
How to Raise a Creative Child. Step One: Back Off - prostoalex
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/how-to-raise-a-creative-child-step-one-back-off.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
======
julianpye
I believe in the creative power of boredom. Boredom and lack of distractions
amongst kids create the most creative environment and nurture real interest
and exploration.

Today's kids are oversaturated with distractions and their lives are fully
planned around activities. So they live according to templates, but not
according to their own motivators.

Then again, having a child myself (10 months old) I have noticed many parents
have so many activities and things planned themselves that they distract their
children (read consume content on iPads) in order to pacify them. It's a
circle.

~~~
arca_vorago
I have to agree with this. I grew up in a village (pop < 250) in the
mountains, and those were some of the most creative years of my life. When the
entire town jokes that watching grass grow or paint dry is a fun thing to do
in summer, you quickly learn to entertain yourself in novel ways.

As a side note, one other thing I think this has done is make me comfortable
with silence. During the summer break when I would do long camping trips,
sometimes I could go days without speaking, and I enjoyed it. Now I see people
all around who seem to need and want something going on at all times. Since I
no longer live in the mountains, meditation outside helps assuage my need for
silence and solitude, but I am considering building an isolation tank.

On subject, I agree that freedom begets creativity. I love that I could mark a
place on the forest service map, list my supplies, and say "if Im not back by
sundown on day 3, then call the forest service". Thats a level of independence
and freedom that was encouraged in my family that has served me well in many
areas since.

~~~
BatFastard
Go rent an isolation tank, as someone who built one. They take up a lot of
space, changing water, filling with epson salts, etc is a not fun. But maybe
there are better systems nowadays, I built mine in the 80s. I had to move it
once, I had a friend who owned a herse and we loaded it on top. Must have
looked like we were carrying the coffin of a 1500 pound man.

------
jgrahamc
_From its inception in 1942 until 1994, the search recognized more than 2000
precocious teenagers as finalists. But just 1 percent ended up making the
National Academy of Sciences, and just eight have won Nobel Prizes._

Just eight have won Nobel Prizes? What a bunch of dunces. But wait, only 870
people have ever won a Nobel Prize. So these numbskulls have _only_ managed to
win 1% of all Nobel Prizes ever.

If your parenting standard is "Nobel Prize or the gutter" there's a serious
problem.

~~~
artpepper
Also, the article segues to fostering creativity without ever coming back to
the question of whether those kids are more successful as adults.

So having fewer rules supposedly leads to more creative children, but do those
kids do well later in life? Article doesn't say.

I'm basically sympathetic to the more "hands off" parenting style being
discussed. But the article really doesn't make its case.

~~~
pappyo
>So having fewer rules supposedly leads to more creative children, but do
those kids do well later in life?

Is having no rules a steadfast rule? Chew on that one for a while :)

And while you're thinking about that, realize that most children growing up in
poor environments don't have many rules to follow. Few people would consider
poor communities as bastions of creativity (not to say there isn't creative
things happening in these communities, just they are not perceived that way).

The problem with this article and others like it is the subjects - children -
are not one thing in a vacuum. Some children will thrive in a structureless
home life. But most won't. Some children will thrive with rigid structure. But
most won't. So what's the answer? It depends on the kid. From my experience,
most children need some sort of structure in their lives. They simply don't
have the faculties to deal with the complexity of how life is today. That's
what the parent is for. But to go overboard with rules generally doesn't work
very well either.

~~~
samshih
I feel that raising your child like so (having fewer rules) in fact parallels
doing well later in life. The measure of success, especially here on hacker
news, feels heavily skewed towards making money, success in the Silicon
Valley, etc. But while some creative lifestyles may not make enough money
(poets, writers, artists) I would argue that they would end up living more
fulfilling lives, following their intrinsic motivations rather than any
socially constructed notion of success.

~~~
pappyo
My point was children, in the abstract, are easy to overgeneralize. In
reality, it's difficult to say how any given child will react to any given
stimuli. Few rules might work for one child but not the next...and there is no
rhyme or reason to it.

Children are complicated things. Just as adults are complicated things.

------
Jonathanks
The article reminds me of this:

"Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of
Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though
they are with you they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not
your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies
but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you
cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but
seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with
yesterday. You are the bow from which your children as living arrows are sent
forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends
you with His might that His arrow may go swift and far. Let your bending in
the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable." * - "The Prophet" (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1951) p.17-18.

Most parents that enforce their own ideals and values on their children are
narcissistic. They either do not love their children or have so poor an
understanding of love itself that they cannot love properly.

~~~
redblacktree
Do you have children? If you don't teach them values, where do they get them
from?

~~~
imgabe
How do you get "don't teach your children any values" from that quote?
Seriously?

~~~
redblacktree
Jonathanks said:

> Most parents that enforce their own ideals and values on their children are
> narcissistic.

Which I took to mean that they don't agree with enforcing rules (which come
from values) on children. I think if you have children, you know that this
just won't work. Without rules and boundaries, kids will literally kill
themselves.

~~~
Jonathanks
That's quite true. I now see where the problem comes from. I did not apply the
right words to convey my intended message. You can blame me for that. The
topic is about raising creative children and I actually intended to criticize
imposing ideals and ambitions on children, or forcing them to a religion or
cultural practice that is just preferred by the parents but not generally true
or acceptable. For example, I have severally witnessed parents coercing their
children to take up a career in a particular field without regard to the
children's strengths and weaknesses, just because the said fields are
appealing to the parents. Some I've seen even threatened to discontinue the
children's upkeep should they dissent. I have also seen parents become
alienated from their children due to religious differences: the child prefers
to make his life more about his service to society through his career but his
parents want him to be more religious and devout. Sometimes the parents go
against any form of reasoning that conflicts with the tenets of their
religion. Such cases are the intended targets of my original comment and the
quote I added. Sorry for the confusion.

------
ilostmykeys
Empathy is the highest form of understanding. When raising a child, i would
certainly start there.

That's all that is needed from a parent: genuine, and fully embodied empathy.

Backing off is not the answer. Neither is controlling. Engaging empathically
is all that we as parents need to do. There are two concepts here: engagement
And empathy.

True empathy is easier to achieve in parent->child relationship than any other
kind of relationship.

Engage empathically. The child will lead their own growth as a conversation
with you, the parent, and their environment. So listening deeply (beneath the
words and behavior) to the child is the first order of business, not backing
off.

Parengs should spend time being with their kids rather than take time away
from their kids to write crappy articles or comment on HN (An advise that I
should take, too, obviouslh :)

~~~
cgriswald
Empathy is always a good place to start; and I generally agree with what
you've said. However...

> True empathy is easier to achieve in parent->child relationship than any
> other kind of relationship.

I disagree with the above statement. Empathy is easiest when attachments are
fewest. This does not describe the typical parent-child relationship. I think
parent->child empathy may be easy for many because they are very much like
their children and their children are going through very similar experiences
to their own. I, on the other hand, have lead a very different life than the
life my child is very fortunate to be living. I am fortunate my child is
similar to me in many aspects so I do get glimpses of understanding; but my
child is also very different from me so it is not always easy.

Not to toot my own horn, but people have praised me for both my empathy
towards others and my parenting skills. I work very hard at being a good
parent. I am very attentive. I listen. I consult. I read. I think, and I act.
But I find empathy to be probably _most_ difficult in this relationship than
in any other I've had.

~~~
ilostmykeys
I too think you're a very good parent because you are engaging with the goal
of arriving af empathy, no matter how hard may be. That's the key I suppose,
not how hard or easy it is. Thanks.

------
libria
> They become doctors who heal their patients without fighting to fix the
> broken medical system or lawyers who defend clients on unfair charges but do
> not try to transform the laws themselves.

The author assumes many parents intend their children to be pioneers in their
field. Despite the memes, many asian parents largely steer their children to
conservative paths: work hard, risk little, and grow steady wealth. The child
may not become a household name, but they are unlikely to end up bankrupt
either and the parents are content for the child to securely occupy the upper-
middle class. There's not really a push for the child to be "the next Steve
Jobs" so long as they get enough ammo to 1-up the local parents at the next
social.

~~~
witty_username
By Asian you mean CJK right?

~~~
libria
Yes, I should specify east asian. By my perception at least Indian asians have
a more entrepreneurial spirit and I see more of them as founders. I admire
that, and I'd be interested to hear how their upbringing differs, ie, what
ways they were encouraged, pressures, values.

------
red_admiral
Of all the examples they could have chosen to support their argument, this one
made me chuckle:

"The gifted learn to play magnificent Mozart melodies, but rarely compose
their own original scores."

Unlike, er, Mozart himself who had what we might today call a Tiger Father and
yet seemed quite capable of creativity.

~~~
trusche
There's a bit more context a few paragraphs on:

> Mozart showed interest in music before taking lessons, not the other way
> around.

------
codingdave
Creative people tend to set their own goals. Winning Nobel Prizes or
revolutionizing a field might not be what they want out of life. A 'boring'
day job that supports the family can be the perfect tool to let you spend the
rest of your time on hobbies and passions.

I am an underachiever in my career, to be sure. But I have made a lot of art,
climbed many mountains, hiked what seems like every trail in Colorado, and
learned a few crafts, while also maintaining a marriage and raising a family.
I'm happy with my life, no matter what the world thinks of it.

~~~
sanoli
I don't even want anymore for my kids to win Nobel prizes or the equivalent in
other fields. If it becomes their passion, sure, I'll support them. But I
won't push them to be the absolute best, or wathever it is that tiger parents
supposedly are doing to make their kids geniuses or CEOs. I'm pretty sure I
don't even want that life for them, as the CEOs and the geniuses I've met
either led very stressful lives or were downright assholes (but I'm sure there
are many exceptions). I found out, soon after my first one was born (I have
two), that all I wish for them is: a happy and meaningful life, health, and
that they have a good heart. If they never amount to nothing money/carrer
wise, well, so what?

------
sanxiyn
I think genetics is a big confounding variable here. If creative parents
enforce fewer rules and creative parents have creative children, creative
children will have fewer rules even if having fewer rules has nothing to do
with creativity. In this scenario, if some atypical creative parents enforce
many rules their children will still be creative, and backing off won't help
your children if you are not creative.

~~~
eloisant
Not just genetics, but there may be thousands of things that parents of
creative children do in addition to have few rules.

------
xenophon
The argument that this article makes is somewhat muddled, but if I'm
understanding correctly: child prodigies don't end up advancing their fields
to the extent that their early talent might suggest because by and large
they're not original/creative, which is because they learned at an early age
to conform to well-defined standards of success instead of pushing the
envelope. So we get "excellent sheep," or masters of using ordinary methods
who still receive nice but ordinary results.

But 0.5% of the Westinghouse pool winning Nobels is still far better than the
population average. What this article tells me is something that seems pretty
obvious: that raw ability is correlated to being recognized by society for
acts of genius, but so are other things, including both the "thinking out of
the box"-ness that the author trumpets as well as entirely extrinsic and
random factors (ie the Nobel committee likes you, your style of work or area
of focus happens to align with or be amplified by a prevailing intellectual
trend, etc). Prodigies don't always succeed in pushing the enelope because
it's vanishingly unlikely for anyone to do so; they still do a sight better at
it than most.

------
Joof
I worked in a lab with a professor who spent a portion of time training new
graduate students to be creative again (tons of handouts on it and so on). It
can be taught to some degree; our brains don't just stop changing completely
in adulthood (its just harder).

Also 8/2000 got Nobel prizes? Thats some pretty good odds.

~~~
polskibus
Do you have any references to books or research on stimulating creative
thinking in adults that you could share?

------
awl130
"just" 8 have won nobels and "just" 1% end up in the national academy of
sciences? this is unimpressive compared to what?

this article is just bad science and lazy writing. before we can even
entertain his conjecture we need two data sets, easily calculable by anyone
with freshman college math:

x% of child prodigies become nobel prize winners or national science
foundation award winners. the distribution of other scientific achievements
for such prodigies has a median of y and spread of z.

a% of STEM college graduates become nobel prize winners / national academy
members. the distribution of other accolades is b with a spread of c.

x,y,z compares how with a,b,c

the results can be interpreted different ways but at least we have a starting
point for rational discussion. the rest of his article is mere conjecture with
emotional posturing with an agenda.

------
moultano
[https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/692474630205001728](https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/692474630205001728)
One of the most consistently replicated findings of behavioral genetics is
that the environment shared by siblings (parenting) has no effect.

~~~
zardgiv
Don't you find it disturbing that behavioral genetics, as a field, is unable
to find actual genetic evidence for its most replicated correlations? (See the
response to your linked article.) Rather than reevaluating their assumptions,
instead they've decided to punt to the idea that it _must_ be that it's
actually many small effects that they just happen to be unable to measure?

Additionally, if you were a parent, what would be the practical advice from
this finding?

~~~
moultano
Mostly I find that it keeps me from worrying too much. My wife and I can just
do our best and not be concerned that we are causing irreparable damage. (It
also keeps me from caring about parenting fads like TFA. Whatever works for
our family is probably good enough.)

~~~
zardgiv
You didn't answer my first question.

Additionally, why would you do your best, though? As you said, it has zero
impact.

~~~
zardgiv
I'll take the lack of response as an admission that you were at best unaware
and are now embarrassed by your ignorance, or at worst don't actually believe
what you're posting as fact on the internet.

------
VLM
A question for the journalist, how long would you expect your culture and
society and economy to survive if all 2000 were actually "revolutionary adult
creators"?

Another good question is why smart people have to be slaves. If a smart person
wants to spend their life meditating, or serving the poor, or in a religious
vocation, the journalists unhappiness about their decision is sad for the
journalist, but I'm not really seeing the problem for the person. I'd even
double down, and in a culture that's strongly anti-intellectual, a smart dude
might very well see that his best course thru life of maximized happiness and
love, is a non- or less- intellectual career. Sort of an "Atlas Shrugged"
attitude. A "winner takes all" system doesn't motivate everyone, much like the
lottery, the winners are those who don't play.

------
geebee
I like the headline, but I felt the rest of the article didn't really live up
to it.

The setup is intriguing - for instance, the notion that micromanaged children
will become excellent concert violinists, but may not become ground breaking
classical composers (let alone the next Bob Dylan).

The example put forth in the article to support this assertion is... Itzak
Perlman. A wonderful violinist and (I don't know him at all, this is what I've
read) a generous spirit as well. But aside form a foray into jazz that I
thought wasn't especially notable, Perlman's greatness is more or less as a
concert violinist. Interesting to hear he was rejected from music school, but
this seems a very odd example.

Why not focus on someone like Stefan Grapelli, who started playing at an older
age, asked a busker in the paris metro how to play the violin (who laughed the
question)? Why not look into the careers and lives of musicians who made their
mark through creativity rather than virtuosity? I really like violin, from a
lot of angles. I enjoy the amazing precision of the great classical musicians,
but I do find myself even more intrigued by musicians like Steve Wickham (who
played with U2 and the water boys, among others). I do tend to agree with the
article that the micromanagement many young classical musicians go through in
their quest to play _perfectly_ may indeed vastly reduce the possibility that
the musician will be able to put together an interesting track for "Sunday
Bloody Sunday" or collaborate with a rock musician to produce something like
Fisherman's Blues. These things may in fact be inversely correlated.

There's a lot here, unfortunately, I just don't think it was explored in
interesting directions by the article.

------
zamland
I have a different interpretation. Most of the muscles that a parent gives to
a child are the structured muscles to prevent one from failing. College, grad
school are in some sense insurance. Therefore most of the upper middle class
upbringing is guaranteeing insurance of a person's middle life or retirement.

Whereas the muscles that you learn from being independent are the muscles from
conceptualizing, taking risks, creating, and learning from the experience.
This is a completely different muscle than previous set of muscles.

It's not really about letting go or being too controlling. It's about building
the right set of mental models so that someone can guide and create their own
lives.

------
sbardle
Most children are creative. I taught in a school for a year and there was only
one child who had zero creativity (the exercise was to write a film plot and
he basically reproduced the "Cool Runnings" story). But the school system has
had to prepare kids for adult life and repetitive boring jobs. That may change
as the machines take over, so like Baudelaire we can truly become lovers of
clouds.

~~~
manmal
Regarding your uncreative kid: Talent borrows..

~~~
sbardle
He didn't fail the exercise because I like Cool Runnings:-

------
fishnchips
It would be great to see some data about results of alternative education
that's supposed to foster creativity: Montessori, democratic schools etc.

~~~
LoSboccacc
Lived in a place where montessori was basically the only way of schooling and
parenting was extremely hands off. Turns out children like structure and
without one they ends up forming gangs at an alarming rate. Most grow out of
it, but the pack mentality remains fostering xenophobia, while some other
never get out of it and it's a huge social problem.

Won't name and shame so don't ask. I think some freedom to experiment is good,
as long as one also gets plenty positive role models and strong sense of
what's wrong.

~~~
artpepper
I wondered about the "average of fewer than one rule" cited in the article.
Some parents have _zero_ rules? I consider myself a pretty liberal parent and
we definitely have more than one rule. e.g., Don't be mean, brush your teeth,
be careful crossing the street, take your shoes off inside the house. Even if
you generalize those to "be good to others and to yourself," that's still a
rule!

~~~
goodcanadian
I think it depends on what you mean by "rule." I would say that we don't have
any hard and fast rules that our daughter must obey simply because we say so.
That doesn't mean we let her do anything particularly dangerous, but we try to
explain why we say, "no," rather than just saying, "because I said so."

~~~
artpepper
Exactly - that's been our approach too, at least once she reached ~3. "Brush
your teeth because otherwise you get cavities." I'd still call that a rule but
the article was vague.

------
pcote
>> First, can’t practice itself blind us to ways to improve our area of study?
Research reveals that the more we practice, the more we become entrenched —
trapped in familiar ways of thinking.

The only way practice traps you in familiar ways of thinking is if you focus
practice only on the things that are familiar to you. Letting Anki help
schedule your practices is a way to avoid this. Here is what I do.

\- Review phase: Do exercises based on whatever is up for review.

\- Attack the weakness phase: Spend extra time reteaching yourself the stuff
one you feel you did poorly on.

\- Project phase: As you work on interesting challenging projects, add new
Anki cards as you encounter and learn new things.

It's a good technique which I think could be accessible to a lot of children.
Let them choose the area of interest. Just instill in them a sense of
discipline in whatever area THEY choose to pursue.

------
patsplat
Yesterday I taped a piece of paper down on the kitchen table and got out the
crayons. Was asked for a Yellow Submarine so held my 3 year old's hand and
drew one with him. He was almost ecstatic at having an image appear from his
hand.

Creativity is a mix of confidence, encouragement, hand holding, and structure.

~~~
jloughry
What a great way of teaching to draw! I would not have thought of that. Thanks
for the idea.

------
andrewclunn
If you don't give your kids an ethical framework, then the TV, their teachers,
or their peers will. Unique people tend to not conform to standards? Not
shocking at all, but this article is ridiculous. It's not the lawyer's job to
rewrite how the criminal justice system works. It's not the doctor's job to
reform healthcare laws. This is some anachronistic thinking that somehow
thinks that people exist in vacuums. If the "cost" of parents bothering to
actually raise their kids is that we're given more people who competently
perform their jobs, then so be it. That's more important than getting some new
style of architecture anyways.

------
dschiptsov
Variety of experiences is the key. Traveling, big collection of coffee table
books (these photo books of India and Himalaya are so wonderful), classical
music, of course, and dance (much better than sports). Then a child will make
her own patterns out of it.

Restricted, repetitive behavior is the root of all evil.

~~~
themartorana
Except where it applies to bathing, eating, sleeping, practicing dance and
sports, learning basics like the alphabet and how to read, math, and pretty
much everything else that makes this generalization rather silly.

I do agree with the bit about a wealth of experiences, though.

------
gonyea
How to Raise a ???? Child. Step One: Nobody knows what the fuck they're doing.

------
tomlock
>>Child prodigies rarely become adult geniuses who change the world.

But, this is equally true of other children as well!

~~~
goodJobWalrus
Sure, but you normally have higher expectations from prodigies and geniuses.

------
Kinnard
What exactly qualifies as "creative" is not well defined . . .

------
kzhahou
I'm glad NYT writer and so many HN posters finally figured out the _correct_
way to raise kids, and are sharing it here. I thought we'd have to wait
another 5000 years for it.

~~~
fishnchips
[http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/snark_is_good_for_you_scienc...](http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/snark_is_good_for_you_science_reveals_the_surprising_benefits_of_sarcasm_partner/)

------
Nemant
Just had my first baby 2 weeks ago. I guess I'll be returning that Haskell
book I bought for him...

~~~
fishnchips
True that, you'll be better off with Python for the first few months, at least
until weening.

~~~
nier
Don’t you think hardware development might be a better start? My daughter’s 10
months old and still can’t read, let alone pick reasonable variable names. But
she’s been able to hold the soldering iron for at least 6 months and I believe
I see progress.

~~~
fishnchips
Anecdotally my son is 2 years old and he's getting really interested in what
I'm doing on my laptop. I explained that I write code, except where I come
from the words 'code' and 'cat' sound almost the same. So... my son deeply
believes his dad deals a lot with cats. Ultimately he might be quite right -
the Internet is all about cats ;)

~~~
awl130
where the heck does code sound like cat??

~~~
fishnchips
Poland. Cat - 'kot', code - 'kod'. Trailing 'd' is always soft when spoken so
there you go.

~~~
awl130
:)

