Raised by selfish winners or unselfish losers? Which is worse?

[X-sanguinate86]

I think in general it is worse to be raised by unselfish losers. Of course selfishness comes in degrees so obviously this isn't a law of science but I think people can get over being raised by selfish winners (especially if it also means they have winner genes) more easily than by unselfish losers. When losers breed and become caregivers and role models they pass on all their defects thereby crippling the newly forming life.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

I assure you, "winner genes" don't exist. I'm a fucking loser despite my dad having worked for multiple big bucks companies in the past. He also abused me. So.

 

[X-sanguinate86]

I guess by winner genes I also mean the kinds of genes that predispose people to being confident and happy, along with the rest such as looks and intellect. I think there are better genes for objectively desirable qualities.

 

[itsgone2]

I assure you, "winner genes" don't exist. I'm a fucking loser despite my dad having worked for multiple big bucks companies in the past. He also abused me. So.

Maybe he's not a winner then. I know lots of successful people that also raised their kids well. Sad we all don't get a chance at that

 

[X-sanguinate86]

I'm thinking of people I've known or known of who had difficult home lives because of factors other than that their parents were emotionally, socially or intellectually inferior. Their parents were successful and these people benefited from that in a way that I don't think can be easily quantified. Obviously children in those situations can still get damaged to the point that it's seriously and irreparable but I think if we put certain extreme forms of abuse aside, they generally fair better than people with untroubled home lives with mediocre or worse parents. Mediocre as in less successful be it financially, educationally, friends-wise. Even good looking jock parents produce overall happier kids if the kids get their physical attributes and plus jocks are usually happy and confident so the kids will know they can expect some success and evaluate themselves as healthy. But if the parents are insecure, emotionally needy, weak in the face of the humans around them, their kids come into the world seeing themselves as subhuman.

I know it's hard to quantify and compare but I think people can get past bad relationships with parents who are strong people but not good relationships with parents who are weak people. We can define a bunch of these terms a bunch of ways but I get the impression that being raised by happy successful people is always going to be slightly better because it's not so much what parents say, it's what they do and I would even say it's not so much what they do, it's who they are. Children will figure out what they're made of regardless of any conscious role modeling let alone even weaker factors such as ritualized actions or things they say. If the children see they are from strong healthy (in a selfish way) parents those children already have a huge advantage over everyone else and it takes extreme abuses to undermine that advantage. Whereas with weak people or people with deficiencies that humble them in the face of the world or that deprive them of full social validity, their children will know they are coming from inferiority and it would take something extreme to overcome that. Even if these inferior people were not abusive as parents their very nature as inferior will mean the children will end up feeling inferior.

I've seen people I grew up around and the ones with loser parents were and stayed losers. The ones with winner parents might have had ups and downs but in the end their journey was overall better and they put themselves together later on as adults.

 

[not-2-b-the-answer]

I think in general it is worse to be raised by unselfish losers. Of course selfishness comes in degrees so obviously this isn't a law of science but I think people can get over being raised by selfish winners (especially if it also means they have winner genes) more easily than by unselfish losers. When losers breed and become caregivers and role models they pass on all their defects thereby crippling the newly forming life.

Definitely worse to be raised unselfish losers. You can't fix stupid but you can get away from your selfish relatives if you are smart.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

Maybe he's not a winner then. I know lots of successful people that also raised their kids well. Sad we all don't get a chance at that

I know plenty of "losers" who raised their kids well. Him being a good person had nothing to do with being a winner/loser.

I guess by winner genes I also mean the kinds of genes that predispose people to being confident and happy, along with the rest such as looks and intellect. I think there are better genes for objectively desirable qualities.

Some of the best people I know have intellectual disabilities, and some of them have genuinely "won" in their own respects. Also, there are many winners with shitty looks. Do you know how many billionaires are ugly as shit?

I think you're trying to find a simple formula to explain why people fail and succeed. There kind... isn't one.

You can be happy and a "loser." I've met those types, the types to pick themselves up when they fail and be okay with small wins. To carve out their place in life and enjoy the pleasures.

You can lack confidence and be a "winner" too. From privilege/money, or from working despite the doubt, or from having a lot of people on your side.

All the things you listed do not make a winner. Some of them aren't even tied (completely) to genes at all

 

[darksouls]

I was raised by selfish losers

 

[X-sanguinate86]

I know plenty of "losers" who raised their kids well. Him being a good person had nothing to do with being a winner/loser.

Some of the best people I know have intellectual disabilities, and some of them have genuinely "won" in their own respects. Also, there are many winners with shitty looks. Do you know how many billionaires are ugly as shit?

I think you're trying to find a simple formula to explain why people fail and succeed. There kind... isn't one.

You can be happy and a "loser." I've met those types, the types to pick themselves up when they fail and be okay with small wins. To carve out their place in life and enjoy the pleasures.

You can lack confidence and be a "winner" too. From privilege/money, or from working despite the doubt, or from having a lot of people on your side.

All the things you listed do not make a winner. Some of them aren't even tied (completely) to genes at all

I guess we'd have to go over how we are defining things but most people will be happier and more successful for the same reasons and from what I can tell those reasons are more concentrated when bred and raised by people who had those same objectively desirable factors. Maybe you'd like to have an intellectual disability and would be happier but most wouldn't. But you can use a different word than winner when you think about my question if that makes things more orderly.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It might be better for the individual. Not so sure it will be so nice for everyone else!

Narcissistic and sociopathic types are often winners. Someone I know of who I suspect to have strong narcissistic traits has a child who, from descriprions I've heard- sounds just the same. Which is unsurprising. They likely both will have been raised to believe they are uniquely gifted and, better than everyone else.

But, seeing as this person created havoc in my life and other's, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if their child grows up to do the same. A bit like- why would you celebrate the creation of a tornado- that's likely to tear through other people's lives and create devastation?

Not saying it's necessarily their 'fault'- although, it's hard not to lay blame if you find yourself on the receiving end. But, it could well still happen.

Whether life will be a breeze for them is also debatable. I'm sure people with those disorders suffer in their own way. Whether their suffering is worse than those they bully and subjugate is harder to tell.

I suppose logically though- it would seem wiser to pick winner parents and genes- if we had the choice.

Also, not to say that all winners are ruthless bullies too. I definitely know nice winners who are more simply extreme optimists. I'm pretty envious of the upbringing and perspectives on the world their children are likely to get. I feel like- with that much love, encouragement and feelings of safety, even if they don't do academically well, I'm sure they'll grow up happy and confident.

 

[glowing.purple.aura]

Except there is no such thing as an unselfish parent. Having children is the most selfish thing one can do.

 

[Quantum_Marten0302]

a human can not not be selfish and being selfish is not a bad thing. caring for your children and sacrificing yourself for them is selfish