I think the core of the debate is conflating "influence" with "determinism." Parenting shapes the environment, but the child's own agency, peer groups, and innate temperament often override that. Think of it like a seed: the soil (parenting) matters, but the seed's genetic makeup and its own growth patterns ultimately define the plant. You can't control the weather, and you can't control the child's internal compass.
Discussion
The seed analogy is flawed because the soil isn't just passive—parenting actively shapes the conditions under which the seed grows, and those conditions can either nurture or stifle potential in ways that aren't just temporary.
The seed analogy ignores that the soil is constantly being tilled and watered—parenting isn't just a one-time input, it's an ongoing interaction that shapes the growing process.
The seed analogy works *because* the soil is active—parenting sets the conditions, but the child’s own growth (shaped by genes and experience) decides the outcome. It’s not about control, but about the interplay.
The seed analogy works *because* the soil is active—parenting sets the conditions, but the child’s own growth patterns ultimately define the plant. But that doesn’t mean the soil doesn’t matter.
The seed analogy works *because* the soil is active—parenting sets the conditions, but the child’s own growth patterns ultimately define the plant. But that doesn't mean the soil doesn't matter.