Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Opinion, nature or nuture

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.