How To Raise A Smarter Kid
It turns out kids in wealthier homes have higher IQs, not because of genetics but because of environment. Surely you can be frugal (or just plain poor) and raise a smart one? A psychology professor suggests you focus on praising effort over achievement, and teach delayed gratification—something that also helps when it comes to financial responsibility, so it's a win/win skill. You should also explain that IQ is expandable, not inherent: "Students exposed to that idea work harder and get better grades."
"How to Raise Our I.Q." [New York Times]
(Photo: Flyinace2000)
Post a comment
Comments:
Well, my 11 month old knows sign language and is also speaking. We're poor.
You should also explain that IQ is expandable, not inherent
Is explaining IQ necessary at all? How about stick with praise for effort, delayed gratifications, yadda yadda and just don't worry about "scores"?
Rule #1: Block Fox News Channel from any TV set your child might access.
First of all... This is from The New York Times' *opinion* page. Now while I partly agree with some of the points in the story, correlating IQ with socioeconomic status is very spotty.
Paris Hilton anyone?
To quote the Dogg, "Bitch, please..."
Once again, the whole correlation/causation problem.
It's not that being wealthier causes higher IQ, it's that the characteristics that lead to being middle class or better (education, stability, responsibility) also allow one to raise children with a sense of intellectual curiosity.
Not to mention, several of the characteristics that lead to poverty (teen pregnancy, addictions) and result from poverty (moving from one home to another frequently) create a lot of stress in a child's life. There's more and more research that chronic anxiety and stress affect physical health in significant ways. The developing brain isn't immune from that.
But ultimately, this is yet more nature vs. nurture, Bell Curve bullshit. For a supposedly classless society that once discussed the "American Dream," there are certainly plenty of people who want to believe that everyone directly deserves his/her socioeconomic fate due to predetermined superiority or inferiority. Evidence that IQ can be changed through opportunity upsets a lot of people's apple carts of smugness.
@humphrmi: I, for one, really wish I.Q. testing was not held so highly with children. The benefit of quantifying their intelligence isn't apparent to me, whereas the other listed suggestions are perfectly reasonable.
@jennieguzman: I think what everyone is afraid to say is that you need to CARE about the education of your kid. Not to mention the overall intelligence of the parents- how can you teach your kid when you don't know anything?
Lower income families have a lot less of both of those.
@CRCError1970: It doesn't mean that intelligence is directly proportional to wealth.
Jeez. What, do you think they're saying that we don't need aptitude exams anymore, just submit your parents' tax records?
@humphrmi:
I didn't realize until I was in college that I'd been taking IQ test constantly since I was in 1st grade. The schools always wanted to test my IQ, and my mother only agreed as long as they didn't tell me it was an IQ test and as long as I never knew the results. At first I thought it was because they thought I was retarded or something....and then they put me in advanced classes.
Point is, I really think IQ is a dumb measure that either limits people or makes them cocky.
My kids are all well above average. Their grandma said so. (They're way cuter than most other kids too)
Grades != IQ, Mr. Walters.
Many subjects in school are quite subjective in their grading. I could be a great artist with awesome technique but does that necessarily make me smarter than the nerd who is required to take the art class but absolutely sucks at drawing? Hardly.
This also goes for those "cram and dump" courses where you spit out answers from what you read. Being a good regurgitator of facts does not make you a genius (memory and IQ may be linked, but good memory in itself is not in of itself a demonstration intelligence).
@FangDoc: I would correct your last statement. It is not that people (the biological determinists) believe you deserve your position in society based on your genes, it is that they believe your predisposition to success is based partly or fully based on your genes.
I highly doubt that either Murray or Herrnstein is interested in promoting to some high position someone who has the genes for IQ but did not bother to utilize his IQ to pursue an education, for example.
Actually, the funny thing about that is what you describe - giving people benefits based solely on their genetics - is what the left does with racial quotas (giving people of certain ethnic backgrounds regardless of demonstrated ability a leg up on a job, admission to school, etc.).
@Pink Puppet: IQ is pretty good at determining the educational needs of children - since educational success is partly based on one's intelligence.
The kids who score high might want to take the more rigorous courses whereas the average or lower IQ kids might want to take something that is more fitting with their pace.
The scores themselves are not important but matching abilities with the programs is.
@Trai_Dep:
If you want your kids to learn, how about turn off the TV, or at least restrict it to non-entertainment programming?
Mass media, be it Faux or CNN is not going to help your child out in that regard.
@The_IT_Crone: I would disagree with a few things in that statement, I think. One of which is the equating of intelligence with possessing knowledge--intelligence is the capacity, not the contents (though neurologically learning does tend to increase intelligence as well as knowledge). The other is suggesting that lower-income parents lack intelligence or caring about their kids' education. I also think class and culture have to get in here beyond income, because there are a lot of different low-income populations. There's also a circular issue in that it's tough to get excited in a kid's education if you know that educational system sucks and there's no budget for improvement.
"You should also explain that IQ is expandable"
Expandable?
Maybe IQ is actually skrinkable. You are born with a predetermined level of intelligence and/or capacitity to support that particular level of intelligence and will achieve that level of intelligence should the social-economic-environmental-learning conditions are supportive. Conversely, when conditions are not supportive you fail to develop the predetermined level of intelligence.
In other words, you can't make your baby smarter, but you can make your baby stupid.
Discipline is the key to a smart kid. A disciplined child will grow up to be happy, clever, respectful and hard-working. I've never done a chore in my life and i'm a lazy, miserable, disrespectful sod. "Apprently".
@FangDoc: I think it sounds like you're arguing with Nisbett when you're really, from what I understand, agreeing with him completely.
I haven't read the book yet, and I'm hearing the degree his environmental claim expressed differently in different places. I tend to be suspicious of the total "blank slate" claims because the twin studies disprove them; I also think there's some fascinating evidence these days of just how much the environment actually shapes genetic expression as far as turning on some gene markers and suppressing others, so genes and environment aren't the opposing entitities sometimes claimed.
But an argument that kids are going to develop differently in different social environments, and that some environments have the opportunity to stimulate them mentally more than others? That seems like a plausible assessment to me, and one that makes even clearer that, through no fault or credit of their own, some people are running the race in Nikes and some in lead-filled galoshes.
@SatanicGuinea: When you're talking about an individual kid? Totally with you. When you're talking overall indications? No, the correlations are actually pretty reliable.
Stephen Jay Gould only said this, I don't know, 28 years ago. I'm glad more people are catching on.
@Corporate-Shill: Indeed. IQ should be viewed like athletics - something that is less controversial but very much analogous.
Athletic ability can be improved through practice, coaching, good health, training, and such but each individual has an upper limit on what he can achieve due to genetics (if all other things are considered equal).
Example: I can build muscles through weight training. I can eat lots of protein to help. But there is a limit on how far I can go and what I will be able to accomplish - a limit that will most certainly be different for someone who was genetically endowed with more ability.
What is being suggested is that genetics play no role and that if we could give everyone equality in terms of environment, quality of schooling, and etc. that we'll all become Einsteins. Absurd.
I was poor and went to an upper middle class high school. Some of the 'straight A' students were as dumb as headless chickens. It doesn't take intelligence to memorize material, or to copy things from a book.
@floraposte: I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. I pointed out that grades are not reliable indicators of IQ because it is possible to take classes that do not stress one's intellect.
The article is discussing IQ and then goes on to talk about grades, even though the grade you get in art class is hardly a measure of one's IQ.
Schools also tend to offer easier and harder versions of various courses, so one cannot, for example, compare the grade in the "easy" science class with the grade in the honors section.
Now if you want to argue that certain classes of roughly the same level of difficulty are better measures of IQ, I'll agree.
Delayed gratification and effort over achievement? I grew up near the Paces Ferry area in ATL, and let me tell you...those kids were from loaded families, and they did NOT learn either.
@SatanicGuinea: I'm agreeing with you that it's not true Spot is smarter than Puff because he got an A and she got a C. What I am saying is that, overall, kids who get high grades, especially once you control for difficulty (which there are metrics to do) tend to have higher intelligence than kids who have low grades, and there is similarly a significant correlation between quality of certain kinds of memory and intelligence.
It's when people take the latter to mean the former that the trouble starts.
@SatanicGuinea: That's certainly not what Kristof's suggesting, and he also follows one researcher who kind of agrees with Corporate-Shill--that basically kids in certain lower class and economic strata get their intelligence stunted at an early age.
These opinions are all part of a dialogue about intelligence, and I think they make more sense within context. Nisbett is coming from a position of arguing against claims that the genetics of race control intelligence, which his research doesn't find.
@SatanicGuinea: @Corporate-Shill: @chattanooga: I agree. It does take intelligence to do well in a "useful" course.
@CRCError1970: It doesn't mean that intelligence is directly proportional to wealth.
Do you think they're saying that we don't need aptitude exams anymore, just submit your parents' tax records?
@SatanicGuinea: A much better tip, actually. I should rephrase to,
Kill your television*. Especially local news and Fox.
* Except Nova, Frontline, The News Hour and Bert & Ernie, 'natch.
Looking back, I was pretty media-restricted, but reading (any reading) was encouraged by example and rules, which turned out well. If I had kids, I'd use similar rules: any three TV programs/week, your choice. Else what the grownups watch. Then set them loose with a library card or on the home's books.
Don't know what I'd do about video games, though. Some are pretty thoughtful.
@Guvmint_Cheese: Well-thought and presented opposing viewpoints are to be celebrated. Unsure if Glenn Beck quite fits the bill, though.
@Trai_Dep: Shepard Smith is one of the finest anchors/reporters in the entire country. Not all of Fox News is FUD junk like Beck and O'Reilly.
Anyway, I grew up as a "gifted child" and found most of my entertainment in Transformers, Thundercats, and Voltron. I also played a crapton of Nintendo, but eventually grew up to enjoy exercise, competitive video games, European board games, and travel.
@Trai_Dep: I was raised in about the same environment...nothing aside from public television until I was 10 or so, and very restricted at that. I could read 'til my little heart's content, though.
Also, LOLZ @ Fox News. Being fed my viewpoint (regardless of the side) has never been my cup of tea.
@floraposte: I was agreeing with what Nisbett says about environment (and I agree with you that nature and nurture aren't mutually exclusive.)
What I'm arguing with is the title of the NYT article, and the sound bite it generates.
For example: People who keep their teeth tend to live longer than people in full dentures. Does that mean that teeth are the secret to long life? No, it means that people, ON AVERAGE (the key phrase missing from a lot of media coverage of these types of analyses) who have the personal habits and professional attention to allow them to keep their teeth into old age, also tend to live in an environment that promotes long life.
Likewise, kids whose parents encourage and support the personal habits and professional attention that lead to academic achievement, tend to have, ON AVERAGE, more money than the parents who don't. But money doesn't raise IQ. See above re: Hilton, Paris.
@FangDoc: Oops. I wasn't arguing with the title of the NYT article, but with the reductive highlighted statement, "Kids in wealthier homes have higher IQs," that links to it from the Consumerist.
In my experience, that's the statement that ends up in the scrolling feeds and on the local teeveenewz, and it misses the point of what Nisbett (and Kristof) are actually saying.
@Trai_Dep: What's your definition of well thought and presented? Whatever fits your world view? Fox is successful because they present both sides of issues, not just one like CNN, MSNBC, and network news.
I have found that the parents I meet in elementary school all have one thing in common - they either feel their child is brilliant and should be in gifted programs, or is "special needs" and should be one-on-one classes for a disability (even if testing shows they are normal, some will continue to push for special needs programs.)
You know, I honestly say my kid is an average, and pretty clever NORMAL kid. As much as I WANT to think he's a brilliant miracle child, he's just a really great, clever kid. He bumps into walls sometimes and hates doing homework. He loves to read but also loves video games. I'm happy to have a normal kid. He's a sweetheart and pretty smart, and will do well in life and be well adjusted.
I was in gifted programs as a child and I just hated them. I got pulled out of fun activities to do extra projects and extra work. While other kids had recess I had to to essays and write poetry. I wanted to play kickball with everyone else. Even on field trips, the "gifted" kids got pulled aside to learn how the water slides operated while everyone else got to go slide down them 10 more times. Yes, it was nice to learn all those things, but being cooped up to do it was no fun.
@chattanooga: The one thing I learned is being book smart and having common sense are 2 different things. Its quite possible to have someone who is a 4.0 in college but is as dumb as a rock when it comes to common sense and real-world sense.
The best example I can think of of this is there was a rollercoaster accident at a park where a person deliberately unhooked the seatbelt on a coaster and stood up to get more of a thrill because other people told them to do it and it was the cool thing to do at the time, and they had a lot of peer pressure because other people were encouraging that behavior. This was not the fault of any equipment failure it was all done under the person's own will. The person then died because they came out of the seat and plummeted to the ground. This person was a graduate from Harvard.
I have also seen this personally with my friends (just not an anecdotal example like the above).
@SatanicGuinea: What grades? My kid's report card comes with a "Yes" or "No" in each subject. Yes for making progress, no for not making progress. I wish I had some better way to tell how he was coming along. Other than a DRA reading score twice a year, I have no idea if he is keeping up with the rest of his class. His homework looks OK to me, but I have nothing to compare it against.
I guess A,B,C,D, and F were hurting people's feelings.
@floraposte: IQ should be comprised of fluid and static intelligence. What you know and your ability to learn more. Intelligence can't possibly be just about what you know - it's also about how you are able to learn more.
@Guvmint_Cheese: Don't forget Headline News by CNN. That channel is true trash.
Also, Fox is really terrible at presenting both sides in their non-newscast programming. There's a reason that the Fox Report is the #1 cable newscast and it's because Shepard Smith is a thoughtful, intelligent anchor who hates FUDs like Glenn Beck. Smith openly mocked him for an hour on an episode of Studio B. Aside from Smith, I think The Daily Show has shown enough of the rest of Fox News to be "snake oil," the only difference is that TDS is very honest in the fact that it sells itself as snake oil while the others sell themselves as "fair and balanced news."
Also, I don't know what your problem is with network news. It's so watered down that no viewer could possibly be offended. Sorry that your neo-con VP choice got smeared for being the buffoon she is on CBS with Katie Couric. That's what happens when a party abandons a real, legitimate candidate like Romney gets put aside for identity politics and neo-con bullcrap.
@Trai_Dep: As far as Trail_Dep's upbringing, I would view that as a negative in its heavy-handedness and lack of dynamics. In my own humble opinion, parents would have to be PhD level knowledgeable in childhood development and the effects of media/television in development to impose such a rigid structure. Also, an open dialog with a child in regards to influences seen as "negative" can help that child understand the "why," and the experiences in watching TV will help socialize the child in that they will have common ground when interacting with peers.
@jennieguzman: I do think there is a difference between a house with intelligent parents and a stable home life but just lacking large finances and the stereotypical model of a poor family. The stereotypical model has a chaotic household, little rules, structure or culture and adults whom are low IQ, seriously dysfunctional and not good role models.
There are plenty of intelligent starving artists or professional students whom have intelligent kids.
Even being around the stereotypical dysfunction of poverty can have a negative impact. It brings chaos into school from other kids issues, neighbors and neighborhood chaos.
@Outrun1986: I had a friend who was top of her class, a truly brilliant person. She got a full ride to one of the best universities in the country, and as soon as she got there, she started doing drugs and squandered her education. She's currently somewhat of a vagabond, and has no income. So I agree with you that book smarts don't translate to common sense and good decision making skills.
"It turns out kids in wealthier homes have higher IQs"
Yeah, I read Freakonomics too.