17 ms·

From one of the comments on the article > Backing off will no more produce a creative genius than pushing your child. Neither strategy makes the slightest diff

by aleem 9y ago

From one of the comments on the article > Backing off will no more produce a creative genius than pushing your child. Neither strategy makes the slightest difference to what is essentially an autonomous process. Beethoven's father did not back off. And Lars von Trier's parents left him to his own devices. Both are geniuses and both hated their childhood. > My guess is that most parents who follow Adam Grant's spurious advice (one rule or none is better than six) will end up with the rude obnoxious brats whom you can see bouncing off the waiting room walls of any upscale Manhattan pediatrician's office. Maybe one of a million such brats will spontaneously become a creative genius as an adult but so will one out of a million drones who win spelling bees and piano competitions. > But guess what, a large proportion of the remaining brats will be all attitude and no skill while the drones will at least become doctors and corporate lawyers. By using creativity as the ultimate-and perhaps only-benchmark, Mr. Grant falls into the same trap as the Tiger Moms he so despises. > Enjoying a thing does make it more likely that a child will own it. But sometimes the initial drudgery is necessary to make the breakthrough to find something worth enjoying. > When it comes to raising children the golden rule is that there is no golden rule. The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter.

77pt77 9y ago
> Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter. Feynman's son was his biological offspring, while the daughter was adopted. I think this is relevant information that was left out. Edit: Also, Feynman's son chose to pursuit philosophy, much to Feynman's dismay.
- arkades 9y ago
  In an article discussing the dispensation of advice to the parenting community as a whole - which includes the whole variety of genetic heterogeneity - her being adopted isn't relevant.
  - VLM 9y ago
    A lot depends on ones beliefs (and possibly facts) about being self taught and if a difference exists in outcomes when various teaching styles and techniques are applied. Its highly likely that the "best" or "right" way Dad X learned topic Y will work pretty well when helping teach a little clone of himself and not so well when teaching random kids. I'd theorize that parents are generally better at teaching their own kids than public school teachers for this reason, even if on average a public school teacher would be better on long term average at teaching a very large pool of kids. As a very specific example I remember reading one of Feynman's books where he explained he had very high spacial reasoning performance, much like a mechanical engineer would have. Its much more likely his child would have that ability than a randomly selected kid. So his teaching style for something like calculus volume of a solid of revolution disk vs cylinder seems self explanatory to someone like Feynman, probably his son, or me, because of high spatial reasoning performance but someone without it probably needs to memorize very hard or just guess -n- check, I mean 50:50 odds getting it correct? That's actually an interesting question, how does someone (like his adopted daughter perhaps) without unusually high spatial awareness decide on a disk or cylinder strategy for that class of calculus problem?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Its highly likely that the "best" or "right" way Dad X learned topic Y will work pretty well when helping teach a little clone of himself Perhaps, but children aren't clones of either of their biological parents, generally.
  - throwmeaway1 9y ago
    Care to explain how? I understand the original comment didn't really add any other information but surely the differences in nature and nurture account for something, when considering Adoption Studies are a thing. [1] Perusing the results of a quick search bring up loads and loads of differences between adopted and non-adopted children, across many different metrics. I'm sure the "parenting community as a whole" doesn't exclude adoptive parents. Almost all of these studies show differences, such as with social skills or behavioral problems [2], and with these differences might the parent have to adapt? There are many things that come into an adopted child's mind about their own adoption too, and challenges specific to adoption [3]. Is this particular information relevant? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_study [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/the-adoption-paradox/409495/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/the-adopt... [3] https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/f_adimpact.pdf https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/f_adimpact.pdf
- Nimitz14 9y ago
  > Also, Feynman's son chose to pursuit philosophy, much to Feynman's dismay. Wow really. Poor Feynman.
pcarolan 9y ago
Good point about Feynman. The only thing I've found to work is trying everything until something starts to work. Of course, you start with the books to get ideas for what to try next. Ive got one of those kids that bounces off the walls. The older I get though the less I care. Some kids just can't sit still. Kids are society's problem and when we don't build spaces for them to be kids, its gonna happen.
- xherberta 9y ago
  > Kids are society's problem Respectfully, I'm sad for children whose parents think society is going to look out for them. Every kid deserves a couple of people who take personal responsibility for their behavior and well-being. I have a pretty high tolerance for kids being bouncy and boisterous, but it's always nice to see parents giving the sort of information that helps them become considerate:("Look, that woman's trying to read. She wants it quiet!" -or- "That lamp could break - can you find a safer place to bounce your ball?") Another big issue that isn't always mentioned is diet. A kid who eats a "normal" amount of sugar, corn syrup, and zero-nutrient high-carb products will understandably be going berserk on the outside because they're on a blood sugar roller coaster on the inside. As an alternative perspective, I think that in France "kids are society's problem" doesn't mean building special places where they can run rampant, but training them to appreciate the culture and society they're inheriting. French kindergarteners spend 90 minutes sitting down to a white-table-cloth four course meal each day during school. This is done because it's considered essential for them to learn the table manners and appreciation of the cuisine that will allow them a lifetime of enjoyable, civilized dining. (I think the creation of lots of "good", dignified jobs in the kindergarten-chef field is a wonderful side benefit, as opposed to cafeteria workers in the US who can hardly feel fulfilled while dumping bags of frozen nuggets onto trays.)
  - sgustard 9y ago
    Teaching kids to sit for a 90-minute fancy meal sounds like the height of aristocratic folly. Didn't the French Revolution stamp this out? I'd be in favor of my kids learning to cook such a meal, though.
  - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
FussyZeus 9y ago
> But guess what, a large proportion of the remaining brats will be all attitude and no skill while the drones will at least become doctors and corporate lawyers. By using creativity as the ultimate-and perhaps only-benchmark, Mr. Grant falls into the same trap as the Tiger Moms he so despises. I guess fuck all the parents who think their kids deserve more than an economically-optimized future? Seriously with the future of humans doing work so utterly in question right now, especially work that can be done by "drones," this advice is fucking archaic. The days when you acquired some base skill, got good at it, and worked at it for 60 years till retirement are gone. I'd rather be broke and happy.
- lacampbell 9y ago
  Seriously with the future of humans doing work so utterly in question right now I 100% don't buy this narrative at all. I don't know who started it, but something about it makes me reach for a tinfoil hat. The general historical trend has been towards automation but I still don't see any massive change in the horizon.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    Robots do better work without breaks, rest, coffee and in many cases without even occupying physical space. We're on the edge of automating driving, one of the most complex and demanding tasks humans do on a regular basis. The benefits for the companies are infinite: a completely docile workforce of robots that don't need anything but a steady flow of power. There is no reason to suspect any jobs are safe any more. It's not a conspiracy, it's a cost/benefit chart that any responsible executive is going to be looking at.
    - lacampbell 9y ago
      Automated driving on an industrial scale is still decades into the future. And even when it comes, arguing that it will be a huge, earth-shaking change seems far fetched. Like I said, it's the general trend (we could talk about automations on the same scale as your human driver example that have already happened), but the alarmism is not justified.
rjsw 9y ago
> When it comes to raising children the golden rule is that there is no golden rule. The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter. Proof that genetics has some effect, his daughter was adopted.
- hexane360 9y ago
  "Proof" is a very strong word for one data point/anecdote with thousands of possible lurking variables.
slurry 9y ago
> The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman I was going to pick apart the whole comment, but then this stuck out at me. WTF? The Feynman cult truly knows no shame or rational bounds.
biztos 9y ago
> Both are geniuses and both hated their childhood. I don't know anything about their respective childhoods, and I have greatly enjoyed some of Mr Trier's films, but I fear this is a dangerously egalitarian notion of "genius."
- theparanoid 9y ago
  We can't all be Beethovens.
  - mmmpop 9y ago
    And that is okay. Labels like "genius" and "hero" get watered down in our participation trophy culture.

by aleem 9y ago

77pt77 9y ago

> Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter. Feynman's son was his biological offspring, while the daughter was adopted. I think this is relevant information that was left out. Edit: Also, Feynman's son chose to pursuit philosophy, much to Feynman's dismay.

arkades 9y ago
In an article discussing the dispensation of advice to the parenting community as a whole - which includes the whole variety of genetic heterogeneity - her being adopted isn't relevant.
- VLM 9y ago
  A lot depends on ones beliefs (and possibly facts) about being self taught and if a difference exists in outcomes when various teaching styles and techniques are applied. Its highly likely that the "best" or "right" way Dad X learned topic Y will work pretty well when helping teach a little clone of himself and not so well when teaching random kids. I'd theorize that parents are generally better at teaching their own kids than public school teachers for this reason, even if on average a public school teacher would be better on long term average at teaching a very large pool of kids. As a very specific example I remember reading one of Feynman's books where he explained he had very high spacial reasoning performance, much like a mechanical engineer would have. Its much more likely his child would have that ability than a randomly selected kid. So his teaching style for something like calculus volume of a solid of revolution disk vs cylinder seems self explanatory to someone like Feynman, probably his son, or me, because of high spatial reasoning performance but someone without it probably needs to memorize very hard or just guess -n- check, I mean 50:50 odds getting it correct? That's actually an interesting question, how does someone (like his adopted daughter perhaps) without unusually high spatial awareness decide on a disk or cylinder strategy for that class of calculus problem?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Its highly likely that the "best" or "right" way Dad X learned topic Y will work pretty well when helping teach a little clone of himself Perhaps, but children aren't clones of either of their biological parents, generally.
- throwmeaway1 9y ago
  Care to explain how? I understand the original comment didn't really add any other information but surely the differences in nature and nurture account for something, when considering Adoption Studies are a thing. [1] Perusing the results of a quick search bring up loads and loads of differences between adopted and non-adopted children, across many different metrics. I'm sure the "parenting community as a whole" doesn't exclude adoptive parents. Almost all of these studies show differences, such as with social skills or behavioral problems [2], and with these differences might the parent have to adapt? There are many things that come into an adopted child's mind about their own adoption too, and challenges specific to adoption [3]. Is this particular information relevant? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_study [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/the-adoption-paradox/409495/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/the-adopt... [3] https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/f_adimpact.pdf https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/f_adimpact.pdf
Nimitz14 9y ago
> Also, Feynman's son chose to pursuit philosophy, much to Feynman's dismay. Wow really. Poor Feynman.

pcarolan 9y ago

Good point about Feynman. The only thing I've found to work is trying everything until something starts to work. Of course, you start with the books to get ideas for what to try next. Ive got one of those kids that bounces off the walls. The older I get though the less I care. Some kids just can't sit still. Kids are society's problem and when we don't build spaces for them to be kids, its gonna happen.

xherberta 9y ago
> Kids are society's problem Respectfully, I'm sad for children whose parents think society is going to look out for them. Every kid deserves a couple of people who take personal responsibility for their behavior and well-being. I have a pretty high tolerance for kids being bouncy and boisterous, but it's always nice to see parents giving the sort of information that helps them become considerate:("Look, that woman's trying to read. She wants it quiet!" -or- "That lamp could break - can you find a safer place to bounce your ball?") Another big issue that isn't always mentioned is diet. A kid who eats a "normal" amount of sugar, corn syrup, and zero-nutrient high-carb products will understandably be going berserk on the outside because they're on a blood sugar roller coaster on the inside. As an alternative perspective, I think that in France "kids are society's problem" doesn't mean building special places where they can run rampant, but training them to appreciate the culture and society they're inheriting. French kindergarteners spend 90 minutes sitting down to a white-table-cloth four course meal each day during school. This is done because it's considered essential for them to learn the table manners and appreciation of the cuisine that will allow them a lifetime of enjoyable, civilized dining. (I think the creation of lots of "good", dignified jobs in the kindergarten-chef field is a wonderful side benefit, as opposed to cafeteria workers in the US who can hardly feel fulfilled while dumping bags of frozen nuggets onto trays.)
- sgustard 9y ago
  Teaching kids to sit for a 90-minute fancy meal sounds like the height of aristocratic folly. Didn't the French Revolution stamp this out? I'd be in favor of my kids learning to cook such a meal, though.
- 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

FussyZeus 9y ago

> But guess what, a large proportion of the remaining brats will be all attitude and no skill while the drones will at least become doctors and corporate lawyers. By using creativity as the ultimate-and perhaps only-benchmark, Mr. Grant falls into the same trap as the Tiger Moms he so despises. I guess fuck all the parents who think their kids deserve more than an economically-optimized future? Seriously with the future of humans doing work so utterly in question right now, especially work that can be done by "drones," this advice is fucking archaic. The days when you acquired some base skill, got good at it, and worked at it for 60 years till retirement are gone. I'd rather be broke and happy.

lacampbell 9y ago
Seriously with the future of humans doing work so utterly in question right now I 100% don't buy this narrative at all. I don't know who started it, but something about it makes me reach for a tinfoil hat. The general historical trend has been towards automation but I still don't see any massive change in the horizon.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Robots do better work without breaks, rest, coffee and in many cases without even occupying physical space. We're on the edge of automating driving, one of the most complex and demanding tasks humans do on a regular basis. The benefits for the companies are infinite: a completely docile workforce of robots that don't need anything but a steady flow of power. There is no reason to suspect any jobs are safe any more. It's not a conspiracy, it's a cost/benefit chart that any responsible executive is going to be looking at.
  - lacampbell 9y ago
    Automated driving on an industrial scale is still decades into the future. And even when it comes, arguing that it will be a huge, earth-shaking change seems far fetched. Like I said, it's the general trend (we could talk about automations on the same scale as your human driver example that have already happened), but the alarmism is not justified.

rjsw 9y ago

> When it comes to raising children the golden rule is that there is no golden rule. The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter. Proof that genetics has some effect, his daughter was adopted.

hexane360 9y ago
"Proof" is a very strong word for one data point/anecdote with thousands of possible lurking variables.

slurry 9y ago

> The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman I was going to pick apart the whole comment, but then this stuck out at me. WTF? The Feynman cult truly knows no shame or rational bounds.

biztos 9y ago

> Both are geniuses and both hated their childhood. I don't know anything about their respective childhoods, and I have greatly enjoyed some of Mr Trier's films, but I fear this is a dangerously egalitarian notion of "genius."

theparanoid 9y ago
We can't all be Beethovens.
- mmmpop 9y ago
  And that is okay. Labels like "genius" and "hero" get watered down in our participation trophy culture.