By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Greater parental involvement leads to smarter kids?
I recently heard an interesting theory from Thomas Sowell, which says that kids who have greater parental input grow up to have higher IQs.
In America, he says that Asians have a higher average IQ than whites, and whites have a higher average IQ than blacks. If you don't subscribe to the genetic theory of IQ, then the difference in IQ across racial groups could be explained by different levels of parental involvement in their kids' lives.
Asian families are known to pool all of their resources into their kids, and the kids also have multiple grandparents and aunties to help raise them. White families seem to be more independent from each other, and the white divorce rate has increased dramatically over the past few decades. Meanwhile, the black divorce rate is higher than the white divorce rate, more blacks are in jail than whites proportionally, and black fathers are more often to leave the home.
All negatives about China, I think their family structure is to be admired. Thoughts?
I agree that parental involvement helps kids focus their intelligence to realize their potential and in that sense I'm sure the theory is correct but I'm not sure that I.Q tests are an accurate measure of real intelligence.
I think intelligence is something you have or you don't. You can't learn to be intelligent. If you spend enough time at it and are pushed in the right direction you can learn to be academic, memorize answers, use logic and reasoning and be good at tests but I don't think that's an accurate way to measure intelligence.
Say for example you take a kid and orphan him at birth. He grows up in an orphanage never learning to read or write, never having any encouragement to study or make something of himself, growing up with no self esteem or confidence, he has no ability to have a logical debate with someone. At the age of 15 he's living on the mean streets doing what he has to to survive. I bet he's pretty street smart and has learnt to read people's moods, avoid dangerous situations when he can and think fast when he can't avoid them.
Now take the same kid and have him grow up in a stable home with caring, nurturing parents who send him to all sorts of after school classes, help him with his homework etc and guide him to be the model student.
Is one version of the same kid brighter than the other? I don't think so, they both have the same brain and potential but the 2nd version has been given the chance to develop that potential in an academic way. I'm sure # 2 would dominate the other in an I.Q test.
In the modern world the 2nd version will thrive and the 1st will not but say for example their country gets invaded by another or there's a natural disaster or something and people are fighting for survival and trying not to get slaughtered.They need to live on their wits and cunning and learn fast to adapt to that situation. I bet the 1st kid will adapt and thrive and the other kid will be a victim.
Is one smarter than the other? I don't think so they've just been conditioned to use their intelligence in different ways.
hi2u:
I don’t think the first kid’s survival instincts is a direct representation of his IQ. IQ theoretically shouldn’t distinguish between book smart and street smart. Rather, someone with high IQ should be able to adapt quickly to a book smart or street smart life.
I agree that parental involvement helps kids focus their intelligence to realize their potential and in that sense I'm sure the theory is correct but I'm not sure that I.Q tests are an accurate measure of real intelligence.
I think intelligence is something you have or you don't. You can't learn to be intelligent. If you spend enough time at it and are pushed in the right direction you can learn to be academic, memorize answers, use logic and reasoning and be good at tests but I don't think that's an accurate way to measure intelligence.
Say for example you take a kid and orphan him at birth. He grows up in an orphanage never learning to read or write, never having any encouragement to study or make something of himself, growing up with no self esteem or confidence, he has no ability to have a logical debate with someone. At the age of 15 he's living on the mean streets doing what he has to to survive. I bet he's pretty street smart and has learnt to read people's moods, avoid dangerous situations when he can and think fast when he can't avoid them.
Now take the same kid and have him grow up in a stable home with caring, nurturing parents who send him to all sorts of after school classes, help him with his homework etc and guide him to be the model student.
Is one version of the same kid brighter than the other? I don't think so, they both have the same brain and potential but the 2nd version has been given the chance to develop that potential in an academic way. I'm sure # 2 would dominate the other in an I.Q test.
In the modern world the 2nd version will thrive and the 1st will not but say for example their country gets invaded by another or there's a natural disaster or something and people are fighting for survival and trying not to get slaughtered.They need to live on their wits and cunning and learn fast to adapt to that situation. I bet the 1st kid will adapt and thrive and the other kid will be a victim.
Is one smarter than the other? I don't think so they've just been conditioned to use their intelligence in different ways.
hi2u:
I don’t think the first kid’s survival instincts is a direct representation of his IQ. IQ theoretically shouldn’t distinguish between book smart and street smart. Rather, someone with high IQ should be able to adapt quickly to a book smart or street smart life.
The hallmark Asian high IQ tale and the Moynihan Report all mixed into one big honking claim of racial superiority. I'll happily be the bull in the China Shop!
Asian societies breed conformity, and place a high emphasis on Conscientiousness. Discussions are focused on finding harmony. People learn how to make others happy.
Conscientiousness is an indicator of low intelligence. People with high conscientiousness use this skill as a means to get by life with poorly developed reasoning ability. When in doubt, just follow the group.
The ability that indicates high intelligence is Openness. Asian cultures do not ascribe to this value in any way, shape or form.
The claims to intelligence are contrived and ham-fisted. So much of the education in Asia is still rote learning and other ineffective methods. The people work only to score high on tests and get a degree. But employers know that even top graduates can be as dumb as a bag of hammers.
Singapore, hailed as one of the main knowledge economies in Asia, still hires skilled foreign experts to perform the most vital functions. So there is no doubt in my mind, that something is not working as intended. Look at the major complaints coming from employers, about fresh graduates in the Singapore & Malaysia region: they have unrealistic expectations of starting salaries in their own specialty fields. So, these people are highly financially competitive, but business school wasn't prestigious enough. They spent years longer studying math or other hard science instead, and they didn't even check what the salary prospects were in the field before, during, or after their study. If money motivates you, why do hard sciences? It clearly doesn't mesh with your own criteria for success.
The sad truth is, it's all for face. The emotionally insecure people are massively chasing ranking lists. Top of the class, best university, highest grade averages, highest IQ. All to prove that they are the smartest. It's vital for the health of the national, cultural and racial ego.
But what about the follow-through of academic achievement, when there is no more degree to chase, or a clearly defined ranking list to win? What kind of innovation is coming out of Asia? Some stuff naturally, but does it compare to the appearance of intellectual excellence professed by the Asian universities? In fact, it falls vastly short.
The eyes of Asia are focused squarely on western consumer products. Luxuriousness, auspiciousness, quality and excellence are awarded to western products, even by Asian consumers. Western education is regarded most highly. Western innovation is considered valuable enough to spy, hack and steal. Western culture produces art, music and entertainment that is leagues beyond what oppressive, conformist Asian cultures can even understand let alone copy. Western societies are the trailblazers for pioneering new, liberal ideas and values.
And it's western society that includes mostly white and black contributions. The reasons for black people to be involved in western society are dark and depressing, but the fact that they are there, makes multicultural western societies far more robust, mature and intelligent.
Then the awkward Asian guy/gal comes into the room with a contrived tale of a certain perspective on racial intelligence that strokes the Asian ego. Claim of sophistication made, follow-through unnecessary, right? Do you have any idea how often I've knocked down these houses of cards? These precious, fragile tales perpetuated about Asian's greatness? I've crushed them every time.
Here's what you are doing: You're not convincing others of your own greatness, you're trying to convince YOURSELF of it. You are stroking your own ego for your own benefit. Well, if you want to be seen as sophisticated, wise, profound and intelligent, then BE that. Don't just make the claim.
But here's Insecurity's catch 22: You are unconvinced about the efficacy of your own efforts. You believe that if you try to be good, your weakness will cause you to fail. You don't believe you can succeed in the follow-through of excellence, so you are doomed to focus on appearances rather than substance.
ambivalentmace:
One of the few Chinese men I ever bother to talk to, not even a friend, always will bring up his PHD in a conversation every time we meet. I have probably had lunch or a drink with the guy 7 times in 8 years, and he always mentions his credentials, I have never once mentioned mine because I consider them to be on no consequence and actually think my degrees were a waste of money and time, something I was supposed to do and most of my money was made in the blue collar world, not the academic or corporate world.
ambivalentmace:
One of the few Chinese men I ever bother to talk to, not even a friend, always will bring up his PHD in a conversation every time we meet. I have probably had lunch or a drink with the guy 7 times in 8 years, and he always mentions his credentials, I have never once mentioned mine because I consider them to be on no consequence and actually think my degrees were a waste of money and time, something I was supposed to do and most of my money was made in the blue collar world, not the academic or corporate world. Investment income is far more important than labor income if you keep score of such dribble.
Those who explored their interests, took risks, disregarded peers and expectations, they conquered the world. The petit bourgeoisie were left behind, checking their calculations, wondering where they went wrong.
The gifted boldly go where no man has gone before. The ungifted tentatively stay where everyone is sheltering already. Will you shape your own success, or just subvert and absorb others' successes? Reality doesn't care? People will remember, though. Numbers are no substitute for that certain je-ne-sais-quoi.
