>

Parents are most important to one’s upbringing.
/u/Buffyfanatic1 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I have no memory of the city I was born in, and no connection to it. It was a place my parents lived for less than two years. After we moved away, we never returned and never had contact with anyone there. I can't think of a single way that place has had any importance on my life.
I think your view is about where you grew up, or where your family is from. Not necessarily where you were born. >

!delta I can definitely understand that. I was coming from an angle of "you're born and raised there so this is who 80% you will become" not "you're born there and no matter where you're raised you'll always be from there" >

Big difference between where you’re born and where you’re raised as far as this argument goes. >

Don't you contradict that right in your post with the example of your husband? He was born one place, then raised another, and the place he was raised had a much bigger impact on him. What makes the literal place of your birth more important than where you grow up? >

Yeah OP needs to change this to “where you were raised” >

Disagree - when you’re born is the most important thing to happen to you above all else.
Assuming reincarnation is incorrect, we only have one life on earth before we die. The era you’re born into will determine literally everything about you, your probable life trajectory, etc. 
For example, I was born in the US. If I was born exactly 40 years earlier with the same date of birth, I would have been drafted into the Vietnam War. Being born into the objectively richest country in the world in the mid-20th century would have been a wildly different experience for me compared to being born in the richest country in the world in the late 20th century all because I was born at the right time. 
The same thing applies across the world across every era. If you were born and died during the Black Plague, your life was short, objectively awful, etc. If you were born in Ireland since the Celtic Tiger compared to most of its history, your chances for a comfortable and high-quality life are never higher than at any point in Irish history. If you were born in Palestine in 1923 vs 2023, your experience would be VERY different and likely for the worse.
Even excluding geography, if you were born in a world where insulin, the smallpox vaccine, etc. weren’t a thing, you probably died young all because of the era in which you were born. Through no fault of your own, you died in a wealthy or poor country. >

!delta that is very true. The time period you're born into determines everything even before where you're born or your sex or your race. If you're born in a shithole time period in a shithole country you're gonna have a bad time irrelevant of everything else. I 100% agree with that. Thank you >

Cool, my first delta! Thank you 😄 >

Congrats, great response. >

How are you determining importance? I'm not going to change your mind in regards to it being important. I'd simply argue that family wealth is more important than where you were born. >

I feel like where you were born is more important than family wealth. As people who are rich in other countries spend their money in different ways. Yes, all rich people are rich, but if you take a rich guy from Japan and compare how he spends his money to let's say a rich person in a small African country it would be vastly different. Why? That's where they were born so their money values come with the culture that they were raised in. >

Okay, so lets take an example here. We have an ultra-wealthy kid born in Nebraska as our base example, random state chosen. Now, compare them to a poor kid born in Nebraska, and an ultra-wealthy kid born in California. Which of these other kids would the Wealthy Nebraskan be more similar to? Both of the Wealthy kids will go to private school, live in a mansion or expensive suburbs, have a ton of toys and resources, fly on private jets, have nannies and butlers and all the other privileges that come with tons of money. Meanwhile, both kids in Nebraska will absorb something of that culture for sure, but the ways they interact with that place will be totally different. The poor kid will likely live in a city, go to poor public schools, meet totally different people and interact with totally different social circles/infrastructure, have to make their own way and just generally have a completely different life to the wealthy kid. 
To me it is pretty clear that both wealthy kids will have a much more similar life than the two Nebraska kids. >

You’ve chosen the most extreme possible differential from the mean for wealth (kids-private-jet-level wealthy, separated from the mean by as many standard deviations as there could possibly be), and almost no differential at all in the location axis (two states from the same already-unbelievably-wealthy-by-historical-standards country).
Try your comparison again using a top-25%-er from California with a top-25%-er from Sudan and you’ll understand the parent poster’s point better, I think. >

Why should we be doing average wealth by location instead of absolute wealth? I'm not saying that your position in your home country's average wealth ladder is more important, but your absolute wealth and resources. 
And I am well aware that both of these metrics interact and are important, but that's not an argument for either imo. >

Yeah but the point is, where you are born determines the likelihood that you will be wealthy (by global standards).
And the wealth of a 'poor' person in one country can still achieve vastly different standards of living vs a 'rich' person in another.
Eg - if you are born in Mogadishu, you are more likely to be poor than if you are born in California. Also, you could be the richest person in Mogadishu and still have access to a lower standard of living (poorer education, higher crime) than a poor person in California.
Wealth is relative, place of birth determines the relatively. Hence, place of birth is more important >

Idk man, I don't think I buy that. Wealth is of course relative, but I just don't think that the majority of people who happen to be born in one place follow a similar life path or way of thinking. At least based on my experiences, people who grew up around me have had tons of completely different experiences, and a lot of that has been determined by wealth. >

I think who are your parents is the most important. In most countries being born there doesn't give you the right to live in this country, only if your parents have such rights. >

This is the only correct answer - who gives birth to you is most important. 
Even if a mother dies in childbirth, her being your mother will dictate where you’re born and if you live with your father, get placed into a relatives home or go into foster care. 
Your birth mothers genes & decisions determine your race, class, gender, orientation, health, location of birth, where you grow up… all of which influence anything of importance. >


1.Where you're born  
2.Your sex  
3..Your race  
4.Your religion/lack there of  
5.Class

Why that order? It seems to me that class is by far the most important factor out of any of these. >

This is why ranking these things is bad form.  I was thinking race should certainly come before sex.  And religion shouldn't even be on the list. >

Sex is definitely above race it changes your whole biology. There’s even an argument for it being first. From reading comments here and adjusting I think it goes

Time
Place raised
Class
Sex
Race >


Sex is definitely above race it changes your whole biology.

Depends on a time. Maybe being a German woman in the 1930s Germany is better than being a Jewish man. >

I would argue that being born healthy is the most, or one of the most important things to happen to you, and is certainly above being born in certain locations. You can be born to an infinitely rich family in any developed country, but what use does that have if you are completely disabled physically, mentally, or both. Being born healthy in "the least developed country in the world" still gives you some chance of rising above where you are born and raised. Tiny chance, but it is still an opportunity. No such opportunity if you aren't healthy in the most important ways. >

I can see what you're saying but being born unhealthy in the first world is completely different than being born unhealthy in a third world country. In the west and other countries who have established health care systems (not saying all 3rd world countries don't I'm just talking about countries with interconnected systems and not ones who are a bunch of tribes who happen to share a country if that makes sense) you being born disabled in a tribe who kills off their sick will have a completely different life than someone born in Western Europe with healthcare >

I agree with you by the most part, but I would still argue that depending on the severity of your disability, you either die in an undeveloped country, or maybe (not even 100%) exist (not even live) in a developed country under constant care of medical staff.
I agree with you if by "important" in your original statement you mean your odds of survival. I would argue that "important" in this case means living, not existing (and in a way - enjoying the said life) and opportunity for making your life better. Being born brain dead (even in a country with the most sophisticated healthcare system), or severely mentally handicapped, limits your opportunities in a more impactful way, than being born healthy in an undeveloped country. >

Maybe considered pedantic for this subreddit, but I believe I'd be an exception to your view. My family moved across the country before my first birthday and they only stayed in the region I was born for around a year.
I highly doubt I would've picked up much influence, even if this view is correct. >

My husband is the same way as you. He moved around a lot growing up so has 0 ties to any particular state. He gets VERY upset when people critique America as a whole because he latched onto the American ideology because he never had bonds with any state. For example, I'm originally from Oklahoma. If you asked an Oklahoman where they're from they will ALWAYS say Oklahoma before America. Why? We care more about Oklahoma than the US as a whole. Same with Texas and other states. Which is why America has so many problems as each states and its people want different things. Why? They were born there.
Most people aren't like my husband though and most people have a lot of ties to where they're born. Most people don't spend their childhood traveling around from state to state or country to country. Most people who are born places stay in that place at least until adulthood >

Agreed on "most people", that doesn't change my point.
Your answers to those "Why" questions you asked yourself are just flat out made-up and wrong. >


For example, I met my husband overseas and he told me he was from the state I was from. It made me feel weird because by looking at him I could tell he was telling the truth but the vibe gave off he was raised somewhere else and I was right. He was born in my state then moved away forever at a very young age.

Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding you... is this not exactly opposite to what you believe? Your husband was literally born in the same state but is very different - enough to give you a weird feeling. >

You may be more predisposed to certain behaviors or stereotypes depending on where you were born, but you seem to leave out any form of parental influence or social group influence as determining factors of who you will become. 
If you are born in NYC but have a very conservative family there is a good chance you'll be more conservative than someone born in the deep south but have a very liberal family. >

Social group influence is the culture around them and thus where they were born. Yes, people are individuals and have different thoughts and feelings. But if you look at people and study people from a specific culture or country, they all kind of act the same and have the same cultural values regardless of political leanings. Everything is a spectrum but there's a documentary that scientifically explains how 80% of your life can be determined by where on this earth you are born.
Yes people are individuals but in cultures they're groups and individuals conform to groups all the time it's literally in our DNA. That's why you'd never see a group of men from Africa having the same morals and values and wants and needs as a group of men from Japan >


they all kind of act the same

Nope. A majority do... not all. That's the thing. 
You are assuming that all people from each region act the same when they don't. US cities that people consider very liberal might only be 70% - 30% .. and vice versa for conservative cities/states. 
If the people in your own household and social group are the opposite of the majority of where you live, you're still more likely to end up sharing ideology with the people you surround yourself with.
Even then there are exceptions to that. Just because it happens a lot of the time or even most of the time does not mean it happens all the time. >

Why is class so low? Do you really think that a very rich black girl has less chance of becming successful than a very poor white boy? >

For older folks this was important but in the internet age it will matter drastically less to kids growing up there now and in the future. People are no longer restricted to geographical regions/what the local news station chooses to air/etc. 
Anyone anywhere at any time can hear personal stories in real time from someone on the other side of the globe. Lacking perspective on something now is simply a matter of not looking for it enough to begin with, considering everything you need is in your pocket. Not saying you are obligated to, just saying that if you ARE interested in learning, you don't have the excuse of "our library doesn't have books on this" or "Stamps cost too much for me to have a pen pal" or something of that matter.
So I guess I'm just saying that where you're born geographically is not the most important factor, but rather the people you are raised with and the resources you have to see the world outside of your own local community. Saying that your geographic location is most important is kind of like saying the high school you went to is most important, when the high school itself is probably a dime a dozen (It's just a government program), but rather the cliques within are what shape you as a person. >

I can definitely see this point of view. It's very cool to see the world actually interconnected for the first time in human history but it's also scary because no one knows what this could possibly mean for the future of the human race >

I suppose it's implied but I'll mention it anyways. You don't have to be born a human. You could be born as any of the millions of other species. 
Further, you could be born with genetic diseases or syndromes, or the matter of your birth (i.e complications) can radically affect who you are and who you can become. The things you listed only start to really matter when you assume you were born to the dominant species on earth without any significant built in defects, which is a privilege, not a given. >

Location is pretty irrelevant...as per Freakanomics a person's parents socioeconomic standing is pretty much the single most important determinant factor. >

Definitely not irrelevant. Being born in Canada is infinitely better than being born in a 3rd world country. >

right, but again ones parents make all the difference.  Doesn't matter where in the world you are born be it Canada, USA, Japan, Afghanistan, or Sudan - if your parents are well off then you will be to.  So for example school, at the earliest grades - children with relatively affluent parents (and in most cases it is 2 and extended family) are already ahead of peers with lower income parents, as rudimental literacy, math, etc.,  is already being taught to affluent kids at home before they even begin school.  The gap further increases during summer break, as learning for poorer kids is pretty  much put on hold whereas learning for affluent children continues.  Think about it this way...one of the stupidest most incompetent people I know has a father who is an senior executive at a large corporation - guess who got a job coming straight outta college (which he didn't qualify to attend, but did, and who barely graduated).  Meanwhile another friend who was raised by a single mother and his grandmother, who at the time we grew up hardly spoke english and worked 2 jobs to make ends meet.  He fortunately was clever and did well for himself, but still not as good as buddy with the rich dad.  
Long story short, it's who ya know - even better if it's your parents. >

Yes class matters I was saying so does location. Just being born female or minority or gay in some places makes you automatically a 2nd class citizen. >

I have not idea how you can really identify a single most important thing. But even if you could it would be very person dependent. For all the kids born with a birth defect or health issues that is almost assuredly more impactful that the location of their birth. 
Even excluding them, if someone was born in place a) then immediately taken away and raised somewhere else, would the location of their birth be impactful? Maybe if it gave them citizenship but probably not much otherwise. Given this “location you spend your childhood” feels more important to who you become as an adult. >

I think Class would be number 2. But….. that depends on where you are born. If you are black and born in North Korea, you are screwed. >

Wao >

Firstly, a lot of people marry people not from their birth locations, especially those who do not live there as adults.  I'd suggest your feeling in this example of this bond being critical is a sort of confirmation bias.  I'm not from the same state as my wife and experience absolutely no dissonance about that in our relationship.  We both were serious musicians in our youth and that is a reason for our initial connection and conversation.  What I don't think I should infer from that is that hobbies in your youth are the most important thing to happen to you.
Secondly, it's very unclear what you mean by "important".  Your example is about personal romantic and marital relationship - in that I'd suggest that sex is far more important since most people in the world are only attracted to sex.  But, I say this only to illuminate a lack of clarity on what you mean by "important" as I suspect you're not actually just talking about marriage-style relationships!  
Thirdly, even if it is important it's not important in clear and discreet ways.  For example, if you're japanese and interested in american culture and someone from america travels for their love of food to japan you're now someone who has a birth in japan and birth in america being critical for your relationship (or at least it's start), but that is the opposite of having a common birth place.  In this case, other japanese people are a bad pairing making them being born in japan an important quality, but not an enabling one for opportunity with a particular partner. >

I was born in a European country but moved back to India before I was 1 year old. Where I was born has virtually no effect on my life other than a blurb on my passport. I am fully Indian, an Indian citizen and grew up in the same square mile for 18 years of my life. How is it the most important thing in my life? >

Which family you are born into is the most important thing.
You could be born in the same city, one in a poor family and one in a wealthy and well connected family. Culture also changes from one family to the next. You can be a family of introverts or a family of extroverts. A family of people with healthy bounds or a dysfunctional one. >

I was born in an American Air Force base in Japan. That has done very little for who I am now. I am not into Japanese culture, nor do I seem like someone who came from a military family. Where you are raised is especially more important, and even more important is class. >

How do you factor in kids whose parents are military?