
How to Raise Brilliant Children - Qworg
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/05/481582529/how-to-raise-brilliant-children-according-to-science
======
artpepper
> The first, basic, most core is collaboration.

I spent a huge amount of time as a kid reading and drawing and writing and
just day-dreaming by myself. Probably not good training for the modern
workplace with "open office" plans and whatnot, but it seemed pretty good at
the time.

~~~
hkmurakami
Same. I also hated "group work" that forced everyone to give input on every
decision.

To this day I prefer "divide and conquer" style "collaboration" (if you can
call it that), though I admit that brainstorming and debates are powerful if
used judiciously (which leads me to believe that schools tended make group
work out of work that shouldn't have been assigned to groups)

~~~
omegaham
Group work is awful in regular classrooms.

In a specialized environment where everyone actually cares about the subject,
group work can be fantastic. This is why hackathons and similar settings _are_
good things - everyone is there to learn, and you don't have demotivated
people who are content to sit there and do diddly-shit.

In contrast, in your standard class, where most people couldn't care less, the
result is that the one motivated person in the group does the bulk of the
work, everyone else gives a token effort, and then educators pat themselves on
the back for "facilitating peer collaboration" or whatever the ed-speak
buzzword is.

Edit: The fun part is that teachers _know_ that this is what happens, and the
result is that group projects end up being hilariously easy if you get a group
of kids who actually care. They're built for one person to do!

------
panic
_" What we do with little kids today will matter in 20 years," she says. "If
you don't get it right, you will have an unlivable environment. That's the
crisis I see."_

This is something people don't talk about enough. Kids are literally the
future of humanity. If we want to improve our society, we should put more
focus on helping parents raise their children and on helping teachers educate
them.

~~~
kazinator
On the other hand, a lot of the improvements we see in the world are the
result of new generations criticizing and rejecting the ways of their
predecessors, on their own.

The best thing you can teach a kid is "don't copy me; half of what I think and
do is probably wrong".

~~~
astazangasta
I've rejected a lot of my parents' received dogma; but I think this is largely
because my parents also taught me to think critically, by encouraging my
curiosity in precisely the way described here: when your child's questions go
deep, go with them. Help them see that the answers are available if they are
careful and learn to look for them.

------
dbcooper
There isn't a single example of data raised in that article. I really don't
see any value in pop-psychology articles like this.

~~~
astazangasta
Don't be so data-obsessed; if "data" means you're trapped in the narrow
paradigm of things quantifiable and parameterizable, you'll miss all manner of
things that are irreducible to numbers.

~~~
Retra
Nobody is missing those things, they are just not so actionable.

~~~
astazangasta
Yes they are? Why can't you act on non-numerical criterion? How did you
respond to this comment?

~~~
hueving
If something isn't backed by data or logical conclusions based on data, it's
not science. It's just someone making crap up.

~~~
tremon
So philosophy isn't science? The theoretical constructs that have allowed us
to develop all current scientific fields aren't science?

I really wish we would stop with the "it's not science" mantra. Science is
composed of five steps: observation, inference, conjecture, experimentation,
validation. _Any single one_ of these can be called science.

Besides, there's plenty of crap made up that is backed by data. Data is not a
holy grail.

~~~
hueving
>So philosophy isn't science?

No, it's not. Math isn't science either.

~~~
tremon
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_sciences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_sciences)

------
tokenadult
This article, an interview with the two authors of a new book, is interesting.
But a lot of us, besides being parents (as I am), are fully grown adults
wondering how to develop our minds. An eminent researcher on human
intelligence, James R. Flynn, wrote a book on that topic called _How To
Improve Your Mind: 20 Keys to Unlock the Modern World_ [1] that is well worth
reading. Many people, whatever their level of IQ, can become better thinkers
by developing better "mindware" (approaches to thinking about problems), as
quite a few books about human intelligence by experienced researchers have
noted.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/How-Improve-Your-Mind-Unlock-
ebook/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Improve-Your-Mind-Unlock-
ebook/dp/B0096IPJSU/)

------
dahart
> "Why are traffic lights red, yellow and green?" > When a child asks you a
> question like this, you have a few options. You can shut her down with a
> "Just because." You can explain: "Red is for stop and green is for go." Or,
> you can turn the question back to her and help her figure out the answer
> with plenty of encouragement.

My wife and I were just talking about this idea at dinner. There's this really
deeply held belief that you have to struggle with something in order to learn
it and value it. It shows up everywhere in our society. From the title, I was
hoping this article had some data either for or against, because I'm
interested. It reminds me of some of the new thinking going on like the basic
income project YC is running - maybe struggling is only valuable sometimes,
maybe sometimes it's harmful and only slows progress.

One thing we've noticed with our kids is that they learn some things faster if
we give them the answer without making them struggle or stop to do
"constructive thinking" or whatever. This has made me start thinking about how
animals learn things by example. We don't withhold the right way to say things
from babies, we just show them and tell them, repeatedly.

We tried to use allowance to get them to value and budget their money and earn
their keep with chores. It was a constant battle. We switched to allowance
comes with no strings, and they can spend their own money on whatever they
want. Chores are simply an unassociated responsibility that can't be
questioned, and it's like night and day - they do extra chores to win
approval, and they're saving up for months for games and game consoles they
want.

This stoplight parable is an unfortunate example of an arbitrary human system,
they could have used something from the natural world instead. Making a kid
stop to just guess at the answer is, I'm sure, about as fun as when kids ask
me "Guess what?". I'm running out of dad-joke responses.

~~~
kybernetikos
Very interesting point.

I think a lot of people have had an experience where they felt as if they
understood something but then after grappling with it they gained a deeper
understanding. I certainly think that the things I understand the most are
things that I've spent time struggling with. But you're right that most things
aren't like that. You can get a fantastic working understanding of most things
simply by reading about them or being told about them.

I suspect that both learning to struggle persistently and learning to
integrate new knowledge that has been explained to you are important.

~~~
dahart
Yes!! Maybe it's only the persistence and sticktuitiveness that is valuable,
maybe the struggle is only necessary in its service toward not giving up. Not
everyone is prone to giving up. And your insight on integrating new knowledge
is, I think, directly relevant. My wife is educated in and practices child
development, and her answer to the stoplight question is 'give a child the
answer, and then relate it to other things they know.' She said the
identifying of patterns and connecting of separate bits of knowledge is what's
important, not the struggle of forcing them to derive it on their own.

I'm also wondering if there are certain kinds of knowledge and/or values that
struggling helps with. Perhaps certain phases of learning a topic. Or maybe it
works on some people and not others. Or maybe mood and context make us
receptive sometimes, and at others times we need it beaten into us. I really
don't know, I just see that we tend to tell stories that struggle is _always_
necessary, and I'm seeing lots of counter-examples, and starting to wonder if
the struggle is sometimes counter-productive and more useful as a tool for
some jobs than a dogmatic blanket generalization.

------
hannibalhorn
I was intrigued by the "why are traffic lights red, yellow, and green?"
question at the start .. and then the article didn't actually give an answer!

Decent overview of the origin here:
[http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/03/the-
origin-o...](http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/03/the-origin-of-
the-green-yellow-and-red-color-scheme-for-traffic-lights/) Most interesting,
they originally used white for "go", but ran into big problems when the red
colored lens fell out by mishap!

~~~
a_bonobo
Perhaps off-topic but there's one fun thing about "green" in traffic lights -
in Japanese, "ao" is blue and green together, so most Japanese natives
speaking English will shout "blue!" when the traffic light switches to
"green".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao_(color)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ao_\(color\))

------
moyix
Another (lengthy!) take on the same topic by Scott Alexander:
[http://squid314.livejournal.com/346391.html](http://squid314.livejournal.com/346391.html)

------
swalsh
My son is 15 months old, I've been preparing for the endless why's phase since
he was born. I'm psyched to see how far we can go before we have to start
googling.

~~~
mcphage
Ah, see, I get what you're thinking. But they're craftier than that. "Why"
gets a response, so they'll use "why" all the time—even for questions that
aren't really "why?". Or they'll ask why again for the same question,
repeatedly. Or sometimes, they'll just ask "Why?" about nothing in particular.

~~~
AnkhMorporkian
God that sounds tremendously annoying. We should just stop having kids. Future
generations will thank us!

~~~
mcphage
Oh, it absolutely can be. But sometimes, it's amazing.

------
microcolonel
Step one: have genes correlated with the type of success you're looking for.
As far as I'm aware, you have a margin of 10-20% worth of difference you might
be able to make once the kid is born.

~~~
brc
I would say it is less than that.

Leaving aside heritability, the environment in which the child will grow up is
more or less set in concrete by the time they are born. This includes the
parents socio-economic level, but more importantly to that, their attitudes
towards relationships, learning, critical thought, reading, victim vs control
personality and plenty more. A house without books doesn't fill with books
when the child arrives.

Pretty much by the time the first cry is made, a huge chunk of their future is
already written. The margin is small, but, having said that, small changes at
the margin can make a big difference in individuals.

~~~
turnip1979
The margin is larger IMHO. I'm a professional scientist and I have no one
remotely resembling an academic in my extended family. Now I'm not a textbook
example of success but I've read about many other scientists in similar boats:
Feynman and Tesla both come to mind. Feynman had an electronics hobby as a
kid. Tesla's father was fairly set against him becoming an engineer.

I know some people with amazing private school education flounder because of
it. They saw crazy competition early in life and it seems decided to settle. I
had very little competition in my early years. Being the smartest kid in your
undergrad makes you feel really good, and motivates you to do better. Where I
really needed guidance is going from the sheltered world to reality (early 20s
.. when I entered the workforce and subsequently made the decision to get a
PhD).

What I want to try to do is teach my kid to have her own hobbies and be
generally happy in life.

~~~
mcphage
> Being the smartest kid in your undergrad [...] motivates you to do better.

I've known a number of people to whom it did the opposite—they were always the
smartest person in the room, so when they said something, people just assumed
they were correct. And they began relying on it; nobody would call them on
their bullshit, so they never felt the urge to think very hard about things.
Whatever they came up with, they'd think "well, I'm the smartest person
around, so I must be right", and that's as far as they'd get.

One guy got very argumentative about it; he'd say the stupidest things, and
didn't know how to handle being wrong. Other people figured it out.

~~~
turnip1979
Heh .. I guess the first week of grad school knocked out any illusion that I
was the smartest anything. But touche.

~~~
mcphage
> I guess the first week of grad school knocked out any illusion that I was
> the smartest anything.

Studying Mathematics is really, really good for that :-)

------
plandis
One question I've always had is if psychology has some studies that seemingly
always hold true when it comes to education. For example, collaboration might
be a good thing now but is that universally true and we just realized this
idea? Or, is collaboration only a good thing due to upbringing and society? Do
those "C"'s apply to every culture or is it more of a Western ideal?

------
oldbuzzard
>The first, basic, most core is collaboration.

Particularly ironic since the 2 authors previous book was "Einstein Never Used
Flash Cards"... and Einstein managed to publish brownian motion, photo
electric effect, and special relativity during his annus mirabilis in 1905,
while working at the patent office... no collaboration involved just lots of
deep thought.

------
k__
Step 1: Don't fuck up!

I think we would have much more "brilliant children" if parents wouldn't fuck
up.

Child abuse, child neglect, domestic violence in general.

And this is "just" the parent factor in the equation.

Then there is the social circle that can fuck up things pretty badly too.

I know so many people who could be brilliant, but they are simply broken
beyond repair.

~~~
dredmorbius
Hygiene factors. Things that don't increase the upside, necessarily, but they
sure as goddamned hell minimise the downside.

------
votr
There's a section in The Originals (McKay) citing a study where children who
were given reasons _why_ something was right or wrong grew up to be more
creative and assertive in standing by their principles.

------
jpeg_hero
I wouldn't want to wish the curse of ambition on anybody ;)

------
dmd
> "Oh! That's a school. Kids are still sitting in rows, still listening to the
> font of wisdom at the front of the classroom."

Most K12 schools haven't been like that for 30 years now.

~~~
csorrell
I'm curious now to hear where you're from?

~~~
dmd
I went to K12 on Long Island, NY (Nassau County) (born 1978).

~~~
EvanAnderson
My wife and I were born in 1977, attended K-12 in rural and semi-rural
Districts in OH, US. Our schools were most certainly as the article describes.
I do some contract work for a K-12 District today and it's much the same.

------
ekianjo
> It's the 10,000-hour rule: You need to know something well enough to make
> something new.

Again that myth is coming back? Who believes in that fake 10000 hour rule ?
There's nothing tangible that demonstrates that this rule is true in practice.
The book where it comes from is also focusing on outliers, so that does not
make that rule stick in any way since it's derived only from exceptions, i.e.
clear survivor bias.

------
mrmffh
The most important thing, in my opinion, is peaceful parenting. That is, no
hitting and no shouting - teach your kids to reason, even if they're being
unreasonable.

~~~
farnsworth
Easy to say...

~~~
majurg
Easy to do, if you're rational that is

~~~
infinite8s
And have the privilege of not suffering from other life stresses...

~~~
r0s
Such as parenthood?

~~~
infinite8s
No, I meant stresses other than parenthood. When you have to work 2 jobs, have
to decide whether to use your paycheck to pay overdue bills or buy groceries,
and never get enough sleep, it's quite difficult to remain rational while your
child is acting irrationally. The stresses of parenthood (never enough sleep,
worrying if you are doing the right thing) just exacerbates those. After all,
we aren't robots. Emotional state is a tough thing to override.

------
jknoepfler
Content titled "according to science" is inappropriate click-bait, and should
not get an audience. The phrase is vacuous (there is no agent called
"Science," it would make as much sense as "according to Democracy"),
misleading (if we replaced the term "Science" with "a majority of specialists
in <relevant discipline>" the phrase changes from vacuous to almost certainly
false), and disingenuous (knowing this, a journalist/user posted it anyway).

~~~
mathattack
Yes - like most childcare advice, it would more accurately read "according to
someone with something to tell that has a degree with science in the name, no
matter how dubious the institution." But who would click on it if there was
truth in advertising? Not you or me. :-)

