same number of kids i will have

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39248019)

Jews: always striving

XO: "just do hvac!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39248037)

Jews absolutely help other Jews, but this isn't anyone different than any other affinity group. For a long time, you couldn't become a cop in a number of cities unless you were Irish.

The difference is that Jews are also strivers who have better educational outcomes than non-Jews on average. That boosts their affinity hiring/networking more than if, say, they were all just cops.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39248112)

have you heard the one about the twins separated at birth who meet up as 40 y/o men, and both are married to a woman named Barbara??? it must have been pre-ordained GENETICALLY!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39252864)

I'm not here to do Reddit arguments. It's a fact and I don't give a fuck if you believe me. We can discuss but not interested in flame wars.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39252889)

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/sources-human-psychological-differences-minnesota-study-twins-reared-apart-1990-thomas-j

tip of the iceberg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253061)

I think I see the issue. You don't understand what this means. A trait is something like height, IQ, being shy, liking salty food, skin color, etc. It isn't surprising at all that traits are very similar (with minor variations for shit like diet, exercise, whether you tan or not, etc.). That doesn't remotely mean that they earn similar amounts of money, for example.

"Iq is the top predictor of income"

Ok, so is this your new argument? That twins have very similar IQ and IQ = income? Because then we're having the exact argument we appear to be having and the twins studies don't demonstrate what you think they do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253732)

Absolutely not. I have the same traits I have. If I had not met my wife I wouldn't go to law school because she is the one that got me into this. If I have a long lost twin they might be a car mechanic somewhere in Russia/Ukraine.

"Iq is the top predictor of income, yes?"

Not really. I would say education and background is the top predictor of income. Knowing that someone graduated from Columbia Law from a family of elite lawyers is more useful than knowing they have a 130 IQ. In general, GW Bush's or the Trump kids' IQs are self-evidently nothing remarkable. What do you think accounts for their success in life?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253816)

The Three Laws of Behaviour Genetics

In 2000, the psychologist Eric Turkheimer concluded that the evidence from behavioral genetic data was consistent enough to summarize in three laws. The first law holds that all human traits are heritable (i.e., genetic differences account for phenotypic differences) to some degree. This assertion may not seem all that surprising today, although the word ‘all’ is still considered provocative by some. However, twin studies have produced copious data demonstrating that almost every trait is heritable to some degree or another.

The remaining two laws concern environmental influence. The second of these holds that the effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes. Judith Harris called attention to this theory in her 1998 book The Nurture Assumption, and was subsequently defended by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate. Pinker encouraged parents to stop fretting about what they had or had not done in order to turn their offspring into wonderful individuals. Parents, he argued, do not hold their children’s future in their hands, only their present. Pinker emphasized that parenthood remains an awesome ethical responsibility, and that it is important to give one’s child a childhood worth remembering. But parents cannot shape a child’s personalities and IQ as a sculptor fashions clay. As Dr. Nancy Segal has put it, homes do matter, but they do not make people alike.

The third law holds that a substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by either the effects of the genes or families. In other words, while about 50 percent of the variation is due to the environment, this environmental effect does not come from the family. Instead, it may be produced by the wider culture, society, the neighborhood, school, peer-groups and friends, but also simply chance: random encounters or openings in the social hierarchy, cosmic rays that damage a piece of DNA, neurons that go zig instead of zag, and so on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253669)

Are you seriously this aspie? Walk around any large megacorp. Is it the highest IQ individuals that are making the most money? Or is it a combination of factors including background, education (protip: the people who went to top schools were inevitably from striver or super wealthy backgrounds), being at the right place at the right time, etc.

"Twins separated at birth end up in the same exact place in life. It's has zero impact what the family does in raising them (outside of extreme neglect)."

You keep repeating this but you haven't linked to anything saying this. You linked to stuff that I fundamentally agree with and have agreed with since the first post. Traits are inheritable. Outcomes are not. That's why you have plenty of successful parents and loser kids as well as the reverse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253780)

I have 4. You?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253920)

Also, this is starting to remind me of arguing with my mother.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253954)

Actually, Mandy and her sister ended up with fairly similar results but she also made a lot of similar choices (in part because we also advocated for those choices). She would have had a very different life path if she wasn't career-driven, for example.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39254530)

For example, I know a very wealthy boomer couple with 5 adult children. One got into drugs and committed suicide. 2 are very successful. 1 is a loser and 1 is a mediocre wagecuck. Now you may say the druggie who committed suicide made the wrong “choices” in life, but he went to the same schools as his siblings, hung out with the same people. Likely this brother made his poor “choices” because he has an addictive personality along with other unfortunate personality traits, as well as likely some mental illness, which also happens to run in the family. There is predisposition to make certain “choices” due to your genes. Both you and Mandy were born strivers and made striver choices as a result. I too was born a striver. I don’t believe I made “choices” with the guidance from my parents so much as just fulfilled my natural path or destiny. Somebody cannot be taught this personality trait if they just not strivers. This is getting philosophical, but I don’t believe humans have as much agency as they believe but they cannot accept that because then life becomes meaningless. By extension, if you cannot control the destiny of your children, then life’s arguably most meaningful activity (raising kids) becomes meaningless too. But if you can let go of that, then you can possibly just enjoy your kids for who they are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39254661)

- Gender differences. Including both personalities and how parents raise them.

- Parents take different approaches with younger kids than older kids.

- Parents tend to become wealthier with time.

"Both you and Mandy were born strivers"

Mandy will have a good laugh if she reads this. She wasn't even going to go to college before meeting me, let alone go to law school and end up in a good in-house counsel position. We got married when her mom made a bet that I'd leave her rather than get married even if marriage meant she would promise to pay for college for her. She lost that bet and here we are. We influenced her younger sister heavily. But if it was up to her parents they would all be doing some combination of sales/yoga/living in their basement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39254961)

This is only true if what you're really looking for is extreme results. Yeah, I was never going to be Elon Musk. I also wasn't going to be the homeless guy around Times Square. So I guess the various paths in my life would inevitably lead me to "somewhere in between those two places." But that's sort of hand-waiving nonsense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39252778)

this is why gooks/jews are eating our lunch. they don't fuck around.

we need to get the victorian work ethic back.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39252785)

Though, it is pretty interesting because at least Jews are totally imploding from what I can tell. Now they all want to be bloggers and shit. A bunch of Asian Americans are becoming lazy too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39252791)

come at me, nutella

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39252754)

Why wouldn't your kids be the same?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253933)

see what happens

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39252753)

The grinding mentality isnt really helpful in the long run

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39252792)

I would be happy home schooling my kids if i could find an outlet for them to be adequately socialized. Ideally they could grow up outside the system designed to churn out little mindless worker bees and then decide for themselves which path to take as adults.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253037)

you can't replicate side conversations in class, exposure to the opposite sex, growing up with friends, etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39253092)

Nine years ago my wife had her first sonogram. The technician seemed to be asking routine questions: “How long have you been pregnant?” “Twelve weeks.” “Any family history of genetic diseases?” “No.” “Any family history of twins?” “No.” Then she showed us the screen. “Well, you’re having twins.” My wife and I were scared. We were first-time parents. How were we supposed to raise two babies at the same time?

Strangely enough, I already knew a lot about twins. I’d been an avid consumer of twin research for years. Identical twins (like ours turned out to be) share all their genes; fraternal twins share only half. Researchers in medicine, psychology, economics, and sociology have spent decades comparing these two types of twins to disentangle the effects of nature and nurture. But as our due date approached, none of my book learning seemed remotely helpful.

Only after our twins were born did I gradually realize how much I was missing. Twin researchers rarely offer parenting advice. But much practical guidance is implicit in the science.

The most prominent conclusion of twin research is that practically everything—health, intelligence, happiness, success, personality, values, interests—is partly genetic. The evidence is straightforward: Identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins in almost every way—even when the twins are separated at birth. But twin research has another far more amazing lesson: With a few exceptions, the effect of parenting on adult outcomes ranges from small to zero. Parents change kids in many ways; the catch is that the changes fade out as kids grow up. By adulthood, identical twins aren’t slightly more similar than fraternal twins; they’re much more similar. And when identical twins are raised apart, they’re often just as similar as they are when they’re raised together.

Once I became a dad, I noticed that parents around me had a different take on the power of nurture. I saw them turning parenthood into a chore—shuttling their kids to activities even the kids didn’t enjoy, forbidding television, desperately trying to make their babies eat another spoonful of vegetables. Parents’ main rationale is that their effort is an investment in their children’s future; they’re sacrificing now to turn their kids into healthy, smart, successful, well-adjusted adults. But according to decades of twin research, their rationale is just, well, wrong. High-strung parenting isn’t dangerous, but it does make being a parent a lot more work and less fun than it has to be.

The obvious lesson to draw is that parents should lighten up. I call it “Serenity Parenting”: Parents need the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, the courage to change the things they can, and (thank you twin research) the wisdom to know the difference. Focus on enjoying your journey with your child, instead of trying to control his destination. Accept that your child’s future depends mostly on him, not your sacrifices. Realize that the point of discipline is to make your kid treat the people around him decently—not to mold him into a better adult. I can’t say that I completely convinced my wife on any of these points, but we made reasonable compromises—and we found that raising twins was a lot of fun.

I freely admit there are some sacrifices that parents can’t responsibly avoid. Someone had to feed our infant twins in the middle of the night, and that someone was me. The key point to keep in mind is that twin research focuses on vaguely normal families in the First World. It doesn’t claim that kids would do equally well if they were raised by wolves or abandoned in Haiti. But look on the bright side: If you are a vaguely normal family in the First World, the science of nature and nurture shows that you can lighten up a lot without hurting your kids.

Serenity Parenting changed our lives. We used the Ferber method—let the kid cry for 10 minutes, briefly comfort him, repeat—to get our twins to sleep through the night. We enrolled them in an activity or two, but they spent a lot more time watching cartoons while we relaxed. Our family specialized in activities that were literally “fun for the whole family”: reading books together, playing dodgeball in the basement, going to the pool for a swim. If “Lighten up” was the only practical lesson of twin research, my reading had more than paid for itself.

Yet eventually I noticed that twin research had another, far less obvious lesson for parents: Have more kids. When you ask high-effort parents if they want another child, the thought often frightens them. They’re already tired and stressed from the kids they’ve got; how could they endure the sacrifices required to raise one more? I reversed this argument. Others’ belief in the power of nurture made them reluctant to have more kids. My disbelief in the power of nurture, by the same logic, made me eager to have more kids.

Parents who don’t take twin research seriously are “overcharging” themselves for every child—not financially, but emotionally. The blatant lesson of twin research is to stop overcharging yourself. Its subtle lesson is to rethink the number of children you want to have. When you learn that something you want is cheaper than you thought, both common sense and basic economics tell you to buy more.

This argument didn’t immediately win my wife over. But seven years after our first sonogram, we found ourselves back in the doctor’s office. Only this time, I was hoping for twins. If you imagine that your children’s future rests in your hands, you could spend every waking minute (and many half-asleep hours) trying to mold them to perfection. Once you accept the lessons of twin research, life looks very different. As it turned out, the sonogram showed that my wife was carrying one beautiful baby boy, for whom we are most grateful. But I can’t help but hope that one day we’ll give our three sons a baby sister.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39254299)

TMF, your response to the shitty Trump vs ghetto kid argument?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39254363)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39254421)

Incidentally, I am a fan of Bryan Caplan, who has written 2 books on these topics, one about how education is overrated and two about how people should have more kids and when they do, they relax and understand that hyper parenting does not work:

Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465028616/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_0dN8DbH2C98BS

The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691196451/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_flN8Db9W2G90N

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39254405)

unless you mean getting VC funding for a smartphone app?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39255015)

1. Know thyself; and

2. Avoid debt

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4399162&forum_id=2#39256954)