Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think
- Downloads：2963
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-04-23 09:53:54
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Bryan Caplan
- ISBN：0465028616
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
We've needlessly turned parenting into an unpleasant chore。 Parents invest more time and money in their kids than ever， but the shocking lesson of twin and adoption research is that upbringing is much less important than genetics in the long run。 These revelations have surprising implications for how we parent and how we spend time with our kids。 The big lesson: Mold your kids less and enjoy your life more。 Your kids will still turn out fine。
Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids is a book of practical big ideas。 How can parents be happier？ What can they change -- and what do they need to just accept？ Which of their worries can parents safely forget？ Above all， what is the right number of kids for you to have？ You'll never see kids or parenthood the same way again。
Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids is a book of practical big ideas。 How can parents be happier？ What can they change -- and what do they need to just accept？ Which of their worries can parents safely forget？ Above all， what is the right number of kids for you to have？ You'll never see kids or parenthood the same way again。
Reviews
Alex Yauk
，
Nice short read。 Caplan does a great job summarizing the relevant research so we don’t have to。 What does he find？1。 Parents today overwork and over stress themselves raising children。 The behavioral genetics literature proves this out and shows that the long-term impact of parenting （nurture） is much lower than genetics （nature）。 This should free parents from stress and focus on the fun parts of raising kids。 2。 We should be thinking longer term when we consider how many children we want to hav Nice short read。 Caplan does a great job summarizing the relevant research so we don’t have to。 What does he find？1。 Parents today overwork and over stress themselves raising children。 The behavioral genetics literature proves this out and shows that the long-term impact of parenting （nurture） is much lower than genetics （nature）。 This should free parents from stress and focus on the fun parts of raising kids。 2。 We should be thinking longer term when we consider how many children we want to have。 It is common to consider how difficult the next couple years would be with another baby， but instead we should focus on how many children we would want when we are 60。 We think long term about many things （ie retirement）， why not use this same thinking about children？3。 More children are good for the planet！ It is easy to find perspectives that argue that adding another person to the world is a net negative for the planet。 Caplan digs into economic literature to show that adding population is a good thing。 。。。more
Arturo Herrero
，
Muy flojito Caplan。 Me gustó El Mito del Votante Racional pero este libro parece una serie de notas a vuela pluma y armadas en capítulos。Algunas razones para tener más hijos: los padres se preocupan más de lo que deberían， los hijos aportan muchos beneficios al final de nuestras vidas， más gente -> más creatividad -> mayor probabilidad de genios， pagar pensiones （con pirámides demográficas inversas）， no es peor para el planeta （este punto es interesante pero no lo desarrolla）。El libro no profund Muy flojito Caplan。 Me gustó El Mito del Votante Racional pero este libro parece una serie de notas a vuela pluma y armadas en capítulos。Algunas razones para tener más hijos: los padres se preocupan más de lo que deberían， los hijos aportan muchos beneficios al final de nuestras vidas， más gente -> más creatividad -> mayor probabilidad de genios， pagar pensiones （con pirámides demográficas inversas）， no es peor para el planeta （este punto es interesante pero no lo desarrolla）。El libro no profundiza ningún apartado: comenta algunos estudios sobre felicidad o la poca influencia que tienen los padres en el desarrollo de los hijos （cita algún estudio de sociología pero， ¡ojo！ con la crisis de replicación）， las mejoras tecnológicas para concebir， la mayor seguridad de los sociedades， etc。En definitiva， a mí， que quiero tener hijos， no me ha convencido。 。。。more
Merve
，
The main target of this book is to persuade people who have even a mild approach to being a parent to have more kids than they already planned。 I am not sure that I am convinced to do so given the facts of the current situations of the world and my financial capacity。 Bryan Caplan gives us lots of research on twin adoption studies， which puts light on the path of raising our kids better。 To sum up， he proposes being a more relaxed parent， because the twin adoption studies show no significant dif The main target of this book is to persuade people who have even a mild approach to being a parent to have more kids than they already planned。 I am not sure that I am convinced to do so given the facts of the current situations of the world and my financial capacity。 Bryan Caplan gives us lots of research on twin adoption studies， which puts light on the path of raising our kids better。 To sum up， he proposes being a more relaxed parent， because the twin adoption studies show no significant difference in regards to intelligence， success， health， overall happiness， etc。 between identical twins who are raised by different parents in the long term。 There were some other themes that he discussed and contradict my core ideas。 However， I love to come across challenging opinions， so it was an enjoyable read for me。 。。。more
Amir Salar Pourhasan
，
awful book and full of biases to convince people having more children anyway。 Writer really wrote this book by and order of government I guess。 Awful statistics and reasoning。 Be carefulI've read it's Blikist summarized version。 awful book and full of biases to convince people having more children anyway。 Writer really wrote this book by and order of government I guess。 Awful statistics and reasoning。 Be carefulI've read it's Blikist summarized version。 。。。more
Jack
，
Lacking female perspective but very interesting and very well argued。 I really like Caplan and think he writes and organizes his thoughts in an engaging way。
Manuel Cabrera
，
The title of this book should be "Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think" and have "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids" as the subtitle instead of the other way around。This book enters the classic arena of "nature v nurture"， but this time nature definitely has the upper hand。 Bryan makes sure to essentially study every relevant twin and adoption studies and reports， reaching the final conclusion that yes， the impact of nurture （in the long term， in similar households a The title of this book should be "Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think" and have "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids" as the subtitle instead of the other way around。This book enters the classic arena of "nature v nurture"， but this time nature definitely has the upper hand。 Bryan makes sure to essentially study every relevant twin and adoption studies and reports， reaching the final conclusion that yes， the impact of nurture （in the long term， in similar households and 1st world countries） is quite minimum。He makes it very clear that this is a very specific study， hes comparing nurture in the long term， in similar households and 1st world countries。 There is quote a really liked "Your chance of transforming your child's adult health， intelligence， happiness， success， character or values is slim。 Your chance of hitting how your child feels about you - his appreciation - is very real"However， I must say that I was quite disappointed on the argument on having more kids。 He compares the prices of items from 1950's against the present for things you need when raising a kid。 However， he does not talk about house prices or salaries at the time v the present。 Heck， he even said that hiring a nanny is highly recommended， that's something that most people can't afford。I was about the rate this book 4/5 but the whole "Selfish reason to have kids" argument and that weird chapter about cloning and IVF lowers it to 3/5。 I liked it。 。。。more
Chris
，
An economist writes a book where he highlights why it is in the "enlightened self-interest" of the individual to have more kids！The tone of it reads a bit tongue-in-cheek， and the style wore me out significantly by the end of the book， and even though it probably would work better as a series of blog posts than an entire book， overall I liked the unique perspective on family planning。Some "usual suspect" arguments are present （"Don't think about how many kids you want now; think about how many k An economist writes a book where he highlights why it is in the "enlightened self-interest" of the individual to have more kids！The tone of it reads a bit tongue-in-cheek， and the style wore me out significantly by the end of the book， and even though it probably would work better as a series of blog posts than an entire book， overall I liked the unique perspective on family planning。Some "usual suspect" arguments are present （"Don't think about how many kids you want now; think about how many kids you want when you're 60！ How many grandchildren you want！"）However， the crux of the book centers around the Nature vs。 Nurture question。 The data in this area looks at extensive research into twins who were separated at birth in order to measure the impact of parents。 （Apparently， certain European countries keep close adoption records， and so the research is more easily done there than in North America）。Shockingly， the impact of the parents in these studies is much lower than you'd expect。 Twins separated at birth tend to have similar academic success， salaries as adults， religious affiliation， health， criminal behavior， etc。 In general， parenting has some impact， but the studies argue that parents tend to over-estimate the impact of their parenting on the long-term happiness of their children （maybe that's what we need to tell ourselves to survive the requisite night-feedings， etc。）Overall， the premise is relax a little bit， don't sweat the small stuff， enjoy parenting， and not to worry because the early years are the hardest but well worth it。Would I recommend this book？ No， just skim it or ask me about it。 The prose was a slog at times。 。。。more
Anastázie Sedláková
，
I ended up not finishing this book。 Although I like idea on being more relaxed parenting， I did not like author's argumentation。 One of the review perfectly describes this book as "inconsistent and unpersuasive"。 I ended up not finishing this book。 Although I like idea on being more relaxed parenting， I did not like author's argumentation。 One of the review perfectly describes this book as "inconsistent and unpersuasive"。 。。。more
Betsy
，
3。5 I usually read books focused on the individual， so it was fun to do a “big picture，” economics focused read。 A few takeaways - much of how your kids turn out long-term is nature， not nurture。 If you’re a middle class American， you’re probably over parenting your kids， and could lighten up a bit。 And， think of how many children you’ll be glad you had when you’re sixty， not just today。 Plenty to quibble with in the book， but I enjoyed the tone， and thinking about such a personal decision from 3。5 I usually read books focused on the individual， so it was fun to do a “big picture，” economics focused read。 A few takeaways - much of how your kids turn out long-term is nature， not nurture。 If you’re a middle class American， you’re probably over parenting your kids， and could lighten up a bit。 And， think of how many children you’ll be glad you had when you’re sixty， not just today。 Plenty to quibble with in the book， but I enjoyed the tone， and thinking about such a personal decision from a economic view。 。。。more
Fujia Chen
，
2021年最后一天，读完了Selfish reasons to have more kids。此书的宗旨是劝说发达地区中产阶级家庭多生娃，实在需要引进中国以弘扬三胎政策。作者是一位经济学教授，以其对双胞胎养育及收养家庭的数据分析研究而闻名于业界。作者的逻辑严密清晰，文笔也很好，读起来很是享受。作者弘扬多生娃的论据也来自于其双胞胎家庭研究。同卵双胞胎在大部分情况下享有极其类似的基因，也在同一个家庭成长；但也有骨肉同胞被拆散，在不同的收养家庭长大的情况。这给予研究者以分析基因、养育及社会环境对孩子成长与未来的影响。作者用这些双胞胎研究来验证父母养育在孩子智力、成就、健康、性格、价值观、与父母的关系方面的作用。结论是：在收养家庭长大的双胞胎孩子在成年后与亲生父母的相似处要大得多，收养家庭基本上没有什么影响。父母养育最大的效果是孩子与父母的关系与童年回忆，其他基本没啥用，要么基因决定了绝大部分，要么社会环境影响更大。也就是说：孩子未来是否聪明健康成功，父母的养育方式在长期来看效果微乎其微。这也正是行为基因学的理论。当然这个结论基于一个巨大的前提：家庭需要来自发达地区，属于正常中产，没有对孩子进 2021年最后一天，读完了Selfish reasons to have more kids。此书的宗旨是劝说发达地区中产阶级家庭多生娃，实在需要引进中国以弘扬三胎政策。作者是一位经济学教授，以其对双胞胎养育及收养家庭的数据分析研究而闻名于业界。作者的逻辑严密清晰，文笔也很好，读起来很是享受。作者弘扬多生娃的论据也来自于其双胞胎家庭研究。同卵双胞胎在大部分情况下享有极其类似的基因，也在同一个家庭成长；但也有骨肉同胞被拆散，在不同的收养家庭长大的情况。这给予研究者以分析基因、养育及社会环境对孩子成长与未来的影响。作者用这些双胞胎研究来验证父母养育在孩子智力、成就、健康、性格、价值观、与父母的关系方面的作用。结论是：在收养家庭长大的双胞胎孩子在成年后与亲生父母的相似处要大得多，收养家庭基本上没有什么影响。父母养育最大的效果是孩子与父母的关系与童年回忆，其他基本没啥用，要么基因决定了绝大部分，要么社会环境影响更大。也就是说：孩子未来是否聪明健康成功，父母的养育方式在长期来看效果微乎其微。这也正是行为基因学的理论。当然这个结论基于一个巨大的前提：家庭需要来自发达地区，属于正常中产，没有对孩子进行侮辱虐待行为，也没有食不果腹的状态。如果一个美国中产家庭收养了一个来自非洲贫困世界的孩子，那收养家庭对孩子塑造的影响则十分巨大。当然对于我们普通读者，我们既不打算送自家亲生孩子去阿富汗做童子兵，也不至于心理扭曲虐待孩子。那么这个结论对于我们的最大意义是：鸡娃不如选好伴侣。当伴侣已经确定之后，只要家庭不愁温饱，孩子的未来也基本确定，学区房啊课外班啊，基本上并没有啥长期效果。作者由此引申出他的建议：既然鸡娃没啥用，那不如多生娃。他的论据来自于对美国家庭幸福感的调查：平均来看一个家庭每多生一个孩子，幸福感就会降低1%；但如果掰开看细节，第一个娃会降低5。6%的幸福感，而之后每一个娃只降低0。6%的幸福感。多娃的边际成本其实并不高。而当采访美国家庭对于孩子数目的期望值时，30岁父母只想要一个孩子，40岁父母想要两个，50岁父母想要3个，而60岁父母则希望有5个。当年轻父母在工作与育儿间疲于奔命时，很多人也自然并不想要更多孩子。但当孩子离家空巢后，大部分人则想要更多孩子（你能理解你爸妈催生了吗？）。数据调查也显示：50岁以上的无娃成人会后悔而希望自己年轻时生了娃，而50岁以上的父母几乎没有后悔生娃的（当然我们又要回到我们的发达地区中产家庭的大前提）。作者认为：当经济学家判断一个产品是否好用时，他们不会在消费者拆箱时就听取顾客评论。他们会等顾客享用过产品一段时间之后，再来听取他们的评价，并看他们是否会再继续购买，或者推荐其他人购买。孩子也是一样的。看看你催生的爸妈（他们是否在后悔），再看看你周围的大龄父母们，再想想你五六十岁时想要多少个孩子，和目前的期望值取个平均数再做判断吧！作者反复强调：他并非想要催生，不是每个人都喜欢孩子，也不是每个人都适合家庭生活。但如果你喜欢孩子，却止步于鸡娃的价格而选择少生娃，你就是作者的劝说对象：放轻松，鸡不鸡娃并没有什么大关系，不要因为害怕鸡娃而放弃更多拥有孩子的梦想。过了最初几年的辛苦育儿生活，孩子会给你很多幸福回馈的！如果你并不想要更多孩子，这书给你我的启发是：鸡娃也没啥用，还是多花时间最大化你自己和家人的幸福感吧！让孩子看看电视，少上几个课外班，全家多出去玩，自己多花时间在兴趣爱好上，孩子大概率可以一样健康成长！ 。。。more
Lenny Isf
，
Good summary of twin and adoption research
Jon
，
"Great book， important subject and directionally correct。 Argues that empirical research suggests most parental interventions （nurture） have little or no long-lasted effect， whereas pre-birth factors （nature） determine most long-term outcomes。 Some important caveats， that nurture determines how much your kids like you， and political and religious affiliation （although not intensity of political and religious affiliation）。 Conclusion is that parents over-invest in costly and unpleasant parenting， "Great book， important subject and directionally correct。 Argues that empirical research suggests most parental interventions （nurture） have little or no long-lasted effect， whereas pre-birth factors （nature） determine most long-term outcomes。 Some important caveats， that nurture determines how much your kids like you， and political and religious affiliation （although not intensity of political and religious affiliation）。 Conclusion is that parents over-invest in costly and unpleasant parenting， so they should decrease effort。 Corollary is that as costs lower you should buy more， thus the payoff， be selfish and have more kids。 Great， well-reasoned， and consistent with the empirical literature （which is not always true with BC， see e。g。 his newer book on education as signalling， which is more controversial， especially among some elite economists， like Harvard folks）。 Some qualms。 I do worry that readers will take insufficient notice of one point BC makes—that twin studies only describe correlations on within-population variance， and the population is （generally middle-class or upper-middle class） child adopters。 That is， if there's some behavior that is reasonably common among adoptive parents， you can safely situate yourself at the lazier end of that behavior。 But a behavior is uncommon among adoptive parents， the empirical literature doesn't say anything about whether it'll be OK for you。 In this sense BC's book is a little self-defeating， because he claims that parents widely believe that effort is important， while suggesting that twin studies indicate that these parents are wrong。 But if there's something that almost all parents do that BC believes is overrated—say， limiting screen time—a sample that focuses on existing parents won't be at all informative about whether we should or should not limit screen time， because the subsample of parents who DO limit screen time is too small。 A second problem is that BC only discusses very high-level summary statistics， i。e。 correlations between nature/nurture and outcomes。 But it's possible that the shape of the curve is heterogenous， rather than uniformly zero。 Perhaps both very low and very high effort lead to worse outcomes。 Or perhaps low effort usually doesn't matter， but it matters a lot in some cases。 Some caution is required in reading these results—but again， they seem directionally correct and a forthright treatment of an important subject。" 。。。more
Invisible
，
I went into this book already aware of much of the research and agreeing with the basic premise — that kids of a demographic with a 3-digit IQ aren't much work or expense and a great return on investment for both the individual parent and society， so you should have more of them — and I appreciate the author's effort to spread this intuitive message that many people of childbearing age have been brainwashed out of believing。My only quibble is over the methodology to employ for making child-reari I went into this book already aware of much of the research and agreeing with the basic premise — that kids of a demographic with a 3-digit IQ aren't much work or expense and a great return on investment for both the individual parent and society， so you should have more of them — and I appreciate the author's effort to spread this intuitive message that many people of childbearing age have been brainwashed out of believing。My only quibble is over the methodology to employ for making child-rearing easier。 I'm not sure of Caplan's age， but he advocates for making Boomer-era parenting mistakes that will result in behavioral problems for what would've otherwise been fine children if they'd been left alone。 He views these as acceptable shortcuts， but they will cause more work for the parent in the end。 Examples are putting kids in school， feeding them fast food， and plopping them in front of the electric tube， where their soy-addled brains can be exposed to social contagions and develop a mental illness that will indoctrinate them into the psychiatry trap。 It's fine because children of Boomers turned out fine， he reasons， against evidence to the contrary， such as that Millennials are so sick that they can't even follow a basic biological urge to reproduce。Rather， he should listen to his own advice to not cheap out and not create more work。 The aforementioned 3-digit IQ children are quite capable of teaching themselves skills and independently having productive hobbies — if given the encouragement and tools。 Rather than a Netflix sub and some McD's， buy the kids what they need to do a real project。 Let them learn to cook their own healthy meals and build their own toys。 Buy them books to learn to code rather than pop culture merch。 Before you know it， they'll be making their own money doing fulfilling work， rather than logging hours watching someone else have fun on YouTube。 They're a lot more capable than the average parent thinks， and this is the main area where parents end up making an unpleasant amount of work for themselves that discourages having more kids。 。。。more
Harry Harman
，
if someone asks “What’s in parenthood for me？” you have to highlight kids’ cool features: They’re ridiculously cute; they’re playful; they look like you; they share half your genes; it’s a l part of the circle of life。 If kids’ cool features have absolutely no appeal to you， then you probably don’t have any selfish reasons to have more kids—or any kids at all。Trading favors works well， especialy for younger children。 “If you eat your dinner without complaining， you get dessert，” “You can watch T if someone asks “What’s in parenthood for me？” you have to highlight kids’ cool features: They’re ridiculously cute; they’re playful; they look like you; they share half your genes; it’s a l part of the circle of life。 If kids’ cool features have absolutely no appeal to you， then you probably don’t have any selfish reasons to have more kids—or any kids at all。Trading favors works well， especialy for younger children。 “If you eat your dinner without complaining， you get dessert，” “You can watch TV after you clean up your toys，” and “I’ l give you a ride to the mal if you put the dishes away” are al good options。In the Newsday survey， only 4 percent of the richest parents regretted having children— compared to 13 percent of the poorest。KIDS BORN TODAY REQUIRE FOOD AND SHELTER， JUST AS THEY DID a hundred thousand years ago。 Meeting these basic needs is far easier than it once was—we buy at the store rather than hunt in the wild。children are far more resilient than we realise。 。。。more
Ronald Edwards
，
This book is good at taking some burden off of parents and giving a nice perceptual frame for how to consider the value and costs of having more kids over time。 There are two flaws: 1。 He doesn’t wile about what’s great about kids on any real personal level。 He sticks with what seems to be measurable。 That is likely due to his being an economist and wanting to lean on research and statistics but it’s an unfortunate oversight。 2。 He leans too heavily on the validity of generic behaviorism statist This book is good at taking some burden off of parents and giving a nice perceptual frame for how to consider the value and costs of having more kids over time。 There are two flaws: 1。 He doesn’t wile about what’s great about kids on any real personal level。 He sticks with what seems to be measurable。 That is likely due to his being an economist and wanting to lean on research and statistics but it’s an unfortunate oversight。 2。 He leans too heavily on the validity of generic behaviorism statistics。 It seemed like even those studies indicate that parenting has a 5% impact on all the things he said parenting had little impact。 That is not nothing。 Also， there are too many potential factors that can explain those results beyond the given explanation。 I’m really glad I read it but it did have some flaws。 The title may do it the most harm。 I didn’t walk away feeling like I had a good list of reasons to have kids and at moments it made me ponder the value of eugenics。 :P 。。。more
Amy
，
Great information and food for thought。 I totally agree that we make too big a deal about things for kids and over parent （coddle）， do too many activities， end don’t discipline our kids enough。 However this book fails to address how to have 3， 4， 5 or more kids and it be affordable for the wife to still work。 Right now daycare is nearly $30k a year for 2。 As a female business owner who would love to have more than 2 kids， I was hoping that this book would address how that’s possible but it reall Great information and food for thought。 I totally agree that we make too big a deal about things for kids and over parent （coddle）， do too many activities， end don’t discipline our kids enough。 However this book fails to address how to have 3， 4， 5 or more kids and it be affordable for the wife to still work。 Right now daycare is nearly $30k a year for 2。 As a female business owner who would love to have more than 2 kids， I was hoping that this book would address how that’s possible but it really focuses more on the wife staying home。 That’s cool for some but not something I care to do。 。。。more
Albert
，
even though the mock dialogues in the chapter 9 are pretty cringworthy and the discussion about ethics of genetic engeneering and other similar topics felt unnecessary， the rest of the book provides great overview of the behvioral genetics as it relates to parenting。 the main idea is simple: with the exception of severe poverty or abusive behavior， there are almost no meaningful longterm effects of parenting， so give yourself some slack。
Amir
，
not written so well but i still think super compelling
Mike Cheng
，
Author and economist Bryan Caplan strikes again with some ideas that many might find outlandish （see， e。g。，The Myth of the Rational Voter （inherent flaws in democracy）， Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration （open borders and unfettered immigration）， and The Case Against Education （less time and money should be spent （including divestment from government involvement） on education）。 From a variety of adoption and twin studies Professor Caplan extrapolates one of the main premises of Author and economist Bryan Caplan strikes again with some ideas that many might find outlandish （see， e。g。，The Myth of the Rational Voter （inherent flaws in democracy）， Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration （open borders and unfettered immigration）， and The Case Against Education （less time and money should be spent （including divestment from government involvement） on education）。 From a variety of adoption and twin studies Professor Caplan extrapolates one of the main premises of this book - namely that parents’ efforts in raising their children matter less than we think。 （In other words， parents overvalue the impact of their efforts and undervalue the impact of things beyond their control such as genetics and the child’s environment sans the parents。） Based on this premise Professor Caplan contends that raising kids does not require as much time， energy， and effort as parents think or like to wear as a badge of honor， and thus many， though not all， of us should consider having more kids than we originally intended after disabusing ourselves of the misconception that the pain of having more kids outweighs the gain。 To be clear， Professor Caplan isn’t arguing that the environment plays an inconsequential role， but rather that parents constitute a relatively small portion of the child’s overall environment。 Moreover， this is not to say that parents should not treat their children with love， kindness， and respect - all of which will certainly affect and impact those individuals， even if more or less of such might not have a substantial effect on who they turn out to be。 Though I might somewhat disagree （or be inclined to disagree because of cognitive dissonance） about the amount of impact parents have on instilling values and culture， I certainly don’t want to strawman Professor Caplan by arguing against the notion that parental involvement matters。 I think what he is perhaps saying is that a minimum effective dose （coined by Tim Ferriss） will suffice and that parents do need to go overboard in sacrificing their own wellbeing， or worse yet be disinclined to have more kids。 Lastly， one interesting piece of advices from this book - choose a spouse that resembles the kids you want to have （implication: caveat emptor when choosing to be with the “bad boy” or “bad girl”）。 。。。more
Sonia Albrecht
，
Made an impressive argument with thorough， high quality statistics。 It was persuasive enough that I decided I’d rather shell out for surrogacy then adopt， and that having a child is much more feasible because I don’t have to spend as much time on childcare as people think。 The reason I didn’t give it five stars: -He spent a few pages being very offensive to people like me whose life was greatly damaged by being born into a bad situation。-He did not address the counter-argument that countries wit Made an impressive argument with thorough， high quality statistics。 It was persuasive enough that I decided I’d rather shell out for surrogacy then adopt， and that having a child is much more feasible because I don’t have to spend as much time on childcare as people think。 The reason I didn’t give it five stars: -He spent a few pages being very offensive to people like me whose life was greatly damaged by being born into a bad situation。-He did not address the counter-argument that countries with aging populations could solve their problems with more immigration。-It was written a decade ago and some information seemed like it may have been out of date。 。。。more
Ethan
，
Caplan's primary selling point on why one should have children， especially more children， is that they're easier to raise than most people anticipate or society portrays。 To support this， he cites twin and adoption studies， which allow the nature vs。 nurture argument to be quantified。 Six typical wishes of parents are examined: health， intelligence， happiness， success， character， and values。 （I can't think of any other wishes I would make for my child to have。） According to the cited studies， al Caplan's primary selling point on why one should have children， especially more children， is that they're easier to raise than most people anticipate or society portrays。 To support this， he cites twin and adoption studies， which allow the nature vs。 nurture argument to be quantified。 Six typical wishes of parents are examined: health， intelligence， happiness， success， character， and values。 （I can't think of any other wishes I would make for my child to have。） According to the cited studies， all come back pointing towards genetics as the driving factor， taking some responsibility off of the parent（s） for the success （in all aspects） of their child。 And while some parental efforts may make long-term impacts， most regress to their "personal mean" （quotations mine）。 Caplan's message to parents essentially boils down to "relax， they'll turn out fine or not， and it probably won't be your fault"。Caplan moves onto looking at what he calls "fade-out"， or the regression or progression to what was originally to be， despite the parents' efforts。 Fade-out appears in regards to intelligence， income， crime， and religion。 For example， "During childhood， the nurture effect is big。 If you're more religious than 80 percent of kids， we should expect your adopted sibling to be more religious than 68 percent。 Yet by the time you're thirty-three years old， two-thirds of this effect fades out。" He then provides three suggestions for making the best of nature vs。 nurture （where nature has a larger impact）: "lighten up"， "choose a spouse who resembles the kids you want to have"， "if you want to drastically improve a childs life， adopt from the third world"， "raise your children with kindness and respect"， "share your creed， but don't expect miracles"， "don't write off your teens"， and "have more kids"。More topics， including child safety， heuristics for determining number of kids， why more kids are better for the world， being a grandparent， birth-related technology are discussed。 Finally， Caplan discusses his arguments with fictional characters to bring a more balanced view to the book。He has >50% convinced me that it is easier to raise children than society portrays。 Not making them do things they don't want to （to an extent）， giving them more independence， and trying less （wow， that sounds bad！） will make my job easier as a parent and their lives more enjoyable/fruitful。 Next up on the parenting reading list is Harris' The Nurture Assumption。The book is well-formatted and well-written。 All claims are clearly cited in the Notes section by respective text， e。g。， "Children under five years old are almost five times as safe， [full citation]"。 。。。more
Michael Torbert
，
The title isn't a good one and doesn't accurately prepare you for what to expect。 I'd already heard the author discuss the topics in the book （twin and adoption studies） so I knew what it was about。 That said， this is a great dive into twin and adoption studies by economist Bryan Caplan。 The results will most likely challenge your assumptions about parenting。 The title isn't a good one and doesn't accurately prepare you for what to expect。 I'd already heard the author discuss the topics in the book （twin and adoption studies） so I knew what it was about。 That said， this is a great dive into twin and adoption studies by economist Bryan Caplan。 The results will most likely challenge your assumptions about parenting。 。。。more
0vai5
，
The contents of the book turned out quite different from what one can typically imagine from its title。In the first half of the book， author presents a lot of results based on research on twin and adoption studies！ The second half is more like the authors take/conclusions from these studies and thus presenting his argument for having more kids。 From the studies presented， it's not hard to infer the winner in nature vs nurture while raising the children。 Author makes a convincing argument that it The contents of the book turned out quite different from what one can typically imagine from its title。In the first half of the book， author presents a lot of results based on research on twin and adoption studies！ The second half is more like the authors take/conclusions from these studies and thus presenting his argument for having more kids。 From the studies presented， it's not hard to infer the winner in nature vs nurture while raising the children。 Author makes a convincing argument that it is actually good for parents that they dont have much in their control and or otherwise it would be too much responsibility on the parents！ Indeed！I think author could have explored the other direction。 Parents who have not won genes lottery may perhaps find this conclusion unsettling。 Author's argument perhaps would be to adopt for the required trait but he seemed to have ignored the natural attachment that comes built in with your own babies。 Isn't it the part of the excitement to see your kids inheriting your traits and learning from your mistakes， your failures and thus making different choices in their lifes？ Also， it is kind of depressing for the people in general， that a major part of how they will do in their life dependss on how good are the traits they inherited from their parents and there is little they can do about it！ 。。。more
Elizabeth
，
Why would you listen to parenting advice from a man？The author clearly has a very weak understanding of the actual work required to raise children。 It’s based completely on delusions he maintains via outsourcing the parenting of his children onto women around him。His argument is basically “it was easy for me （because of all of the unseen labour being done by women picking up my slack” and also “poor people were just born poor and your genetics are destiny so why bother trying to better yourselve Why would you listen to parenting advice from a man？The author clearly has a very weak understanding of the actual work required to raise children。 It’s based completely on delusions he maintains via outsourcing the parenting of his children onto women around him。His argument is basically “it was easy for me （because of all of the unseen labour being done by women picking up my slack” and also “poor people were just born poor and your genetics are destiny so why bother trying to better yourselves。”Where there is “case studies” and data， it is shoddily thrown into a narrative that the author seems to believe is the same as an argument。 For the most part， though， the author barely engages with any scholarship about the real costs of parenting。 Most of that scholarship falls under the label of “feminism” and “gender studies，” though， so of course he writes from a place of ignorance。The writing style is disengaged and sloppy， the editing is weak。 This book seems like a cash grab by the author， and has no useful information in it。 I’m glad I pirated it， and glad to have deleted it。 。。。more
Dorothy Clark
，
We have four kids who turned out exceptionally well in spite of our less-than-stellar parenting。 This book explains why。 Citing numerous large studies of twins， Caplan claims nurture is only a temporary contribution to your kids' future。 Nature--the genes you gave your kids--trump nurture， and making the job more pleasant for yourself does not harm your kids。 We have four kids who turned out exceptionally well in spite of our less-than-stellar parenting。 This book explains why。 Citing numerous large studies of twins， Caplan claims nurture is only a temporary contribution to your kids' future。 Nature--the genes you gave your kids--trump nurture， and making the job more pleasant for yourself does not harm your kids。 。。。more
Audrey Barnett
，
I agree with the overall premise， children do not have to be as expensive and time consuming as we think。 We don't have to participate in the arms race of activities and extra/higher quality education because the twin and adoption science demonstrates parents' actions have no effect or a very minor effect on intelligence， success， and health。 However， many of his arguments on "things are cheaper" and how more children will have a positive impact on the environment are tone deaf or inaccurate in I agree with the overall premise， children do not have to be as expensive and time consuming as we think。 We don't have to participate in the arms race of activities and extra/higher quality education because the twin and adoption science demonstrates parents' actions have no effect or a very minor effect on intelligence， success， and health。 However， many of his arguments on "things are cheaper" and how more children will have a positive impact on the environment are tone deaf or inaccurate in 2020 related to racial and economic disparity and the impact of the financial crash and the burden of student loans on those in their 20s-30s。 I had to read some of the statements he made over and over because he seemed to contradict himself。 Also some of the statements he made on what the research said needed more background explanation， more "why" to back up his claims。 Worth taking a read but glad I checked this out from the library。 For specific strategies on how to be a low- intervention parent， I recommend Bringing Up Bebe by Pamela Druckermann 。。。more
Andy Stein
，
A convincing argument for having more kidsThe book’s main idea is that middle and upper class parents in First World countries have very little control over how their kids will turn out。 That’s great news because most kids turn out ok and if nothing I do will affect long term outcomes， then for the most part， I should do things within reason to maximize short-run happiness。 Don’t force kids to do activities they don’t want。 And mistakes are ok！ It’s cool to see how lack of control can be so libe A convincing argument for having more kidsThe book’s main idea is that middle and upper class parents in First World countries have very little control over how their kids will turn out。 That’s great news because most kids turn out ok and if nothing I do will affect long term outcomes， then for the most part， I should do things within reason to maximize short-run happiness。 Don’t force kids to do activities they don’t want。 And mistakes are ok！ It’s cool to see how lack of control can be so liberating。 。。。more
Steve Chan
，
Terrible book with an egotistical and anthropocentric agenda。 The gullible readers might follow his advice and breed recklessly and irresponsibly with disastrous consequences。 I'd give zero stars if I could。 Terrible book with an egotistical and anthropocentric agenda。 The gullible readers might follow his advice and breed recklessly and irresponsibly with disastrous consequences。 I'd give zero stars if I could。 。。。more
Katie Harley
，
I read this because I was curious about the premise。 The author’s point is that modern parenting is crazy and people think they have to sacrifice everything to have successful kids。 But based on twin and adoption studies， it’s much more about the genes you gave them than the dance and chess and soccer and debate lessons they got as a kid。 Kids will turn out like their parents because of genetics， not because of extreme parenting。 Thought provoking and definitely different than how most people ta I read this because I was curious about the premise。 The author’s point is that modern parenting is crazy and people think they have to sacrifice everything to have successful kids。 But based on twin and adoption studies， it’s much more about the genes you gave them than the dance and chess and soccer and debate lessons they got as a kid。 Kids will turn out like their parents because of genetics， not because of extreme parenting。 Thought provoking and definitely different than how most people talk about raising kids。 A little too scientific at times but worth the read！ 。。。more
Emily
，