4 ms·

Nature is important but people massively underestimate the nurturing component. Parents are most definitely key for these types of outcomes. If you're not famil

Nature is important but people massively underestimate the nurturing component. Parents are most definitely key for these types of outcomes. If you're not familiar with the story already, read about the Polgar sisters. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200507/the-grandmaster-experiment https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200507/the-grand... To your question, my immediate answer was, "let them play outside". But it sounds dismissive of what you are asking. So the better answer is: provide them with the opportunity to learn, encourage their curiosity, praise them for their work not innate intelligence while still telling them that they are smart, create an environment that values and promotes education, create a program for them to follow when they show interest in a particular discipline, have great mentors help them develop, etc. The truth is, there is always going to be a compromise between having a care-free childhood and top performance from an early age. You can't really have both no matter how smart your kids are. Asian parents stereotypically tend to opt for the latter end of the spectrum with, on average, very successful outcomes.

paulpauper 8y ago
imho, I think ppl actually overestimate the role of parenting. Often extremely gifted children (as Tang and Tao are/were) will have their interests piqued by something, and then on their own volition learn everything they can about it. There isn't much prodding by the parents. For someone with an IQ of 140+, maybe doing calculus problems is more fun than video games.
- acangiano 8y ago
  In the case of extreme outliers, I think you might be right. In the case of "regular" top performers, I think nurturing is underestimated by many (perhaps not us on HN).
- l9k 8y ago
  The interest must come from the kid, but there are conditions that enable this interest. From a previously mentioned link in this thread [1], Tang's father is a bioengineer professor, which means: 1. Financial stability in the family, and it seems that both parents where emotionaly supportive 2. The father is knowledgeable in sciences, that means he can orient the learning and use his network 3. The father let his son work in his nanotechnology lab [1] http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive-issues/2010-13/2012/12/cultivating-genius/index.html http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive-issues/2010-13/2012/1...

paulpauper 8y ago

imho, I think ppl actually overestimate the role of parenting. Often extremely gifted children (as Tang and Tao are/were) will have their interests piqued by something, and then on their own volition learn everything they can about it. There isn't much prodding by the parents. For someone with an IQ of 140+, maybe doing calculus problems is more fun than video games.

acangiano 8y ago
In the case of extreme outliers, I think you might be right. In the case of "regular" top performers, I think nurturing is underestimated by many (perhaps not us on HN).
l9k 8y ago
The interest must come from the kid, but there are conditions that enable this interest. From a previously mentioned link in this thread [1], Tang's father is a bioengineer professor, which means: 1. Financial stability in the family, and it seems that both parents where emotionaly supportive 2. The father is knowledgeable in sciences, that means he can orient the learning and use his network 3. The father let his son work in his nanotechnology lab [1] http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive-issues/2010-13/2012/12/cultivating-genius/index.html http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive-issues/2010-13/2012/1...