“Q: CURT: Why you chose age 9 as the inflection point (between mother’s and father’s *dominant* influence)?”
‘Cause that appears to be the point of developmental change – or at least, among Europeans, and despite variation in rates of maturity. And that number, whether 7 or 9, appears to be consistent both in the present research and across European history back into our earliest evidence. And it’s also true in what evidence we have from pre-history.
As a general rule children transition in capacity for responsibly in a sequence from 0-7,9, to 8,9-12,13,14, to 12,13,14 -18,21 or first child born. Evidence in history is that adult responsibility, if one serves in an apprenticeship beginning at 7, can develop at least in the outliers as young as 12. There are plenty of successful young men at 14 and 15 if they receive high-investment parenting (in most cases training).
For some reason, the vox populi complain that I’m discounting having both parents. But that’s not the point I’m making. I’m making the point that in single parent households, or among divorced or separated parents in single-parent households, that the necessary dominant influence from emotional support necessary for self-regulation in care, to cognitive and decision support for self-regulation in competition, is rather obviously (painfully obviously) dependent upon the different intuitions of the sexes.
Single fathers produce better results than single mothers by a long shot. In fact, single mothers, especially after age nine, are demonstrably producing children that are a high risk to society.
Cheers.
Reply addressees: @InTruthVictori1