I’m not familiar with that MMM guy, but I’d just chime in with the observation that the kinds of parents with high agency and high planning abilities coupled with a willingness to break the usual societal norms probably wouldn’t be subject to research which dealt with a much broader spectrum and more average families.
IOW, someone who optimises his family and his family life so radically is unlikely to be subject to the same research results yielded by “You know it’s hard being a single mom, I tried my best, but he always wanted to go play with the other kids” type parents.
For example, high agency parents in a poor neighborhood may be more able to shuttle their children to activities in other neighborhoods, and to shield them from the resident school system via homeschooling.
I agree that it’s unlikely to have the best outcome, if only because getting the best outcome is hard.
It may be true that high agency parents are good for kids, and I think it’s pretty likely true that having high agency parents at home to spend time with is very good for kids.
But I don’t think it’s obvious that that’s better than having the kids go to a very high-quality school and being surrounded by smarter peers. I don’t have much evidence about which would be better. It bothers me that he states his conclusion as if it is obvious, when it isn’t and he doesn’t cite any evidence either way.
high agency parents in a poor neighborhood may be more able to shuttle their children to activities in other neighborhoods
For what it’s worth, MMM wouldn’t do this, since he thinks driving is basically for special occasions only. But I agree with the general idea that high-agency parents could make up the difference.
Yes, but optimising for cheapness of neighbourhood (as MMM does) so you can spend a lot of time with your kids is unlikely to have the best outcome.
I’m not familiar with that MMM guy, but I’d just chime in with the observation that the kinds of parents with high agency and high planning abilities coupled with a willingness to break the usual societal norms probably wouldn’t be subject to research which dealt with a much broader spectrum and more average families.
IOW, someone who optimises his family and his family life so radically is unlikely to be subject to the same research results yielded by “You know it’s hard being a single mom, I tried my best, but he always wanted to go play with the other kids” type parents.
For example, high agency parents in a poor neighborhood may be more able to shuttle their children to activities in other neighborhoods, and to shield them from the resident school system via homeschooling.
I agree that it’s unlikely to have the best outcome, if only because getting the best outcome is hard.
It may be true that high agency parents are good for kids, and I think it’s pretty likely true that having high agency parents at home to spend time with is very good for kids.
But I don’t think it’s obvious that that’s better than having the kids go to a very high-quality school and being surrounded by smarter peers. I don’t have much evidence about which would be better. It bothers me that he states his conclusion as if it is obvious, when it isn’t and he doesn’t cite any evidence either way.
For what it’s worth, MMM wouldn’t do this, since he thinks driving is basically for special occasions only. But I agree with the general idea that high-agency parents could make up the difference.