OK, the DNA has to be there, but, here's an observation and I would like to hear what others think.

I was at a school/family party on Saturday. Talking with mother (astrophysicist, husband/father is a PhD in physics) about son, who is 2 months older than DD. She said that she has not observed anything that would be considered gifted. She happens to know another astrophysicist that I know, whose husband is also a PhD in Physics whose DS is 2 months younger than DD. I do not consider that boy to exhibit any unusual gifted tendencies.

Now, both these mothers work long hours and the children have been in daycare since 3 months. Looking at similar highly intelligent couples, where the women started working at 3 months and the children went to daycare or full time nannies and I don't see any gifted tendencies.

There is that childcare bible, "The Early Years" I think, some Harvard researcher, who says that up until age 3 there should be some biological caregiver who has a real vested interest in development because the enthusiasm for milestone achievement won't be there otherwise. (I paraphrase, but that is the gist).

So I am wondering, not that these children won't grow up and be in university at 12, but clearly they do not show the signs that people on this board talk about. Although, I don't think of myself as hot housing my baby and toddler, I think that as the primary caregiver and A-Type helicopter parent, I had to contribute to her development. She obviously has to have good DNA to have the reasoning power, or am I just that good? (just joking) Seriously, how much do you think the primary care and brain development is linked in those early years?

Would really like to hear.

Ren

I think it's a combination of both, that way we parents(mothers especially!) can feel twice the guilt .

Haha, more later.

Well, HG+ kids are pretty rare. And what you see of a child as a casual observer isn't always the full measure of a kid's abilities. Add in the potential for GT denial in parents who are probably GT themselves or underreporting for fear of seeming to be bragging, and I'm not sure we're looking at a very scientific cross-section here!

If you're just using that story to explain why you're asking the question, then I guess I'd reply that there are GT kids born in all sorts of families: working moms, single parents, rich, poor, etc.

Certainly nurturing any child's gifts--in the generic sense of the word--from a young age is always likely to make those gifts stronger. But there's good childcare and bad childcare out there.

I had an sitter--a retired teacher who was very aware of GTness and very happy to nurture it--during my kids' early years who treated my kids like her own grandkids. They got so much from being at her house. She offered all sorts of learning opportunities for them that they wouldn't have had at my house. They got lots of attention from her. They got to be around older kids in the afternoon, when the primary grades got off the bus. There were people to read to them, to play with them, to talk to them. I have another sitter now who takes the kids on walks and teaches them about fossils and rocks. They're as happy as clams and have learned so much from her.

Bad childcare is bad for kids, GT or not. Warehousing kids is never a good idea. Yes, I think a neglectful childcare situation can hamper brain development, and I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But there's lots of childcare out there that isn't like that, and I think that good kind can be quite good for kids.

I don't buy it that the astrophysicist's kids are not GT because she worked. To be honest, it sounds like some sort of anti-feminist "keep the women barefoot and pregnant" argument to me, and I always bristle at those. I'm guessing that wasn't your point, but it's what it sounds like to me.

LOL! Love that!

I think it has a lot to do with it. I can't quote statistics, but here's how I understand it. Everytime a child is introduced to something new from birth to age 5, a dendrite connection is made in the brain. It's like a PO box. So, if you take your 6 month old to the zoo, several PO boxes might open: zoo, animals, drive time, stroller. Then, when she goes to the zoo again, she's already got a box to put that in and can add to the box. This happens over and over again. So, if you are at home with your child and go to museums and libraries and parks and stuff, you are building more boxes (dendrites). Then, later in life, maybe at 6, your child sees an ad for a zoo and her brain automatically goes to the zoo box for information. If she's never been to the zoo before age 6, the box isn't there. I think day-care kids don't get this kind of exposure unless it's a really good daycare. On the other hand, if you stay at home with your child and don't interact at all, those dendrites aren't built either. I've never put mine in daycare (just Mother's Day Out twice a week) so I certainly can't speak from that side. And, I certainly am not condemning or criticizing anyone who uses daycare.

Well, I guess I think the "build more connections" argument is the one that has been used to sell all that Baby Einstein-style crap that's on the market these days, and I think that is such a load of nonsense.

You don't need to play only classical music for your baby or take him to the art museum from birth in order to nurture brain development. What babies and young kids need is security, affection, and daily interaction with adults who talk to them, sing to them, read to them, point things out to them, etc. Nothing fancy, just the normal sorts of stuff that people have done with kids for...well, for forever. Kids can get that treatment in lots of different ways and from lots of different people.

I have to agree with Kriston.

Primary care is very important to newborns and young children, but it has more to do with security, love and acceptance than it has to do with academic ability.

My PG child never had to attend day care and by choice did not attend pre-k or K, yet she is doing extremely well academically despite the fact that she started school at 6 1/2. I did not actively teach her at home. We read a lot, took lots of trips and did a lot of hiking when she was little. That was pretty much the exposure she had prior to school. Lots of Love, time and attention.

And by the way, Wren, if you were to meet my dd she would not appear to be PG to you. Socially she doesn't stand out as "different". She is able to play with children from different age groups and with varied interests.

Maybe it's gifted denial on the part of the parents--high caliber professionals may have high expectations, so they're not easily able to recognize "gifted" characteristics. Maybe their reference point is skewed. I think it's more likely that the childcare situation has made it so parents are unaware of gifts, rather than their working has failed to nurture their child to be gifted.

My first son was very verbal and classic encyclopedia of info about his topic of interest at any time. Everyone thought he was gifted--and he is HG/PG. The second son was virtually silent (my H confesses he thought there was delay with him), but he tested significantly higher than #1.

On the other hand, I know a number of kids who went to Montessori schools and were reading fairly well before Kindergarten. Some of them are GT, but many of them are not based on what they are doing in early elementary school. This is what I don't really like about the Ruf levels. It points to certain skills (that my child really wasn't showing in preschool), but doesn't really deal with the intensity or speed of learning. I could have never spent 2 hours reading a day with DS - he had way too much physical energy. But science experiments, exploring the library, going to the science museum, sure. At 7, he regularly sits and reads for 2 hours on his own.

So even if you are looking at a preschooler that doesn't read, write, or compose concertos, maybe they mastered legos years earlier than normal, memorized every species of dinosour, or can give their parents directions on every errand they run. Or maybe they are just intensely imaginative. Maybe they analyze plumbing systems. I think parents that aren't thinking about GT behaviors don't see GT behaviors. I don't think it just manifests itself in one way, especially in young kids. I didn't see them until DS went from not reading to being the best reader in his class over the course of a year and got some shockingly high test scores from the NNAT.

So suppose you have a PG child and that child is read to 2 hours a day from birth. Suppose you took that same child and put them in an environment where they were read to 30 minutes a day. The child when placed in the first environment is going to read faster than the if he is placed in the 2nd environment. Does that make the child less GT? It really depends on the education the child gets afterwards and what other learning opportunities the child is exposed to IMHO.

My child also doesn't scream HG+ by any means! He can blend well and kids of all ages.

Some abilities are not as visible to acquaintances as others. My DS is very strong in math but it really doesn't come up in everyday conversation. Occasionally he says something that amazes a cashier. I don't think friends of our family are aware of the extent of his abilities in that area at all.

It's most likely both nature and nurture. I think vocabulary is one of the things which is highly influenced by the parents. I remember studies about how much a child was spoken to and how big his vocabulary was.

I know this is not really SAHM/daycare scenario, but it's nature versus nurture. The book "What's going in in there? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life" has a simple table based on a study of adoption records. Both the biological and adoptive parents were into two groups based on their status, low-socioeconomical status (SES) and high-socioeconomical status. Then they looked at the child IQ at the age of 16.

The study showed 12 point IQ difference based on the status of the adoptive parents. The results were the same for both Low-SES and High-SES biological parents. The difference based on the biological parents is 16 points.

------------- Low-SES adoptive pars --- High-SES adoptive
Low-SES bio. ....... 92 ............. --- ..... 104 .......
High-SES bio. ...... 108 ............ --- ..... 120 .......

The numbers are from French study, 1989.

So yeah, both nature and nurture play a role and I would say both quite a lot. As for nurture, like others said there are good daycare situations and bad daycare situations as they are bad and good parents.

I agree with others that sometimes it's hard to recognize GT kids. I am not sure too many people would say that DS3 is gifted unless they got to really know him. Of course, if he starts reading signs or a book you can tell, if he starts talking about human anatomy, you can tell, but it's much more likely that he will behave just like a regular three year old.

Just for the record I have been home with the kids since my older one was born. I used to do some p/t work from home for a few years, but mostly when they were asleep.

Well, speaking only from my own personal experience: first two children, same dad (husband #1). I worked only part time, did at home day care with 2 to 4 other same age children when I wasn't at work outside the home. They are both gifted (I'd say Ruf level 1 to 2).

Last two children, same dad (husband #2). I've worked full time, they've both been in daycare full time from 12 weeks old. Not someone's home daycare but a daycare facility. DS7 is highly gifted (Ruf 3 to 4) and DD3 shows signs of being a 2 to 3. I honestly don't think that being in daycare could prevent a child from being gifted or showing signs of it, unless it was a situation of significant deprivation for the child in terms of stimulation and opportunity. I think I lean more toward nature. Nurture is how well it shows itself and when.

My current husband says that I upgraded my breeding stock! He apparently believes it is ALL nature!!!!

My child with my first husband went to a daycare/preschool after she turned one. She started reading at age 4, did well in elementary school, but grades dropped in middle school after she became a cheerleader. I think she might be moderately gifted.

My child with my second husband was very different. He had weaker muscles but he seemed more alert and slept less than my daughter did as a baby. My son was in daycare half days for about a month--until I could find a way to quit my job and still pay the bills. I didn't think he was getting enough attention and I found out that he would not leave the room he was in at the daycare until he could walk and since he had weak muscles I knew it would probably take longer for him to walk than it did for the average baby. He couldn't walk until he was 18 1/2 months old and he never really crawled.

He loved to look at books so I read to him and I carried him around a lot so he could see things better and I talked to him a lot and played with him. I don't know if that had anything to do with him reading at 2 1/2 or not. I don't think my geology professor sister-in-law's kids learned to read on their own like this and my sister-in-law is married to a another former professor. I think her kids went to daycare while she worked. They are very bright kids and they are athletic. I just don't think they were the type to sit around reading.

I think it is nature and nurture. I don't think my son would seem as gifted if he had stayed at the daycare center.

Thanks for all the great resposnes. FYI, just met the kid on Saturday. He is in a different class than DD, so my input was just from the mother. We sort of discussed and yes, it could be denial as the father sounded quite brilliant.

The other child, the one who is 2 months younger, I know pretty well as DD and he were in the same playschool last year and we share one of the junior teachers as babysitter.

And it is interesting that I never expected much in the early years, thought I would work and have a nanny, circumstances were that we both took time off to travel and then pregnant. But it is interesting how many high powered lawyers and investment bankers, doctors, dentist are taking the time off now in the early years (at least in NYC). Hence the question. It is like, you can always make money (as I have recently gone back to work) but you can't get those early years back and the investment made in their brain development is priceless (mastercard my apologies).

It is like the 10% increase in IQ if you breastfeed 9 months. 10% increase in IQ if you dance or walk with them daily. (So they get the rhytmic movement).

But it was just a casual observation, not writing any thesis.

Ren

But GT parents sometimes have ND kids, too. Yes, GTness tends to run in families, but there's no guarantee. Even if the child in question is ND and his mom and dad are HG+, you can't assume that he would have been GT if he hadn't been in daycare. There are just too many unknowns.

And while I'm a big fan of breastfeeding whenever it's possible for the mom to do, I'm thinking that a 10% increase in IQ for breast milk and a 10% for moving with the baby seems overstated. I've heard the former cited as fact (though with different numbers) but never with any supporting evidence; the latter is new to me, and I'm not sure I completely buy either one of them.

Breastfeeding and moving with a baby are good for kids. But a 20% cumulative IQ increase? Hmmm... That means a kid with a 120-125 IQ at birth--vanilla GT, though not generally eligible for most GT programs--would be "made" into DYS material. I'm not really buying it.

It just sounds to me like another excuse to send moms on a guilt trip. "You, too, could have a GT child, but you didn't do enough!" Ick. I think there are too many of those already.

I may have to stop posting to this thread. The anti-feminist tone is making me break out into hives!

I read that and my first thought was, "wow! finally an explanation for a purpose behind a baby getting colic!" Can you tell I've dealt with some colicky babies??!!

The trouble with determining the effect of nature v. nurture is the lack of good test data. A mom who works away from the home by necessity may work extra hard in the evenings and weekends she has with her kids, while a SAHM may plop the kids in front of the TV all day. A woman who takes all precautions for a safe pregnancy, then run into complications during birth. I know women in all those categories.
What we do know is GT does tend to run in families, so nature does have an effect. We do know things like alcohol and tobacco use by a pregnant woman can negatively effect a baby. Things like Vitamin B are effective for reducing neural tube defects in the developing fetus.

If every pregnant woman followed all the recommendations, we'd have healthier babies. If every baby was raised with love and stimulation to his needs, we'd have smarter babies. But doing our best doesn't mean we can do every thing perfectly and even if we could that doesn't guarantee perfect results.

Well put!

And maybe this smarter generation (because this generation seems to be smarter) may be a factor that women in the 50s and early 60s smoked and drank during pregnancy. It was accepted. And they gave formula, without omega fatty acids.

I do not know. But Ruf's hypothesis is that highly educated parents produce HG+ kids. When she speculated how many level 4s and 5s were in various neighborhoods, she indicated that parent level of education was a factor in estimates.

I can tell you, since I wrote up hte article for the Parents' League. One year of music lessons on a string instrument raises IQ by 7-10 points. They did one study in a poor LA area and the findings were consistent. And continued music lessons continues to increase IQ levels. But it has to be string. Drums didn't work. Drama lessons increases self confidence but did nothing for IQ. The speaker was from NYU medical school specializing in gifted children.

Ren

Exactly. That seems really crazy. If I remember it correctly the bf IQ is much smaller if any. The original studies didn't calculate in other considerations such as that highly educated women are more likely to bf. There is a LLL leader on this board and she said a similar thing. Don't get me wrong I am all for bf, my kids never had formula, but I don't think I would argue IQ as a reason to do so. Also women are more likely to continue bf it they can stay home with their kids and give them one on one attention.

BTW if the above 20% increase was true, then my DYS kid didn't get too much out of the nature part The kid lived in Baby Bjorn when he was a baby.

Wren, do you have any links to the studies?

I've always wondered about the studies putting kids in high-SES homes. Although it's probably splitting hairs...but I wonder if the IQ is not changing, rather the environment is allowing them to reach their potential. What you are measuring is increasing but whatever biological processes which make up IQ is not. I also think this more applicable at the lower end. You can take a kid scoring in the 80s and put in a better home (nutrition, love, exposure) and get an IQ of 100. It was shown that if those kids are put back in the original environment, IQ drops once again (that was done in Polish orphanages I believe) but you won't take a 120 kid and get them to 140.

Am I making any sense? probably not...

Slightly OT: I read or was told, can't remember where so if someone here said it, please feel free to correct me - but I *think* I read that scores while initially low on SBV, are now increasing. The speculation is that the company which produces the SBV, also produces educational materials which is helping kids to score better on SBV. I wonder about those Critical Thinking Co programs which state raises scores on SBV, WISC, etc. I also think the longer the test is in use, questions start to leak out. Someone offered to tell me some info about the WISCIV and I absolutely refused to hear it. I wasn't even sure of what she was going to tell me but I figured w/ all my reading on the internet, I'd have found what she was going to tell anyhow if it was on the up and up. KWIM?

That is to say, the supposed increase in IQ (I've read only 3pts) from breastfeeding is within the error of the test.

Yes, I think this makes perfect sense. I think the "environment allowing them to reach their potential" makes a great deal more sense than the idea that they're somehow "magically finding" extra IQ points that aren't possible for them to have any other way.

Someone asked for sources on BF and other infant things that are suppose to increase IQ. I think they were random articles. Internet surfing as I sat there with DD on my breast for 16 hours a day. She was a snacker. Had a little, slept, had a little, slept. While I surfed stupid topics.

OT: I tried to hot house recently, as I have mentioned OLSAT is used in NYC. First of all, I spent too much money on Costco on stupid workbooks and Brainquest--3 levels. DD3.5 told me she was bored and didn't want to do it anymore and I realized I was wasting time as she was getting everything right.

So someone mentioned that hothousing doesn't work for HG+, it doesn't because they know already. But I am still worried about the poor correlation of the OLSAT and SBV.

Ren

Well, to be direct, anyone can post anything to the Internet. That doesn't make it true.

Even if you read it, did you read actual scientific studies? That aren't misunderstood or taken out of context by someone else? Or did the websites just state these things as fact without anything verifiable to back it up?

I guess what I'm saying is that I think this stuff is a sort of urban legend that people state all the time as if it's true without any evidence whatsoever. No one doubts that breastfeeding is good for kids. Heck, even the formula companies admit it! But I think the effect on IQ scores is grossly overstated.

It's obvious that moving with kids is good for them, but again, the effect on IQ scores is almost certainly neither so great nor so direct as this makes it sound.

LOL, Kriston! Last week I actually DID break out into hives and it was NOT FUN! Stress can do weird things to the body.

I'm late to this thread so I'll just jump in on a few points. DD6 had a nanny for her first 13 months of life, and then she went to a Montessori school for a little over a year. Her nanny never took her anywhere but provided her with love and attention--undivided attention. I stopped working when DD3 was born and so was home with her as a baby as well as now with DS1. I KNOW that DD6 got way more attention than my DS1 ever did, partly because now he spends a lot of his day in a car seat as we're running around for errands or taking the other two to activities. Sometimes I think he'd be better off in a daycare setting where they were able to just play with him all of the time (I don't really think this but sometimes that mommy guilt creeps in). I guess I can see where the nurture part has something to do with it, but I would think a lot of a child's ability would be from nature.

I chose to breastfeed my kids but it was always more for immunity benefits and because I just plain wanted to do so than it was because of IQ. I guess I always attributed the statistics to the fact that a lot of the women who now choose to breastfeed tend to be more educated and may have higher IQs themselves. I think Lorel has written about this somewhere on the forum too.

As others have more eloquently said, I just can't imagine that some of these choices (staying home v. daycare, breast v. bottle) would make that significant of a difference, at least not enough to make others feel guilty about their choices.

And I doubt my DD6 would look HG+ to a casual observer, which is probably why DH and I were a little surprised when we got her WPPSI scores. Even we missed it. Denial, denial, denial.

Here's some info about the latest study (pub. may 5, 2008) that says breastfeeding increases verbal iq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/05/AR2008050501619.html

I did breastfeed DS for 2.5 years, but had planned to do only 1 year. Then we found out about his dairy allergy, and he wouldn't drink alternatives, so there you have it. I never heard anything about breastfeeding possibly raising IQ (until now).

Here are a couple studies. There are lots more and, of course, they don't all agree. There was one study that suggests that the effects vary depending on genetic differences in fatty acid metabolism pathways. Anyway, I used Entrez Pubmed and typed in "IQ Breastfeeding".

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1718901&blobtype=pdf

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7575/945

[quote=Kriston]Well, I guess I think the "build more connections" argument is the one that has been used to sell all that Baby Einstein-style crap that's on the market these days, and I think that is such a load of nonsense.

You don't need to play only classical music for your baby or take him to the art museum from birth in order to nurture brain development. What babies and young kids need is security, affection, and daily interaction with adults who talk to them, sing to them, read to them, point things out to them, etc. Nothing fancy, just the normal sorts of stuff that people have done with kids for...well, for forever. Kids can get that treatment in lots of different ways and from lots of different people. [/quote

Yes, kids learn lots of ways and from lots of people. I just meant that the more things kids are exposed to at an early age (parks, dogs, zoos, walking, the newspaper, trees, creeks, books, plants, pots and pans, museums, whatever) the better their brains develop and the easier it is to build on that early exposure. You're right babies need love and affection and daily interaction with adults, nothing fancy, but there has to be more interaction than just feeding and changing the diaper and letting the kid watch TV or sit in a crib ALL day. Many, certainly not all, but many kids do not get that interaction at day-care.

I never used the Baby Einstien or any of that crap. But, when I did play classical music for myself to enjoy, many times I would talk to son about it or dance with him or march to Sousa or direct the symphony. My husband did the same with Metallica, so he got a wide range of music! Did that help him develop musical talent? Who knows, but it sure didn't hurt any.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I do think that building a foundation through interaction and movement and exposure is important.

Thank you for providing the research. On comment about casual obeserver.

Because I am interacting with DD3 all the time, I think maybe MG not HG because I am so used to her. Last Friday we did a make up class at Little Gym and there was an instructor unknown to her. As she sat there eating granola, the guy came over and started a conversation with her and I didn't join in. And I had one of those moments where I am looking at my kid, and I am not her mother, and I went Wow. After class, I ran over to her to get shoes and socks on to head out to a playdate and the guy turns to me and makes a comment "she is so-o smart" and the other guy quickly turns and says, "yeah, she is way smart". So how much does the casual observer have to see if they are interacting? Yes, seeing a child in a store aisle, you cannot see anything. But does it take much out of their mouths at 3 or 4? Older yes, but when they are really young, their manner of speaking, what they say. It is not average.

Aside: Anti-feminist? My mother was born in 1918 and was a physician. She brought me up to be in a position of power. Whatever career I chose, to strive to the highest. But I am also a woman, who became a mother. Luckily, I have a career where I do not have to go a lab or school to work. And I took time off, I start again. And I do not to diminish anyone who really has to work. This is a tough economy. But instinctively, I felt the need to nurture for brain development. Maybe I was totally off-base, but for me, it was more important to plan DD's days and take care of her than to trust anyone else. I just couldn't. I got some consulting and found someone who was Chinese, spoke Mandarin. I really liked her but couldn't leave DD alone with her. This my child.

Would you trust your pension fund to someone from Mexico making $15-$20 an hour? That is how I felt about DD's care. I just couldn't. I wouldn't be able to fix the mistake. Only one chance.

My view, Ren

Ren, doing all you can to give your child the best start in life is one of the highest callings a person can have. Just don't expect a guaranteed outcome for the job. There are genetic limits, there are physical limits outside your control, and the child also has control over his own life eventually; there are no guarantees what he will choose to do, or not do.

My DS at 3 or 4 would have rarely engaged a stranger like this. Or even a preschool teacher. His preschool teachers had him pegged as possible ADHD. He did what he had to fit into his preschool environment. At home we were reading the Chronicles of Narnia and James and the Giant Peach. At school, he wouldn't sit still for story time. We did get some comments on him if he'd spend a few hours with someone, but not typically.

My daughter at 3.5 is a teachers delight and is much more willing to show her stuff at this age. I had a preschool conference a couple weeks ago for her that was absolutely raving. Do I think she's more gifted? In my gut, I really doubt it. She's a bit socially more mature and more of a pleaser. Her interests lie more in the realm of what teachers would find favorable.


As someone who's been at home for going on 8 years with my children, I certainly didn't do it for brain development of my kids. I did it for the emotional and mental health of our entire family. I actually felt a bit bad when DS started kindergarten he didn't attend full time Montissori with all the readers in his class. And I don't think we need to make this a sexist thing. There are 5 stay at home dads at my daughters preschool. This is not uncommon at all around here.

But some people NEED to work for the economics. And some people NEED to work for their own sanity and find that they can be better parents to their children with that outlet outside the home. Everyone knows their own situation best and has to find a fit that works for them. Some people find childcare they love and are comfortable with. I couldn't, but I have no problem if other people do.


OHG - very well stated! Thanks!

Thanks OHG, but I think eventually is pretty close with DD. 3 going on 18.

Ren

Admittedly, I did not read the entire thread but this first post troubles me a lot.
Why are you making an assumption that since parents are physicists/astrophysicist/phd - their children are somehow expected to be "gifted" ?????

LOL
LOL indeed.

My DS's IQ must be WAY up there because of almost 10 years of playing a string instrument. Up by at least 70 points and maybe even a 100 ? Will playing two string instruments double that????

...and television causes autism. It's on the internet.

Guess what's on the top at Foxnews.com? Yep, an article about how breastfeeding raises IQ's!
Long-term breastfeeding

snip:

Look, it's not a forumula(no pun intended) on how to raise the perfect & super intelligent baby, but many factors go into giving a baby the best chance you can.

My point is that people who CHOOSE to work--not just those who HAVE to work for economic reasons--should not be guilt-ed. Every person, every family is different. It's no one's place to judge the choices made by others (provided those choices are legal!).

Feminism to me is about trying to ensure that there are MORE choices for women and families, not fewer. Anything that seems to try to limit or judge as "bad" or "wrong" the choices of others is going to set off my anti-feminism detector, and I'm going to speak up.

And I am a SAHM, so it's not like I'm taking this personally. I just think that daycare is not by definition evil and that parents don't need to feel more guilt for doing what they think is best overall for their families. It's not unforgiveable selfishness to want to have a career and a family.

I'd love to see improvements in child care in this country so that both kids and parents are better off, but now I'm really going off-topic...

About the doctorates and IQ correlation? because of Ruf. She wrote that there was a correlation.

Also, physics is applied math. You can't get a PhD in Physics without being pretty bright.

Also, there is another woman, teaches at IVY league engineering, husband also a PhD in Physics doing serious classified work. Find out her father is a serious physist. Like global recognition, but I do not see gifted in her 2 daughters. She didn't even bother to have them tested.

I know these are just anecdotal stupid posts. But I really don't feel like working today. But now I have another distraction. Must pick up DD from preschool. Everyone have a nice day. It is 80 degrees and sunny. Yeah!!

Ren

Why would she? That is my whole point....

I don't look at friends' kids or other kids and question levels of giftedness and how they got there.

And my kid-- bottled and daycared and DYS. So I don't take stock in any of those studies about IQ either.

FWIW various strategies to increase intelligence was never something I thought about. Still don't.

Did you avoid drinking alcohol while pregnant, assuming you drink some at other times?

Just a few glasses of wine, that's about it.

I don't think I should have made that a personal question, calizephyr. What I really should have said was, do you think fetal alcohol syndrome is a big enough of a concern for pregnant women to abstain or drink minimumly? If so, why is it a concern?

Lots of colicy babyies are GT - Oh those overexcitabilities! And they are also quick to want new stimuli, and many will complain loudly until they get what they want. DS11 wasn't colicy.

Here's a term for this discussion: "Regression toward the mean" it means that if the parents are unusual, then the child would tend to be 'less unusual' just by chance alone.

Here's another term: Contingency. All the 'Baby Einstien' videos are weird because they can't replace 'Someone taking an interest.' All kinds of creatures who are placed in environment were someone responds to them will thrive more. Even plants grow better when you talk to them, right? So it isn't flashcards, or even Zoo trips - it's 'someone taking an interest.'

Of course I 'would' think that Communication is what it's all about, wouldn't I?

I believe that there isn't actually any kind of important seperation between any living creatures. I think that the more a child spends time with others who are 'in touch' with that perspective, the better chance they have of 'being who they were meant to be.'

I worked part time from 7 weeks. I think of myself as a Feminist who believes that we need to value parenting equal to all the other jobs. The point is for women to have reasonable choices, as each woman is individual and has her own strengths and challenges. I think it was very hard on my DS to be with agemates in daycare, but that's another topic, isn't it?

((Big Smiles))
Grinity

I so agree with everything you said, Grin. 100%!!!

Right on!

I neglected to respond to this, squirt. Sorry. And since I think we're really in total agreement, I thought I should go back and catch up...


Agreed. Wholeheartedly. That's why I made the point that there's good daycare and bad daycare. Good childcare involves all the sorts of positive, healthy interactions that you're talking about here, which are so vital. Bad childcare is often just human warehousing, and it's bad for kids. It's why I think we need to push for more affordable and high-quality childcare in this country--to put an end to the warehouses.

My point is that it's BAD INTERACTIONS that make some daycare bad; it's not ALL daycare that's bad! It is entirely possible to have daycare that is quite good for the child, possibly even exposing the child to experiences and opportunities the child wouldn't have gotten at home.



It's a good horse, so beat away. The part I was taking issue with was the exact correlation stuff. Human interaction and movement (and breastfeeding!) are good for babies. No argument here. But doing these things does not guarantee some certain number of IQ points magically appearing on the child's first IQ test.

Am I being clearer now? I hate to seem to be arguing with people I actually agree with!

I have a PhD in astrophysics and have work several years in research, so I know the environment pretty well. And yes, I would expect giftedness to be high in the children of my former colleagues. I have met several people that would certainly score at level 5+, PG or whatever name you want.
Not everybody in the field is that bright, but the average IQ is certainly high.

On the other hand, I never considerd myself 'gifted'.... Intelligent? yes. Gifted? nope!

sounds like a little case of gifted denial, if you ask me.

Don't be mad!

I was thinking the same thing.

(But I still say that HG+ parents can have ND kids and ND parents can have HG+ kids. No guarantees!)

Miraca Gross's book Exceptionally Gifted Children has a section on education level of parents of the students in the study. Much higher percentage of highly educated parents than general population. Wouldn't you think that most people who pursue PhDs are above average IQ or gifted?

Absolutely.

I am sure that some of this is how the families got into the study. gifted kids with highly educated parents are going to be more likely to have the traits that get them "discovered" as gifted (vocabulary, math knowledge etc) because of their environment. Also, they have been more likely to recognize the need for help and more likely to seek expertise.

It's a great story to share, Dottie. I'm glad you did. It really does illustrate that super-bright people aren't always IDd/aren't always obvious.

DH's maternal grandmother was "the smart one" on his side of the family, but she didn't even get a high school diploma. Even so, I think the GT genes on his side of the family probably came straight from her. In a different time and place, she'd have probably gone to grad school, but such a thing wasn't even considered for someone like her.

I think so. Heck, I'd probably really enjoy talking to your dad!

My DH's grandfather was a slave in Puerto Rico because his parents died and an uncle sold him to a sugarcane plantation owner as an indentured servant. He eventually escaped and stowed away on a freighter. He didn't even have any shoes. He came to the US and built a life in NY. He must have had some brains to survive all that...

My grandmother emigrated from Finland when she was fourteen after her family lost their wealth and estate due to civil war. Her family cleared and worked a small farm in N. MN where they lived in their sauna for the first year. She still managed to graduate high school by the usual age, and then wrote for the community news-paper until she married poorly (an alcoholic). My father, who grew up in poverty was the first of his family to graduate college. As I was growing up, my friends� parents (many who were university professors) would tell me how intelligent my father was. I assumed they were just being polite

Anyway, I always knew my grandmother was intensely intelligent (and didn�t suffer fools gladly), but for all appearances, she was just another poor, immigrant mother and my father was just another mid-level manager (who occasionally worked for well connected idiots).

I never take for granted that a laborer is less intelligent than a PhD.

Wowsa! Stories like that always remind me just how easy I have it. I mean, my DS3 kept me up last night. Well waaaah, ya' big whiner. Get over it! Some people have real problems!

Yes, it's a really good bit of perspective, I think.

My father is the child of very poor farmers, neither of whom seemed to be particularly gifted and none of his siblings seem to be gifted either, yet he is no doubt HG. He was the first, and only one to go to college. This discussion is making me wonder if maybe one (or both?) of my GPs were gifted (both died when I was young so maybe the great intelligence was there and I missed it) or maybe he is an HG kid of ND parents. I will definitely have to talk to him about this.

Thanks Dottie for bring this up. Very interesting stories from everyone - thanks for sharing!!!

I agree that they we generally have such an easy life in comparison to previous generations of our own families! I also consider their trials when I feel whiney.

I think farmers are very under-rated.

When I was in high school, I was in a gifted class with several really brilliant people. Amazingly brilliant. There was also another group in the class who had 'tested in' meaning they didn't have the IQ scores but they did so well academically either the school or the parents pushed to get them in our class. (I don't really know why, because at the time there was no room in the budget for a teacher so we just had a study hall together, unsupervised)
Anyway, none of the brilliant kids went on to college. Not one. They are all laborers now, in some fashion. All of the 'tested in' kids went to college, and are now doctors and lawyers and such. As for me, I just wanted to go to college to get out of that stifling small town- but I wasn't very inspired to go.
Anyway, because of that I don't worry about kids doing well in school- I worry about the ones who aren't!

My dad was the youngest child of 9 (I think?) and was put up for adoption when his birth parents finally split up. Dad was the lucky one according to his birth siblings. I'd bet all my money he's HG+, though apparently his birth parents didn't show GTness. All this is pretty new, as Dad just tracked down the family a year ago or so.

Nurture doesn't cut it either, as he was raised in a simple farm family, the first to go to college (though 2 younger siblings in his adoptive family did follow him to college). No one else in the adoptive family shows signs of being GT at all.

These are great stories! I love it. It really goes to show GT traits can be found anywhere.

Both of my in-laws are children of immigrants and had many, many siblings and very difficult upbringings. I suspect my MIL may be GT? DH has 4 siblings and I suspect 1 other may be GT. The other 2 seem to be ND. Although, some of their children seem to be MG. DH had to live at home and work his way through college and grad school to go. Only 1 other sibling went to college.

My mother was raised by a father that said girls aren't worth college tuition. My mom is HG, I am certain. Her mother never made it past elementary school. She is 86 years old and as sharp as a tack!

My father is also some flavor of GT and had to work his way through college. His father was a high school math teacher (very GT guy). His mother seemed maybe MG and was actually one of her husbands students. He'd go to prison these days!

Interesting stories!

My father comes from a highly educated family where everybody had a University degree (a 'simpler degree' for the girls, PhD or equivalent for boys).
My mother went to school only until she was 14 and then started to work. Neither her father, nor her mom (my grandparents) had high studies. Yet, now I recognice several signs of giftedness (and underachievement) in her and her family.

I think that while for having a PhD one must have at least 1-sigma above average, the oposite is not true: not having any higher education does not mean that one cannot be at 2 or even 3 sigma above.

Ditto the above sentiments - I enjoy these stories. I hadn't given much thought to GT family characteristics. Though I'll likely miss the mark, I'll give it a shot...

My mother is one of 8 kids (family of farmers in IL). My mom wishes someone had encouraged her to go to college. None of her siblings attended college. I was a bossy youngster. I didn't recognize how bright my mom (a legal secretary) is. She's an introvert and will let inaccurate assumptions about her slide.

I don't know my father, so I can't comment on him.

DH's parents are toxic and make some of the news stories look tame. DH took care of (tried to feed etc.) his 4 younger brothers, but he had to leave home at 15. DH worked 3 jobs during his time at UC Berkeley. He's not doubt HG+, but a biological illness + emotional baggage makes life difficult for him. Depression is an ugly beast.

One of DH's brothers is MG but the other 3 (I think) are ND - I could be wrong though.

DH wasn't tagged as GT in school (would change elementary schools 3-5x/year). However, I was tagged as GT in elementary school, and I'm not as smart as DH. I'm not sure why I was in the GT program. To this day I still don't get it.

DS2.5 is some flavor of GT, but I'm not sure what yet. Time will tell. I'd rather him be ND (w/o DH's depression) than HG+ (w/ DH-type depression).

I hope I didn't offend anyone.

It is what it is.

8 pages, and there is anecdotal evidence on both sides of the aisle, ceiling and floor.

Dillente comment: There are 80 genes for intelligence and you need 60 to be PG+ or something (don't hit me if I am wrong). You need the basic physical gift. Is it a diamond and withstand anything? Or is it like silver that needs polishing to shine? I think we heard both.

But the OLSAT results in NYC showed the highly educated areas of the city had many more high scores than children in the poor areas of harlem and the Bronx. Some of the poor areas did not have any kids scoring above 90 percentile.

Thanks OHG. I didn't intend to fast forward and borrow trouble (for DS), but I'd be lying to say that I don't wish some parts of DH skip DS. This has been a particularly rough year. I'm optimistic that the BP depression + history-linked-depression won't be as troublesome next year.

Okay, back to studying ... one more exam to go. I wonder what my classmates would think if I ran down the aisles screaming "I'm a covenant running with the land!" during the exam.

I have been observing testing at my son's school for 6 years. I can tell you that the kids who care about the test do better on the test and those who think it's a waste of time, tend to blow it off and not do well. Many of the kids who blow it off are smarter than the kids who do well. The social circumstances are very important and I be very wary of trying to say anthing about actually ability based on standardized test scores.

Ann: I can't imagine anyone would take issue with what you posted. Depression is an awful disease to deal with. I wouldn't wish it on my enemies, so I can certainly understand why you hope it doesn't affect your beloved son!

Now go kick some exam heiney, would you?!

These stories are all so interesting. It makes me think there are many families who are unaware of giftedness in their own families, but then after discovering their children are very GT, they look back and have an "i bet gramps was HG...that explains things!"

I come from a very blue collar family. My dad was one of 7. My paternal grandpa was a plumber, and all his sons are/were plumbers. Even the guys who married my dad's sisters all eventually became plumbers. If you can count quick witted humor alone as a sign of giftedness, then many members of my dad's family were GT. I find that I never paid attention to some of the extracurricular achievements of this family until after we found out our son was HG+. Now I suspect more of my relatives to be GT. I was the second in this large extended family to graduate from college (not counting trade schools, which my relatives didn't seem to think was as big of a deal).

My mom grew up very poor in a family struck by depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism. She spent much of her childhood in crummy foster homes. Until she went back for her master's degree when she was in her 40's, and aced every class, she didn't think of herself as all that smart. I know she is quite gifted. I suspect her dad was gifted also, but quite troubled.

My MIL is very intelligent, and after we found out about our son, we've had discussions wondering what could have been if she had been identified as gifted. She said she skipped school most of the time, and still did the best in the class, but they wouldn't make her valevictorian because she missed school too much. But she did very well for herself as it was. Never met FIL, but he certainly has the gift of gab (had a radio show). His mother graduated from high school at 15 and was known to be very smart. Both MIL and FIL grew up in working class families. MIL was first in her family to go to college, I believe. MIL said both DH and his brother tested gifted, and she told me their numbers. I suspect that the tester stopped when she discovered they were in the gifted range, based on stories from their youth and how they are now. I think DH is probably HG. I was identified as gifted in school, but never thought much about it until DS was identified and I read about underachievers!

My husband was one of eight siblings. His mother had been raised in a wealthy family with judges and lawyers but she married a poor man that her family did not approve of so they shunned her.

His mother instilled a love of reading and learning in all of her children, but she died when he was 14 and his family fell apart. The younger kids went to live with relatives but my husband and one brother were left to fend for themselves and he had to work evenings at a grocery store in order to survive. Prior to his mother's death he did very well in school and even represented his school in a math competition but things changed overnight. He and his brother had to work to survive. Nobody recommended college for them because they were poor. My husband ended up joining the army as soon as he could and worked his way up to a very high level because of his intelligence and leadership ability. He didn't sit around feeling sorry for himself because of hardships. He was successful because of his attitude and work ethic.

His brother also worked his way up to a high level and is very successful in business in spite of earlier hardships. Their younger sister was only about 5 when their mother died so she was raised by relatives. I don't think she ever went hungry but she also developed the same work ethic that allowed her to earn multiple degrees, including a PhD. An older sister learned languages very easily and can speak fluently in several different languages. My husband said he knew linguists in the army that had this ability. I think this would require a high degree of intelligence, especially if you are able to learn new languages easily as an adult.

My husband knew what it was like to struggle to have enough to eat and he didn't want his kids to struggle in any way, so his older son didn't have to work hard at anything. He is so very smart but he doesn't do anything with it.

My mother used to be very smart. Her father died when she was a baby, and her mother remarried but the family struggled financially so she never went to college, but she read all the time, loved crossword puzzles and was good at answering Jeopardy questions. She worked her way up to a very good job in the federal government without college. I think she knew more than a lot of people with college degrees and she a lot of her knowledge was self taught. My mother is one of the reasons I found the confidence I needed to homeschool my son. I could see that it is possible to learn without going to school. My Dad was very supportive also because he could also see that public school was not going to work for my son. He was raised in a poor family after his father died when he was very young but his brothers worked their way through school and became engineers. He wanted to be a teacher but joined the military when my mother became pregnant with me. For so many people life just gets in the way of reaching their potential, but then for others, it looks like everything has been made easy for them and they don't do anything with it.

So which situation would you rather have? The hard way with the appreciation that comes with it?
Or the easy life with no understanding of hard work and sacrifice?

Ooooh! Tough question!

I'm pretty lazy, so I'm tempted to say the easy way. But it doesn't really suit my values to say that.

Can we name a middle way, ala Buddhism? I don't want my kids to have to emigrate without even shoes to wear, but I don't want everything to come easily to them either. The middle path seems best!

I agree with Kriston. Middle path all the way. It's what i've always had, and although I would enjoy the always-easy way, the sometimes-hard way really does build character and helps you see what is important.

Yup. Manageable challenge seems best to me. Stuff that stretches you, that's really hard for you, but that doesn't kill your soul with its bleakness seems best to me.

(Not to sound RE or anything... )

I think the same argument could be made for grades.

My daughter totally exemplifies the profile of VSL, but is gifted and perfectionist enough that it really hasn�t interfered with her achievement. She works to meet the expectations of her teachers and to keep up with her high achieving friends, so the higher the standards and rigor at school, the better in her case.

My HG+ son could have easily fallen into the underachievement trap had we not made a concerted effort to minimize the effect to his self-concept of some negative school experiences (due to his ability). He worked primarily to meet my expectations with school work when younger, but has increasing showed motivation to produce highly (at school) in order to achieve his personal long-range goals. He has always been driven to learn outside of school.

My goal has been to validate and explain their perceptions and ensure that they understand that their future success is tied to their ability to produce meaningful and non-meaningful school assignments.

Maybe this is crazy but I would have to say the hard way and this is even crazier but I think in some ways my son's very mild invisible disability is good in some ways because it has given him a deeper understanding and appreciation for life. When we read and discuss books I can tell from his comments he makes that he sees things from a different perspective than I ever did and it is like he has this wisdom that he should not have at his age and he deals with some things better than I do. He teases me about my anxiety. He told me yesterday that he thinks I am the kind of person who would have a wreck just because I am so worried about having a wreck--like it could end up being a self fulfilling prophecy if I don't stop worrying. He is so much like his dad.

He is so wise! I like the way you view his *disability*. It's like that glass half empty or half full thing. I tend to look at the difficulties the girls have and worry about their discomfort as opposed to being okay with it because I know they will grow stronger. I'll have to think about that more and make a concerted effort to have a more positive thought process about the whole thing. Darn that RE!

Thanks for all the stories. I can tell you for sure that Giftedness is in every neighborhood. My best friend in High School - clearly way gifted, with the smart-alexy personality to matc - his father was one of my favorite people in my small town, because he was self-educated and loved learning, although he had never been to college and worked a blue-collar job. The people I knew who had been to college were shallow by comparison, and not at all interested in books or learning, except as a means the an end. My friend's Dad explained to me that for some people who are denied an education, it only spurs them on to become self-educated, and value it all the more.

Later I went to college and has many interesting and 'deep' discussions, but none more interesting, deeper, or more valued than those with my friend and his dad sitting around their kitchen.

So although I am sad to say that there are some in my family who judge people by the years of educatioon, or financial success, I am happy to report that I was already not fooled by this mistaken notion back in high school.

Love and More Love,
Grinity

I forgot to post this. At my meeting today, he said the prevailing research is nurture. Yes, you too can become PG if you just do the right stuff.

Seriously, he said that is the prevailing scientific thought. Work those dentrites early and as much as possible.

I do not know, nor did I research. And he said that is what gifted journals are talking about, whether you believe it or not.

Ren

If that is the case, shouldn't all children be treated as PG in school? Then we would have a nation of geniuses. It doesn't fare well for the contention that our children need a differentiated education if ANY child could do what our children can do only given the opportunity.

Sorry, I don't buy the notion that you can make any child into a PG child.

I don't buy it either.

Ridiculous.

The assertion that this is the prevailing scientific thought is purely anecdotal.

Well, he teaches gifted education at the Hunter College of education. But this is what I found:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011105073104.htm

Which disagrees with what he said. In fact, he mentioned twins separated and having different IQ scores. But the article I posted says differently.

So I said what he told me, I questioned the findings myself and I looked it up.

Ren

Did anyone happen to see the national geographic video on Susan Polgar, the chess grand master? It showed how her brain was programmed (by her father making her read thousands of chess books) at an early age to instantly recognize patterns in chess. Then the scientists studied her brain to see if it was different from normal. After seeing the video, I agree to an extent that your brain can be programmed into being "smarter." But this poor woman appeared to have nothing else in her young life except chess. And it seems like her father was a gifted chess player too, which wasn't mentioned in the documentary. But it was very interesting. Here's a link to the video:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/11/national-geographic-documentary.html

Wren,
I'm not disregarding his or any other opinion. I'm just saying I don't think it's a representative agreement of the whole scientific community.
Personally, I think it's a combination or nature and nurture, just like anything else.

From my reading, it is my understanding the scientific community feels it is about 50:50 nature:nurture.

I'm reading a fascinating book "Spark" by Dr. Ratey on how new neurons are formed and how exercise affects cognitive function. Very interesting! Now whether this would affect only achievement and not ability, I don't know but intriguing nonetheless.

Agreed, 'Neato. It seems patently obvious that there must be SOME nature component.

If you have no brain matter, you cannot be GT. Physically impossible. So there is some nature there. Genetic factors seem to set the ceiling for what a person can learn. I didn't research this--no coffee yet this morning!--but it seems to fit all that we know about genetics and psychology. Then, after physiology and genetics have set the ceiling, environmental stimulation allows a child to grow into that potential, or lack of environmental stimulation stifles intellectual growth. So some kids start with a higher IQ than others because of the genetic lottery, while for others, a positive learning environment allows them to achieve more than they might have done without such stimulation.

This doesn't seem to me to be at all controversial. <shrug>

Directing growth through hothousing can probably make a child a better performer in one area, but I really think that strategy works against all natural brain development. Focusing all attention on one thing all the time--like chess--is not the way the brain *wants* to develop. In my experience, kids have "ripe periods" for things like math and language, times when they're just ready to learn that subject matter. I suspect that ignoring these natural growth tendencies in order to hothouse something else might actually delay development overall, though I only have my own experiences as a parent to support that claim.

If Susan Polgar hadn't been hothoused in chess, for example, would she have been GT at something else other than chess? Or would she have been GT at chess AND other things, but all the focus on chess actually prevented her from developing other talents? (Disclaimer: I didn't watch the documentary.)

We'd need an alternate universe to try all the "what if" scenarios to know what really works best.

But if we want to develop kids into happy, productive adults who grow in ALL areas--including socially and emotionally--I think there's ample evidence that hothousing in the early years is a lousy idea. Following the child's lead is a much better way to maintain for life the child's natural love of learning.

I wondered this while watching the video. My thoughts were that not everyone would be able to trained this way (at least not to the same extent)- there must be some genetic component too. I think her family (her sisters are chess masters too, same training) must be GT to start out, and the training pushed them further. Just my thoughts.

I agree with following the child's lead. Much healthier, IMHO.

This is how I understand it also!

I think most folks agree that an optimal environment is necessary to achieve intelligence potential, which is inherited. What people disagree on is what that optimal environment is. I think the optimal environment is pretty bare-bones, i.e., a "good enough" environment, within which a person can develop at their own pace. Kids are smart in developing their smartness and messing with that by intense training in specific areas, while influencing brain development, doesn't change their overall functional intelligence IMHO. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - so perhaps messing with nature through training that is not self-initiated may cause another skill area to suffer. Then again, I could be completely wrong and my parents cost me several IQ points by not making sure I did those math workbooks they got for me...

LOL - after all the reading i've done after being informed that DS4 is HG+, I have certainly wondered if my IQ perhaps was decreased since my parents chose to ignore the fact that I was identified as gifted. But I sure had a happy childhood, so it all worked out!

I'm making up for lost time (posting maniac today). I think a meeting with our public school summed it up.

The school psychologist looked at the WSPPI and said "you know there is nothing you did - this is just who she is." Then, she turned the report page, looking at the WJ-III achievement results and said, "what were you doing with her."

I'm not a professional. Just "onion-ated" as my daughter once told me. But, I think we are all born with a certain potential. A certain style of parenting may help some hg kids shine and be recognized before others emerge (hoping all will emerge regardless of socio economic and parenting impacts).

Do you subscribe to the Duke TIP free newsletter? It's very good. One article from Spring 2008 pertinent to this thread is:

NURTURE THE NATURE: UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING YOURCHILD'S UNIQUE CORE PERSONALITYby Michael Gurian and Dakota HoytContemporary science, especially genetics and brain research, shows usthat at least these seven aspects of our children (and ourselves) are morehard-wired, or inborn, than we may have realized.Read more>> http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/vol8no3_ee.html

thanks cym. I found the article very interesting. Really liked the statement:

What if we turned off the electronics for a week and let each child be bored�what activities would our children gravitate toward?


Though I would like to try this without man-made toys too and see what she would do in nature for a week.

Ren

My kids would do just what they did today: wade in our rain-soaked creek and make total messes of themselves! The 4yo was dumping the water out of his boots as he stood in the mud in his stocking feet.

I'm no fan of electronics-zombies, but that does have its benefits to the one who does the laundry!!! :p

Bump.

Wow this thread has 326,000 views. What do we have here, like about 20 regular posters?
A good reason not to use real names when posting about children.

My Mom and MGM both went to college. The latter played pro-basketball during the 1920s and later ran a large business with her husband as the figurehead. Both were voracious readers and Feminists, but also romantics and deeply committed to their own personal freedom - my MGM loved to read Vanity Fair and Vogue even in her 80s. Both were neglectful mothers to a moderate degree, focusing on their personal interests and careers. My mother's siblings all got PHDs.

My dad had a perfect score in all of his military schools and had 100% availability on his airframes up to and including 20 craft. He left Vietnam with 5 Presidential Unit Citations. He managed the airframes used by NASA during the Lunar Missions. He can fix anything ever made. He never went to college and frowns on "too much book reading"!

My sister, bless her heart, is a rock. She has a great memory and is gifted athletically, but she cannot think long-term and books do not interest her. My sister's kids are all bright, but my sister is a bit of a neglectful mother.

One nephew is astonishingly capable at games. By his fifth chess match with me when he was 9 I had to work to beat him - he thinks many, many moves ahead. He beat his older siblings at Chinese Checkers using multiple jumps on his first game. Now that the kids are becoming independent, all four are reading a lot. But I think my sister's mothering or lack thereof has reduced their abilities from what they could be.

My wife and her dad have photographic memories. The FIL has the entire parts catalog for Ford memorized. My wife can recall verbatim any conversation she has. She won numerous school-district wide competitions when she was in middle school and she can beat ME at any videogame made. She made it all the way to end of Age of Empires a week after buying it. No one can follow her when she works in excel.

Nurture? My mom pretty much let me do what I wanted and took me to the library when I prodded. She rarely set limits on what I could or could not do. She had tons of books around on all subjects as did my MGM. I saw them read all the time.

My dad almost never read. My brothers who lived with my dad of a different wife are all successful at their fields and good men (and great dads - like their dad ) - one took to reading deeply in his 20s. Another is very good at video games and is a phenomenal welder. A third made partner at his firm. Their kids are all advanced physically - walking and running by age 1. One child is very, very good at videogames. I see no deep love of books in any of them, but its not like they are buried in books.

I had a deep burning desire to LEARN for as long as I can recall. I felt stymied and suffocated at my dad's, but I also felt loved and listened to, but with my mom amd MGM, I had tons of books and they would take me to events and places, but they also had their own interests - and this pushed me back to learning on my own.

We talk about nurture vs genetics - there is also one other property - that of positive or negative feedback. Its not enough to provide books or a loving environment. There has to be a dynamic between the parent and the child and the teacher and the world that raises the child's energy level and keeps it there - something that emerges from the interaction of these entities.

I have to admit, statements like this make me very nervous.

Certainly it is possible to neglect one's kids out of selfishness. From what you've told us elsewhere, it sounds like you were the victim of neglect, and that's certainly not okay. But this statement makes it sound like the only way for women *NOT* to neglect their kids is to give up all "personal interests and careers." (Men seem exempt.)

I'm hoping that's not how you meant it, but the sound of it does get my feminist hackles up!

I think it's pretty clear that happy, fulfilled parents (not hedonists, but people who feel they have meaning in their lives) generally make better parents. Certainly parents (male and female!) who bring kids into the world have a responsibility to those kids. Neglect is not okay. But plenty of stay-at-home moms neglect their kids, too. One can read Vogue or have a career or be deeply committed to personal freedom and not neglect one's children. I have my own interests--as does everyone here that I've talked to!--but I love and care for my kids, too.

Again, I think it's clear that your case was, indeed, one of neglect. But I don't want the particulars of that one case to get overgeneralized inappropriately. And I couldn't call myself a feminist in good conscience if I didn't say something about it.

Thanks!

Whoa, I agree, Kriston!
I care for my kids, and work.
On top of all the other things to worry about, I worry about my working being a negative instead of a positive in our lives. Maybe this is just a rationalization, but I do think that the person who said 'A child's needs can never be met by an adult whose needs are not met' was RIGHT ON TARGET.

I actually love my work, so that is a bonus, but it helps me do a better job with the kids when I'm not constantly worried about money, for one thing.
Also, I always knew that I'd have to work even before having kids, but I figured I would rather have a couple of awesome kids and work, then just skip it altogether.

Another GUILT ridden scenario for the 'rents: taking care of yourself...
I just started tae kwon do lessons, again with more guilt about not spending those 3 hours a week with my youngest child, but I NEED to exercise and it's a chance to spend high-qual. time with my older child so...I go. (How long did I put off getting back in shape? Too long!)
Hope this is not too rambling!

I agree Kriston & chris. We moms are humans, too, and pursuing our interests is allowable and should not be viewed as neglectful. I admire the women I know who have strong interests and who enjoy their careers. Especially those with daughters, so they can role-model. In the 21st century, I don't believe we have to lose all sense of self to be good mothers.

That said, I'm a stay-at-home mom (after a 15 yr career). I do have trouble finding my personal passions to pursue, but DH has MANY. He loves skiing, surfing, bicycling, gardening, riflery, and about a dozen other things. Some of these I like, but the only thing I love pertains to my kids & education. Maybe art, too. While some people view this as me being a devoted mother, I don't--I think I'd be more well-balanced and interesting if I had other strong interests. If I had a daughter, I'd want her to find her passions/strong interests and pursue them.

For me, I love being involved in my kids education. I didn't have no where near the resources we have now. I love learning robotics, REALLY learning math (not just rote arithmetic), I hated history way back then but am now fascinated by it, love learning about art history, music etc...... my kids give me the avenue to pursue these interests that I might not have thought about it otherwise. Otherwise, I'd be spending my days in a research lab somewhere...but now, I'm enjoying passing on my passion for science to my kids and learning so many new things!

I think this is a pretty interesting statement. I agree wholeheartedly with the assertion that negative/positive feedback shapes us, particularly when we are young.
But not just parental feedback. Teachers, friends, neighbors, distant relatives even strangers.
Highly perceptive kids are even that much more succeptable to even the most subtle feedback. As a parent, it's a good thing to be aware of.
That being said, I'm guessing it's impossible to control for all situations and make sure all feedback is constructive and positive; from us or anyone else.
I'm really trying to promote good self esteem and a stong sense of self for them. Hopefully they will be able to better sort said feedback and figure out what to accept and what to throw out.
As a mom, I sometimes feel guilty that I don't work outside the home. I had a part time job and was very happy at the time. I felt like I had the best of both worlds and took some pride in feeling like I was setting a good example for my daughters. Unfortunately, the job moved into the city and I couldn't justify the cost(commute time and $) for the part time postition so it came to an end.
Hopefully they will understand that the feminist movement provides for options and choices, that they should not be told what they cannot do based on their gender. They should not be told that they cannot stay home with their children, or they set the women's movement back 100 years. That they should not be told they cannot balance a professional schedule, or either the job or the child will suffer. These proposed outcomes don't have anything to do with straight gender. It's all about their personal decisions and then, how they indvidually carry out those decisions.

Hi Austin,
Welcome.
Thanks for posting over the last few days - I think it helps us Moms who think we 'must' be crazy to fight so hard over 'nothing' remember that this isn't 'nothing.'

Kriston, Chris, and Cym - please don't turn this into a 'is anything less than a person doing the primary parenting turning their entire lives over to parenting equal to neglect?' argument. I'm sure no one is suggesting thata female parent 'having outside interests' is neglect. Afterall, there are many neglectful parents who don't have any outside interests - they just stare at the TV while neglecting their children.

My guess is that raising a PGlet is going to be challenging to any single adult or group of adults. Some of us rise to the challenge, and some done. Sometimes we do a lot and find that it still isn't enough. Thoughfully raising any child is a really big challenge, and depending on the personality of the kid in question, a HG or PG kid can be extra tough to raise. And we all know that lots of needs that ND children get met through teachers and agemates become thrown back to Mom or Dad when the child is gifted. Also, I can report that no matter how much one gives of themselves, there will be at least some moments when a child feels misunderstood and alone if that is their character.

Will we be able to raise our Gifted Daughters to negotiate the balancing act? Will we be able to raise our Gifted Sons to be active and thoughtful Fathers and Husbands? Will we be able to change society enought to allow our children to grow into the people they were meant to be? We will have to wait and see, won't we?

My wish for all of us is to 'play the hand we were dealt' with kindness and joy. We won't all make the same decisions as each other, we won't all fail or suceed at the same challenges, but if we keep each other close I think we will all do a better job than if we hide out alone.

Great Big Smiles,
Grinity

Well said! Good to see you around!

Grinity: YES!!!!! What she said!

Grinity, I love the way you look at things - you always make me think. Glad to see you back too!!!

Balancing childrens' and one's own needs is a topic in itself.

Ironically, from a Feminist perspective, my DM's ( and MGM) bad judgements had nothing to do with being independent or being smart or being a woman or her ideals, but with who she was. In the end she dealt with problems at home by avoiding them and focusing on other things where she had more control and could measure the results. It was not a choice at all. I sometimes think their success in some areas was related to avoiding it in others.

This is a fault and a trap that is very human. Neglect has many causes. Burying oneself in work is just one.

Men are mostly exempt from the innate emotional sensitivity to there being a conflict. I know that it does not bother me that I have a career and a son. I just give him 100% attention when I am home. My DW, OTOH, feels guilty that she is not there all the time. (Maybe I am just avoiding worrying about it!!)

You are welcome. So many memories are flooding back now that I have my son.

Though I do not dwell on it, there were times that I wondered what I would have been had things been different. I see that its a tradeoff.

Although my mom neglected me, she did recognize and nuture my mind. My DF's side of the family did not. The latter was MUCH worse than the former. For me, neglect with some guidance, was less stifling and more powerful than being loved, but controlled.

That book, Emergence, by David Palmer, touched on this briefly. The adopted parents would (deliberately) hide books from the protagonist. She had to struggle to seek things out. This feedback made the difference.

Poor DW, I hope she gives herself a break!!!

I wonder if the difference in perspective concerning working and parenting is based on temperment/personality or gender?

I wonder if it's possible to ever know for sure.

One things for sure, guilt doesn't seem to be a very productive emotion, especially when it's unduly aggrandized!

I have also enjoyed being involved in my children's education and learning with them. There are many topics and subjects they want to explore, which I never had the opportunity to learn. It brings me joy to give them opportunities I did not have. I learned long ago that I love to learn and I am glad that my children have the same passion.

That's for sure!


We'll never know! Perhaps in an ideal world, a person like your mom would have found a nurturing spouse who could have supported her to be out in the world without saddling her with the responsibility of being 'in charge' of meeting the need of your and DS, and in doing so, allowed her to have great success outside the home and share a bit more of herself with you. Maybe she was responding in part to her own experience as a child who liked freedom and respect better than control. Remember that for some gifted people, if they can't do it perfectly, then they find life very very stressful, compared to ND folks who have more slack for the normal highs and lows of life.


Not sure if this is helpful to say, but you know, when I spend 30 minutes mowing the lawn, I feel like a hero - totally enjoying the outside, and I do that about once a summer when the mood hits. My DH, OTOH, goes out weekly with grim determination. I tell him all the time that he should just let the grass go this week if he doesn't feel like it, because it's not really that long. (I don't really tell him all the time, but he just has to look at my face to know that that's what I'm thinking.) I don't know how we fell into the 'he's in charge of the outside of the house, and I'm in charge of the inside of the house' bit, but we have. My hunch is that women only feel guilty when they actually think that something isn't ideal. So my advice isn't to encourage her to feel less guilty, but to just check, and ask her, in an ideal world, what does she think would be best for your son? In otherwords, if your wife has a greater sensitivity to things emotional, use her as a 'canary in a coal mine,' yes? I read in a book somewhere that whenever a couple had a difference in perceptions they should start the conversation with "Yippee - we have a difference" because it allows them to be greater than the sum of the parts.

BTW - My son was in daycare part time from 7 weeks of age. I didn't feel guilty, but I did feel mornful of missing those hours of his life. I could almost feel the chemicals in my body missing him. 11 years later we are close when we are together, but I feel quite comfortable giving him lots of independence. What I didn't know then, and I do now, is that HG kids can feel quite uncomfortable with agemates even at as young as a year old. I hope that wherever you son is during the day, he is in a multiage group with lots of older kids to interact with.

Love and More Love,
Grinity









[/quote]

Very good words. Soemthing for me to think about!!

Our search for a baby-sitter began when DW was 3 mos pregnant. ( Imagine that!)

DS seemed fine there, but it turned into a fever swamp and he got sick a lot and then we got sick a lot. DW also started getting the heebie-jeebies about the next room for jr soo.. (Not Ideal thing!)

We finally found an in-house babysitter ( I hate using nanny because it sounds elitist ) whom DW and DS loves.

Plan is to start an afternoon enrichment program at a local day care when jr is 12 mos old. DS definately resonates with older kids - smiling back and forth when he meets them at outings - and watching them intently whenever he sees them. Infants bore him to no end and he ignores them.

This has turned into a more strident debate than the original nature/nurture.

My mother was a physician, though worked very little when we were small. But the message was always: you will be a doctor or a dentist, in the position of power. Thinking that I would head off to Wall Street wasn't on the radar of engineering/medical parents.

I always thought I would work and have a nanny, because how much care did an infant need? But circumstances were that we actually did a temp retirement (we were older and wanted a break and travel) and so I wasn't working. And my issues witha an infant that snacked and I had to pump at night to supplement made me so tired that I couldn't remember what day it was.

But it made me very aware of nanny care -- and I saw some good ones -- and involved mothers around me. I am not saying quantity, quality but now women have choices to be creative about their work, especially if gifted.

I have a friend who plays an instrument with the Met Opera and works from 8 pm. Now that her son is a teenager and she is not around, parenting is very hard and she is torn about having to work (single parent) and be there for her son as he deals with the teen years. Who would think about that when choosing a career that you would have to worry about your ability to be involved in the teen years?

What I see, is that many women, because we have gotten spoiled by being able to go to work and enjoy the fruits of money and independence before having a family is that they just don't want the tedious work of the hands-on part of a mom.

I think much of it is boring, dirty and a pain. And I would rather be getting "strokes" for being brilliant on some deal. But the pay off of those moments of seeing the effect of your "work" and feeling like an artist, that this child is flowering under your care, is (apologies to Mastercard) priceless.

And, I have found, that being HG myself, I can create new opportunities for myself at any point. And recreating my career is a cool challenge in itself.

I know some people must work for the financial need, but I also think you can make money any time and the investment in your chld is a once in a liftime opportunity.

My mother and the feminist movement allowed me to pursue a career that would give me power and opportunity for many choices, to be a mother and have a career.

Ren

I went to pick up my dd from a playdate with a friend from school. They have a new baby (about7 or 8 months). She is really cute and I started talking to the mom about her daughter. The question of sleep came up and when I asked her if her baby slept thru the night already her response was a surprised "I don't know. I close my door when I go to sleep. (name of nanny) takes care of her." They have a sitter for the daytime, an overnight sitter and a weekend sitter (they have many social events to attend). The kids hardly ever see their parents.

That was the situation for my father. The nanny was really what most people would consider "mother".
I think the general consensus in my family 2 generations later is that it's not so great.


Ren, acquiring a postion on Wall Street IS a position of power in it's own right.


You said it and I feel the same some days! It does get better and the attaboy just comes later in life. It gets easier as they get older, at least, that part of it.

I like the art analogy. The work itself is often very messy.

I chose a very visible path on Wall Street and it had power. I was 23 the first time I was on national television talking about some industry as an "expert". And I love my work, it suits me, but it is unstable. Nature of the beast.

Now that I share my life (in a different way) with a physician, who as a group are risk averse, I have a good balance and normalcy that I offer my child.

I think the biggest factor between myself and some of my peers that have children and nannies wedged in the middle, is that I like my child. I really like her. I am not talking about loving her, most people love their kids, but many do not like their kids.

Ren

PS. Thanks Austin for the whole quote, I was going to respond to the one above that isolated the part that was a pain. Part of which is atributable to me becoming OCD when it comes to DD's environment and the food she eats etc.

That makes me profoundly sad for some reason. I know what you mean and I wish that all parents liked their children.

I sure like mine (as well as love him to pieces). After staying home for the first 18 months of his life, I can tell you that I enjoy my career. I realized fully how much I enjoyed working when I was at home. I feel like I am a better mother, because I am a happier person.

Nature v nurture. I certainly have considered that a lot when pondering the wonderful oddball that is my son. And I have come to the expert conclusion (ahem) that it's a combination of both. My husband and I are both bright, however I suspect that my DS will be more intelligent than either one of us. And taller too. Hmmm.

But I also think that how we are parenting and some of the conscious decisions we are making about his environment are making a difference as well. And I suppose that "nurture" piece is what muddies the GT waters. Many parents provide outstanding environments for their children. And I'm sure that many of those children start school ahead of the game, so to speak. But I think that's where the "nature" piece must kick in and delineation between "bright" and HG/PG comes into play.

It will interesting to see what happens with my DS when he starts school.

Absolutely the point I was trying to get at! Well put.

Squirt. Thank you for that first post. While I still think nature may have a long term lead ... I've never thought I did much special for my kids... but take them places (zoo and musuems etc.) 3-5 times a week until they started school. Your post felt like a warm fuzzy pat on the back that all that time was more than just fun for me to be out of the house. Thank you. Of course, schooling may now suck those brains out of them but ;-) For now let's just focus on... thanks. I give them a LOT of boxes to be filled. Thanks.

We were living in Toronto from DD's 1st birthday to second. The zoo is great and we went about 8 times that year. She could name more than 50 animals, not hot housing, just doing the family time.

And we go to the Museum of Natural History, like any NYC family and she knows the dinosaurs, and all kinds of other crap.

We also go to Disney every year and she is an expert on princesses.

But the DNA part comes in when she asks why every ambulance has that snake and sword thing on it. Never pointed that out, she just made the connection.

Ren

I think it's more nature. I hate to say it because I think there are a lot of people out there who think they can make a kid gifted. My son came out smart... I just held on for the ride.

Kickball, You are very welcome. Your thank you gave ME a warm fuzzy. It's nice to contribute back.