> as he would simply end up in his father's shadow as he deemed it utterly Impossible to surpass his brilliance in maths

Definitely true but also bad parenting. Gauss was somewhat of a freak of nature when it came to math. Him and Euler are two of the most unreasonably productive mathematicians of all time.

But what he deemed being posited as true, was this really bad parenting? It could be to head off competition or it could be brutal realism to head off future depression.

Nepotism existed since time immemorial but for a mathematical genius, what was the nepotistic deliverable for the child? A sinecure placement at university?

It’s unusual to tell others not to do something because you’re projecting they’re secretly doing it to compete with you, or that they’ll be depressed when they don’t do what you did.

Doubly so when the rationale is “I’m so fucking awesome”

Triply so when it’s something you’re passionate about, presumably inherently.

Quadruply so when it’s your child. Its tough as a kid hearing your parents come up with elongated excuses why you can’t dream and work towards a future.

When you let people find their own way, you might even learn something from it (ex. 70 yo Gauss learns he didn’t need to tie his mental state to his work because his son doesn’t suddenly become depressed from not matching dads output)

Re: second half, sounds about right, confused at relevancy though (is the idea the child would only do it to pursue nepotistic spoils and an additional reason is the spoils aren’t even good?)

I posit Gauss knew he was a GOAT and had ego. But I also posit he loved his children.

So, a nepotistic delivery was beneficial for his family, and advising his son to seek excellence outside the shadow cast by Gauss himself wasn't stamping on dreams (in my view) it was seeking the happiest outcome.

Without overdoing it, the suicide rate for rich kids with famous parents isn't nothing. There are positive examples, Stella McCartney comes to mind. She isn't wings.

What does "She isn't wings" mean?

Paul McCartney started a band called Wings and she was also in it. I think the idea is "she received nepotistic spoils, lived in the shadow of dad even in his backup projects that 0.01% of people who know the Beatles even recognize." (This elides a very successful career as a fashion designer, as well as the awkward question of what _would_ have guaranteed her more “success”, as well as a lack of understanding of how you feel after grand success you were chasing for it’s own sake (empty))

I meant, she isn't defined by wings and being daddy's kid. She struck out into a field neither Paul nor Linda had occupied. She isn't (defined by) wings.

For what it’s worth, his children were quite successful by all accounts. Two of the boys became successful businessmen after emigrating to the US and one of the boys became a director of the railway network in Hannover. Seems as though they weren’t harmed by their upbringing.

I mean just like most scientists at the time Gauss was rather wealthy, so it is unsurprising they were fine.

> But what he deemed being posited as true

Implicit in the "correctness" of this motive is the idea that unless you're #1 in your field, you are nothing (depression implies strong feelings of worthlessness).

I don't know if you think that's a great lesson to teach your kids as a parent, but I don't.

A valid point. I might add I followed my dad into the field and my son followed me into the field and both academically and in capability he exceeds my ability. I'm enormously proud of him, and I did not seek to prevent him following his heart into the field beyond noting there are other dreams to follow worth considering. I did seek to persuade him not to become a chef, it's a really hard, stressful life.

I totally did not exceed my dads abilities: as one of the 1950s computing pioneers who build some of the first machines in the UK, founded a department of computer science and did work in IFIP, and the BCS, this was always going to be hard.

Not wanting your child to be permanently compared to you for their entire career is entirely understandable