Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I understand, people with extreme traits are likely to see some regression in their children (this is actually the origin of the term!), but smart people are still more likely to have smart children, since intelligence is at least partly genetic.
Still, success depends on things that are taught. Interests do, too, and having appropriate interests is a good predictor of success. Letting your kid get too into trashy television, rock and roll, video games, and wrestling is a recipe for failure when the kid has to compete against other kids who grew up on classical music, theater, literature, math, science, and programming. The thing is, this requires not being lazy with your own interests. Parents who care too much about their own entertainment will have kids who pick up on that, and they won't see anything wrong with wasting far too much time playing video games instead of learning to think.
If you want your kid to read a lot, then read a lot (not just to them) during their impressionable years. When they see Mommy and Daddy enjoying nice, big books, they're going to wonder about those, and they're going to enjoy the heck out of whatever books they can find. When they see Mommy and Daddy crashing in front of the TV or computer every night, they're going to want to imitate that, too.
I'm seriously considering not having a computer in the home, just to keep bad influences to a minimum.
How would very intelligent people feel if they had kids that turned out to be average and end up becoming Football players and cheerleaders in school? And these children would become tradesmen, policemen, soldiers, NFL players, hairdressers, waitresses, supermodels, NFL cheerleaders, and porn stars instead of scientists, engineers, psychologists/psychiatrists, and CEOs.
How would it feel to have a daughter who wins trophies at cheerleading competitions instead of science fairs?
Well what you are talking about does not usually happen. People generally have children with in 10 IQ points of their own. That would not create a big difference.
When two very smart people breed - there is something called "deviation to the norm" which will keep their IQs in check.
Much of what you speak of is nurture - not nature. My wife and I have two children. One biological. One adopted. Their IQs are almost identical. They both read a lot. And they are both popular with friends.
Their ACT and SAT scores are very similar.
I really don't think these shocking surprises happen as much as one might think.
With our kids, going to college was what they were destined to do. After college, if one of them wanted to be a carpenter - fine. But education comes first.
People give teens way too many choices in life. They need guidance, limits, focus and direction. Not what eve makes you happy.
An outstanding book was published some years ago, The Bell Curve.
Among other things, the author explored the relationship between success in varying tasks (school, marriage, parenting, work, etc) and found a definite correlation between higher intelligence and the ability to manage those tasks sucessfully. But there was one thing that puzzled him: those at the very top of the IQ range were no longer able to perform as well as those on a lower level. Such high-intellect people fell into the right-hand tail of the curve, just as mentally deficient people fell into the left-hand tail of the curve. I came to the following conclusion:
The military industrial complex wants to shove STEM down the throats of our children.
Most STEM careers remove students from writing, reading and critical thinking.
A nation of computer engineers and technicians would be the dream of a certain US party.
You mean the liberals? More Americans in STEM careers means higher GDP and higher amounts of income tax collected, to redistribute. More money for services. That's our only chance for something like a basic wage or universal healthcare. Otherwise we'd never have enough money to do it.
Yes, it benefits the military, but it benefites the welfare state waaaay more to have an increase in US STEM careers.
Or we're you just reflexively blaming a side out of habit, without putting thought into it?
And also note, high intelligence does not equal specific professions. There are bright people who wait tables, and dumb people who are trying to cure cancer.
Really? ...not in any serious way...
Bright people are only limited by what they want to do, being dumb puts a lot of things out of reach.
An outstanding book was published some years ago, The Bell Curve.
Among other things, the author explored the relationship between success in varying tasks (school, marriage, parenting, work, etc) and found a definite correlation between higher intelligence and the ability to manage those tasks sucessfully. But there was one thing that puzzled him: those at the very top of the IQ range were no longer able to perform as well as those on a lower level. Such high-intellect people fell into the right-hand tail of the curve, just as mentally deficient people fell into the left-hand tail of the curve. I came to the following conclusion:
Geniuses are as abnormal as morons.
Try reading The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen J. Gould for a critique of the Bell Curve's arguments on intelligence.
How would very intelligent people feel if they had kids that turned out to be average
You mean C's, or middle-of-the curve in grade/highschools? Disappointed either way.
Quote:
and end up becoming Football players and cheerleaders in school?
That's fine if their academics were good. Unacceptable if their grades were poor--with the caveat that it would be acceptable if they were outstanding--as in star player State Championship winner--in the sport or non-academic activity they preferred. That is incredibly unlikely, though.
Quote:
And these children would become tradesmen, policemen, soldiers, NFL players, hairdressers, waitresses, supermodels, NFL cheerleaders, and porn stars instead of scientists, engineers, psychologists/psychiatrists, and CEOs.
By trade:
Tradesman: Acceptable if talented, motivated, and entrepreneurial.
Policeman: Acceptable.
Soldier:
Enlisted-Unacceptable unless using the military as a means to higher education
Officer-Acceptable
NFL Player: Outstanding!
Hairdresser: Same as tradesman.
Waitress: Unacceptable.
Supermodel: Outstanding!
NFL Cheerleader: Outstanding!
Porn Star: Unacceptable.
Scientist: Acceptable.
Engineer: Acceptable.
Psychologist: Acceptable.
Psychiatrist: Excellent.
CEO: Outstanding!
Quote:
How would it feel to have a daughter who wins trophies at cheerleading competitions instead of science fairs?
Several friends from high school who didn't go to college ended up starting their own businesses and have done better than the college grads on both the happiness and the $ scale. They all started in the trades and stayed in the trades.
Average is good. Fine. Manageable. If anyone isn't happy with average it's an ego thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
