OK, the DNA has to be there, but, here's an observation and I would like to hear what others think.

I was at a school/family party on Saturday. Talking with mother (astrophysicist, husband/father is a PhD in physics) about son, who is 2 months older than DD. She said that she has not observed anything that would be considered gifted. She happens to know another astrophysicist that I know, whose husband is also a PhD in Physics whose DS is 2 months younger than DD. I do not consider that boy to exhibit any unusual gifted tendencies.

Now, both these mothers work long hours and the children have been in daycare since 3 months. Looking at similar highly intelligent couples, where the women started working at 3 months and the children went to daycare or full time nannies and I don't see any gifted tendencies.

There is that childcare bible, "The Early Years" I think, some Harvard researcher, who says that up until age 3 there should be some biological caregiver who has a real vested interest in development because the enthusiasm for milestone achievement won't be there otherwise. (I paraphrase, but that is the gist).

So I am wondering, not that these children won't grow up and be in university at 12, but clearly they do not show the signs that people on this board talk about. Although, I don't think of myself as hot housing my baby and toddler, I think that as the primary caregiver and A-Type helicopter parent, I had to contribute to her development. She obviously has to have good DNA to have the reasoning power, or am I just that good? (just joking) Seriously, how much do you think the primary care and brain development is linked in those early years?

Would really like to hear.

Ren

I think it's a combination of both, that way we parents(mothers especially!) can feel twice the guilt .

Haha, more later.

Well, HG+ kids are pretty rare. And what you see of a child as a casual observer isn't always the full measure of a kid's abilities. Add in the potential for GT denial in parents who are probably GT themselves or underreporting for fear of seeming to be bragging, and I'm not sure we're looking at a very scientific cross-section here!

If you're just using that story to explain why you're asking the question, then I guess I'd reply that there are GT kids born in all sorts of families: working moms, single parents, rich, poor, etc.

Certainly nurturing any child's gifts--in the generic sense of the word--from a young age is always likely to make those gifts stronger. But there's good childcare and bad childcare out there.

I had an sitter--a retired teacher who was very aware of GTness and very happy to nurture it--during my kids' early years who treated my kids like her own grandkids. They got so much from being at her house. She offered all sorts of learning opportunities for them that they wouldn't have had at my house. They got lots of attention from her. They got to be around older kids in the afternoon, when the primary grades got off the bus. There were people to read to them, to play with them, to talk to them. I have another sitter now who takes the kids on walks and teaches them about fossils and rocks. They're as happy as clams and have learned so much from her.

Bad childcare is bad for kids, GT or not. Warehousing kids is never a good idea. Yes, I think a neglectful childcare situation can hamper brain development, and I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But there's lots of childcare out there that isn't like that, and I think that good kind can be quite good for kids.

I don't buy it that the astrophysicist's kids are not GT because she worked. To be honest, it sounds like some sort of anti-feminist "keep the women barefoot and pregnant" argument to me, and I always bristle at those. I'm guessing that wasn't your point, but it's what it sounds like to me.

LOL! Love that!

One thought - norm referencing.

I think I read about that in some articles by Miraca Gross. Will track down later (if remember).

I think it has a lot to do with it. I can't quote statistics, but here's how I understand it. Everytime a child is introduced to something new from birth to age 5, a dendrite connection is made in the brain. It's like a PO box. So, if you take your 6 month old to the zoo, several PO boxes might open: zoo, animals, drive time, stroller. Then, when she goes to the zoo again, she's already got a box to put that in and can add to the box. This happens over and over again. So, if you are at home with your child and go to museums and libraries and parks and stuff, you are building more boxes (dendrites). Then, later in life, maybe at 6, your child sees an ad for a zoo and her brain automatically goes to the zoo box for information. If she's never been to the zoo before age 6, the box isn't there. I think day-care kids don't get this kind of exposure unless it's a really good daycare. On the other hand, if you stay at home with your child and don't interact at all, those dendrites aren't built either. I've never put mine in daycare (just Mother's Day Out twice a week) so I certainly can't speak from that side. And, I certainly am not condemning or criticizing anyone who uses daycare.

I have to share OHG's thoughts on this one, and only wish the guilt were limited to a factor of 2, LOL! I'd rather talk about the kids I have, than the kids I might have had if I'd done something different.

Well, I guess I think the "build more connections" argument is the one that has been used to sell all that Baby Einstein-style crap that's on the market these days, and I think that is such a load of nonsense.

You don't need to play only classical music for your baby or take him to the art museum from birth in order to nurture brain development. What babies and young kids need is security, affection, and daily interaction with adults who talk to them, sing to them, read to them, point things out to them, etc. Nothing fancy, just the normal sorts of stuff that people have done with kids for...well, for forever. Kids can get that treatment in lots of different ways and from lots of different people.

I have to agree with Kriston.

Primary care is very important to newborns and young children, but it has more to do with security, love and acceptance than it has to do with academic ability.

My PG child never had to attend day care and by choice did not attend pre-k or K, yet she is doing extremely well academically despite the fact that she started school at 6 1/2. I did not actively teach her at home. We read a lot, took lots of trips and did a lot of hiking when she was little. That was pretty much the exposure she had prior to school. Lots of Love, time and attention.

And by the way, Wren, if you were to meet my dd she would not appear to be PG to you. Socially she doesn't stand out as "different". She is able to play with children from different age groups and with varied interests.

Maybe it's gifted denial on the part of the parents--high caliber professionals may have high expectations, so they're not easily able to recognize "gifted" characteristics. Maybe their reference point is skewed. I think it's more likely that the childcare situation has made it so parents are unaware of gifts, rather than their working has failed to nurture their child to be gifted.

My first son was very verbal and classic encyclopedia of info about his topic of interest at any time. Everyone thought he was gifted--and he is HG/PG. The second son was virtually silent (my H confesses he thought there was delay with him), but he tested significantly higher than #1.

On the other hand, I know a number of kids who went to Montessori schools and were reading fairly well before Kindergarten. Some of them are GT, but many of them are not based on what they are doing in early elementary school. This is what I don't really like about the Ruf levels. It points to certain skills (that my child really wasn't showing in preschool), but doesn't really deal with the intensity or speed of learning. I could have never spent 2 hours reading a day with DS - he had way too much physical energy. But science experiments, exploring the library, going to the science museum, sure. At 7, he regularly sits and reads for 2 hours on his own.

So even if you are looking at a preschooler that doesn't read, write, or compose concertos, maybe they mastered legos years earlier than normal, memorized every species of dinosour, or can give their parents directions on every errand they run. Or maybe they are just intensely imaginative. Maybe they analyze plumbing systems. I think parents that aren't thinking about GT behaviors don't see GT behaviors. I don't think it just manifests itself in one way, especially in young kids. I didn't see them until DS went from not reading to being the best reader in his class over the course of a year and got some shockingly high test scores from the NNAT.

So suppose you have a PG child and that child is read to 2 hours a day from birth. Suppose you took that same child and put them in an environment where they were read to 30 minutes a day. The child when placed in the first environment is going to read faster than the if he is placed in the 2nd environment. Does that make the child less GT? It really depends on the education the child gets afterwards and what other learning opportunities the child is exposed to IMHO.

My child also doesn't scream HG+ by any means! He can blend well and kids of all ages.

Some abilities are not as visible to acquaintances as others. My DS is very strong in math but it really doesn't come up in everyday conversation. Occasionally he says something that amazes a cashier. I don't think friends of our family are aware of the extent of his abilities in that area at all.

It's most likely both nature and nurture. I think vocabulary is one of the things which is highly influenced by the parents. I remember studies about how much a child was spoken to and how big his vocabulary was.

I know this is not really SAHM/daycare scenario, but it's nature versus nurture. The book "What's going in in there? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life" has a simple table based on a study of adoption records. Both the biological and adoptive parents were into two groups based on their status, low-socioeconomical status (SES) and high-socioeconomical status. Then they looked at the child IQ at the age of 16.

The study showed 12 point IQ difference based on the status of the adoptive parents. The results were the same for both Low-SES and High-SES biological parents. The difference based on the biological parents is 16 points.

------------- Low-SES adoptive pars --- High-SES adoptive
Low-SES bio. ....... 92 ............. --- ..... 104 .......
High-SES bio. ...... 108 ............ --- ..... 120 .......

The numbers are from French study, 1989.

So yeah, both nature and nurture play a role and I would say both quite a lot. As for nurture, like others said there are good daycare situations and bad daycare situations as they are bad and good parents.

I agree with others that sometimes it's hard to recognize GT kids. I am not sure too many people would say that DS3 is gifted unless they got to really know him. Of course, if he starts reading signs or a book you can tell, if he starts talking about human anatomy, you can tell, but it's much more likely that he will behave just like a regular three year old.

Just for the record I have been home with the kids since my older one was born. I used to do some p/t work from home for a few years, but mostly when they were asleep.

My kids are not obviously GT on a casual glance either, although all three had things like early language and stuff noted by others. In fact, many were quite shocked after learning their age. At the time, I thought it was all about their heights (very tall), and maybe it was in part, but in hindsight, I do think their very presence played into it as well. They just seemed....older.

Well, speaking only from my own personal experience: first two children, same dad (husband #1). I worked only part time, did at home day care with 2 to 4 other same age children when I wasn't at work outside the home. They are both gifted (I'd say Ruf level 1 to 2).

Last two children, same dad (husband #2). I've worked full time, they've both been in daycare full time from 12 weeks old. Not someone's home daycare but a daycare facility. DS7 is highly gifted (Ruf 3 to 4) and DD3 shows signs of being a 2 to 3. I honestly don't think that being in daycare could prevent a child from being gifted or showing signs of it, unless it was a situation of significant deprivation for the child in terms of stimulation and opportunity. I think I lean more toward nature. Nurture is how well it shows itself and when.

My current husband says that I upgraded my breeding stock! He apparently believes it is ALL nature!!!!

My child with my first husband went to a daycare/preschool after she turned one. She started reading at age 4, did well in elementary school, but grades dropped in middle school after she became a cheerleader. I think she might be moderately gifted.

My child with my second husband was very different. He had weaker muscles but he seemed more alert and slept less than my daughter did as a baby. My son was in daycare half days for about a month--until I could find a way to quit my job and still pay the bills. I didn't think he was getting enough attention and I found out that he would not leave the room he was in at the daycare until he could walk and since he had weak muscles I knew it would probably take longer for him to walk than it did for the average baby. He couldn't walk until he was 18 1/2 months old and he never really crawled.

He loved to look at books so I read to him and I carried him around a lot so he could see things better and I talked to him a lot and played with him. I don't know if that had anything to do with him reading at 2 1/2 or not. I don't think my geology professor sister-in-law's kids learned to read on their own like this and my sister-in-law is married to a another former professor. I think her kids went to daycare while she worked. They are very bright kids and they are athletic. I just don't think they were the type to sit around reading.

I think it is nature and nurture. I don't think my son would seem as gifted if he had stayed at the daycare center.

Thanks for all the great resposnes. FYI, just met the kid on Saturday. He is in a different class than DD, so my input was just from the mother. We sort of discussed and yes, it could be denial as the father sounded quite brilliant.

The other child, the one who is 2 months younger, I know pretty well as DD and he were in the same playschool last year and we share one of the junior teachers as babysitter.

And it is interesting that I never expected much in the early years, thought I would work and have a nanny, circumstances were that we both took time off to travel and then pregnant. But it is interesting how many high powered lawyers and investment bankers, doctors, dentist are taking the time off now in the early years (at least in NYC). Hence the question. It is like, you can always make money (as I have recently gone back to work) but you can't get those early years back and the investment made in their brain development is priceless (mastercard my apologies).

It is like the 10% increase in IQ if you breastfeed 9 months. 10% increase in IQ if you dance or walk with them daily. (So they get the rhytmic movement).

But it was just a casual observation, not writing any thesis.

Ren

But GT parents sometimes have ND kids, too. Yes, GTness tends to run in families, but there's no guarantee. Even if the child in question is ND and his mom and dad are HG+, you can't assume that he would have been GT if he hadn't been in daycare. There are just too many unknowns.

And while I'm a big fan of breastfeeding whenever it's possible for the mom to do, I'm thinking that a 10% increase in IQ for breast milk and a 10% for moving with the baby seems overstated. I've heard the former cited as fact (though with different numbers) but never with any supporting evidence; the latter is new to me, and I'm not sure I completely buy either one of them.

Breastfeeding and moving with a baby are good for kids. But a 20% cumulative IQ increase? Hmmm... That means a kid with a 120-125 IQ at birth--vanilla GT, though not generally eligible for most GT programs--would be "made" into DYS material. I'm not really buying it.

It just sounds to me like another excuse to send moms on a guilt trip. "You, too, could have a GT child, but you didn't do enough!" Ick. I think there are too many of those already.

I may have to stop posting to this thread. The anti-feminist tone is making me break out into hives!

I read that and my first thought was, "wow! finally an explanation for a purpose behind a baby getting colic!" Can you tell I've dealt with some colicky babies??!!

The trouble with determining the effect of nature v. nurture is the lack of good test data. A mom who works away from the home by necessity may work extra hard in the evenings and weekends she has with her kids, while a SAHM may plop the kids in front of the TV all day. A woman who takes all precautions for a safe pregnancy, then run into complications during birth. I know women in all those categories.
What we do know is GT does tend to run in families, so nature does have an effect. We do know things like alcohol and tobacco use by a pregnant woman can negatively effect a baby. Things like Vitamin B are effective for reducing neural tube defects in the developing fetus.

If every pregnant woman followed all the recommendations, we'd have healthier babies. If every baby was raised with love and stimulation to his needs, we'd have smarter babies. But doing our best doesn't mean we can do every thing perfectly and even if we could that doesn't guarantee perfect results.

Well put!

And maybe this smarter generation (because this generation seems to be smarter) may be a factor that women in the 50s and early 60s smoked and drank during pregnancy. It was accepted. And they gave formula, without omega fatty acids.

I do not know. But Ruf's hypothesis is that highly educated parents produce HG+ kids. When she speculated how many level 4s and 5s were in various neighborhoods, she indicated that parent level of education was a factor in estimates.

I can tell you, since I wrote up hte article for the Parents' League. One year of music lessons on a string instrument raises IQ by 7-10 points. They did one study in a poor LA area and the findings were consistent. And continued music lessons continues to increase IQ levels. But it has to be string. Drums didn't work. Drama lessons increases self confidence but did nothing for IQ. The speaker was from NYU medical school specializing in gifted children.

Ren

Exactly. That seems really crazy. If I remember it correctly the bf IQ is much smaller if any. The original studies didn't calculate in other considerations such as that highly educated women are more likely to bf. There is a LLL leader on this board and she said a similar thing. Don't get me wrong I am all for bf, my kids never had formula, but I don't think I would argue IQ as a reason to do so. Also women are more likely to continue bf it they can stay home with their kids and give them one on one attention.

BTW if the above 20% increase was true, then my DYS kid didn't get too much out of the nature part The kid lived in Baby Bjorn when he was a baby.

Wren, do you have any links to the studies?

I've always wondered about the studies putting kids in high-SES homes. Although it's probably splitting hairs...but I wonder if the IQ is not changing, rather the environment is allowing them to reach their potential. What you are measuring is increasing but whatever biological processes which make up IQ is not. I also think this more applicable at the lower end. You can take a kid scoring in the 80s and put in a better home (nutrition, love, exposure) and get an IQ of 100. It was shown that if those kids are put back in the original environment, IQ drops once again (that was done in Polish orphanages I believe) but you won't take a 120 kid and get them to 140.

Am I making any sense? probably not...

Slightly OT: I read or was told, can't remember where so if someone here said it, please feel free to correct me - but I *think* I read that scores while initially low on SBV, are now increasing. The speculation is that the company which produces the SBV, also produces educational materials which is helping kids to score better on SBV. I wonder about those Critical Thinking Co programs which state raises scores on SBV, WISC, etc. I also think the longer the test is in use, questions start to leak out. Someone offered to tell me some info about the WISCIV and I absolutely refused to hear it. I wasn't even sure of what she was going to tell me but I figured w/ all my reading on the internet, I'd have found what she was going to tell anyhow if it was on the up and up. KWIM?

That is to say, the supposed increase in IQ (I've read only 3pts) from breastfeeding is within the error of the test.

Yes, I think this makes perfect sense. I think the "environment allowing them to reach their potential" makes a great deal more sense than the idea that they're somehow "magically finding" extra IQ points that aren't possible for them to have any other way.

Someone asked for sources on BF and other infant things that are suppose to increase IQ. I think they were random articles. Internet surfing as I sat there with DD on my breast for 16 hours a day. She was a snacker. Had a little, slept, had a little, slept. While I surfed stupid topics.

OT: I tried to hot house recently, as I have mentioned OLSAT is used in NYC. First of all, I spent too much money on Costco on stupid workbooks and Brainquest--3 levels. DD3.5 told me she was bored and didn't want to do it anymore and I realized I was wasting time as she was getting everything right.

So someone mentioned that hothousing doesn't work for HG+, it doesn't because they know already. But I am still worried about the poor correlation of the OLSAT and SBV.

Ren

Well, to be direct, anyone can post anything to the Internet. That doesn't make it true.

Even if you read it, did you read actual scientific studies? That aren't misunderstood or taken out of context by someone else? Or did the websites just state these things as fact without anything verifiable to back it up?

I guess what I'm saying is that I think this stuff is a sort of urban legend that people state all the time as if it's true without any evidence whatsoever. No one doubts that breastfeeding is good for kids. Heck, even the formula companies admit it! But I think the effect on IQ scores is grossly overstated.

It's obvious that moving with kids is good for them, but again, the effect on IQ scores is almost certainly neither so great nor so direct as this makes it sound.

LOL, Kriston! Last week I actually DID break out into hives and it was NOT FUN! Stress can do weird things to the body.

I'm late to this thread so I'll just jump in on a few points. DD6 had a nanny for her first 13 months of life, and then she went to a Montessori school for a little over a year. Her nanny never took her anywhere but provided her with love and attention--undivided attention. I stopped working when DD3 was born and so was home with her as a baby as well as now with DS1. I KNOW that DD6 got way more attention than my DS1 ever did, partly because now he spends a lot of his day in a car seat as we're running around for errands or taking the other two to activities. Sometimes I think he'd be better off in a daycare setting where they were able to just play with him all of the time (I don't really think this but sometimes that mommy guilt creeps in). I guess I can see where the nurture part has something to do with it, but I would think a lot of a child's ability would be from nature.

I chose to breastfeed my kids but it was always more for immunity benefits and because I just plain wanted to do so than it was because of IQ. I guess I always attributed the statistics to the fact that a lot of the women who now choose to breastfeed tend to be more educated and may have higher IQs themselves. I think Lorel has written about this somewhere on the forum too.

As others have more eloquently said, I just can't imagine that some of these choices (staying home v. daycare, breast v. bottle) would make that significant of a difference, at least not enough to make others feel guilty about their choices.

And I doubt my DD6 would look HG+ to a casual observer, which is probably why DH and I were a little surprised when we got her WPPSI scores. Even we missed it. Denial, denial, denial.

Here's some info about the latest study (pub. may 5, 2008) that says breastfeeding increases verbal iq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/05/AR2008050501619.html

I did breastfeed DS for 2.5 years, but had planned to do only 1 year. Then we found out about his dairy allergy, and he wouldn't drink alternatives, so there you have it. I never heard anything about breastfeeding possibly raising IQ (until now).

Here are a couple studies. There are lots more and, of course, they don't all agree. There was one study that suggests that the effects vary depending on genetic differences in fatty acid metabolism pathways. Anyway, I used Entrez Pubmed and typed in "IQ Breastfeeding".

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1718901&blobtype=pdf

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7575/945

[quote=Kriston]Well, I guess I think the "build more connections" argument is the one that has been used to sell all that Baby Einstein-style crap that's on the market these days, and I think that is such a load of nonsense.

You don't need to play only classical music for your baby or take him to the art museum from birth in order to nurture brain development. What babies and young kids need is security, affection, and daily interaction with adults who talk to them, sing to them, read to them, point things out to them, etc. Nothing fancy, just the normal sorts of stuff that people have done with kids for...well, for forever. Kids can get that treatment in lots of different ways and from lots of different people. [/quote

Yes, kids learn lots of ways and from lots of people. I just meant that the more things kids are exposed to at an early age (parks, dogs, zoos, walking, the newspaper, trees, creeks, books, plants, pots and pans, museums, whatever) the better their brains develop and the easier it is to build on that early exposure. You're right babies need love and affection and daily interaction with adults, nothing fancy, but there has to be more interaction than just feeding and changing the diaper and letting the kid watch TV or sit in a crib ALL day. Many, certainly not all, but many kids do not get that interaction at day-care.

I never used the Baby Einstien or any of that crap. But, when I did play classical music for myself to enjoy, many times I would talk to son about it or dance with him or march to Sousa or direct the symphony. My husband did the same with Metallica, so he got a wide range of music! Did that help him develop musical talent? Who knows, but it sure didn't hurt any.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I do think that building a foundation through interaction and movement and exposure is important.

Thank you for providing the research. On comment about casual obeserver.

Because I am interacting with DD3 all the time, I think maybe MG not HG because I am so used to her. Last Friday we did a make up class at Little Gym and there was an instructor unknown to her. As she sat there eating granola, the guy came over and started a conversation with her and I didn't join in. And I had one of those moments where I am looking at my kid, and I am not her mother, and I went Wow. After class, I ran over to her to get shoes and socks on to head out to a playdate and the guy turns to me and makes a comment "she is so-o smart" and the other guy quickly turns and says, "yeah, she is way smart". So how much does the casual observer have to see if they are interacting? Yes, seeing a child in a store aisle, you cannot see anything. But does it take much out of their mouths at 3 or 4? Older yes, but when they are really young, their manner of speaking, what they say. It is not average.

Aside: Anti-feminist? My mother was born in 1918 and was a physician. She brought me up to be in a position of power. Whatever career I chose, to strive to the highest. But I am also a woman, who became a mother. Luckily, I have a career where I do not have to go a lab or school to work. And I took time off, I start again. And I do not to diminish anyone who really has to work. This is a tough economy. But instinctively, I felt the need to nurture for brain development. Maybe I was totally off-base, but for me, it was more important to plan DD's days and take care of her than to trust anyone else. I just couldn't. I got some consulting and found someone who was Chinese, spoke Mandarin. I really liked her but couldn't leave DD alone with her. This my child.

Would you trust your pension fund to someone from Mexico making $15-$20 an hour? That is how I felt about DD's care. I just couldn't. I wouldn't be able to fix the mistake. Only one chance.

My view, Ren

Ren, doing all you can to give your child the best start in life is one of the highest callings a person can have. Just don't expect a guaranteed outcome for the job. There are genetic limits, there are physical limits outside your control, and the child also has control over his own life eventually; there are no guarantees what he will choose to do, or not do.

My DS at 3 or 4 would have rarely engaged a stranger like this. Or even a preschool teacher. His preschool teachers had him pegged as possible ADHD. He did what he had to fit into his preschool environment. At home we were reading the Chronicles of Narnia and James and the Giant Peach. At school, he wouldn't sit still for story time. We did get some comments on him if he'd spend a few hours with someone, but not typically.

My daughter at 3.5 is a teachers delight and is much more willing to show her stuff at this age. I had a preschool conference a couple weeks ago for her that was absolutely raving. Do I think she's more gifted? In my gut, I really doubt it. She's a bit socially more mature and more of a pleaser. Her interests lie more in the realm of what teachers would find favorable.



As someone who's been at home for going on 8 years with my children, I certainly didn't do it for brain development of my kids. I did it for the emotional and mental health of our entire family. I actually felt a bit bad when DS started kindergarten he didn't attend full time Montissori with all the readers in his class. And I don't think we need to make this a sexist thing. There are 5 stay at home dads at my daughters preschool. This is not uncommon at all around here.

But some people NEED to work for the economics. And some people NEED to work for their own sanity and find that they can be better parents to their children with that outlet outside the home. Everyone knows their own situation best and has to find a fit that works for them. Some people find childcare they love and are comfortable with. I couldn't, but I have no problem if other people do.



OHG - very well stated! Thanks!

Thanks OHG, but I think eventually is pretty close with DD. 3 going on 18.

Ren

Admittedly, I did not read the entire thread but this first post troubles me a lot.
Why are you making an assumption that since parents are physicists/astrophysicist/phd - their children are somehow expected to be "gifted" ?????

LOL

LOL indeed.

My DS's IQ must be WAY up there because of almost 10 years of playing a string instrument. Up by at least 70 points and maybe even a 100 ? Will playing two string instruments double that????

...and television causes autism. It's on the internet.

Guess what's on the top at Foxnews.com? Yep, an article about how breastfeeding raises IQ's!
Long-term breastfeeding

snip:


Look, it's not a forumula(no pun intended) on how to raise the perfect & super intelligent baby, but many factors go into giving a baby the best chance you can.

My point is that people who CHOOSE to work--not just those who HAVE to work for economic reasons--should not be guilt-ed. Every person, every family is different. It's no one's place to judge the choices made by others (provided those choices are legal!).

Feminism to me is about trying to ensure that there are MORE choices for women and families, not fewer. Anything that seems to try to limit or judge as "bad" or "wrong" the choices of others is going to set off my anti-feminism detector, and I'm going to speak up.

And I am a SAHM, so it's not like I'm taking this personally. I just think that daycare is not by definition evil and that parents don't need to feel more guilt for doing what they think is best overall for their families. It's not unforgiveable selfishness to want to have a career and a family.

I'd love to see improvements in child care in this country so that both kids and parents are better off, but now I'm really going off-topic...

About the doctorates and IQ correlation? because of Ruf. She wrote that there was a correlation.

Also, physics is applied math. You can't get a PhD in Physics without being pretty bright.

Also, there is another woman, teaches at IVY league engineering, husband also a PhD in Physics doing serious classified work. Find out her father is a serious physist. Like global recognition, but I do not see gifted in her 2 daughters. She didn't even bother to have them tested.

I know these are just anecdotal stupid posts. But I really don't feel like working today. But now I have another distraction. Must pick up DD from preschool. Everyone have a nice day. It is 80 degrees and sunny. Yeah!!

Ren

Why would she? That is my whole point....

I don't look at friends' kids or other kids and question levels of giftedness and how they got there.

And my kid-- bottled and daycared and DYS. So I don't take stock in any of those studies about IQ either.

FWIW various strategies to increase intelligence was never something I thought about. Still don't.

Did you avoid drinking alcohol while pregnant, assuming you drink some at other times?

Just a few glasses of wine, that's about it.

I don't think I should have made that a personal question, calizephyr. What I really should have said was, do you think fetal alcohol syndrome is a big enough of a concern for pregnant women to abstain or drink minimumly? If so, why is it a concern?

Lots of colicy babyies are GT - Oh those overexcitabilities! And they are also quick to want new stimuli, and many will complain loudly until they get what they want. DS11 wasn't colicy.

Here's a term for this discussion: "Regression toward the mean" it means that if the parents are unusual, then the child would tend to be 'less unusual' just by chance alone.

Here's another term: Contingency. All the 'Baby Einstien' videos are weird because they can't replace 'Someone taking an interest.' All kinds of creatures who are placed in environment were someone responds to them will thrive more. Even plants grow better when you talk to them, right? So it isn't flashcards, or even Zoo trips - it's 'someone taking an interest.'

Of course I 'would' think that Communication is what it's all about, wouldn't I?

I believe that there isn't actually any kind of important seperation between any living creatures. I think that the more a child spends time with others who are 'in touch' with that perspective, the better chance they have of 'being who they were meant to be.'

I worked part time from 7 weeks. I think of myself as a Feminist who believes that we need to value parenting equal to all the other jobs. The point is for women to have reasonable choices, as each woman is individual and has her own strengths and challenges. I think it was very hard on my DS to be with agemates in daycare, but that's another topic, isn't it?

((Big Smiles))
Grinity