
How to Raise a Creative Child – Step One: Back Off (2016) - bensummers
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/how-to-raise-a-creative-child-step-one-back-off.html
======
replicatorblog
_In adulthood, many prodigies become experts in their fields and leaders in
their organizations. Yet only a fraction of gifted children eventually become
revolutionary adult creators._

My daughter is being treated for Leukemia by some amazing doctors at Boston
Children's Hospital. To my knowledge, none of the health care professionals at
this world-class institution have won Nobel Prizes in medicine. All the same,
for my daughter's sake, I'm still glad they hit the books for a couple
decades.

There are great honor and value in doing an important job consistently and
well. This idea that a life is wasted if you don't remake a field in your
image seems hollow when these prodigies often end up with the power to save
lives.

~~~
smackingly
Maybe I'm biased because I'm a no-name physician at a community hospital, but
the "best doctors" in my eyes are the ones with the best outcomes, lowest
utilization, highest efficiency and highest patient satisfaction. These
measures don't correlate well with the physician's credentials. I learned this
in residency, which I did just down the street from a "top" university
hospital. We out-performed that place on every level except our doctors went
to "lesser" medical schools. They simply spent more money (on wild things like
ECMO, which makes everyone feel they're making more of a difference even
though the outcomes are the same without it).

Our profession is moving toward identifying these doctors and promoting their
behavior to the entire field.

There's a study that showed lower heart attack mortality when all the "top"
cardiologists were out of the hospital attending a cardiology meeting. Too
many confounders to make any real conclusions from that, but it lines up with
my point.

Of course, if your child has a serious life-threatening and/or rare disease,
then you want her to be treated at a vanguard institution like the one you
took yours to. No dispute from me on that one.

But in the system as a whole, we make the most difference reducing
complications of cardiovascular disease, sepsis, pneumonia, COPD, and kidney
disease (which are orders of magnitude more common). And we're starting to
find out how to identify doctors that do it better, with fewer complications,
and with much higher efficiency than others. I think those are the best
doctors and it's what I'm striving to be.

~~~
conorh
> "These measures don't correlate well with the physician's credentials."

This. I think I've even posted about this here before. This has been my wife's
experience too (surgeon). She trained with highly regarded academic surgeons
that set the treatment recommendations and standards for her field. Then
during her job search she went to a center with, well, surgeons not at all
academic and she had a life changing moment because she realized their
operations and outcomes (utilization, efficiency etc.) are far far better. At
the academic centers you are recognized based on your research and
publications, not on your surgical skills. These academic surgeons with
relatively little experience are setting the standards for how the operation
should be done and what the treatments should be. This is not at all
recognized in her field unfortunately and is quite literally harming patients
every day because of substandard treatment standards.

~~~
rdlecler1
I don't have the original source handy, but I recall a study showing a high
correlation between hand dexterity and surgical outcomes.

~~~
arethuza
I was pleasantly surprised to find that applications by 17/18 year olds to
medical school here in the UK require that you demonstrate manual dexterity -
one person sending in a video of them plaiting their hair which apparently
went down well!

[NB This is in addition to the very high academic standards that are required
for places at medical school].

~~~
Intermernet
The problem with this is that dexterity beyond a certain level is very
specific to what has been trained.

I have a friend who is an eye surgeon. I'm definitely better at playing guitar
and piano than him, probably equal at things like juggling and card tricks,
but absolutely inferior when it comes to cutting people's eyeballs apart.

It doesn't invalidate your point completely, but just because someone is good
at plaiting hair doesn't mean they'll be good at surgery!

------
padobson
_The parents of ordinary children had an average of six rules, like specific
schedules for homework and bedtime. Parents of highly creative children had an
average of fewer than one rule._

I grew up in a household where compliance to parental authority was the
prevailing rule. This made me fairly compliant as an adult (which opens you up
for exploitation by peers and authority figures), but this wasn't too
difficult to unravel with a few dozen sessions of therapy.

As a result, I pass down very few rules as a parent, and it's been a joy to
watch my daughter's creativity blossom. We've done what the article suggests -
provided moral guidelines to live by, rather than any strict set of rules.

She loves real estate - specifically interior design, but also analyzing
neighborhoods, improving curb appeal, and understanding what makes a good
school district. I think the seeds were planted when I was taking her with me
in the evenings to do various handyman tasks at our rental property. We would
stop for ice cream and she would sit there and eat it while I put together
furniture or changed light bulbs or swept common areas.

And while our lax rules have certainly inspired creativity and fed into her
individuality, it hasn't done a great deal to build work ethic. I'm aware of
the stereotype of parents believing their kids are lazy, so I'm open to being
wrong here.

Striking a balance between giving a kid a framework to discover herself but
also emphasizing the importance of work ethic is probably my greatest concern
as a parent. I don't want to stifle her from dreaming, but I want her to do
what's necessary to accomplish those dreams too.

My big question is this: when the time comes to put in the work the accomplish
what she wants, is she going to be ready to put down the ice cream spoon and
pick up a screw driver?

I don't know. But I'm going to continue with the light touch and hope for the
best.

~~~
aleem
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.

~~~
pcarolan
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
_> 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.)

~~~
alltakendamned
> French kindergarteners spend 90 minutes sitting down to a white-table-cloth
> four course meal each day during school.

No they don't, I'm not quite sure where you could've got the idea ?

~~~
postmeta
table-cloth is embellishment, but four-course does seem to be part of the
system: [https://karenlebillon.com/french-school-lunch-
menus/](https://karenlebillon.com/french-school-lunch-menus/)

~~~
ckarmann
Four-course sounds grandiose but it's nothing more than a little carrot salad,
a meal, a little piece of cheese and a yogurt (and some bread), that you get
on your meal tray. No kid spend 90 minutes eating that; they rather spend
their time playing during the time of lunch break. So it's top 20 minutes
swallowing everything (or half of it actually) as fast of possible.

------
shouldbworking
I may be biased from my own experience, but I remember being incredibly
frustrated at a young age from the lack of help understanding things I was
"too young" for. My role models and teachers made zero efforts to help me
learn analog circuit design and my first programming language, Perl. This made
it much harder than it would have been if I was attending actual classes, and
probably set back my understanding many years.

I'm not sure how much of an outlier I am, but our education system is not
built for creative types. It's too hard to get placed in anything
significantly above your grade level, especially if your brilliance is
restricted to a single subject. I remember showing an bistable flipflop design
to my science teacher in 5th grade and getting a puzzled "that's nice Johnny"
type look when I wanted help figuring out why my breadboard version wouldn't
oscillate. A few of my skills were so beyond what anyone expected that they
didn't know what to do with me, or what they were even looking at, so they did
nothing.

It took another eleven years before I had contact with any teachers that
matched my experience level with programming and circuit design. During that
time I advanced my skills slightly, but not having any peers made me an
outcast and certainly left me far behind where I could have been.

Backing off is a bad idea. You need to take your child's curiousity and do
everything you can to keep it alive. I'm sure a lot of kids started out like
me but eventually let their dreams die.

~~~
nnfy
I share your frustration. Unfortunately, public schools are not places where
remarkable people tend to congregate, and those near the mean are typically
not equipped to teach such technical subjects, or even recognize the value in
having young children learn them. There is vast potential wasted in our [U.S.]
public school system.

~~~
shouldbworking
The problem for me, and perhaps many others, is that the "smart" are sorted
out early and carted out of regular classrooms. If you miss the boat it gets
substantially more difficult, almost impossible, to get back on that track.

I remember my parents trying to get me into advanced classes in sixth grade
but the school rules said it needed to be done by third grade. I couldn't skip
a year either, it was too late.

The second (harder) way into double advanced classes was to pass a test going
into high school. That test contained math that only those already in advanced
classes had been taught. I aced the reading portion, scoring at 11th grade
reading level, but it wasn't enough.

The same year I was sponsored to be an exchange student to Europe but my
family couldn't afford the plane tickets. A year later, bored out of my skull
and disappointed, I gave up completely on public school.

I embraced mediocrity because I figured out I could get by with no real
effort. I concentrated my creativity outside of school and learned more
programming languages and electronics. I never got above a C average again
until college.

Some teachers saw promise but I let them down because I didn't show up to
class and was always in trouble. I knew I had missed the boat to the good
classes that led to good scholarships and onto good colleges, and I was bitter
and didn't give a shit anymore. To get into the caliber of school I dreamed
about I would have needed more than just good grades in regular classes, and
all the windows except sports closed before highschool even started.

There's been some articles about "lost diamonds", which may explain why smart
people do better as a whole but the large majority still end up living average
lives and doing nothing of note. I might not have been any smarter than
average, but I definitely feel like I was one of those kids who the system
left behind. I knew many others I considered smart that shared my company at
the troublemaking fringe of highschool society, definitely a pile of wasted
potential at the bottom.

~~~
houst0n_
So it's their failure and not yours?

I have a comparable story; dropped out of school at 15 and didn't touch
education since (>15 years ago now), then spent a few years high and drunk:
but I'd learnt perl from the camel even before then.

What do you think you are owed? If i hadn't read k&r or learning perl by
myself I should then blame my teachers who hadn't read them either? Most of
the best folk I've worked with found these things on their own too.

You feel you're "a lost diamond that the system left behind?"

Bitch, who are you blaming here? The only job I could get in that situation
was as a cleaner, and I worked my way from there to where I am now while
definitely fitting into your category of those the so called "system" couldn't
deal with..

If I hadn't learnt to do our thing regardless should I blame someone else?

I think not. Work hard or don't; blaming the system for your failure, while
there are people around you who demonstrably made it from worse situations
than yours is pathetic in the extreme.

~~~
inimino
You're making a false dichotomy.

Yes, you are personally responsible for your own circumstances and society
isn't going to take care of you if you don't work.

However, it's also incredibly shitty that society let you down enough at 15 to
stay "high and drunk" for several years, which, for most kids, doesn't turn
out well.

There's enough blame to go around. Taking personal responsibility and blaming
the system aren't mutually exclusive.

~~~
houst0n_
Well;

I think I would actually be considerably _worse_ off if I had behaved myself,
made it through high school and gone to university than I am currently; I know
it seems counterintuitive but my point was just that it makes no difference
how things go for you in "the system" as my experience is that those who seem
to have been let down by it and still work at our level are better than those
who went through the traditional process.

Yes; clear case of survivorship bias.

Parent says that being failed by the system was a disadvantage. I say, come
conversely that being ignored/misunderstood by my teachers/authorities/family
then going wild/rebelling as a result for a bit was essential/positive part of
my development..

I don't see any of those events as shitty or sad, I wouldn't be where I am
without those experiences, right?

Yeah, that's survivorship bias; I'm not really talking about one experience
being better than another though; the only reason I went into my story was to
counterbalance OPs statement.

I was only trying to say that being failed by "the system" doesn't count as a
measure when So many seem to make it regardless...

~~~
inimino
It's true that many seem to make it regardless, and the negative things we go
through often make us stronger (when they don't kill us).

I wouldn't change anything in my own life. I also wouldn't wish some of the
experiences I've had on anyone else. I don't think those statements are
contradictory.

The Spartan children that reached adulthood may have been tougher than the
kids we raise today, but that is not an argument in favor of the Spartan
system.

------
mathattack
_Consider the nation’s most prestigious award for scientifically gifted high
school students, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, called the Super Bowl
of science by one American president. 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._

8 out of 2000 is a lot higher than most any other sample group.

~~~
beloch
This is a classic "sounds small, but is actually _huge_ " statistic. Most of
these pop up when people are trying to be deceptive, but this one looks like a
mistake. I'm surprised it slipped past both the author and editor.

------
luckyt
> just eight have won Nobel Prizes

You pick 2000 teenagers, and 8 go on to win a Nobel Prize, and you're still
not satisfied? High expectations much...

~~~
liquidise
That means 1 in 250 go on to win a Nobel Prize. An absurd rate.

I'd bet money that the only group to perform better over the same timeframe is
the list Nobel Prize winners themselves.

Edit: I stand corrected. Solvay Conference had 15/29 one year.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_Confer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_Conference)

~~~
ChicagoBoy11
Isn't the group of CalTech alumns slightly worse but on around the same order
of magnitude?

------
ucontrol
A dull article ridden with blatantly false claims and oversimplification of an
otherwise complicated topic.

>Gifted children who have a noticeable head start and whose skill development
begins remarkably early _do not_ usually end up being game changing
professionals in their respective fields.

Really now?

>Developing a skill set early on leads to competence in what is learned but
stumps creativity and chances of innovation.

So having an deep, innate, intuitive grasp of a certain set of knowledge, made
possible by said early exposure and disciplined training, has nothing to do
with genius and potential inventive achievement in later life? But rather, it
only allows for uncreative competence in what is learned and practiced, that
and only that?

Really?

Is this man serious? How does something like this even pass for an article?
How much thinking goes into writing something like this? Christ almighty.

I love it because the very things that Mr. Grant here paints as inhibitory to
creativity are exactly the essential components of creative genius! His
information is not only incorrect, it is the exact opposite of how things do
work in real life.

It's not a zero sum game. Both of aspects in question - Disciplined skill
development as well as Creativity - are essential for intellectual success and
are interdependent.

Structure, discipline, strong parent engagement and emphasis on learning and
skill development, AS WELL AS creative undertakings, play, leisurely
engagement, passionate tinkering / creation - both aspects are crucial.

In order to be able to create, the child has to imitate first. In order to
fall in love with a pursuit, it has to be exposed to it first. And in order to
be creatively successful in a pursuit, the child has to be very skilled in it
first. And parents' intervention, guidance and support are very important in
this regard.

~~~
Jimmy
>>Gifted children who have a noticeable head start and whose skill development
begins remarkably early _do not_ usually end up being game changing
professionals in their respective fields.

>Really now?

Um, yes? Are you challenging the article's claim here? Depending on how
strictly we're defining "game changing", only a small handful of people, even
those who were "gifted" as children, ever accomplish anything really notable.

You can look at this [1] followup of "mathematically precocious" youth, for
example. Around 10% ended up tenured at a top-50 university or became CEO of a
Fortune 500 company. It is unlikely that anyone in the other ~90% is doing
anything "game changing". Not even everyone in that 10% group is doing
something "game changing".

[1] [https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/Article-PS-
Lubi...](https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/Article-PS-Lubinski-et-
al-2014-DEC-FINAL.pdf)

~~~
hexane360
I see two problems with this.

1\. You're defining "gifted" in a much narrower way than the article's
arguments. Being a high achiever in math doesn't really encapsulate the
meaning the article assigns when it creates a gifted vs. creative dichotomy.

2\. It's pretty pointless to talk about the achievement of one group without
comparing it to your control group. Do you think 10% of the general public is
tenured at a top-50 university or a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? What about
10% of the creatives the article lauds? You know, without seatbelts there's
only around 25 deaths per billion vehicle miles in the US. Nevermind that
seatbelts cut that rate in half. . .

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

Performing music and writing music are really very different art forms. I'm
surprised this NY Times author has conflated the two. Writing music is not the
next step after learning to play music.

~~~
cardamomo
Within the Western classical music academy, these indeed are currently quite
separate. That is not universal to all musical traditions.

------
kiyanwang
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r#E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r#Education_and_career)

I remember reading some of László Polgár work after becoming interested in how
he raised three daughters, two became chess prodigies, the third a concert
musician. He posited that "that any child has the innate capacity to become a
genius in any chosen field, as long as education starts before their third
birthday and they begin to specialise at six". This seems at odds with the
notion that parents should "back off".

~~~
SamReidHughes
At least it works if your kid has the genes of a parent with the patience to
read through 400 biographies.

------
CuriouslyC
My personal theory on this is twofold:

1.) High achievers are used to pushing at things to win. Creativity is like a
garden - you have to do some tending, but then you have to back off and let
the plants grow. Fiddling doesn't help, in fact you're liable to end up
killing the plants.

2.) Smart people actually learn too fast. Creativity requires very broad
neural connectivity, and I think fast learning tends to produce neural
networks with sparse connectivity to different areas. This is supported to a
degree by learning in artificial neural networks. When the learning rate in
artificial neural networks is too fast, this can cause the network parameters
to converge prematurely. This premature convergence typically results in poor
generalization performance. It is also worth noting that human brains mature
more slowly than those of previous hominids and great apes.

~~~
Retric
2) This falls into the just world fallacy. Intelligence does not seem to come
with real drawbacks. Highly intelligent people often have upper end reflexes,
are unusual attractive, highly creative, social, and or content. They are more
often taller and live longer as well.

The trappings of intelligence are different, but very high raw intelligence is
seen across most walks of life including actors, athletes, and salesmen.

~~~
hueving
>are unusual attractive

Source? I've never heard of intelligence being correlated with visual
attractiveness.

~~~
Retric
Like height the link is probably though health and generally freedom from
birth defects. It's not a 1:1 correlation, but it is a positive one.

 _Consistent with such views, meta-analyses (Jackson, Hunter & Hodge, 1995;
Langlois et al., 2000) show that there is a small but significantly positive
correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness_
[https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/I2011.pdf](https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/I2011.pdf)

That said, selected populations may show a negative correlation such as when
more attractive people are more easily given a job etc.

~~~
hueving
>That said, selected populations may show a negative correlation such as when
more attractive people are more easily given a job etc.

How is that possible? If intelligent people are attractive, wouldn't they be
the ones getting the jobs?

------
bitJericho
It's so important to let your kid think. I see parents helicoptering and it's
very damaging. I had met a couple at a friendly gathering that brought their 2
year old. Not only could he hardly talk, which was surprising to me, he had no
chance to make any decision. The child and his parents were paging through a
sales flyer, because they didn't think to bring suitable activities, and they
were ogling over toys. So I pointed to the knives on a page that came up and
joined in, "oh let's get these" and the child instinctively said yeah! Then I
could see the clockworks moving and before the kid could say anything the
parents chimed in. A missed opportunity to let the kid make his own, good,
decision. I fear he'll grow up and fail to make decisions at all.

Conversely, with my children, I try to talk with them as much as I can, and
let them talk too. I let them order food themselves and I demand good table
manners. That doesn't mean they can't be children, but they are not allowed to
climb under or on the table, or be a nuisance. An easy fix for a problem child
in a restaurant is to leave. The child must learn that there are consequences.
The child wont go? Leave without them and they will freak and catch up. They
fail that drag them out. Saying no and sticking with it is important, but
equally important is giving the child a chance to catch up, mentally, with
decision making and situational awareness.

~~~
KyleJune
I didn't talk at all till I was 5 years old. I turned out well. But my parents
were the opposite of helicopter parents though. I literally just did whatever
I wanted all the time. I use to walk around a swamp near by, by myself or with
friends, to catch turtles and snakes. Never got in trouble for grades. Got in
a fight once when I was in 5th grade. Most my Mom did was ask me if I got any
good hits in. lol

~~~
bitJericho
I think extemes in general are bad, but off the cuff I would suspect no
parenting to be better than overparenting. At least you got to see the
consequences of poor choices, and that the world really doesn't give two shits
about you (or anyone).

------
paganel
> When Dr. Bloom’s team interviewed tennis players who were ranked in the top
> 10 in the world, they were not, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, doing push-ups
> since they were a fetus.

And then you see a clip of 5-year old Messi
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DWZ0fD64Uk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DWZ0fD64Uk))
demolishing the other 5-year old kids who happened to share the same football
field as him and realize that "letting your kid be creative" and all this
mumbo-jumbo talk doesn't mean anything unless your kid doesn't have the inside
genius-like quality. Bonus link, the Maradona childhood tricks:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAjQ7NF8Hj0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAjQ7NF8Hj0)

~~~
revelation
It's even more laughable for any sort of endurance sports, where the genetic
components are very well known.

The best marathon runner is probably sitting on a couch eating a bag of
cheetos.

~~~
fjdlwlv
The best marathon runners are from an African community of genetically strong
marathoners , who run a lot all their lives. Nature + nurture beats either
alone

------
Jimmy
>What holds them back is that they don’t learn to be original.

More than likely, they simply lacked the capacity to be original (as in,
world-class historical originality, which is the subject under discussion
here), just in the same way that almost all people lack this capacity. It's
only particularly surprising that child prodigies rarely become adult geniuses
if you confuse genius with the capacity to learn information and acquire
skills. Mastering calculus at age 6, though highly unusual, does not in itself
constitute original work, and, going off of the data, is not an extremely
strong indicator of the presence of the capacity to do original work.

So you can't necessarily expect creativity-focused interventions on child
prodigies to produce more revolutionary geniuses than normal.

~~~
hacknat
Excellent point. If anything the anecdotal data points to the opposite being
true. Hendrix didn't learn guitar until 17. Einstein showed signs of having a
genius for math and science in his education, but not anything above
warranting anything, but being accepted to a middling teachers college. Edison
didn't graduate high school and invented the phonograph in his spare time in
his late 20s as a telegraph operator.

------
nnfy
Nurture should follow nature. No single parenting style will fit every child.
Some children need to be pushed harder, some need more freedom; what's
important is to recognize what works and what doesn't and accommodate as
necessary. Of course, this is not an easy task, and you only get one chance.

I think the most important thing, however, is to provide resources for
learning, far beyond what is available in our pitiful public education system,
which is designed more to cater to the mean and less to allow remarkable
students to fully excel.

------
Profragile
My Step 1 would be: Don't listen to an internet article on how to raise a
fucking child... specially if it's a NYT article.

------
ziikutv
Being a good parent is becoming an increasing concern of mine as I am reaching
an age where I could probably get married in some parts of the world. Its
giving me anxiety, wanting to be not a shitty father...

Digression aside:

> Creativity may be hard to nurture, but it’s easy to thwart.

There are many parents though that do just to opposite by not backing off no?
This is sort of generalizing, but kids from Asian countries are a great
counterpoint to this. With that in mind, couldn't we also amend that theory,
and add culture as a factor?

Furthermore, isn't it also the case that since kids are getting into school
earlier than they used to (say 50 or so years ago; random number, don't goto
imright.com and disprove it xD), wouldn't they be more susceptible to other
kids/teachers? I mean now a days parents see their kids less than their
teachers. They basically work 9-5 just like adults.

Addendum: Forgot which famous book this is from: But appraising a child for
their hardwork over natural talent is one of the best things we can do. So to
that end, creativity should be garnered as something one has to work towards.
Man.. I can't wait to test all this shit on my kids.. (obviously joking)

Edit: Change wording and add more meaningful question.

~~~
mseri
The book might be 'Brain Rules for kids' by John Medina. A scientific account
of what we know and don't know of brain development from the womb to 5. Really
enjoyable and full of useful insights

~~~
goodJobWalrus
or 'Nurture Shock' that also has a chapter on that.

------
justjonathan
"From its inception in 1942 until 1994, the search recognized more than 2000
precocious teenagers as finalists. But... just eight have won Nobel Prizes."

Just?!?

Said differently: slightly less than 1/2% of identified gifted teenagers in
this group went on to win Nobel prizes. Given the rarity of Nobel prize
winners and the difficulty of predicting future Nobel prize winners (as
teenagers) that strikes me is pretty amazing.

~~~
hexane360
To put that in perspective (thanks to another comment), there have only ever
been 8 Nobel Prize winners from India.

------
siliconc0w
I think 'genius' is more about tuning the innate plasticity of a child's mind
to be good at a certain type of task. World class chess players see positions
and variations like how 'normals' might recognize an old friend. The
'creative' part comes in when you have brain that is marvelously tuned for one
thing, you can iterate and experiment very quickly.

------
YCode
While there is plenty to criticize about this article, knowing when _not_ to
intervene or help is one of the tougher and critical tasks of parenting.

As an anecdotal example my toddler was often the smallest kid in a given group
of playing children. He was at the mall play area one day and he kept getting
knocked down onto the foam floor. I kept thinking man I've got to step in and
helicopter a bit. I almost did, but right as another kid was about to bump
into him he did something new. He bowed at the legs, leaned and braced with
his elbows causing the kid to bounce off harmlessly and they both ran on.

I'm often reminded of that moment now when I see him in safe but precarious
situations. I'm always there for him if he needs me, but I have to wonder if I
step in am I denying him a life lesson?

------
kendallpark
Let's take a big step back and remember that even if you set up the most
creativity-nurturing environment, it does not guarantee that your kids are
going to flourish creatively. Kids are autonomous creatures that still choose
their own activities.

My siblings and I had the same imperfect parenting, same resources, similar
genetics, etc, and at the end of the day I was the one that went hardcore down
creative pursuits during childhood. I could see a similar spark in my
siblings, but for whatever reason they put their 10,000 hours elsewhere. It
was only during college that one of my brothers picked up writing and the
other picked up music. The potential (and opportunity!) was always there, but
for whatever reason they didn't capitalize on it in childhood.

------
replicatorblog
Tiger Woods and Serena and Venus Williams are arguably the most iconic players
in their sports in the last two decades and both are famous for overbearing
fathers who forced them to practice from the time they could hold clubs and
racquets.

~~~
haimez
They're also famous as athletes and not creatives.

~~~
replicatorblog
The article's author referenced athletes as well as creatives:

 _Even the best athletes didn’t start out any better than their peers. When
Dr. Bloom’s team interviewed tennis players who were ranked in the top 10 in
the world, they were not, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, doing push-ups since
they were a fetus. Few of them faced intense pressure to perfect the game as
Andre Agassi did. A majority of the tennis stars remembered one thing about
their first coaches: They made tennis enjoyable._

------
noonespecial
Step zero: Get to know them. Then decide if you should back off or do any
other of a thousand things that might help them.

All kids are different. Child rearing is as far from "one weird trick"
territory as you can get.

------
dnprock
Over time, I see articles bouncing between discipline your children (aka tiger
parenting) and let them free (aka nuture creativity.) There are passionate
camps and black/white discussions. I think the most successful professionals
need to have both. So it's best to work on both.

In the case where you can't have both. I think it's better to focus on
discipline. At least you'd get something tiny done, not just wandering around.

------
aliceyhg
In cultures like Korea, hierarchy and unconditional respect for their elders
is so deeply rooted that it is evident in the language itself (When addressing
elders or someone more important, you have to speak a specific way). This
gives a false sense of righteousness and superiority. In societies like these,
could the culture itself be an obstacle to creative growth?

~~~
geomark
It is similar in many countries. In Thailand, where I live, it is also built
into the language. There are many different pronouns for addressing others
based on your relative social standing. There are pronouns not only for normal
societal interactions, but special pronouns for when you are speaking to monks
and another set when speaking to/about royal family members. In fact, there
are even different verbs that are used when talking about common activities of
monks and royalty. Makes for a very pretentious culture and it certainly does
inhibit critical thinking in much of the population.

------
greggman
I'd be really curious to hear from engineers that were made to play a musical
instrument in childhood.

I know some people believe there's a correlation between good engineers and
musical study (no idea if that's true, only that I've read it before)

I also know that I've rarely met a child that wants to practice their musical
instrument. Usually they have to be made to do it "No TV, no internet, no
video games until you've finished your piano practice!" "But Mom!!!!!"

I know lots of adults that are happy they can play a musical instrument or
speak a second language (parents sent them to language school as a child) but
I know of few children who would chose to do either of them.

~~~
InclinedPlane
100% true. Learning to play a musical instrument in childhood has positive
long term effects in a variety of ways (improved neural plasticity past middle
age, improved spatial reasoning ability throughout life, etc.) There's a
pretty substantial and growing body of research on the subject now.

------
zxv
There is no way quite as certain to accelerate a child's pursuit of great
goals, than to instill confidence in them. In my experience, it is the first
and most important step with which they begin to choose their own pace in
learning new skills, by convincing them that any failures are temporary, and
that they can believe in their vision because those they trust believe in
them.

I believe that the second step, making things fun, mostly consists of letting
young people be with their friends, with no more than some open space, and
only the minimum adult involvement needed to maintain safety.

------
Havoc
>prestigious award for scientifically gifted high school students

I find this somewhat offensive. Gifted kids should be encouraged (cautiously &
organically) - not be turned into a beauty pageant style competition.

------
gejjaxxita
_In adulthood, many prodigies become experts in their fields and leaders in
their organizations. Yet only a fraction of gifted children eventually become
revolutionary adult creators._ This sentence, which the article hinges around,
has no meaning. A tiny fraction will become revolutionary adult creators by
definition - if their achievements were more commonplace then our
understanding of what a revolutionary creator was would change to become more
exclusive.

------
blackkettle
> In adulthood, many prodigies become experts in their fields and leaders in
> their organizations. Yet “only a fraction of gifted children eventually
> become revolutionary adult creators,” laments the psychologist Ellen Winner.

Why on earth is that something to 'lament'?

~~~
justinjlynn
I think their point is that, for some reason, it is lamentable that they did
not fulfill the whole of their potential. Whether or not that is lamentable is
its own argument. The privilege exhibited by the talented who consciously do
not use their potential is the ultimate insult to those who are not given the
opportunity - not only is it in no way controllable by humanity, it can in no
way be granted by any kind of affirmative action. I imagine the lament is
probably sourced there somehow.

------
slantaclaus
Having not yet read the article, I would say yes, there is truth in that
statement, but holding people accountable is a big part of what drives
success. Compromise: Tease them into and help them create some of their own
rules but enforce them(?)

------
lucidguppy
Every child must be raised by the book - unfortunately every child has their
own book...

------
ezhil
I don't think there is a fixed pattern in raising a creative child. Every
child is different. Instilling creativity is not like a program running under
specific conditions.

------
toepitt
I'd like to know how to make an adult creative, not just a child.

------
ilzmastr
This article in the NYTimes is like Duchamp's urinal in a museum.

------
lacampbell
Why do you feel entitled to foist your own or other peoples problems onto
strangers?

~~~
c22
Why do you assume kids are problems to begin with? I have met hundreds of kids
during my adult life and the highest any of them has risen to for me is minor
annoyance. I've had more trouble from my cars.

~~~
lacampbell
I'm not the one that used "problem" to describe kids, btw. FWIW I quite like
kids. But saying strangers kids are my responsibility because of "society" is
not true at all.

~~~
jackvalentine
Kids are a part of society, and society has a stake in what kind of adult they
become.

In the same way drug addicts are society's problem, or unemployed people are
society's problem, or sociopathic second generation rich never-worked-a-day
drunk drivers are society's problem.

This isn't to say that you'll be conscripted in to a psudo-parent role against
your will, but they are your responsibility as a member of society in a very
abstract way.

~~~
lacampbell
In that case, I revoke my membership to society. I have my own problems.

~~~
jackvalentine
You can do so by moving out in to the middle of nowhere and becoming a self-
sufficient hermit.

Anything less and sorry, but you're a part of society.

~~~
lacampbell
who are you to tell an individual what responsibilities they have, and to try
and make outcasts of people who don't want them?

I don't have to move anywhere to absolve myself of the responsibility to
strangers.

~~~
jackvalentine
I don't think that you quite understand the point I'm making?

By taking part in every day life, using civil infrastructure, having contact
with other people you're a part of society with all that goes with that.

It logically follows that the only way to extricate yourself from the
situation is to _leave_ society and all the benefits it brings. There are
people who have done that!

However I don't see how you can possibly do so and have the convenience of a
doctor available when you're sick, coffee sold by the cup and roads on which
for you to drive. These are physical and organisational manifestations of
'society'.

By remaining in proximity and contact of other humans you're their
responsibility and they are yours.

It's fine to want out but that does need to come with a realisation of what
benefits you draw from societal organisation and what you'll need to lose to
withdraw from the uninvited, unwritten, yet tangible 'bargain' that society
represents.

I'm trying to picture what remaining with other people yet rejecting 'society'
theoretically looks like and I can only see it as a kind of parasitic
relationship. When aware of parasites humans have a tendency to try and kill
or remove them. After all, you would be rejecting all the protections legal
and otherwise that society offers its members.

~~~
lacampbell
_By remaining in proximity and contact of other humans you 're their
responsibility and they are yours._

I reject this completely. That's your reality, not mine.

~~~
jackvalentine
Please respond to the rest of my post, not just the weakest line.

~~~
gosheroo
I agree with lacampbell that we're not responsible for other people's kids. In
western society the individual is sovereign and our only responsibility is to
do no harm. It is equally important to note however that the individual is
missing out if he foregoes the pleasure of friendly interactions with other
people, and is free to be a good neighbour and to give where he chooses. He is
also wise if he aligns his ambitions with the general good of all.

But he may not be compelled. Indeed, it is the societies where people have
_talked_ about us all being responsible for everybody else that have murdered
the most people (e.g. Soviet Union).

The foregoing interaction with lacampbell might be an analogy of how society
fails creative types. They are often awkward, abrasive people who insist on
doing things their own way. As a result they are denied jobs, ostracised
socially (in the name of friendliness) and generally swept under the rug.

Society would far rather give academic posts, for example, to those who fit in
enthusiastically:

[http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-
head-g...](http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-head-girl-
syndrome-opposite-of.html)

The desire to be accepted and to fit in, despite appearances, is not really
about friendliness, is my guess. It is actually rooted in the _fear_ of others
and the fear of being cast out of the tribe. Like all emotions this fear
enacts behaviours which tend to install it in other people. As a result of
early socialisation most of our creativity goes into being/appearing normal
instead of into making original stuff.

~~~
jackvalentine
Hmm, I think I can see where we're failing to connect here. I'll reply to you
by replying to lacampbell.

> _All of your post hinges on the premise that you feel responsibility for
> individual problems should be collectivised, by force presumably, and that I
> am required to morally feel obliged to help any and all strangers by virtue
> of being born or living in roughly the same area._

I categorically reject that this is my position and am sorry I wasn't able to
explain it better. Let me try further:

I'm not suggesting that you be required to do anything. At all. It is your
choice to choose to do nothing.

However as a member of society, of which the only way of really escaping is to
escape the proximity and influence of those who comprise 'society' you do have
a collectivized stake in the outcome of society. If you for example choose to
do nothing about drug addicts, and the rest of society does the same...
society is then responsible for what happens as a result of untreated drug
addiction. You, as a member of society, have some small part ownership over
what happens.

Does that make sense? I'm talking in a very abstract sense, not a direct "here
is a kid -> take care of it" sense.

~~~
gosheroo
Yes there are such things as social problems, and the keeping the peace (which
is the government's responsibility) entails addressing them. Sometimes keeping
the peace will even entail looking after other people's children. For example,
children evacuated from London in WW2.

But problems are solved by individuals. So part of the gauge of the strength
of a society is how receptive it is to knowledge originating in the minds of
rare individuals. Does it protect them? Or does it shut them down with
censorship, disemployment and so on?

It's vital that people realise that they are not responsible for the fall of
every sparrow, lest they be burdened with undue guilt. Their minds are then at
least capable of remaining free and creative.

