Freakonomics has raised questions concerning parenting role in predicting the future of the child. It would be a question of challenge for the parenting counselors and researchers who have managed to understand the concept of parenting and its concern with the fact that parenting is directly proportional to the child’s intelligent future.
The gene of parents has been considered by the authors of Freakonomics as the basis of best prediction of children future. But it shall also be noted that the child’s future can be made better if parents appoint the right technique.
Freakonomics is a book that talks about life long processes that cannot at all be considered as quantifiable. The book is irrelevant and humorous for people who are being targeted by the author.
The claim that has been extracted for the focus states that parenting cannot alone predict the future of a child and that the genes of parents can best predict the future. Economists Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner suggests that parenting have become the most widely talked about issue in the world today but in no way parenting can be able to guarantee a smart and intelligent future of a child.
The economists have claimed that the genes of parents can help in predicting the future of children. The authors have rejected the idea that parenting alone can do wonders in predicting intelligent future of children by noting some of the examples in the course of the chapter of their book (DiNardo, Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling).
It is evident from the tone of the writers in the book that they are not able to stress on their own pointer. Claiming that parents cannot yield better future of the children just through actions is a very biased view. The biased claim by the author has been backed up by another statement that children can grow intelligent if their parents are intelligent. The authors have provided several examples from the context of parenting process.
The authors illustrated an example comparing aguish to a child from a swimming pool and gun. The authors claimed that parents will surely stop their child to go out with the fear that they might experience danger of guns. But they will never stop their children to go for spending time at friend’s house with a swimming pool in the backyard (DiNardo).
The authors have thus claimed that parents themselves face a lot of turmoil due to which they can not nurture their kids to the extent where they could become intelligent in future. The claim of the author may sound correct at one point as parents cannot be able to save their children from each and every situation that could be threatening in terms of death or grave injury. But what makes the claim of authors deniable is its description.
The authors believe that parents who are intelligent will be able to nurture children in a way that they can actually become intelligent in the future. Furthermore, the authors have claimed that the parent’s genes are actually responsible for the future of the children. Thus, the authors claim that it could be well stated that the future of children can be predicted as intelligent and smart with the help of evaluating the genes of the parents (Rubinstein).
If the claim of the author concerning the nurturing of intelligent parents yielding better future of child is accepted then there would be a list of conflicting situations making its acceptance impossible. For instance, it has been noted that parents who were divorced led to the situations where children discovered their abilities faster than children who were living with parents who had a balanced relationship (Levitt and Dubner).
The authors have also made use of another example claiming that the intelligent parents would make a collection of creative story books at home so that the children can develop reading skills. By setting up a book shelf at home, parents can help children in reaching to book so that they can also read them.
But the authors have claimed that parents can not be given credit for developing reading skills in children if they are reading stories to children. The claim can be contradicted with the idea that parents need to help children understand the moral of the stories. By actually reading stories to the children, parents can actually persuade children to read themselves the story as well (DiNardo).
The idea of gene predicting the future of any child is true but it shall also be noted that future can be changed or can be made better with the act in present. The following manner can also be well understood in terms of parenting. Gene may be predicting how biologically active a child could be but in practical implication, it is parenting that helps the children to understand the right way to utilize their energy (Levitt and Dubner).
The authors’ position regarding parenting as a matter of gene is right and acceptable but cannot be considered as the only basis to predict the future of children. Parents are responsible for teaching children about right and wrong by showing examples from daily life (DeMaria).
If parents restrict their children from going out because of guns then they can also stop them from going to places where swimming pool is within reach. But as a matter of fact, parents can help children learn swimming and tell them how to go about if they are drowning. Parents can obviously not teach children to retaliate in a situation where children are more likely to face the threat of gun. Though authors have tried to show different dimensions from the course of the book but it cannot be considered as relevant (Rubinstein).
It shall be noted that not all life long processes can be considered as quantifiable such as parenting. Parenting cannot at all be measured or experimented in a laboratory. It is not at all a science to study but it is rather different depending upon the family structure.
From the above reasoning, it has been evaluated and shown that gene of parents can help in predicting the future of the children but to make future of children better, it is equally important for the parents to act in a way that they can help children in understanding the difference between right and wrong. The claims as proposed by the authors can not be considered completely true but party with concern to gene relationship with the future of children. Gene of parents matters in child nurturing as much as parents do to help children.
Works Cited
DeMaria, A. “Medicine and Freakonomics.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 49.24 (2007): 2371.
DiNardo, J. “Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling.” American Law and Economics Review 8.3 (2006): 615–626.
—. “Interesting Questions in Freakonomics.” Journal of Economic Literature 45.4 (2007): 973–1000.
Levitt, S and S. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.
Rubinstein, A. “Freak-Freakonomics.” The Economists 3.9 (2006).