We wrote in Freakonomics about our views on parenting. Mostly, we were skeptical of how much parents could do to improve their kids’ futures. One can clearly be a terrible parent through neglect or abuse. The tougher question is whether being an “obsessive” parent who drags children to a never-ending procession of soccer practices, museums, and acting classes is better than just sitting on the couch watching Austin Powers with your kids.
One group of social scientists has devoted an enormous amount of effort to figuring out what makes kids happy. I have no idea if they’ve come up with the right answers, but they’ve put together a wealth of interesting materials for parents at the Greater Good Science Center. If you’d prefer something a little more academic, check out the science part of the Greater Good Web site.
Visiting the site got me thinking about what the goal of raising children should be. The Greater Good Center’s stated goal is to raise “happy and emotionally literate kids.” Those are laudable goals, but certainly not the only ones, or even the first ones that come to mind. I care most about raising kids who are happy and successful as adults, even if that happens to mean that they aren’t very happy as children. I want my kids to like me when they are grown up, but I also want them to do what I tell them to do, the first time I tell them to do it. I don’t want my kids to be sissies, the way I was — I want them to be tough, and able to take whatever criticism and misfortunes the real world has to offer. I also want them to be creative, and to take risks (but not too many risks).
I suspect that the folks who run the Greater Good Web site would disagree not only with what I am doing as a parent day to day, but even with the objectives I am trying to achieve. Nonetheless, there were a lot of things on the site with which I plan to experiment.
(Hat tip: Laura Beth Nielsen)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Being an obsessive parent who drags your kid to all sorts of extracurriculars isn’t the opposite of an apathetic parent. Parents who push their kids into activities they have no interest in, overschedule them, and live vicariously through them, are also examples of bad parenting.
My guiding principle is not having any expectations. Parents have no right to define what success is for their children, who need to discover their own passions and interests themselves. Of course we can help them do this, but never by pushing. And there are certainly some parents who are so dedicated and adept at nurturing their kids that the effect on them is huge. The fathers of Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods spring to mind as high profile examples.
And “emotional literacy” is not something that comes naturally to most young boys. I think that’s just code for everybody being nice to each-other all the time. Which is neither realistic nor desirable.
Being an obsessive parent who drags your kid to all sorts of extracurriculars isn’t the opposite of an apathetic parent. Parents who push their kids into activities they have no interest in, overschedule them, and live vicariously through them, are also examples of bad parenting.
My guiding principle is not having any expectations. Parents have no right to define what success is for their children, who need to discover their own passions and interests themselves. Of course we can help them do this, but never by pushing. And there are certainly some parents who are so dedicated and adept at nurturing their kids that the effect on them is huge. The fathers of Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods spring to mind as high profile examples.
And “emotional literacy” is not something that comes naturally to most young boys. I think that’s just code for everybody being nice to each-other all the time. Which is neither realistic nor desirable.
Hi Steven,
I loved Freakonomics. However, I strongly question your parental/environmental influence on intelligence thesis. I was a psychology major for undergrad, and if memory serves, there are a number of psychological studies which found strong effects in terms of the richness of environment, parenting and learning. Studies in both children and animals that indicate environmental factors–stimulating environments–are huge determinants of intelligence. Stimulating environments, even in rats (colorful rat tubes, running wheel, mazes) where causation as opposed to correlation is possible, predicted gray matter folds. I wish I had a better system for googling studies, but here’s one example I found.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021127084926.htm
A stark anecdotal case can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
Being wrong in this regard is hazardous to parents–learned helplessness is dangerous. Why provide a better environment when it won’t help? I would love to see more on this if there’s to be a Freakonomics II because when I see 2 clocks reading 5:30 and your watch says noon, thats a good time to double-check things. I’d like to hear more on this conundrum you’ve found…
Anyhow, thanks for a good book. Take care,
Eric
Hi Steven,
I loved Freakonomics. However, I strongly question your parental/environmental influence on intelligence thesis. I was a psychology major for undergrad, and if memory serves, there are a number of psychological studies which found strong effects in terms of the richness of environment, parenting and learning. Studies in both children and animals that indicate environmental factors–stimulating environments–are huge determinants of intelligence. Stimulating environments, even in rats (colorful rat tubes, running wheel, mazes) where causation as opposed to correlation is possible, predicted gray matter folds. I wish I had a better system for googling studies, but here’s one example I found.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021127084926.htm
A stark anecdotal case can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
Being wrong in this regard is hazardous to parents–learned helplessness is dangerous. Why provide a better environment when it won’t help? I would love to see more on this if there’s to be a Freakonomics II because when I see 2 clocks reading 5:30 and your watch says noon, thats a good time to double-check things. I’d like to hear more on this conundrum you’ve found…
Anyhow, thanks for a good book. Take care,
Eric
The parents who “just want you to be happy” drive me nuts.
So if he seems happy while torturing small animals and throwing rocks at passing people, that’s okay because he’s “happy”?
And if she inherited the family’s depression problems, but she manages to take care of herself and makes sensible choices about money, time, energy and people, then that’s not okay because she doesn’t feel “happy”?
My brain happens to be wired for happiness: I’m seriously ill and I’m still “happy.” In fact, I type this from my bed, because I’m too exhausted and in too much pain to get up — but I’m happy!
I have a co-worker whose brain is wired for depression. He’s not happy. In fact, a really, really, really good day for him is just to be neutral, despite trying basically every possible treatment. We have agreed that I’m very lucky to be wired for happiness. Imagine being him, and having every parent around you say, “I just want my child to be happy…” Wouldn’t you feel like a total failure as a human? There’s no way he can win that game.
This line about happiness being paramount is particularly irritating from supposedly religious people. No traditional religions assert that happiness is more important than righteousness or justice or truth.
Jesus did not say, “I have come to validate your individual, superficial idea of happiness as the most important value.” He said, “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world — to testify to the truth.”
I think the world would be a better place if all of our kids heard throughout their lives, “I want you to be kind and compassionate” or “I want you to do justice and love mercy” instead of “Anything, so long as you’re ‘happy’.”
The parents who “just want you to be happy” drive me nuts.
So if he seems happy while torturing small animals and throwing rocks at passing people, that’s okay because he’s “happy”?
And if she inherited the family’s depression problems, but she manages to take care of herself and makes sensible choices about money, time, energy and people, then that’s not okay because she doesn’t feel “happy”?
My brain happens to be wired for happiness: I’m seriously ill and I’m still “happy.” In fact, I type this from my bed, because I’m too exhausted and in too much pain to get up — but I’m happy!
I have a co-worker whose brain is wired for depression. He’s not happy. In fact, a really, really, really good day for him is just to be neutral, despite trying basically every possible treatment. We have agreed that I’m very lucky to be wired for happiness. Imagine being him, and having every parent around you say, “I just want my child to be happy…” Wouldn’t you feel like a total failure as a human? There’s no way he can win that game.
This line about happiness being paramount is particularly irritating from supposedly religious people. No traditional religions assert that happiness is more important than righteousness or justice or truth.
Jesus did not say, “I have come to validate your individual, superficial idea of happiness as the most important value.” He said, “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world — to testify to the truth.”
I think the world would be a better place if all of our kids heard throughout their lives, “I want you to be kind and compassionate” or “I want you to do justice and love mercy” instead of “Anything, so long as you’re ‘happy’.”
I’d argue that “getting your kids to do what you tell them the first time” is a goal one should be wary of. Particularly if you use a reward/punishment approach, it teaches them to fear authority and to go along with it unquestioningly. It’s easier for the parent (and, later on, the child), but it’s detrimental to critical thinking (if you did what all your predecessors said to do/think the first time, you’d never have written such an out of the box book). I think kids need to be encouraged to challenge their parents and parents should be encouraged to rationally explain decisions and rules to their children, stressing both rationality and individual acceptance of ideas on one’s own accord instead of going along with mandates.
As for “emotionally literate,” I take that as the ability to express one’s self and to allow one’s self to feel, instead of repressing. Boys, particularly, often have problems with this because society/parents don’t encourage them to, hence why the Greater Good folks actively encourage it. It’s not “being nice to everyone” so much as “recognizing and understanding that my feelings and the feelings of others are important.”
I’d argue that “getting your kids to do what you tell them the first time” is a goal one should be wary of. Particularly if you use a reward/punishment approach, it teaches them to fear authority and to go along with it unquestioningly. It’s easier for the parent (and, later on, the child), but it’s detrimental to critical thinking (if you did what all your predecessors said to do/think the first time, you’d never have written such an out of the box book). I think kids need to be encouraged to challenge their parents and parents should be encouraged to rationally explain decisions and rules to their children, stressing both rationality and individual acceptance of ideas on one’s own accord instead of going along with mandates.
As for “emotionally literate,” I take that as the ability to express one’s self and to allow one’s self to feel, instead of repressing. Boys, particularly, often have problems with this because society/parents don’t encourage them to, hence why the Greater Good folks actively encourage it. It’s not “being nice to everyone” so much as “recognizing and understanding that my feelings and the feelings of others are important.”