Much larger effect sizes on current QoL, potentially some impact on future QoL
This feels like an instance of a more general rule that far future is more difficult to predict.
For example, “taking my child to the ZOO today”, I can try to estimate the probability they will like the animals, or that they get tired of too much walking. Possible long-term consequences of liking animals more, being more interested in animals, more willing to take other trips to the town. All of this is relatively simple to model.
But choosing extracurriculars… will my child like them? Will they find friends there? Will those friends be a good or bad influence? Will my child want to continue doing the same thing the next year? Will they demonstrate some talent at it, win competitions, possibly gain some scholarship, or get admitted to a better school? No idea.
(And that’s already before we take AI into account, so even “learn to code” does not seem like a reliable advice.)
Many ways in which parents spend effort are totally ineffective at both their intended goals and other plausible goals
I agree. But there is also a frustrating amount of randomness and unpredictability. For example, many things are zero-sum, and even if you have a good estimate of what your child can and cannot do, you also need a good estimate of what other children in the same generation will be able or unable to do, and what their parents will optimize for.
An example: There is a school for gifted kids next to my house. Sounds like a perfect place to put my kids… but many people in the city (population half a million) have the same goal. Previous years, they had one class for gifted kids, and one class for normal kids. This year, the director realized that this policy actually does not make sense, there are enough schools for normal kids everywhere else, so she decided to open two classes for gifted kids instead. My daughter got there, and maybe it is too soon to judge after one week, but she is extremely happy. She already has more friends there than in her previous school. In the admission tests, she was barely above the line—which means that one year ago, or if the director made her decision one year later—she would not be admitted.
My nephew is one year older, he tried to get into the same school one year ago, but was slightly below the line (which was higher back then) in the admission tests. Two kids, approximately the same talent, one gets admitted to the elite school and will spend the next years among her intellectual peers, the other will continue attending a shitty school on the outskirts of the town—all because of a random policy change. (The admission also gave points for participating in math competitions. There again you can lose lots of points simply for being sick on given day. I am talking about 11 years old kids here, so if they miss the competition one year, they cannot compensate by providing a history of victories from the previous years.)
Sounds like “be lucky” is an important part of parenting.
it can also be irrational if: They are acting on mistaken beliefs about effect sizes
Some people even spend lots of money on things their children hate, which seems to me like a good predictor that the children will not benefit from them, because to be good at something, you probably need to think about it, read about it, discuss it with friends offline and online, etc.; while if your parents force you to e.g. take the piano lessons every day, you won’t spend a single second outside the classroom trying to learn more, and you probably won’t touch the piano again after your 18th birthday.
This mistake is easier to avoid: if your children tell you they hate something, just stop. Or maybe make them try it once, but if they keep hating it, stop.
Their parenting effort is preventing them from deciding to have more kids
It is not even sure whether the marginally increased comfort outweighs the benefits of having a sibling. Assuming healthy family relations, a sibling is someone to play with in childhood, a potential safety net when adult, someone likely to have a compatible perspective and values, someone you can probably trust more than a random friend.
This feels like an instance of a more general rule that far future is more difficult to predict.
For example, “taking my child to the ZOO today”, I can try to estimate the probability they will like the animals, or that they get tired of too much walking. Possible long-term consequences of liking animals more, being more interested in animals, more willing to take other trips to the town. All of this is relatively simple to model.
But choosing extracurriculars… will my child like them? Will they find friends there? Will those friends be a good or bad influence? Will my child want to continue doing the same thing the next year? Will they demonstrate some talent at it, win competitions, possibly gain some scholarship, or get admitted to a better school? No idea.
(And that’s already before we take AI into account, so even “learn to code” does not seem like a reliable advice.)
I agree. But there is also a frustrating amount of randomness and unpredictability. For example, many things are zero-sum, and even if you have a good estimate of what your child can and cannot do, you also need a good estimate of what other children in the same generation will be able or unable to do, and what their parents will optimize for.
An example: There is a school for gifted kids next to my house. Sounds like a perfect place to put my kids… but many people in the city (population half a million) have the same goal. Previous years, they had one class for gifted kids, and one class for normal kids. This year, the director realized that this policy actually does not make sense, there are enough schools for normal kids everywhere else, so she decided to open two classes for gifted kids instead. My daughter got there, and maybe it is too soon to judge after one week, but she is extremely happy. She already has more friends there than in her previous school. In the admission tests, she was barely above the line—which means that one year ago, or if the director made her decision one year later—she would not be admitted.
My nephew is one year older, he tried to get into the same school one year ago, but was slightly below the line (which was higher back then) in the admission tests. Two kids, approximately the same talent, one gets admitted to the elite school and will spend the next years among her intellectual peers, the other will continue attending a shitty school on the outskirts of the town—all because of a random policy change. (The admission also gave points for participating in math competitions. There again you can lose lots of points simply for being sick on given day. I am talking about 11 years old kids here, so if they miss the competition one year, they cannot compensate by providing a history of victories from the previous years.)
Sounds like “be lucky” is an important part of parenting.
Some people even spend lots of money on things their children hate, which seems to me like a good predictor that the children will not benefit from them, because to be good at something, you probably need to think about it, read about it, discuss it with friends offline and online, etc.; while if your parents force you to e.g. take the piano lessons every day, you won’t spend a single second outside the classroom trying to learn more, and you probably won’t touch the piano again after your 18th birthday.
This mistake is easier to avoid: if your children tell you they hate something, just stop. Or maybe make them try it once, but if they keep hating it, stop.
It is not even sure whether the marginally increased comfort outweighs the benefits of having a sibling. Assuming healthy family relations, a sibling is someone to play with in childhood, a potential safety net when adult, someone likely to have a compatible perspective and values, someone you can probably trust more than a random friend.