yeah I think the 0% is questionable, but I am not familiar with the research or how this is parameterised.
I guess one major parameter will be how much the parent is present in kids life and whether they have good relationship. If the parent is not present, his or her impact will be smaller.
I agree with you, but GP was citing studies where the control variable you describe was adjusted and no effect measured.
Unfortunately, I have no idea which studies GP has in mind and what exactly they measured (whether things related to what I observed or something entirely else), age of kids in question, whether parents had significantly different approaches etc.
I don't think there is scientific a consensus on this yet. I strongly doubt that there is reasonable study that would make the split 50%, 50%, 0%. It is too round, too nice to be true.
Like I say, I agree with you in the broader sense but I was making a finer point here. i.e. not whether the premise is true, but just what the scope (or even how valid) was of the research that demonstrated the premise.
GP provides sources in a sibling thread where the discussion is further elaborated.
Ah, thanks. I did not seen sibling thread.
Re:The ‘Real You’ Is a Myth
by bitexploder on Thursday September 27, 2018 @07:38AM
(#18083535)
Personality is not behavior. I think we are just conflating those somewhat.
Interesting ... personality strongly mediates behaviour. How else would you "measure" personality? A strict behaviorist (in the line of Watson or Skinner) would say personality doesn't matter or even exist. It's like the life of a subatomic particle - you only know of its effect but what actually goes on in there is forever a mystery.
Unless you want to go psychodynamic on things but you'll have to start making excuses for Freud then!
Re:The ‘Real You’ Is a Myth
by bitexploder on Thursday September 27, 2018 @07:49AM
(#18083581)
I guess what I am proposing is not really testable. If behavior is the evidence of personality, maybe personality is always just a back-filled hand wavy explanation to describe the behavioral trends. I guess the reason I think that: there is evidence of that subatomic particle (personality) but it is very elusive.
> personality is always just a back-filled hand wavy explanation
This is what Watson would have said (in a roundabout way) [0]. Perhaps it's not related but he's not considered to have been a very nice guy. [1] [2]
Skinner was a lot more fun.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson#Behaviorism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson#"Little_Albert"...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson#Advertising
Re:The ‘Real You’ Is a Myth
by bitexploder on Thursday September 27, 2018 @08:06AM
(#18083676)
Thanks for sharing — I am not very well read on psychology so I probably operate in ignorance a lot. Never enough time to read and learn everything I wish I could.
Both in terms of how the kid reacts to situations around and what the kid likes, dislikes or value (consider good vs bad behavior).