by Bryan Caplan
The best explanation is that parents suffer from what psychologists call the illusion of control. Flying is about 100 times safer than driving, but many of us feel safer behind the wheel. When we drive, we’re in control. As long as our driving is good enough, we imagine that nothing bad can happen. When we’re flying, our safety is out of our hands. If the pilot does a bad job, we die.
This “reasoning” is silly. Imagine you’re a passenger on a plane and the pilot hands you the controls. While you’d suddenly have a lot more control over your safety, you’d be in mortal danger. Control is vastly overrated.
When parents reflect on the science of nature and nurture, they need to keep this moral in mind. Do not be alarmed when twin and adoption studies conclude that your children’s future is outside your control. They’re not saying that your children will do poorly. They’re saying that your children will probably turn out fine, whether or not you’re a great parent. If anything, the truth should come as a great relief. If I thought that my sons’ future depended primarily on my actions, I’d fret, “We should be reading another book,” every time we sat down to watch The Simpsons.
Granted, if nature matters as much as I claim, you won’t be able to turn your kid into the next Einstein (unless you and your spouse happen to be Einsteins). But if you just want a child you’re proud of—a decent human being and a productive citizen—give him the gift of life, feed and water him, don’t lock him in a closet, and life will take care of the rest. If this seems impossibly Zen, consider: When teens start to assert their independence, we advise parents to “Step back and trust that you raised your kids right.” I’m almost saying the same thing, except that I’m advising you to step back and trust not in your parenting but in your genes.
When I advise parents to lighten up, many object that I ignore peer pressure. Won’t other parents severely harass and badmouth the first family to relax? But peer pressure is overblown. Most parents are too exhausted by their own overparenting to pay much attention to yours. Even if you do pop up on other parents’ radar, they’ll probably keep their opinions to themselves to avoid conflict. In any case, if other parents openly disapprove of you, the consequences are mild. In modern society, we meet most of our needs in the marketplace, not our neighborhoods. Amazon neither knows nor cares how you raise your kids—and your boss probably doesn’t either. For practical purposes, parents might as well keep their own counsel.
CHOOSE A SPOUSE WHO RESEMBLES THE KIDS YOU WANT TO HAVE
The most effective way to get the kind of kids you want is to pick a spouse who has the traits you want your kids to have. Genes have a large effect on almost everything on the Parental Wish List. The right spouse is like a genie who grants wishes you are powerless to achieve through your own efforts.
We already do this to some extent. Married couples are fairly similar in health, intelligence, education, income, criminality, and values—all important items on the Parental Wish List. The result, intended or not, is to make children and their parents more compatible. For personality traits, however, spouses are barely alike, suggesting that we aren’t so picky about the personalities of the potential mothers and fathers of our children. Behavioral genetics urges us to get pickier. If you want happy or agreeable or conscientious or open-minded kids, avoid dates that lack these traits.
Another implication: The macho, irresponsible “bad boy” is an even worse deal for women than he’s reputed to be. Not only will he be emotionally and financially AWOL; the children he fathers will probably give a great deal of grief to any mother who struggles to raise them right.
IF YOU WANT TO DRASTICALLY IMPROVE A CHILD’S LIFE, ADOPT FROM THE THIRD WORLD
The main lesson of behavior genetics is that parenting is about the journey, not the destination. Instead of trying to mold your children into the people you think they ought to be, focus on enjoying your time together. Suppose, however, that you yearn to transform a child’s life. Is there any effective way to do it?
Yes: Adopt from the Third World—from lands where poverty, disease, illiteracy, and oppression stifle human flourishing. Twin and adoption research only show that families have little long-run effect inside the First World. Bringing kids to the First World often saves their lives. Over 13 percent of the children in Malawi—the African nation that initially denied Madonna’s petition to adopt a four-year-old orphan—don’t survive their first five years. And survival is only the beginning. Life in the First World spares children from hunger, disease, and harsh labor, and opens vast opportunities that most of us take for granted. Merely moving an adult Nigerian to the United States multiplies his wage about fifteen times. Imagine the benefit of giving a Nigerian child an American childhood and an American education.
Adopting disadvantaged children from the First World probably improves their lives in similar, but more modest ways. But if you don’t adopt an American baby, somebody else often will. There are even waiting lists for domestic adoption of special needs children. In contrast, the baby you don’t adopt from the Third World is likely to stay there.
RAISE YOUR CHILDREN WITH KINDNESS AND RESPECT
I first started thinking seriously about parenting after reading The Nurture Assumption by Judith Harris. Like me, she said twin and adoption studies show that parenting is overrated. Yet in my favorite passage, she thoughtfully defended the power of parenting:People sometimes ask me, “So you mean it doesn’t matter how I treat my child?” They never ask, “So you mean it doesn’t matter how I treat my husband or wife?” and yet the situation is similar. I don’t expect that the way I act toward my husband is going to determine what kind of person he will be ten or twenty years from now. I do expect, however, that it will affect how happy he is to live with me and whether we will still be good friends in ten or twenty years.
As usual, Harris was right. Twin and adoption studies confirm that parents have a noticeable effect on how kids experience and remember their childhood. While this isn’t parents’ only lasting legacy, it is the most meaningful.
This knowledge should inspire every parent. Raise your children with love, control your temper, and enjoy family time. They’ll appreciate it when they’re children and fondly remember their happy home when they grow up. When my sons and I read A Series of Unfortunate Events, I don’t imagine that I’m boosting their adult IQ or reading ability. The point is to enjoy the stories and take away fond memories of our time together.
Even good moms and dads underrate the importance of kindness and respect. When I was young, parents urged children to settle their differences on their own. In practice, this was a green light for older, bigger kids to abuse smaller, younger kids—while adults stood idly by. Today, similarly, many believe that they have to raise their kids to be tough and competitive in a tough, competitive world. From this perspective, too much kindness is dangerous; parents have to strike a delicate balance between making their kids feel loved and preparing them for life. Given the evidence, though, “sentimentally” shielding your kids from petty cruelty makes perfect sense.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m a fan of firm discipline. But if I’m going to fall a little in my sons’ esteem, I expect something in return. Mild, consistent sanctions are a great way to get better behavior, more sleep, less back talk, and fewer fights. Treating kids harshly “for their own good,” in contrast, doesn’t pay off.
This doesn’t mean that you’re to blame if your kids turn into unhappy adults. As we’ve seen, there is strong evidence that parents have zero long-run effect on their children’s overall happiness. Still, if your children remember you as cold, angry, or absent, it’s probably because that’s the side of yourself you chose to show them.
SHARE YOUR CREED, BUT DON’T EXPECT MIRACLES
Parents’ other major legacies are their effects on religious denomination and political party. If you want your children to share your religion or your party, make sure they know where you stand. They will probably follow in your footsteps.
At the same tim
e, realize that your religious and political influence is superficial. You heavily control what your kids will call themselves, not what they’ll think or do. If a family of progressive Baptists adopts a kid with a conservative but secular temperament, he’ll probably call himself a Baptist and a Democrat when he grows up. Yet don’t celebrate too much: He’s likely to be a Baptist who doesn’t go to church or read the Bible, and a Democrat who opposes national health care and higher taxes.
DON’T WRITE OFF YOUR TEENS
Parents affect juvenile antisocial behavior (for both sexes) and sexual behavior (girls only). If you don’t want your teenage son to be a common criminal or your teenage daughter sleeping around, a little extra effort on your part may make a difference. By adulthood, this influence fades out. Still, if your goal is to keep your teen out of trouble, it’s doable. You might also try to discourage smoking, drinking, and drug use. The evidence is mixed, but at least some twin and adoption studies find parental influence. If you quit smoking to set a good example for your kids, you might succeed.
HAVE MORE KIDS
If every child’s future hinged on massive parental investment, fear of large families would be understandable. If you push yourself, you might be a first-rate tutor, coach, driver, and cheering section for two children. With four kids, there aren’t enough hours in the day to wear every hat well. Instead of two children who make you proud, you’ll have four disappointments.
Since parental investment is overrated, however, good kids—kids you can be proud of—are much cheaper than they seem. As long as you and your spouse turned out all right, your kids probably will, too. And what does enlightened self-interest tell you to do when you find out that something is cheaper than you previously believed? Buy more.
Shouldn’t parents worry that if they add another member to the family, the children they already have won’t have the support they need to succeed? Not really. Yes, the Korean adoption study provides solid evidence that kids who grow up in bigger families are slightly less successful. If you have another baby, expect the children you already have to complete six fewer weeks of education and earn 4 percent less income. Compared to the value of having another brother or sister, however, the downside is tiny. Compared to the value of being that brother or sister, the downside isn’t worth mentioning.
None of this means that you should try to compete with “Octomom” or the Duggars. I only recommend a prudent adjustment in the face of surprising new information. If you used to think that your lifestyle was incompatible with parenthood, maybe one child would work. If you used to believe that one high-maintenance kid was all you could handle, two low-maintenance kids might be better. If you originally planned on two children, how about three or four? Maybe you’ll conclude that another kid is a bad deal despite the new low price. Still, for a decision this big, and a price cut this steep, you should seriously ponder a change of plans.
A CLOSING PRAYER
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” That’s Reinhold Niebuhr’s justly famous Serenity Prayer. Unfortunately, as Magneto observes in X-Men, God works too slowly. Human beings have spent millennia arguing about what parents can and cannot change. Solid answers would have really helped parents raise their children and plan their families. Yet until recently, mankind was still waiting around for the wisdom to know the difference.
At last, the wait is over. Twin and adoption research has given parents the answers they need. They may not be the answers we wanted to hear. They are, however, the best answers we’ve got.
To many, the nature-nurture question sounds purely academic. The Serenity Prayer brings it back to everyday life. It’s good to know when something is largely outside your control. If I’m beating my head against a brick wall, I want to know. Even if there isn’t a better way to break through the wall, at least my head will start to heal.
My sons will grow up to be their own men. Accepting that fact doesn’t change it, but it spares me disappointment and aggravation. Not only do I feel better about my life, but I can also take the physical and emotional energy I’ve conserved and make it count. That might mean taking my kids to the pool. It might mean showing extra patience for a marathon of curious questions about The Lord of the Rings. Or it might mean that my wife and I will decide that there is room in our lives to welcome another child.
4
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? KIDS TODAY ARE SAFER THAN EVER
When you open this door, just push on the wood here. Never use the doorknob. I’m always afraid that it will shatter into a million pieces and that one of them will hit my eye.
—Lemony Snicket, A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Wide Window
WHEN MY BROTHER AND I WERE TEENAGERS AND WE STAYED OUT late with our friends, my parents had one nonnegotiable demand: If they were in bed, we had to tap them on the shoulder as soon as we got home. Until they knew that their sons were secure, they were too nervous to sleep well. Parents have a lot of worries, but fear for their kids’ physical safety has got to be the most traumatic.
If you’re trying to make parents feel better, it’s counterproductive to remind them that parents have little or no effect on their kids’ health. Accepting the inevitability of minor risks often makes you feel better. Unless you’re Mr. Spock, though, telling yourself “I can’t control the horrible things that happen to children these days” will only make you feel worse.
But how would you react if I said that the risks that modern children face are minor? You probably wouldn’t believe me. I’d have to be blind to miss what happened to this country over the last fifty years. Villainy is all over the news. Still, if you did believe me, you would feel better about being or becoming a parent. What a relief it would be to discover that the nightmarish world we seem to inhabit is only a bad dream.
THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT BAD NEWS
There are many kinds of safety. Some are vague, so let’s start with the hardest of hard numbers: mortality statistics. Mortality statistics tell us the fraction of people who died during a year. In the broad scheme of things, how safe are our little ones?
The answers are easy to find and hard to dispute. Every year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publish the authoritative National Vital Statistics Reports. Here are the numbers for 2005, the latest available year. They’re straight out of the original document, with one small adjustment: Since the report doesn’t count overseas deaths, I’ve added fatalities of U.S. armed forces killed in hostile action.
With the important exception of babies, children are the safest people in the United States. My seven-year-olds may look vulnerable, but they are almost twelve times as safe as I am, and over 100 times as safe as their grandparents. The twins’ annual chance of death is 16.3 out of 100,000, which means their chance of staying alive is 99.9837 percent. If my sons could forever remain as safe as they are now, their life expectancy would exceed 6,000 years. Although I wish they were invulnerable, I’m not losing sleep over my own mortality. Wouldn’t it be paranoid to sweat bullets about my children’s safety when they’re far more secure than I am?
Still, weren’t kids a lot safer back in the Fifties? Good question. When I’m teaching, I often present a “Standard Story,” then explain why the Standard Story is wrong. “The Idyllic Fifties” is one of my favorites. Imagine a comically pompous narrator:The year: 1950. The place: The United States of America. There’s never been a better time or place to be a kid. Children happily play kick-the-can and stickball on their tree-lined streets. Their parents can relax inside and read the evening newspaper, because they know that their children are safe. In 1950, the worst thing an American child has to fear is a skinned knee.Table 4.1: Mortality by Age in 2005
Age Annual Mortality per 100,000
Under 1 year 692.5
1–4 years 29.4
5–14 years 16.3
15–24 years 82.3
25–34 years 105.4
<
br /> 35–44 years 193.7
45–54 years 432.0
55–64 years 906.9
65–74 years 2137.1
75–84 years 5260.0
85+ years 13,798.6
Alas, 1950 is just a distant memory. Now children live in a much darker and more dangerous world. No decent parent would let her kids roam the neighborhood unsupervised. Her precious children could be run down by a careless motorist, snatched by a nefarious stranger, or gunned down by a disturbed peer. True, we’re materially richer than we used to be. Yet in the Fifties, parents had something all our money can’t buy: peace of mind.
The Idyllic Fifties is a little cartoonish. All my Standard Stories are. But it captures the way we see the evolution of childhood—as a tale of Pleasantville lost.
Fortunately for us, the Idyllic Fifties confuses television and reality. On television, children’s lives sharply deteriorated over the last half century. On Leave It to Beaver, a kid’s worst fate is getting a black eye from a pugnacious girl. On Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, child murder and sexual abuse seem as common as jaywalking. If you turn off your television and look at the U.S. mortality numbers for 1950 versus 2005, however, you’ll see a different story.
Table 4.2: Annual Youth Mortality per 100,000: The Fifties versus Today