"If morality represents the ideal world, then economics represents the actual world." (Levitt, and Dubner, 210) This statement appears to be the definition of the book Freakonomics, the contents and claims of this book analyze topics that are considered controversial. One of these controversies, the role of parents: as explored in chapters five and six, grasps the attention of the readers because of the idea that parents can be the determining factor for how their child turns out in the future. Whether the parents are supportive or not, either case could lead the child down the wrong path in life.
The reason this topic is considered controversial is that most parents obsess about making sure their kid(s) grow up successful, yet those same parents assume that whatever choices they make towards their children will positively impact them and that the choices the parents make to benefit themselves will have no effect on their kids. This is a false assumption, or even a fantasy, that most parents will make the mistake of theorizing. The whole idea that what the parent does HAS to be right, is the basic fuel for determining what choices to make as a parent of children. One example from the book is "The child has many books in the home." (Levitt, and Dubner, 175) referring to what factors are correlated to test scores, this is actually a decision to make as a parent: 'Do I want my child surrounded by forms of knowledge? Or do I want him/her to be surrounded by visual pieces of work?' As claimed in chapter five, Levitt and Dubner explored this correlation to understand the link between test scores and this claim.
The most likely reason that Levitt and Dubner decided to cover this topic is that of how absurd it would sound to most and also how oblivious people are to this trend. As previously mentioned, many people believe that each parent has their own way of parenting and there is no set specific method of raising a child, yet there are certain actions that some parents think would not affect their kids but they do like giving them a 'high-class name.' For the sake of forcing others to look beyond the general surface of life and for questioning specific aspects of it, this topic was realized, presented, and analyzed.
I think the intentions both authors have in this book are amazing, to make an attempt to see the world differently is beyond powerful. I think that such controversial topics in this book propose a dramatic realization to the audience of how we accept the world as opposed to how we see it and feel about it.
Nick I agree with the fact that most parents obsess over the want to have their children grow up successful but what about the parents who don't care? Could it be said that parents who push these situations onto their children to see them flourish are on equal ground with parents who neglect any life experience.
ReplyDeleteThe intimidating factor in this whole scenario of the "wrong path in life" is that parents have little control of the emotion of the child just the opportunities in life. The world has seen children from the dark alleys of society rise to the top and promising children of actors plummet straight to the bottom. Parents, as you make clear, have no specific method that will guarantee a happy-society-ready child.
Nick and Amanda, this is such a complex and controversial subject. I think every parent has the responsibility to provide the tools and opportunities (and of course the love)to their offspring to give them the chance to be a happy-society-ready child. What that child does with those tools and opportunities is anybody's guess. I don't think that parents need to follow any specific method but I do think they need to accept a certain level of responsibility. I think a child's environment can increase or decrease his chances for success but I certainly don't think it dictates it. Then there is the nature vs. nurture argument that complicates things even further.
Delete