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.

theas I think there is some evidence that many early bloomers level off at some point.

Few are truly unusually clever.

However, the DC from the less academically engaged families (often poorer) don't usually catch up. The evidence seems to be that the gap widens.

All that said, my DC weren't early bloomers. They were summer born and behind their middle class peers. But through a mixture of arrogance and delusion, I decided they would make up the difference and so they did!

I don't think the gifted and talented title is equal to saying 'bright' to me bright is hitting targets well with little struggle and of relatively good intelligence, asks questions, shows initiative,/creativity . Gifted and talented (to me) seems to be something a little more. I could be wrong though - I know very little about that title. I'm not even sure they have it in Scotland?? Do they?

In my experience some kids will always lag a little behind despite the work put in and some do this across the board whereas others excel in some subjects like English, history etc and struggle more with maths. Of course you do get those who are good at everything.

Thea you don't hear about many VERY young academic kids at university - not in my experiences working in that system. I think some kids get there more slowly and sometimes it needs that one teacher to help but others will always struggle especially in large classes.

I do believe very strongly that support at home is always going to have a positive effect of some kind and sadly not every child has that - and not always because their parents won't give support but because they can't.

I dont think it has much to do with parenting or genetics

It's down to the individual themselves, you either focus on education or you don't. Being bright at 4 doesn't mean you'll be academically focused at 15a and vice versa.

No I think its just the way he is.

My eldest is musical. I will take all the credit, thank you, for supervising painfully squeaky practice in the early days and tolerating him singing every waking hour.

Interesting stuff! Important to note that pure intelligence and achievement are very different. I think that there's some evidence to show that for the most part a high achiever needs to be just intelligent enough. Achievement is also highly influenced by other personality traits - how hard you work, how resilient you are, confidence etc.

Mine's too young to comment on intelligence yet!

"The other thing this thread hasn't addressed which interests me a lot with all the amazing MN prodigy children, is whether they progress further over all simply get their earlier IYSWIM!"

I suspect that very few of these children actuallly exist. People can and do post anything on the internet. Precious first borns are often far brighter than any other child on the planet according to their mothers. (With second born children the mother has often realised reality, that their children are reasonably bright, but not the next Einstein!)

To some extent yes.

You could be exceptionally good at maths, for example, but if no one taught you that the figure 2 represented an amount of 2, you would fail a maths test. Maximising potential requires effort, and that's where parents come in. By the same token, it's no surprise that in most cases (there being obvious exceptions) those children with above-average reading skills tend to be those whose parents have read regularly to them and who listen to their children read. That's why schools bang on so much about it.

I tend to think of intelligence as a spectrum. You have a top and bottom limit, and where you fall in that spectrum is down to your experiences.

There is a lot of evidence emerging now to show that this process begins in the womb - epigenetics.

All that said, I am mindful of the fact that IQ is defined by people who have a vested interest in saying "this is what intelligence is". To my mind there are many different types of intelligence, and education and intelligence are not the same thing at all. My DS is more academic than his sister, but she is much quicker on the uptake for a lot of things. They have different intelligences and I suspect my DD's will take her further in life.

I would think that it is almost entirely genes in a young child, but I think nurture plays a bigger role as children get older. So a child who is able but not gifted can get all As and do really well academically with the right background/encouragement, whereas a child who was all out clever as a young child, but who hasn't been encourages/offered the right opportunities can do not nearly so well.

I actually think your social background is most important. So you don't have to come from a rich or middle class background, but it does massively help if your family/friends value education, have high aspirations for you, and promote hard work. Those are IMO worth more than raw intelligence (although obviously a certain level of ability is required!)

I have an unbelievably intelligent child, an averagely intelligent child and a child with learning difficulties. Same parenting.
It's mostly the child but you can help a child with organisation etc etc. But the parents who see their child's intelligence and sorting prowess reflect upon them as a parent are deluded and IMHO, odd needy.

I would say though that my children are incredibly kind, generous and well mannered and I take all the credit for that (well with dh)

'sporting prowess'

Sorting prowess is less valued. Although ironically ds2 is brilliant at sorting - but that would be the autism rather than me. I'm shit at sorting.

DD1 inherited her dad's 'gift of the gab' she is clever and streetwise but not academic - she hates school and studying but knows how to make money (she's 13!!) and always looking for ways to make some cash.

DD2 is very academic (she inherited my brains ) She loves school and going to museums and libraries DD1 would sooner die than go to museum! They were both raised the same, books everywhere, me reading to them etc but both have different strengths and abilities - so you can do your best but both will choose their own paths in the end!

In his book "They Fuck You Up: How to Survive Family Life", Oliver James points to research which shows academic attainment is more nurture than nature. He talks about academic prodigy's (8 year old Oxbridge maths undergrads etc) showing that these children progress so quickly because they are 'hot-housed' by their parents from a very young age. They invariably do not keep up this rate of achievement once they get to a adulthood and tend to level out.

Agree that it's so much down to pot luck and the characteristics of the child. I have a 10yr old DS who's not stupid but certainly has to work that little bit harder than his 9yr old sister. He also has mild dyslexia / dyspraxia which doesn't help!
We are two university educated parents and in that regard, do expect our kids to try their best and to "achieve", whether that's academically or via sheer hard work in their chosen careers. So I partly agree with the posters who say that background and values make a difference to a child.
I think there are some really gifted children out there (remember CH4's Child Genius programme of last year?) but even that had some where it was most definitely down to the parenting and others where the child seemed to have an innate gift / talent for learning. These truly gifted children are, I believe, in the minority though.

For most of us with a "bright" child (and I'd probably include my DD in that category) though, it's definitely more down to pot luck of genes, and the child's characteristics.

Dd is still young (4yo), but like someone upthread, she talked early and had a wide range if vocabulary much earlier than her peers, and we are forever being told about her "brightness" at nursery.

I think it's just the way she is; nothing particular that we've done, except talk back to her. I didn't do anything different than the other mums I know, and when I looked at others her age, most of then had something they did better (e.g a couple if her friends walked and jumped before she could). I think it's just the way her brain developed and the emphasis that society puts on the label of clever or bright - when my friends little girl walked at 9 months (a good few months earlier than any of our friendship group), no one commented how physically able she was etc, maybe because as a society in general, we hold intelligence as the be all and end all of a measure for how children are doing.

DS3-14 is very bright [top of class and level 7+ in everything] ] as is ds2 -16.

DS1 -18 is average.

DS1 really enjoys learning, ds2 tolerated primary and secondary and is finally blossoming at 6th Form.

DS1 is a party animal and looks forward to the next night out even if it's just driving with his mates .

They were all brought up the same, it's personality and them themselves, not us who make them what they are.

They are also well mannered, kind and sociable which we do take credit for.

*DS3 enjoys learning, not ds1.

It's both and it's a marathon not a sprint.

I don't think any parent can take full credit for everything about their kids. They just can't. (Or full blame).

DD2 is very bright

She is also like me

Which shows she has inherited my superior genes and responded to my excellent parenting.

Our genes and our parenting - but that is only part of the story.
I don't like the whole "mini-me" thing some parents indulge in.

Yes of course, it's all down to me

Not at all actually, I think it's some odd genetic leap that has skipped a generation. DH and I are distinctly average I'd say but both dses are thriving academically. Ds1 in particular is very mathematically minded and appears to have an incredible memory, more like my dad and my brother than me.

My mum always says it's because we read so much with both dses but that's crap. Most people read and try to motivate their children IMO.

I am afraid I do take a bit of credit, although I know I shouldn't. It is soooo hard to be modest when your children shine. Plus, it is blooming hard work being a mum & the occasional smugfest at their achievements is one of the perks. (It doesn't make you popular though, so is best confined to granny & other close family that love my little petals)

And personality/school has a lot to do with it.

You might have a bright child who can't be arsed,I have.

My dc also attend a school who push the bright child ideal(confident,vocal,driven etc)and ignore the qwerky, quiet,scruffy and less confident kids.

Sooooo I have 3 kids pretty similar.

Bright,driven G&T boy who matured early has been pushed more by school from rec,his twin equally bright(scruffy daydreamer was ignored for years).Now they are starting to push him and he has matured/become more driven,is working harder etc they're achieving more similar grades.

Dd is still ignored,still hasn't matured and wouldn't be classed as bright but she is the same as the other two if not better in certain things.She will get there and she will have her day and I will be shouting it from the rooftops.

Yes I am bitter.

Have any of you read the chapter in the book FREAKANOMICS about this? It looks at a study of a huge sample of children in the USA and their outcomes in school (which you might not think are a perfect way to judge intelligence, but are certainly measurable) and a variety of facts that could be seen to correlate to them. It looks at the influence of 16 different things, such as the age parents had a child, parents educational attainment, if parents read to children, if they took them to museums etc. they then categorise these factors into 2 groups. One group odd factors is what parents DO (ie nurture) and the other is what the parents ARE(ie nature). They find a much stronger correlation (not necessarily same as causation) between childrens outcomes and the things about who the parents ARE than what they DO with their children. So things we think make a big difference such as reading to our children, taking them to museums etc come out as less significant than WHO the parents are, which you could consider to be their genetics Or nature I suppose. It's interesting and not what we really want to hear as parents as we like to hear those things make a big difference.
Not saying those things make no difference, just perhaps less than the nature issue.