Understanding Abnormal Outcomes

[Nerburg]

It seems well understood that while not all children from abusive homes end up being the dysfunctional type, the majority of dysfunctional types come from those kinds of homes. What I'm interested in then, is sort of the reverse equation.

 

It seems understood that while most healthy parents (overall, not just physical health) will produce healthy and happy offspring who are not dysfunctional, some children from healthy homes end up as the dysfunctional type. What could be the cause of this, and how might it be fought? While it's obviously a smaller enemy in the struggle, a foe it remains.

 

I would be grateful for thoughts and discussion on this, keeping in mind that I'd like to avoid genetic aberrations for now, such as birth defects.

 

One hypothesis I could think of would be that certain well-raised kids, when exposed to the corruption of larger society, are swallowed up by that larger current, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient as an explanation.

[Wuzzums]

Children have to learn how to navigate the world from others. If they turn out bad, then they learned it from somewhere.

If they learned it from their parents, then they have bad parents.

If they didn't learn it from their parents then they must've learned it from someone else. If that's the case, why was that someone in the child's life in the first place? If the parents let that someone leave a negative mark on the child then you can't say those parents are good parents.

 

Catch-22.

[dsayers]

some children from healthy homes end up as the dysfunctional type.

 

How do you know? While it may come across as overly simplistic, Wuzzums said exactly what I would have. While your theory of a coercive society is a good one, it's not going to change a person like such things would during their formative years. It's like suggesting a car's engine might crap out due to wind resistance.

[Nerburg]

How do you know? While it may come across as overly simplistic, Wuzzums said exactly what I would have. While your theory of a coercive society is a good one, it's not going to change a person like such things would during their formative years. It's like suggesting a car's engine might crap out due to wind resistance.

Maybe it's a flawed principle, but I was assuming that peaceful parenting didn't have a 100% success rate. Even at 99.9%, there would be some abberations. But what Wuzzum's said was helpful. I was only looking for theorizing here, and am perfectly aware that OP could be wrong.

[dsayers]

If you'd like to look into it more, I'd recommend checking out Alison Gopnik's The Philosophical Baby. Understanding that we are one way by default helps to understand how we could possibly end up the other way.

[Frosty]

You have to be careful how these kinds of arguments are presented, that you do not fall into a fallacy of association (B comes from A therefore all A produce B). It's a perfectly reasonable question in my mind.

 

There's a really good 7 part Norwegian documentary, translated as "Brainwash" and covers a variety of social and biological issues, the last part addresses nature vs nurture and there's some good evidence presented that certain naturally occurring preferences can only be controlled and manipulated by parents while the child is young, and once the child leaves the influence of their parents they will tend to associate with peers who align with their natural tendencies and they'll lose their parental influence. This works for some traits better than others, intelligence (IQ) is certainly one that it does.

 

Links to the video series can be found here

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/ 

 

It's translated into English but please don't let that put you off, it really is a very eye opening documentary, if you find the nature vs nurture part interesting I'd certainly recommending watching all other parts.

[Nerburg]

Thanks for resource suggestions, I'll look at them.

Subtitles never put me off