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?
Scarr’s per se theory shows parents cannot make their children become intellectuals when it is biologically not within their genetic makeups. Therefore, she is also saying that parents are good enough as is, because their genetic makeup makes them tune into being "good enough".
ReplyDeleteIn order to trust what Scarr setting forth, one must believe that parenting is simply not key in whether or not a child is successful in his/her life. In addition, Scarr stated, “A poor economic background doesn’t necessarily mean a poor social environment.” A listener would then have to agree that a child coming from a poor background still has somewhat of the same chances and opportunities as a child who has not, seeing as she believes that genetics predetermine this.
I agree that genetics has a lot to do with whether or not a child will grow up to become an “intellectual” and prosper, but I do not agree that mediocre parenting is what is best for any child. Although Scarr is saying that parents’ genetics are made be "good enough" for the child, I believe that the environment that parents put their children in plays a role too. Therefore, I mostly agree with what Scarr is saying, I just also think that the environment in which the children are put in, especially in their young years, plays a role in their development too.
Scarr’s notion was that parents are doing good enough in raising their children. They do not have to go above and beyond for their children.
ReplyDeleteA listener would need to have facts to back up this notion. They would need a study showing that children could grow up good and successful without a lot of the parent’s guidance. They would need to believe that the parents are not the only being/thing that influences how children act or think.
I agree and disagree with Scarr. I believe that parents need to take a step back sometimes, such as in sports. At other times parents need to be harder on their children and provide more in other areas of life, like spending more time with one another, instead of buying them more things. So, in ways I agree that parents are doing “good enough” and in some ways I feel like parents aren’t doing “good enough”.
Katherine, great post. I agree with your statement that parents need to step back in some areas of their children's lives, and in other areas step in more. Parents need to spend enough quality time with their children to ensure the bond between them. If parents did not spend enough time with their kids, that would be neglect, resulting in issues later in life for their child.
DeleteScarr's theory argued that parents do not have to go above and beyond for their child to develop normal. For example, the preschool the child attends will not have a positive or negative affect on the child. A prestigious preschool would have the same effect as a less prestigious preschool. Parents do not have to worry about being a super parent. Another example Scarr argues that parents stress over and do not need to be is if their child can read at a certain age. Ordinary parents are good enough is Scarr’s main argument.
ReplyDeleteIn order to prove this theory, we would have to take children that went to all different kinds of preschools and test how well they are developing. The listener would have to trust that children coming from poverty have the same chance of “making it” than a person coming from middle class and/or high class.
It is hard to say if I agree or disagree because I believe that children’s environment plays a big role in developing. A parent should want to go above and beyond for their kid and not settle for “good enough”. A child growing up in a wealthy family is obviously going to receive more opportunities that a child growing up in poverty. A preschool that can afford the best teachers with high credentials are going to be able to teach children better than a school that doesn’t have those options.
Scarr’s theory of “good enough” parenting claims that parents do not need to go through extra efforts to be successful parents. The definition of successful as a biological term in which the goal is to raise offspring to sexual maturity. Scarr also claims that you can’t make children be what they are not genetically predisposed to be. An example is sports. You can’t make a child extremely good at volleyball if they are not genetically predisposed to have the abilities required for volleyball.
ReplyDeleteIn order to to trust the notion of “good enough” parenting, we can examine homes where children are raised in homes with alcohol dependent parent(s). Though this environment is not ideal for the child, and may result in some psychological disruptions, the child still reaches the goal of sexual maturity. Other environments, compared to this, are seen as more than good enough.
I agree with Scarr about genetic predisposition for certain skills and interests, and I agree to a certain level with the idea of “good enough” parenting. I disagree with that notion also, because just being a “good enough” parent by successfully getting your offspring to sexual maturity, does not mean that your child will not face issues that arise from being raised in a “good enough” environment. Such as unhealthy coping mechanisms and difficulty in future relationships.
Scarr’s theory argues that parents are “good enough” and don’t have to go above and beyond to be successful. Parents are born with innate parenting skills that will raise a child successfully and that they don’t need to try super hard to be the best parent.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence needed to trust this argument is that parents need to believe that their children are going to grow up and no matter what kind of parent you are, it doesn’t determine how successful your child will be. Parents also need to believe that they are not the only influences in their child’s life, so they also can’t control what type of influences show up in their child’s life.
I both agree and disagree with Scarr. I have a hard time believing that just parenting a child with your innate abilities will be good enough for a child. Every child is so different so each one will need a different type of parenting style. I do agree that each child will develop into their own person, but I still believe that children need more than “good enough parenting.” I also believe that no matter if you influence your children in a good or bad way, the influence will play a part in the child’s life.
Leah, I kind of have the same perspective as you. Every child is different so parenting style will be different for each and every one. For kids who are melancholic the discipline they get may be less because they take it more seriously, whereas a sanguine person will need "harder" discipline because it takes more for them to understand and take it seriously.
DeleteScarr believes that an individual’s “fate” is biologically pre-determined, as long as the individual is raised with the basic necessities: food, shelter, & affection. Overachieving as a parent with the end-goal being an above average child doesn’t work.
ReplyDeleteI think that Scarr has a valid concept when applied to the majority of animals. However, I’d like to believe that when societies and complexities of everyday human life are taken into account; this requires parents to potentially greaten the probability of their children’s success by being more than just “good enough” caregivers. Although it might be hereditary, there is still the chance that some aspects of nurturing could impact one’s sense of task structuring, communication skills, coping skills, & self-worth/self-confidence through learned skill.
People’s personalities are mostly shaped through individual experiences and interactions in their environment. I can agree with Scarr that a majority of someone’s major traits are biological, such as introversion/extraversion, and pessimism/optimism. A common trait everyone on my maternal side of the family is obvious anal compulsion.
In order to prove that parents striving to impact their child’s chances to succeed is a fluke I’d like to see data from studies proving that providing only what is needed shows the same results as those of parents who try harder than average to with a large sampled population.
When Scarr talks about "good enough parents", she is saying that it doesn't take all that much to be a good parent. As long as children's needs are met and children are cared for and loved, they will be okay. For example, as long as a child isn't isolated, they will develop some social skills that will help them through preschool and kindergarten, and from there they will be fine. As long as they are loved and their needs are met, they will trust their parents and be attached which is a huge part of development. I agree with this notion because some parents go way above and beyond trying to be the best for their child, but realistically, less is more and doing just above the bare minimum and giving a child just what they need will make them develop properly throughout infancy, childhood, and adolescence.
ReplyDeleteScarr’s notion about “good enough” parenting is essentially that differences in parenting style have little effect on how children will turn out. Parents want their children to grow up and have a good job, be socially capable, and be financially and mentally stable, however Scarr is saying that the “want” to be a “super-parent” is in itself “good enough”. Arguments that could be given to parents about Scarr’s notion are that their children are going to grow up to be their own person no matter what kind of parenting they receive. Essentially, children are unaffected by whatever parenting they receive, so striving to be the “super-parent” is pointless. Parents also need to know that they are not the only people influencing their child’s life. Children are constantly surrounded by peers and friends who have just as much or more impact on their lives as their parents do.
ReplyDeleteI can argue both with and against Scarr’s point of view. Scarr explains that “ordinary differences between families have little effect on children’s development…”. By “ordinary”, Scarr is saying that all parents who are mentally stable and sane should have little effect on their children, but those who are mentally unstable, abusive, neglectful, etc. are exceptions to the notion. I can see where Scarr is coming from in this aspect, because most ordinary parent’s children turn out “okay”. However, children coming from abusive families usually end up with mental disabilities or just general issues as a result of the abuse and neglect they received growing up. I think that all parents should still strive to be great parents, so their kids have an example of what good parenting looks like.
Kayla, I agree with your point of view on this subject. I think that with every child being different, they all will need a different type of parenting. Some kids just need more guidance and a stronger support from their parents than others, but they all will turn out to be who they want. I think the main thing all kids need from their parents is to be loved and shown that someone deeply cares for them.
DeleteKayla, I really agree with what you had to say in this post. I also agreed and disagreed with this theory. I liked how you stated that children with ordinary parents turn out "okay" and children that come from abuse often times have issues from the parenting they had received. Good post!
DeleteScarr's notion on being a good enough parent basically states that parents do not need to go out of their way to be a "super parent," because the fact that they want to be a "super parent" will make them a good enough parent. Scarr also mentions that different parenting styles should not have an effect on the way a child turns out. Arguments that could be directed at parents to support Scarr's notion is that children are influenced by more than just their parents, for example, they are influenced by their peers, teachers, and coaches. Another argument that could be made is that children will grow up to become who they are meant to become, regardless of how their parents raise them. I personally am both for and against Scarr's notion. I believe that parents do not have a complete influence on how a child will turn out and that the majority of parents are "good enough," however, I do believe the way someone is raised has an impact on the type of person they will become. Overall, I believe that parents should attempt to be the best they can be, but if they cannot be their best at all times it will not make a drastic impact.
ReplyDeleteScarr’s notion is simpler terms is explaining that parents are already genetically “good enough” parents and there is no need for them to go the extra mile when it comes to taking care of and providing for their children. As long as the child's needs have been met they will turn out just fine.
ReplyDeleteIn order for someone to trust this notion they would need to take part in or read a study that takes children whose parents did not go above and beyond for them and see how they turn out. They will see these children turn out fine and in turn, would better understand that parents are not the major thing that make their children who they are and how they act. Another way to do this would be to observe two children who come from very different backgrounds whether it be socially, financially, or culturally but have parents who provided for them but did not go the extra mile for them, this should prove Scarr’s notion to them because the children would generally turn out the same.
While I do see some truth in Scarr’s notion, I do have a hard time trusting it. This is because all children have different needs. Children are born with many different needs often times, this can include emotional, physical, and mental needs. Some children may not have many needs and their parents don’t have to put in the same amount of effort as parents that have physically challenged children with very different needs. Some parents may have to work harder to provide for their children because of this, ultimately Scarr’s theory would not work in these situations.
Maggy, I agree with you 100%. The parents imbedded their genetic code into the child so they child should turn out just fine. I never thought of comparing two different children with different background but once again I agree, the genetic material and the right attention to the children, both should grow up just fine.
DeleteFirst of all, Sandra Scarr's theory states that parents just have to be "good enough" in order to successfully raise a child. The basics of her idea is that individual nuances in different parenting styles really don't have any affect on the development of their children. Second, the evidence that Scarr presents is primarily biological. If a child is genetically good at math, there is no parenting style that can directly affect this biological trait. Another argument is the notion that a child will grow up to be whoever they are supposed to be regardless of the parenting style of their guardians. Third and finally, I think that there is definitely some validity to Scarr's idea, but there are definitely some exceptions to her theory that shouldn't be overlooked. I do agree that certain individual differences of parenting styles really don't have that big of an impact on the development of a child. I do think however, that they might play a role in the success of a child. Going off of the math example, if a parent has a very regimented parenting style and notices that their child is particularly good at math, they might enroll their child in extra math courses or sign them up for mathematic competitions. This specific style of parenting could influence the "fine tuning" of that child's genetic proficiency at math and could influence how successful that child could be in the future. But, then again, one could argue that it is not the parenting style that affected the child's natural talent but the overall encouraging and supportive parents in general, which would go along with Scarr's theory. Overall, I think that parents should not be overly concerned with choosing a perfect parenting style, but that they should be more focused on cultivating the areas in which their child might be more genetically predisposed.
ReplyDeleteMadison,
DeleteI completely agree with your post especially your third section. I had a hard time agreeing with Scar yet you brought up a good point, I don't need to agree but I shouldn't be extremely concerned. The overall goal I believe parents should have is to want and wish the best for their children in terms of health and happiness and the extra assistance is supplemental. While a parent shouldn't be obsessing over becoming the perfect parent I hope that parents will still take advantage of the time they have with their children and the many opportunities that the parent has to positively influence their child.
Scarr’s notion was that although there are parents out there that may invest more into the parenting of their child than others, there chance at success in life is very close to the same. She says this because as soon as the child becomes an adult and leaves the nest the child will do whatever the child wants.
ReplyDeleteTo prove this study, the researcher would have to conduct a longitudinal study that followed the child until middle adulthood. The researcher would need to take kids from different social classes, cultures, and geographical locations. For one to believe this study the results would have to indicate that poverty, culture, and locations are independent to success.
Personally, I would have to disagree with this notion because many statistics will show that those born into poverty already have disadvantage to those who are not. Although money is not the source of happiness and success, it can aid in achieving those goals.
Solid post Braxton, I do have to disagree with your last statement. Just because a child is being raised in poverty does not mean that the parents are not doing all they can. I don't think a persons economic class means they are automatically putting their child at a disadvantage when it comes to successful development.
DeleteScarr's notion was that most parents are good enough. Parents do not need to go above and beyond while doing things for their kids because their genetics are already set. Her notion says that kids personalities are built in their genetics so the parents don't have much control. Studies that have shown evidence of her notion is the study of twins who were separated at birth but have similar personality traits even though they have never met. I personally don't really know if I trust this evidence. I believe that some of our personality is within our genetics but I don't really know if Scarr's studies are enough to prove that our personality is in our genetics for sure. I think this evidence would sway me at first but I think more studies need to be done to convince me 100%.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScarr is known for coining the term, “good enough” parents within developmental psychology. She is stating that it is in the human genetics for mother to have the maternal instinct and same with fathers. Scarr also believes that being the perfect parent is in our genetics because through evolution we have been taught to protect our children, so these instincts will come naturally. However, this is great leap for parents to believe. Parents currently are trying to go above and beyond for their children which isn’t necessarily bad, yet Scarr is implying that simply showing up and being present is good enough for kids because the kid is genetically predetermined to turn out and mature a certain way. This being said, in order for a parent to believe Scarr’s theory, they would require a lot of facts and multiple studies completed. There would need to be proof that children who grew up with an extremely hands on parents who their main focus was on their child had the same outcome as a child whose parent was simply there but had other main focus’. While I’m not a parent so I haven’t experienced raising a child, I have a hard time believing Scarr and her theory. In my opinion the efforts parents are making to help a child are for the child’s benefit. I don’t like the idea that parents can settle for less and be less of a parent because the child is predetermined. I believe every child deserves a parent who is willing to work hard and put in a lot of effort to provide and lay the foundation of a great future for their child.
ReplyDeleteScarr’s theory of “good enough” parenting tells parents that anything extra that they do has little to no effect of a child’s development. She explains that “super-parents” do nothing that will help their child any more than if they had just showed up and were there for their child. For a listener to accept Scarr’s notion, they would need to believe that the special things they do for their children has little impact on shaping their child. They would also need to believe that a child’s background and where they grow up does not effect their development.
ReplyDeleteI mostly disagree with Scarr’s theory. I think when parents efforts do not go without influencing their child. The notion I do agree with is about showing up for your child. I think that is a huge part of a child’s development. If a parent is there for their child, then that means they are spending quality time with their child, which I think is very important. Genetics do play a role as well, but I think the experiences and values that a parent instills in their children makes the biggest impact. Parents need to demonstrate these values to their children.
Scarr's theory about "good enough" parents states that simply just being involved in your children's lives will be enough, and that doing anything over the top won't really affect the overall development and success of their future. She goes on to say that you don't have to go above and beyond for your offspring but just simply being there will be enough. An example would be showing up to some your children's performances, competitions, activities, etc. rather than all of them. As for my beliefs on this idea, I'm not sure. I can see it going both ways. In some instances you have to go above and beyond for your kids, and other instances if you don't or are not able to, it won't cost your child their whole future but rather prepare them to self-sustaining for moments where they have to be. A complaint I have with this whole theory is that it doesn't really cover the diverse families we have today. Single parents, stepparents, adoptive/foster parents, and "open" parents where married people would have affairs with multiple partners would all definitely matter to the child's overall development and success rate in the future. Children typically learn by example, and watch and follow the path their parents set out for them. I believe because this issue isn't really addressed, I can't put much personal belief in it.
ReplyDeleteScarr’s notion basically meant that if a parent has a fear or cannot accept that they may be a “good enough” parent, that is enough for them to know that they are “good enough” as a parent. Ordinary or normal parents have the same effect on their children as so called “super-parents,” and unless the family is outside of a normal developmental range, the child will be fine growing up.
ReplyDeleteIf a parent is providing for the child’s needs such as dressing them, changing, feeding, and anything that is almost instinctual as a parent, they are doing enough to be considered good enough. Sending a child to school is another example. Some parents may feel the need to send their children to the most expensive private school while others may have them attend a public school. Scarr’s notion states that just making sure they attend school will be good enough even if it is not the “best” school.
I somewhat agree with this idea. I do believe that if parents are stressing that they may not be fulfilling their duties as a parent to their child, then they are already providing at least exactly if not more for what the child needs. I do believe if parents are going to extremes or above and beyond in almost all aspects of raising their child, that it will affect their development. An example for this which is not necessarily “super-parenting,” is children who are read to often. I babysit many kids and it is obvious which kids are read to because 1. They enjoy reading and want to be read to, and 2. Their vocabulary seems much greater than those who are not read to or given a device to occupy them. This also has many other factors in play but I do believe that focusing or spending time on certain areas with a child or doing things differently than an average parent, can affect the development of a child not just whether the family is in a normal developmental range.
Scarr made a notion that ordinary parents have this gene that strives them to want to be "super" parents and this gene is what makes an ordinary parent "good enough". Scarr claims that no matter what a parent does, genes will have a major effect on how a child turns out.
ReplyDeleteMany may think Scarr's notion is bogus. However, Scarr has presented some interesting arguments as to why this notion may be valid. Scarr developed a model to demonstrate this idea in three words; passive, evocative, and active (niche-picking). The word passive was meant to describe how children inherit their genetic makeup from their parents and parents allow their children to express these genetic tendencies by providing an environment that aligns with the genetic make-up. In other words, if ordinary parents support their child's natural genetic tendencies to play music or sports and build an environment that welcomes them to try these things, they are doing "good enough" because parents are not making their life about them, rather they are making it revolve around their child.
As for me, I understand where Scarr was coming from. I understand the notion that if you are doing the best you can as a parent, that is "good enough". However, I also think that parents are not perfect which means just because they create a welcoming environment for their child, etc. there is a lot more that comes into play and there are always obstacles to overcome and difficult decisions to make. Being a parent is a never ending job. Sometimes being a ordinary parent is "good enough" and sometimes it is not. That is just the way life works.
In plain English, Scarr's notion of "good parenting" is that all parenting behaviors are useless, the child will grow up doing it's thing. People naturally have a "super parent" within them that allows them to be "good enough" to raise their kid to be better off.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence I use it look at all the parents of the world. Some are considered to be great parents that raised the prodigy who will be the talk of the town. I want to focus on the parents who seem like slums or are harshly judged more often then others. These parents don't seem like they could raise a child "properly" but then once their child grows up they turn out "alright" in the end. They have a career, an apartment, and maybe a family that nobody would expect them to have. An example of "average' parents making a good enough kid are Chris Pratt's and other celebrity parent stories. Pratt's mother worked at a Safeway bagging groceries while his dad worked as a miner. Average parents who ended up being a little better than them, happens all the time.
I do agree that there is a certain "drive" that parents already have that makes them want their kids to be successful. I do question though that there has to be a level of "drive" depending on the parents lifestyle, environment, and circumstances. If it was a unplanned emergency then there could be a lower drive to care for the child. Sadly in realistic life parents leave their families to fend for themselves and it plays a factor on the child's future.
Scarr's theory about parents being "good enough" is that parents do not have to go the extra mile to be this so called perfect parent. Overall the child will develop just fine with a average parent. The evidence needed for a parent to believe this theory is that no matter what type of parent you are the child is going to grow up no matter what. The amount of influences the child encounters is far greater than just the parent themselves. There are many studies and research a parent skeptical about this theory could read.
ReplyDeleteI partially believe this theory to the extent that you do not need a "super parent" in order to grow up correctly. Knowing that the parent is supportive and overall there for you alone is enough. Either way that the parent chooses to raise their child will impact them. Sometimes the wants for children are greater than what the parent can give leading to conflict, and I believe that is where this theory could lead people to be skeptical.
Scarr’s theory on “good enough” parents are that parents do not have to go over and beyond for their child to be considered "normal". Their genetic material also help determines what their child will be good at as well as what they are interested in.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence to Scarr’s theory is that parents must keep in mind no matter how well they believe their parenting skills went, their kids are the only ones to decide if they will become successful and live in the “normal”.
I agree with Scarr’s theory on “good enough” parents. The genetic code imbedded in their child already gives the child some of the same likes and interests along with similar moods as their parents. Parents can raise their child to be respectful and have certain behaviors and priorities but once the child grows up, only the child can determine their priorities and behaviors.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBasically, Sandra Scarr states that unless children are raised by abusive or neglectful parents, they will turn out fine. The key elements for their equal shot at success are parental warmth, emotional and physical security, and encouragement to discover and improve their skills. It all comes down to biology and genetics. In several twin and adoption studies, it was found that adopted children of lawyers and doctors have a 50% chance of above average performance in school and work. Biological children of doctors and lawyer, however, have an 80% chance of above average performance. In the twin studies, twins raised in different families and environments consistently showed similar aspects in their personalities. I already believe that genetic predispositions are powerful predictors for all of us. With this evidence though, if I did not already think it were true, my beliefs would be swayed.
ReplyDeleteThe "good enough" parent theory that was defined by Sandra Scarr tells us that parents are predisposed to be good parents due to instinct and genetics and that they do not need to go above and beyond for their children. Children will be successful in life as long as the parent(s) are not neglectful or abusive, and that parents today are doing more than they need to be doing in order to be good parents. The goal of parenting in the biological or genetic sense is to raise your child to sexual maturity and after that they should not need their parents anymore, at this point parents and child are considered successful.
ReplyDeleteGenetically children are predisposed to be more successful in certain areas over others. For example it doesn't matter how much a parent pushes their kid to be successful in sports, if the child doesn't have the genetic make up to be good in sports they won't be.
I agree with Scarr's theory on good parenting in that going above and beyond won't make a parent better than parents who don't. I believe that when we have children our instincts take over and we end up taking the actions needed for our children to make it to sexual maturity. Of course due to society, parents will do more than what basic instincts tell us to do, such as creating play dates and signing our kids up for sports. This is not a bad thing, however once or kids reach early adulthood, or sexual maturity, I think it is good for parents to take a step back from their children and let their kids make their own decisions.
Scarr's notion of "good enough" parenting essential boils down to meaning that parents don't need to go far and above what would normally be expected of them, as long as they are giving their child care, warmth, tenderness, and etc. then they're doing their job perfectly fine.
ReplyDeleteI think that regardless of what evidence people see about this notion that it won't become a widely held belief since it goes against our nature to try and make sure that our children are able to reach reproductive maturity to the best of our ability, in a "normal" individual. I do believe that making some studies such as the Minnesota twins study common knowledge would at least make the idea much more palatable to most people, another study showing "super parents" vs. "good enough" parents could be even more useful.
I personally agree with Scarr's notion, since it just kind of makes sense to me. The idea that as long as you don't do something "outside of the normal range for development" is a very comforting thought, which probably makes me want to believe this notion more since it makes possible small-scale mistakes I might make as a parent seem less impactful, reducing the stress that comes with raising a child.
Scarr's notion of development is that "super parents" that try to go above and beyond for their kids will make little difference in development compared to ordinary parents.
ReplyDeleteI think that for someone to believe this notion they would need to be presented with sufficient evidence and many tests. If there were studies done comparing kids of parents who were super and ordinary. The test would have to compare development from childhood to adulthood to and compare how the children's lives turned out. With this evidence I think that people who are not parents might believe it. I also think that even after these studies some parents would refuse to believe this notion.
I personally do not agree with this notion at all. As a parent it is hard to believe that extra efforts that parents make will not change their child's development. Children learn from what they see and experience. If parents are paying money to put them in a better school with a better environment one would think that it would have an effect because they are seeing and learning things from a more controlled (better) environment. The environment that children are around definitely influences how they act and grow. If parents had the mindset that their parenting is good enough because they love their child and they're fed and taken care of, it would not be good for a child's development. I think all parents should strive to give their children the best. From my experience as a parent I think it is not normal for parents to think that as long as the children's physical needs are met, then genetics will take care of the rest.
Scarr's theory was that original parents are good enough for raising their kids. she believed that it was not necessary to go above and beyond for our kids, being there was good enough.
ReplyDeleteFor evidence, I would look into the kids that come from different types of families. There are kids that became famous or successful, came from a poor family. However, they would have a "original" parent that was there for them. That is not always the case but it does show that some kids turn out just fine with "original" parents vs "helicopter" parents.
I agree with Scarr's theory on good parenting. I think what is the most important theory out of this is that the parent need to be there and do what they can to raise their kids. I do not think its a bad thing for parents to go above and beyond for their kids but that doesn't mean parents who does not do that is a bad parent. Scarr quote, "Individuals differences in parenting should have little consequences for children's development."
Scarr believed that a child’s genotype contributed to their character significantly more than their environment does. As long as a parent can fulfill basic parental responsibilities; such as encouragement, warmth and care. Not much else can be done by the parent to ensure the success of a child.
ReplyDeleteMonozygotic twins with an identical genotype if raised together will have very similar characteristics. Now this would be expected because they are raised under the same household. Even monozygotic twins raised apart from one another in separate families will still turn out a lot like one another. Having similar jobs, marrying the same type of person, enjoying the same hobbies. This is a great example of a person’s genotype playing a significant role in how a child will turn out. Dizygotic twins have similar outcomes but not nearly as strong as monozygotic. Not having an identical genotype would contribute to their differences.
I agree with Scarr, parents need to meet societal expectations as parents. Giving a child an adequate amount of love and encouragement with all the other basic human needs is enough to be deemed as a good parent. The rest falls on the child to seek happiness and fulfillment in their life. Parents shouldn’t be so hard on themselves if they try to be the super parent and their child doesn’t turn out the way they wanted them to.
Scarr's theory explained the super parents and the "good enough" parents. Whichever the parent decides to be, the child turns out relatively the same. Scar explains how with this you don't need to push your children to learn so much so fast and not to rush their childhood.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that has a huge role in trusting this is the environment. They need to see if the child grows up in a good, clean and encouraging environment or if they are in a dirty and broken down household.
I agree with the fact that being "good enough" is still a good parent. You don't need to break yourself to make your child perfect because in all reality, no one is perfect. The child will be perfect in their own way as long as your parenting is smart. I believe that the environment the child grows up in does have a huge impact on who they grow up to be.
Scarr’s notion is basically stating that there is no need to be a “super parent”, because the drive to be a super parent will make us good enough parents. She explains that individual differences in parenting will have little to no effect on the child’s development. Arguments that could be given to parents about scars notion are that many individuals influence a child, not just the parents, and that children are going to grow up as who they are supposed to be regardless of their parents parenting style.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree and disagree with Scarr’s notion on good enough parents. I believe that parents who strive to be good parents, even if they fail at times, will in fact be good enough parents. However, I do believe that the way a parent raises their child will impact how their child develops. I think that parents should strive to be the best they can, and know that if they mess up sometimes, it wont have a drastic effect on the child.
Alivia,
DeleteI also agree and disagree with Scarr's notion on good enough parents. Parents sometimes making mistakes does not mean that they aren't good parents, but like you said, I also believe that the way a parent raises their child can have an impact on how their child turns out. I do think that there are other factors other than good parenting, such as their traits, or the environment they grow up in that also determines how a child develops as well. However, parents don't have to be perfect parents for their child to turn out alright.
I think Scarr is essentially saying that it is not necessary to try to go above and beyond to be a "perfect" parent, because whether they do or not, it really does not matter. Genetics play a large role in making a child who they are, and parents have no effect on that once the child is born. As long as the parent encourages and loves, their child will be okay.
ReplyDeleteThe most compelling evidence I would provide would be the statistics about identical twins. That even though some were separated at birth and had no contact, they still turned out the same.
I think that Scarr’s “good enough” notion for parents has a lot of truth behind it. I believe that it is not completely true though. I think that parents must put in a certain amount of effort rather than just letting it totally go. Children still need guidance and support from a parent. The evidence based off of twins would be the best argument to make me trust this notion. Knowing those statistics would definitely make me take the notion more seriously.
Scarr's notion pretty much states that parents don't have to be super parents for their child's development. She states that different parenting styles won't affect the child's development. The fact of the matter is there are so many individuals that will influence a child. Besides parents; teachers, friends, and other family members play a huge role in their development. They are going to develop how ever they want regardless of what their parents do.
ReplyDeleteI am 50/50 on Scarr's notion on good enough parents. I believe the parents who try hard with their kids will be good parents, because they are in that child's life. Even if not everything goes right they still show that child that they care about them. With that being said I believe the parents who put more time into their child will see more outcomes in the future. That child will also want to strive to be their best, because they have seen it first hand.
Scarr's theory states that even though some parenting styles vary significantly, but most kids turn out okay regardless of the differences. As long as parents give their kids care and encouragement to develop skills, they all have an equal shot at success in their skills. So, there really is no need to be the perfect "super parent" for kids to turn out alright.
ReplyDeleteSome of Scarr's studies have discovered multiple similarities between identical twins even when they have lived in completely different households their whole life. Some child behaviors are blamed on parents but are usually just traits the child is born with, so an argument that listeners would need would be that children are going to grow into the person they are whether they receive "super parenting" or not. They would have to believe that every child has the same chances of turning out okay.
I agree and also disagree with Scarr's theory on being a good enough parent. I don't think that every parent has to bend over backwards to be that perfect parent, but I do believe that they should meet certain expectations to be a good parent. Everyone makes mistakes and I don't think one mistake will have a huge impact on anything. I also believe that even if children receive good parenting, sometimes kids still might have some problems. Outside of good parenting, the rest of the factors such as the environment their in or their hereditary traits that determine how a child turns out is on themselves.
Nikole, great discussion and I liked how you pointed out key points of Scarr’s theory. Children need to have the parents in their life for them to develop properly and know that they are their to help them throughout their life. When it comes to being a super parent or just barely doing enough, the child from both spectrums will develop properly. I like how you mentioned the certain expectations that a parent must meet in order to be successful. I think there are plenty of other things that play a key role in development such as environment and peers. All in all, great post!
DeleteScarr's theory on being a super parent vs a good enough parent is very interesting and I am not sure if I agree with it or not. Scarr's theory states that a parent doesn't need to be a super parent, just a good enough parent in order for the child to develop properly. The parent needs to be there for the child and give them the necessary skills to grow and be successful. However, Scarr argues that parents that go the extra mile, are overly supportive of their child, and always go above and beyond do not have a better influence on the child compared to a parent that was simply just good enough. For a parent or reader to trust Scarr's theory, I think the best way is to have the individual dive deeper into development and look at some similar studies that have to do with Scarr. For example, the twin study is a great example and backs Scarr's theory up. The identical twins that were studied grew up in different households and were not raised exactly the same but yet, still turned out the same. They seemed to marry the same, have similar jobs, and all round have the same success rates despite being raised differently. I am not sure on Scarr's theory of parenting but I do believe that each kid has a shot and that it most likely isn't determined by the amount of effort the parent puts into the child. As long as you have a parent that is there and willing to give you proper skills and help you grow you will turn out just fine. Some households have very many members of the family and the parents can't devote all of their time to one specific child and always go the extra mile. All in all, Scarr's theory was very interested and I am looking forward to learning more.
ReplyDeleteScarr's theory explained that even if parents do the bare minimum while raising their child, the child can turn out just fine. Scarr basically says that a child's genes is what determines how they turn out. I think that this is an interesting theory. If we had never talked about it, I don't think I would have actually thought about it. After our discussion in class, I do believe that this theory is accurate. I think that a child can become successful whether or not they have "super parents" or not. I also think that genetics do play a role, just not a great a role as Scarr proposes. For instance, you can have a child who comes from a home where neglected, but they can still grow up to become successful and top of their class.
ReplyDelete