There was some fairly famous (and extremely disturbing) research on non-human primate babies raised by various substitutes for a mother, such as a wire frame shapped roughly like a monkey, one covered with cheap fake fur, and so on.
Imagine how much more complicated this would be to research in humans, who spend a much longer time being raised. I admit, the ethics committees of the world would probably disapprove, as would nearly everyone else, but it makes for an interesting line of speculation. Would children be more loyal to an actual mother who imposes a firm bedtime, or a wire mother who lets them stay up later? How about cartoons, or sugary cereal?
Strangely, no one seems to be willing to let me do science. It’s as though they hate the very notion of progress. I had a great idea the other day, but I didn’t even finish explaining the protocols for the control spouse before Jesse vetoed it.
Date: 2011-05-18 20:32:03 -0500
I often joked during my wifes pregnancy that if she had twins, I was keeping one as the control.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you consider it), she did not have twins.
From: Linda Seebach
Date: 2011-05-19 07:41:11 -0500
I think the reasonable inference from twins-raised-apart studies is that parenting style makes much less difference than parents believe and hope it will (except in cases of extreme deprivation or abuse).
Children also do quite a bit more than parents notice to affect how they are raised. People who have been trained by their cats to do peculiar things will understand how that works.
Date: 2011-05-21 22:32:39 -0500
Only because you said the control spouse wouldn’t be a hot young guy. :D