Bryan Caplan goes to one of his favorite topics ...and the topic of his next book (Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids). And...while Bryan is focussing on one set of research, I'd like to bring up another.
What effects might parenting have?
Personality? According to Harris, apparently not.
IQ? Again...apparently not much (iffy breastfeeding research?).
However, we have a bunch of other research out that indicates a couple other things that align well with the obsessiveness of the modern soccer-gymnastics-TaeKwonDo-and-Piccolo-mom?
Let me posit some claims that I think are supported by research:
1. Skills (All skills) are to be attained almost exclusively via practice.
2. "Talent" is fictional, and mostly skill that comes from extensive practice.
3. Some skills (sensory esp.) are much harder to learn after some age (language after 8? new languages after 10? music? many other sensory items).
4. Habits tend to endure. -- less certain.
Given this...while one may not be able to affect one's child's personality or IQ much at all...one can impact his/her skills...and skill acquisition is tremendously important.
Indeed...one's success in a chosen field may well be almost entirely determined by skill.
That skill may be mathematical, literary, culinary, algorithmic, musical, social, meditative, or any of a scad of others.
Is it not then likely that the proper approach to parenting...if one wishes to support a child's future success is to teach things as skills? And focus less on personality?
Though...as a counterpoint...the question of what falls into the category of skill becomes interesting as well.
IQ has major predictive impact on performance.
However, self-efficacy has a bigger predictive impact on performance.
And...self-efficacy (not the same self-esteem) is modifiable.
Food for thought about parenting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
What they show is that they have not discovered how to improve on these things. Not that it cant be done. Much like Piaget.
Is any of what they are looking at the result of a systematic attempt to alter the variable (IQ) or are they basically looking through data that was gathered and looking for a correlation? (I haven't read the book but it seems like mostly the later)
DI used in preschool was able to improve IQ by about 20 points. Sadly I don't think anyone has even tried to replicate this.
There are a few things that have been shown to have longitudinal affects on IQ. Certain ways of talking to kids (talk as if they understand from the get go, speak clearly/often and in simple language etc, Sign language, Second language etc).
Mozart and Tiger Woods are both good examples of parental impact. But I don't think anyone has tried to systematize and study how frequently such efforts succeed or fail, let alone try and cause such things on a large scale.
Contrarily,
Both head start and Montessori have shown, if not identical, but hugely significant IQ differences after the programs. The problem was that the reversion to form took only a few years. If someone entered Kindergarten (or 3rd grade) after Montessori, and 15 IQ points elevated over their initial pre-montessori education...by the end of the 6th grade, they were back where they'd been before Montessori.
My inclination is to suggest that all this means is that the IQ tests being administered are not sufficiently robust to remove the impact of specific knowledge, which is trainable.
"Talent" is fictional, and mostly skill that comes from extensive practice
I disagree with this. I know people who, as adults, are very talented at picking up new languages. Their practice to understanding time is way smaller than mine would have to be (assuming I could even get to their level) and their retention is higher.
Some body types are more suited to acquiring skills in various sports.
Talent without practice wont get you very far, but some skils are more easily acquired by some people than others.
It's a nature versus nurture argument. I've always been of the opinion that both count.
People are born with a natural range. Their environment effects that range.
Also, don't discount the value of happiness.
Freedom,
As with most topics...I try to only actually take sides in this kind of thing after absurd amounts of reading. I am landing against conventional opinion. And...the evidence is piling on the side of practice.
Why do some people pick up languages faster/better? Because they've done either X or W (which is a component skill of X) a lot more than you have.
The lines on violin, piano and chess are roughly...count the number of hours of effective practice, and you can grade folks without listening/watching a performance just as well as you could if you'd watched. If true, this says that for these tasks, practice is the only issue...and music is one of those tasks.
The anecdotal evidence stretches roughly forever, so I won't go there. However, I may have been unclear.
It is obvious that (a) IQ, and (b) personality types play BIG roles in just about everything.
It is also obvious that genetics makes a huge difference in anything physical. 6'8" tends to dunk better than 5'2".
However, contra Gardner, it is not obvious that the brain is sufficiently un-plastic so as to say that ANY youth has any particular
3 books on the topic:
Mastery by George Leonard,
Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin
Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
Post a Comment