They also say that children who are taught to read before kindergarten are usually caught up with by the time they start first grade. Some kids get off to a quicker start than others, but in the end all of that early cramming means nothing.
I read Freakonomics and I believe Penn is interpreting it incorrectly. The author was talking about how an elected official wanted to give free books to every single kid because a study showed a correlation between the amount of books in a home and a child's success. The author then pointed out this was nonsensical because it wasn't the books making this happen but the fact that the parents cared about education(i.e. so many books).
Stupidest things I've ever heard.. Parenting does matter!! To know that ur parents love you is a very empowering thing!! Jails r full of men who's dad's were not in the picture- the dad is more important than just genes and financial support.. Boys learn how to be a man by watching their dad. Sometimes what to do.. Sometime what not to do. I do agree w his point that we should read to our kids out of love, and not out of obligation or duty.. But isn't that a no brainer?
@jengillette penn is interpreting the book incorrectly. It did not support what he just said. The author was pointing out a correlation that demonstrate "more books in a household equals a higher chance of success for a child". This correlation is true, but the presence of the books(the author never talked about the effects of reading the book to them) did not do this. It was because the parents valued education i.e. so many books.
@ClintSevilla I think that's what Penn said: He said it matters what the parents ARE not what they DO to the kid. Yes Freakonomics says that the presence of the books does nothing. The books are indicators of what the parents are - i.e., people who love reading, etc. Penn's point is that if a parent does not like to read, it doesn't matter how much they force their kids to read, and conversely, a parent who loves to read does not have to force their kids to read. The reading doesn't matter.
@ClintSevilla LOL- I guess that's what I get for commenting on a book I've never read- ;-) I guess my remarks were slanted more at Penn and his brash way of saying "Parenting doesn't matter" yeah.. PARENTING is everything- yes kids make their own choices, but for good or for bad, our parents (or lack of parenting) is the SINGLE biggest influencer in all of our lives..
that is why I believe in God.because doing good is good and makes you feel good and makes the world a better place.I don't do good things because I am afraid I will go to hell if I don't.I do good things because I believe I am a good person and enjoy doing good.
Do these studies only pertain to a child's success in pursuing a career and/or their IQ or something? Because I find it really difficult to believe that reading or not reading to your kids has no affect on their well-being and overall happiness. But then I find it really hard to believe that happier children aren't more likely to be successful and confidant.
Great point. Love is far more important in a child's life than trying every little gimmick to make them smarter. I came from a relatively poor family, but my parents spent a lot of time with me, reading to me and helping with homework. I had a 4.0 and was the first in the family to attend college. I now have a M.S. in biology. It wasn't reading to me that made me more successful. I think it was the fact that they spent time with me and encouraged my passions.
ah OK i feel like it gives crape about the Geno its the time you give them that makes them, I am a foster parent and i see my kids in me every day wow i am a f up lol
You read to your kids because you're genetically more intelligent than other parents, which makes reading to them irrelevant because they're going to be smart anyways.
Parenting dos effect a child. This is common knowledge. It effects the childs in various ways. Children often repeat the actions of there parents. Be this helping others or doing drugs. There are varoius factors such as genetics, but come on realy parenting dosn't matter. Bullshit.
I love Penn and 98% of what he says, But I dont buy this completely. I think a genetic potential is valid but what we do with that potential does matter. just like physical Genetics might determine you will not be a midget or a giant. But if your potential is 5'3" to 5'9" the right diet helps you realize the higher end. The right guidance and examples are food for behaviour. But not guarantees.
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
I love Penn and 98% of what he says, But I dont buy this completely. I think a genetic potential is valid but what we do with that potential does matter. just like physical Genetics might determine you will not be a midget or a giant. But if your potential is 5'3" to 5'9" the right diet helps you realize the higher end. The right guidance and examples are food for behaviour. But not guarantees.
I love watching these, because I aways love hearing a different point of view, however...yes, you knew there was going to be a "but", I learned a great deal from my mother and father, from what they taught me and from watching their mistakes as well. Lol also I agree that atheism is like science, they are their own religion..in as much as that they NEVER shut up regarding their point of view. At this point I'm surprised their not passing out literature, and knocking door to door
this piss me off more than any other topic I have heard on Penn says, my father raised me and my bother with out our mother, the fact that someone saying all he did was provide money is bullshit I don't care if it helped test scores or not it mattered and on weather there is or is not a god in the words of George Carlin keep thy fucking religion to thy self something atheist can't seem to do
I love the basic sentiment of this video: do it for LOVE. However, it's hard to believe you agree with the faulty premise that a child's future success can be accurately gauged by standardized test scores. Really?
Have you heard of unschooling? If not, check it out the Wikipedia description. It's pure libertarian education.
I'm an agnostic unschooling zealot, offering you and your children salvation from the evils of our autocratic school system. Seriously. ;)
Children are going to tend to follow success that their parents accomplish more so than lessons read to them, simply because they are going to mimic parents actions more so than follow their parents instructions. The old do as I say, not as I do, gets seen through by most children.
atheist is anti-religion, not anti-science...and i think penn has even said that he knows there isn't a god the same way he knows there isn't an elephant in his car...once he sees the elephant than he will acknowledge that it's there until then it doesn't exist. Statistics are numerical proof of something...so that is why someone would believe in them.
The question was not regarding the mathematical field of statistics but rather his assent to the unverified quoting of immediately unverifiable statistics by someone whom he did not personally know. Unless, of course, he took their word on faith.
Accepting lack of visible evidence alone as proof of something's non-existence is unscientific.
yeah i've been watching Crackle ever since i found out Penn did this stuff...it's quite interesting...oh and @OKandNOWwhat, i didn't realize that your comment warranted a response from me, but since you feel otherwise...
the lock ness monster has never been seen and documented by a scientist...science says it doesn't exist...so if you don't think that is scientific then i take it you believe in old nessy and that you are a crazy...there lol
Mate, science does not say the Loch Ness monster does not exist. Science says that all evidence that has been presented is at best inconclusive or doubtful. You cannot prove a negative, though you seem to be attempting to verify the postulate: "acestringpicker does not know what 'science' means."
.....you make me laugh, im not even trying to instigate an argument, and maybe i don't know what science is. However my main point is the fact that your original statement "rhetorical question" didn't make sense to me. Maybe i am the idiot, seeing how a rhetorical question need not be answered, but whether or not one believes in God holds no clout in whether or not one trusts the statements of another. Apples in oranges. I don't believe in the Christian God, but i trust the honest man ;)
What I meant was, that if he rejects an omniscient, omnipotent Entity, then why accept the verdict of a book written for fun, since the greater includes the lesser? Put another way: denial of an ultimate authority renders all authority conditional or even negligible. That is, Penn doesn't trust God because he doesn't know God, so why would he trust the book's author, whom he also doesn't know? And how would one determine the honesty of an unknown man? Bless U ;)
God doesn't make sense, that is why he does not trust god. Many many people actually know the book's author, but can you tell me one person who knows or has ever met god. No one does, so how can anyone easily believe in something that completely defies logic. I hope their is something beyond this world, but I am who I am because I want to be, not because something or anyone else wants be to be it.
God doesn't make sense 2 those who don't have His Spirit. I know & have met God, & I know others who have @ least encountered Him. However, I can't empirically prove this 2 U, just as U can't prove that U are in love. As a child cannot fathom the actions of its parent because of factors that are beyond the child's ken, so God works His wonders w/o answering petulant demands. Rather than scrutinizing God upon faulty premises, one must submit (give under) to understand (stand under) God.
@acestringpicker Atheism is more a belief that strongly disagrees with other beliefs, you're thinking of secular humanism. Atheism is more invested in science and reason, pardon me if I am incorrect.
@acestringpicker Atheism isn't anti-religion, Atheism is just the absence of religious beliefs. When an atheist becomes anti-religious, its not because he's an atheist, it's because he's anti-religious.
@stfwho definition of theist is one who believes in god or god's...the connotation of someone who is religious is someone who believes in god or god's...considering the "a"(anti) in athiest it would make me believe they are anti god or god's and therefore anti religion...
@acestringpicker Buddhists are atheists, Jains are atheists, Scientologists are atheists. They don't believe in God. A theist is someone who believes in a God. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. Believing in God and having a religion are two different things.
This is an interesting take on parenting. Its new to me. But even if reading to your children and taking them to the park and listening to their ideas doesnt improve their test scores or increase the likelihood that they will be successful in their careers, wouldnt you think it would have an impact on them emotionally. Being a parent myself i am a bit more hopeful that my son grows to love himself than i care about him becoming a road scholar. While that would be nice will he be happy?
@555orchid Freakonomics does not support what he just said. The author was pointing out a false causation, which an elected official saw a study that reported more books in a household equaled a more successful child so that official wanted to give free books to every child. The correlation was true, but the presence of the books was not the cause. The parents of the child valued education(i.e. read many books), so they were more adamant on schooling. Parents valuing education = successful child
@ClintSevilla I think that's what Penn said: He said it matters what the parents ARE not what they DO to the kid. Yes Freakonomics says that the presence of the books does nothing. The books are indicators of what the parents are - i.e., people who love reading, etc. Penn's point is that if a parent does not like to read, it doesn't matter how much they force their kids to read, and conversely, a parent who loves to read does not have to force their kids to read. The reading doesn't matter.
...'superior' people will do the same actions, but do them better. In other words, genes and social position vary non-randomly and have strong effects, whereas behavior tends to spread out across a population without respect to underlying causes of success and failure in life, test scores, and so on. Behavior always appears weak because of the random noise it attracts.
Also: statistical significance does not imply importance. Civilization may have been built on 10 percent of the variance.
Thanks for posting this; you have actually posted the most correct of all observations (in absolute terms). It is a shame that this reality escapes most people, especially the political classes in our country. I find it distressingly Orwellian that fundamental truths like this are buried or made to seem outrageous .... Congratulations on your critical thinking skills...
This is a good example of a statistical artifact that has been swallowed wholesale. The studies mentioned rely on persistent association between variables -- for example, genes and social position versus parental activities. Since genes and social position are persistent and strong constraints on performance, naturally they appear to be more significant, especially since social norms tend to make people behave in similar ways (or claim to on surveys), whereas...
I read Freakonomics, and enjoyed it. But I don't buy all the assertions the author makes. Statistics are just models. They can TRY to account for confounding factors in models, but I don't believe statisticians and psychologists have built their models effectively enough to describe the immense topics Freakonomics attempts to make sweeping generalizations about.
just because something is written in a book doesn't make it true. I beg to differ about effort and care not making a difference. money only gets you so far.
Actually according to Ridley's book "Genome" it's more complicated than Penn says... "genetic influences are not frozen at conception and that environmental influences are not inexorably cumulative (Ridley 85)" Later in the book he goes on to explain more about how genetics and environment (of which parenting would be part) work together to make a person.
I'm glad you said that about being an atheist. While I'm not necessarily an atheist, I am agnostic who leans towards atheism. And its very true that as an atheist you realize that you don't have the pressure of being good or god will punish you. You also realize that this life is it, no reward in the after life; therefore your happiness is in this world and life is too short to be an asshole. That's not to say it can't go the other way, doing whatever you want and fuck the consequences.
Thank you. My parents always say they do things because they want me to be successful. I'd be a happier person if they told me they do those things because they love me.
I'm not a parent, so I'm on the 'child' side, and it's empowering, too. Just because we do something bad, doesn't mean you're a bad parent. And when we do something good, that doesn't mean you're a good parent either (ha). Kids are not robots you can program. They're people; you'd think we'd realize that more often.
people, yes...but not fully developed, or adept at critical thinking. kids aren't miniature adults, and treating them as if they are is a rip off to the kid; a parent who doesn't nurture their kids is making their life more difficult by not giving them the benefit of their mistakes and learning. you do this because you do love them; success is a gift that parents want to pass on. kids are "programmed" but it happens at a very early age, and it is very difficult to overcome later in life.
I didn't mean that children should be treated like minature adults. (Although I supposed it sounded like that. How general of me!) I was thinking about the child/parent relationship, even when the kid isn't considered a 'kid' age-wise. Of course inexperience plays a major factor when dealing with children. I don't think children should be treated like adults. (Of course!) But trying to raise them with a specific product in mind in a isn't going to work, most likely.
I can say without a doubt that because my dad looked at his parental responsibilities as genes and money and he was abusive, that it affected me greatly, and made my life different than it would have been otherwise. I don't agree at all treatment has no effect
Steven Pinker talks about all this and comes to the conclusion that you should be nice to your kids to be nice, not because it will make a difference in their academic achievement.
So now only the wealthy are entitled to have children! And not just wealthy, but rich and almost sure there is no God - but don't care what impact it will have on their children. This clip has nothing to do with parenting skills. It is simply an expression of your hatred of God.
justonewitness, I think you missed the point bro...
Good luck with everything, BTW if you're not Penn and are struggling and suspect you are a loser, this genome parent shit is NOT welcome news, because.....I am probably fukked...but I still appreciate the hell out of his message...er Penn's that is...
I need to challenge this notion that parenting doesn't matter. Kids do not pick up on things by themselves... it'd imply that schools don't matter because the kids will learn this stuff by themselves? It's ignoring a basic cause and effect principle here. Let's disregard the fact that you're a "parent" here. You're also this kids "teacher". If you "force" him to learn certain things, then he'll ofcourse be better at it than not doing it at all? You don't inherit piano-skills for example.
The explanation, ofcourse, could be that the real problem is that parents are NOT raising their kids. That is to say, not as much as the rest of the environment, like the kid's friends and school, where he spends the majority of his time and needs to fill other roles.
Now consider the parent's success as their access to money. Even the parents have no skills. They can still pay for piano lessons for the kid to take instead of teaching themselves. Whenever the kid picks up an interest, they can always give the kid access to tools which makes learning easier. Like simply buying a guitar, computer or an F-16 simulator.
Though there may be indisputable studies done on this... It would still seem that the conclusion drawn is incorrect.
So I'm thinking... the real conclusion is that good parenting REQUIRES that you are successful in the first place. Because parenting without money is hard.
Well good. Let's stop funding lower class neighborhoods and trying to appease all the leftist causes. Let's put money into the hands of our own people and not the Latinos and blacks that drain our resources.
Lol, my friend you are as lost as a catholic priest. The problem is not blacks, or latinos, or whites, the problem is money. Everything in this world was loaned to us humans for free by common heritage. When you see a lion hunting in the wild to survive, does he need money? Can you breathe money to keep you alive? The few ellites that own everything in this world create divisions amongst us to keep s fighting with each other while they sit back and watch the show. But they don't really..
own anything, we don't own this world we don't own land, we are a mere part of this planet that is all, no money, religion, or law can ever destroy the laws of nature. Once you understand all that, you will understand that all your racism and anger towards lower income people will be useless.
It's impossible to own land, eh? Go tell that to your neighbor. Tell him he doesn't own his land and that you have as much right to live there as he does. Go ahead and get back to me after you've done that. Tell me how it goes.
I dont think Penns a leftist ...but a libertarian...a lot different! Libertarians love freedom...freedom from gov, freedom of and/or from religion ect. these are 2 things that are good for both the idividual and the group! Dont believe me think Talaban!
I think the term parenting in the title is misleading, because love is part of parenting. What Penn means is that loving your child is more important than
straining to help your child achieve success, per se.
Parenting matters. I think all this crap about genes deciding everything is bullshit. I've heard people say that we don't even make our own decisions, because everything we do is decided by our genes.
That's stupid! Genes play a big role in who you are, and play a role in everything we do, but choice is still there. Parenting still matters. For example, my mom worked very hard teaching me times tables and long division, and I excelled. When she stopped working with me, I fell behind.
It matters. Maybe not in test scores (who cares about those anyway) but it matters as to the persons character. At least it does from my perspective as a sun, not that I like giving my parents credit for anything, but they do deserve it.
So the beatings that serial killers took as children has NOTHING to do with what they became?? Accepting overgeneralizations like this will get us nowhere.
But I don't agree with the argument on atheism, or parenting. He's implying it's either one or the other: parenting for the sake of love, or parenting because of duty, as if duty is by definition insincere or a lie. That's a false dichotomy, in my opinion.
I too, love Penn. But I will say that, parenting is setting a true example on how to live within the social contract. If you have the talent, it is your parent's *responsibility* to give you the opportunities to fulfill your potential without pushing you to overstrain your talents. It is not a job to *force* you to overexert, but it's not a privilege to leave you in languor either to assume you'll just rise above off of natural ability.
Read the rest for her to show up in your town. Im sorry this chain will spread and if you do not repaste 10 times onto 10 videos a ghost will come to your house and torture your family and you. Im sorry i dont want this happening to me repaste and the ghost will pass your house
Thank you so much for that. I know this probably won't get to you, personally, because it's of no intellectual significance, but thank you for that.
I've been searching for perspective on the matter for a time now, and here in a matter of minutes you've given an eloquent explanation. Again, thank you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'll probably get yelled at a bunch for this, but, my problem with atheism (as an agnostic) is that you're just as stubborn as the religious people in terms of your beliefs. You say you KNOW there is no God. How do you know? Same questions you'd ask a religious person, will work the same way towards an atheist. You really don't know for certain. You can't prove for a fact that it isn't even remotely possible one way or the other. I think it's best to just keep an open mind about it all.
if that's the case, you must give equal validity for any god from zeus to dionysis to flying spaghetti monsters. they all have equal chances of existing.
not all atheists claim to know that there is no god, even guys like richard dawkins. they just live their life as if there isn't one.
and in any case, the burden of proof always, always falls on the side of the believer. you must prove that something exists to have it logically cohere. having an open mind doesn't mean not using it.
@ernstergarcia For 2,000 years scientists and mathematicians have been relying on things they can't prove exist. Example: every physics model relies on the existence of Euclid's "point," which has never been empirically verified. It won't be. We just use it. So what's this nonsense of having to prove that something exists before it can logically cohere? How do you think science works? And that doesn't even make sense from a purely logical standpoint. Formal logic, dude: check it the fuck out.
What "ernstergarcia" said. Plus- The words "agnostic" and gnostic point to knowledge and not belief. A gnostic atheist would claim to know that there is no god. An agnostic atheist would likely take the default position of not believing in a god based on best available evidence. If you are "agnostic" then you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. If you don't have an active belief in a god(s) then you are an atheist whether or not you self identify as one!
YOU are an atheist, theism and atheism deals with what you beleive, and gnosticism and agnosticism deals with what you know
I am an agnostic atheist, meaning that i dont have a belief in a god, but i dont know for sure if there is one YOU are also an atheist, an agnostic atheist
theres also gnostic atheism when you claim to KNOW there is no god, as well as agnostic theism, beleif in a god but dont claim to know, and gnostic theist. knows theres a god,
well alright then. thank you for all explaining that. I didnt know there was so many terms. I see i've been hit with 4 thumbs down... I knew that'd happen, but whatever, I learnt something so i'm happy.
Hmm.. But I have "Freakonomics" and it didn´t come out that way to me, that parents HAD books and didn´t read to the kids or read themselves, that it didn´t matter for their kids and their later life.. Reading to your kids is good both for the "our time"-part and to wake up imagination and it gives the kid a chance to "get" books, not by order, but by associating it as fun and comfy to read or have... and that´s never a bad thing, neh? But the end-comment is lovely.
I disagree to because i grew up going to school with this kid who was always a jerk got bad grades and didnt really give a shit. Then he dropped out in 8th grade and is now a pothead. He has 3 siblings all who are very succesful and did well in school. I think its his parents fault because he showed them no respect and they offered no punishment.
hahahahaha! definitely READING to our little ones DOES make a HUGE difference. In fact my son, when I read to him every night for years, would actually recite all his favorite stories; not only that, IF I missed a night of reading, or two, he would get SO antsie, it was obvious reading to him was GOOD PARENTING, duh! But then again, I am a writer, and it's IN THE GENES! hehehehe!
How would you know what doing good is if the Bible didn't state what was good and evil. Because of the Bible, countries have based their laws on the moral law that it states; without that we wouldn't even know what good and evil was.
to me this is a very fuzzy subject, where penn makes some good points, it's hard for me ignore the fact that are lots of talented people in the world that don't know that they are talented because it hasn't been unlocked. and to me someone who has insecurities and lack of confidence results in bad parenting or not having any parent figures to look up to and believe in. however, him saying that just reading and showing love probably means that im helping his point.
I agree with Penn. The problem is that his videos are relaxed and sometimes difficult to understand at first. I think what he means is not exactly that "parenting doesn't matters", but what matters is love. Love your kid. Be there for them, but don´t think you are damaging them if you don´t do this or that intellectual shit. I think the real success in life is happiness and self confidence, and those things happen when love is there.
I agree with the sentiment at the end, but parenting does make a difference. Genes are the marker, but nurture plays a mighty big role in determining if you reach that marker. There are literally thousands of studies in the field of psychology that back this theory up, the most prominent being the Kosovo war orphan study where children who grew up in orphanages with little to no interaction with caretakers had IQs nearing or at mental retardation and very severe emotional problems.
I'd agree that it doesn't matter. My father was hardly ever there and my other caretaker smoked 3 packs a day, drank 2 cases a week and believed all men were evil. I turned out just fine. Child support demanding money from Dad and making him work 2 jobs made him not visit very often. Hey, lawmakers, money is not love. Money is not love!
Child support is not a misguided attempt to equate money and love. Child support is designed to remove the economic burden of raising children off of the shoulders of taxpayers, (in the form of food stamps, welfare, etc) and placing the burden where it belongs, on the shoulders of parents.
I am one of those fathers who is working two jobs in order to meet all of my financial obligations. It is MY responsibility to meet those obligations and not my fellow taxpayers.
when you say "makes no difference" you're referring to test scores and how "successful" the child will be. Do you suppose there is more to life than that? A parent that reads and spends time with a child is an experience for the child and the parent. They're cultivating relationships and practicing selflessness and nurturing a loving relationship. I think you would agree that that is important.
I wrote that last comment while i paused half way through. Then I finished. ha ha. It was great hearing it from your atheist point of view, while i think it fits just as well from a true christian point of view.
Other research found that father is important to give children a male behaviour example and subsidising single mothers is quite damaging to family and children. Most subsidies you can find in UK - effect: they've got single parent epidemy and affected children's psychology.
and to be fair to penn, he would be the first one to agree with you. don't take his word for it, look into it yourself. otherwise you're accepting the argument from authority. still though, he makes a nice point.
so to be clear...a person who believes in a god can't "be good just to be good" and cant "enjoy life just to enjoy life?" what does that mean? I think Penn misses the boat here by not understanding that parenting is only designed to go so far...you care for your children, provide for them, discipline them(or not)...but the rest is up to them. A child is what makes a parent...a parent doesnt make a child.
Of course it has to fit the short clip format, but if you can't prove a bold claim like 'Parenting Doesn't Matter' in 4m 33s then perhaps you should call it something else.
Hmm. I hardly think test scores give a full picture of how successful a young human being is and will be. You can be ever so bright and yet suck at anything that involves social interaction, for instance.
One thing is having talent, but how about things like motivation and discpline? Has that been proven to be purely genetical? I'm no expert or anything, but (once again) I find Penns reasoning a bit simplistic.
Yes I do suppose it matters as to what your definition of success is. I think success is being able to successfully navigate life on your own, to support yourself, to follow your dreams and to not be afraid to fail. Some people would define success as making lots of money and graduating from Harvard at the top of your class.
I'm having a really hard time believing that reading to your kids doesn't make them more succesful, because of my personal experience. When I was small my parents used to read to me quite often. They gave me books about nature, science and the world.
Then when my younger brother was about my age, our family went though a difficult time and my parents didn't spend as much time with him as with me. Now he's having problems with school and life while I'm quite succesful.
i have 3 children 8,7,2. ive been a stay at home dad for nearly all 8 years. those are my creds :). lets not forget humans are just animals. we know and accept that lions, and bears teach their offspring to hunt, to dig dens, how to behave in social situations, etc... why would it be any different for humans?
whoever said reading to your kids makes them smarter or more successful? The same a-holes that said playing Mozart to kids in the crib makes them smarter I assume. A load of horseshit. Smart is as smart does. Everyone has the capacity to be smart and intelligent. Its just a matter of dedication and application. Nobody scores an A on a test without studying. Nobody wins a marathon without training. Smart people apply. Anyone can read a book it what you do with the knowledge that counts.
I have watched Penns videos from time to time, some I agree with and think he still could be wrong, and some I disagree with and consider what if he is right.
But this Penn is a load of shit man, people that don't want to have to be accountable in my view are just as much religious zealots as anybody else, accept they want to subscrib t this well there is no consequence if I don't additude. If you neglect your kids it's proven rich or poor they are more likely to grow up to be terrible people
what he meant was that reading wont make your kid a genius or a good person. it is ultimately up to the child as a person to become who they will be. we often forget that though young children are people also and will ultimately make who they will be, experiences shape people, whether it be a good parent reading or not or a stranger giving you the time instead of bumping into you and being a douche, it take many experiences to make a personality
as opposed to the rest of the world, being good to either avoid an eternal punishment/earthly punishment/or for some divine father figure who can never be pleased
You raise very thought provoking ideas as I have become accustom to hearing from you. I do agree with the idea that children with successful parents are more exposed to that kind of way of life and have one more thing going for them to be successful "Lead by Example." and all. Children and all of us for that matter are in my opinion naturally inclined to follow the best path that we are aware of.
I would put forth in my opinion that genetics does play a very small role in certain behavioral tendency in all of us. There are of course many factors in how we develop throughout the course of our lives; but I believe that by far the greatest one and the one that eclipses all others combined is the choices that we as individuals make; even as children.
As for spending time with your children, adults, family, friends, enemies, and indeed anyone you have relation with. You can rarely effect any of them in my opinion by trying to, trying being the operative word, indoctrinate them into your way of doing things. You cant tell people how to vote, who to love, how to spend their money, etc. All you can really do is set your example (Good or Bad) and hope that it is one they will follow.
I would personally put forth that spending time with your children will not necessarily make them a more successful person but a better person. That is of course if you are an example of a better person. As with everything, there are exceptions to everything that I have said, no rule is absolute. Indeed nothing is.
They also say that children who are taught to read before kindergarten are usually caught up with by the time they start first grade. Some kids get off to a quicker start than others, but in the end all of that early cramming means nothing.
major600 7 months ago
I read Freakonomics and I believe Penn is interpreting it incorrectly. The author was talking about how an elected official wanted to give free books to every single kid because a study showed a correlation between the amount of books in a home and a child's success. The author then pointed out this was nonsensical because it wasn't the books making this happen but the fact that the parents cared about education(i.e. so many books).
ClintSevilla 8 months ago
Stupidest things I've ever heard.. Parenting does matter!! To know that ur parents love you is a very empowering thing!! Jails r full of men who's dad's were not in the picture- the dad is more important than just genes and financial support.. Boys learn how to be a man by watching their dad. Sometimes what to do.. Sometime what not to do. I do agree w his point that we should read to our kids out of love, and not out of obligation or duty.. But isn't that a no brainer?
jengillette 8 months ago
@jengillette penn is interpreting the book incorrectly. It did not support what he just said. The author was pointing out a correlation that demonstrate "more books in a household equals a higher chance of success for a child". This correlation is true, but the presence of the books(the author never talked about the effects of reading the book to them) did not do this. It was because the parents valued education i.e. so many books.
ClintSevilla 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ClintSevilla I think that's what Penn said: He said it matters what the parents ARE not what they DO to the kid. Yes Freakonomics says that the presence of the books does nothing. The books are indicators of what the parents are - i.e., people who love reading, etc. Penn's point is that if a parent does not like to read, it doesn't matter how much they force their kids to read, and conversely, a parent who loves to read does not have to force their kids to read. The reading doesn't matter.
Vincentaneous 6 months ago
@ClintSevilla LOL- I guess that's what I get for commenting on a book I've never read- ;-) I guess my remarks were slanted more at Penn and his brash way of saying "Parenting doesn't matter" yeah.. PARENTING is everything- yes kids make their own choices, but for good or for bad, our parents (or lack of parenting) is the SINGLE biggest influencer in all of our lives..
jengillette 3 months ago
Liberating and beautiful to realize that parenting doesn't matter? That's got to b one of the stuoi
jengillette 8 months ago
that is why I believe in God.because doing good is good and makes you feel good and makes the world a better place.I don't do good things because I am afraid I will go to hell if I don't.I do good things because I believe I am a good person and enjoy doing good.
cassidy99ful 10 months ago
@cassidy99ful Thats a stupid reason to believe in god.
Scolopacid 9 months ago
That was very moving, Penn; thank you.
smalin 1 year ago
Do these studies only pertain to a child's success in pursuing a career and/or their IQ or something? Because I find it really difficult to believe that reading or not reading to your kids has no affect on their well-being and overall happiness. But then I find it really hard to believe that happier children aren't more likely to be successful and confidant.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
Great point. Love is far more important in a child's life than trying every little gimmick to make them smarter. I came from a relatively poor family, but my parents spent a lot of time with me, reading to me and helping with homework. I had a 4.0 and was the first in the family to attend college. I now have a M.S. in biology. It wasn't reading to me that made me more successful. I think it was the fact that they spent time with me and encouraged my passions.
alcestess 1 year ago
@alcestess I believe that's called good parenting.
SurferRosa79 1 year ago
ah OK i feel like it gives crape about the Geno its the time you give them that makes them, I am a foster parent and i see my kids in me every day wow i am a f up lol
iamtheonlysircracker 1 year ago
You read to your kids because you're genetically more intelligent than other parents, which makes reading to them irrelevant because they're going to be smart anyways.
1thruZ 1 year ago
Parenting dos effect a child. This is common knowledge. It effects the childs in various ways. Children often repeat the actions of there parents. Be this helping others or doing drugs. There are varoius factors such as genetics, but come on realy parenting dosn't matter. Bullshit.
Damnationization 1 year ago
i wish all the vids i watched had the warning language thing at the beginning
phillipskid32 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love Penn and 98% of what he says, But I dont buy this completely. I think a genetic potential is valid but what we do with that potential does matter. just like physical Genetics might determine you will not be a midget or a giant. But if your potential is 5'3" to 5'9" the right diet helps you realize the higher end. The right guidance and examples are food for behaviour. But not guarantees.
PsypherDeus 1 year ago
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
pennsays 1 year ago
I love Penn and 98% of what he says, But I dont buy this completely. I think a genetic potential is valid but what we do with that potential does matter. just like physical Genetics might determine you will not be a midget or a giant. But if your potential is 5'3" to 5'9" the right diet helps you realize the higher end. The right guidance and examples are food for behaviour. But not guarantees.
PsypherDeus 1 year ago
Brilliant Pen, well thought.
SendTedEmail 1 year ago
There's an entire book on this subject called The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris.
pennsays 1 year ago
I love watching these, because I aways love hearing a different point of view, however...yes, you knew there was going to be a "but", I learned a great deal from my mother and father, from what they taught me and from watching their mistakes as well. Lol also I agree that atheism is like science, they are their own religion..in as much as that they NEVER shut up regarding their point of view. At this point I'm surprised their not passing out literature, and knocking door to door
jeromemayle99 1 year ago
this piss me off more than any other topic I have heard on Penn says, my father raised me and my bother with out our mother, the fact that someone saying all he did was provide money is bullshit I don't care if it helped test scores or not it mattered and on weather there is or is not a god in the words of George Carlin keep thy fucking religion to thy self something atheist can't seem to do
cdh98 1 year ago
I recommend "NurtureShock" by Po Bronson & Ashley Merryman.
charlesdodgeson 1 year ago
Penn, you ARE well educated. You are an autodidact! There is a big difference between SCHOOLING and EDUCATION!!
ANDREWSABAT 2 years ago
I love the basic sentiment of this video: do it for LOVE. However, it's hard to believe you agree with the faulty premise that a child's future success can be accurately gauged by standardized test scores. Really?
Have you heard of unschooling? If not, check it out the Wikipedia description. It's pure libertarian education.
I'm an agnostic unschooling zealot, offering you and your children salvation from the evils of our autocratic school system. Seriously. ;)
~Anne Wood
AnneWood4freedom 2 years ago
Children are going to tend to follow success that their parents accomplish more so than lessons read to them, simply because they are going to mimic parents actions more so than follow their parents instructions. The old do as I say, not as I do, gets seen through by most children.
l337pwnage 2 years ago
Rhetorical Quesition:
If U don't believe in God, why would U trust someone's statistics?
Good point, though. The reason to do anything is for its own sake, seeking no end other than the doing.
Success is not quantifiable by test scores or bank accounts. Success is being true to the Truth and loving while doing it.
OKandNOWwhat 2 years ago
atheist is anti-religion, not anti-science...and i think penn has even said that he knows there isn't a god the same way he knows there isn't an elephant in his car...once he sees the elephant than he will acknowledge that it's there until then it doesn't exist. Statistics are numerical proof of something...so that is why someone would believe in them.
acestringpicker 2 years ago
The question was not regarding the mathematical field of statistics but rather his assent to the unverified quoting of immediately unverifiable statistics by someone whom he did not personally know. Unless, of course, he took their word on faith.
Accepting lack of visible evidence alone as proof of something's non-existence is unscientific.
OKandNOWwhat 2 years ago
was this comment a reply to "acestringpicker"s comment?
pwbpub 2 years ago
Yes, that comment was a reply to acestringpicker's comment. He did not respond, however.
OKandNOWwhat 2 years ago
i responded to you down below when i responded to pennsays....trying to kill two birds with one stone
acestringpicker 1 year ago
@acestringpicker There's a Penn Says called You Can't Prove Anything on CrackleDotCom where Penn talks about this.
pennsays 1 year ago
yeah i've been watching Crackle ever since i found out Penn did this stuff...it's quite interesting...oh and @OKandNOWwhat, i didn't realize that your comment warranted a response from me, but since you feel otherwise...
the lock ness monster has never been seen and documented by a scientist...science says it doesn't exist...so if you don't think that is scientific then i take it you believe in old nessy and that you are a crazy...there lol
acestringpicker 1 year ago
Mate, science does not say the Loch Ness monster does not exist. Science says that all evidence that has been presented is at best inconclusive or doubtful. You cannot prove a negative, though you seem to be attempting to verify the postulate: "acestringpicker does not know what 'science' means."
OKandNOWwhat 1 year ago
.....you make me laugh, im not even trying to instigate an argument, and maybe i don't know what science is. However my main point is the fact that your original statement "rhetorical question" didn't make sense to me. Maybe i am the idiot, seeing how a rhetorical question need not be answered, but whether or not one believes in God holds no clout in whether or not one trusts the statements of another. Apples in oranges. I don't believe in the Christian God, but i trust the honest man ;)
acestringpicker 1 year ago
It's a pleasure to make U laugh.
What I meant was, that if he rejects an omniscient, omnipotent Entity, then why accept the verdict of a book written for fun, since the greater includes the lesser? Put another way: denial of an ultimate authority renders all authority conditional or even negligible. That is, Penn doesn't trust God because he doesn't know God, so why would he trust the book's author, whom he also doesn't know? And how would one determine the honesty of an unknown man? Bless U ;)
OKandNOWwhat 1 year ago
God doesn't make sense, that is why he does not trust god. Many many people actually know the book's author, but can you tell me one person who knows or has ever met god. No one does, so how can anyone easily believe in something that completely defies logic. I hope their is something beyond this world, but I am who I am because I want to be, not because something or anyone else wants be to be it.
Tile700 1 year ago
@Tile700
God doesn't make sense 2 those who don't have His Spirit. I know & have met God, & I know others who have @ least encountered Him. However, I can't empirically prove this 2 U, just as U can't prove that U are in love. As a child cannot fathom the actions of its parent because of factors that are beyond the child's ken, so God works His wonders w/o answering petulant demands. Rather than scrutinizing God upon faulty premises, one must submit (give under) to understand (stand under) God.
OKandNOWwhat 1 year ago
@acestringpicker Atheism is more a belief that strongly disagrees with other beliefs, you're thinking of secular humanism. Atheism is more invested in science and reason, pardon me if I am incorrect.
AkaoKiyotsu 1 year ago
@acestringpicker Atheism isn't anti-religion, Atheism is just the absence of religious beliefs. When an atheist becomes anti-religious, its not because he's an atheist, it's because he's anti-religious.
stfwho 1 year ago
@stfwho definition of theist is one who believes in god or god's...the connotation of someone who is religious is someone who believes in god or god's...considering the "a"(anti) in athiest it would make me believe they are anti god or god's and therefore anti religion...
acestringpicker 1 year ago
@acestringpicker Buddhists are atheists, Jains are atheists, Scientologists are atheists. They don't believe in God. A theist is someone who believes in a God. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. Believing in God and having a religion are two different things.
stfwho 1 year ago 2
ahhh..sweetly put
kitefancy 2 years ago
awesome words.
causticmario 2 years ago
This is an interesting take on parenting. Its new to me. But even if reading to your children and taking them to the park and listening to their ideas doesnt improve their test scores or increase the likelihood that they will be successful in their careers, wouldnt you think it would have an impact on them emotionally. Being a parent myself i am a bit more hopeful that my son grows to love himself than i care about him becoming a road scholar. While that would be nice will he be happy?
555orchid 2 years ago 2
@555orchid Freakonomics does not support what he just said. The author was pointing out a false causation, which an elected official saw a study that reported more books in a household equaled a more successful child so that official wanted to give free books to every child. The correlation was true, but the presence of the books was not the cause. The parents of the child valued education(i.e. read many books), so they were more adamant on schooling. Parents valuing education = successful child
ClintSevilla 8 months ago
@ClintSevilla I think that's what Penn said: He said it matters what the parents ARE not what they DO to the kid. Yes Freakonomics says that the presence of the books does nothing. The books are indicators of what the parents are - i.e., people who love reading, etc. Penn's point is that if a parent does not like to read, it doesn't matter how much they force their kids to read, and conversely, a parent who loves to read does not have to force their kids to read. The reading doesn't matter.
Vincentaneous 6 months ago
...'superior' people will do the same actions, but do them better. In other words, genes and social position vary non-randomly and have strong effects, whereas behavior tends to spread out across a population without respect to underlying causes of success and failure in life, test scores, and so on. Behavior always appears weak because of the random noise it attracts.
Also: statistical significance does not imply importance. Civilization may have been built on 10 percent of the variance.
jmonroe64 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this; you have actually posted the most correct of all observations (in absolute terms). It is a shame that this reality escapes most people, especially the political classes in our country. I find it distressingly Orwellian that fundamental truths like this are buried or made to seem outrageous .... Congratulations on your critical thinking skills...
Scrappy63 2 years ago
This is a good example of a statistical artifact that has been swallowed wholesale. The studies mentioned rely on persistent association between variables -- for example, genes and social position versus parental activities. Since genes and social position are persistent and strong constraints on performance, naturally they appear to be more significant, especially since social norms tend to make people behave in similar ways (or claim to on surveys), whereas...
jmonroe64 2 years ago
that is really beautiful, thanks
86COLE 2 years ago
I read Freakonomics, and enjoyed it. But I don't buy all the assertions the author makes. Statistics are just models. They can TRY to account for confounding factors in models, but I don't believe statisticians and psychologists have built their models effectively enough to describe the immense topics Freakonomics attempts to make sweeping generalizations about.
SaviourSole 2 years ago
just because something is written in a book doesn't make it true. I beg to differ about effort and care not making a difference. money only gets you so far.
Jackalofdeath 2 years ago
just because it's written on youtube doesn't make it anything that people would want to read, and take away anything from it, "Jackalofdeath."
WACAcameraman 2 years ago
that was really cool. thanx
AtomicFireball22 2 years ago
Actually according to Ridley's book "Genome" it's more complicated than Penn says... "genetic influences are not frozen at conception and that environmental influences are not inexorably cumulative (Ridley 85)" Later in the book he goes on to explain more about how genetics and environment (of which parenting would be part) work together to make a person.
helliott9 2 years ago
100% One of the best things I have ever herd, it gives me the warm and fuzzyes
DiceWarwick 2 years ago 4
I'm glad you said that about being an atheist. While I'm not necessarily an atheist, I am agnostic who leans towards atheism. And its very true that as an atheist you realize that you don't have the pressure of being good or god will punish you. You also realize that this life is it, no reward in the after life; therefore your happiness is in this world and life is too short to be an asshole. That's not to say it can't go the other way, doing whatever you want and fuck the consequences.
vegetorott 2 years ago
Steven Pinker Rocks!
voyeur9999 2 years ago
this book penn speaks of sounds like a total load of shit.
lordraidis 2 years ago
read it and find out for sure one way or the other.
LazyIrish829 2 years ago
Thank you. My parents always say they do things because they want me to be successful. I'd be a happier person if they told me they do those things because they love me.
I'm not a parent, so I'm on the 'child' side, and it's empowering, too. Just because we do something bad, doesn't mean you're a bad parent. And when we do something good, that doesn't mean you're a good parent either (ha). Kids are not robots you can program. They're people; you'd think we'd realize that more often.
enochcorp 2 years ago
people, yes...but not fully developed, or adept at critical thinking. kids aren't miniature adults, and treating them as if they are is a rip off to the kid; a parent who doesn't nurture their kids is making their life more difficult by not giving them the benefit of their mistakes and learning. you do this because you do love them; success is a gift that parents want to pass on. kids are "programmed" but it happens at a very early age, and it is very difficult to overcome later in life.
Scrappy63 2 years ago
I didn't mean that children should be treated like minature adults. (Although I supposed it sounded like that. How general of me!) I was thinking about the child/parent relationship, even when the kid isn't considered a 'kid' age-wise. Of course inexperience plays a major factor when dealing with children. I don't think children should be treated like adults. (Of course!) But trying to raise them with a specific product in mind in a isn't going to work, most likely.
enochcorp 2 years ago
I was actually quite moved by this video. Thanks Penn, ure a great guy.
bennybrun 2 years ago 2
I can say without a doubt that because my dad looked at his parental responsibilities as genes and money and he was abusive, that it affected me greatly, and made my life different than it would have been otherwise. I don't agree at all treatment has no effect
raoulthompson 2 years ago
Steven Pinker talks about all this and comes to the conclusion that you should be nice to your kids to be nice, not because it will make a difference in their academic achievement.
eswyatt 2 years ago
So now only the wealthy are entitled to have children! And not just wealthy, but rich and almost sure there is no God - but don't care what impact it will have on their children. This clip has nothing to do with parenting skills. It is simply an expression of your hatred of God.
justonewitness 2 years ago
justonewitness, I think you missed the point bro...
Good luck with everything, BTW if you're not Penn and are struggling and suspect you are a loser, this genome parent shit is NOT welcome news, because.....I am probably fukked...but I still appreciate the hell out of his message...er Penn's that is...
tik
sixtiksix 2 years ago
I need to challenge this notion that parenting doesn't matter. Kids do not pick up on things by themselves... it'd imply that schools don't matter because the kids will learn this stuff by themselves? It's ignoring a basic cause and effect principle here. Let's disregard the fact that you're a "parent" here. You're also this kids "teacher". If you "force" him to learn certain things, then he'll ofcourse be better at it than not doing it at all? You don't inherit piano-skills for example.
onoez2k 2 years ago
The explanation, ofcourse, could be that the real problem is that parents are NOT raising their kids. That is to say, not as much as the rest of the environment, like the kid's friends and school, where he spends the majority of his time and needs to fill other roles.
onoez2k 2 years ago
Now consider the parent's success as their access to money. Even the parents have no skills. They can still pay for piano lessons for the kid to take instead of teaching themselves. Whenever the kid picks up an interest, they can always give the kid access to tools which makes learning easier. Like simply buying a guitar, computer or an F-16 simulator.
Though there may be indisputable studies done on this... It would still seem that the conclusion drawn is incorrect.
onoez2k 2 years ago
So I'm thinking... the real conclusion is that good parenting REQUIRES that you are successful in the first place. Because parenting without money is hard.
onoez2k 2 years ago
A beautiful concept but still we get the halfwits crawling out of the woodwork spewing out their poison.
Do you think their parents spent time loving them?
They're missing the point.
felixq78 2 years ago
Well good. Let's stop funding lower class neighborhoods and trying to appease all the leftist causes. Let's put money into the hands of our own people and not the Latinos and blacks that drain our resources.
eisenhorn123456 2 years ago
Lol, my friend you are as lost as a catholic priest. The problem is not blacks, or latinos, or whites, the problem is money. Everything in this world was loaned to us humans for free by common heritage. When you see a lion hunting in the wild to survive, does he need money? Can you breathe money to keep you alive? The few ellites that own everything in this world create divisions amongst us to keep s fighting with each other while they sit back and watch the show. But they don't really..
maximusTLP 2 years ago
own anything, we don't own this world we don't own land, we are a mere part of this planet that is all, no money, religion, or law can ever destroy the laws of nature. Once you understand all that, you will understand that all your racism and anger towards lower income people will be useless.
maximusTLP 2 years ago
It's impossible to own land, eh? Go tell that to your neighbor. Tell him he doesn't own his land and that you have as much right to live there as he does. Go ahead and get back to me after you've done that. Tell me how it goes.
eisenhorn123456 2 years ago
It may not effect weather the kid tests well or is successful... but it does effect weather the kid likes his parents or not.
Which many would say is more important.
Winterdenni 2 years ago
But in Penn's leftist world, it's all about the individual, not about the group.
eisenhorn123456 2 years ago
I dont think Penns a leftist ...but a libertarian...a lot different! Libertarians love freedom...freedom from gov, freedom of and/or from religion ect. these are 2 things that are good for both the idividual and the group! Dont believe me think Talaban!
DK0526 2 years ago
I think the term parenting in the title is misleading, because love is part of parenting. What Penn means is that loving your child is more important than
straining to help your child achieve success, per se.
dynya742 2 years ago
Parenting matters. I think all this crap about genes deciding everything is bullshit. I've heard people say that we don't even make our own decisions, because everything we do is decided by our genes.
That's stupid! Genes play a big role in who you are, and play a role in everything we do, but choice is still there. Parenting still matters. For example, my mom worked very hard teaching me times tables and long division, and I excelled. When she stopped working with me, I fell behind.
cessnapilot86 2 years ago
I wonder how long until they discover the combination of genes that dictated your opinion on the matter of genetic influence on our personalities.
Nonsensei436 2 years ago
BUT the beatings of children who become serial killers could have been because of genes too....hmmmmmmmmmmm
enors412 2 years ago 2
It matters. Maybe not in test scores (who cares about those anyway) but it matters as to the persons character. At least it does from my perspective as a sun, not that I like giving my parents credit for anything, but they do deserve it.
ScaryGuy255 2 years ago
im not sure if you are just making a point with this "parenting not mattering" story, or if you actually believe that.
mxdirector 2 years ago
So the beatings that serial killers took as children has NOTHING to do with what they became?? Accepting overgeneralizations like this will get us nowhere.
enors412 2 years ago
Comment removed
enors412 2 years ago
I respect Penn. He's a smart guy.
But I don't agree with the argument on atheism, or parenting. He's implying it's either one or the other: parenting for the sake of love, or parenting because of duty, as if duty is by definition insincere or a lie. That's a false dichotomy, in my opinion.
Atreus21 2 years ago 7
@Atreus21
Thank you.
I too, love Penn. But I will say that, parenting is setting a true example on how to live within the social contract. If you have the talent, it is your parent's *responsibility* to give you the opportunities to fulfill your potential without pushing you to overstrain your talents. It is not a job to *force* you to overexert, but it's not a privilege to leave you in languor either to assume you'll just rise above off of natural ability.
Rurne 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the rest for her to show up in your town. Im sorry this chain will spread and if you do not repaste 10 times onto 10 videos a ghost will come to your house and torture your family and you. Im sorry i dont want this happening to me repaste and the ghost will pass your house
quino124 2 years ago
Thank you so much for that. I know this probably won't get to you, personally, because it's of no intellectual significance, but thank you for that.
I've been searching for perspective on the matter for a time now, and here in a matter of minutes you've given an eloquent explanation. Again, thank you.
-Emma
HerrDocktor 2 years ago 2
but being loved matters to be sucessful because then y do anything if you don't want to please anyone else or be pleased.
tonytrilex 2 years ago
Beautiful :]
civitasdei 2 years ago
The simplicity of interaction for the sake of being. Yes, beautiful.
skeletonmom 2 years ago
Absolutely amazing. That is a perfect way to put it. You are a very intelligent man.
LushReviewsWithJanet 2 years ago
PENN 2012
goppatriots 2 years ago
Test scores don't matter anyway, so I agree with you by default there. Good points overall.
Teganor 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'll probably get yelled at a bunch for this, but, my problem with atheism (as an agnostic) is that you're just as stubborn as the religious people in terms of your beliefs. You say you KNOW there is no God. How do you know? Same questions you'd ask a religious person, will work the same way towards an atheist. You really don't know for certain. You can't prove for a fact that it isn't even remotely possible one way or the other. I think it's best to just keep an open mind about it all.
spiderweb20 2 years ago
if that's the case, you must give equal validity for any god from zeus to dionysis to flying spaghetti monsters. they all have equal chances of existing.
not all atheists claim to know that there is no god, even guys like richard dawkins. they just live their life as if there isn't one.
and in any case, the burden of proof always, always falls on the side of the believer. you must prove that something exists to have it logically cohere. having an open mind doesn't mean not using it.
ernstergarcia 2 years ago 11
@ernstergarcia For 2,000 years scientists and mathematicians have been relying on things they can't prove exist. Example: every physics model relies on the existence of Euclid's "point," which has never been empirically verified. It won't be. We just use it. So what's this nonsense of having to prove that something exists before it can logically cohere? How do you think science works? And that doesn't even make sense from a purely logical standpoint. Formal logic, dude: check it the fuck out.
bigbadbucksnort 11 months ago
What "ernstergarcia" said. Plus- The words "agnostic" and gnostic point to knowledge and not belief. A gnostic atheist would claim to know that there is no god. An agnostic atheist would likely take the default position of not believing in a god based on best available evidence. If you are "agnostic" then you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. If you don't have an active belief in a god(s) then you are an atheist whether or not you self identify as one!
mkamaryn 2 years ago
YOU are an atheist, theism and atheism deals with what you beleive, and gnosticism and agnosticism deals with what you know
I am an agnostic atheist, meaning that i dont have a belief in a god, but i dont know for sure if there is one YOU are also an atheist, an agnostic atheist
theres also gnostic atheism when you claim to KNOW there is no god, as well as agnostic theism, beleif in a god but dont claim to know, and gnostic theist. knows theres a god,
glad we cleared that up
FireStorm821 2 years ago
well alright then. thank you for all explaining that. I didnt know there was so many terms. I see i've been hit with 4 thumbs down... I knew that'd happen, but whatever, I learnt something so i'm happy.
spiderweb20 2 years ago 6
The author of Freakonomics, Steven Levitt did a 20 min lecture on car seats and how they don't really help save lives. You should check it out:
/watch?v=um5gMZcZWm0&hl
DSAhmed 2 years ago
Hmm.. But I have "Freakonomics" and it didn´t come out that way to me, that parents HAD books and didn´t read to the kids or read themselves, that it didn´t matter for their kids and their later life.. Reading to your kids is good both for the "our time"-part and to wake up imagination and it gives the kid a chance to "get" books, not by order, but by associating it as fun and comfy to read or have... and that´s never a bad thing, neh? But the end-comment is lovely.
Jentzi1 2 years ago
It's easy to say things like this when you're in his position. Too many zero's in his bank account, me thinks...
jaraha 2 years ago
I agree.
Discharg3 2 years ago
Comment removed
enors412 2 years ago
I don't believe that it doesn't make a difference. I do like his point at the end though.
ViceJesusChrist 2 years ago
I disagree to because i grew up going to school with this kid who was always a jerk got bad grades and didnt really give a shit. Then he dropped out in 8th grade and is now a pothead. He has 3 siblings all who are very succesful and did well in school. I think its his parents fault because he showed them no respect and they offered no punishment.
ifudontlikemefuckoff 2 years ago
It's true. Who my parents Are makes the difference more than what they do.
UssenterprizeDv2 2 years ago 2
hahahahaha! definitely READING to our little ones DOES make a HUGE difference. In fact my son, when I read to him every night for years, would actually recite all his favorite stories; not only that, IF I missed a night of reading, or two, he would get SO antsie, it was obvious reading to him was GOOD PARENTING, duh! But then again, I am a writer, and it's IN THE GENES! hehehehe!
YahshuaLovesMe 2 years ago
thank you
sh0gun98 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How would you know what doing good is if the Bible didn't state what was good and evil. Because of the Bible, countries have based their laws on the moral law that it states; without that we wouldn't even know what good and evil was.
loverofmysoul24 2 years ago
... There is no good and evil. No good and bad. Just people and stupid things they do.
MMORPguy 2 years ago
You won the internet...
Ragnaros12345 2 years ago
Comment removed
loverofmysoul24 2 years ago
The meaninglessness of atheism rears its ugly head again. The beauty of "blind pitiless indifference."
Atheists used to scare me,now I just feel sad for them.
Droptopcadillac 2 years ago
lol how is atheism meaningless?
FantomL0rd 2 years ago 2
I think this shows that kids tend to look more to the example you set for how to behave than to the way you try to get them to act.
Valefarous 2 years ago
to me this is a very fuzzy subject, where penn makes some good points, it's hard for me ignore the fact that are lots of talented people in the world that don't know that they are talented because it hasn't been unlocked. and to me someone who has insecurities and lack of confidence results in bad parenting or not having any parent figures to look up to and believe in. however, him saying that just reading and showing love probably means that im helping his point.
Brettwbeyer14 2 years ago
I don't read to my son to make him better, I do it because we both like it.
rkzenrage 2 years ago
fact: people don't want to be good just to be good
peanut18544 2 years ago
do not state shit as fact just because you personally believe it...
retaliationtrigger 2 years ago
don't tell people what to do asshole
peanut18544 2 years ago
atheists do it all the time.
misterdirectsucks 2 years ago
fact: you're an idiot, peanut18544
put that in your pipe and smoke it
LeftovaCrack 2 years ago
ok, ill do that leftovacrack. ill do that
peanut18544 2 years ago
I agree with Penn. The problem is that his videos are relaxed and sometimes difficult to understand at first. I think what he means is not exactly that "parenting doesn't matters", but what matters is love. Love your kid. Be there for them, but don´t think you are damaging them if you don´t do this or that intellectual shit. I think the real success in life is happiness and self confidence, and those things happen when love is there.
odcastro 2 years ago
I think Penn is a really interesting guy, loads of good and well weighed thoughts.
Also MUCH i dont agree with but still very interesting to se his point of view
eviltunafish 2 years ago
I agree with the sentiment at the end, but parenting does make a difference. Genes are the marker, but nurture plays a mighty big role in determining if you reach that marker. There are literally thousands of studies in the field of psychology that back this theory up, the most prominent being the Kosovo war orphan study where children who grew up in orphanages with little to no interaction with caretakers had IQs nearing or at mental retardation and very severe emotional problems.
stutwostep 2 years ago
I'd agree that it doesn't matter. My father was hardly ever there and my other caretaker smoked 3 packs a day, drank 2 cases a week and believed all men were evil. I turned out just fine. Child support demanding money from Dad and making him work 2 jobs made him not visit very often. Hey, lawmakers, money is not love. Money is not love!
themanyone 3 years ago
Child support is not a misguided attempt to equate money and love. Child support is designed to remove the economic burden of raising children off of the shoulders of taxpayers, (in the form of food stamps, welfare, etc) and placing the burden where it belongs, on the shoulders of parents.
I am one of those fathers who is working two jobs in order to meet all of my financial obligations. It is MY responsibility to meet those obligations and not my fellow taxpayers.
pschlehr 2 years ago
"You love life because you love life" Amen, I think the mystery keeps it exciting and I don't need to belive in a god to belive that.
Badboyblue3 3 years ago
well put penn..
JackKempen 3 years ago
thats very touching penn. I can only say I agree with that. there is no greater reward than the reward of knowing your doing the right thing.
RapROFLMAO 3 years ago
Right on. Be good for goodness' sake, not god's sake (who doesn't even exist)
shurterb 3 years ago
I think that any parent that reads to their kids just so that they'll succeed in school shouldn't have had kids in the first place.
roxtar10870 3 years ago
If your kids aren't successful at love and joy, then test scores and money lose their value.
HeathenRage 3 years ago 6
when you say "makes no difference" you're referring to test scores and how "successful" the child will be. Do you suppose there is more to life than that? A parent that reads and spends time with a child is an experience for the child and the parent. They're cultivating relationships and practicing selflessness and nurturing a loving relationship. I think you would agree that that is important.
MamaPapaBrooks 3 years ago
I wrote that last comment while i paused half way through. Then I finished. ha ha. It was great hearing it from your atheist point of view, while i think it fits just as well from a true christian point of view.
MamaPapaBrooks 3 years ago 2
Other research found that father is important to give children a male behaviour example and subsidising single mothers is quite damaging to family and children. Most subsidies you can find in UK - effect: they've got single parent epidemy and affected children's psychology.
grraadd 3 years ago
just because someone is famous doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. do your own research.
shakaama 3 years ago 2
and to be fair to penn, he would be the first one to agree with you. don't take his word for it, look into it yourself. otherwise you're accepting the argument from authority. still though, he makes a nice point.
chadp2004 3 years ago
so to be clear...a person who believes in a god can't "be good just to be good" and cant "enjoy life just to enjoy life?" what does that mean? I think Penn misses the boat here by not understanding that parenting is only designed to go so far...you care for your children, provide for them, discipline them(or not)...but the rest is up to them. A child is what makes a parent...a parent doesnt make a child.
MattKThom 3 years ago
Of course it has to fit the short clip format, but if you can't prove a bold claim like 'Parenting Doesn't Matter' in 4m 33s then perhaps you should call it something else.
fixfaxr 3 years ago
Hmm. I hardly think test scores give a full picture of how successful a young human being is and will be. You can be ever so bright and yet suck at anything that involves social interaction, for instance.
One thing is having talent, but how about things like motivation and discpline? Has that been proven to be purely genetical? I'm no expert or anything, but (once again) I find Penns reasoning a bit simplistic.
fixfaxr 3 years ago
Yes I do suppose it matters as to what your definition of success is. I think success is being able to successfully navigate life on your own, to support yourself, to follow your dreams and to not be afraid to fail. Some people would define success as making lots of money and graduating from Harvard at the top of your class.
TuesdayPillow 2 years ago
making me me tear up penn
sharpezor 3 years ago
I'm having a really hard time believing that reading to your kids doesn't make them more succesful, because of my personal experience. When I was small my parents used to read to me quite often. They gave me books about nature, science and the world.
Then when my younger brother was about my age, our family went though a difficult time and my parents didn't spend as much time with him as with me. Now he's having problems with school and life while I'm quite succesful.
gajxo 3 years ago
i have 3 children 8,7,2. ive been a stay at home dad for nearly all 8 years. those are my creds :). lets not forget humans are just animals. we know and accept that lions, and bears teach their offspring to hunt, to dig dens, how to behave in social situations, etc... why would it be any different for humans?
bearshaman0 3 years ago
whoever said reading to your kids makes them smarter or more successful? The same a-holes that said playing Mozart to kids in the crib makes them smarter I assume. A load of horseshit. Smart is as smart does. Everyone has the capacity to be smart and intelligent. Its just a matter of dedication and application. Nobody scores an A on a test without studying. Nobody wins a marathon without training. Smart people apply. Anyone can read a book it what you do with the knowledge that counts.
RareMusicVideos 3 years ago
Penn, you talk about *material* success not emotional success. You can have straight As and be a complete douche - what's more important?
klarmer 3 years ago
It's cause kids try to be what their parents are, but don't listen to them.
Lamnont 3 years ago
The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Read it.
ldhablo666 3 years ago
I have watched Penns videos from time to time, some I agree with and think he still could be wrong, and some I disagree with and consider what if he is right.
But this Penn is a load of shit man, people that don't want to have to be accountable in my view are just as much religious zealots as anybody else, accept they want to subscrib t this well there is no consequence if I don't additude. If you neglect your kids it's proven rich or poor they are more likely to grow up to be terrible people
BlackAppleDrone 3 years ago
what he meant was that reading wont make your kid a genius or a good person. it is ultimately up to the child as a person to become who they will be. we often forget that though young children are people also and will ultimately make who they will be, experiences shape people, whether it be a good parent reading or not or a stranger giving you the time instead of bumping into you and being a douche, it take many experiences to make a personality
my 2 cents
drunkenmonkey379 3 years ago
So be good for goodness sake.
UrinationNation 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you have questions for Penn or topics you would like to hear his opinion on? Please send a message! =)
pennsays 3 years ago
being good for the sake of good. what a concept
as opposed to the rest of the world, being good to either avoid an eternal punishment/earthly punishment/or for some divine father figure who can never be pleased
drunkenmonkey379 3 years ago 3
controversial, sure, but i agree
litalearthquakes 3 years ago 3
I agree 100%.
jimmytheretard 3 years ago
This also frees you from the burden of fearing that anything you do might warp your child and produce the next serial killer du jour.
fdorsey 3 years ago
Ah! the repressions I have seen in this regard! Especially boys become targets for overzealous prosecution in this matter.
utubehayter 3 years ago
You raise very thought provoking ideas as I have become accustom to hearing from you. I do agree with the idea that children with successful parents are more exposed to that kind of way of life and have one more thing going for them to be successful "Lead by Example." and all. Children and all of us for that matter are in my opinion naturally inclined to follow the best path that we are aware of.
C13XIII 3 years ago
I would put forth in my opinion that genetics does play a very small role in certain behavioral tendency in all of us. There are of course many factors in how we develop throughout the course of our lives; but I believe that by far the greatest one and the one that eclipses all others combined is the choices that we as individuals make; even as children.
C13XIII 3 years ago
As for spending time with your children, adults, family, friends, enemies, and indeed anyone you have relation with. You can rarely effect any of them in my opinion by trying to, trying being the operative word, indoctrinate them into your way of doing things. You cant tell people how to vote, who to love, how to spend their money, etc. All you can really do is set your example (Good or Bad) and hope that it is one they will follow.
C13XIII 3 years ago
I would personally put forth that spending time with your children will not necessarily make them a more successful person but a better person. That is of course if you are an example of a better person. As with everything, there are exceptions to everything that I have said, no rule is absolute. Indeed nothing is.
C13XIII 3 years ago