Geniuses and Better Parenting
It is a popular myth that great geniuses — the Einsteins, Picassos and Mozarts of this world — spring up out of nowhere as if touched by the finger of God. The model is Karl Friedrich Gauss, supposedly born into a family of manual workers, who grew up to become the father of modern mathematics.
A professor who studies early learning has attacked this myth, saying that when he looked into Gauss's childhood, he found that Gauss's mother had been teaching him numbers at the age of two. His father had supervised manual workers, not been one, and played calculation games with him. Furthermore, Gauss had an educated uncle who taught him sophisticated math at an early age.
It is the same story with other geniuses. Einstein's father was an electrical engineer who fascinated his son with practical displays of physics. Picasso's father was an art teacher who had young Pablo painting bowls of fruit at the age of eight. Mozart's father was a musician employed at a noble's court who was teaching his son to sing and play almost before he could walk. "In every case, when you look into the backgrounds of great people, there is this pattern of very early stimulation by a parent or teacher figure," the professor says.
But what sort of parental stimulation should it be? There is plenty of evidence that, too often, pressure from parents results in children suffering fatigue rather than becoming geniuses. One study has identified two kinds of parent style — the supportive and the stimulating.
Supportive parents were those who would go out of their way to help their children follow their favorite interests and praised whatever level of achievement resulted. Generally, such parents created a pleasant home governed by clear rules. Stimulating parents were more actively involved in what their children did, steering them towards certain fields and pushing them to work hard, often acting as a tutor.
The study followed four groups of children: one with supportive parents, one with stimulating parents, one whose parents combined both qualities and a final group who offered neither. The children were given electronic devices; when these made a sound, they had to make a note of what they were doing and assess how happy and alert they felt.
The not too surprising result was that the children whose parents were simply supportive were happier than average but were not particularly intense in their concentration when studying or working on something. The children who fared best were those whose parents were both supportive and stimulating. These children showed a reasonable level of happiness and were very alert during periods of study.
Children whose parents were stimulating without being supportive were candidates for fatigue. These children did work long hours, but their alertness and happiness during study time was far below that of children in more balanced family environments.
Another crucial factor is the need for parents to have proper conversations with their children. Through having the chance to talk with adults, children pick up not only language skills but also adult habits and styles of thought. One reason why prodigies such as Picasso and Einstein had a head start in life was that they had parents who demonstrated how to think about subjects like art or physics at a very early age.
A survey in Holland showed that a typical father spent just 11 seconds a day in conversation with his children. A more recent study in America produced a somewhat better result, but the fathers in question were still talking to their children for less than a minute a day.
It is not just the time spent that counts, but also the way in which a parent talks. A parent who only gives a brief reply to a child's questions or gives dull answers will be passing on a negative, narrow-minded style of thinking. On the other hand, parents happy to take a child step by step through an argument, encouraging him or her to explore ideas, will cultivate an open and creative thinking style.
One researcher is attempting to show this experimentally with a study in which groups of parents are taught how to have beneficial conversations with their small children. He says these children have an advantage over their peer group in language ability, intellectual ability, and even social leadership skills. While the study is not yet complete, the children appear to have been given a long-term advantage.
So what is the outlook for parents who do everything right, those who manage to be both supportive and stimulating, who are good at demonstrating thinking skills to their children and successful at cultivating a self-motivated approach to learning? Would such parents be guaranteed to have a genius as their child?
There is general agreement that genuine biological differences exist between individuals; geniuses need to be lucky in both their genes and their parents. The most significant implication would seem to be that while most people are in a good position to fulfill their biological potential — barring serious illnesses or a poor diet during childhood — it is far from certain that they will grow up in an environment where that capacity will be developed.
So although knowing more about the biology of genius is all very interesting, it is research into better parenting and educational techniques that will have lasting significance.
Words: 889
天才與良好的家庭教養(yǎng)
有一種流行的說法,世界上的偉大天才 -- 愛因斯坦們、畢加索們、莫扎特們,不知從什么地方突然冒了出來,似乎都是造物主的神功使然。 卡爾·弗里德里克·高斯就是一個典型,據(jù)說他出身在一個體力勞動者家庭,后來卻成了現(xiàn)代數(shù)學(xué)之父。
一位研究早期學(xué)習(xí)的教授駁斥了這一說法,稱他研究了高斯的童年,發(fā)現(xiàn)在他兩歲時,母親就教給他數(shù)字。 他的父親是個體力工種的監(jiān)工,本人不是工人,并常和高斯玩計算游戲。 而且高斯還有個受過教育的叔叔,他在高斯很小的時候就教他復(fù)雜的數(shù)學(xué)。
其他天才們的情況也同樣。 愛因斯坦的父親是個電氣工程師,他表現(xiàn)出的物理知識使兒子很著迷。 畢加索的父親是個美術(shù)教師,他要八歲的小帕布羅畫一碗又一碗的水果。 莫扎特的父親是個受雇于貴族宮廷的音樂家,他在兒子還不會走路時就教他唱歌、彈奏樂器。 "在每一個例子里,仔細(xì)研究一下天才的成長背景,都可以發(fā)現(xiàn)父母或教師給予早期激勵這樣一種模式,"這位教授說。
但是父母應(yīng)該給予怎樣一種激勵呢? 大量證據(jù)表明,家長的壓力常會導(dǎo)致孩子疲勞厭倦而不是成為天才。 有一項研究分出了兩種風(fēng)格的家長 -- 支持型的和激勵型的。
支持型的家長會盡全力幫助孩子發(fā)展興趣愛好,贊揚其獲得的成就,不管那有多么微小。 一般來說,這樣的家長創(chuàng)造出一個有規(guī)矩的、令人愉快的家庭環(huán)境。 激勵型的家長會更主動地參與到孩子們的活動中去,在某些領(lǐng)域里帶領(lǐng)他們前行,推動他們努力,通常起著導(dǎo)師的作用。
這一研究跟蹤研究了四組兒童: 一組兒童的家長是支持型的,一組是激勵型的,一組是支持激勵相結(jié)合的,最后一組兒童的家長既不支持也不激勵。 孩子們拿到一些電子裝置。 當(dāng)發(fā)出聲響時,他們就要記下當(dāng)時孩子們正在干什么,并評估孩子們從中所感受到的快樂和反應(yīng)的敏捷程度。
結(jié)果并不太意外。支持型父母的孩子所感到的快樂程度高于平均水平,但學(xué)習(xí)或做事時卻不是那么高度集中精力。 表現(xiàn)最好的孩子是那些其父母為既支持又激勵型的。 這些孩子顯示了相當(dāng)不錯的快樂感,在學(xué)習(xí)過程中反應(yīng)也很敏捷。
激勵型卻缺乏支持的父母,他們的孩子很可能會疲勞厭倦。 這些孩子確實能長時間努力,但他們在學(xué)習(xí)過程中的敏捷程度和快樂感大大低于生活在能兼顧激勵和支持的家庭環(huán)境中的孩子。
另一關(guān)鍵因素是父母應(yīng)該與孩子進(jìn)行適當(dāng)?shù)慕徽劇?通過與成年人的交流,孩子學(xué)會的不僅是語言技巧,而且還有成年人的習(xí)慣與思維方式。 像畢加索、愛因斯坦這樣的神童之所以能在生活中率先起跑的一個原因就是他們的父母在他們很小的時候就教給他們?nèi)绾嗡伎既缢囆g(shù)或物理這樣的科目。
在荷蘭進(jìn)行的調(diào)查表明,父親們一般每天用于與孩子交談的時間只有11秒鐘。 新近在美國作的研究顯示了稍好的結(jié)果,但這些父親每天與孩子的交談時間仍不到一分鐘。
重要的不僅僅是花了多少時間,而且還有與孩子交談的方式。 對孩子的問題只做出簡單的回應(yīng),或是只給出乏味的回答,這樣的父母傳給孩子們的是一種消極的、偏狹的思維方式。 從另一方面來說,樂意與孩子作一步一步深入的論證,鼓勵子女探索各種想法,這樣的父母會培養(yǎng)出開放的、有創(chuàng)見的思維方式。
一名研究人員試圖通過實驗論證這一觀點。在他的研究里,幾組家長學(xué)著如何與自己的幼小子女作有益的交談。 他說這些孩子在語言能力、智力,甚至領(lǐng)導(dǎo)才能上都比同齡孩子要強。 盡管這一研究尚未結(jié)束,這些孩子已顯出具備了長期的優(yōu)勢。
那么,對那些模范家長,那些做到了對孩子既支持又激勵,善于教給孩子思考的方法,成功地培養(yǎng)孩子學(xué)習(xí)上的主動性的家長,前景如何呢? 能否確保他們的孩子成為天才?
人們普遍認(rèn)為,個體之間存在著生理差異,要成為天才必須幸運地既擁有天才的基因,又擁有能造就天才的父母。 最重要的啟示似乎是:盡管大多數(shù)人都有條件很好地發(fā)揮他們的生理潛能 --即除非童年時得了嚴(yán)重疾病,或飲食太差,他們肯定能充分發(fā)展自己的基因遺傳能力,但是,他們是否能生長在一個能開發(fā)其能力的環(huán)境中則遠(yuǎn)非一個確定因素。
因此,雖然了解天才人物的生物特征非常令人感興趣,但對良好的家庭教養(yǎng)和教育技巧的研究才真正具有長遠(yuǎn)的意義。