s/o Challenge thread...Why do some check out while others flourish?

[Donna]

I thought I better make this a new thread since it is a little off the topic of the other.

 

:iagree: When left to their own devices, some gifted teenagers will start software companies, read advanced math and philosophy books, study the violin, and get involved in humanitarian projects to feed hungry children. Others will play video games, read science fiction and romance novels, start hardcore bands, and keep 17 types of exotic hamsters. I've come across many more people in the latter group.

 

All of these activities can be stimulating, but some of them are more likely than others to help the child prepare for rigorous work in college, and for fulfilling and productive opportunities in later life.

 

But what do you think makes someone fall into the first group and what makes them fall into the second? The man I was talking about went to public school as a child and did what he needed to do to make A's. He wasn't home schooled. He did all that he did in his time outside of school.

 

I also went to public school, did what I needed to do to make A's. (My mother once told me my IQ and it was as high as what was discussed in the other thread.) I was competitive and didn't want anyone getting better grades than me. It was easy. My parents provided us with books from the library and we played games as a family. TV time was limited. They couldn't afford to send me to extra classes and homeschooling back then was not like it is today so not even an option. There were no "real" gifted programs...just a once a week pull out for "enrichment" which meant we did puzzles and learned a few words in French. I rarely studied but did all my homework and ended up at the top of my class. When the time came that I was challenged in college honors classes, I just worked harder. I loved it and remember wondering why no one challenged me like that when I was young. That feeling led me to homeschool my own kids.

 

I know quite a number of people who did not learn to get good grades though they would have been perfectly capable. They were bored in school and became class clowns or got into trouble doing worse things.

 

I'm not saying I don't believe in doing everything we can to help our kids be the best they can be. I do that myself...which is why I am constantly searching for the best for keeping my kids challenged. Just wondering why some people seem to flourish and others flounder in similar environments.

[regentrude]

Intrinsic motivation. Which is an inborn character trait.

I have two very different children, both gifted with almost identical IQs.

One is a high achieving perfectionist. If the teacher said to write three sentences, she wrote two pages. She was miserable in school because she desperately wanted to learn and achieve, so we pulled her out and homeschooled to give her this opportunity.

The other is a minimalist. He would write the three shortest sentences he could think of and would close his book mid-sentence when his required reading time was up. For him, being pulled out of the school environment was also extremely important, for completely different reasons; he would have become an absolute underachiever with the prevailing attitude of mediocrity. At home, he still is somewhat minimalistic, but can use his time not on meaningless busywork, but on material that challenges him.

Edited October 26, 2011 by regentrude

[jennynd]

Intrinsic motivation. Which is an inborn character trait.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I have one of each too.

My older one is the minimalist. He is smart but never seeking challenge. He will just do whatever you give him but never ask more whether it is 2nd grade work or 7th grade work.,. And for him, I have to pushing him,

My younger one, although just 3, she is ambitious/aggressive/independent.. she just started preschool and after get home,, she will ask for more writing and math. she will go on her own try to read a book and come ask me what the word is and what it means. For her, I can't and won't push her. She is self driven and I will only there as guildance when she ask for.

Edited October 26, 2011 by jennynd

[Osmosis Mom]

I am a bit confused about what Eleanor said and what you are referring to. As a teen -homeschooled teen in particular- the main thing should be that they have an interest. Pretty much any constructive and creative interest shows that they are a multi-varied persona.

 

I am not into video-games and highly limit my own dss' time, but for some people video gaming brought them into their field of work. Other interests -like having 17 exotic breeds of hamsters- show the teen has a creative and leadership side, can finish a goal set, and is reliable. Plus different. Perhaps Harvard only wants the kind of kid who gets in the news and has set up a non-profit, but, you know, there are other schools than Harvard!

 

There are indeed some teens who don't have strong interests or who bloom later. In general then the atmosphere of homeschooling lends itself to nourishing a creative, explorative side of the student (if the student wishes).

 

I have four kids ages 13, 16, 17, and 20 of whom two have had (present tense as well) strong, strong interests. My youngest was big into entomology and did research, internship, taught classes etc. etc. but did not publish a paper (which is why I suspect Harvard dissed her). She is now studying behavioural psychology and loves that. It is different, but, then again, not so different from studying ant behaviour! I should add that she had space and support to delve into this interest of hers and her schooling was mostly autodidactic.

 

Youngest teen is our entrepreneur. I can't really explain what he is doing. He began by having a fascination with Lamborghinis at age 8-9 and blabbered on about them for a year. I totally could not hear him *until* he did a formal presentation on them that totally blew me away and awakened me. I took him to their store, we spoke to the manager there, he got a cool ride and I was hooked on his interest. He set up a blog and posted daily for 2-3 years and is now doing different things and actually getting an income from his blogs. He is a computer whiz and loves money and plans on going to Harvard and becoming a millionaire. We'll see. I have already hooked my horses up in front of his cart, though, as I'd love him to buy me a car!!

 

16 year old is more introverted than the other two. He has been into soccer since age 4, still going strong. He took up field drumming (Fife and Drum corpse) and has gotten big time into it. He plays with adults and spends a few hours pr. day practicing. It took him over two years to get into it, but now he is hooked and loves it. Totally self-motivated which is how it should be. It might not be a glamorous interest, but it works for him (and us), he meets amazing people and is learning persistence, self-reliance, getting so much confidence, and is a beautiful drummer. I love it and love that it keeps him away from idle waste of time. He has begun being more into some techno-stuff as well, so perhaps he has a few more tricks up his sleeve before heading off to college.

 

My 17 yo dd was my shy kid who then got a job. Sounds like no big deal except she is basically running her Starbucks and trains new people, knows the regulations better than her manager and can make amazing drinks. She has gone from being this shy, introverted homeschooled kiddo to being outgoing, witty in public and extremely fast on her legs and in her head. She has shown extreme dedication, reliability, head for money and people, and money management. She can juggle stress now and is also taking cc classes while waiting to start her college in a few months' time.

 

I think they are all highly accomplished. They have a passion and that is what matters. As long as it is a wholesome passion and that time is not being idly wasted, then it works for me.

 

Sorry this got so long. I a proud of my kids, but did not mean this as a brag btw.

[zaichiki]

And there are other flavors, too.

 

I have a kid who would refuse to cooperate at all if the work was not challenging. Forget doing enough to get along or feeling intrinsic motivation.

When asked to print 5 lowercase n's with the rest of the class (having learned, at home, to print and write in cursive already), he'd just crumble up the paper and sit there with a stony face.

 

The other one would have made the most *beautiful* printed lowercase n's (some of which might actually be u's instead b/c of dyslexia) and then turned the paper over and covered it in cursive n's and flowers.

 

My third would do the printed n's and then sit there doing nothing, daydreaming about something more interesting. Then, when the teacher started to talk, he'd still be daydreaming and he'd miss the next assignment completely. (I guess he fits the "do the minimum to get by" mold.)

[Donna]

I think what I mean is more about schooled children. I think homeschooling is different because there is more of an ability by the parent/teacher to allow the child to pursue their own interests to the fullest. They don't have to do testing in many instances or make certain grades to do well "on paper."

 

The original post was about leaving a child in school because one parent wasn't for homeschooling then the discussion went into all these horrible things that might happen from doing that. But there are people who do stay in school, learn to "jump through the hoops of school" and challenge themselves or find their own passions outside of school. I was more wondering if you think it is due to their own personality traits, parenting...some parents (like mine for instance) just have a "you'll do your best or else" attitude while others are less strict or more child-focused (not sure how to best phrase that), or some other factor.

 

Some people went into their life's work through video gaming but there are also those who sit in their parent's basement in their 20's doing nothing but gaming and who have no job. What makes the difference?

[Ester Maria]

I find that it mostly depends on the child's personality, but then again, one must consider that the child's personality is not developed in a vacuum and that parenting has a *huge* role in how the child's inborn traits and tendencies are going to manifest in concrete situations and attitudes. Inborn characteristics matter, but they are more of an inborn "range" than an inborn "point on the scale", if you get what I mean - even with inborn traits there are better and worse ways of manifesting, and how they manifest *largely* depends on the mix of life experiences, home culture, family dynamics and temperament, etc.

Some children are competitive and accomplished out of their own disposition even when left alone to themselves, but for some you cannot really tell the line and how much of it comes from within and how much of it is what they internalized at home and what shaped them, because they come from homes where they were raised with certain expectations and internalized certain attitudes.

 

It typically helps if a child has a parent of a similar disposition, but who managed to work on that / overcome that, so they can understand where the child comes from, but they can also estimate when to let things go and when/how to actively work on things. I think that in general discussion about these things there is too much of a focus on genetics, and too little of a focus on how the environment can be managed to help the tendencies manifest in the best possible way and to mould them when possible - I see WAY more parents nowadays, compared to our and the generation of our parents, simply reverting to excuses of a kind "it is just how they are wired and there is nothing I can do about it", "it is just how they are", etc., a general attitude of a kind of helplessness (and the REALLY bad thing happens when children understand this and start manipulating parents). In our generation and our parents' generation, parents WAY more often assumed strength and a great level of flexibility of personality formation, so they were a lot less likely to not consider themselves and their children responsible for a great part of it. True, there was a darker side of the medal too - what I find to have been a generally healthy attitude sometimes still turned into the negation of the fact that some things cannot be fully explained by environment and parenting, categorizing all children who cannot fit an expected mould perfectly as simply lazy or ill-parented, etc. But on the whole, I find today's opposite extreme - of justifying just about anything with "it is just how they are" - to be a lot more unhealthy and a lot more societally problematic on so many levels. Both are fundamentally unscientific as you simply cannot clinically test nature vs. nurture, but I think much of the unhealthy dynamics today says volumes about the fact that it is not only important what you "get", but also what you DO with what you get. Another reason why I absolutely refuse to box my children into some or other mental categories and simply try to work the best I can with what I have, typically assuming strength rather than fragility.

 

I have one child that is the textbook example of a driven, accomplished firstborn, who would probably succeed in the institutional schooling just as well and approach it as a challenge, social challenge, seeing what she can get out of that experience, rather than focusing on how it limits her. Special interests would be dealt with outside of the institutional schooling, the way that generations of (also many successful, happy and accomplished) people had and were just fine.

Another child is more along the lines of a child challenging to raise, though a mild version - but she would probably also be just find and successful on the paper too, because she would simply not be allowed to get away with not being so if she is cognitively capable, as the poor thing happened to be born in a family who tends to actively solve problems. In fact, if she had so much problems with conforming and functioning within the structure of institutional schooling, I might insist on purpose that she attend school, so that she can work on it and solve problems there where they appear, as this is a great age to exercise skills without serious repercussions (learning to function in a workplace is a much more serious task). Changing circumstances rather than dealing with things is sometimes an answer, but not always, and here it just takes a parent knowing their children and estimating what would be a better choice for them.

[MBM]

I don't think the question can be easily answered because so many factors determine how a person develops. For example, a negative self-explanatory style (what we believe about our ourselves and how we view the causes of our situations in life) can have an effect that hinders an individual throughout life. For the most part, children learn their explanatory style from their parents or caregivers -- those who are around them the most.

 

A person can also be affected by fear, depression, apathy, contentment, significant problems, etc.

 

As far as institutions, some schools do a good job in helping students find and develop their interests and abilities. My son's public high school offers students numerous classes of varying levels, extracurriculars galore, excursions throughout the U.S. and world, lectures and seminars outside of school, and opportunities to explore more during summer. The school wants them to do this. I realize most students are not so lucky, but I don't think -- especially after having grown up in a poor reservation town with very limited opportunities -- that the school is wholly to blame. Partially, maybe.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I find that it mostly depends on the child's personality, but then again, one must consider that the child's personality is not developed in a vacuum and that parenting has a *huge* role in how the child's inborn traits and tendencies are going to manifest in concrete situations and attitudes. Inborn characteristics matter, but they are more of an inborn "range" than an inborn "point on the scale", if you get what I mean - even with inborn traits there are better and worse ways of manifesting, and how they manifest *largely* depends on the mix of life experiences, home culture, family dynamics and temperament, etc.......

 

:iagree:

 

This is discussed in Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

[laughing lioness]

Dh (psychologist) and I have been discussing this at length lately. He says that the latest research shows that genetics (nature vs. nurture) play a far greater role than previously thought regarding personality.

[ElizaG]

I am a bit confused about what Eleanor said and what you are referring to. As a teen -homeschooled teen in particular- the main thing should be that they have an interest. Pretty much any constructive and creative interest shows that they are a multi-varied persona.

 

I am not into video-games and highly limit my own dss' time, but for some people video gaming brought them into their field of work. Other interests -like having 17 exotic breeds of hamsters- show the teen has a creative and leadership side, can finish a goal set, and is reliable.

I'm not sure how having a bedroom full of small furry animals in cages is necessarily a sign of creativity, goal orientation, or leadership ability. It could just be a sign of liking animals, or, more negatively, being unable to find one's place in the outside world. (And I say this from personal experience. At one point, I was like a female version of Gussie Fink-Nottle. ;))

 

There are tons of young people who say they want to be a vet or zoologist because they love animals, or that they want to work in the software industry because they love video games. Only a very small number actually go on to do that. If they're working hard on the necessary academic skills, and joining together with others to do related practical work as well, that would be one thing. But if it's just a personal hobby, I would see that as a sign that they need more direction.

 

I also don't think that "getting ready to make lots of $$$" -- as is emphasized by certain homeschool advocates (e.g. the Moores and some unschoolers) -- should be the main priority of gifted high schoolers. This is where classical education comes into the picture. It's about forming the whole person in habits of thinking, self-expression, and scholarship. Studying the liberal arts is a lifelong endeavor, and relatively few people have the privilege of having much time for this in adulthood. If a young person is exceptionally quick to learn, they can go deeper and build a more solid foundation while they're still in high school. Not just get the minimum done early, so they can "escape the cage" and get out into the workforce at age 16.

 

ETA: To me, it's this difference in fundamental values -- not so much in educational methods per se -- that distinguishes classically-oriented educators from more pragmatically-oriented or child-led ones. Because of this, they're likely to have different ideas about what it means for a given student to "flourish."

Edited October 26, 2011 by Eleanor

[zaichiki]

Some people went into their life's work through video gaming but there are also those who sit in their parent's basement in their 20's doing nothing but gaming and who have no job. What makes the difference?

 

I think it's something about the way they're made.

I (basically) parent my children the same way, though I have adapted to meet each child's needs. They are SO fundamentally different (see above for example of how they'd react to the same situation)... I don't think it comes from me (parenting).

[regentrude]

Dh (psychologist) and I have been discussing this at length lately. He says that the latest research shows that genetics (nature vs. nurture) play a far greater role than previously thought regarding personality.

 

:iagree:

My DD displayed her perfectionist traits at an age of 6 months. No way we could have "made" her this way, she was born like this. It was quite an eye opener.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I don't think anyone here is saying genetics don't matter at all.

 

On the other hand, I've read some of the latest research and it doesn't say only genetics matter. Granted, I know for certain I haven't read all the latest research, so perhaps I missed the studies indicating that and the follow-up studies that found the same.

 

The new studies show genetics matter more than previously thought. Still, it's far from a settled question--unless I've missed many studies. A few studies don't a fact make. There are many topics that bounce back and forth in the studies over the years and we haven't quite figured them out yet.

 

Genetics definitely matter and may matter even more than we realize, but that doesn't mean there is nothing we can do to guide what is there. Otherwise, why would we put effort into parenting and adapt our parenting to the different personalities of our children? To me, that in itself acknowledges the fact that we recognize BOTH nature and nurture, even if we don't know precisely how much each matters.

[beaners]

 

Genetics definitely matter and may matter even more than we realize, but that doesn't mean there is nothing we can do to guide what is there. Otherwise, why would we put effort into parenting and adapt our parenting to the different personalities of our children? To me, that in itself acknowledges the fact that we recognize BOTH nature and nurture, even if we don't know precisely how much each matters.

 

Exactly. If you parent exactly the same for two children with different personalities, you might not get the same results. It is incredibly demanding for me to get the same socially acceptable behavior from my younger daughter compared to her older sister. If (when) I used the same methods on these two, I would have an agreeable older sister and a little sister who wouldn't leave the house. I understand that these differences are short term and that formerly feral children can emerge as pleasant people, but if you can't get the same results now it will be pretty tough to get cumulative results later on.

 

Of course all this means that I will just find new and unique ways to ruin the lives of each of my children.

[Ester Maria]

I don't think anyone here is saying genetics don't matter at all.

 

On the other hand, I've read some of the latest research and it doesn't say only genetics matter. Granted, I know for certain I haven't read all the latest research, so perhaps I missed the studies indicating that and the follow-up studies that found the same.

 

The new studies show genetics matter more than previously thought.

[bolded emphasis mine]

 

Exactly.

It matters "more than previously thought" because the general thinking pattern in the previous generations was that a person and their upbringing were fundamentally responsible for who they were, ultimately. They were to take all the praise OR all the blame. Those who did not succeed were simply disregarded as not capable enough or as "did not try enough", ergo it was good and just that they did not succeed - without taking into account the complexity of factors which make up a human being.

 

What we do know - or think we know - today is that on a fundamental level people are neither to praise nor to blame for who the are, because that is being formed by genetics and early life experiences which shape the general personality framework. We know that the picture is more complex than how one parents, that there are some inborn tendencies and that they would be formed via early life experiences and then together make up one's personality. We can also spot - physically - some brain differences and to a great degree associate them with some of those tendencies. We can know that some people have atypical neurological pathways, more or less activity in this or that part of the brain, etc. We have some of the instruments of explaining why some people are more likely to have religious experiences, why some other people have issues with empathy, and pretty nicely locate those in the brain.

 

However. Even if we were to say that one, for example, lacks empathy, the fact is that some psychopaths are behind the bars on the death row, while other psychopaths are very successful businessmen. It may be the same inborn trait, but the combination with other traits and life circumstances is going to make a huge difference in how that trait manifests.

Or, think about some people who are really fundamentally defined by some traits which are not inborn. Attachment disorders, for example, are typically made, in early childhood, and yet they grow to define a person in such a basic way that they pretty much cannot "snap out of it", it is so ingrained. Another possible example may be narcissists, who are also made - they may have a particular coctail of specific inborn traits too which "help", but most psychologists would argue that narcissism / the tendency towards that kind of manipulation is developed as a defense mechanism of a baby related to how they are treated, and it still grows to define a person in a very basic way, so basic that most of them simply cannot be changed. So, it is more than possible - it is in fact probable - that very early life experiences channel the inborn traits and create new ones as coping mechanisms. And even then, afterward, experience will matter to channel those constitutions in concrete situations - people can learn in life to cope with their tendencies better or worse. Unless one has a completely fatalistic view of life and people, of course.

 

Regentrude mentioned perfectionism tendencies at six months, but actually, strictly speaking, even those are not necessarily inborn - the child has been alive for well six months and they may also be a way in which the child reacts to their surroundings, it may also be something deeply internalized or provoked by what they met in life in some form, not necessarily a fully genetic trait. The thing is, we just do not know - we cannot measure - and these things are, in spite of the progress of neuroscience, still more speculative than "really" scientific. I mean, it may be inborn, but one can also reasonably argue that it is not - just how does one draw the line? These things are fundamentally so intertwined, as they become dependent one on another: a constitution, however predisposed, whatever its "range", is still being developed in concrete life situations.

 

I think it generally a good thing to realize the genetic role, but I am afraid the tendencies I spot today are just another form of "extremism" in that they become fatalistic as to "one cannot affect genetics". I would word it this way: one may perhaps not change genetic factors - they are a given - but one can certainly affect them via experiences, i.e. one cannot not affect them, as a person can only develop via experiences. And that, I think, is why so many people of strikingly similar basic disposition are still very different and end up in very different life situations.

[laughing lioness]

I don't think anyone here is saying genetics don't matter at all.

 

On the other hand, I've read some of the latest research and it doesn't say only genetics matter. Granted, I know for certain I haven't read all the latest research, so perhaps I missed the studies indicating that and the follow-up studies that found the same.

 

The new studies show genetics matter more than previously thought. Still, it's far from a settled question--unless I've missed many studies. A few studies don't a fact make. There are many topics that bounce back and forth in the studies over the years and we haven't quite figured them out yet.

 

Genetics definitely matter and may matter even more than we realize, but that doesn't mean there is nothing we can do to guide what is there. Otherwise, why would we put effort into parenting and adapt our parenting to the different personalities of our children? To me, that in itself acknowledges the fact that we recognize BOTH nature and nurture, even if we don't know precisely how much each matters.

 

We're agreeing. My point was just to emphasize the bolded above.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Of course all this means that I will just find new and unique ways to ruin the lives of each of my children.

 

I can relate. ;)

[LMD]

I can relate. ;)

 

yeah, that made me Lol! Parenting huh, must be insane to try :D

[5 Hikers]

I always wanted to be a SAHM. It didn't matter to me what my IQ was, but my parents were very upset with me. They both pushed college. My mom even told me that if I wasn't so smart she would understand me staying home, but that I was a waste. I just always felt it was impossible for me to devote myself to a career and have kids. I wanted kids more than anything else. I attend college classes here and there for fun online. I also devour books, sometimes as many as 6 novels a week. I use my brain to teach my kids, which I think is worth it.

[Ester Maria]

5 Hikers, I see nothing ethically problematic with somebody being an intelligent SAHM.

 

Whatever niche of life you can find to make a positive impact, which fits your personality and desired lifestyle and ultimately leads to a good life and a life of joy, it IS "good enough". I never really understood those comments and I am a very academically oriented person. There is a difference between a wasted talent, and a talent which somebody chose to direct somewhere else. :grouphug:

[ebunny]

There is a difference between a wasted talent, and a talent which somebody chose to direct somewhere else. :grouphug:

 

:iagree:

[lisamarie]

I think parenting plays a HUGE role in this. I am probably just very bright, level 1 gifted, got high grades, tested well, in the GATE program, etc. My DH, OTOH, is brilliant, definitely very gifted. DH is way smarter than I am, but he doesn't think he is. He thinks he's just average. Per tonight's discussion on this topic, DH doesn't believe he's unusually smart--yet he can pick up a book and teach himself computer coding for work. He can score in the 90th percentile on the LSAT without much studying and being 10 years out of college.

 

I grew up being told I was smart, my parents told me I could do anything if I really wanted it and were always encouraging. DH grew up thinking he was dumb. Why? Because his dad would say, "You're smart, but you're not that smart." DH spent his whole growing up years with his dad picking up on the one mistake DH made and nitpicking it to death rather than encourage. DH would have a great basketball game, score tons of points, etc, and his dad would point out the errors he made and tell him how he could do better. No congrats, no "job well done." DH told his dad tonight his LSAT score and that it got him a full ride scholarship to law school. His dad's response? "That's good, I think." Awesome. Way to be supportive. :glare: My parents were thrilled. I told my mom on the phone. When my dad got home from work he called DH up and congratulated him. My parents want to throw him a party. I repeat again, parenting makes a HUGE difference in how successful our kids are going to be.

 

I have been telling DH over and over that he is smart, that he can do anything, etc. After 10 years he maybe sorta believes me. Maybe. He must believe me a little bit since he's going back to school.

[Mergath]

I'm one of the ones that think parenting is a massive part. Despite what some probably want to think, you can't take a gifted kid, give them lousy parents, and expect them to somehow shine and nurture their gifts regardless.

 

I was a gifted child. Taught myself to read somewhere between three and four (I'm guessing because my mom couldn't be bothered to teach me). Was reading at a post-secondary level by first grade. But whenever I wanted to read something other than crappy chapter books, my mom would roll her eyes and say, "No, that's boring, you don't need to read about that." When I tried to read after I finished my work in class, the teachers would yell at me that it wasn't time to read. Whenever I wanted to learn anything about math or science, my mom would tell me that girls aren't good at math and science and I shouldn't bother. When I wanted to go right to college after high school, my parents told me that advanced learning was useless and offered to buy me a car if I would just get a job instead.

 

The result? I ended up doing terribly after fourth or fifth grade, to this day I'm terrified of math and science, and only in the last few years have I started reading about "boring" subjects that interest me. Now don't get me wrong, I love my mom dearly and we talk almost every day, but she played a huge part in the fact that I basically checked out in elementary school. If I'd had parents who pushed me and encouraged me, my life would be completely different today.

 

I don't think you can force a kid to "flourish" that otherwise wouldn't, but it's pretty easy to crush a child's spirit so that they fail at every turn.

[ebunny]

I'm one of the ones that think parenting is a massive part. Despite what some probably want to think, you can't take a gifted kid, give them lousy parents, and expect them to somehow shine and nurture their gifts regardless.

 

I was a gifted child. Taught myself to read somewhere between three and four (I'm guessing because my mom couldn't be bothered to teach me). Was reading at a post-secondary level by first grade. But whenever I wanted to read something other than crappy chapter books, my mom would roll her eyes and say, "No, that's boring, you don't need to read about that." When I tried to read after I finished my work in class, the teachers would yell at me that it wasn't time to read. Whenever I wanted to learn anything about math or science, my mom would tell me that girls aren't good at math and science and I shouldn't bother. When I wanted to go right to college after high school, my parents told me that advanced learning was useless and offered to buy me a car if I would just get a job instead.

 

The result? I ended up doing terribly after fourth or fifth grade, to this day I'm terrified of math and science, and only in the last few years have I started reading about "boring" subjects that interest me. Now don't get me wrong, I love my mom dearly and we talk almost every day, but she played a huge part in the fact that I basically checked out in elementary school. If I'd had parents who pushed me and encouraged me, my life would be completely different today.

 

I don't think you can force a kid to "flourish" that otherwise wouldn't, but it's pretty easy to crush a child's spirit so that they fail at every turn.

I don't know you, but your post made me want to give you a :grouphug:.

[La Texican]

Edit: Wrong thread.

Edited October 29, 2011 by La Texican

[La Texican]

beaner, "Of course all this means that I will just find new and unique ways to ruin the lives of each of my children."

yeah, that made me Lol! Parenting huh, must be insane to try :D

 

Ok, it wasn't the wrong thread. It was the wrong page. Apparently the conversation has gotten back on track before I had time to post my joke.

Hoagies posted this Onion Article on their Facebook fan page:

"Study Finds Every Style Of Parenting Produces Disturbed, Miserable Adults"

 

 

http://mobile.theonion.com/articles/study-finds-every-style-of-parenting-produces-dist,26452/?mobile=true

[zaichiki]

Ok, it wasn't the wrong thread. It was the wrong page. Apparently the conversation has gotten back on track before I had time to post my joke.

Hoagies posted this Onion Article on their Facebook fan page:

"Study Finds Every Style Of Parenting Produces Disturbed, Miserable Adults"

 

 

 

 

Heh. Yeah... well we ARE just human. But I think Mergath has a point. If you approach parenting in a certain way, it is easy to crush a child's spirit, self-confidence, and thirst for knowledge. Eh. Environment plays a big role. I don't think anyone is going to argue with that.

 

I DON'T think, though, that it's SO easy to mess up kids that all parenting styles produce "disturbed, miserable adults." THAT makes me laugh!

[Ester Maria]

People do walk out successful and people do walk out messed up from all kinds of homes, all kinds of parenting styles, all kinds of background and circumstances. It is because we simply cannot observe ALL factors in a person's life.

 

Maybe somebody was brought up in an awful, emotionally unhealthy atmosphere at home BUT was also lucky to live in a place with great schools, to get plenty of emotional support in their community, to have informal mentors in parents' stead for life skills, etc., so it turns out as though the parenting style has been "counterbalanced" (though the scars still remain on some level) because an individual is successful... still, we would not call it a great situation, because look how successful he walked out it, because we typically observe it is an exception which only confirms the rule. On the other hand, maybe somebody really had wonderful, loving and involved parents, but some other factors in his life were beyond his control and brought him down, did their part in destroying his motivation, etc. And as messed up life generally is, it is often impossible to neatly pinpoint which caused what... all of those factors, together, make up a person, plus genetics. I still think we could argue that parenting is one of the crucial factors, though, even if it CAN be "counterbalanced" many times by other environment or genetics.

 

And then it is true that even good parenting has negative side-effects (cannot avoid them), that different children (even biological children of the same couple) react differently to some parts of that common parenting so we need to adapt to them individually, etc.

 

In any case it is impossible NOT to "mess up", on *some* level :lol:, even with genuine intentions, but I think it is better to focus on what we can do well. ;)

[musicianmom]

Anxiety. Perfectionism. Being focused on grades without caring whether learning takes place. Obsessing on stupid things like certain TV shows or celebrities. The complete absence of whatever gene combination that makes someone a "self-starter" or "go-getter." Being boy-crazy. Attention deficit disorder that's masked by an extraordinary ability to absorb information easily. Unhealthy preoccupation with social status. Daydreaming. Procrastination. Old-fashioned laziness. Irrational sensitivity to any sort of correction or rebuke. An addictive personality that latches onto whatever is available, whether Rex Stout novels or internet forums. Indecision. Instability of purpose -- passionate about something for a short time, only to fizzle out.

 

All of the above describe myself as a teenager, most still describe me today.

[Greenmama2]

Anxiety. Perfectionism. Being focused on grades without caring whether learning takes place. Obsessing on stupid things like certain TV shows or celebrities. The complete absence of whatever gene combination that makes someone a "self-starter" or "go-getter." Being boy-crazy. Attention deficit disorder that's masked by an extraordinary ability to absorb information easily. Unhealthy preoccupation with social status. Daydreaming. Procrastination. Old-fashioned laziness. Irrational sensitivity to any sort of correction or rebuke. An addictive personality that latches onto whatever is available, whether Rex Stout novels or internet forums. Indecision. Instability of purpose -- passionate about something for a short time, only to fizzle out.

 

All of the above describe myself as a teenager, most still describe me today.

Wow. With exception of the celebrities and I have no idea who Rex Stout is these have described me at some point to. I'm also a musician by the way.

[LibraryLover]

LOL I loved that 'article.' I know it's The Onion, but it was great and so true!

 

Sometimes I think about the future-- I'm an old lady at a family gathering, maybe bouncing a grandchild on my knee, and one of my kids starts to talk about all the dumb things I did as a mom. They will all laugh and I will try not to feel bad, and hope that I too can laugh at all the crazy mistakes I made and all the ridiculuous things I did that seemed right at the time. :D I do hope they forget some of the tantrums I've had. ;)

 

I do hope the kids won't be miserable adults. I hope they retain their humor about it all.

 

 

 

 

Ok, it wasn't the wrong thread. It was the wrong page. Apparently the conversation has gotten back on track before I had time to post my joke.

Hoagies posted this Onion Article on their Facebook fan page:

"Study Finds Every Style Of Parenting Produces Disturbed, Miserable Adults"

 

 

http://mobile.theonion.com/articles/study-finds-every-style-of-parenting-produces-dist,26452/?mobile=true

[LibraryLover]

What's wrong with a gifted kid starting a garage/grunge band--- whatever the OP said. ETA: 'start hardcore bands'

 

I dont have a kid with a band, but I think that would be pretty cool. What is wrong with a 'hardcore' band? That shows motivation and can turn into something else. It's doesn't all have to be Mozart. :auto:

 

I am also not seeing the problem with gerbils (hamsters?). I know 4/H kids who raise chickens, and other kinds of animals. They sell them. They also breed for specific traits. Even if it's only for pleaseure, what is the problem if one doesn't cross ' into cat hoarder' territory and bring harm to them, neighbors, or yourself?

 

I'm not sure why doing any of that is bad.

 

I get the living in the basement forever is probably bad. Although, lots of people live with their parents and it works out well for everyone.

Edited October 31, 2011 by LibraryLover

[quark]

Sometimes I think about the future-- I'm an old lady at a family gathering, maybe bouncing a grandchild on my knee, and one of my kids starts to talk about all the dumb things I did as a mom. They will all laugh and I will try not to feel bad, and hope that I too can laugh at all the crazy mistakes I made and all the ridiculuous things I did that seemed right at the time. :D I do hope they forget some of the tantrums I've had. ;)

 

I do hope the kids won't be miserable adults. I hope they retain their humor about it all.

 

Oh boy did you hit the nail on the head. Me TOO! I'm quite sure I'm going to be hearing a lot of "Daddy, tell us again about the time Grandma..." (eek!)

[ElizaG]

I'm not sure why doing any of that is bad.

Nobody said that all those activities are "bad" in themselves. We were talking specifically about gifted teenagers who aren't being challenged by their external academic environment. It's pretty typical for them to direct their energies into some sort of all-consuming interest, or series of interests, that provide the stimulation and sense of purpose that are missing in the rest of their lives.

 

In that context, I believe that it does matter a great deal what these hobbies are. And all the more so, if the parents desire their child to have something resembling a classical education, which is traditionally much more oriented to high school and beyond than to the younger grades.

[LibraryLover]

What can I tell you, Eleanor? :) I have a kid who goes to drumming circles.

TMI, so edited.

Edited October 31, 2011 by LibraryLover

[ElizaG]

What can I tell you, Eleanor? :) I have a kid who goes to drumming circles. He also won a full merit scholarship to law top law school. He plays uke, too and was in a jazz band. Won the National Latin Exam gold medal at 13. I just don't see how any of the actvities listed in the OP can't work in 'classical' educations. Hobbies are personal. Is knitting more 'classical' than raising hamsters? Hey, my kid also had dreadlocks for time. All my kids have odd interests, as well a traditional ones. I don't think their personal hobbies, whatever they are , short of negative ones like booze and drugs, matters in the way you're describing.

Again, the OP is quoting a post that I made in the context of a different thread (What if you don't challenge your kids?). I was talking about a subgroup of teenagers who are 1) academically unchallenged, whether in school or homeschooling, and 2) devoting nearly all of their time and energy to some personal hobby along the lines of the ones I mentioned.

 

Unless you think this is an accurate description of your children -- and from what you've written, it doesn't sound as if you believe that it is -- I'm not sure why you'd bring them into the discussion.

 

Not to mention that I never said anything at all about knitting. Or hairstyles. :confused: I think perhaps you might be reading something into my posts that isn't there.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Eleanor
clarification

[La Texican]

So, do you think productivity is an acquired taste?

[LibraryLover]

Again, the OP is quoting a post that I made in the context of a different thread (What if you don't challenge your kids?). I was talking about a subgroup of teenagers who are 1) academically unchallenged, whether in school or homeschooling, and 2) devoting nearly all of their time and energy to some personal hobby along the lines of the ones I mentioned.

 

Unless you think this is an accurate description of your children -- and from what you've written, it doesn't sound as if you believe that it is -- I'm not sure why you'd bring them into the discussion.

 

Not to mention that I never said anything at all about knitting. Or hairstyles. :confused: I think perhaps you might be reading something into my posts that isn't there.

 

 

I read both threads, and I am not trying to be obtuse, but I really don't get it. Why are some 'hobbies' more 'valued'. Why is a grunge band not OK? I share my story because my kids' hobbies don't seem all that classical or traditional, but have not had a negative intellectual outcome, at least so far.

 

I mentioned the drumming because it's soemthing most folks don't see as 'intellectual' or 'classical'. The OP mentioned hamsters as being an example of an unproductive hobby, and I said knitting because maybe that is seen as a more productive hobby? More intellectual...or something...than raising hamsters?

 

What makes one hobby better or more 'classical'? Drumming is a hobby, and not one that 'leads' to anything put pure pleasure and community, maybe, if you drum with others (drumming circle lol). I was chuckling about hair because he looked like what some would call a 'bum' and he wasn't.

 

Again, not trying to be obtuse, but people like what they like, and that can relate or not to their field of study. It can be valuable for pleasure's sake. Or no?

 

What does it mean to have a valuable hobby? What makes it so? Why is raising hamsters, to be redundant (sorry! lol), a wrong hobby for a child being educated in the classical tradtition, and/or seen as not 'challenging?'

Edited October 31, 2011 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

So, do you think productivity is an acquired taste?

 

 

I think raising hamsters and making music is productive. :D

 

 

I can tell that my participating in this thread is not productive. lol

[ElizaG]

The OP mentioned hamsters as being an example of an unproductive hobby, and I said knitting because maybe that is seen as a more productive hobby? More intellectual...or something...than raising hamsters?

 

What makes one hobby better or more 'classical'?

I think this belongs in its own thread (and I'm sure it would spark some lively discussion on the general board :)). But just to make a brief comment -- both knitting and raising animals would traditionally be considered servile (i.e. practical) arts rather than liberal arts. We need both in the world, but classical education is based on the liberal arts. Some children with great academic potential are convinced from an early age that they'd rather focus on practical job skills or entrepreneurial work, but IMO this has to be a decision that's been well thought through. Of course, there are also young people who are forced into this decision due to life circumstances, as with the computer programmer mentioned in the previous thread.

 

So it isn't a question of being "alternative," or people thinking you're a "bum." Respectable people might well have thought Socrates was a bum, LOL.

[LibraryLover]

LOL @ Socrates. Troublemaker, that one.

 

So a 'good' classical hobby would be entomology or stamp collecting? :)

 

A garage band would be servile?

 

Hamster breeding kinda falls somewhere in the middle. lol

 

This is a fun discussion. :D

 

 

I think this belongs in its own thread (and I'm sure it would spark some lively discussion on the general board :)). But just to make a brief comment -- both knitting and raising animals would traditionally be considered servile (i.e. practical) arts rather than liberal arts. We need both in the world, but classical education is based on the liberal arts. Some children with great academic potential are convinced from an early age that they'd rather focus on practical job skills or entrepreneurial work, but IMO this has to be a decision that's been well thought through. Of course, there are also young people who are forced into this decision due to life circumstances, as with the computer programmer mentioned in the previous thread.

 

So it isn't a question of being "alternative," or people thinking you're a "bum." Respectable people might well have thought Socrates was a bum, LOL.

Edited October 31, 2011 by LibraryLover

[regentrude]

But just to make a brief comment -- both knitting and raising animals would traditionally be considered servile (i.e. practical) arts rather than liberal arts. We need both in the world, but classical education is based on the liberal arts. .

 

:confused:

I would think that especially for an academically oriented, very cerebral, person it would be extremely beneficial for a balanced development if they engaged in a hobby that is "practical", "servile", whatever you may want to call it. I would honestly be worried if my kids were only choosing highly intellectual hobbies, on top of their strong academic pursuits.

We actually greatly support our DD in her riding and training horses because it keeps her grounded to have a physical activity, to do physical labor, to interact with animals. There is nothing artsy about working in a horse barn, but it has done great things for the development of her personality. (I guess choir would qualify as a "classical" "educational" hobby).

DH and I hike and rock climb as a hobby, something purely physical that no stretch can make into an intellectual pursuit. We need it to balance all the thinking and sitting in our jobs as physics professors ;-)

 

So, I really do not understand why a classically educated student should not benefit from a non-intellectual hobby; I would believe the opposite to be true.

[LibraryLover]

:confused:

 

 

So, I really do not understand why a classically educated student should not benefit from a non-intellectual hobby; I would believe the opposite to be true.

 

Yes!

 

I was going to 'go there' as well.

 

I know you're a scientist, so you might be able to back me up here. ;)

 

I find that an extraordinary number of engineers, chemists, geologists etc are musicians. (A great many also do woodworking.) :) How many parties have I attended (lol thinking of my other thread on socialization) where all the wonderful geeks also break out their instruments? Answer: Most of them. lol How many of them had garage bands? Answer: A lot.

 

It's not all WoW, yanno. :D

Edited October 31, 2011 by LibraryLover

[ElizaG]

:confused:

I would think that especially for an academically oriented, very cerebral, person it would be extremely beneficial for a balanced development if they engaged in a hobby that is "practical", "servile", whatever you may want to call it. I would honestly be worried if my kids were only choosing highly intellectual hobbies, on top of their strong academic pursuits.

For the eighty thousand bazillionth time... LOL... I wasn't talking about children having hobbies in the context of a strong overall education.

 

The thread in question was called, "What if you don't challenge your kids?" And that's what my post was in reply to: a situation in which external challenge is lacking. In this context, the child's personal interests aren't going to be a way to find balance, but rather the primary means of self-educating and reaching his or her potential. And my comments regarding LibraryLover's question (what makes one hobby more "classical" than another?) were made with that sort of situation in mind.

 

It's apples and oranges.

 

Can we please drop this now, so that the thread can get back on topic? Which seems to be an important one. Though I have no substantial theory about it myself. So I really don't have any business being here, except that people keep quoting that list of hobbies out of context. :tongue_smilie:

 

(Those who would like to present a case for exotic hamster-breeding or grunge music as it relates to the Trivium are welcome to do so somewhere else. ;))

Edited November 1, 2011 by Eleanor

[Nan in Mass]

Eleanor - I know what you mean, I think...

 

I know someone who is like your hampster person. He would make a fantastic lawyer. If he doesn't take a dislike to you because you've said something stupid (many grownups are stupid around teenagers), it takes about a minute of conversation to realize that he is highly intelligent and interesting. Unfortunately, too many of his teachers have struck him as playing phony adult games, ones that he wants nothing to do with. The inherent limitations of education en masse are very obvious to him, but he is too young to give the institution points for trying to do something nearly impossible. He just labels it all stupid and in general refuses to play. The result is a very strange mixture of good and bad grades, and probably a strange mixture of academic skills as well. His intellectual peers are going to Brown or the like, and he is going to a small state college and being just as uninspired by it as he was by high school. It is a recipe for disaster. He has all the leadership skills the good colleges are looking for (as shown by his running his division of 4H and creating, on his own, clubs for his other rather obscure interests, just so he can find people in the surrounding towns who share them. To colleges, this does not look the same as all A's and more conventional extra-curricular activities. Chess club would be more attractive than Warhammer, Young Republicans more attractive than 4H, etc. This same high school contains another young person we know who is finding the atmosphere inspiring and competing in several sports, math team, getting A's, and generally playing the game the way the adults in the school system had intended. Her older brother refused. He gently drifted along, getting A's and B's, refusing to take lots AP classes and have no time to escape into video games and fantasy novels. Another friend decided the whole adult world was stupid and refused to do anything at all to cooperate with it. He was smart enough that without doing anything, he eventually graduated from high school (with many F's and D's), but he is jobless now. His family tried a private alternative school for one year, but it required that he live away from home and he hated it and simply showed up on his parents' doorstep after a few weeks and refused to go back. He only went to the local school because his friends were there and it was lonely during the day when he skipped. What is the difference between the four? It is hard to say. The parents are all friends of ours. Our education level, income, and intelligence is the same. We are the same religion. Almost all of us hated school. Our parenting style is a little different, but only a little. One thing that was different is how much both parents supported the establishment. Some of us have been more willing to admit that the establishment is stupid at times than others of us. That might have some influence on the teenagers' attitude. One big difference I have noticed is whether the teenager is the sort of person who works for a person or the sort of person who works for a goal, and whether the person is motivated by competition. The one who is getting straight A's and working very hard at academics is motivated by competition. She likes winning. She also likes pleasing people. She likes pleasing her teachers. The other three couldn't care less about competition. They don't care whether they win or not. They only care whether something is interesting or fun. They also don't care what their teachers think of them and they know their parents will love them no matter what and don't really care, at bottom, what their grades are as long as they think and learn and grow. The straight A student knows that her parents love her no matter what (she has her brother as an example) but she likes pleasing the school and she likes the acknowledgement the school gives her for her hard work. The others are happy to work hard for nothing more than the fun of it or the knowledge they have gained. And they all have subjects that don't interest them or teachers that haven't managed to make the subjects interesting. Hence the spotty grades. I'm sure there is more to it than this, but this has been my experience. I have known people, too, who desperately were trying to please their remote parents and drove themselves hard to achieve the things that society says are good accomplishments, like good grades and ivy league college admittence. I guess that is one way to create someone who tries hard at the academics. It is a risky, unloving way to do it, though.

 

My own youngest is currently working very very hard to get A's at his community college classes. He won't do the same for me at home because the things he does at home with me don't seem important to him. He is headed for engineering and he can see that getting A's in math and science at the community college is going to be what gets him into college. He believes me when I say that A's, even though they are so much harder to get than B's, are what he needs. (Man I hope I am right. I get jittery just thinking about it.) He got B's on the first round of tests and I told him that wasn't good enough. It was really hard to do because I was very pleased with those B's, at bottom and he was rather hurt and upset, but he immediately turned around and found a way to get A's. Now that he has been successful on the last round of tests, he knows what that amount of work feels like. Success breeds success. He also is liking the amount of approval he is getting from his prof and all and sundry. The formula there was having a goal he himself wanted, being old enough to work for something years away, and parental disapproval of those B's but the necessary parental support to get the A's and approval when he did. We also told him he was smarter than the others in his class, something we usually completely discount. We emphasize hard work and being good. It was very uncomfortable. Good New England parents do not tell their children they are smart lol. We told him there was no reason he couldn't get A's, given that his professors aren't crazy and answer questions. I have no idea if he will keep getting A's on his tests. I also know that if the profs were crazy or he was younger or the school more restrictive (like high school), this wouldn't work.

 

It is a tricky formula.

 

Nan

[Woodland Mist Academy]

........So it isn't a question of being "alternative," or people thinking you're a "bum." Respectable people might well have thought Socrates was a bum, LOL.

 

LOL @ Socrates. Troublemaker, that one.....

 

LOL :laugh:

[ElizaG]

Hoagies has some interesting links here:

 

Gifted Underachievement

 

I'm currently reading the one on "motivational paralysis." Of course, reading this is providing a good excuse for my lack of motivation to get up and do laundry...

 

ETA: Nan in Mass, this one fits right in with your post. It's a transcript of a counseling session with a 19 year old male student.

 

http://www.counselingthegifted.com/articles/underachieve.html

Edited November 1, 2011 by Eleanor

[Critterfixer]

In keeping with Nan's post, I think that some of the motivation to excel may well come from the individual doing the challenging. Even if that person doesn't realize it. Some of my biggest gains in learning came from an "I'll show you!" attitude. I needed someone to get up in my face and tell me, "That's not good enough!"

Likewise, I needed comfort when I was not able to shoulder the responsibility laid on my by a wise clinician who told me frankly that the reason I was loaded beyond my capacity was because he could not trust that load to just anyone, and that I was stretched because he knew that I could be trusted to "get it all done, and done well."

The person doing the mentoring of any student, exceptional or otherwise, might be the deciding factor of whether a student checks in or checks out. Perhaps the students who are drifting have not met their Socrates.

[regentrude]

One big difference I have noticed is whether the teenager is the sort of person who works for a person or the sort of person who works for a goal, and whether the person is motivated by competition. The one who is getting straight A's and working very hard at academics is motivated by competition. She likes winning. She also likes pleasing people. She likes pleasing her teachers. The other three couldn't care less about competition. They don't care whether they win or not. They only care whether something is interesting or fun. They also don't care what their teachers think of them and they know their parents will love them no matter what and don't really care, at bottom, what their grades are as long as they think and learn and grow. The straight A student knows that her parents love her no matter what (she has her brother as an example) but she likes pleasing the school and she likes the acknowledgement the school gives her for her hard work. The others are happy to work hard for nothing more than the fun of it or the knowledge they have gained.

 

Nan, when I read this I was wondering: who of them is extraverted and who is introverted?

My overachieving perfectionist people please is a definite extravert; she thrives on competition and external praise and thus is very easy to motivate beyond her intrinsic drive.

My minimalist is an introvert; he is not interested in competing with others and only remotely interested in what others think of him. intrinsic motivation is all that can keep him going because none of the outside reward factors such as praise is enough of a stimulant.

 

That alone is not a sufficient explanation for differences; DH is a high achieving introvert who just plays along with whatever the system thorws at him. But I am sure it contributes.