I raised two successful CEOs and a doctor, here’s the unpopular parenting rules
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Nothing new here. Also, what makes someone who raised CEOs and a doctor special? What about the moms who raised Stanislav Petrov[1], Vivian Juanita Malone Jones[2], and James Chaney[3]? I'd much rather hear from them than someone selling her book.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
It's new to me. I'm glad to have read the article and the results suggest that it could work. I will try it with my own kids.
3/3 successful adults is a pretty good rate. I'll take it.
If 1% of kids are successful, even with a poor parenting strategy, then one out of every million 3-kid families will have successful adults.
The approach described appears to be a "Authoritative" approach, using the definition at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_styles
"Authoritative" is different than "Authoritarian".
Thing is, we also see authoritariana families (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_parenting lists "tiger mom", "American stage mother", "Japanese kyōiku mama", "Jewish mother (stereotype)" as examples) which also have 3/3 successful adults.
How then do you decide which approach to take, if you only look at the successful cases?
My point was that even with poor parenting, there can be a 3-kid family where all three kids are successful.
That doesn't mean the parenting strategy should be widely replicated, given that there are more generally successful methods.
Who said any of these 'generally successful methods' were simple?
Losing weight is - in principle - a matter of eating less and exercising more. If it's so simple, why are people looking for new/other strategies?
The author of this piece is also the author of a book on how to raise children. There are oodles of these sorts of books, with all sorts of different and conflicting advice.
I have not read her book to tell what she defines as successful.
Google Books preview says she regards "success" as something akin to "passion". 'I think it's time we define "success" as "passion".' (p74)
She uses it in the context of a career, of a child soloist at Carnegie hall, "personal success", "all walks of life", "at Stanford" and "citizen of the world."
Looks like pretty standard upper-income white-collar class American aspirations.
I still regard it as like a diet book - there's a bunch of these things, and lots of different audiences.
Still, certainly having the money to get an M.A. at Paris-Sorbonne University, be married to a Stanford physics professor (and sometimes department chair), and to live and raise children in Palo Alto .... probably didn't hurt.
I believe the definition of success should be questioned.
> standard upper-income white-collar class American aspirations
There's no particular reason to privilege this point of view. The three people I named in my first comment on this post did not meet this standard, but I'd much rather emulate their accomplishments than be the fastest rat in the race.
Except when like anyone, they need it. Exam times. When they're ill. If they carry two jobs, while pregnant, and the car breaks down. There are times to break this rule, but you would anyway, for anyone.