pull into the driveway you should exit your car with both hands in plain sight. Speak the perimeter password, announce in a clear voice that you have brought my daughter home safely and early, then return to your car - there is no need for you to come inside. The camouflaged face at the window is me.

The only perimeter password I'm getting is your daughter's, at my place, where there are no controlling, psychotic men in camo paint.

Quote: (04-23-2013 08:40 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

I thought about posting something to this notion on the Male Hamster thread: Members here way overestimate their ability to dictate the life outcomes of their children (particularly daughters), perhaps out of some misguided extrapolation of their own self-perceived Horatio Alger loser-to-poon-king life evolution.

From twin adoption studies we know that among pretty much all cognitive/behavioral traits, genetics is the most important factor, then shared environment second, with unique environment (a subset of which is parenting) last. Even for a wide variety of political belief-related traits, which are much more malleable, genetics + shared environment still explain more than 50% of variance.

You don't want your future hypothetical daughter banging badboys and being a slut in general?

Make sure her mother isn't a slut.

Have her grow up in a good school district with no hoodrats and no thugs.

Then sit back, relax, and hope for the best.

Wow, over 20 likes. Shocking at how people want the easy way out with child-rearing.

I'd just like to point out that the above is completely and utterly false. If you follow it you will doom your children to caprice and chance instead of well-raised parenting. There are competing theories that hold just as much scientific weight, although far less understood, than the current bullshit surrounding double-blind twin studies.

Although popular educational orthodoxy says genetics is huge, parenting doesn't matter, blah blah blah - it's 100% bullshit. First, let me show you why genetics is basically a non-issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Enfant..._reception

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/466616.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...linic.html

Feral children shut down all genetic arguments. If genetics account for how children turn out, why do children who grow up in the wild act like beasts and not men?

Without the effects of socialization, it is impossible to become a human being. Likewise, since a parent has the ability to dictate what information comes to a child, it follows that parenting is the most important factor in raising a child.

From the study linked by Kabal:

"Monozygotic co-twins correlated more highly than dizygotic co-twins on measures of ideology constructed from a scale of attitudes,
including the death penalty, ethnocentrism, morality, unions, unemployment, and abortion, among others."

All of those double-blind twin studies raise children within similar communities and cultures, then ask the political issues of the day, and because they give similar answers it means genetics are king?

So bad, just so bad. I hate how the public is duped over these studies because what they do not realize is that the political and social questions we ask the children are themselves products of our time and age, that is, totally irrelevant to measuring the effects of culture and parenting on human behavior.

Had the double-blind twin studies (also known as the classical twin design, or CTD) been conducted in Ancient Rome, the questions would have been

- Should slaves be allowed to buy their own freedom?
- Can Emperors discount the senate?
- Do plebs deserve pay raises every one or two years?
- Is it better to compromise or war with barbarians?

Get it? The questions they used as a measure are totally meaningless jibber jabber, socially conditional products of our time, and do nothing to measure how much influence parents really have. They need more accurate measures that could work independently across time; an experiment that could be conducted in 2010 AD or 2010 BC. Not this bullshit asking about abortion, LOL.

Although I do not have the "science" to prove this (although no one has any science on this matter), I'd say that parenting determines almost 80% of a child's outcome in life, because the parent controls what the child sees and hears, and that's all that matters.

If you don't want your daughter to be a slut, then you must not raise her to be one. Look at how sluts grow up, and then raise your daughter oppositely from that.

Quote:Quote:

There are competing theories that hold just as much scientific weight, although far less understood, than the current bullshit surrounding double-blind twin studies.

You will need more than assertion to cast aside twin studies; especially when it appears that you do not understand what twin adoptions studies are doing.

The underlying issue is that it looks like you do not even understand what a regression does, as I will discuss below.

Quote:Quote:

Although popular educational orthodoxy says genetics is huge, parenting doesn't matter, blah blah blah - it's 100% bullshit. First, let me show you why genetics is basically a non-issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Enfant..._reception

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/466616.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...linic.html

Feral children shut down all genetic arguments. If genetics account for how children turn out, why do children who grow up in the wild act like beasts and not men?

Without the effects of socialization, it is impossible to become a human being. Likewise, since a parent has the ability to dictate what information comes to a child, it follows that parenting is the most important factor in raising a child.

I am quite aware of with Feral Children case studies (they're actually very interesting).

The bolded above shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the statistical discussion at hand. The question being answered by twin adoption studies is something like: "to what extent is the percentage of variability in various offspring traits across offspring explained by variability in various factors, like genetics, parenting, or environment?"

Note that it is not something like: "what percentage of various traits of individual offspring is determined by various like factors, genetics, parenting, or environment?"

The distinction is not a trivial, semantic one; it is very crucial.

Obviously, if you don't feed your child... it will die. If you suffocate your child with a pillow... it will die. If you sexually molest your daughter, she will probably not turn out the best sexual-behavior wise. Genetics and environment won't seem to matter.

"Laissez-faire parenting," in Western nations, would be presumed to be not harming your child and making sure it doesn't die. Even the extreme bulk of the left-tail of parenting is at least that. "Feral" children is not at least that.

These types of neglectful/pathological parental behavior account for very little of the overall variation in unique environment due to their rarity in Western nations.

Parenting behavior is linked with offspring shared environment and genetics as well. For example, high IQ people will pass on their high IQ to their children (at an R^2 > 50%), and will tend to live in better areas, thus providing a "better" shared environment. So there is material covariance there. What a parent "does" is a function of what a parent "is."

Additionally, note that feral children also lack the "shared environment" part, so the lack of development there cannot be solely attributed to parenting, either.

Quote:Quote:

All of those double-blind twin studies raise children within similar communities and cultures, then ask the political issues of the day, and because they give similar answers it means genetics are king?

So bad, just so bad. I hate how the public is duped over these studies because what they do not realize is that the political and social questions we ask the children are themselves products of our time and age, that is, totally irrelevant to measuring the effects of culture and parenting on human behavior.

Had the double-blind twin studies (also known as the classical twin design, or CTD) been conducted in Ancient Rome, the questions would have been

- Should slaves be allowed to buy their own freedom?
- Can Emperors discount the senate?
- Do plebs deserve pay raises every one or two years?
- Is it better to compromise or war with barbarians?

Get it? The questions they used as a measure are totally meaningless jibber jabber, socially conditional products of our time, and do nothing to measure how much influence parents really have. They need more accurate measures that could work independently across time; an experiment that could be conducted in 2010 AD or 2010 BC. Not this bullshit asking about abortion, LOL.

Exactly. Regardless of the particularities of the political beliefs in question, one would think political beliefs would be driven by "socially conditional products of our time" and our environment, which is why it is noteworthy that such a large genetic residual remains. Get it? LOL.

Quote:Quote:

Although I do not have the "science" to prove this (although no one has any science on this matter), I'd say that parenting determines almost 80% of a child's outcome in life, because the parent controls what the child sees and hears, and that's all that matters.

We have plenty of science on the matter, but thanks for offering your opinion. We will file this next to the "Hope and Change" section adjacent to the "Faith" section.

Quote:Quote:

The bolded above shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the statistical discussion at hand. The question being answered by twin adoption studies is something like: "to what extent is the percentage of variability in various offspring traits across offspring explained by variability in various factors, like genetics, parenting, or environment?"

Note that it is not something like: "what percentage of various traits of individual offspring is determined by various like factors, genetics, parenting, or environment?"

The distinction is not a trivial, semantic one; it is very crucial.

If this is the case, then the study is even more worthless than I originally had thought; it now approaches zero value.

Your original claim in this thread was as follows:

Quote:Quote:

From twin adoption studies we know that among pretty much all cognitive/behavioral traits, genetics is the most important factor, then shared environment second, with unique environment (a subset of which is parenting) last.

If the study can only be used to study populations of children and not individual children, then what use is it to a parent? Parents do not raise populations of children, they raise individual children.

Just as a study that only measures individuals will be worthless on a mass scale, so too will a study that only measures mass scale populations to the individual. You and I both know the sum/part distinction.

Thus this study has no applicability to parenting whatsoever. Thus your original advice of

Quote:Quote:

You don't want your future hypothetical daughter banging badboys and being a slut in general?

Make sure her mother isn't a slut.

Have her grow up in a good school district with no hoodrats and no thugs.

Then sit back, relax, and hope for the best.

Is naive at best and extremely harmful at worst.

Quote:Quote:

Obviously, if you don't feed your child... it will die. If you suffocate your child with a pillow... it will die. If you sexually molest your daughter, she will probably not turn out the best sexual-behavior wise. Genetics and environment won't seem to matter.

All good examples of why parenting > genetics.

Quote:Quote:

"Laissez-faire parenting," in Western nations, would be presumed to be not harming your child and making sure it doesn't die. Even the extreme bulk of the left-tail of parenting is at least that. "Feral" children is not at least that.

More laughs. Unspoken premises and undefined terms being packed into a "scientific" study. So much for a scientific "control." What is considered "laissez-faire parenting" would be considered negligence in Islamic or Asian communities.

Is it any wonder why our schools today suck so much ass? The kids are going to raise themselves? No, they'll get their influences from somewhere.

Quote:Quote:

Exactly. Regardless of the particularities of the political beliefs in question, one would think political beliefs would be driven by "socially conditional products of our time" and our environment, which is why it is noteworthy that such a large genetic residual remains. Get it? LOL.

Nope, you don't get it at all.

The political questionnaires mean nothing. It's like saying, "because twins have preferences for favorite foods, parenting means nothing!"

A person's political beliefs, a person's IQ, or a person's food preferences have NOTHING to do with good parenting or the results of good/bad parenting. By these standards, if two twins grow up to give the same answers on a political question, yet one was a murderer and the other was a saint, then the study would conclude that parenting does not matter since they gave the same political response!

A pathetic methodology. Can't believe this even got funding. Like they say - a sucker is born every minute.

Quote:Quote:

We have plenty of science on the matter

No you don't, you've got none.

Quote: (04-30-2013 12:32 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

The bolded above shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the statistical discussion at hand. The question being answered by twin adoption studies is something like: "to what extent is the percentage of variability in various offspring traits across offspring explained by variability in various factors, like genetics, parenting, or environment?"

Note that it is not something like: "what percentage of various traits of individual offspring is determined by various like factors, genetics, parenting, or environment?"

The distinction is not a trivial, semantic one; it is very crucial.

If this is the case, then the study is even more worthless than I originally had thought; it now approaches zero value.

So you were criticizing something of which the most basic premise you don't understand. At least you admit it ex post, we're off to a good start.

Quote:Quote:

If the study can only be used to study populations of children and not individual children, then what use is it to a parent? Parents do not raise populations of children, they raise individual children.

Just as a study that only measures individuals will be worthless on a mass scale, so too will a study that only measures mass scale populations to the individual. You and I both know the sum/part distinction.

Thus this study has no applicability to parenting whatsoever. Thus your original advice of
Is naive at best and extremely harmful at worst.

It shows that varying unique environment (a subset of which is parenting per se) while holding shared environment and genetics constant has little impact on child outcomes, where the extreme bulk of the variation in parenting behavior is to the right of feeding and housing your child.

It is especially useful in deciding whether or not whether to try "Tiger Dad"ing your daughter into not being a slut. De facto natural experiments have already been run for you to examine the ceiling (ceiling because parenting is a subset of unique environment) of the effect of parenting on child outcomes.

The decision is not whether to let your daughter grow up as a feral child. And once again, feral children also lack the shared environment part.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Obviously, if you don't feed your child... it will die. If you suffocate your child with a pillow... it will die. If you sexually molest your daughter, she will probably not turn out the best sexual-behavior wise. Genetics and environment won't seem to matter.

All good examples of why parenting > genetics.

A good example of how you still don't understand what a regression does, so you do not know how to interpret its implications, except by happenstance.

Quote:Quote:

A pathetic methodology. Can't believe this even got funding. Like they say - a sucker is born every minute.

Indeed, suckers like people who Dunning Kruger their way through Intro to Statistics Week 1 material in smugly shouting about things they don't understand.

As I wrote my first response to you and went to the gym, I had a fleeting thought that perhaps you were being sarcastic, satirizing a shrill PC piece that had recently come out but I had yet to read.

But apparently not.

Quote:Quote:

It shows that varying unique environment (a subset of which is parenting per se) while holding shared environment and genetics constant has little impact on child outcomes, where the extreme bulk of the variation in parenting behavior is to the right of feeding and housing your child.

No, it shows that a population of parents all holding similar beliefs and values (what you called lassiez-faire parenting) will have similar child outcomes for a population of children.

A trivial statement - saying that children in a culture will inherit their culture's beliefs is something people have been saying since Aristotle's time, which is actually what the study you linked to tried to debunk. If anything, they merely reinforced what Aristotle said almost 3000 years ago = "Man is a political animal."

And this is a useless statement for a parent - because a parent only raises an INDIVIDUAL child, not a POPULATION of children. The study you linked, since it studied POPULATIONS and not INDIVIDUALS, would only be useful for dictators or education ministers, since those are the kinds of people who must concern themselves with populations and not individuals.

Again - this is the "sum is greater than the parts" distinction.

But you know what? None of this even matters, because I'm going to twist the dagger into the wound of the terrible method of your study once again:

Quote:Quote:

A person's political beliefs, a person's IQ, or a person's food preferences have NOTHING to do with good parenting or the results of good/bad parenting. By these standards, if two twins grow up to give the same answers on a political question, yet one was a murderer and the other was a saint, then the study would conclude that parenting does not matter since they gave the same political response!

I notice you didn't answer this. Just admit it, man. Study used a bad method.

Quote: (04-30-2013 09:19 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

It shows that varying unique environment (a subset of which is parenting per se) while holding shared environment and genetics constant has little impact on child outcomes, where the extreme bulk of the variation in parenting behavior is to the right of feeding and housing your child.

No, it shows that a population of parents all holding similar beliefs and values (what you called lassiez-faire parenting) will have similar child outcomes for a population of children.

A trivial statement - saying that children in a culture will inherit their culture's beliefs is something people have been saying since Aristotle's time, which is actually what the study you linked to tried to debunk. If anything, they merely reinforced what Aristotle said almost 3000 years ago = "Man is a political animal."

And this is a useless statement for a parent - because a parent only raises an INDIVIDUAL child, not a POPULATION of children. The study you linked, since it studied POPULATIONS and not INDIVIDUALS, would only be useful for dictators or education ministers, since those are the kinds of people who must concern themselves with populations and not individuals.

Again - this is the "sum is greater than the parts" distinction.

But you know what? None of this even matters, because I'm going to twist the dagger into the wound of the terrible method of your study once again:

Quote:Quote:

A person's political beliefs, a person's IQ, or a person's food preferences have NOTHING to do with good parenting or the results of good/bad parenting. By these standards, if two twins grow up to give the same answers on a political question, yet one was a murderer and the other was a saint, then the study would conclude that parenting does not matter since they gave the same political response!

I notice you didn't answer this. Just admit it, man. Study used a bad method.

I am answering on my phone so I will be short and not deal with quote markup tags.

You still demonstrate a flagrant ignorance of rudimentary statistical concepts with your comment about individuals and populations.

And I purposefully didn't answer because it's a non-sequitir, which is irrelevant to looking at the role of genetic variation, and shared and unique environmental variation, in explaining variation in child outcomes, some of which could be political beliefs. I didn't realize you would consider your tangent a strong point, much less a twisting dagger or whatever comical metaphor you used.

No need to project your own conceptual incompetencies onto me or the array of twin adoption studies we have.

As an aside, The political beliefs study is just one I used to proxy a ceiling on the effect of parental variation.

You are playing a role not dissimilar to that of feminists arguing over the wage gap in shrieking over basic statistical concepts you don't properly grasp, and it's tiresome.

When you've got the time to sit down and think about what I've posted, give it a try.

Quote: (04-30-2013 10:36 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

When you've got the time to sit down and think about what I've posted, give it a try.

Little time or thought was needed, as little is required to parse something that took little thought to produce.

Plugging one's ears and denying twin adoption studies while lacking understanding of a basic regression is reminiscent of creationists denying evolution by insisting "I didn't come from no monkeys."

My posts that have preceded are enough to stand by themselves; I don't feel compelled to expound further.

I am optimistic that--in the coming few years/decades--parents will shade more toward Caplan and away from Chua, and will prioritize more enjoying their time with their kids, rather than act out some misguided fantasy that parenting can determine child outcomes as if one was manipulating marionettes.

@Samseau

Quote:Quote:

And this is a useless statement for a parent - because a parent only raises an INDIVIDUAL child, not a POPULATION of children. The study you linked, since it studied POPULATIONS and not INDIVIDUALS, would only be useful for dictators or education ministers, since those are the kinds of people who must concern themselves with populations and not individuals.

Lets change that to: Game tactics are useless as a guy, because women are INDIVIDUALS, not a POPULATION and NAWALT.

With enough samples of a population, you can model a distribution curve of ratios of genetics/parenting influence, and predict the likelihood of each individual falling into a particular ratio. Yes, NACALT, but the statistics indicate that the most likely scenario is that your kid will be much more influenced by genetics rather than parenting or environmental factors, barring horrible or detrimental environmental conditions to the contrary (e.g., single mother, poverty,etc.)

So yes, the biggest factor in ensuring your daughter is not a slut is by making sure her mother isn't one. Parenting pales in comparison.

Quote: (04-30-2013 08:56 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

Quote: (04-30-2013 10:36 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

When you've got the time to sit down and think about what I've posted, give it a try.

Little time or thought was needed, as little is required to parse something that took little thought to produce.

Plugging one's ears and denying twin adoption studies while lacking understanding of a basic regression is reminiscent of creationists denying evolution by insisting "I didn't come from no monkeys."

Just because statistical regression is solid math, does not mean the math was measuring appropriate concepts. I've already explained to you in the above posts why the statistics on these twin studies are totally flawed, the ball's in your court if you want to defend it.

Quote:Quote:

My posts that have preceded are enough to stand by themselves; I don't feel compelled to expound further.

I am optimistic that--in the coming few years/decades--parents will shade more toward Caplan and away from Chua, and will prioritize more enjoying their time with their kids, rather than act out some misguided fantasy that parenting can determine child outcomes as if one was manipulating marionettes.

I accept your surrender.

Quote: (04-30-2013 10:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Just because statistical regression is solid math, does not mean the math was measuring appropriate concepts. I've already explained to you in the above posts why the statistics on these twin studies are totally flawed, the ball's in your court if you want to defend it.

Already have, but not that twin adoption studies and regressions need my defense; you've but illustrated the breadth and depth of your ignorance--balls in your court if you want to learn something high schoolers do in week 1 of statistics.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

My posts that have preceded are enough to stand by themselves; I don't feel compelled to expound further.

I am optimistic that--in the coming few years/decades--parents will shade more toward Caplan and away from Chua, and will prioritize more enjoying their time with their kids, rather than act out some misguided fantasy that parenting can determine child outcomes as if one was manipulating marionettes.

I accept your surrender.

Cute but transparent attempt at a reframe.

Quote: (04-30-2013 09:45 PM)Anaguma Wrote:  

@Samseau

Quote:Quote:

And this is a useless statement for a parent - because a parent only raises an INDIVIDUAL child, not a POPULATION of children. The study you linked, since it studied POPULATIONS and not INDIVIDUALS, would only be useful for dictators or education ministers, since those are the kinds of people who must concern themselves with populations and not individuals.

Lets change that to: Game tactics are useless as a guy, because women are INDIVIDUALS, not a POPULATION and NAWALT.

Actually, game tactics are built for individuals. I can't use game to fuck every girl I meet, I can only use it to fuck individual girls.

Initial game theory was developed by studying populations of women, but the actual tactics were only refined when applied to individual women by individual men.

Likewise, I can't use parenting tactics that will work on every child, I can only develop tactics that individual parents can use for their children.

Thanks for supporting my logic 100%.

Seriously man, common sense tells you that children will not raise themselves. The advice and study Kabal posted was terrible.

Quote:Quote:

With enough samples of a population, you can model a distribution curve of ratios of genetics/parenting influence, and predict the likelihood of each individual falling into a particular ratio. Yes, NACALT, but the statistics indicate that the most likely scenario is that your kid will be much more influenced by genetics rather than parenting or environmental factors, barring horrible or detrimental environmental conditions to the contrary (e.g., single mother, poverty,etc.)

So yes, the biggest factor in ensuring your daughter is not a slut is by making sure her mother isn't one. Parenting pales in comparison.

Again, that model distribution curve only applies if all the parents are using the same parenting styles. Typically this is true of any culture, which is the only reason these model distrubution curves have any explanatory power at all.

People are mixing the cause and effect.

If you gave me any newborn child, and told me what you wanted it to become - a murderer, a saint, a slut, a thief, a rapist, a family man/woman, a nerd, etc. - I could make it become one.

It would take a lot of time and effort, but it's easy to make a child become almost anything. All one needs to do is structure the environment of the child such that the child receives only the influences you want the child to receive. Being an effective parent is NOT berating your child until it does what you want. Being an effective parent is structuring the child's world such that it only sees and hears what you want it to see.

It's called brainwashing, and cultures have been doing it for millennia. Think North Korea. Think of how easy it is.

A peculiarity of today's Western culture is that our elites want us to believe that there's nothing we can do to alter the life-outcomes of our children, so people will be more willing to give their child over to the state for the state's purposes. Western people are sheep, and continue the indoctrination process unwittingly.

Quote: (04-30-2013 10:15 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

Quote: (04-30-2013 10:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Just because statistical regression is solid math, does not mean the math was measuring appropriate concepts. I've already explained to you in the above posts why the statistics on these twin studies are totally flawed, the ball's in your court if you want to defend it.

Already have, but not that twin adoption studies and regressions need my defense; you've but illustrated the breadth and depth of your ignorance--balls in your court if you want to learn something high schoolers do in week 1 of statistics.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

My posts that have preceded are enough to stand by themselves; I don't feel compelled to expound further.

I am optimistic that--in the coming few years/decades--parents will shade more toward Caplan and away from Chua, and will prioritize more enjoying their time with their kids, rather than act out some misguided fantasy that parenting can determine child outcomes as if one was manipulating marionettes.

I accept your surrender.

Cute but transparent attempt at a reframe.

Kabal you still haven't responded to a thing I've said except to say I don't understand stats, when stats have nothing to do with shit. Stats aren't gonna remove the law of gravity or basic fundamental logical concepts like sum/part distinctions, or faulty premises involving assumptions of "shared environment" including similar parenting styles across a culture.

Quote: (04-30-2013 10:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Kabal you still haven't responded to a thing I've said except to say I don't understand stats, when stats have nothing to do with shit. Stats aren't gonna remove the law of gravity or basic fundamental logical concepts like sum/part distinctions, or faulty premises involving assumptions of "shared environment" including similar parenting styles across a culture.

I've indulged many of your tangents, non-sequiturs, and held your hand through how to interpret a basic regression. I've more than done my RooshV Forum charity for the day.

Problem is, it's a moral hazard and, as we have witnessed, only encourages an increase in quantity and a decrease in quality of your diversions as you throw more shit at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks.

It's funny that you invoke another non-sequitur in bringing up gravity. So let's talk gravity: You aren't going to understand the motions of celestial bodies if you don't understand the properties of and the conceptual interpretations of gravity. If you butcher step one, the steps that come next aren't going to be pretty.

An understanding of basic statistical concepts is thus, at the very least, a prerequisite for criticizing a genus of applied statistical methods, e.g. twin adoption studies--yet you lack even a cursory familiarity and still engage in wholesale denialism.

Icky things like statistics or empiricism must be wrong; all this boring talk involving monozygotic and dizygotic twins must be wrong; all this discussion of genetics, shared environment, and unique environment must involve faulty premises; if only these researchers and scientists designing experiments and building models were as wise as you in thumping your chest, declaring an 80% number, because you feel it is right.

I suppose numbers and statistics "have nothing to do with shit" when you have better criteria like your feelings, buttressed by some cool stories about feral children you read about, and some inchoate, half-baked thoughts on wholes and parts.

That whole shotgun-toting father thing would be more realistic fifty years ago in my home town, but not now and probably not where that goofy fucker is living at.

Just as I suspected.

Quote:Quote:

and some inchoate, half-baked thoughts on wholes and parts.

You don't understand the sum/part distinction, do you?

A wheel, by itself, just sits around and can be rolled if it is pushed. A wheel, when put into the rest of a car, will go 100 MPH. The wheel by itself is a completely different entity than the car.

Likewise, a study that looks at 1,000 or 10,000 children without controlling for parenting methodology other than to state "shared environment" based on "lassiez-faire parenting" (loaded statement as I've pointed out earlier in the thread) cannot be used to draw inferences on how 1 parent should raise his child. Logically impossible to draw any inferences.

A parent can easily live in a community, and shut his child away from any and all outside influences he does not want his child to see, and the "shared environment" point becomes moot, instantly. Letting your child be part of a "shared environment" means that your parenting becomes neutralized by other outside forces such as genetics (in the case of lassiez-faire parenting) or your neighbors.

That is why the sum of the "shared environment" is greater than the individual "parent." But this is not true if the parent can effortlessly take his child out of the whole and just be an individual part, and develop a unique environment for his own child.

Thus 1 child is a completely different entity from a community of 1,000 children, since there is no reason why a child must be part of whatever mythical "shared environment" the researches keep talking about. There's no such thing as a involuntary shared environment, there are only communities that people let themselves be a part of.

It sounds like Samseau is accusing twin studies of being guilty of the problem known as 'restriction of range.' For those who don't know, imagine you quantified how good everyone was at basketball, and compared it with their height. You'd find a strong relationship, with almost all the best players being among the tallest 2% or so. But if you looked at just super tall people, the relationship would be much weaker. Same for say, linebackers and weight. http://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Correla...estriction

It sounds like Samseau is saying the differences between the parents childrearing styles within the sample is small enough that these studies don't establish that more active parenting is without effect, for the simple reason that no one in the sample had adopted that extreme method, whatever it was. That these parents could conceivably adopt some parenting regimen that *would* have more of an effect. Homeschooling for instance, has attracted some attention for turning out hard working students. Eg, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...ge-12.html . Are stories like these just flukes (assuming the innate level of intelligence when comparing groups is similar)? Or do certain interventions, statistically rare they may be, be sufficient to influence your life? I don't have a strong position, just that if something has never been definitively studied, definitive statements about that thing are impossible to make.

Quote: (04-24-2013 01:04 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Internet Tough Guy-ism at it's finest. I should know, I'm an ex-marine sniper half-vietcong batman with a +2 sword and a barbed wire tattoo encircling my dick.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.