Conference moira::parenting_v3

   Oooooooohhhhh!!!!!  This ought to be a good one!!!  :-)  :-)
   
   Well, I'll dive in ....
   
   I believe that this type of theory is very dangerous.  While I
   don't intend to argue its validity, I believe that anybody who
   accepts this theory is at a greater risk of "giving in" instead of
   growing through a situation.  
   
   I believe that anybody who says "that's just the way I am" is
   copping out - while everybody has their own quirks and traits,
   anybody can change if they chose to, and if they want it bad
   enough.  
   
   So my personal opinion is that this info may be interesting, and it
   may even be accurate, but I believe its of no use.  It doesn't
   really matter where people are at, or even why they are that way.
   What does matter, I believe, is where do they want to be, and what
   are they willing to do to get there.
   
   - Tom
   

    I lived in Minnesota during the years that this study took place. It
    was VERY controversial, to the point of not permitting the professors
    to speak (chanting student demonstrators) and enormous pressure by the
    'U' on them not to publish.

    The study started out to determine if some basic capabilities were
    established by a person's genes. They studied identical twins
    (identical genes) that had been separated at birth, and raised in
    totally different environments (total nurture vs. absolutely minimal
    nurture, intellectual encouragement vs. intellectual deprivation, rich
    vs. poor, etc., etc., etc.)

    They only studied sets of twins that had not yet been re-united, so
    that there would be no chance of influencing each other.

    The results surprised everyone! Both groups that went into the study
    with pre-conceived ideas were found to be wrong.


    NURTURE

    Those who thought that nurture could overcome nature in the basic
    capabilities were found to be wrong. In the university environment,
    bastion of the 'throw money at the educational problem, they're poor
    students because they don't get enough special education' school of
    thought, this was a refutal of their guiding principles. Big government
    subsidized educational programs like Head Start would have their
    technical justification eliminated. There was a very strong outswelling
    of emotion at the University against the study when the initial results
    became known.

    The amount of change that nurture imposes on existing capabilities
    turned out to be very small. Parents might assist a person in reaching
    95% of his capability in one area, where it was an area that the person
    liked and would be at 85% capability without assistance. Parents might
    assist a person in reaching 60% of his capability in an area that the
    person didn't like, where the person would be at 55% of his capability
    without help. Parents couldn't turn around a basic like or dislike,
    however. (Numbers made up, but the study did mention a 5%-10% effect).

    The basic point was that the difference in inherent capability was so
    large that even large swings in a child's reaching a percentage of
    capability had a small overall effect on the difference established at
    birth. A kid with genes making him 'smart' was far better in school and
    afterwards than a kid with genes not making him 'smart'. Even when the
    smart kid was raised in a non-nurturing, anti-intellectual environment,
    and the other kid was raised by parents who did all that they could so
    that their adopted child could share their intellectual life.


    NATURE

    Those who thought that some (or even most) of the basic capabilities
    would be predetermined by nature didn't conceive of the extent of the
    relationship. Not only were all the basic capabilities (aptitudes) at
    equivalent levels, but the basic levels of accomplishments were also at
    equivalent levels. Most of them had jobs that were very much alike, and
    had reached about the same level. They also had hobbies that were
    pretty much the same.

    Secondary characteristics that were considered to be almost totally
    nurture/environment dependent were also found to be set by the genes. A
    set of twin's hair, clothing, jewelry, makeup fashions etc., would be
    very much the same. Two sisters both wore a large number of rings, with
    the same numbers of rings on the same fingers (both had 3 rings on the
    same finger, none on the same finger, etc.) There were dozens and
    dozens of examples like the ring similarity, all not expected even by
    those who were the strongest supporters of the nature school.


    BASIC EXPLANATION

    What is generally considered to be nurture/environment's influence on a
    child is thought of as being imposed from without. It now appears that
    it is the child's interaction with its environment that provides the
    results. And the way that the child interacts with the environment is
    established by it's genes. Go to a nursery school and watch the actions
    of the children. Some ignore the mobile, some interact with it. Some
    are always joining in, some are always on the outside. Some gain a lot
    from their environment, some are unaffected by it.


    DISCLAIMER

    This is an area of study that is not finished. It is showing new
    mechanisms in  areas of development. By no means do any of the
    participants believe that a person's future is pre-ordained.

    It is also an area of study whose results refute some very strongly
    held beliefs, so that impartial analysis cannot always be counted on.
    Articles for and against have to be examined very closely.

There was a whopper of a string relating to genetics and their behaviour
patterns and the like in the PSYCHOLOGY notes file if you are interested.

Stuart

So, a non-breastfed baby might not turn out to be a criminal afterall?

Liz :-).

    Yeah, and it's not the end of all hope if they don't get into the
    right preschool, either  :)
    
    --bonnie

    
    .4 > So, a non-breastfed baby might not turn out to be a criminal afterall?
    
    Well, another possibility would be that the same (dominant?) gene
    causes both bottle feeding by the parents, and criminality in the child.
    
    		- Bruce :^}
    

> Minnesota twin study 

Why is an analysis of a baseball team being discussed in PARENTING?

re: .4, .5, .6

And it shows that your kids do not drive you crazy -- you inherit it from 
them.

re: .1

Almost all advances in knowledge are accompanied by the risk that the 
knowledge will be misapplied or applied in a pernicious way.

re: .2

Thanks for the greater detail.

From what I see here, it simply provides even MORE impetus for recognizing and 
respecting individual differences and not raising all children according to 
some "mold" or "recipe" -- that the job of parenting is to provide an 
envrionment in which a the child can develop all their abilities, not just 
those that the parent would like to see developed or which the parents 
themselves have.  And it also shows the importance of creating and striving 
for individualized goals, not against statistical norms.

Clay

    
    The last paragraph of .0 requires close examination. Skimming it gives
    the impression that the study group agrees with parental efforts to
    modify their childrens behavior, and seems to say that they can succeed
    with positive results. 
    
    In this case, they are using the terms charasmatic and dedicated as
    negative qualities.
    
    The results are NOT positive, when the methods require 'grossly
    depriving or mistreating' the children.
    
                                     
>>    But  the  study  "does  not  imply  that  parenting is without lasting
>>    effects," the  group wrote.  "Parents can produce ...  effects if they
>>    grossly deprive  or  mistreat    all   their  children.    It  seems 
>>    reasonable  that charasmatic,dedicated parents determined to  make  all 
>>    their  children  share certain personal qualties, interests, or values,
>>    may sometimes succeed."
                                                                               

    I don't know about the rest of you, but to me - a 5-10% ability to 
    affect the outcome of a child's characteristics is an enormous
    opportunity for parents.
    
    How does one get ahead in today's very competitive environment - 
    it is that little edge, whether it be in regards to risk taking,
    intellectual achievement, imagination, self-assuredness etc etc etc.
    
    In other words, if I need surgery, I want someone who was raised with
    the parenting that manifests itself as a need to be right 100% of the
    time.  90% isn't good enough.  I want my children's teachers to be 
    100% of what they could be - the same with my auto mechanic etc.
    
    I am being grossly neglectful of my children if I don't teach them to 
    develop to their fullest potential in every area.
    
    Also, I don't recall much written about the child's emotional well
    being.  Good parenting should go a long way towards teaching the 
    child how to live and be happy with who and what s/he is.  Not just
    trying to improve upon the inherent, genetic skill/physical attribute
    traits.