You're making a pretty big leap of assumption here.

- he didn't say that he had biological kids

- the step daughter is his own daughter, they aren't two different things

- he didn't say that if he does have biological kids, that he didn't tear up at their graduation

- he also didn't specify the ages of any of his kids, so there's no reason to assume that any others have graduated

I'm curious as to where those assumptions came from?

> - the step daughter is his own daughter, they aren't two different things

Thank you.

Also, it's not like we're born with DNA testers. There's no reason why our instincts actually know the difference between our biological kids and others we've been with, played the same role with, and raised the same way.

Yes, but it depends on the age of the child when the relationship starts. My half sister was 13-ish about when my father married my mother (so my half sister’s step-mother).

There was always an obvious difference in the way she bonded with my mom vs her biological mom. It’s still family, but more like an aunt at best. Despite never saying it, it’s pretty obvious my mother obviously views us differently as well having basically had no say in any of her step daughters formative years.

Of course. That makes perfect sense.

That has been found to be empirically not true. As always, there is a distribution (see Homicide by Daly and Wilson, for example). Now, if we know by instinct, smell, or just because we know...

An interesting study might be parents who later learn that their kids aren't actually theirs. Did they treat their kids differently than real biological children? All kinds of ethical issues, etc., but the data would be awesome.

We can assume that nobody treats them better and some will treat them worse. It follows that non-biological parents inevitably treat on average (and, very important, this is cross-sectional, not paired) their kids worse after they know they are not theirs. Directionally, there is little doubt.

Even if you could resolve the ethical issues, the only thing that a study would prove is that “people tend not to care for children that aren’t theirs”, and not “biological relation is necessary for a parent to be able to care for an adopted child”.

No I meant how people treated those kids before they learned that the kids weren't theirs.

> - he also didn't specify the ages of any of his kids, so there's no reason to assume that any others have graduated

Well, he said he's an empty nester now. So...

True, on second reading he says "raising kids", not having them.

Have adopted from foster kid system.

Pretty quick they are YOUR kid. Emotionally, It fills the same.

I'm assuming he put in literal decades of blood, sweat and tears getting his step daughter to that point. How could you not be proud at the moment of payoff?

Merely producing biological offspring doesn't make then your kid in any meaningful social sense; ask anyone with a parent who bailed real early. Being a child's parent makes them your child, whether they're biologically related to you or not.

The biological relationship we have with our children is probably the least significant part of our relationship with them.

This is what I'm talking about. There's no limit to the pride meter with kids. It's at 11 all the time.