Home » Opinion » Book review
Why parents shouldn't give their children a headstart
By Wan Lixin |
August 22, 2009, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
SIGMUND Freud's psychoanalysis helps many miscreants to vindicate themselves by blaming their parents, teachers, neighbors or childhood.
But Judith Rich Harris tends to place more emphasis on genetics and peer groups.
Her "The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out The Way They Do" concludes that child-rearing practices have been overstated as factors shaping kids' future behavior.
Many social studies claim to have established, following rigorously scientific investigation, a strong correlation between child-rearing styles and the kids' future personality and behavior.
The implication for parents is that they should fashion their children early on in a way that promises future success.
Close scrutiny will reveal that the so-called scientific methods are mostly flawed because they invariably fail to take into consideration many variables that defy easy control.
Social sciences essentially proceed from the assumption that human behavior can be scientifically characterized.
"On the average, pleasant, competent parents tend to have pleasant, competent kids. But that doesn't prove that parents have any influence -- other than genetic -- on how their children turn out," Harris claims.
While she admits all kids have to undergo a process of socialization to become socially adept, that process can be subject to genetic endowment.
Findings on how children come to learn to speak their native tongue seem to support Harris' hypothesis.
As a matter of fact, linguists today believe children acquire, rather than learn, their native language, in a process that appears to be effortless and innately programmed.
That's why it is well-nigh impossible for adults to achieve native-like language fluency by learning.
Harris's views are also supported by the fact that identical twins tend to develop similar personalities and make very similar choices even when they are raised in separate homes.
As the author observes: "The data showed that growing up in the same home, being reared by the same parents, has little or no effect on the adult personalities of siblings."
Hopefully these observations will provide some antidotes to many parents today being overeager to give their children a headstart by entering them on all sorts of educational programs.
I agree with the author's contention that children are naturally inclined to mix with children of their own ages.
"Two babies coordinated their activities, and signal their interest in each other, by imitating each other's actions. Imitation is a human speciality; no species is as good at it as we are," the book says.
But at least in urban China, it is no longer easy for kids to socialize with their peers in a natural and spontaneous manner.
As one-child policy is strictly implemented in cities, and most schools are focused intensively on academic agendas, the only hope for children to mix with their peers is after school.
But most parents frown upon such associations as non-productive.
Anyway highrises and cars have already massacred neighborhoods in most big cities.
The dominance of TV and the Internet also helps create a virtual world that significantly weakens children's willingness to venture outside the home.
At least in urban China today, the author's remark that "boys, in particular, spend most of their time with their peers and a minimum of time at home" has to be qualified.
Given their generous exposure to the adult world through TV and the Internet, children are initiated prematurely into the excitement of the adult world. And parents wrongly view this condition with smugness.
Hopefully debunking the myth of "the nurture assumption" would awaken parents to their folly of prematurely depriving their kids of their innocence and ignorance.
But Judith Rich Harris tends to place more emphasis on genetics and peer groups.
Her "The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out The Way They Do" concludes that child-rearing practices have been overstated as factors shaping kids' future behavior.
Many social studies claim to have established, following rigorously scientific investigation, a strong correlation between child-rearing styles and the kids' future personality and behavior.
The implication for parents is that they should fashion their children early on in a way that promises future success.
Close scrutiny will reveal that the so-called scientific methods are mostly flawed because they invariably fail to take into consideration many variables that defy easy control.
Social sciences essentially proceed from the assumption that human behavior can be scientifically characterized.
"On the average, pleasant, competent parents tend to have pleasant, competent kids. But that doesn't prove that parents have any influence -- other than genetic -- on how their children turn out," Harris claims.
While she admits all kids have to undergo a process of socialization to become socially adept, that process can be subject to genetic endowment.
Findings on how children come to learn to speak their native tongue seem to support Harris' hypothesis.
As a matter of fact, linguists today believe children acquire, rather than learn, their native language, in a process that appears to be effortless and innately programmed.
That's why it is well-nigh impossible for adults to achieve native-like language fluency by learning.
Harris's views are also supported by the fact that identical twins tend to develop similar personalities and make very similar choices even when they are raised in separate homes.
As the author observes: "The data showed that growing up in the same home, being reared by the same parents, has little or no effect on the adult personalities of siblings."
Hopefully these observations will provide some antidotes to many parents today being overeager to give their children a headstart by entering them on all sorts of educational programs.
I agree with the author's contention that children are naturally inclined to mix with children of their own ages.
"Two babies coordinated their activities, and signal their interest in each other, by imitating each other's actions. Imitation is a human speciality; no species is as good at it as we are," the book says.
But at least in urban China, it is no longer easy for kids to socialize with their peers in a natural and spontaneous manner.
As one-child policy is strictly implemented in cities, and most schools are focused intensively on academic agendas, the only hope for children to mix with their peers is after school.
But most parents frown upon such associations as non-productive.
Anyway highrises and cars have already massacred neighborhoods in most big cities.
The dominance of TV and the Internet also helps create a virtual world that significantly weakens children's willingness to venture outside the home.
At least in urban China today, the author's remark that "boys, in particular, spend most of their time with their peers and a minimum of time at home" has to be qualified.
Given their generous exposure to the adult world through TV and the Internet, children are initiated prematurely into the excitement of the adult world. And parents wrongly view this condition with smugness.
Hopefully debunking the myth of "the nurture assumption" would awaken parents to their folly of prematurely depriving their kids of their innocence and ignorance.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
