I adopted three kids from the same biological mother. Two of them are making more then me at Amazon and for the Department of Defense. Sadly my younger son passed from Bone Cancer.

They were drug impacted, but its weird how research goes in cycles. Crack babies were going to ruin America's capacity for caring for all these children. Then it was said that Alcohol is the only drug that effects babies in the womb. It was called the "Crack Baby Myth" but now things are changing again.

Just wanna say I'm sorry for your loss. It's wonderful you were able to give your kids a chance at a better life.

I think it is a fairly safe assumption that raising children has aspects of a chaotic system. Small changes to upbringing can cause large impact on the result. Of course not all "inputs" have this chaotic nature, and there are lots of inputs that aren't under direct control of the parents. There are just so many variables that it is hard to tease out patterns.

Fair, but as far as controlled experiments are possible in this kind of thing, it doesn't get much better than two kids with a shared birth parent and the same adoptive parents/environment.

Anyway, you're not wrong about the chaotic environment that is child rearing— the other side of this coin is sets of identical twins with differing sexualities, eg: https://kinseyinstitute.org/news-events/news/2019-07-26-twin...

No, it doesn't get much better than that scenario. But something as simple as which other kids are sat next to them in school can completely change their childhood. Observations like these are the best we have, and should not be ignored, but there are just so many variables that can never bet (ethically) controlled.

100% agree. I think because it’s hard enough to discern between what I would call first order (dna caused personality traits) and second order (immediate family and early childhood experiences) contributions to personality and what experiences a child had, that most people ignore third order, friends, bad luck, basically everything else. Then, you throw in luck ...I mean who knows why anyone does anything bad or good.

I’m not religious, but the saying often attributed to Christ saying, “forgive them, they know not what they do,” is probably totally, 100% accurate. I would add we don’t really know why they do what they do either. Christians want that to mean specifically about the crucifixion, but I believe whoever wrote that down was trying to say something more general about human experience.

I know from personal experience, just how much which kids you sit next to from 1st-5th grade, as they are often the same in the US, can influence your life in extreme ways.

All this says to me, we should probably go easier on everyone, even the “worst” of us...

Even within organisms starting with identical “first order” characteristics the opportunity for variation is fascinating. Here is a podcast on the topic I found illuminating, it is with the author of a recent book The Hidden Half

http://www.econtalk.org/michael-blastland-on-the-hidden-half...

> Fair, but as far as controlled experiments are possible in this kind of thing, it doesn't get much better than two kids

Actually, controlled experiments on this could be a lot better than N = 2, and the small-N problem dwarfs the positive features of the experiment here.

This is actually incorrect reasoning.

The amount of variation in the human condition would completely negate any conclusions from a sample size of two, however close the conditions.

It's also really easy to explain how one kid does well and the other doesn't, look at any life situation. One kid falls in with bad friends, one does not, one has a hobby that takes them somewhere, one does not, one gets a DUI the other does not, one has an amazing Hockey coach, the other does not, one takes a risk and wants to be a rock start, the other does not etc. etc..

A family friend is single and infertile. She's spent a lot of money on some sort of adopt-a-chinese scheme. Someone in her family did the same, and the kid had various medical issues. I honestly think she'd have been better off with a surrogate and a sperm donor.

I definitely respect people who adopt, but they risk of just adopting someone else's problem is too high for me.

If you adopt a health foreign baby it is because the baby was kidnapped from his loving parents and then a corrupt judge signed off on it.

The above isn't always true, but if you didn't investigate the agency deeply you should assume it is. This is why international adoptions are so hard, many counties have caught on and given up on giving the few kids who do need real homes help.

> the few kids who do need real homes

You have to be kidding me. Do you know how many kids are literal orphans in sub-saharan Africa?

Did you know that UNICEF defines "orphan" as a child with at least one dead parent? Globally there are estimated to be about 15 million "double orphans", and 90% of them live with extended family. Of those that don't, frequently there is extended family or at least known families of their own culture/ethnicity/country who could take them in if given financial support - which is not only cheaper than adopting them from the US, but doesn't cut their ties to home. Aside from that, more than 90% are over the age of 5. Almost none are actually babies, and of course children orphaned at birth may have inherited AIDS or have other health issues due to whatever killed their parents. Adopting a healthy foreign baby from the US is more likely than not to involve some form of human rights violation just to make them available to you. https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/orphan-crisis-sub-sahara...

https://www.unicef.org/media/orphans

So I assume you also advocate prohibiting mothers giving their children up for adoption in the US?

Meanwhile, we literally sell babies with impunity which we euphemistically call "surrogacy."

That is a bizarre and incorrect assumption, but if you weren't trying to start a fight then you might have made the reasonable assumption that I think there are problems with the way adoptions work in the US as well, and if you want to adopt within the US you should still be prepared to put a lot of work in to identifying the ethical way to do so. Start with the assumption that you should absolutely not be planning to move the child to a different country or even state as soon as you've adopted.

The difference between us is that I believe in adoption – where a child becomes part of a new family - whereas you apparently do not.

Moving is hard on children, not so much on infants, much more so on teens.

But the idea that parents ought to be prohibited from moving is a truly radical idea.

The difference between us is that you are making an effort to jump to the stupidest possible claim you can think of, like here where you have managed to read "should not plan to" and twisted it into "should be prohibited from".

When you say that people need to be ethical, and then give your only example and say that they “absolutely should not...” I think it’s fair to say your claim is that it should not be done.

No. I know that most counties won't let you adopt those orphans though because of how hard it is to be sure they really are.

A relative adopted a child and the social worker advised against international adoptions for this problem.

Eventually they adopted a 100% healthy local child after 5-6 years of legal nightmare as it's pretty complex navigate through all requirements plus wait your turn.

1. The other could still be successful.

2. Same mother doesn't mean same fathers. Success comes down to IQ. One kid could have been lucky while the other drew the short stick.

Success comes down to a hell of a lot more than IQ.

While success and IQ are almost certainly correlated, it is not possible to make a statement like that.

You can just as well say that success comes down to height, or country of birth, or combined wealth of uncles. There are so many other factors at play.

Plenty of smart people have died in childhood for reasons completely out of their control, which makes them pretty unsuccessful by any metric.

> Success comes down to IQ

I think it arguably more likely that acceptance into the education system comes down to IQ due to antiquated practices in attempting to derive intelligence. Being within the education system is the sunny uplands to networking and generally better opportunities.

Its possible that almost every child has the potential of a "good enough" IQ and that nurture reigns supreme over the supporting cast of genetics. To separate the two within nurture there remains environmental factors such as an interpreted narrative of favouritism which can lead to downward spirals.