Originally Posted by Pythagorean
Ok, I read the article. It is interesting and I don't dispute it. I am disputing your interpretation of it. It seems you drew the connection in response to this thread and added a couple more of your own connections and conclusions so that they'd fit into this discussion.
The article is about success. I found nothing in it that indicates that a "supermom" will change the personality or intelligence of child. Only that a "supermom" will "teach" the child how to turn their particular traits (traits that we don't generally associate with success) into successful traits.
In fact, the article goes on to make the point that they are rare orchids in a field of dandelions. They don't turn into dandelions because of the "supermoming". They remain orchids; nurtured, healthy orchids instead of wilted orchids.
On top of that, I don't see mention of a measurement later in life, when the subjects are adult. As new as the research is, have any of the subjects even had a chance to reach adulthood yet? I reiterate, the OP article is about the fully developed adult, the end result, years and years after they've had all kinds of ups and downs and their personalities have leveled out.
|
I found nothing in it that indicates that a "supermom" will change the personality or intelligence of child.
|
Well I guess this depends on whether you consider behavior a measure of personality: The article opened with a study that showed a small but measureable (and much lauded) effect on the level of acting out behaviors which were considered potentially deleterious by providing a few hours of for the lack of a better and less emotionally charged term "improved parenting".
You may be quite correct in your insertion that I'm adding somewhat to the text of the article with knowledge of the subject not explicitly mentioned. One common observation (and the subject of lots of papers) is that kids with ADHD, unless treated by whatever means" tend to have fairly predictable downward trajectories leading to mildly sociopathic behavior early in adolescence and all too often leading to drug addiction, increasing antisocial behavior, and all too often, long term adult incarceration.
I agree that the discovery of these genes is far too recent to have generated conclusive studies in human cohorts, but you have to agree that the rhesus monkey research is tantalizing--since they grow up at 4:1 rate, data are beginning to accumulate, but agreed it is always a leap when crossing species, however closely related.
I guess if I had a primary point is that the situation may be too complex to even begin to assign some ratio as to importance of influence. To wit, that the early interactions with mom from years 0 to 3 say,and have to go well enough to prepare for future development/socialization. This much seems obvious. What the article adds to the discussion in my mind is the robust but difficult to quantify feedback between genetic endowment and environment which is occurring in both directions at multiple levels. And that genetic failings in one environment become blessings in another. That much does seem clear--whether the kid has a preference for a certain color or type of music or scores 112 on an IQ test seem far less important than how successfully the kid navigates the world and applies/reigns in certain hardwired predilictions is more on point in understanding ourselves and how best to maximize human potential.
