Good God

Scarr purposes that our genetic make-up predetermines our likes and dislikes, as well as what types of things we may be "good" at or not. So, it doesn't really matter how we raise or children, as long as we give them a bit of love and guidance, they will do just fine. If you don't beat them and yell at them... their genes will guide them. If taking into consideration that the brain adapts for missing limbs and changes shape to accommodate for them, its completely plausible to me that the body would accommodate for future generations. I still think environment plays a part, but its some what of a chicken egg scenario...

Good enough-maybe?

Sandra Scarr’s theory is that we are all born with areas or topics that we are drawn to due to our genetic makeup.  Parents try to influence their children based on their interests or what  will make the children more successful later in life.  If the children are genetically disposed to liking that particular subject or sport, they will choose to take an active position pick up the activity.  However, if they are not genetically geared toward that activity, they will not engage.  Trying to be the perfect parent by enrolling them in the best schools or the best travel ball team will not get them any further in life, and will cost you a lot of stress and money as they grow up- so relax. 

I’ve been contemplating this topic since we left class on Tuesday.  As a mom/step mom of 4 kiddos, I want to take the stand of, “yep, good enough parenting is good enough.”  I want to take that stance because as a parent, we stress ourselves out and always ask if we are doing enough for our kids to set them up for success.  This theory, in a way, let’s me breathe a sigh of relief that we don’t have to kill myself or drain my bank account for my kiddos to be successful.  They will gravitate to what they like and will be okay, regardless of what we do or do not do.  

In a way, I have my own longitudinal study regarding this theory going on within our family.  My step girls did go to a private school.  They dabbled in extracurricular activities and were well supported, but never participated travel sport teams.  In a way, the gravitated toward their own activities and interests.  Now in their mid 20’s, both have done well.   Both graduated from college, one with a masters.  They both have found careers that they love and seem happy with life.  On the other side, my hubby and I have two kiddos, 10 and 13. They are not going to private school, and because we like sports in general, are advocating toward sport activities to make sure they stay active.  David, although a good athlete, absolutely did not want to wrestle.  If we stayed with ‘good enough’ I don’t think he would have.  Watching him now, he is gaining confidence and is genuinely starting to like the sport.  My daughter has picked up a want to learn music, which neither of us really did.  We are allowing her to purse that interest and is doing well with it.  Time will tell with the younger two.  

So, I guess my answer to question of whether good enough parenting is good enough, I would say, it depends.  I think there are certain things that through genetics that are inclined to peak our curiosity, and as parents we need to acknowledge that and foster those areas, whether we like them or not.  But, I also think that parents need to push a little more in areas where there might not be a huge interest.  It might bring on other life experiences from the particular learning environment or a sport.  I don’t think we need to drive ourselves to bankruptcy or crazy making sure our kids have the best of everything.  Do what feels right with your family – after all what is ordinary?

Good Enough Parenting

While contemplating Scarr and her theory of “good enough” parenting that we discussed in class on Tuesday, I’ve determined that she is explaining that they can be adequate without having to go overboard. Parents that care for their children in a sufficient enough way to ensure proper development are what Scarr calls “good enough”. An example of this would be parents willing to sacrifice their own comfort for their children without any thought or hesitation. There is a biological drive to want to be better than good enough for our children and that fact, in and of itself, is why Scarr is arguing that it is good enough. I tend to agree with her theory, but I also think it can be easily misunderstood. If people were to just be “good enough” and not strive for better like they should intrinsically be doing, then that’s where it could go wrong. 

Good Enough Parenting

Scarr's theory of "good enough" parenting is a simple idea. Summarized, the theory states that parents do no need to do everything perfectly to ensure that their children turn out fine. Simply providing care, attention, and warmth to children gives them an equal chance of success at life. The idea of superparents is to try to raise a child perfectly. These children are pushed to learn at an earlier age, be active in extracurricular activities, and do anything else that parents believe will give them an advantage at life. However, children develop at their own pace and excel in their own areas. Some psychologists think this method is rushing childhood. Children who were raised by good enough parents developed the same as children who were pushed to succeed. At certain ages, children are not capable of being intellectually ahead of their peers. All the children develop close to the same rate and they are restricted to their stage of mental development. I agree with Scarr's theory. I don't think that being a super-parent will give children a better chance at success than the parent that only gives their children love and support. Children crave attention and love. As long as all of their emotional need are met, all children will have an equal chance of being successful at life.

Super Parents

Scarr’s theory gave parents the notion that attempting to be the perfect parent and do everything “correctly” will not have a more positive effect on the child than being a parent that simply does their job. For example, if a child being raised by two parents that are very active, present, and involved in their life won’t have an edge over a child who is being raised by two working parents that are rarely there to ensure the child excels as long as the working parents are providing attention, love, and doing their duties as parents. The idea that “good enough” parenting is just as successful as fully involved, motivating parents makes some sense to me. It doesn’t give some kids opportunities over other kids, yet “super parents” may lead to children with aggressive, driven mindsets that has could lead to creating more opportunities and experiences for themselves.

Scarr

Scarr's notion is to let people know that if being the best and becoming the best is not in genetics, then normal parenting is just fine. Children do not need their parents at their becking call to become successful in life.
"Super Parents" is what parents all around try to be. They want to be their best and do their best all the time so that it can transfer onto their kids. The belief is that if you are the perfect parent your child will grow up to be perfect, having the perfect job, wife/husband, house, life. The parents just want what is best for their child.
To me, I am not really on the whole "genetics" idea of this. In my opinion, I feel like it is just up to the person on how smart they are, socially involved, and things like that. A little part of me can agree with the genetics part, but also doesn't make a whole bunch of sense to me.

Good Enough Parenting

At first glance, Scarr's notion of "good enough" parenting may seem dissatisfactory to parents. The effort that they put in should have an impact on their child success, right? The same parents worrying that good enough is not enough are also those that Scarr is trying to reassure the most. The idea that Scarr is trying to portray is that all normal parents are biologically and evolutionarily programmed to be "super parents." Just as babies are evolutionarily programmed to smile and grasp, parents are also programmed to provide the best possible care to their child. An example of this notion appears in families striving to enroll their child in the best schools and athletic programs even at large costs to the parents. I trust the model because it seems to accurately represent both the idea that children will naturally do what they're good at while also addressing a parent’s wanting to provide more. It addresses these natural feelings in a way that is reassuring to both groups. 

Week of February 18th

Scarr’s Notion basically says that you don’t need to stress over raising your children.  Many things parents worry about are insignificant and have no major effect on how your child turns out when he/she ages.

For example, whether or not you have your child go to public school or private school doesn’t determine how successful they will be when they get older.

I personally believe that you don’t need to stress about making sure your child has the best of everything, and I don’t believe we have to stress as much over the smaller things when it comes to raising children.  Children will turn out the way they will regardless of many factors.  But… I also believe that there are some factors that need to be addressed and payed attention to when it comes to your child’s wellbeing and development.

Week of February 18

Scarr’s notion: This is the notion that one does not need to stress over the nuances of parenting
or which style of parenting is best because as a mother/parent your biological predisposition is to
be the best parent you can be. Therefore, the small decisions or inadequacies along the way are
really insignificant. It is because of this that however you parent is “good enough.”

Evidence: If you think about yourself as a parent, or how your parents raised you… could you ever
picture a moment that if you were very cold, without hesitation they would give you whatever
clothing they had to keep you warm? It is examples such as these that testify to the theory, not
debates on whether or not to enroll their child into public school or not. The notion of being
“good enough” is a test to what parents do without even thinking about it. It is their biological
code that steps in to provide as much support and reassurance to their kids without even thinking
about it. For example, think of parents that have a newborn. Regardless of the fact both parents
probably have full time jobs, they get up every hour of the night the feed and soothe their screaming
child to sleep- sacrificing their own health, sleep and literal life just to make sure they kiddos are
okay. This biological response or tendency to want to be the best possible parent is exactly way you
don’t have to stress over the small stuff. Because in the end, as a parent you will sacrifice so much
for the comfort or love for your child, which is exactly why you don’t even have to try.

Argument: I agree with this notion to an extent. I do agree that there is a biological response that
kicks in when you have a child that drives you to be the best possible parent. However, after reading
about Erickson and Sullivan's theories, I do believe that parents can’t entirely rely on their parenting
gene. For instance, according to Sulivan, once a child reaches their early adolescence, they are
beginning to develop into their personalities and sexual identities and while a parents instinct may
be to smother them with love and fulfil every need they can imagine, the best thing to do is to step
back. With this being said, I think Scarr has a lot of validity with his theory however I think the
publication or publicity of this could do more harm than good for theories of parenting. Anytime
you give people a reason to do less more than likely they will. In this case, that may not be for
the best on a large scale.

Prompt for the week of February 18

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?