T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
473.1 | | RANGER::PEACOCK | Freedom is not free! | Wed Oct 31 1990 22:29 | 22 |
| 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
|
473.2 | The fat lady hasn't sung yet! | VMSDEV::LANDMAN | Who won WWII? | Thu Nov 01 1990 10:28 | 92 |
|
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.
|
473.3 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | Originality = Undetected Plagiarism | Thu Nov 01 1990 10:37 | 4 |
| 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
|
473.4 | | CSC32::WILCOX | Back in the High Life, Again | Thu Nov 01 1990 10:47 | 3 |
| So, a non-breastfed baby might not turn out to be a criminal afterall?
Liz :-).
|
473.5 | sounds like | TLE::RANDALL | self-defined person | Thu Nov 01 1990 11:50 | 4 |
| Yeah, and it's not the end of all hope if they don't get into the
right preschool, either :)
--bonnie
|
473.6 | | RDVAX::COLLIER | Bruce Collier | Thu Nov 01 1990 12:14 | 8 |
|
.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 :^}
|
473.7 | | POWDML::SATOW | | Thu Nov 01 1990 13:16 | 27 |
| > 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
|
473.8 | Success has a high price | VMSDEV::LANDMAN | Who won WWII? | Fri Nov 02 1990 14:37 | 20 |
|
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."
|
473.9 | 5-10% influence IS critical | AIMHI::HARRIS | | Tue Nov 13 1990 10:14 | 21 |
| 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.
|