The gratitude towards my parents alone has driven me to push myself harder in my career.
Absolutely love how that was phrased. I couldn't agree more.
I've learned that there are people who don't have this response, they simply keep it on an emotional level. These people also never experienced or saw any physical fight during childhood and were never really bullied.
I saw fights pretty much daily as a kid and experienced them at least once per month, winning about 50% of them. So I've experienced both sides quite a bit.
I've noticed that kids who fought daily have this much more in their physiology than I do.
I was thinking more about people who grow up with very little, i.e. aren't sure if their parents are going to put food on the table that day. If you start out like that but manage to get a steady job etc..., I think it can be much harder to take risks like changing career or being assertive in certain situations.
It’s more of an internal preservation thing than a fear of externalities.
It is a factor often missed in outcomes and sometimes wrongly attributed to persistence.
It is always easy to be persistent without any economic pressure or financial liabilities, even more so when your family ensures that for you.
The problem I think with NOT eating together is that it sews disharmony in the machinery of the household.
If everyone DOES eat together all the work related to it happens together as somewhat of a team. You do the thing once. Everyone is in a shared state of being. Specifically being satisfied in appetite and social interaction and ready to do there own thing after.
Otherwise Billy is hungry at a different time than Sandy and Sara wasn't hungry until it was time for bed. Dishes have to be re done for each person. Billy made a better dinner for himself and left none for his sister. Someone ate in the bedroom and left a glass of milk out over night and mom was angry in the morning...
I am rambling and maybe it's obvious but ultimately I don't think it's just the act of eating together I think it's the reduced friction and increased cohesion of the household that shared dinner causes.
To answer your question, Maybe family dinner forces you to be "doing it right" just by the act of having the family dinner.
That's not to say you can't screw it up. If family dinners are spent in silence with the kids praying they get through the dinner without setting dad off again and watching him beat their mom to a pulp, or hoping that they don't get sexually abused later that night by one of their family members, etc. Then yes, maybe there are some quality issues, but I'd argue even in that extreme case, it might still be a positive indicator against the base cases of abuse without that element.
I was a paramedic. There is a massive fraction of society with upbringings like you wouldn't imagine. That's what you're up against. When people say they have a dysfunctional family, it's often pretty mundane. Especially compared to people in that class that didn't realize until they were an adult that things like getting raped by all of their mom's boyfriend's isn't a normal thing everyone deals with as soon as they start puberty.
I've done it all my life, as a child and a parent, I have no idea why people would not want to enforce this.
IMO, having regular family dinners is just one of many characteristics of stable and healthy families.
As you have more meals together, you are (they bond to you) and feel (you bond to them) more loved by the other people at the table.
Speaking from personal experience, I have to disagree. I was raised in Baghdad by a single parent, my mother. We lived through three major wars, almost never had a steady income till after 2004 when I was 19 and started working for the US military as an interpreter. I believe growing up under great pressure (and violence) has made me more resilient and increased my appetite for risk.
Also, if your relationship with your mother was strong, that counts for a lot. I'm glad you survived and are thriving!
eg they get their life on track, but it seems to be "too boring" (or similar) for them, so they start creating chaos with the people around them to get things "back to normal"
I think when I was younger I tended to see financial success and stability as a downstream effect of other factors, but I can't help but now see that viewpoint as naive. Economic pressure alone is sufficient to create severe emotional stress and instability (which probably creates a feedback loop that makes it even harder to recover from).
My conclusion is: when privilege is applied well, there is no competing it. And the stable and secure environment that you're talking about plays a role in that. As I've noticed that I'm lacking it a bit (just a bit) and I am seeing its effect. The issue is that this type of stuff is mostly automatic behavior, so it's hard to flush out.
Imagine not having to deal with that during entrepreneurship, without the issue wealth of contacts and money, what an advantage it is.
Sure, you can have more grit if you come from a more constrained background, but I would not know what I would choose between the two.
Someone with little privileged who puts in a huge amount of effort can overtake someone with a high privilege who puts in a normal amount of effort.
Is this a thing? I thought the common wisdom was that you gain resilience once you get past hardships, not lose it.
I don't think there's a hard rule on this, and it depends on the mentality of the individual. It's possible for people from rich and poor backgrounds alike to be resilient.
But I do think emotional security helps you deal with challenges in life. It's not the only thing and it's possible there's other ways of dealing with it. But growing up in a secure environment makes a difference (note, this doesn't necessarily mean rich. It means stable. If you're rich, but a close family member dies when you're young or some other hardship occurs, you can still be emotionally hurt despite having an otherwise secure environment -- that's why it's a bad idea to judge people on their backgrounds, you never know the full picture)