Nature or Nurture - a different look
Catana
5 Comments
In his book, Intelligence: a New Look, Hans Eysenck makes a point that has been stated by others, in the ongoing discussion about whether genetics or environment is more influential in giftedness. “ Children, as they grow up, increasingly choose their environment; the choice itself is driven by genetic factors. And they interpret their environment in terms of their genetic contributions.” One example that he selected, from the many possible, was the life of the mathematician, Michael Faraday, who came from a poor family and had almost no schooling except for what he managed to scrabble for himself.
Similarly, Dean Keith Simonton, in The Origins of Genius: “if the parents had not provided opportunities in the home for the desired stimulation, the children would probably seek out stimulation elsewhere.”
“...a child with certain inborn talents may soon put pressure on the environment to make it conform more closely to feed those talents. To the outside observer it may appear as if the environment is influencing the child’s development, but instead it is the child’s genetic disposition that is influencing the home circumstances. The research literature on child prodigies is replete with examples of future geniuses who insist on pursuing specific enthusiasms even in the face of parental discouragement.” Simonton’s example was Pascal, another mathematician from an unpromising background.
That is a quite different position from one that was fairly common about twenty years ago: “...giftedness cannot be understood solely as a cognitive trait, but rather must be understood as a complex interaction between a peculiarly supportive environment that the individual helps create, but over which the individual has only limited power.” Frances D. Horowitz, The Gifted and Talented: developmental perspectives
I suspect that research done since then has encouraged many writers to modify their view, but it still has enough support to influence ambitious parents of gifted children. And it isn’t a simple matter of whether a supportive environment is or isn’t a necessity. There is, today, some question about how much influence a highly enriched intellectual environment actually has on future achievements. I don’t think there’s any argument that an enriched environment is a benefit, regardless of whether the child is gifted or average. The confusion about its value probably lies in what effects it's expected to have.
That’s a subject for another post.
Reader Comments (5)
I can't help but wonder if the biggest difference a parent can make is to forget all of the studies, books, and research. Shut out the outside authorities and simply parent from inspiration and intuition.
However, I know first hand that is easier said than done.
One of them, age 3, pleaded, cajoled, and harassed us to teach him chess. We didn't even own a chess board. After weeks of relentless begging, we got him an old set, showed him (once) the figures, named them and showed him how they each moved. He then spent 4 straight hours playing games against himself, and the next several years gaining mastery, at which point he completely lost interest, and has never played since. I doubt a parent could have provided a "chess rich" environment for a different child and ended up with the chess prodigy that we had on our hands for a while, and nurture had nothing to do with his interest or ability.
Heather, we have a cultural mindset that adults lead (instruct) and children follow. It's so "natural" that it gets in the way of being able to understand that sometimes the parents need to let the child lead, and simply provide guidance when and where it can be useful.
I need to carry a printout of this entry and a copy of Eysenck's book with me for all the people who say, "Oh, you must really work with her a lot." LOL
Her older sister too has such an inquisitve mind. But the funny thing is, she doesn't ask just simply "why"? She actually phrases things in such a way that shows her making connections to other learned concepts. You can't really teach that kind of thought process to a 6 year old. It's just her way of learning more about the world and integrating different pieces of information.
My three year old is hard to tell about. She has appeared more on target developmentally (not early and not too late), but she's been asking me questions like "what is x (some word she doesn't know) and gives me this serious, quizzical look and earnestly waits for my reply. I really think she is going to surprise me and catch up to her sisters soon. She already can navigate around preschooler computer games.
They've picked up more stuff on their own or from each other than from me. It's quite cute how my 6 year old will read to the 3 year old.
Overall, I've been loving how my girls have been learning and have been so glad I was able to eventually quit my job and be home to watch them grow, develop, and learn. They are quite interesting little girls. Of, course I know I'm biased. But seriously, they are.