In order to raise healthy, functional, pro-social, communal adults with empathy and the ability to collaborate with peers to accomplish goals, self-efficacious, agentic, basically happy, do we need fathers? We know that we need mothers, mothers that's indisputable, that the mother is very critical in the upbringing, shaping and formation of her children, but do we also need fathers? And today I'm going to provide a bit of a controversial answer which I had alluded to in one of my previous interviews and which had provoked a hailstorm of threats and denigrations. And the controversial answer that I'm about to propose is that fathers are largely not needed. One of the main proofs of that is the fact that about one third of households in the world today are single-parent households, and that single parent, in the vast majority of cases, is a woman. Children who grow up in single-parent households are largely okay, they are largely functional, they are largely happy, they go on to form relationships and families of their own, et cetera, et cetera. Of course there are outliers, there are exceptions, but the literature until about 15 years ago was kind of politically correct. It had placed an emphasis on two-parent families, but that is a western emphasis that reflects the mores and the values of western civilization, because in the vast majority of history, and in the vast majority of the world today, the raising of children is almost the exclusive task of women, mothers. Fathers don't get involved except to punish the children as punitive agents. Socialization is carried out almost entirely by the mother. Now, this is not a new insight. Until the 1920s or 1930s, in psychoanalytic schools of psychology, psychodynamic schools of psychology, and object relations schools especially in the United Kingdom, they realized these people, the early psychologists, they realized that the father has very little to do with the upbringing of children. Until the 1920s and 1930s, there was this misconception that the father is the main socialization agents, and therefore the voice of the father in the form of an introject constitutes the main component of the super ego and of the conscience. But today, psychoanalysis and psychodynamic theories and object relations theories and so on and so forth, they don't say that. They say that the formation of the super ego is pre-edible. It precedes the edipus complex. It precedes the involvement of a father as the meaningful figure in the child's life. So it's actually a maternal construct, not a paternal construct. Now mind you, psychoanalysis, etc., etc., is no longer taught in universities. It's considered a form of literature denigrated as a non-science. But actually in the in the last 15 years, we're having an increasing body of knowledge, studies and research that tends to support this view, that actually fathers have an extremely limited role in the formation of young people and in molding them and shaping them. I'm going to present an even-handed literature review. I'm going to review the literature that says that fathers are critical and most of this literature precedes usually 2006. And I'm going to review the new literature, the emerging literature, which strongly disputes this assertion, a camp to which I belong. Now to make clear, the issue is not settled, is not settled. But already psychologists are taking sides. The side I had chosen, by the way, not now, but 25 years ago, is that the father is much less important, if at all, in the child's psyche, in the child's emerging psychology. Let's delve right in. But before I do that, I'm going to torture you with my famous refrain. My name is Sam Vaknin and I'm the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited. I see your eyes glazing. Okay, I'm also a professor of psychology in Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation, and I'm a professor of psychology and I'm a professor of finance in the outreach program of the CS, Construction with Universities, CIAPS, Center for International Advanced and Professional Studies. Now you must admit, that's quite a mouthful. Okay, Shoshanim, let's see what we have here. I start with a study published by the University of Sheffield, and the study is titled Family Portrait, Single Parent Families and Transitions Over Time. It was authored by Sumi Rabindra Kumar, Alvaro Martinez Perez, Winona Shaw, and other unpronounceable names. And here is what the study says, grosso modo. I'm quoting, there is no evidence, did you hear that? There's no evidence of a negative impact of living in a single parent household on children's well-being with regard to self-reported life satisfaction, quality of peer relationships, or positivity about family life. Children who are living or have lived in single parent families score as highly or higher in many cases against each measure of well-being than those who have always lived in two parent families. Revolutionary, isn't it? They continue, the impact of single parenthood on children's well-being. Capturing data over a number of years helps us to understand the impact of living and transitioning between various family types on multiple measures of children's well-being. In this case, well-being is measured by looking at life satisfaction, feelings about their family, and the quality of relationships with peers. On average, those who have been in a single parent family at some point report higher levels, higher levels of life satisfaction than those children who have never lived in a single parent family. Similarly, those with experience of living in a single parent family on average report more positive feelings about the family than those who have not lived in a single parent family. Lastly, those children who have experienced or always lived in single parent families tend to report less problematic relationships with their peers than those who have never lived in single parent families. This is shockingly, this shockingly changes everything we thought we knew. The study continues. In all cases, the differences between those who have never lived in single parent families and those who have either experienced or always lived in single parent families is statistically significant, meaning the difference we observe is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Given the diversity of families within these groups, further analysis is needed, etc., etc., these are the usual disclaimers and so on. They say that what is clear is that this robust data set provides no evidence, no evidence of a negative impact of living in single parent households on these indicators of children's well-being. Now I'm going to quote one of my favorite psychologists, a voice I always love to listen to. The role of the mother, the primary object, has often been discussed. The father's part is mostly neglected even in professional literature. However, recent research demonstrates his importance to the orderly and healthy development of the child. Even in modern nuclear families, the father participates in the day-to-day care, and he is an intellectual catalyst who encourages the child to develop his interest and to satisfy his curiosity through the manipulation of various instruments and gains. The patern familias is a source of authority and discipline, a boundary setter enforcing and encouraging positive behaviors, while also eliminating negative ones. The father also provides emotional support and economic security, thus stabilizing the family unit. Finally, the father is the prime source of masculine orientation and identification to the male child, and gives warmth and love as a male to his daughter without transgressing the socially permissible limits. This was Sam Vaknin, and he wrote this passage 20 years ago, 23 years ago, in 1999. He published it in the first edition of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism, Revisited, and I want to say to this guy, you're dead wrong, because the research that had accumulated since tends to refute and dispute most of the claims you had made in this passage, Vaknin. Go and study. So that's what Vaknin did. He went and studied, and here's what I discovered. First, I want to summarize the traditional view of the father's role, the view that had been supported by a mountain range of research well into 2005 or 2006, and the reason I had written this paragraph or passage and published it in the first edition of my book. So I'm going to quote from an article titled, growing up in a single parent family, a determining factor of adolescence well-being. It is authored by Ajita Gupta and Sima Kashyap to publish in an Advanced Journal of Social Science, Volume 7, Issue 1, in 2020. It represents the old view of the father's role. I'm quoting, in the contemporary times, parenting becomes very difficult task for both parents, whereas breakdown or family disruption of any family system is tough. Nowadays, single parenting, say the authors, is becoming common, whether by choice or because of divorce, separation, or death of a spouse. Whatever the reason is, single parents face countless challenges. It does not only affect the parents, but also affects the children. There are many short-term and long-term effects of family disruption on the adolescents. In short-term effects, adolescents are likely to suffer a variety of physical and emotional problems like intense anger, fear about the future, loyalty conflicts, health problems, academic problems, withdrawal, depression, drug abuse, lack of social competence, and early indulgence in sex. While the long-term effects, adolescents tend to attain less education, marry at an early age, and have a less stable marriage due to a lack of trust and happiness. Existing literature also has been found positive as well, and now the authors transition to current literature. So this was a summary of the old view. Current literature in the last 15 years strongly disputes everything I've just read to you, and the authors proceed to summarize the current literature. They say existing literature also has found positive as well as negative impacts on self-concept, physical development, personal relations, behavior, educational success, social integration and romantic relationship outcomes, recreational activities, and career development on the adolescents of single parents. So there were positive outcomes on all these issues. Single parents therefore require a lot of courage, say the authors, determination and emotional strength to overcome. They also need to carefully select the parenting practices and take the responsibilities with confidence to nurture the children. Warmth and affection given by parents has also played an important role in increasing self-esteem, coping abilities and decrease anxiety among children. Family-based intervention programs should be designed by the government, etc. Okay, this is a run-of-the-mill article in an open access journal, but it's a good summary of previous literature and current literature. Now let's go further and try to get views from other parts of the world, not only the West. And so we move on from India, because this was an Indian article, we move on from India to China. China is a minor country with 1.4 billion people, something like four times the United States. So I think what happens in China has some bearing on mankind, not to mention the fact that China is the future superpower and the culture of China will have a major impact within less than 50 years. So let's see what's happening in China. The article is titled Are Children from Divorced Single Parent Families Disadvantaged? New Evidence from the China Family Panel Studies. The author is Chani Zhang. Chani Zhang works at the Department of Sociology in Beijing University. This was published in the Chinese Sociological Review Vol. 52, Issue 1, 2020. And here is what Dr. Zhang has to say. Since the beginning of the 21st century, divorced single parenthood has become more prevalent in China. Nevertheless, divorced single parenthood and its impact on children outcomes have not been studied as much in China as in the West. Most studies in Western societies have reported that divorce and single parenthood are associated with disadvantaged child outcomes. This has been attributed in part to the prevalence of divorce among parents with low socioeconomic status and decreased child monitoring when one parent is absent. In China, however, says the author, there are several buffering mechanisms that may reduce the negative impact of divorce on children. Using data from four waves of the China Family Panel Studies, this study examines the effects of divorce and single parenthood on children's academic performance and subjective well-being. The results show that children living with divorced single mothers performed as well, repeat that as well as children from intact two-parent families. Whereas children living with divorced single fathers and step-parents were disadvantaged in academic performance and subjective well-being. Frequent quarrels between the parents in two-parent families also had a negative impact on child outcomes. It seems that the problem is not father absence. The problem is the process of divorce, which is a crimonious, unsettling, anxiety-inducing and depressing. Divorce is the problem, not father absence. And even this conclusion or this condition is highly dubious and dependent on a lot of context. The Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Tuba Demir Dagdas, Zeynep, Isik Elkan and others published the article Perspectives on Mental Health, Parent-Child Relationships and Educational Experiences. Here is a conclusion of the article. Children experiencing divorce often struggle with emotional, behavioral, educational and social issues. However, few studies use multiple perspectives to explore the mechanisms underlying divorce and the very outcomes for children from diverse backgrounds. For instance, the ever complex family unions, same-sex unions, step families, cohabitation, expose children to multifaceted experiences. As expected, outcomes of divorce for children growing up in diverse family structures might be different from past research findings. Therefore, in this article, our goal was to conceptualize the impact of parental divorce on the well-being of children from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds through various disciplines including sociology, education and family studies. In this article, we argue that divorce might lead to different outcomes for children based on culture, ethnicity, family structure and special needs. It's not a universal outcome. For instance, children with special needs might experience a significant large impact on their later life outcomes due to divorce. However, these outcomes can be moderated by positive parenting, supportive teaching practices and counseling. This theme is going to emerge in future articles, in articles that I'm going to review soon. If the mother is empathic, present, unselfish, loving, caring, holding, containing, supportive, the absence of the father is largely rendered irrelevant. So it critically depends on the mother, as we will see in the continuation. In conclusion, continue the authors. We conceptualize that parental divorce is one of the most significant childhood adversities. It is also listed by the way in ACE, the adverse childhood experiences. Divorce, say the authors, has long-term impact on individuals' mental health, family relationships and education. However, this impact is moderated or exacerbated by specific characteristics of culturally diverse families and communities and culturally responsive interventions. A multidisciplinary perspective offers possibilities for understanding the strengths and needs of children going through a divorce in a complex cultural context, including race, socioeconomic status, family structure, school and parent-child relationships. Exploring issues and possibilities in this context might also encourage policies and practices to become more inclusive to support the well-being of culturally diverse children and families. Here's the first caveat. Cultural matters, context matters, socioeconomic status matters. You can't generalize, but we are already beginning to see that in the non-western part of the world, which is vast majority of humanity, anything from Russia to China, we are already beginning to see that the absence of the father is not as important as it is made out to be in the west, that the mother is critical, that context is important and that the traumatic event is not the absence of the father, but the process that had led to the absence of the father, known as divorce. Okay, here is an article titled Consequences of Divorce Based Father Absence During Childhood for Young Adult Well-Being and Romantic Relationships. It was authored by Hanita Govind Crispin, Dana Lasri and others. It was published in November 2020. And here's what it says. Our findings also might suggest that when a father is completely absent or when a father is fully present in children's lives, the children can benefit from having a warm relationship with their mother, because they are not conflicted about their loyalties to each parent. This interpretation is in accordance with additional findings, suggesting that a strong mother-adolescent relationship could serve as a protective factor from the risk of peer problem behavior among adolescents in homes from which the father is absent. And she's referring to a very early study by Mason in 1994, and to studies by Sopolevsky and Amato 2007. So this warmth, maternal warmth is a protective measure, and it protects adolescents in homes from which the father is absent, children in divorced families and so on. On the one hand, say the authors, trying to be in a close relationship with both parents make proof beneficial, but that the risk of feeling divided and disloyal. On the other hand, having a close relationship with one parent only may result in avoiding the stress of trying to be loyal to both parents, but at the risk of losing the benefits associated with the other parent. The advantages and risks associated with these options might counterbalance one another, leaving these children without any clear benefit in regard to their subjective well-being. Let's proceed. Father Absence and Adolescent Development, a review of the literature by Lea East, Deborah Jackson, Louise O'Brien, and so on. It was published in December 2006. It is one of the last studies to support the traditional orthodox view of the father's involvement in the child's world. I'm reading the abstract. Rapid social change has seen increasing numbers of woman-headed single-parent families, meaning that more and more children are growing up without a father resident at home. Father Absence is a term that is not well defined, and much of the literature does not discriminate between Father Absence due to death, parental relationship discord, or other causes. This article presents a critical review of the extant literature on Father Absence, particularly as it relates to adolescent well-being and development. Findings from the literature say the authors in 2006 point to the importance of father presence in children's lives and suggest that Father Absence has ramifications for children and adolescents. That was more or less one of the lost articles, 2007 maybe, a motto, one of the lost articles to make this claim. Similar claims were made, were made in books. For example, the book Parenting and Child Development in Non-Traditional Families. There's a chapter there called The Consequences of Father Absence. So, Parenting and Child Development in Non-Traditional Families was published in 1998 by Psychology Press. Another book which espoused the traditional view was authored by Michael E. Lamb, an authority on fatherhood, and was titled The Role of the Father in Child Development. There's a fifth edition I think 2010, and that there's a book titled Handbook of Fathers and Child Development. And in this book there is a chapter, Family Systems Perspective on Father Absence, Presence and Engagement. And here is what this chapter says basically. I'm quoting, this chapter addresses Father Presence, Father Absence, and Related Impacts on Child Developmental Outcomes. The research literature has historically narrowly defined Father's presence in their children's lives based on marital residential status. However, family structure among diverse communities varies. Empirical literature indicates that fathers contribute in consistent and meaningful ways to their children's development across residential patterns. The discussion will be contextualized within a family systems framework and derive conceptual meaning based on boundary, clarity, and ambiguity in families. Special consideration will be given to psychological, sociological issues, impacting family separation, including mental health problems, substance abuse, trauma, and incarceration. This was one of the first examples of beginning to realize that the context of father absence matters a lot. How did the father become absent? What preceded the absence? And how can we disentangle the events that had preceded the absence, which are mostly traumatic and damaging from the absence itself? Is the father's absence the crucial factor? Or is, for example, the acrimonious divorce or a death or incarceration? So, they were the first to raise these questions. In an article published in February 2019 in the philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B in the United Kingdom, this was an article published titled Cross-Cultural Evidence Does Not Support Universal Acceleration of Puberty in Father Absent Households. This article undermines decades of literature, literally. Most previous literature had claimed that the absence of the father had driven boys and girls to precocious sexuality, had driven them to evolve sexually much faster and reproduce, procreate much faster. So, many studies had linked father absence to promiscuity and to precocious sexuality. This article, authored by Rebecca Sear and Paula Shepherd and David Cole, this article disputed some of this. It says, father absence in early life has been shown to be associated with accelerated reproductive development in girls. Evolutionary social scientists have proposed several adaptive hypotheses for this finding. Though there is variation in the detail of these hypotheses, they all assume that family environment in early life influences the development of life history strategy and broadly that early reproductive development is an adaptive response to father absence. Empirical evidence to support these hypotheses, however, has been derived from weird. Weird means western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic populations. Data from a much broader range of human societies are necessary in order to properly test adaptive hypotheses. You can't focus on a single type of society and generalize to humanity. Here, say the authors, we review the empirical literature on father absence and on puberty in both sexes, focusing on recent studies that have tested this association beyond the weird world. Beyond the West, we find that relationships between father absence and age of puberty are much more varied in context beyond weird societies. And when relationships beyond the father daughter diet are considered, they're even more varied. This is implications for our understanding of how early life environment is linked to life history strategies and for our understanding of pathways to adult health outcomes, given that early reproductive development may be linked to negative health outcomes in later life. So the first cracks, first cracks are appearing in this monolithic construction of no father present, bad things happen. And these are serious cracks. They are culture dependent. In other words, when you review other cultures, you begin to see that you cannot generalize. They are context dependent. There's dissimilar effects on children depending on social economic status, race, ethnicity, history and so on. And in many cases, actually, as the University of Scheffen study shows, single parent households breed and create and bring up happier children with a much better outlook on life, greater satisfaction and more self-efficacy in romantic relationships. But what about sex specific outcomes? So here's an article published in September, 2018 titled Sex Specific Developmental Effects of Father Absence on Casual Sexual Behavior and Life History Strategy. It's authored by Jessica Ehman and Catherine Salman. It's published in Evolutionary Psychological Science Volume 5, 2019. Here's the abstract. A substantial body of research has investigated the effects of early family environments on the sexual maturity and behavior of adolescents and young adult adults. Most of this research has focused primarily on one, early childhood environments. Two, these effects in females rather than males. Much less attention was devoted to males' sexual maturity and behavior.  To address these limitations, say the authors, they conducted a study. And in this study, over 20 years, they discovered and they asked the participants about how many casual sex partners they had, did they have relationships, etc. And here are the conclusions.  In other words, males went for short-term mating. For both males and females, continued the authors.  The current study also provides clear evidence of sex-specific developmental effects on reproductive strategies as a function of when, during development, father absence occurs. When father absence occurred during middle childhood, females exhibited faster life history strategies. Whereas when father absence occurred during adolescence, males exhibited faster life history strategies. Together, these findings suggest the effects of father absence are not specific to females nor early childhood environments. In addition, effects of father absence appear to persist beyond adolescence and early young adulthood, with opposite effects on males and females' reproductive strategies depending on when, during development, it occurs. Family relations into disciplinary journal of applied family science. As an article, trains in the economic well-being of unmarried parent families with children. New estimates using an improved measure of poverty was authored by Christopher Weimer, Liana Fox, Irwin Garfinkel and others. It was published in Population Research and Policy Review, Volume 40 in 2021, so it's a very recent article. Another surprise finding, I'm again quoting the abstract. Children born to unmarried parents make up an increasing share of American children. But official poverty statistics provide little insight into their economic well-being because these statistics use an outdated definition of the family unit and an incomplete measure of family resources. Using current population survey data and an improved measure of poverty, the Census Bureau's supplemental poverty measure, we reassess long-term trends in poverty for children in unmarried parent families. Those led by single mothers, those led by single fathers, and those led by cohabiting couples. And so we contrast this with their counterparts in married couple families. So I repeat what they're doing. Using current population survey data and an improved measure of poverty, the Census Bureau's supplemental poverty measure, what they did, they compared children in unmarried parent families, families with single mothers, families with single fathers, families where couples cohabited intermittently. They compared these children to children who lived in married couple families. Typical traditional 1950s families. What they found was a bit surprising. We find, say the authors, that single mother families have the highest poverty rates among families. No surprise there. Both historically and today. But the improved measure shows much larger declines in single mother's family poverty rate over time. Single father and cohabiting families also have high poverty rates. But those rates have also fallen by approximately one third since the 1960s. So father absence is associated with poverty rates, poverty. Mother absence is associated with poverty. And single mother households do a lot better than single father households in terms of poverty reduction and amelioration. Journal of Marriage and Family. Family diversity and child health. Where do same sex couple families fit in? Laura Freeman and others publish in December 2017. They say increasing family diversity during the past half century has focused national attention on how children are faring in non-traditional family structures. Much of the limited evidence on children in same sex couple families suffers from severe shortcomings, including a lack of representative data. We use a National Health Interview Survey, 2004-2012, and the National Survey of Children's Health 2011-2012 to identify children in different sex married and cohabiting families. Never and previously married single parent families and same sex couple families. Considering important characteristics such as the child's race and ethnicity, adoption status, household socioeconomic standing, family stability, parent health, we examine the relationship between family type and parent rated overall child health. The results suggest that poorer health among children in same sex couple as well as different sex cohabiting couples and single parent families appears to be largely the product of demographic and socioeconomic differences rather than exposure to non-traditional family forms. Let me translate this to you. Health effects until 2007, everyone said father absence adversely impacts the health of children. They become less healthy. But this study and other studies show that the problem is not father absence. The problem is not same sex families. The problem is not single mother for households. The problem is poverty. The problem is demographic, which neighborhood you live in. We saw it in COVID, you know, different health outcomes depending on your skin color and your neighborhood. So this has nothing to do with father absence. I'm using studies to demolish one by one all the myths associated with father absence. Are you listening there? The men who wrote to me infuriated and enraged by what I said. Okay. Bon Bonim. Children and youth services review volume 125 June 2001 article comparison of intergenerational transmission of gender roles between single parent families and two parent families. The influence of parental child rearing gender role attitudes. One of the main arguments is that if there's no father in the family, the boys in the family will never grow to be proper men because gender differentiation and gender role acquisition, they are heavily influenced by the presence of a male. You need to have a male to become a male. To become a man, you need to have a man in the family. You need to have a father figure. So this is a study. The lead author is Menping Young. And these are the highlights from the study. Gender roles of two generations, father, I mean mother, father and children, parents and children, gender roles of two generations are similar in both single and two parent families. It's very clear this sentence alone demolishes all the nonsensical arguments of the manosphere and and similar thinking people, including people like Jordan Peterson and others. The father's presence is not critical in gender formation, gender differentiation and gender role acquisition, not critical. End of story. The authors continue, there are significant differences in the proportion of undifferentiated and androgynous in different family structures. Family socioeconomic status, family structure and parental child rearing gender role attitudes significantly positively affect the intergenerational transmission of gender roles. The gender and age of children significantly negatively affect the intergenerational transmission of gender roles. Parental child rearing gender role attitudes play a partial mediating role between family structure and intergenerational transmission of gender roles. These are the these are the summary. Now I'm going to read read to you a part of the study that goes deeply more deeply because this is a crucial question. This is actually also the main argument of father advocates and they say it's very bad that so many children are growing up in single single mother families because they're exposed only to females. They don't know they don't see the day to day presence of a male so they don't they can't learn gender roles. Unfortunately it's not true. Okay on the very contrary by the way the presence of fathers induces actually problems with sexual and gender differentiation shockingly as it may sound. Here's here's a section from the study. The characteristics of parents gender roles directly impact the children's gender roles thus forming intergenerational transmission of gender roles. Based on the bioecological theory this study conducted paired survey of adolescents generation two and their parents generation one and explored the intergenerational transmission of gender roles in different family structures examining the influence mechanism of various factors in the family microsystem. The results were this both in single parent families most of most of which are headed by women both in single parent families and in two parent families the distribution of gender role types of generation two is similar to that of generation one and the distribution of undifferentiated and this is the shocking part the distribution of undifferentiated and androgyny in the two generations is bipolar. In single parent families the proportion of undifferentiated is the highest but it's the highest in both generations in other ways it doesn't have anything to do with the absence of the father there's something with the mothers that crosses intergenerationally and affects gender differentiation and gender role acquisition and they say undifferentiated gender roles is a significantly higher than in two parent families. In two parent families the proportion of androgyny transgender and similar phenomena the proportion of androgyny in two parent families is the highest in both generation one and generation two which is significantly higher than that of single parent families. Family socioeconomic status family structure and parental child rearing gender role attitudes as three family environment factors as well as the gender and age of children as two individual factors significantly significantly influence intergenerational transmission of gender roles the mediating analysis shows parental child rearing gender role attitude plays a mediating role in the influence of family structure on this transmission. Advances in life course research December 2021 article titled fair comparisons life course selection bias and the effect of father absence in U.S. children back to the United States. Alejandra Rodriguez Sanchez is the author and the highlights are life course selection bias the trajectory of confounders may have a future a further bias casual effect estimates in demography exposure of children to divorce is a marker of life course socioeconomic disadvantages not a cause of negative effects that finally is common sense divorce is going to disadvantage children economically mainly mainly socially because of poverty but it's not going to have other negative effects effects on their well-being psychology gender or anything else for that matter father absence is irrelevant and has very little impact the author continues when divorces separation occur close to or during adolescence negative effects are found in the problem behavior domain domain but it's because of the divorce okay so this is I'm gonna try to find a segment that I can quote from she says studies have shown that father absence in opposite gender couples she is referring to old literature has detrimental effects on children's well-being net of selection bias however she says life course informed research suggests that the problem of selection bias may be more complex than currently thought in other words she disparages prior studies she says they are biased that's a nice way of putting it yeah and so she explains that she was data from the fragile families and child well-being study to estimate the total effect of the departure of the biological father on children's well-being as well as delayed or fade out effects on this transition and she explains her statistical methods and so on and so forth and she says after all this after we've worked out the statistics estimates of father absences effects on children well-being are reduced substantially i'm going to read this again estimates of father absences effects on children's well-being are reduced substantially finding which may be referred to as a life course selection bias results suggest early and middle childhood are not negatively affected by the departure of the biological father that's a shocking statement flies in the face of all literature prior to 2007 results suggest early and middle childhood are not negatively affected by the departure of a biological father life course selection bias mostly affects estimates of this effect on adolescents which is explained by children directly experiencing changes in parents socio-economic trajectories that lead to divorce or separation this would not be the case when father absence is experienced in early childhood results suggest that father absence is mostly a marker of life course cumulative socio-economic advantage not a cause of negative psychological or other effects fast forward to august 2021 article absent father timing and its impact on adolescent and adult criminal behavior michael tennick christian nox sarah el side american journal of criminal justice 2021 the authors say although prior research has examined the link between having an absent biological father and self-reported delinquency few studies have assessed the influence of the timing of parental absence the child's age when the father leaves how does that affect delinquency and adult criminal behavior using data from the national longitudinal study of adolescent to adult health ad health it's known the present study examines this relationship to determine whether the timing of biological father absence impacts delinquency adult criminal behavior and arrest across the life life course results reveal that biological father absence before birth was related to criminal behavior in later adulthood before birth having an absent father in early childhood birth to age five was related to criminal behavior in early adulthood as well as arrest an absent biological father in later adolescence age 14 to 18 was associated with arrest this finding suggests that one the timing of the father's absence does not have a clear pattern of impact on delinquency and arrest two the negative impact of having an absent biological father at any time may not appear at all until adult social science and medicine volume 222 february 2019 article titled father departure and children's mental health how does timing matter matter authors are emla fitzimans arse vilacen and so on highlights the timing of father's departure matters for children's mental health departure in mid childhood is more detrimental to mental health than earlier on it increases internalizing in boys and girls and externalizing in boys high maternal education not a buffer for child mental health after father departure departure in early childhood associated with better maternal mental health later on now it all sounds very old-fashioned and very supportive of the view that when fathers depart there are adverse consequences on delinquency and on mental health but when you delve deeper into these studies you discover nuances that render the whole the whole thing very dubious i want to read to you a segment from this research father's permanent departure from the household in childhood is the potential potential to affect child mental health the event is non-random and a major limitation in most previous studies is lack of adequate control for unobserved confounders using five waves of data spanning ages three to 14 from the millennium cohort study which is a uk wide nationally representative longitudinal study so using this data this paper uses fixed effect fixed effect models to examine the effect of paternal absence on children's mental health externalizing and internalizing problems sample was very big 6000 torn and 45 children the authors concluded heterogeneity of effects are examined by gender and maternal education an overall aspect is to examine how the timing of departure matters and to assess whether there are developmental periods that are especially sensitive to paternal departure and whether effects are temporary or enduring we find that paternal departure is a negative effect on child mental health particularly on internalizing symptoms like depression anxiety yeah striking gender differences emerge in examining effects by timing and duration there are no short-term effects of departure in early childhood and only weak evidence of females showing an increase in internalizing symptoms in the medium term so now we are coming to the nuances actually if the father departs in early childhood there are no effects or at least no short-term effects if the father departs in early childhood there are essentially no effects on females until they become adults paternal departure in later childhood on the other hand is associated with an increase in internalizing problems in both males and females an increase externalizing symptoms for males only we do not find maternal education to be a protective factor to summarize father absence has extremely limited impacts depending crucially on context timing gender i mean sex the sex of the child and the behavior of the mother by far the most critical factor is the mother again it's again the mother even the father's departure the effects of the father departure father's departure are mediated through the mother if the mother is loving caring holding empathic affectionate compassionate almost nothing will happen the father's absence will go unnoticed or unaffected will not affect will not have effects if the mother of course is absent selfish parentifying instrumentalizing in other words not good enough mother then of course the father's absence will have effects because there will be no one to balance her and in any case the major factors have nothing to do with the father or with his absence they have to do with socioeconomic status namely poverty with demography race ethnicity place of residence and other similar factors we know today after covid the covid pandemic that health outcomes depend crucially on these things not on internal family structure or system thank you for surviving this i'm not sure i have


In this step, we're going to take a look at how we can use the engine scalability settings in Unreal Engine to change the preview quality of what we're looking at, which will allow things to run either faster or with higher quality, depending on what we're looking for. In my case, because my laptop sucks so hard, we're going to be reducing some settings and making this run a lot smoother. But before we do that, we need to have a look at how we'll be able to test whether or not what we're doing is having some kind of effect. And the way we'll do that is in the top corner of our viewport up here is we can turn on show stats and we're also going to turn on show FPS. And straight away at this point, you can see just how bad my FPS is. That is terrible. So what we'll also do is have a look at what it is that's kind of making it take so long. So if we go into stat engine and where are we unit? There it is. We can see that the thing that's really making it slow down is this GPU time. So we're asking it to render beyond the capability of the GPU, which in my case is a mobile workstation GPU, which is not ideal for what we're trying to do. So we're going to make some changes. OK, so if you go into the settings button up here, about halfway down to the scalability section, you can see for the purpose of this video, I've turned everything all the way up. As I've been going through this tutorial, I've been turning things up and down as necessary just to keep things running or just turning everything right down and things have been crashing. But you've probably been working at kind of max settings if you've not changed anything so far. So let's have a look at what we can do if we turn things down. So if we go from the moment I'm on Epic, if we go down to low, you'll see that things have improved straight away. I'm up into the 20s on my frame rate and there are still some things not reduced in the viewport here. If we play the game, you can see that I'm now approaching 40 and everything's a lot smoother. I can now move around. That's quite nice. But there's some sacrifices. The resolution has been lowered and all my grass has gone. So let's have a look at what's going on there and why that's happening. So the resolution lowered. When I went to low, this resolution scale came down to 25%. So that's 25% of what the full resolution would be. So that's really, really low. So what I'm going to go for actually is something a little bit higher. Let's go for about 65%, which should be a lot better. I just want my view distance to be up a little bit. I'm going to increase my foliage. We'll try it on high, but I might bring that back down. Shadows, I want to be on medium. We'll have post-processing on medium as well. And we'll try and get away with everything else on low for now. So now let's see. So in the kind of main editor window, I'm still struggling a little bit, but I don't have to have things on real-time. I can turn that off and just kind of move things around as I'm when, which is a little bit easier on the GPU. But what I'm really interested in what it performs like when I play. So you can see I'm now kind of in the 20s and that's not too bad. I do actually know that these settings will put me about 30 when I'm not recording the screen. So there is something I can do to kind of alleviate that is not not record the screen, but that would make it really difficult to put tutorials out. So what I'll do just to give myself a little bit more performance is I'm going to bring the foliage down to medium. If I turn it down to low, I will lose all the grass, which I don't want to do. So this resolution, things are much nicer. I would like to get closer to 30 though before we sign off this step. So what I'll do is I'll just bring my resolution scale down a little bit lower. Let's try 50% or something close to 50%. Yeah, I think that's as low as I'm going to get it. I've got a feeling that I'm now being constricted by the screen recording software because I am usually able to get faster frame rates than this. But this is what you can do in Engine when you're editing your levels, when you're editing your games to be able to just squeak out its performance, especially if you're trying to develop on a machine that wasn't really built for it. On my desktop, I get much better performance because that's got a gaming grade GPU in it. On the laptop, which has got all my recording software on it, not quite as good. So that brings this particular step to a close. You've now got an idea of how you can change the preview settings of the engine to allow for better performance. This is going to come in handy because moving forward, we're going to start working on kind of higher-end rendering effects. So we're going to be putting some lighting into the level. We're going to be adding some post-processing effects. So we might need to move these settings around to get the best performance. So moving on, we'll be straight onto lighting. Hopefully I will see you in the next step for that. Thanks for watching. If you really want to take your learning further than I can cover in this series, then I highly recommend checking out Plural Sight. They have loads of really detailed video courses covering game art and game development using Unreal Engine 4. When I learned how to use Unreal a couple of years ago, this is where I went and I log in regularly to take a new course and improve my skills. I recommend checking out the introduction to Unreal Engine 4 course by Joshua Kinney. This is really good and offers a good overview of what you can do in Unreal. You can get a free 10-day trial by using my link in the video description and you get full access to all of their courses for that time. At the end of your 10 days, you can either subscribe for more or cancel, totally up to you. It's got to be worth a free trial though, right? I'd like to say a massive thank you to my patrons. Your support helps me to keep making videos like this one and I really appreciate each and every one of you. It really blows my mind that people will support my channel and my work by pledging their money through Patreon. So again, thank you all so, so much. If you aren't already a patron and you'd like to offer your support, then please go to patreon.com forward slash Shane Whittington.


Okay. Let me briefly give you the ground rules. The President will be on the record. I think he's got about two or three minutes of opening remarks. The Secretary of Defense will follow. He will be on background, except what he indicates is on the record, and the Secretary of State will follow. That will be background also, except what he indicates is on the record. He will be transcripts provided. They will be available at 5 o'clock in room 45 in the EOB. I think that's about it, sir. Well, thank you, all of you, for coming here today. I know you're all very busy, and I'm busy too. I wanted to meet with you because this is an important time in our history, and as the year unfurls, I want you to have a sense of what's going on, what's on our minds, and what's guiding our actions. Philip Graham, as you know, once said that journalism is the first rough draft of history, and as you write it over the next few months, I hope you'll be able to keep in mind whatever insights you might gain today. I'm revealing no state secrets when I tell you that right now foreign policy questions are dominating our attention. In the Philippines, we've had a very big change, a great and peaceful revolution. That triumph of the people's will is a triumph of democracy. They have more men in the field and more support than ever from the people, so this is a critical time. I've asked Congress for a mixture of military and humanitarian aid, and I'm going to push very hard for this. If we don't help the freedom fighters now, a communist Nicaragua will over the next few years attempt to destabilize its neighbors in Central America, cause untold violence and pain for the people there, and create what communism always creates, a huge refugee machine. A recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of the people in the countries surrounding the Nicaragua support continued aid to the anti-communist rebels. There's more evidence than ever of Soviet, Cuban, Libyan, and PLO involvement in Nicaragua. There's a compelling case to be made that this is the decisive moment to help the freedom fighters, and I very frankly mean to help them and will fight for the support of the American people. I would add that the brave men and women who share your profession are being put under heavy strain in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas have in the past few months stepped up censorship. Radio Catelica has been shot down and La Prensa, the last great independent newspaper, is being harassed almost out of existence. Connected to Nicaragua, of course, is our need for a continued strong defense. You're familiar with the facts outlined the other night. I would only add that the way I see it, this is no time to back-town, back-track, or back-slide. So that's the quick sketch of my thinking, and I thank you again for coming. I know you have some questions, so shoot. Well, don't take that too literally. Mr.  Do you regret that now, and will you this year? I'm going to do everything I can, whatever the opportunities might be. We haven't laid out a schedule for them, but I'm going to do everything I can to inform the American people of the situation there, and to persuade the Congress of our responsibility to do something about it. As a matter of fact, I might just throw in here that a few days ago down in Grenada when I met with the nine prime ministers of those tiny Caribbean island nations, they brought up this subject themselves and unanimously and most earnestly said, you must not stop what you're doing. You must continue to help, because they said that they thought that Nicaragua represented the greatest threat to their very existence of anything that has happened south of the border. Mr. President, reports have it that Ferdinand Marcos, although he has a salary, had a sensible salary lower than your own, amassed a fortune outside the Philippines of something like $2 billion to $8 billion, some of it stashed in the United States. Now, do you have any reliable figures on how much he really has, and are you going to help the government of Corazon Aquino get it back? Wouldn't it be better to help her get back those assets that have apparently been looted from the country as opposed to providing American taxpayers money and foreign aid? Well, we have no figures at all. We've heard all the rumors and so forth about this, but we don't have any. We believe it is a problem for the Filipino government, and then we'll comply with law, our own Filipino or international, whenever the law calls for some action. Mr. President, at your press conference, the last press conference you had when you spoke about fraud on both sides in the Philippine election, I'm sure you remember that.  They were still counting the votes in the Philippines, and what did you think you needed to say? Well, in the first preliminary report that was given to me by the two men in charge of our task force there, they had said that it was evident that there was fraud on both sides. But there was no question, but that as the process went on, that the government obviously, the then government, had much more power than the challenger, so there was no balance between the amount of fraud, but I said that only with indication that it seemed to be more of a practice there than anyone would like to see. But there was no need for a change. My mind from the very beginning was this was a solution that had to be found by the Filipino people. They were the ones who had to make the decision. If the great majority and all had come down on the side of abiding by the election the way it was counted and announced, then we would be of help there. But our, from the very first, our prayerful attitude was that it was up to them, the Philippine people, to make the decision. We didn't want a civil war or bloodshed. We were doing everything we could to implore both sides. That's why we sent people like Phil Habib out there to implore them to, to not turn to violence for the solution, but to allow the people to make it evident. And when the people did make it evident then, even the army began abandoning the government and so forth, we accepted that decision. Mr. President, Gene Kirkpatrick, who used to be described as your ideological guru of this administration, made popular a policy that basically the United States had to choose between authoritarian governments like the one in the Philippines and communism, that it was an either or choice, as the victory of democracy now in the Philippines rendered that doctrine no longer relevant should what happened in the Philippines be a message to the governments in South Korea and in Chile to democratize their nations. Well, we think the trend toward democracy has been so widespread that today, here in our own hemisphere, south of our border, 90% of the people in Latin America are now living in democracies or in countries that are tending that way. It isn't a case of choosing authoritarianism as a form of government. It is that we've also seen some pretty grave mistakes made when in changing what most people thought was an authoritarian government, we round up with someone like the Homanie. And what we have, what we've said is that in the search for democracy, we don't want to make that kind of a mistake of settling for someone that is worse than the government that we're getting rid of. We have that situation in Nicaragua right now. This country stood back. I wasn't here at the time, but we stood aside and let the revolution go forward with regard to Samosa. And then Samosa stepped down. But again, the replacement in this instance was not the replacement as evidenced in the revolution where all of the revolutionaries sent to the Organization of American States a written statement of what the goals of the revolution were. And the goals were a pluralistic government, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of press, free labor unions and so forth. Then when the revolution was over, one faction of the revolution turned on its allies and ousted them and took the government by force. That is the Sandinista government. And right now our goal there in Nicaragua is to try and recover that by negotiations. This is what the Contras themselves have agreed to at our request. They would lay down their arms and join a negotiation to bring about the government they originally fought for. So we're, we just think we must not make the mistake again of an effort to get rid of someone we think is too authoritarian. We wind up with someone that is totalitarian. Mr. President, help me understand what seems like a contradiction if in fact the Contras are stronger than ever and have a wider base of support and population. And the other side, Nicaragua, the Soviet Union, are matching and increasing their aid to that society and it is becoming increasingly repressive. Why isn't our policy failing? Well, this could be stronger in the sense of people rallying to their side and their forces increasing in number. But they can't throw rocks at those Soviet gunships or stop tanks with bare hands. They need the weapons, the tools. But what I meant by the strength was that I think the revolutionary forces now, I have heard this figure brooded about that they only numbered about 5,000 or so in rebelling against Samosa. We know that there are about 20,000 freedom fighters now willing to strike at the Sandinista government, but they have to have the tools with which to do the job. We went through a year. They were exerting such pressure on the Sandinista government that it still is a basket case economically. They cannot withstand very much more pressure. But then for a year there was no aid and this gave the Sandinista government a chance to get a second wind. They still are in bad trouble. And we feel, as a matter of fact, they adjust the non-lethal aid, strengthened the Contras hand again and increased the pressure. Now we believe that we've got to give them real aid. And at the same time, and they've agreed that the goal is, and it is our goal in that of Contadora, that any time that the Sandinista government, the only holdout in this, will agree to a negotiated settlement, there will be no more fighting. Direct follow-up. I mean, when you said that they can withstand no more pressure, or not much more pressure, I, I... Well, because their economy is under such a strain. A follow-up on that, if I could, Mr. President, you've made clear once again in your last statement here that the ideal outcome would be a political outcome in which the pressures of the Contras are putting on the Sandinistas would lead them into negotiations that would produce the kind of government we want to see there. Failing that, though, can you conceive of a military victory by the Contras in which they do under the Sandinistas what the Sandinistas did to the Somoza forces before? If the, if the Sandinista government is, is going to fight to the death and to, and to the last man, I suppose that would be the outcome, but it is what I was trying to explain is that is not the primary goal of the Contras. The Contras have made it evident that they're asking for a return to the revolutionary combine and to the goals that were agreed to by all of them. I understand it's not the primary goal, but is it a realistic goal to think that the Contras can win militarily? I have to believe that that, yes, that that is possible because the Nicaraguan government forces, regardless of their great strength in armaments, they are losing support of the people. A great many of those additional Contras now are deserters from the Sandinista armed forces. Jack? Would you be extending an invitation to Mrs. Aquino to come to Washington and confer with you? I don't know. We haven't made any plans of that kind. She's busy there straightening out her government, but we have assured that government however that as they proceed and go forward now with establishing democracy there in the Philippines that we will support them. We've had an historic relationship with the people of the Philippines and we want to continue that. One more question. Mr. President, I wonder if you would comment on the strength of the communist insurgency in the Philippines, whether you think that is a threat to democracy there, whether you think it's supported by an outside government, or whether you agree with those members of the Aquino government who say that 80% of the military activity in the Philippines is utilizing people who are opposed to Marcos but not supporting any communist ideology. Well, I have to say the insurgent, I'm not talking about, I have no knowledge of infiltration, let's say into the armed forces of the Philippines by communists. Possible, anything is possible with them, not Filipinos, communists, but there is a communist insurgency and we only have to look around the world to find out that their goals and their purposes are expansionist and you can't just say, oh, hum, there aren't very many of them, they're a little like rabbits. So, no, we've got to take them seriously and you can't have a coalition with them, we found that out in Laos when we forced the government of Laos, pressured them to accept the path at Laos as a kind of, in collaboration with them as a partnership government. And it ended up that the path at Laos and all that was in the government. That I have to... A question from Bernie Shaw, sir? Yes, I was going to ask, yes. Mr. President, the other night you appealed to the American people to help you to keep Congress from touching your defense budget. Is it unfair to interpret your appeal as in effect saying that it's un-American to cut your defense budget? I never said anything of the kind, I didn't mean to imply anything of the kind, but I do imply that at this point to not continue with the policies that we've had with regard to refurbishing our military is irresponsible and is pretending that there is no risk. Now, we haven't caught up. I suppose what's on my mind is the fact that a recent poll, a very authoritative poll, showed that the overwhelming majority of the American people believe that we have now caught up past them and our superior in military force to the Soviet Union. And that just is not true, and that's why I gave the figures the other night. There are even additional figures that show with regard to the buildup of the forces where we and our NATO allies are still behind the Soviet power wave. And to think now of acting as if the job is done and to cut back, I think that my position with Mr. Gorbachev is very simple. We know that they too have great problems. He himself has as much as admitted them, economic problems due to the amount of their gross national product that is being put into the military. And our position is one, and I made it plain to him. We cannot and will not stand by and see them maintain or achieve even a greater military superiority over us. And therefore, the choice that we have, and this is why we wanted to talk disarmament with them, the choice is that both of us start reducing the numbers of weapons that we have so that we can still be square and even with each other and reduce them. Or he has to face an arms race because we are not going to allow them to have a dangerous superiority over us. But my question, Mr. President, is it unfair to interpret your appeal as you're thinking that cutting your budget is un-American? Oh, pardon me. I didn't get to that point of it. Yeah, you'd all be unfair if you interpreted it that way. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, with pass indulgence in yours, sir, the second most interesting and important speech of the week was Mr. Gorbachev in Moscow during the Party Congress in which he did cast some doubt on whether there would be a summit this year and suggested that unless there was concrete progress, there might not be a summit. What's your reaction about, are you any less optimistic about having a summit? No. I stood there out in the parking lot in Geneva, and he accepted my invitation, and I accepted his for 87. We haven't agreed on a date. We all feel that we shouldn't just sit back and wait for a summit, that yes, we should continue to try and proceed with the things we talked about in the first summit. But I have to also point out that negotiations don't all take place just at the negotiating table when you meet. So I treat some of the things that I hear, as I'm sure he treats things he hears about me, that we're both in a negotiating position. Thank you, sir.