"The main reason that I find it intuitively plausible that parenting style matters little for the child’s personality is that I observe a given set of parents with children who have very different personalities. I presume that the parents use essentially the same style with each child, which means that the personality difference must be either innate or due to some environmental factor outside of the home."
First, I'd question the assumption that the parents use essentially the same style with each child. I'd expect the style practiced with the firstborn to be modified with each subsequent child, both because of the parents' experience with the earlier-born, and because the parents grow older, more tired, and more willing to compromise with the later-borns.
Second, why does the environmental factor that produces the personality difference have to come from outside the home? Even if the parents are trying to practice the same style with all their offspring, every child comes into a very different environment, because of the presence or absence of older siblings. It seems as though each subsequent child would have to develop different strategies for obtaining attention and other resources from the parents, since if they try to employ the same strategies as those used by their older siblings, the older siblings will handily out-compete them.
I agree with the "assertive" approach except when it comes to my puppy to whom i am ridiculously permissive. I am actually more critical of the "aggressive" critics of the permissive social justice warriors, since those critics, in their aggression, are generally racist. I find that worse than the "snowflakes" they rail against.
Some defects in American society are caused by past and current racism, some are not. I've learned something valuable from this site: that many critics of the extreme view that racism is responsible for everything express themselves by using racist tropes. And write things like "there is no systemic racism."
I basically agree with the general points here. But regarding Hanania's work, "liberal" does not necessarily equal "social justice-y crybaby". And the latter was certainly on a sharp rise pre-Trump. Did Trump accelerate it? Did he cause a ride in liberal activism of both "woke" and non-woke varieties?
I don't buy the 2016 break point notion. And you are correct that there are many on the left that are not in the social justice activist group. But it is odd that the latter group seems so powerful right now. I asked in an earlier essay whether the center-left lost the 2020 election.
I'm not sure if I agree with Dr. Kling's comment—
"The main reason that I find it intuitively plausible that parenting style matters little for the child’s personality is that I observe a given set of parents with children who have very different personalities. I presume that the parents use essentially the same style with each child, which means that the personality difference must be either innate or due to some environmental factor outside of the home."
First, I'd question the assumption that the parents use essentially the same style with each child. I'd expect the style practiced with the firstborn to be modified with each subsequent child, both because of the parents' experience with the earlier-born, and because the parents grow older, more tired, and more willing to compromise with the later-borns.
Second, why does the environmental factor that produces the personality difference have to come from outside the home? Even if the parents are trying to practice the same style with all their offspring, every child comes into a very different environment, because of the presence or absence of older siblings. It seems as though each subsequent child would have to develop different strategies for obtaining attention and other resources from the parents, since if they try to employ the same strategies as those used by their older siblings, the older siblings will handily out-compete them.
I agree with the "assertive" approach except when it comes to my puppy to whom i am ridiculously permissive. I am actually more critical of the "aggressive" critics of the permissive social justice warriors, since those critics, in their aggression, are generally racist. I find that worse than the "snowflakes" they rail against.
<i since those critics... are generally racist</i>
"Racism" is the crybaby siren call of our age.
Simplistic approach.
But accurate. Racism has become a rubric under which we cram all kinds of social problems that have other causes, and it shuts down all debate.
Some defects in American society are caused by past and current racism, some are not. I've learned something valuable from this site: that many critics of the extreme view that racism is responsible for everything express themselves by using racist tropes. And write things like "there is no systemic racism."
I basically agree with the general points here. But regarding Hanania's work, "liberal" does not necessarily equal "social justice-y crybaby". And the latter was certainly on a sharp rise pre-Trump. Did Trump accelerate it? Did he cause a ride in liberal activism of both "woke" and non-woke varieties?
I don't buy the 2016 break point notion. And you are correct that there are many on the left that are not in the social justice activist group. But it is odd that the latter group seems so powerful right now. I asked in an earlier essay whether the center-left lost the 2020 election.