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.

I know one thing - parents evenings are much harder with DD who is an academic high-flyer, than with DS who can be up and down! With him, there is at least something to talk about. With her, I find it genuinely embarrassing to sit there at desk after desk with teachers saying how she's brilliant at this and brilliant at that. One teacher at the recent consultation described her as 'perfect' (translates as: 'she likes my unpopular subject'!). What can you say? (I laughed, possibly too much.) There is often an implication that I too must be a maths/science/music genius, which sadly I have to deny. All I can take credit for is offering both DD and DS opportunities to try out what interests them. But actually I would take more credit with DS, whom I have helped to achieve at a lower level, than with DD, who has never needed my help - she's already beyond me in any maths or science subject and has been since she was about 12!

So I guess I think we all have skills - what matters is if we are lucky enough to find them and have the opportunity to develop them.
Oh, but I entirely take the credit for her liking Abba and Broadway musicals! And the pasta sauce thing is definitely genetic.

Really enjoying the discussion on this topic. I too think that all/most children are 'bright' and that it might not equal school academic attainment. It's a long game, with lots of variables and we still haven't decided on the terms of reference.

I would not have been considered 'bright' at school now, and indeed wasn't back in the day, but I was an able reader and was/am imaginative. Which quite honestly is another underrated trait - it can help you become a great problem solver. I'm a fecking good problem solver! (We'll skirt over my school day maths!) I like Boffinmum's take on this also.

PS. While I faffed around with my own post, have just looked back to see Bertha's - yes, agree totally with you and Boffin re persistence. Ironically, one problem that bright kids often have is that things come so easy, they don't learn that persistence. It totally threw my DD the first time she hit a problem; while DS just quietly slogs away, all too familiar with the idea that he may not get it first time.
I seem to remember reading something about the importance of children not being told that their achievements are entirely down to nature (ie something they can't change) but persistence (something they can).
Fascinating discussion, this! Thank you all.

Of course, if my children are bright it's entirely down to inheriting my brains! Sod all to do with my parenting though has full-time nanny

Unfortunately that just isn't true, horsetowater. just because your brother has the same parents doesn't mean you have had an identical interaction with outside influences. It can be something as simple as a friend getting you interested in learning about something, or watching something on TV that sparked you. If it were genetic there would be evidence. The only evidence there is proves the opposite.

Word again the above applies. The difference in IQ 'gene' at birth accounts for something like 0.005 difference. The twin studies have been very small iirc.

Will get the references at some point.

Boffin it is abhorrent to do this eugenic type of research but it will benefit in the long run with policy makers because it's actually proved that there is NOT a difference so no racist nutters can 'prove' that all people with ginger hair are thick or whatever nonsense myth it is they want to peddle. I think if we can get away from the 'fait accompli' attitude we will learn so much more about learning and development.

Behaviour is cultural and inherited from the influence of parents and environment (both physical and mental), not from their genes. The evidence around trauma during foetal development shows that biological factors affect learning and development far more than genes do.

The race thing has always baffled me. It seems convenient for certain groups to maintain that race and intelligence and class are linked, for example looking at south London and pronouncing that as there are more black unemployed people in certain areas, this says something about black IQ. Whereas if you look in countries that a predominantly black, with developed economies, you see the same spread of black doctors, lawyers, teachers etc as exists in a white context in the UK. No shit Sherlock. Too much golf club psychology in this bloody country.

Hey horsetowater lay off the ginger's will you

I think that whatever we call "intelligence" is mostly nurture over nature, but it doesn't mean the parents or carers necessarily get to take credit for it. There are so many factors at play.

I also think it's really dangerous for a society to believe that intelligence is mostly genetically inherited, ultimately there's a real risk it can translate to social racism and social darwinism.

Chacha the good news is, IQ 'genes' have only a tiny influence on real IQ. And I don't think the evidence shows that white Europeans are born with higher IQ than anyone else. There are minor evolutionary factors to do with survival of the fittest within the terrain and climate that people evolve but it really is 'golf club psychology' given that most of our civilisations began in the middle east and africa to assume that white europeans are born smarter than others.

Despite all this I think it's important for the science to be studied in order to find the truth.

But back on topic - parents do have a right to say that their influence is what makes their children succeed but they also need to acknowledge all the other people and environmental factors involved in that child's life. They also need to understand that while intellectual ability might be advantageous to some, to many it has no bearing on whether their child will be successful or happy and there are many other effective ways to achieve that.

I know so many children who could read before the age of 4 but still can't climb a tree. Once those physical developmental milestones are passed they can never be learned again so you have to wonder which path is the right way forward. I prefer the well-rounded route for mine.

Juggling some of my best friends are gingers

It's important to have strong arguments against racist nutters but in the process you should watch out that you don't sound like you're arguing against biological influences as a whole (not only genetic ones).

I agree about the genetic component not being as significant as people generally think but on the other hand, we're most definitely not all born as neurologically identical blank slates.

Whether the differences come from genes or various environmental influences in utero (or both), there are real differences there - the playing field is not level from birth, not just in terms of the environment in which people are going to be brought up in but also in terms of what their brains are already like by the time they are born.

Otherwise you leave the door wide open to the people who look at everyone who hasn't achieved as much as they have and say things like "I did it, so they could do if they made an effort, they're clearly just not trying!". Similarly all the people who think various neurological disorders are just made-up excuses people use to excuse moral failings, bad character, bad parenting and so on. There are biological inputs into intelligence and achievement, even if they're not all genetic.

Also don't forget all the misconceptions people have about race. Sometimes a gene can genuinely cause something, but the misconception is that this gene is related to other genes related to appearance and 'race'. Really it may vary a lot even amongst people of the same race. So 'genes don't determine intelligence full stop' isn't the only argument against horrible racist attitudes.

My two are gingerish (one more than t'other) and they've also spent plenty of time up trees
< vaguely engages with thread in rather random ways >

As DOUBLES says the playing field is never level

That's all true about racism, but I was actually talking about "social" racism, which is more insidious imo, because less of a taboo.

I meant, the idea that poor people are poor because they are somehow naturally less intelligent, and that less intelligent "genes" gradually make their way to the bottom of society (ie social darwinism).

It's complete bollocks of course, but it's not that big of a jump from saying that intelligence is mostly genetic. And it's a really dangerous idea, because it implies that social inequalities are natural and the way they should be, that poor people "deserve" to be a the bottom and that it's useless to try and make society more upwardly mobile.

I had a massive influence on my DD academic ability when she was little, she could read Enid Blyton books, write stories and knew all her tables off by heart by the time she was 5. Now all the credit goes to her she works so hard she deserves all the credit, I just helped her on her way.

the playing field is not level from birth, not just in terms of the environment in which people are going to be brought up in but also in terms of what their brains are already like by the time they are born.

I agree and there is usually a fairly obvious cause for the differences - as I said before, a trauma, toxin or dietary problem. There is no obvious cause for advantages and by god they have been looking for the magic ingredient forever. Folic acid is about the only thing they've found so far and classical music.

Otherwise you leave the door wide open to the people who look at everyone who hasn't achieved as much as they have and say things like "I did it, so they could do if they made an effort, they're clearly just not trying!".

The problem is at the moment people say "she's naturally bright" - so there is no acceptance that environmental factors do have an effect. I'd far rather they said "if every child had the opportunity my child does they would all be bright". The fact that most children don't have those opportunities could then be addressed.

Schools are also very keen to assume 'natural' intelligence and that writes whole swathes of children off at a very early age.

Even children that are damaged have the capability of achieving an awful lot. My own daughter has had horrendous damage due to toxins in utero (another thread maybe) but she knows her times tables, can work out an awful lot of stuff herself, can read and write. The brain is a truly remarkable organ and capable of incredible things, including making good where damage has occurred.

Due to ridiculous institutional research limitations we haven't found out nearly enough about it.

Actually my dd has despite the damage, achieved better than a lot of children in her group that have had no damage in utero at all. Early neglect can cause a huge amount of disadvantage although it's probably not permanent damage.

And I haven't pushed her as much as I could, just always tried to get her to communicate. (Patiently).

She misses a lot of school as well due to medical problems so all in all I think it's hugely wrong to treat people differently in terms of expectations.

What are you all meaning by 'bright' anyway?

My impression is that most of us are somewhere in the middle and people who are outstandingly brilliant in adulthood (as opposed to developing at a different pace in childhood) are not that common.

Also, if 'bright' means somebody who has a brain that can e.g. work out maths problems easily, how does that compare to somebody whose brain gives them a natural ability to understand and talk to other people (e.g. a con artist or a chat show host) or to make people laugh or to think quickly and practically in a high stress situation. As far as I can see it's all about your neurons working in a particular way.

As others have said, I think success is often more dependent on being able to focus, work hard and bounce back from failure - 90% perspiration, 10% inspiration. (Better get off MN and back to work then…)

Interesting thread.

My DS's school report said he was "bright" but he's no brighter than average so I don't know what the teacher meant by that. Maybe just happy and sparky???

Personally, I would rather have a happy, kind and confident child with average intelligence than a shy genius with low self-esteem.

horsetowater - I'd far rather they said "if every child had the opportunity my child does they would all be bright". People could say that but it wouldn't be true would it? (Unless you can point me in the direction of research papers that proves otherwise? I would be interested in seeing them. I can't find one despite looking.)

You are massively over simplifying intelligence and where it comes from. There can never be some formula that you can apply from birth to make all children intellectual achievers. Opportunity does not make intelligence - it develops something that is inborn. Look at twin studies for a start.

If in some freaky parallel universe you could get a bunch of embryos and subject them all to exactly the same stimuli from then until they were adults, they would not all turn out the same. The genetic influence would still be felt.

And of course my interaction with my home life was different to my brothers - we are genetically different in so many ways and how we interact with even identical stimuli will be driven by that. Intelligence is a part of that genetic difference.

I don't think the question is really whether genetic makeup has any effect at all (surely it does), the question is, what is its relative importance in the general scheme of things, compared to other factors.

Not to mention, there's no such thing as a fixed genetic makeup, the way our genes activate is itself shaped (to some degree) by our environment and other things. So I'm told, anyway.

So it's probably not a black or white answer (surprise, surprise! ;) My guess is that the relative importance of our genetic heritage for intelligence is not all that huge, but I'll freely admit that it's a mostly uninformed guess :-P

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-decision-tree/201112/genetics-iq-not-so-simple

I agree Chacha the obsession with genetic IQ is neither here nor there and I'm almost certain that if it was that prominent they would have found it by now.

Far better to analyse closely what happens after children are born and how interaction affects their development.

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-decision-tree/201112/genetics-iq-not-so-simple

www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829204.600-finding-the-players-in-the-symphony-of-iq-genes.html#.Uuu9Nkt9TWw

This states that there is a 0.02% difference recorded in a 100,000 person study.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17323837

The twin study uses 172 pairs.