Which is more important?
 

My husband and I were having this discussion and I thought I would get your take. Which is more important the country someone is born in or the parents they’re born to?

Flip a coin. Or not.
What’s important is how they are raised. That’s not always in the country in which they were born or the birth parents.
Military kids born around the world, many families have children born in multiple countries. Children are adopted, some from countries other than where they were born. Some are raised by no-count birth parents.
You guys have too much free time ������

I think it's a strange question. If you were born in another country to amazing parents, is parentage the important part? If you were born here to horrible parents, does being born in America matter even a little?

It's like asking "which is more important? Being able to communicate, or not walking around the city naked?"

I think ones upbringing is more important than either, since you don't need parents to raise you, and upbringing can be awesome no matter which country you're born in.

Parents. While the environment will have *some* effect on all children their parents are, by far the greater "influencers" in their lives.

Hmmm
 

I see it as this question is irrelevant if either and or are honest, kind, and friendly people.

Parents. If I were born in South Sudan (the poorest country in the world) to the wealthiest family in the country, I think I would do pretty well!

And if I were born in the USA to a family living in extreme poverty (no education and homeless) I think life would be much more difficult here than in South Sudan.

And if you were born to wonderful parents who were killed before you turned 1, and you were raised by a family of cretins, how important would your parentage be then?

If you were born to LOUSY parents who went to jail before you turned 1, and were raised by the best people in the world, how important would your parentage be then?

Who spawned you is 100% irrelevant to importance when it comes to your existence as a human being. Who RAISED you is 100% pertinent, no matter where the raising occurred.

Concur to the very largest degree. But, it is worth mentioning that a person will have some inherent demeanor and outlook based on family DNA and historical behavioral patterns. If the person was put-up for adoption as a baby then, they may never be able to recognize those things but, they are a part of them.

However, those raising the child and how they do it are what matter most.

Doesn't it depend on what goal your looking for.
1.You could have crappy parents, grow up to be a misogynistic pig and have a good life.
2. In the US you could gave crappy very poor parents, but there are ways to work hard, get an education and have a good life.
3. You could have great loving parents in a 3rd world nation and live a very hard life.

There is a documentary, Three Identical Strangers, about triplets separated at birth and placed into families with different socioeconomic lives. Interesting in how they were alike in some ways before they met.

Vote the parents. Plural. One only has to look at the statistics relating to out-of-wedlock births where the female parent is the only game in town to recognize the importance of two-parent families. Of course there are exceptions (and of course those exceptions will be referenced here), but that doesn't change the facts. Kids do better when raised in a household with TWO parents.

From my personal experience, a single female parent would have been better. The second parent added no value.

Both. If you have great parents who instill great love and values in you, but live in country with no freedoms and your life is controlled by government your life will have very little chance to change from your parents. You will be given your future job and told how to enjoy your free time. If you step out of line you will be arrested. If you follow the rules you will exist,, but may be happy with your family love. If you have lousy parents, but live in country where you decide your opportunities then your hard work and outlook decides your outcome as far as happiness, future love, and success.
I personally think your religious beliefs make just an impact as family or country. This is why you see happiness in the poor of the poorest and unhappiness in the richest. There is big difference in experiencing happiness vs joy. Those people making biggest impacts positive or negative usually have strong belief religious system be it Mother Teresa or Osama bin Laden.

More clickbait

Birth
 

So, what point are you trying to make? Parents. I’ll just say, so that it is done legally, as far as the “country” part goes.

Makes zero difference where you were born, but how you were raised and the person you are matter.

Silly Question
 

This question is similar to the comedy movie "Trading Places".
Where two brothers (Don Ameche & Ralph Bellamy) make a bet on genetic vs. upbring.
I suggest you watch it.

I remember listening to a talk show in Los Angeles where the host said he was walking by the downtown library late (after school hours) the previous day.
Lots of kids playing outside; skateboards, break dancing, smoking.
He decided to walk inside.
The study tables were filled with kids studying. They all looked like Asians.

Their teachers did not influence this, I'm sure.

Both pretty much equal

It does not matter. The person (singular) did not have a choice of either.

Completely wrong. Genetics plays a big role on who you can become. It is called "a predisposition towards..."
For example, a Native American Indian is far more likely to become an alcoholic if they start drinking alcohol no matter who raises them.

It has also been shown that criminal acts have a genetic"predisposition towards " as well.

How someone is raised is vitally important, but genetics plays a huge role as well. Claiming it does not is a recipe for failure.

And you were unable to resist clicking on what you incorrectly claim is click bait.
The rest of us know it is not and we find it an interesting topic to discuss.
Out of curiosity, did you learn to incorrectly call things click bait from your parents or from the location you grew up in?

Not just environment. Opportunity. Great parents in a poopy country cannot raise their genius child with the same opportunity.

I vote for the country you’re born in over parents. Sure, a poopy parent can damage a child, but a strong child can overcome said parent and rise to new heights.

Right, dad? lol!!!

Parents! People make a country good or bad. Not the other way around, so I would say parents.

Well, I would NOT like to have been born in China or North Korea no matter how wonderful my parents might be.

Having free time is the PURPOSE of retirement. You can spend it on hypothetical musings because you have so much time.

"Walking around the city naked"? I believe that Florida has a city for that.

Well, GENETIC inheritance IS important. It is the old question of Nature or Nurture ?

Good one !

Important for what in particular? Neither are important to me.

Much more important if they're decent, law abiding, respectful people.

And all the Native Americans who have enjoyed alcohol and did NOT become alcoholics, demonstrate that stereotypes are wrong. Sort of like - white men are more likely to beat their wives than Asian men. So if your parents are both white, that makes you more likely to become a wife beater. That's just not true. But if you want to promote bigotry by spreading that nonsense, have at it.

Meanwhile - quality of life trumps genetic "predispositions." Your genetics can certainly contribute to the possibility of all sorts of things. But your upbringing can determine whether or not you end up with the consequences of those genetics or not.

A person whose genetics predispose them to becoming obese, raised in a household of people who value a healthy exposure to a variety of foods with an emphasis on healthy eating and exercise, will be less likely to become obese - than someone who is NOT predisposed through genetics, but is raised by people who start them into their childhood on corndogs, candy, and watching TV for entertainment.

Makes not difference it you’re rotten apple not much can be done.:duck:

"Which is more important the country someone is born in or the parents they’re born to?"

The question turns on how you define "important."


It's funny, when I read this post, I immediately concluded it was a question about national citizenship.

We all play the hand we are dealt.
When you die, the only thing you bring with you is who you are.
The most important thing you leave behind is who you were.

I guess you have not spent much time in, say, Gallup, NM or Winslow, AZ where you will see Navajo men passed out in streets anytime, day and night. Alcohol is a huge problem in the area. Lots of drunk drivers, too. It would seem some groups are predisposed to alcoholism while others are not.

"A survey of death certificates from 2006 to 2010 showed that deaths among Native Americans due to alcohol are about four times as common as in the general U.S. population. They are often due to traffic collisions and liver disease, with homicide, suicide, and falls also contributing.[6] Deaths related to alcohol among Native Americans are more common in men and among Northern Plains Indians.[7][8][9] Alaska Natives showed the lowest incidence of alcohol-related death.[10][11] Alcohol misuse amongst Native Americans has been shown to be associated with development of disease, including hearing and vision problems, kidney and bladder problems, head injuries, pneumonia, tuberculosis, dental problems, liver problems, and pancreatitis.[12] In some tribes, the rate of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is as high as 1.5 to 2.5 per 1,000 live births, more than seven times the national average,[13] while among Alaska Natives, the rate of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is 5.6 per 1,000 live births.[14]"

From: Alcohol and Native Americans - Wikipedia

Again - that doesn't mean that all Native Americans fit the hypothesis. There are millions of people with Native American DNA in their blood who drink responsibly and have no addiction at all. A glass of wine with dinner, maybe a shot of bourbon when they go out dancing in the Squares. You can see it right here in The Villages.

In addition, what I observe here the most, with regards to addiction, are white 20-somethings strung out or picking their skin behind Aldi's or in the plaza that has Takis and Firehouse Subs. They're clearly caucasian. And most of the drunks who get arrested at City Fire are a) white, and b) repeat offenders.

Does that mean white people are more predisposed to alcoholism? Nope. But you can create any statistic to satisfy your hypothesis if you really want to. Here's mine, which makes no sense but I made it up:

MOST posters on Talk of the Villages are White. MOST identify with the gender and sex they were assigned at birth. MOST are conservative. MOST identify as some denomination of Christianity, or a non-denominational Christianity. MOST drunk people in the Villages are white.

Therefore, my statistic: White heterosexual cis-gender Christian conservatives who post on Talk of the Villages have an 89.6% genetic predisposition to alcoholism.

I'm sure that's not true. But that's just exactly how easy it is to use a statistic to push or justify a prejudice.

Well, I suppose if one checks for rates of alcoholism, drug addiction and such in an area that is mostly Caucasian, such as TV, or Sweden, most of the alkies and druggies will turn out to be White. The statistics on American Indians I quoted hereinabove compare their rates of alcoholism to that of Americans in general.

I'm thinking it's likely that Native American alcoholism remains high because a great many of them live in their communities/cultures where consuming it in excess is common.

This is the point that is relevant, imo. From OBB, above.
To bolster it (and also sorta support your point), I had a long, interesting conversation with a nationally-renowned psychiatrist at a party many years ago. I asked him about genetic/family behavior predisposition versus upbringing and he replied (paraphrasing), "That the genetic/familial patterns are there and part of a person but, if they are raised in an environment quite different from those (like in adoption situations), those predispositions/patterns can become quite modified because they aren't being reinforced." Makes sense to me.

An example would be a Native American baby that is adopted shortly after birth and grows-up, say, in a white family in Lexington, KY who only drinks alcohol on holidays. So, the kid doesn't grow-up with much exposure to alcohol - I'm thinking that makes he/she less likely to become a booze addict than if the child grew-up surrounded by those who are and where 'the drink' is a big part of everyday life. Same with violence, verbal abusiveness, etc.

Nature vs. Nurture has been debated a long time.

Personally if I wanted a guard dog I would choose a Doberman over a Lab. If I wanted a friendly large dog family pet I would go for the Lab. That being said my daughter has had two easy going Dobermans but they needed her OK before they got friendly with a stranger. Instinct and all that I suppose.

Nature versus nurture - Wikipedia.

There doesn't need to be a debate, in my opinion, because the obvious answer is both.

But, the point that I, OBB and the shrink were making is that nature (genetics) is not automatic destiny. Many things can occur that can alter or stop certain DNA/familial inclinations.