For those of you with 'bright' children, do you take the credit for it ....

[sandyballs]

..... or believe it's pot luck. I'm sick of hearing about a friend's 'genius' child and how it is all down to her parenting.

I know we can help by encouraging reading, blah blah, not constant screens etc, but it is pot luck isn't it really. If it's not how do you explain very different siblings, some who struggle, some who thrive academically yet have been brought up in the same way. This kid is an only btw.

I know it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but she winds me up and I'm curious as to what MN think.

PassTheSherry I think what you are doing with them certainly helps, Mum worked really hard with all of us at home, trying to find ways to make learning fun and taught us all to love learning, just i'm severely dyslexic so the fact I can read and write as well as I do and cope with uni is largely down to the effort she put in to teaching me and building my confidence, where as my 14 year old brother, who is naturally much smarter than I am anyway, got the same level of effort put into supporting him, so is doing amazingly much better at school than I did.

Personally I think that it is a combination of both.

An 'able ' child supported in the right environment will excel but will probably still do ok in a less supportive environment.

But a less able child will probably only do we up to a point even with the best environment possible.

Absolutely no idea if my children are 'bright' they are too young.

But I had 14 schools due to moving every 6 months (although fairly supportive parents) and myself and brothers have excelled academically. So suspect that is largely due to genetics.

I think you have to know your child as well. So if you e.g. make yourself responsible for organising your child's schoolbag

child a) thinks "isn't organising a brilliant idea! I can do that too!"
child b) thinks "My lunch is always magically in my bag so my brain is my brain is free to work on high level physics problems"
child c) thinks "Isn't life great, always somebody to pack my school bag, my brain is free to sleep".

Parents contribute to their childrens genes and have a major say in their upbringing so either way have some responsibility for how their kids turn out. The exact mix of which genes they inherit from which parent they can't influence and that can be partly responsible for sibling differences, although birth order also plays a part.
Once they get older then their teachers and friends also influence them, and alot of that is outwith your control, although you can choose how involved you are in your childrens choice of friends and how proactive you are with the school if you aren't happy.
To do well a child has to be motivated and prepared to work though and as a parent you can only influence this so much.
I've never claimed credit for my kids achievements though. You can optimise the environment for them doing well but they have to do the work.

I have relations who are unable to process and analyse simple information. They are not disabled, but to think of them as bright would be delusional. Yes they emit light. But...

Sandyballs - I too am sick of people claiming credit for their child's "brightness". "oh yes, well, when he was a baby I talked to him all the time..." and "We used to take him to art galleries when he was a toddler...."
My DS struggles so I was always tempted to say "oh really? I kept mine in a box...that explains it then......."
My DD is very "bright" - ie academically able. When I wastold recently "you should be very proud of her.." I felt a little sad. Of course I am, but she fnds things so easy; by comparison DS has to work so hard; I'm really proud of him too.

Oh, and don't you hate theword "bright" - implying that others are "dull"?? Chilldren are under so much pressure these days from such an early age. A 6 y old seen as not very able at school could be a whizz at imaginative play, or lego, have loads of ideas about how to climb trees, or just have a zest for life and enthusiasm that will take them far. That's true "brightness".

To the OP proposal.

90% genetic I suspect. Isn't everything pretty much down to our DNA? I have blue eyes, a face like my parents, I walk like my Mum, enjoy the same sports and play music to the same level. Coincidence. Don't think so.

They are born like that.
But it is possible for a parent to completely screw up their lives.

I think its nature as when we choose a partner, we are drawn to those who are attractive, providers, hardworking etc. we sub consciously choose someone who we consider will create healthy children. Bit sweeping but in essence we look for the best fit for us as an individual.

Children, as a product of the union, have their parents and previous, good nutrition, a start before birth to develop well.

When they arrive, if ignored the innate intelligence will be there, but if not nurtured may, depending on temperament and home life, come out in anti social ways, whether that child is a natural leader or follower. Plenty of children with parents who nurture like crazy end up watching their child max out on petty crime etc. and children ignored become successful in society, work and personal life.

And parents who are never there due to work commitments or self interest ( leaving it to the nanny or school or cbeebies) might end up with a workaholic or a layabout.

I think you can only guide and encourage. The rat race is nothing to aspire to, but in reality you have to- to fit in with social and class expectations - let the ratlet race begin:)

DS has iq of 162 and is in Mensa, I clearly deserve all the credit for pushing out a genius...

There is only a tiny difference in the genes that has any affect on IQ. I can't find the research right now but it is there. There is a lot of talk about heritable intelligence which isn't the same thing as genes. Nobody is born more intellectually smart than anyone else unless there have been outside negative influences.

The negative influences can be in the womb - raised stress levels and medications or toxins can have an effect and then once they are born it depends on interaction with parents and general responses from those around them.

The more they play the more they learn and that's how it works. You send them to violin lessons at 3, they learn to play violin better. They are not gifted, they just learn how to do it and it suits them at that time. To everyone else they appear gifted and then they get the confidence and the expectations around them that make them work harder and enjoy their violin playing even more.

Adikia Thank goodness it's not a load of nagging for nothing!
Actually it's funny you mention dyslexia, as am just beginning to wonder if my youngest has it. At the moment she is still so little it's hard to tell (she is 4 and eldest is 6). There are certain things that make me wonder, to do with concentration, mirror-writing her name, being left-handed, having trouble remembering names, rhymes - it's more the combination than one single thing. I mentioned it to the teacher recently, and they are keeping an eye on it. If she has dyslexia, that will be nature, but if it's picked up early and she gets appropriate support for it, then that will be the nurture bit.

I was academic as a child. I suppose I still am. DS1 has learning difficulties and will be lucky to pass his GCSE's at all let alone get top grades. But he is not stupid or "thick", just struggles to access the curriculum at school and thrive with the present assessment routine. DS2 is only a toddler but seems a bright little thing so far. I value education and have always taught DS1 that so I think it's luck of the draw mostly. Sure if you don't care and don't encourage your child they will not do as well as they could, but other than that it is luck.

Adikia Thank goodness it's not a load of nagging for nothing!
Actually it's funny you mention dyslexia, as am just beginning to wonder if my youngest has it. At the moment she is still so little it's hard to tell (she is 4 and eldest is 6). There are certain things that make me wonder, to do with concentration, mirror-writing her name, being left-handed, having trouble remembering names, rhymes - it's more the combination than one single thing. I mentioned it to the teacher recently, and they are keeping an eye on it. If she has dyslexia, that will be nature, but if it's picked up early and she gets appropriate support for it, then that will be the nurture bit.

Oops double post sorry

I think genetics play a big part in your intelligence but I don't think it is as simple as saying if your parents are bright you will be bright. My parents aren't that bright at all, particularly my father. He had his education ruined by the war (so he says) but he doesn't have that innate ability to pick things up. After all lots of children got evacuated during WW2 and they aren't all like him. My mother is OK but not grammar school educated or anything like that (she is 10 yrs younger than my dad so WW2 wasn't an issue). My brother isn't particularly bright either. On the other hand, compared to them, I am. I just picked things up more quickly than any of them. However, both my parents have some bright brothers and sisters and my mum's mum was also bright. Clearly they share some of their genes with me so I don't feel like any intelligence I have comes from nowhere.

I wouldn't say my parents particularly nurtured my intelligence either so I can't say that what I am is down to their parenting. They were very keen on education but I don't think they particularly supported it in the way I do for my children. They never helped with homework or talked about what we had been learning. They just expect us to work hard and do our best and if they had evidence of that in school reports etc, they were happy. That approach clearly worked for me but it didn't work for my brother who is very average.

My own children are very different despite having the same parents and growing up with the same ideals and going through the same schools. They were different from birth too. DS2's intelligence was apparent from the very beginning, I can't take credit for that. DS1 was and still is bright but he isn't bright in the same way that DS2 is. Whatever made them different was part of their nature. As a parent I can nurture it and encourage them (or kill it if I don't parent them properly) but I can't create something out of nothing. If the intelligence isn't part of their nature, nothing I do will create that.

Mine labelled a tad slow and very disorganized, and had no confidence at age 8 as he couldn't read or write. It was me that got him dyslexia tested, fought with his school to get him some support and spent time researching and implementing strategies to help at home - now have a confident son who is an avid reader and enjoying uni, highly academic, and is doing great stuff.... Nature sometimes needs a bit of help to express itself in the education system as it stands in this country.

I have a massively high IQ. Sometimes I can pick things up very quickly indeed (not always, but we will gloss over my parlous map reading, inability to get on with faxes and photocopiers, and so on).

However the skill I use most is the ability to plod away at problems. I can think about a problem for 4-5 years or longer while I come up with a solution, and gradually put all the mechanisms in place for solving said problem in a thorough and considered way. That is of considerable value in society, and in my experience children who have this often do better than those who don't, regardless of IQ.

So we should encourage persistence and stop fretting about IQ, which is a social construction anyway.

I think genetics play a big part in your intelligence but I don't think it is as simple as saying if your parents are bright you will be bright

You may think that, it seems to be like that, but there is NO evidence to show that genes play a big part. The only evidence there is shows that genes play a very very tiny part (and that's usually down to very historic genetic references to do with evolution - not immediate parents). Children are born equal, physically and neurologically unless there has been a negative influence such as poor diet, toxins or trauma.

If your child is stimulated and pushed to learn and enjoys learning, they will. Simple as. Parents and surroundings make it all happen. The brain is hugely sensitive as a developing organ and every influence shapes and moulds it.

The child that seems 'bright' at a young age is simply at the right stage of development when he or she gets a lot of influence. I remember a child at school who everyone thought was really bright - he did have an enquiring mind and the most knowledge in the class. But I also knew his parents spent every waking moment talking and interacting with him. They were never silent, there was constant chatter and he was always mentally stimulated.

The concept of the genius is also a fallacy - the birth of a genius is just a set of neurological circumstances that coincide with environmental circumstances that fire off each other forcing an abnormal advantage in one part of the brain.

I think if people really look closely at 'bright' people they will eventually see where the influence came from - I think it's usually where a child has less focus on the physical and is encouraged or supported mainly to interact on a cerebral level. It was either grandma telling stories combined with a physical problem like asthma not letting the child play out much, or a lack of outside space but lots of books indoors. Or lots of social communication without physical outlet but with musical input. I don't know one child where I can't trace their intellectual success back to some influence in their lives.

horsetowater did you ever read the life history of George Stephenson? No parental input, self-taught and self-motivating. Clearly he was alive in the right era for his engineering genius to have maximum impact.

But horsetowater how does one account for differences in ability within families, especially multiples?

Presumably most multiples receive a very similar upbringing, and receive it at the same time and in the same environment.

Boffin I completely agree.

My view has always been that you only need to be bright enough. After that the skills a person needs to succeed are entirely unrelated to intelligence.

I do think here in the UK we're a bit obsessed with raw intelligence. Anyone else is expected to stay in their place, or if they don't will be predicted to crash and burn at some point.

Unfortunately that just isn't true, horsetowater. Not all children are created equal. You can see in lots of families. My brother has the equivalent to 1 O level I have a masters degree (in psychology as it happens). Our upbringings were not so radically different to account for that massive difference in attainment, even taking into account the minor differences in the way we were parented and how we spent our free time.

The environment and nurture have a big part to play in how genes are expressed but they are not the only determining factors in the level of a person's intelligence. Your intelligence can't be put down to either one thing or the other. Most psychologists understand that. The debate is not whether intelligence is genetic or environmental but the relative influence of either variable.

There may be plenty of bright children who were pushed to reach the higher levels of attainment but equally there are lots who don't have that stimulation and who are still very bright people and a further group who have all the nurturing in the world (great schools, supportive encouraging parents) who just don't reach the same levels of intelligence. It just isn't in them. Go back 100 years to the days when women were not pushed at all, when education was seen as wasted on females - are you saying that we were all stupid back then? Of course we weren't! Intelligence was still there just without the academic attainment.

You seem to be mixing up academic attainment with intelligence actually. You refer to the children who do well academically and how they are a product of some behind the scenes influence but you completely forget the group who just as intelligent but aren't successful. They still have the ability to learn, it is still innately there, they just aren't giving it the full outlet.

Boffinmum - I totally agree about persistence, some might call it emotional intelligence or resilience - the ability to keep trying and not give up at the first hurdle. It is a major determining factor of academic success although you can have all the persistence in the world but if you don't have that innate ability to think it is a bit wasted. It will only take you so far.

The current obsession with "raw IQ", hunting it down in all parts of society and giving it special privileges to fulfil its potential is abhorrent.

How Bonsoir?

It's no different to identifying potential rowers who otherwise wouldn't think of picking up an oar. Surely it's of general benefit to society to help potential be realised?