Nobel Prize Winner Sydney Brenner had an awful lot to say about creativity and innovation in the sciences. Here's a taste: "I strongly believe that the only way to encourage innovation is to give it to the young. The young have a great advantage in that they are ignorant. Because I think ignorance in science is very important. If you’re like me and you know too much you can’t try new things. I always work in fields of which I’m totally ignorant." This interview is worth reading: http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publi...
15
Using an achievement test as indication of quality education will not promote creativity. We must focus on the uniqueness in each child.
8
Great article on how to make genius children more geniusy and win some special prizes or write some sonatas. I am going to make no rules for my above-average toddler and he will certainly neb the next sonata-writing Noble physicist to ever rise above above-averageness!
12
I was interviewing a job candidate who had played golf in college on a nationally ranked golf team - and was a scratch golfer. I asked if he ever considered going pro and he said "no, I enjoyed my time on the team and love golf. But after 4-hours of practicing chip shots, I was ready for something else. The guys who turned pro would practice for chip shots 4-hours, then putt for 4-hours, then work on their swing in their apartment. They just loved it that much."
16
It's our extremely poor education system. While countries like Singapore and Finland have long employed methods that encourage creativity and personalized teaching, we offer our students played out standardized tests and hope the advantages of our wealth make up for our problems. I blame not only the system but more so the parents. Most parents I speak with are in favor of our current methods and falsely believe 'better' teachers are the way forward and speak disparagingly of encouraging creativity or personalizing teaching. And don't ask them about eliminating standardized tests.
9
"Most prodigies ... apply their extraordinary abilities by shining in their jobs without making waves. They become doctors who heal their patients without fighting to fix the broken medical system or lawyers who defend clients on unfair charges but do not try to transform the laws themselves."
These are some really big and complicated systems, whose fixes you (unfairly) lay at the feet of prodigies. Perhaps a brilliant doctor should also be creative healer or researcher, but why should (s)he also be burdened with administrative or bureaucratic duties in order to make small changes to the "system" or with getting involved in politics, where policy-level changes would be made? They're very different roles.
As for lawyers ... Generally, case law changes over time, as judges look to prior decisions when faced with new ones (stare decisis or precedent). Statutes change when a body of lawmakers collectively change them. Revolution in law is systemically avoided and, anyway, tends not to happen due to the efforts of a couple of creative people. E.g., many brilliant and creative lawyers have been arguing against mandatory minimum sentences for over 20 years, but only in recent years when the masses started to recognize the injustice, has there been any real movement. Gandhi, of course, changed an entire system, mostly not in his capacity as a lawyer. But obviously his lawyering skills helped. Then again, there's no suggestion that he was a prodigy.
These are some really big and complicated systems, whose fixes you (unfairly) lay at the feet of prodigies. Perhaps a brilliant doctor should also be creative healer or researcher, but why should (s)he also be burdened with administrative or bureaucratic duties in order to make small changes to the "system" or with getting involved in politics, where policy-level changes would be made? They're very different roles.
As for lawyers ... Generally, case law changes over time, as judges look to prior decisions when faced with new ones (stare decisis or precedent). Statutes change when a body of lawmakers collectively change them. Revolution in law is systemically avoided and, anyway, tends not to happen due to the efforts of a couple of creative people. E.g., many brilliant and creative lawyers have been arguing against mandatory minimum sentences for over 20 years, but only in recent years when the masses started to recognize the injustice, has there been any real movement. Gandhi, of course, changed an entire system, mostly not in his capacity as a lawyer. But obviously his lawyering skills helped. Then again, there's no suggestion that he was a prodigy.
17
This is yet another article that conflates creativity with nonconformity and assumes that those who dedicate themselves to math and science invariably end their lives as emotional wrecks. The author has provided no definition of the word "creativity" which renders the rest of the argument moot.
Is the painting that accompanies this piece creative? Why? Because it's colorful? Creativity as free-form, unguided expression (like Chippendale's piece) needs to be addressed apart from creativity as a unique approach to a well-defined problem. Don't assume that those who dedicate themselves to the latter are less creative, passionate, or free than those who embrace the former. Unfortunately, society will always reward - in school and beyond - the creative problem-solvers more than the creative expressors because, frankly, their results are verifiable. It might be blasphemy to say so here, but some types of creativity can be objectively judged as good or bad. For all we know, Brian Chippendale might hate the piece that accompanies this article.
Regarding the predictive value of the WSTS talent search, the author scoffs at the fact that "only" 8 of 2000 have won Nobel Prizes. For those of us who understand math and probability, that's quite a jaw-dropper. Those who "fall short" of a Nobel prize probably don't regard themselves as failures.
Is the painting that accompanies this piece creative? Why? Because it's colorful? Creativity as free-form, unguided expression (like Chippendale's piece) needs to be addressed apart from creativity as a unique approach to a well-defined problem. Don't assume that those who dedicate themselves to the latter are less creative, passionate, or free than those who embrace the former. Unfortunately, society will always reward - in school and beyond - the creative problem-solvers more than the creative expressors because, frankly, their results are verifiable. It might be blasphemy to say so here, but some types of creativity can be objectively judged as good or bad. For all we know, Brian Chippendale might hate the piece that accompanies this article.
Regarding the predictive value of the WSTS talent search, the author scoffs at the fact that "only" 8 of 2000 have won Nobel Prizes. For those of us who understand math and probability, that's quite a jaw-dropper. Those who "fall short" of a Nobel prize probably don't regard themselves as failures.
46
As the father of a very successful son, I can say this about intelligence. Intelligence alone does not guarantee success in life. My son's 6 year old friend, who is gifted, beat me at checkers, taught himself to read, etc. My son on the other hand, while highly intelligent, is not considered gifted. He is a doctor now doing his residency at a highly respected teaching hospital, while the friend who beat me at checkers is bouncing around from one dot com to another.
Why? My son learned the importance of hard work. He experienced the satisfaction of performing at a very high level as a result of old fashioned hard work. As a result, he is more successful and well adjusted than his peers. Yes, I applied very few rules as this article suggests. However, I presented many opportunities for him to succeed by working hard to do it.
My recommendation is simple. Have few rules, teach values, nurture every day and make opportunities for your children to succeed as the result of their commitment and effort. It's a winning combination.
Why? My son learned the importance of hard work. He experienced the satisfaction of performing at a very high level as a result of old fashioned hard work. As a result, he is more successful and well adjusted than his peers. Yes, I applied very few rules as this article suggests. However, I presented many opportunities for him to succeed by working hard to do it.
My recommendation is simple. Have few rules, teach values, nurture every day and make opportunities for your children to succeed as the result of their commitment and effort. It's a winning combination.
41
I'd love to see research on the connection between relative wealth and safety and the type of creative risk-taking the author is talking about. There are some incredible prodigies who used their brilliance to free themselves and fight oppression, such as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, and Phoolan Devi. But many if not most of the game-changers relied on their parents' wealth to free themselves from labor and thus perfect their art, business, or cause (Henry James, William James, Virginia Woolf, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg). The creativity to build, destroy, notice patterns, and make rules is largely innate in human beings, nurtured primarily, but not exclusively, by safety, love, and opportunity. Individualistic creativity may be lauded in much the same way that kindness is, but it is not a crucial feature in the lives of most humans, in their experiences with families, schools, or jobs. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the prodigies, who do not exist beyond their times and circumstances. Many prodigies and plodders have achieved the success of rising beyond their class, and creating safety for their families. Superior intelligence is helpful, but actually not a precondition for creativity, game-changing innovation, or the ability to build a complex organization requiring the brains and loyalty of many. Finally, I suspect that some prodigies do better with rules and boundaries.
16
Why so much emphasis in the "creative" now? It used to be the academic. Today, it is being creative. Which is the next fad? I believe that the objective for parents, schools and societies is to foster well-rounded individuals, who can have successful lives in all areas: work, relationships, spiritual, etc. For this, they need to learn how to think, but also about adaptation, problem-solving, creativity, empathy, ethics, authority, etc. Focusing on only one aspect -in this case, creativity- might produce an artist, but not necessarily a happy person, or one that is able to successfully adapt to his/her environment. I'd rather think about the whole child, and not about a creative child.
11
It is early in 2106, but I wager that Professor Grant will win the annual award for the most misleading statistics published in this section. He says with some disdain that only 1% of Westinghouse talent search alums have been inducted into the US National Academy of Sciences. The NAS has about 2200 current members, so that the chance of a random person being a member is a little less that 1 on 100.000. The Westinghouse group is enriched by more than 1000-fold. I find this enormously impressive, but it is nothing compared to the Nobel Prize statistics. Westinghousers have won 8 Nobel Prizes. Since 1952, 10 years after the Westinghouse program started, Americans have won about 300 Nobel Prizes – including economics, which is not really a Westinghouse area. Of these about 200 were born in the USA. So Westinghouse alums have won several percent of ALL the prizes. Astonishing, not trivial
38
A couple of stray points here.
1. You may have the passion but not the physical talent. For instance, long, flexible fingers, such as Van Cliburn had, make a concert pianist. All the practice in the world, plus perfect pitch, plus determination, won't overcome ten stubby thumbs. Dyslexia, colour blindness, two left feet - who knows how many great careers were derailed by physical limitations?
2. Practice develops technique, and without technique there is no art. Picasso could paint with perfect realism; Joyce could write perfectly grammatical prose. Both mastered the rules in order to break them intelligently. Real art isn't about the artist and his jejune 'self-expression' or 'feelings'. Art is what happens when the artist vanishes into the work.
3. You cannot decide to be creative, not and produce anything of real value. This is why so many movies and TV shows rely on formulae. And also one reason I didn't write as a profession (and hated what little of it I did do). Creativity is like the ghost in a good haunted-house story: it's what you never get to look at directly, but just sense moving out of the corner of your eye. I have found, if I re-read my own work months or years later, I can always recognize the bad passages as mine; the good stuff, though, seems to have been written by some stranger from a parallel universe, or perhaps wrote itself.
1. You may have the passion but not the physical talent. For instance, long, flexible fingers, such as Van Cliburn had, make a concert pianist. All the practice in the world, plus perfect pitch, plus determination, won't overcome ten stubby thumbs. Dyslexia, colour blindness, two left feet - who knows how many great careers were derailed by physical limitations?
2. Practice develops technique, and without technique there is no art. Picasso could paint with perfect realism; Joyce could write perfectly grammatical prose. Both mastered the rules in order to break them intelligently. Real art isn't about the artist and his jejune 'self-expression' or 'feelings'. Art is what happens when the artist vanishes into the work.
3. You cannot decide to be creative, not and produce anything of real value. This is why so many movies and TV shows rely on formulae. And also one reason I didn't write as a profession (and hated what little of it I did do). Creativity is like the ghost in a good haunted-house story: it's what you never get to look at directly, but just sense moving out of the corner of your eye. I have found, if I re-read my own work months or years later, I can always recognize the bad passages as mine; the good stuff, though, seems to have been written by some stranger from a parallel universe, or perhaps wrote itself.
21
Grant writes, "Try to engineer a certain kind of success, and the best you'll get is an ambitious robot". Hardly what I would conclude from the evidence presented earlier. After all, "A vast majority are... as winning at a cocktail party as in the spelling bee" who "apply their extraordinary abilities by shining in their jobs without making waves". So, I ask, is a charming, well adjusted individual who excels at their high level profession, nothing more than an "ambitious robot"? I, as a parent, hope for nothing more. In any case, while evidence is presented that certain innovative individuals were unfettered by rules growing up, we don't really know much about the childhoods of your garden variety overachiever.
This is the great American delusion. We are endlessly playing the lottery to make it big, to join the pantheon of Steve Jobs et al. We disdain those who merely work hard and succeed at their professions. We don't value "the doctor who heals his patients" but fails to "fix the broken medical system". We fantasize about raising Game Changers and end up with citizens who can't even play. It is a fantasy of privilege and exceptionalism. We think that we can sit and create because others can take care of the menial stuff ranging from cleaning bathrooms to skilled lawyering. We are too good for hard work. Good luck with the dollar and the dream.
This is the great American delusion. We are endlessly playing the lottery to make it big, to join the pantheon of Steve Jobs et al. We disdain those who merely work hard and succeed at their professions. We don't value "the doctor who heals his patients" but fails to "fix the broken medical system". We fantasize about raising Game Changers and end up with citizens who can't even play. It is a fantasy of privilege and exceptionalism. We think that we can sit and create because others can take care of the menial stuff ranging from cleaning bathrooms to skilled lawyering. We are too good for hard work. Good luck with the dollar and the dream.
42
Creativity can manifest itself at various phases of life. As one who needed and wanted to make a good living, I chose a great profession. When I retired, I relit the creative talent that I had put aside. Like most things in life, balance is important.
6
The very title of this piece continues to support the idea that there is a magic formula to make your child successful/creative/innovative/disruptive/etc. There isn't. I believe that the ugly truth that most parents need to accept is that their children are average. It's not a bad thing to have average kids. However if and when kids show interest in things, parents should encourage that interest and nurture it.
12
Although the examples used here makes the article interesting to read, it gives the impression that Adam is focused on a very extreme and unnecessarily narrow definition of creativity.
People can be very creative and utilize that talent to shine in a myriad of work roles and not necessarily stand out as 'creative'; and many people are extremely creative without necessarily being revolutionary or transformative; and creativity isn't necessarily obviously creative looking. The doctor who heals patients may be particularly talented at thinking outside the box to solve puzzling cases, the lawyer that rescues the unjustly accused may be a star because of her creative argument building. Indeed, I would argue that Adam Grant's ability to publish so effectively in boring academic journals comes in part from tremendous creativity on his part. Where it may be obvious that art, or music, or writing are 'creative' so too are a ton of less obvious tasks. And very few of these are 'transformative' nor need to be.
Likewise those that are revolutionary in their accomplishments most likely have far more going on for them than creativity. Factors such as persistence, connections, dominance, a wealth of resources, a sense of security, or pure happenstance might be some of those. But it is perhaps too simplistic to chalk it up to simply creativity.
People can be very creative and utilize that talent to shine in a myriad of work roles and not necessarily stand out as 'creative'; and many people are extremely creative without necessarily being revolutionary or transformative; and creativity isn't necessarily obviously creative looking. The doctor who heals patients may be particularly talented at thinking outside the box to solve puzzling cases, the lawyer that rescues the unjustly accused may be a star because of her creative argument building. Indeed, I would argue that Adam Grant's ability to publish so effectively in boring academic journals comes in part from tremendous creativity on his part. Where it may be obvious that art, or music, or writing are 'creative' so too are a ton of less obvious tasks. And very few of these are 'transformative' nor need to be.
Likewise those that are revolutionary in their accomplishments most likely have far more going on for them than creativity. Factors such as persistence, connections, dominance, a wealth of resources, a sense of security, or pure happenstance might be some of those. But it is perhaps too simplistic to chalk it up to simply creativity.
8
As a guy with a high genius IQ, I say figure it all out for yourself. PS, I had a great education and that helps one enjoy the wonders of existence.
2
You cannot 'grow' a genius. You cannot grow a Joey Alexander who will never win a Nobel unless jazz piano becomes a category. You can grow accomplished people but that's not necessarily the same. Creative people think differently than others and they came here that way. I am one of them. I was raised in a permissive household and what I wish for was just a little more discipline because I was (and still am) interested in a great many things but was allowed to flit from interest to interest. I think there is something to be said for gently directing the multi-talented renaissance children to see a project through to its end. What I always needed was a rationale for what was asked of me. Sometimes parents are too enthralled for the child's own good.
We are not all gifted in the same areas and I don't think the Nobel Prize is the right metric. But what I can see resulting from this article is all of these undisciplined children acting out because they are mummy's little geniuses. Most of us still need to live in this world where unlike Lake Wobegon, not all the children are above average. With the right cultivation though, anyone can live a productive and satisfying life.
We are not all gifted in the same areas and I don't think the Nobel Prize is the right metric. But what I can see resulting from this article is all of these undisciplined children acting out because they are mummy's little geniuses. Most of us still need to live in this world where unlike Lake Wobegon, not all the children are above average. With the right cultivation though, anyone can live a productive and satisfying life.
8
great story. there is such overwhelming evidence out there to support this and I see it all the time, especially when i coach baseball. i have witnessed over the past 15 years of coaching recreational ball, the kids of the parents who yell, bribe, push and cajole their kids, are the ones who lose interest in the sport and don't pursue it once they get to an age when they decide on playing or not. it's the parents who allow their kids to develop on their own who enjoy the game the most. unfortunately, most rec coaches push, yell, punish and bribe the kids they coach and out by me, they wonder why none of the kids want to play past the age of 10.
when are we going to start the push in government to help people raise kids? to help parents realize what it truly takes to raise an emotionally healthy child.
when are we going to start the push in government to help people raise kids? to help parents realize what it truly takes to raise an emotionally healthy child.
3
We only had one rule in our house growing up: Get Straight A's. I got straight A's, I hated my parents. You reap what you sow. I'd rather raise my kids teaching them about respecting others and themselves-- achievements, whether creative or scholastic, are secondary.
12
I, myself, think that there is a huge difference between being able to think outside the box and being a child prodigy with natural gifts, and just because one has one thing does not mean that they have the other. It's a whole different set of wires (or neuron connections and impulses) inside one's head.
7
The evidence for the core of this argument is badly flawed. Parents of highly creative kids have fewer rules, but we do not know whether this *causes* the kids to be creative or is in responsive to creative smart kids who do not need rules. Most parents continually experiment with and adapt their parenting style, so I expect that almost certainly the parents rule making is in part driven by the kids behavior. It would be interesting to know what happens to the siblings of these creative kids - how creative are they, and do the parents use the same parenting style?
And if 8 of 2000 Westinghouse winners go on to win Nobels, isn't that still a huge enrichment? There have been 257 American Nobelists *ever* and a large fraction did not grow up in the US, and many fewer would have been in high school between 1942-94, in a country of more than 300m inhabitants.
And if 8 of 2000 Westinghouse winners go on to win Nobels, isn't that still a huge enrichment? There have been 257 American Nobelists *ever* and a large fraction did not grow up in the US, and many fewer would have been in high school between 1942-94, in a country of more than 300m inhabitants.
11
It is sort of self-defeating the attempt to find the formula for raising a creative child. But I do like the point that talent is essentially ethical and must be nurtured by appreciation of the ethical. But feel free to call that self-delusion of the average. We are just expressing an opinion here.
1
Don't lead your children. Follow them. Pick them up when they fall. Dust them off, then push them out there again.
10
I walked a dilatory path through acting, writing, anthropology, philosophy and farming to end up in my mid-twenties at an Ivy League law school. Having spent 8 years getting through a state university, never living in a dorm, dropping out twice for various reasons, I welcomed the community that results from being forced into the same classes and blind grading of my peers. But I also quickly realized how many of my very bright peers had spent their entire academic lives on a goat path towards "success." Some were creative. Most were just impressive box-checkers. I quickly figured out how to outperform them in law school - just do a little something creative on every exam and paper - but it made the idea of practicing law seem deadly boring. I am now a screenwriter.
10
Good examples of the truism in this article ; Ivy college dropouts like Gates,Musk,Zuckerberg etc
1
I like the idea in general. Helicopter parenting is never a good idea. Letting the child pursue their passion without being overly directive probably does foster creativity. And if you have a child prodigy on your hands, they are likely to be superior in a number of different areas.
But there is a flip side to this. Most children, even bright children, are not budding geniuses. What do you do if the child is passionate about something for which they have no talent? For instance, having an "ear" is not something you learn. If you cannot distinguish adequately between tones (something that is basically genetic in origin) are the child is passionate about a career in singing, are you just going to let that take its course or will you try to direct the child in another direction? By the same token, if you set no rule structure for the typical child they will not likely be diligent about learning what they need to learn. They might be more creative as adults, but that doesn't mean they will invent anything useful.
It can be a difficult balancing act. Too much or too little of anything, including rules, is unlikely to produce the best outcomes.
But there is a flip side to this. Most children, even bright children, are not budding geniuses. What do you do if the child is passionate about something for which they have no talent? For instance, having an "ear" is not something you learn. If you cannot distinguish adequately between tones (something that is basically genetic in origin) are the child is passionate about a career in singing, are you just going to let that take its course or will you try to direct the child in another direction? By the same token, if you set no rule structure for the typical child they will not likely be diligent about learning what they need to learn. They might be more creative as adults, but that doesn't mean they will invent anything useful.
It can be a difficult balancing act. Too much or too little of anything, including rules, is unlikely to produce the best outcomes.
4
Thank you Adam for such a powerful endorsement of creativity in all it's many forms.
Something not focused on in the article but very pertinent to the creative vs, sheep phenomena is what being a creative person, regardless of whether in a traditionally creative field or in management, science or whatever, what it's life for the creative person to work among sheep.
No matter how professionally, how politely improvement and innovation is suggested, no matter how big or small the change recommended is, the sheep hate the creative. Sheep feel threatened and will go as far as getting the creative fired because that feeling of threat is that strong and than frightening.
Raising all children with a greater level of creativity would go far to stop good ideas from being squelched. and ideas from being thought up in the first place regardless of who thought it up.
The current state of business innovation, political obstruction, mass unemployment among the newly graduated and most experienced workers ever achieved in this country demonstrates creativity is desperately needed.
Something not focused on in the article but very pertinent to the creative vs, sheep phenomena is what being a creative person, regardless of whether in a traditionally creative field or in management, science or whatever, what it's life for the creative person to work among sheep.
No matter how professionally, how politely improvement and innovation is suggested, no matter how big or small the change recommended is, the sheep hate the creative. Sheep feel threatened and will go as far as getting the creative fired because that feeling of threat is that strong and than frightening.
Raising all children with a greater level of creativity would go far to stop good ideas from being squelched. and ideas from being thought up in the first place regardless of who thought it up.
The current state of business innovation, political obstruction, mass unemployment among the newly graduated and most experienced workers ever achieved in this country demonstrates creativity is desperately needed.
4
The most creative kids (and adults) retain one very crucial thing which can't be taught or programmed in: a sense of Outsiderness.
This sense often causes pain (pain of not fitting in, pain of existential depression, pain of being too ambitious in unambitious surroundings), but being psychologically positioned on the Outside -- while still being able to participate or at least limp along in society -- seems to be critical for transcendent thinking.
The problem of course is that success is more often defined on how well-off your parents are. We can imagine that there have been thousands of brilliant young people stuck in less-than-brilliant circumstances, who were never lucky enough to find mentors or support for their ideas. (Read almost any obituary of a brilliant woman, and probably 8 times out of 10, one or both parents were well-off or famous in their own fields, or they were married to a man who was. You never read about any brilliant women whose parents were common laborers in backwater states.)
This sense often causes pain (pain of not fitting in, pain of existential depression, pain of being too ambitious in unambitious surroundings), but being psychologically positioned on the Outside -- while still being able to participate or at least limp along in society -- seems to be critical for transcendent thinking.
The problem of course is that success is more often defined on how well-off your parents are. We can imagine that there have been thousands of brilliant young people stuck in less-than-brilliant circumstances, who were never lucky enough to find mentors or support for their ideas. (Read almost any obituary of a brilliant woman, and probably 8 times out of 10, one or both parents were well-off or famous in their own fields, or they were married to a man who was. You never read about any brilliant women whose parents were common laborers in backwater states.)
5
One word. Mozart.
The ability to work hard and dedicate yourself to your work is just as important as creativity. There are probably more "geniuses" who didn't achieve their potential because they never learned the discipline of hard work than those that lose their creativity because they are too focused.
Some parents think that getting their child into a top school is more important than preparing them for the world. Others let their child meander without direction. As a parent, you can only try to help your child overcome his/her weaknesses and try to explore and pursue his/her interests.
Some parents think that getting their child into a top school is more important than preparing them for the world. Others let their child meander without direction. As a parent, you can only try to help your child overcome his/her weaknesses and try to explore and pursue his/her interests.
5
8 out of 2000 seems nothing to sneeze at. Just how many free range children go on to win Nobel? And since when is the Nobel the measure of creativity? Those 1992 children who did not go on to win could be excelling in post modernistic video art in their spare time for all we know.
8
I completely agree with this article. A child prodigy’s talent must come from their hearts, not from the fear of their parents. Often parents will force their children to do a specific activity. However, you can never force anyone to do something they won’t like. They will not be interested in the activity and won’t strive to learn more. However, when people think of a child prodigy, they think of someone with special talent. A violinist or composer has the same creativity as a plumber. It all depends on how they manage to use this creativity.
I copied and pasted the words below after reading another similar article that espoused the benefits of allowing children to "follow their passions", reduce rules and never let kids fail. It really resonated with me.
Kids need to understand they will make mistakes and can overcome them. However, extrapolating from that insight to a policy that avoids challenging all students to reach their potential is crazy. This is the same mentality that results in all kids getting participation trophies.
Kids need to learn that there are winners in life. They also need to learn that while there are only a handful of winners in pro sports, arts, and entertainment each year, there are tens of thousands (or more) winners in medicine, engineering, law, and technology each year. To become one of those winners, kids need to apply themselves in K-12 and college and strive to learn skills in the more challenging disciplines. They can succeed if they are challenged.
And no, success does not equal $$. Students can become a park ranger, a social worker, a military member, or a librarian and certainly be considered a success. They should be happy with their choice. But what's not acceptable is for students to be pigeon-holed into certain professions because they don't have options. When students get a substandard K-12 education, their options are greatly diminished.
Kids need to understand they will make mistakes and can overcome them. However, extrapolating from that insight to a policy that avoids challenging all students to reach their potential is crazy. This is the same mentality that results in all kids getting participation trophies.
Kids need to learn that there are winners in life. They also need to learn that while there are only a handful of winners in pro sports, arts, and entertainment each year, there are tens of thousands (or more) winners in medicine, engineering, law, and technology each year. To become one of those winners, kids need to apply themselves in K-12 and college and strive to learn skills in the more challenging disciplines. They can succeed if they are challenged.
And no, success does not equal $$. Students can become a park ranger, a social worker, a military member, or a librarian and certainly be considered a success. They should be happy with their choice. But what's not acceptable is for students to be pigeon-holed into certain professions because they don't have options. When students get a substandard K-12 education, their options are greatly diminished.
3
Using the author's own argument:
There are ~2,250 current members of the NAS and a maximum of 84 elected annually. http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/membership/ The population of the US is ~320,000,000. So the overall odds are 0.000007 or 0.0007%. Finalists of the WSTS constitutes "just" 1% or the odds are 0.01
From its inception in 1901, the Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 900 individuals and organizations. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/ The world population is 7,300,000,000. Not counting those individuals that have died and organizations that existed during the period, the overall odds are 0.0000001 or 0.00001%. From the WSTS inception in 1942, finalists of the constitutes "just" 8 of the Nobel Prizes or 0.9% or the odds are again ~0.01.
By the nature of the above organizations, there are always going to be cuts at higher and higher selective levels. Nevertheless, I'd say improving the odds by 4+ orders of magnitude is powerfully significant for a search.
Sounds like the author has an agenda?
There are ~2,250 current members of the NAS and a maximum of 84 elected annually. http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/membership/ The population of the US is ~320,000,000. So the overall odds are 0.000007 or 0.0007%. Finalists of the WSTS constitutes "just" 1% or the odds are 0.01
From its inception in 1901, the Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 900 individuals and organizations. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/ The world population is 7,300,000,000. Not counting those individuals that have died and organizations that existed during the period, the overall odds are 0.0000001 or 0.00001%. From the WSTS inception in 1942, finalists of the constitutes "just" 8 of the Nobel Prizes or 0.9% or the odds are again ~0.01.
By the nature of the above organizations, there are always going to be cuts at higher and higher selective levels. Nevertheless, I'd say improving the odds by 4+ orders of magnitude is powerfully significant for a search.
Sounds like the author has an agenda?
6
I don't like the word "creative" because it's used gratuitously. For whatever reason, not many people are actually "creative." That's why we celebrate the few who are. Unfortunately, the current frenzied, programmed path to high status college or university admission filters out the weird, eccentric kids who think differently. They are often so passionate about one or two things that they lack high grades across the board, find a lot of extracurricular activities boring, and may even have behavior problems. These kids don't respect authority because it usually offers only arbitrary rules. Companies ossify with age as the fearless "creatives" are replaced by risk averse rule followers. If you want to foster "creativity," and profit therefrom, identify "creatives" and get out of their way. Everyone benefits.
unitcelldiamond.com
unitcelldiamond.com
4
One aspect in thus household is comfort and the courage to be individual and make mistakes; to be different which is, of course, style. Also there is the well meaning educational attempt for the efficiency of the crowd, another brick in the wall.
It is glib to think there is a simple formula. Otherwise we'd all be surrounded by genius. Like being locked in a perpetual Internet.
It is glib to think there is a simple formula. Otherwise we'd all be surrounded by genius. Like being locked in a perpetual Internet.
1
Great concept that failed to address the need to teach these creative children morality and values that will guide them in a highly competitive world. The failure to teach them morality will enable the creation of Trump clones who write their own rules and believe lying and deceit are an acceptable means to achieve their rule breaking ends.
A parent who nurtures these children should also be teaching their child that there are boundaries that are necessary to ensure that the child is safe,healthy and prosperous throughout their creative lives in society and the world
A parent who nurtures these children should also be teaching their child that there are boundaries that are necessary to ensure that the child is safe,healthy and prosperous throughout their creative lives in society and the world
4
Great read. Its central premise resonates with me. There's however a fallacy that's worth pointing out. Yes, children with lesser rules become top geniuses, the article says. Question is, how many children with lesser rules actually end up as geniuses? For every geniuses made as a result of lesser rules, there are potentially more of them who don't amount of anything at all. The study needs to take that into account before making exclusive claims.
2
Right away Dr. Grant makes the mistake of searching for the "great Creative Mind." Most studies show that real advances are made by having many minimal changes to an old idea. Usually. it is groups that make great break-thoughs, and groups of diverse people who allow for free exchange of ideas do the best.
Rather than try to raise "creative children" and try to shape and sculpt their lives, wound't it be better to raise children who will learn to think about causes and effects, learn to care for and get along with others, and want to live happy, interesting and satisfying lives. Creativity will come from people freely exchanging ideas.
If you look closely, many of our "creative geniuses" from Edison to Jobs, were great at creating great teams, and even greater at marketing. Especially these days, marketing geniuses are the ones who get the attention.
Also, perhaps many of the gifted children were smart enough to learn to live happily without taking on the burden of saving the world, and dealing with the power seeking narcissists who run it.
Rather than try to raise "creative children" and try to shape and sculpt their lives, wound't it be better to raise children who will learn to think about causes and effects, learn to care for and get along with others, and want to live happy, interesting and satisfying lives. Creativity will come from people freely exchanging ideas.
If you look closely, many of our "creative geniuses" from Edison to Jobs, were great at creating great teams, and even greater at marketing. Especially these days, marketing geniuses are the ones who get the attention.
Also, perhaps many of the gifted children were smart enough to learn to live happily without taking on the burden of saving the world, and dealing with the power seeking narcissists who run it.
8
The premise seems inherently foolish. Only a tiny percentage of people will have revolutionary ideas that work. Many creative people will end up poor, addicted, dying young. Many people who were intensively trained and coached will not make the top ranks. And some (like Venus and Serena Williams) are pressed as children and excel.
The statistics of "only" 8 Westinghouse winners going on to Nobel prizes shows the author's extreme lack of statistical reasoning. That's actually a gigantic success, an argument for more, not less of that sort of thing.
Parents who press their children to intensively practice violin, tennis, etc. may have various motives. I see the benefits it brings my child. By giving him the skill to play the instrument, it gives him the ability to play for fun later in life. It also has allowed him to play around on the piano and compose, completely self-taught. These things probably would not have happened had we not pressed him on music.
It isn't clear what the author is really pushing, other than making fun of tiger moms with the claim that children who are pushed in certain directions won't get where the parent wants them to go. I can't speak to other parents' motives, but the alternative, kids playing video games and being intellectually unchallenged has far worse statistical outcomes.
The statistics of "only" 8 Westinghouse winners going on to Nobel prizes shows the author's extreme lack of statistical reasoning. That's actually a gigantic success, an argument for more, not less of that sort of thing.
Parents who press their children to intensively practice violin, tennis, etc. may have various motives. I see the benefits it brings my child. By giving him the skill to play the instrument, it gives him the ability to play for fun later in life. It also has allowed him to play around on the piano and compose, completely self-taught. These things probably would not have happened had we not pressed him on music.
It isn't clear what the author is really pushing, other than making fun of tiger moms with the claim that children who are pushed in certain directions won't get where the parent wants them to go. I can't speak to other parents' motives, but the alternative, kids playing video games and being intellectually unchallenged has far worse statistical outcomes.
5
Total US Population = 320 millon
Total American Nobel Laureates = 360 (or 0.0001% of population)
Super Bowl of science population = 2,000
Total Nobel Laureates among them = 8 (or 0.4% of this population)
So if a child made it into the Super Bowl then she/he is 4,000 more likely to win the Nobel Prize. I'd take these odds any day.
The lack of basic statistical analysis is not the biggest problem of this article, however. There is something much more dangerous. Effectively the article says "organisational skills are bad as they suppress talent" ... well, I am not sure this is true. I think in real life, organisational skills are much more important than talent. Too many talented people end up being alcoholics, drug addicts, cheating spouses and criminals.
I never really respected psychology as a "science" because it has so many schools of thought, often contradicting each other, so when psychologists say "we have an answer" I am hesitant.
Total American Nobel Laureates = 360 (or 0.0001% of population)
Super Bowl of science population = 2,000
Total Nobel Laureates among them = 8 (or 0.4% of this population)
So if a child made it into the Super Bowl then she/he is 4,000 more likely to win the Nobel Prize. I'd take these odds any day.
The lack of basic statistical analysis is not the biggest problem of this article, however. There is something much more dangerous. Effectively the article says "organisational skills are bad as they suppress talent" ... well, I am not sure this is true. I think in real life, organisational skills are much more important than talent. Too many talented people end up being alcoholics, drug addicts, cheating spouses and criminals.
I never really respected psychology as a "science" because it has so many schools of thought, often contradicting each other, so when psychologists say "we have an answer" I am hesitant.
7
I like Adam's point about backing off. Sometimes the best thing parents and schools can do is get out of the way. But I think this article could benefit from an expanded view of child genius.
I congratulate Mr. Adam Grant for writing this article. The first thing one must do before trying to answer questions about creativity, not to mention how to locate creative people or raise a creative child, is demonstrate a particular quality oneself which Mr. Grant has demonstrated in writing this article: One must be willing to set one's ego aside and ask how it is people better, yes, better than oneself, have managed to become better than oneself.
First, essentially, before answering questions about creativity, we have to locate people who are less likely to be envious, jealous, people likely to be objective, likely to want to know how to better the human race, those who really care about exceptional achievement in all fields and want to find out how to arrive at greater human achievement even it means the diminishment of oneself and one's achievements in the process.
To ask questions about creativity, to look for the road to greater human advancement, higher creative power, is to essentially look for the road away from oneself and all current humanity. To find people willing to do that is an exceptional feat in itself--it is to essentially find the best citizens among us, those willing to see the best and worst of us and to be willing to point out the difference.
The left and right wings in the U.S. are composed mostly of people willing to defend this or that group or type of individual other than the group of creative, exceptional, genius humanity.
First, essentially, before answering questions about creativity, we have to locate people who are less likely to be envious, jealous, people likely to be objective, likely to want to know how to better the human race, those who really care about exceptional achievement in all fields and want to find out how to arrive at greater human achievement even it means the diminishment of oneself and one's achievements in the process.
To ask questions about creativity, to look for the road to greater human advancement, higher creative power, is to essentially look for the road away from oneself and all current humanity. To find people willing to do that is an exceptional feat in itself--it is to essentially find the best citizens among us, those willing to see the best and worst of us and to be willing to point out the difference.
The left and right wings in the U.S. are composed mostly of people willing to defend this or that group or type of individual other than the group of creative, exceptional, genius humanity.
Just because many youngsters who are bright promising scientists decide not to pursue science as a career does not mean that they are not creative. Have you look at salaries and job prospects for physicists, chemists and biologists? Most Americans do not pursue graduate degrees in these disciplines because the pay is low, and several years of additional work as a post-Docs before they can land a permanent job. Is it any surprise that 80-90% of Ph.D and post-docs in physical and biological sciences are foreign born.
The writer also argue implicitly it is better not to have parents who are involved in their children's studies so that they can develop their creative side, and the type of hard work promoted by Tiger Moms and Dragon Dads actually may retard their children's creativity. The problem with this argument is that Mr. Grant assume that most students can learn on their own ( by osmosis), whereas most Asian American parents ( whether they are Tiger Moms or not ) believe that early parental involvement in their children's education is critical to their future success as students.
The writer also argue implicitly it is better not to have parents who are involved in their children's studies so that they can develop their creative side, and the type of hard work promoted by Tiger Moms and Dragon Dads actually may retard their children's creativity. The problem with this argument is that Mr. Grant assume that most students can learn on their own ( by osmosis), whereas most Asian American parents ( whether they are Tiger Moms or not ) believe that early parental involvement in their children's education is critical to their future success as students.
3
Paraphrasing here: "Of the 2000 precocious youths who won the Westinghouse Science Fair ONLY eight won Nobel Prizes."
Wait, WHAT? A 0.4% Nobel Prize hit rate is bad? Article completely lost credibility with me from there - too bad, interesting topic and thesis.
Wait, WHAT? A 0.4% Nobel Prize hit rate is bad? Article completely lost credibility with me from there - too bad, interesting topic and thesis.
6
This article has pieced together some ideas and opinions, but most of the facts and stats relate to whether the gifted person was the top in the world at something creative. That they were only a small portion of the Nobel Prize winners is neither here nor there - the examples he gave for the outcomes for gifted persons were honorable in their own right -everyone does not need to be Steve Jobs to make a difference. Also, the kids who had only one rule at home may have been creative and/or impolite jerks in the end.
3
Mr. Grant is absolutely right: "You can’t program a child to become creative."... and "Practice makes perfect, but it doesn’t make new"... And yet we have instituted a regimen in our public schools that trains students to attain high scores on standardized tests to ensure that we are "competitive in the global economy"... and parents spend millions on test prep programs to help their children get high scores on SATs so they get into name brand colleges... MAYBE we need to back off across the board.
2
Creativity requires courage. The courage to try things you're unfamiliar with, the courage to put your ideas out into the world at risk of failure, the courage to remain passionate and undeterred in the face of criticism, jealousy and fear. Everyone has creativity within them, most just never allow it to blossom because they're too afraid of exposing themselves or standing out.
2
When you learn to play the blues there are scales and boxes. You learn these patterns and how to move them up and down the fretboard or piano. There are many great blues musicians and many of them consider Jimi Hendrix to be a guitar genius. Jimi was self taught.
If you're taught to stay in the box, then you don't step out of it.
It doesn't mean you can't be greater or happier inside or outside the box.
If you're taught to stay in the box, then you don't step out of it.
It doesn't mean you can't be greater or happier inside or outside the box.
1
Part of the problem is the blurring of the distinction between creativity and originality. Creativity simply means doing, making, or even behaving. But not everything done is original. We can foster doing and creating, but originality is a unique and unteachable gift. An original work is one that originates a new way of seeing something. Not everything made is original, no matter how interesting it may be. Picasso created many paintings that were interesting and "nice," but only his first Cubist painting was original --- that is, it originated a new way of looking at and defining painting. "Les demoiselles d'Avignon" originated a new and hitherto unknown way of defining painting. Such originality may be fostered, but it really cannot be taught. What one can do is to encourage divergent ways of looking at ordinary things, with the hope that one day, maybe, a truly new way of looking at the world may be created.
3
I agree that a "hands off" approach is the way to nurture creativity (whether with children or mentees) but what motivates people to (want to) change the world is different. Perhaps it's true that all of the child prodigies you say don't become revolutionary adult creators want to be that way but are unable to due to not being creative enough. However, I think it's more likely that they could be world changers but choose not to be. Within the high achieving crowd, not everyone is into the whole rat race thing for the sake of fame, glory, etc. beyond a certain level. In other words, many creative types I submit prefer to do their own thing quietly and are wise about the consequences of changing the world (and the responsibility it entails).
We do cutting edge research and I and my mentees (and my mentors) have a number of vanity awards to prove it. But when push came to shove, I've gravitated towards keeping things more low key and while I don't have a Nobel Prize (yet) my postdoc mentor does (2013, Chemistry) and he's one of the most humble Nobel winners I know (among several). I also not only nurture creativity in my mentees (as it was nurtured in me) with a "hands off" style of management but I also tell them to not stress it and to live in the moment and not be driven by ego. Life's too short for that. It doesn't mean they're any less creative.
I realised all this much later in life, but my daughter at age 8 has already figured this out and for that I am grateful.
We do cutting edge research and I and my mentees (and my mentors) have a number of vanity awards to prove it. But when push came to shove, I've gravitated towards keeping things more low key and while I don't have a Nobel Prize (yet) my postdoc mentor does (2013, Chemistry) and he's one of the most humble Nobel winners I know (among several). I also not only nurture creativity in my mentees (as it was nurtured in me) with a "hands off" style of management but I also tell them to not stress it and to live in the moment and not be driven by ego. Life's too short for that. It doesn't mean they're any less creative.
I realised all this much later in life, but my daughter at age 8 has already figured this out and for that I am grateful.
4
Letting up? Sounds like a wonderful idea. Now if only the school authorities and their henchmen in social services and child protection could see things that way. Unfortunately, we're living in an age in which the powers that be are rather forcefully encouraging 'helicopter parents' - the the point where those who let their kids do some harmless exploring on their own risk sanctions in some parts of this country, and even criminal charges. Such as the parents who actually were charged with child neglect in 'helicopter'-crazed Montgomery County, Maryland - for the 'crime' of letting their nine and eleven year olds walk home from school unescorted by an adult. Growing up in Queens in the 1960s, I rode my bike all over the place - especially to various libraries, often to get some printed help for homework assignments - with nary an injury, save for one episode of a mild knee abrasion. I hate to think of what would happen to my parents for letting me do that in this day and age. They'd probably need a lawyer to try to beat a felony rap.
Then again, there's that idea - quite well substantiated - that overwhelming supervision will likely produce efficient, knowledgeable robots with about as much creative spark as San Juan gets snow. Could it be, perhaps, that such has been the intended agenda of our corporate-financed politicians? Bureaucracies and plutocracies both tend to be very mistrustful of those who are independent-minded and creative. With good reason.
Then again, there's that idea - quite well substantiated - that overwhelming supervision will likely produce efficient, knowledgeable robots with about as much creative spark as San Juan gets snow. Could it be, perhaps, that such has been the intended agenda of our corporate-financed politicians? Bureaucracies and plutocracies both tend to be very mistrustful of those who are independent-minded and creative. With good reason.
3
My wife and I suddenly feel so superior to all those Tiger Moms. Our only rule with our girls, now 13 and 17, is to be respectful to ALL people. They go their own way and, by our standards, are exceling -- and happy. And we couldn't be prouder of them.
For once, my laziness is paying dividends!
For once, my laziness is paying dividends!
7
Instead of worrying about how to "make" a super child, we should be more concerned about how to make a happy child. In this day and age where exercise and fresh air are relegated 40 minutes a week in public schools, and socialization with peers means always having an adult present to solve our problems, I think we have bigger fish to fry.
4
This article lost me early on. The 2000 Westinghouse Science winners since 1942 included 8 Nobel Prize winners? That's astounding and arguably justifies the program by itself.
4
Thank you for this thought provoking piece.
As someone who taught visual art in elementary schools for over thirty years, and who studied creativity in college, graduate school and in doctoral studies, I have to say that after all that time, effort and yes, joy, I am left with a sense of awe and mystery regarding the nature of creativity and how to cultivate it.
As someone who taught visual art in elementary schools for over thirty years, and who studied creativity in college, graduate school and in doctoral studies, I have to say that after all that time, effort and yes, joy, I am left with a sense of awe and mystery regarding the nature of creativity and how to cultivate it.
5
This makes all too much sense. I think that on a subconscious level many of us value security and stability above innovation. If you have a gifted child who becomes a doctor or lawyer and makes money and does a good job without ruffling any feathers they are a success by most measures.
Raising a child that will turn your world upside down and challenge everything you think you know is likely hard and scary and exhausting and not only because you can't concretely imagine their career path. But it seems intuitively best - let kids be kids.
Raising a child that will turn your world upside down and challenge everything you think you know is likely hard and scary and exhausting and not only because you can't concretely imagine their career path. But it seems intuitively best - let kids be kids.
43
My accomplished parents were too busy to parent me in general. I nearly aced the SATs but dropped out of high school because I was all about having fun. I'm now a genius recording artist.
2
As a former Westinghouse Science Talent Search finalist, I completely disagree with the author that not winning a Nobel prize or getting into the NAS implies that you are no longer scientifically creative. I am as passionate about science as I was in high school when I did my Westinghouse project. I currently run a NIH funded research lab working on cancer biology, and like to think that I still do creative science. Many past Westinghouse finalists are doing the same things as I am- while we might never win a Nobel, we are solving interesting and important scientific problems, and training future generations of scientists. Measuring creativity in science by the ability to accumulate prizes is very short sighted.
347
Having grown up in a low-income family, I feel bad watching my 7 year-old sister grow up. She is always being criticized for not being as good of a student as I was, and she is forced to read for prolonged periods of time each day in the hopes that it'll improve her reading skills.
My parents and I believe that we can't afford to have her pursue her passions and interests. Rather, it's more important that she has a good education so she can get a good job and be financially secured. Being famous is nice and dandy, but creativity is secondary when living is a struggle. Have you asked what the Tiger Moms and Lombardi Dads want for their children?
I admire the people who are strong enough to chase their dreams, but I can't always agree with their choice.
My parents and I believe that we can't afford to have her pursue her passions and interests. Rather, it's more important that she has a good education so she can get a good job and be financially secured. Being famous is nice and dandy, but creativity is secondary when living is a struggle. Have you asked what the Tiger Moms and Lombardi Dads want for their children?
I admire the people who are strong enough to chase their dreams, but I can't always agree with their choice.
2
"Lisa Randall who revolutionizes theoretical physics". She may be a fine theoretical physicist but she hasn't revolutionized the subject at all unless you considering writing a pop science book linking dark matter and dinosaurs to be revolutionary.
2
A curious child with a gift but without self-discipline to persevere, intellectual maturity to carry through, or challenges to surmount is a wild river dispersing into the desert. The longstanding problem of American education is the reluctance to recognize talent early and segregate the hay from the chaff early on, so the bright don't get stymied by the low expectations of their dull comrades. While in business American competition is acutely present and well rewarded, in education of the young everyone is lumped together, and "no child left behind" becomes all children held back by the stupidest kid in the class. This misplaced egalitarianism in the most important stage of development for human capital is truly baffling. It extends to university, where at Harvard for example the average GPA is 3.7, so that getting stellar grades means doing what everything you're told. Leaders in art and science then can only emerge despite the system of education, instead of being enabled by it.
4
Many years ago on a family road trip, we listened to a biography of the Wright brothers. One observation that relates to this column is the contrast in their parents. The father, a busy bishop in his church, at best stayed out of the way. Their mother, on the other hand, not only gave the brothers space to play and explore, she encouraged their explorations and provided raw materials and time.
My son was listening, and he later used this story to rebuff my criticisms of his own creative tinkering. My wife, like Mrs. Wright, was providing trips to the hardware store when he was trying to invent a box to trap light, among other things, before he turned ten.
My son was listening, and he later used this story to rebuff my criticisms of his own creative tinkering. My wife, like Mrs. Wright, was providing trips to the hardware store when he was trying to invent a box to trap light, among other things, before he turned ten.
2
It is difficult to distinguish between early learners who are quick and facile from those who are deep thinkers, in my opinion. If a young child devours Khan Academy videos, for example, that says very little about the depth of their understanding. The external rewards often come based on checking off boxes as in the first paragraph of this article and our society seems more attuned to the number of boxes checked off. I wish we could change that.
Parents and teachers should try to tone down the box checking mentality. It is said that Beethoven's father lied about his age and bullied his son to match the prior case of Mozart as prodigy. The greatest mathematician of the late 19th/early 20th century, David Hilbert, who competed with Einstein on general relativity while contributing across many topics in mathematics, allegedly showed no sign of mathematical genius until he went to university.
Parents and teachers should try to tone down the box checking mentality. It is said that Beethoven's father lied about his age and bullied his son to match the prior case of Mozart as prodigy. The greatest mathematician of the late 19th/early 20th century, David Hilbert, who competed with Einstein on general relativity while contributing across many topics in mathematics, allegedly showed no sign of mathematical genius until he went to university.
3
Great. Thank you.
"They responded to the intrinsic motivation of their children. When their children showed interest and enthusiasm in a skill, the parents supported them."
That's it. Enough already with the agendas.
That's it. Enough already with the agendas.
60
As a piano instructor of more than 20 years, I have seen parents let their children have no structure or rules much to their detriment. These parents are harming their children by not helping them develop self discipline, which is essential for creativity and innovation. I prefer Julie Andrews' philosophy: "Some people regard discipline as a chore. For me, it is a kind of order that sets me free to fly."
117
Talent hits the target that no one else can hit. Genius hits the target that no one else can see.
If you would nurture talent and prepare the way for genius, remember this: it is your child that reveals the world to you, not the other way round.
If you would nurture talent and prepare the way for genius, remember this: it is your child that reveals the world to you, not the other way round.
2
No !... Step ONE is love your child for who or what he/she is...
Gibran said it best....
"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable."
Gibran said it best....
"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable."
3
I'm a 55 year old woman and in my life I have built two homes, three businesses and was at the grassroots stage of building an entire industry with a handful of others. I attribute this to the fact that I had endless hours during the summer and after school as a child to build tree forts, mud houses and conduct plays in our family garage. In those activities, I had to learn to play well with others, influence and motivate others and overcome obstacles. I was also taught to work hard for what I wanted. Summer camp, horseback riding lessons and piano lessons didn't come without drawing on my ingenuity to figure out ways to raise money to afford them myself. I quit the education system in the first semester of college before I allowed it to fail me completely. No one ever taught me in the way I needed to be taught. And that was to challenge my creativity to the maximum. I was told to memorize instead of engaging in critical thinking. Had someone taken a socratic approach in my education and worked to enhance my creativity instead of stand on it's neck and choke the life out of it, who knows what may have happened.
2
Practice does not make "perfect." It can make relatively "permanent," which tends to confound creativity. Thomas Kuhn, scientist and philosopher (who coined the term "paradigm shift") said: “Normal science, for example, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are subversive of its basic commitments. Nevertheless, so long as those commitments retain an element of the arbitrary, the very nature of normal research ensures that novelty not be suppressed for very long.” Creativity, by its nature, is subversive. Practice builds a predisposition to "the way we've always done it." I'm not suggesting parents tolerating anarchy is the way to go. But all those "helicopter parents" do indeed need to give themselves clearance to land.
Thank you Prof. Grant.
My father was incredibly inventive. He could build and repair all kinds of machinery. He encouraged me to explore engineering. And so I went to a technical high school, a highly competitive engineering college and grad school. My grades were good and I went on to teach engineering at several colleges.
But in the long run, I struggled in engineering. My father's inventive genius did not rub off on me. Now, my interests are turning to psychology and motivation in education. I wish I had been more independent minded, growing up, as Adam Grant suggests...
www.SavingSchools.org
My father was incredibly inventive. He could build and repair all kinds of machinery. He encouraged me to explore engineering. And so I went to a technical high school, a highly competitive engineering college and grad school. My grades were good and I went on to teach engineering at several colleges.
But in the long run, I struggled in engineering. My father's inventive genius did not rub off on me. Now, my interests are turning to psychology and motivation in education. I wish I had been more independent minded, growing up, as Adam Grant suggests...
www.SavingSchools.org
5
As a mother of teens who are soon to be embarking on their college years, this article resonated with me. Our children spent their first five years in Catholic school. I'm absolutely sure the best decision we ever made concerning their schooling was putting them in public school. There are many reasons for that, but the main one being the rules-based, "law and order" structure of Catholic school. It just didn't fit with my kids (or my parenting style, for that matter).
The other thing I think about a lot is how to advise my kids on making a career choice. Since they are thinking about how to choose a major in college, we tend to have conversations that center around this topic. And in the end I always tell them that no matter how good they are at any given subject matter, if they don't really love it, or feel some passion for it, then it probably won't be the right career choice.
I guess I don't understand "tiger moms" because I think about my kids' happiness. I think about them twenty years into a career and I would be heartbroken if I thought they were just going through the motions, working for their next paycheck. I would think that's really no better than the life could have led if they hadn't gone to college. I want college to give them a better life not just by income, but by satisfaction with their lives. And really, satisfaction comes first because that's something money can't buy.
The other thing I think about a lot is how to advise my kids on making a career choice. Since they are thinking about how to choose a major in college, we tend to have conversations that center around this topic. And in the end I always tell them that no matter how good they are at any given subject matter, if they don't really love it, or feel some passion for it, then it probably won't be the right career choice.
I guess I don't understand "tiger moms" because I think about my kids' happiness. I think about them twenty years into a career and I would be heartbroken if I thought they were just going through the motions, working for their next paycheck. I would think that's really no better than the life could have led if they hadn't gone to college. I want college to give them a better life not just by income, but by satisfaction with their lives. And really, satisfaction comes first because that's something money can't buy.
3
There are plenty of 'law and order' public schools and charter schools. I have been teaching in a public school for 28 years and am seen as a non-conformist. My own schooling was a Catholic K-graduate school experience. My perceived 'nonconformity' is rooted in the values nurtured at St. Mary's Academy, the College of the Holy Cross, and Manhattan College. The best advice I give to parents who want to nurture their child's creativity is to read biographies of creative people. Generally creative people were raised by parents who gave them enough freedom to fail and the courage and humor required to try again.
1
Children that are found to be intelligent at a very early age are not failures or "fall far short of their potential" if during their life time they did not reinvent the world.
Only individuals that are not very intelligent would have such ideas about children that are found to be intelligent at a very early age.
Children that are found to be intelligent at a very early age are usually later smart enough to understand that they can enjoy life without having to work to reinvent the world.
Only individuals that are not very intelligent would have such ideas about children that are found to be intelligent at a very early age.
Children that are found to be intelligent at a very early age are usually later smart enough to understand that they can enjoy life without having to work to reinvent the world.
19
It's not just parents, teachers too. Bad professors in art for instance that use the critique to bully and abuse students into conforming to his interests outside necessary basic instruction. Too many lose the love after their creative hearts are poisoned, sacrificed to passing fads espoused by unoriginal toadies. 30 years of painting. ...it's not my job, but a life sustaining passion I'm glad I never lost.
4
Was this article authored by a tiger parent? Doctors saving lives isn't good enough these days? Creativity sometimes just doesn't pay. I write and publish books, make computer games, produce YouTube videos, paint, and run a blog, but not one of those avenues paid off monetarily in years as much as my previous job had in one year. Creativity and talent are often overlooked in the workplace, to the point where I am able to make more than 50 bucks an hour creating a spreadsheet. Just an example. Creativity is important yes, but the beholders of our creativity are so subjective. Or closed minded. Take the Oscars for example and how not one of the nominated actors/actresses are "ethnic." It's a sad truth, in that we overlook creativity, repress it even, and not every little geek is going to grow up and become Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, or Mozart.
Http://www.philandmama.com
Ps: this is my own opinion. I don't respond to any hostile, nasty, trolling commenters here.
Http://www.philandmama.com
Ps: this is my own opinion. I don't respond to any hostile, nasty, trolling commenters here.
5
"Doctors saving lives isn't good enough these days?"
Maybe not....
There was a Peanuts cartoon way back in the early '60s where Linus laments his mother's observation of his potetntial. His response was "there is no greater burden than a great potential."
We reasonably expect more from those who have demonstrated that they can do more. Yes, it's important that a "good" doctor heal the sick, but is it unreasonable to expect that someone with such skills could do so much more good by healing a broken care delivery system? Maybe that's a bad example because medical skills themselves might not translate to organizational repair, but it's suggestive of what we consider "great potential."
Creativity is one aspect of "doing more." Perhaps the most skilled surgeon is expected to have the time to apply his skills naturally and more creatively, having the ability to see beyond what he has learned so that he can teach others.
Maybe not....
There was a Peanuts cartoon way back in the early '60s where Linus laments his mother's observation of his potetntial. His response was "there is no greater burden than a great potential."
We reasonably expect more from those who have demonstrated that they can do more. Yes, it's important that a "good" doctor heal the sick, but is it unreasonable to expect that someone with such skills could do so much more good by healing a broken care delivery system? Maybe that's a bad example because medical skills themselves might not translate to organizational repair, but it's suggestive of what we consider "great potential."
Creativity is one aspect of "doing more." Perhaps the most skilled surgeon is expected to have the time to apply his skills naturally and more creatively, having the ability to see beyond what he has learned so that he can teach others.
"LET not young souls be smothered out before
They do quaint deeds and fully flaunt their pride.
It is the world’s one crime its babes grow dull . . ."
from The Leaden-Eyed by Vachel Lindsay
They do quaint deeds and fully flaunt their pride.
It is the world’s one crime its babes grow dull . . ."
from The Leaden-Eyed by Vachel Lindsay
Good grief, this argument is nonsensical and simplistic.
9
The assumption here is that creative is always desirable-- not necessarily true. If everyone is a composer, who will be willing to sight read other pieces and play with the group? If everyone on a team is a maverick or hot shot, how will anything ever get done?
Using the sports/music metaphor, practice gets one to the point where playing is almost automatic, never self conscious. The well-practiced athlete pays attention to what is going on outside of himself, feels the game and reacts intuitively. The well-practiced musician listens to and watches others; she feels the music and plays intuitively.
Without the plumber. carpenter, and truck driver, the architect is nothing.
Using the sports/music metaphor, practice gets one to the point where playing is almost automatic, never self conscious. The well-practiced athlete pays attention to what is going on outside of himself, feels the game and reacts intuitively. The well-practiced musician listens to and watches others; she feels the music and plays intuitively.
Without the plumber. carpenter, and truck driver, the architect is nothing.
20
Roses shipped from South America have no fragrance of their own. Kept in the dark on ice, cut early and shipped cold, they don't absorb nutrients from the soil. They're a metaphor for thwarted genius: barely begun, beautiful, bouquet-less, boring.
3
I suspect that a formula for raising a creative child is, in and of itself, an oxymoron.
199
How to find the balance in life. That is the question. No matter art, science, sports, whatever. If we can know our kids well enough, to help them find that balance, perhaps that is the best gift we can offer. (also allowing them to make messes helps! :)
4
The author writes: "Most prodigies ... apply their extraordinary abilities by shining in their jobs without making waves. They become doctors who heal their patients without fighting to fix the broken medical system or lawyers who defend clients on unfair charges but do not try to transform the laws themselves."
Isn't it more than enough to be a shining doctor who heals patients or lawyer defending unfairly charged clients? Isn't a great career and life well spent? The author criticizes parents for pressuring and over-structuring kids, but the "bad result" seems pretty good. And wouldn't it be even more pressure on a budding genius to say "hey kid, I'm going to back off now and reduce the structure of your learning, so you can be a genius who revolutionizes your field and the world ... No pressure now!"
Isn't it more than enough to be a shining doctor who heals patients or lawyer defending unfairly charged clients? Isn't a great career and life well spent? The author criticizes parents for pressuring and over-structuring kids, but the "bad result" seems pretty good. And wouldn't it be even more pressure on a budding genius to say "hey kid, I'm going to back off now and reduce the structure of your learning, so you can be a genius who revolutionizes your field and the world ... No pressure now!"
154
The topic was 'creativity" not "success" or "fulfillment".
2
Independence, self reliance, kindness, taking responsibility for your own actions, honesty, and creativity go together. Joy comes slowly, but it is the fuel of creativity. A child, and anyone for that matter, needs lots of time to do nothing in particular (that means no electronic games, TV, social media, homework, soccer practice, nothing). This nothing is best done outdoors. After a while there arises a restlessness to be doing something. It is at this point that the creative spirit is most open and most vulnerable. The world will jump in and offer something to eat, buy, go to, wish for, be afraid of, or get worked up over.
Fill the home with the stuff of creativity: craft supplies, scientific supplies (magnifying glass, magnets, fish tanks, etc.), shop tools, a working kitchen, plants, and so forth. If the child sees others using these things regularly, and is encouraged to join in, then the environment will be supportive of creativity. Let there be lots of things to take apart and figure out. But also let the child select real things to be responsible for and then be sure to follow through and not take over.
How to do this? No money? Now you and your child have a PROBLEM TO SOLVE CREATIVELY. There is the library, found materials, yard sales, trading with someone, etc.
These suggestions will work for children and for the child in you. And I guarantee that if they don't, you and your child will be in a much better position to figure out what will!
Fill the home with the stuff of creativity: craft supplies, scientific supplies (magnifying glass, magnets, fish tanks, etc.), shop tools, a working kitchen, plants, and so forth. If the child sees others using these things regularly, and is encouraged to join in, then the environment will be supportive of creativity. Let there be lots of things to take apart and figure out. But also let the child select real things to be responsible for and then be sure to follow through and not take over.
How to do this? No money? Now you and your child have a PROBLEM TO SOLVE CREATIVELY. There is the library, found materials, yard sales, trading with someone, etc.
These suggestions will work for children and for the child in you. And I guarantee that if they don't, you and your child will be in a much better position to figure out what will!
103
This is an article in which the comments will probably be more interesting than the original piece. I look forward to reading about the commenters' own creative children.
4
I recently watched an old video from the 70s where Dick Cavett interviewed David Bowie. It's so clear that you're seeing someone creative in the best sense of the word, early on, where he is not accepted in the mainstream, made fun of. Cavett makes several references to people thinking he's weird and creepy, even quotes a woman who says she wouldn't be comfortable in a room with him. Bowie listens calmly. It's clear he's not oriented toward pleasing or impressing anyone. He says several times that he's not academic. He has no pretension at all. When Cavett asks him about his parents, Bowie hesitates only slightly before saying his father died long ago and his mother is in a flat somewhere. When Cavett presses a bit, Bowie says that she mostly pretends he's not her son.
For some reason that came to mind as I read this article and the comments. Interesting to consider what his mother's reaction probably was in 1972 when her son began putting on makeup and glittery leotards and performing a character called Ziggy Stardust.
Real creativity always runs the risk of rejection, and mockery, right up to the parental level, and so there's a certain amount of irony in talking about "how to parent a creative child."
And from the song "Changes" there are these great lyrics-- "...and these children that you spit on, as they try to change their world, are immune to your consultations. They're quite aware of what they're going through."
For some reason that came to mind as I read this article and the comments. Interesting to consider what his mother's reaction probably was in 1972 when her son began putting on makeup and glittery leotards and performing a character called Ziggy Stardust.
Real creativity always runs the risk of rejection, and mockery, right up to the parental level, and so there's a certain amount of irony in talking about "how to parent a creative child."
And from the song "Changes" there are these great lyrics-- "...and these children that you spit on, as they try to change their world, are immune to your consultations. They're quite aware of what they're going through."
18
David Bowie was more creative than most and I will miss him but he was, first and foremost, a good-looking fellow. Had Tiny Tim or Momma Cass invented Ziggy Stardust and produced an album that sounded exactly like Bowie's, the artistic community - and Dick Cavett - would have ignored them.
1
Another variable to consider is that creative visionaries are given blindfolds by those whose insecurities are challenged by their ideas. Those who truly see better ways, or methods that exceed current and past methods are perceived as threats to a comfortable status quo by managers, headmasters, and executive office occupants who have convinced themselves (and been convinced by others, and each other) they hold positions of authority because they know better. How painful it is for an eminent creative to be crushed by gatekeepers whose need for certainty and rejection of complexity and ambiguity result in the silencing of the new and better idea. If that creative is already an introvert or simply lacks the interest to engage with the conflict necessary to sell their idea(s), then is the failure theirs? Or their parents? Or their schools? Or is the failure that of those well-trained sheep who ascend to positions of responsible authority? Positions they hold, partly, by virtue of their ability to suppress new and truly innovative ideas? I think the argument in the essay neglects the cited researchers' work (especially Amabile's) on the role of context and the willingness of a domain to reject, or accept, innovative ideas.
4
Amen, Amen, Amen. All I would add here is that this "crushing" of creativity is not just a school or workplace issue, it is a part of the nasty pecking order games that dominate so much of human life. People react to qualities such as intelligence, eloquence and creativity with insecurity, as you pointed out. The 'fast-food' strategy for countering feelings of insecurity is to debase the other party and pull whatever dirty tricks are needed to prevent that party from advancing. I have seen a bumper sticker from time-to-time: "My sixth grader can kick your honor student's ass!" No one can have any credibility admitting that the real reason they hate and mistreat someone is due to insecurities; they have to turn the tables and diminish and abuse the 'gifted' party.
We have a President who has faced unbelievable knee-jerk hatred from the moment he appeared on the scene. Race is an obvious factor in the hatred. A somewhat less obvious reason for the hatred is the fact that he is a highly educated, highly intelligent and articulate man. Those qualities are all one needs to be hated by about 40% of this country. I have always felt that one reason that child prodigies often don't become adult prodigies is that they find that not standing out is a way to avoid the social battering that comes with being truly gifted.
We have a President who has faced unbelievable knee-jerk hatred from the moment he appeared on the scene. Race is an obvious factor in the hatred. A somewhat less obvious reason for the hatred is the fact that he is a highly educated, highly intelligent and articulate man. Those qualities are all one needs to be hated by about 40% of this country. I have always felt that one reason that child prodigies often don't become adult prodigies is that they find that not standing out is a way to avoid the social battering that comes with being truly gifted.
6
An excellent article except for the disparaging remark on Tiger Mothers at the end. What do you think Tiger Mothers do if not what you described as follows:
" parents encouraged their children to pursue excellence and success — but they also encouraged them to find “joy in work.” Their children had freedom to sort out their own values and discover their own interests. And that set them up to flourish as creative adults."
" parents encouraged their children to pursue excellence and success — but they also encouraged them to find “joy in work.” Their children had freedom to sort out their own values and discover their own interests. And that set them up to flourish as creative adults."
3
I have generated the most patents among the graduating class of my fellow U Penn Electrical Engineering graduates. I graduated smack the middle of that class. I was far from a child prodigy not was a particularly disciplined student. But somehow I turned out more creative and insightful.
5
My father was an engineer, and so was my older brother. My entire career was dominated by engineers, yet none of them were truly creative. They were successful because they had done their homework and did well enough in school. Somehow all that rote learning had stifled any creativity they may otherwise have had.
But few the engineers who are creative are the ones who make new discoveries, find unique solutions to enormous challenges, and often become the founders of new industries. They're smart, but more importantly, they're dreamers too.
But few the engineers who are creative are the ones who make new discoveries, find unique solutions to enormous challenges, and often become the founders of new industries. They're smart, but more importantly, they're dreamers too.
3
Just 8 have won Nobel Prizes? Did you take stat 101? That's an extraordinarily high % of what is a small number of Westinghousen winners. And as for children who fluently speak more than one language by eight, all you need to do is spend some time with the children of immigrants. 90% of them do that as a matter of course. Your article speaks way more to your ignorance than it does anything else.
26
Get this man out of the educational world. He makes too much sense.
2
My daughter is a truly gifted child, but my wife and I decided as she manifested her talents we would never push her into anything, and as a result she has grown into an original thinker and artist. She knows her own mind and goals, and she pushes herself while we both stand back in wonder.
3
Here is a concept. How about we stop obsessing about how to raise our children? How about we put down the books and instruction manuals and the videos and the iPad applications?
I think the points raised about creativity are spot-on. But I also think those children who discover their "passion" after 10,000 hours of dedicated and deep practice are no less winsome than the children who build a clever solution to a vexing problem through experimentation.
Let's focus on the things we can control: ourselves. Let's leave the kids alone a bit more. Let's agree that kids benefit from adults in their lives who are constants. Let's take vows to be those kids' parents for the rest of our lives and not just until we change our mind or life goals.
Let's evidence the kind of dedication and constancy and durability that is the stuff of character formation.
If the kid becomes an engineer or an artist, I'll take him or her. At least their energies will be poured into their lives and not redeeming the lives of their parents.
I think the points raised about creativity are spot-on. But I also think those children who discover their "passion" after 10,000 hours of dedicated and deep practice are no less winsome than the children who build a clever solution to a vexing problem through experimentation.
Let's focus on the things we can control: ourselves. Let's leave the kids alone a bit more. Let's agree that kids benefit from adults in their lives who are constants. Let's take vows to be those kids' parents for the rest of our lives and not just until we change our mind or life goals.
Let's evidence the kind of dedication and constancy and durability that is the stuff of character formation.
If the kid becomes an engineer or an artist, I'll take him or her. At least their energies will be poured into their lives and not redeeming the lives of their parents.
8
This piece makes two important conflations that muddy the argument and narrow its scope. First, the author confuses genius and prodigiousness, which are not the same. Second, using, achievement at the highest levels as a proxy for creativity unnecessarily dismisses the professional creativity of all sorts of people who have not sought the limelight.
18
Trying to recommend parenting technique to create nobel prize winners? Do you even have children? Criticizing parents who are trying to do the best for their children? What arrogance. There is so much amazing innovation and creativity from so many. The problem is not the gifted or the well cared for children. They will produce so much and do well. Its the disabled and uncared for children that need the help. Also your pseudo scientific editorial belongs alongside the antivaccine ramblings of Jenny McCarthy.
8
This made me think of a class in Architecture I took many years ago. Some of the students were from a poor African country and were there on scholarship. The lecturer told us that the work of the scholarship students was very different as they had little or no preconceptions of design, just a passion to create. While most of the rest of us had ideas that reflected the architectural fashion of the time, the African students had more unfettered imaginations.
4
And yet again, another professional know-it-all advising parents what to do and not to to with their children.
Here is some advice from a non professional, Mr. Grant - raise your own children, if you have any, as you see fit.
As for everyone else’s children - Mind. Your. Own. Business.
Please.
Here is some advice from a non professional, Mr. Grant - raise your own children, if you have any, as you see fit.
As for everyone else’s children - Mind. Your. Own. Business.
Please.
4
Your response really bolsters the writer's argument. Someone expresses ideas that are interesting and intelligent -whether we agree with them or not- and out comes some caveman with a club, eager to crush skulls. Parenting has come a long way since professionals and laypersons alike started questioning the process and contributing new ideas.
3
Plato called it "The Good." Thomas Aquinas called it, "God." The Constitution called it, "Happiness." These concepts counter the temporal societal goals of success. Money, power, and fame. The world is a better place for all those who pursue the profound Happiness of searching for The Good.
5
As a teenager my son won high awards (and a lot of money) as a classical musician. He played and made recordings with professional orchestras. He was also the leader of his school rock band, toured the country with the school computer club and was well-liked and accepted among his school peers, most of whom did not know of his extra-curricular activities. He then graduated with honors in computer science from a top university only to refuse to accept any of the job offers he received. He constructed a portfolio and went on to graduate school to study architecture. He became a design-build architect (and escaped death from a fall from the second floor of a house he was building), He enjoys carpentry more than sitting in front of a computer. A couple of years ago, after years, he took up playing the double bass. Now he plays in a top semi-professional orchestra (in his spare time).
Raising him was exhausting and exhilarating. We never dreamt of changing the life he chose because in his calm, respectful way, he was always determined.
Raising him was exhausting and exhilarating. We never dreamt of changing the life he chose because in his calm, respectful way, he was always determined.
7
I am not a fan of the Tiger mom style of parenting but this article in no way proves its point as other commenters are pointing out. Mozart is a terrible example. His father Leopoldo was a musician and teacher of music. His older sister Nannerl was a talented musician. Leopold had his children touring and performing around Europe by the time Mozart was 6 years old. Clearly his father did not back off and just let him do his own thing.
One issue not addressed about why talented kids do not always reach their potential is things come so easy to them when they are young that they are not used to struggling and failing. At some point even the most gifted reach a point when they must do so to reach the highest levels of their field. It can come as a shock when this happens and can cause them to give up. For the same reason these kids also tend to avoid things they are not good at, narrowing their experiences.
One issue not addressed about why talented kids do not always reach their potential is things come so easy to them when they are young that they are not used to struggling and failing. At some point even the most gifted reach a point when they must do so to reach the highest levels of their field. It can come as a shock when this happens and can cause them to give up. For the same reason these kids also tend to avoid things they are not good at, narrowing their experiences.
163
LOL. Of course they don't. The original people all spend their youth being arrested, getting drunk, high or driving at 100 mph on their way to who knows where. They don't win silly contests except almost by accident.
Silicon Valley companies don't give drug tests. Why? Because if they did they wouldn't be able to attract the most creative engineers who all tend to be crazier than thou. I once worked with a super creative genius who periodically do crazy things like throwing tool boxes through walls. We would then ignore him and repair the wall. Why? Because he could do what no one else in the World could do and we couldn't afford to lose him.
Unfortunately the bureaucrats have taken over the country and they are doing everything they can to make our economy fail. Laws like the one that denies student loans to people convicted of minor drug violations are lunatic. That one law has probably cost the country millions of jobs and trillions of dollars.
Silicon Valley companies don't give drug tests. Why? Because if they did they wouldn't be able to attract the most creative engineers who all tend to be crazier than thou. I once worked with a super creative genius who periodically do crazy things like throwing tool boxes through walls. We would then ignore him and repair the wall. Why? Because he could do what no one else in the World could do and we couldn't afford to lose him.
Unfortunately the bureaucrats have taken over the country and they are doing everything they can to make our economy fail. Laws like the one that denies student loans to people convicted of minor drug violations are lunatic. That one law has probably cost the country millions of jobs and trillions of dollars.
2
Oh no. Another criteria for the gifted child to be measured by. Now my Monday at work will be insufferable as everyone there has a child that is gifted in their own mind.
4
Somehow I doubt that the Wharton school is the place to go for advice on how to foster my kid's creativity.
33
"So what does it take to raise a creative child?" This questions presupposes that children can be raised to be creative. Creativity, like talent, is a separate aptitude or trait from being a child prodigy or even an adult genius. Just as child prodigies and geniuses are born that way, so too are creative people born that way. If a child does not have any creative genes, they are not going to become creative no matter how they are raised.
6
Good point, but let's remember that environment does matter to those born with gifts.
2
This is what the Montessori method is about. Let the kids be, let them play, discover, become passionate, become responsible, etc., to be curious, creative and entrepreneurial. Is it
just a coincidence that five of the most prominent ICT game changers
B. Gates dropped out of school
S. Jobs ditto
J. Besoz went to a Montessori
S. Brin & L. Page ditto
Practice is the consequence of passion, and Montessori's kids are obsessed with whatever strikes their curiosity.
just a coincidence that five of the most prominent ICT game changers
B. Gates dropped out of school
S. Jobs ditto
J. Besoz went to a Montessori
S. Brin & L. Page ditto
Practice is the consequence of passion, and Montessori's kids are obsessed with whatever strikes their curiosity.
1
Yes my daughter is preparing for entrance to a special art high school. Her creativity level since she began preparing has dropped to zero. She used to draw and create obsessively in every spare moment, Now she stares at a piece of paper with a pencil in hand and has no idea what to draw. If she's working on a still life or a portrait she's fine, but she seems unable to create anything from her own mind anymore. It never used to be a problem. Clearly she's afraid of producing something the admissions committee won't like. She's no longer creating for herself, but for others. She really wants to go to this school, however. We can only hope she'll figure out a way to do her own thing.
8
What does the author think of Picasso? Thousands of hours of copying masterpieces and then creating a whole new style of art? Everything does not work for everyone, but sometimes you have to learn the rules like a pro to break them like an artist.
20
This article undermines itself by the banality of its measurements. To be considered "creative" by Adam Grant, one must write new music, make earth-shattering inventions, win prizes, come out on top of the heap.
Nonsense. The prodigy who spends her life reading widely in her field, synthesizing and perfecting the work of others and perhaps caring for others (as mentor or literal caretaker) has not wasted her genius and creativity. Creativity comes out in how we live our lives, not in prizes and new inventions.
We as a society are too easily seduced by the idea of going for the big win. I'm not saying that doesn't have value -- it does -- but let's not get carried away. We don't need 5% more Steve Jobses -- a few will do. We need people whose creativity doesn't win prizes, fame, or big money, and might even stick to the local level rather than play out on the world stage. I think I've met a few of them -- really brilliant, engaged, imaginative yet grounded individuals -- and they're wonderful people who serve their communities well.
Nonsense. The prodigy who spends her life reading widely in her field, synthesizing and perfecting the work of others and perhaps caring for others (as mentor or literal caretaker) has not wasted her genius and creativity. Creativity comes out in how we live our lives, not in prizes and new inventions.
We as a society are too easily seduced by the idea of going for the big win. I'm not saying that doesn't have value -- it does -- but let's not get carried away. We don't need 5% more Steve Jobses -- a few will do. We need people whose creativity doesn't win prizes, fame, or big money, and might even stick to the local level rather than play out on the world stage. I think I've met a few of them -- really brilliant, engaged, imaginative yet grounded individuals -- and they're wonderful people who serve their communities well.
181
Agreed! Is it not enough to demonize memorization, now we have to move on demonizing practice? I can't believe the amount of shallow-minded dreck that comes out of PENN these days.
6
I feel like this article was all over the place and simplistic or even possibly wrong in assigning causality, and the author conflates a lot of ideas. For example, children with few rules (either none or one, I guess) were more creative than those with 6? It is well-known that working within structure and constraints engenders creativity. The comment about professionals who are excellent and shine in their jobs without bucking the broken system--they are somehow not creative? Being an excellent or even a good doctor entails a great deal of creativity and problem-solving on a day-to-day basis. Is the article about being creative, or being a revolutionary thinker and do-er? A person who takes on a system and changes it has some traits in addition to being creative, like leadership and assertiveness--and a lot of energy after their day job is done.
The simplistic points about practice and not being creative also are also misleading. Yes, rote practice will not engender new learning or creativity, but time put into your craft or field, yes, reading a lot of scientific literature within the field, practicing different styles of music, practicing medicine day-to-day--that adds to your knowledge and leads to new ways of thinking of things.
I think the best points can be summed up in the title, and in a couple of the paragraphs, including being broad in your interests and learning. The "supporting" arguments within the article as they are presented are specious.
The simplistic points about practice and not being creative also are also misleading. Yes, rote practice will not engender new learning or creativity, but time put into your craft or field, yes, reading a lot of scientific literature within the field, practicing different styles of music, practicing medicine day-to-day--that adds to your knowledge and leads to new ways of thinking of things.
I think the best points can be summed up in the title, and in a couple of the paragraphs, including being broad in your interests and learning. The "supporting" arguments within the article as they are presented are specious.
46
Learning, and probably intense learning more so, can often be a hindrance to creative thinking or problem solving. I will present one example that should be widely known, and up until recently, most could not resolve.
A father and his son went for a drive, and there was a terrible accident in which the father died, but the son survived and was taken to a hospital. The surgeon on duty said I cannot operate on this child because this child is my son. How is that possible?
People who are presented with this story undergo all sorts of contortions to explain an apparent impossibility. The difficulty arises because of prior knowledge largely gathered by observation, but that knowledge works mightily against the only explanation for the surgeon problem
The surgeon is of course the mother of the child. The difficulty in providing the correct explanation is that in our minds, surgeons must be men. A young child who can comprehend spoken language should not have any difficulty in providing the answer, because that child's thinking ability would not have had yet become hobbled by knowledge!
A father and his son went for a drive, and there was a terrible accident in which the father died, but the son survived and was taken to a hospital. The surgeon on duty said I cannot operate on this child because this child is my son. How is that possible?
People who are presented with this story undergo all sorts of contortions to explain an apparent impossibility. The difficulty arises because of prior knowledge largely gathered by observation, but that knowledge works mightily against the only explanation for the surgeon problem
The surgeon is of course the mother of the child. The difficulty in providing the correct explanation is that in our minds, surgeons must be men. A young child who can comprehend spoken language should not have any difficulty in providing the answer, because that child's thinking ability would not have had yet become hobbled by knowledge!
4
The surgeon is of course the mother of the child.
...............................................................................
I thought that the surgeon was the biological father since he had an affair with the mother of the child.
...............................................................................
I thought that the surgeon was the biological father since he had an affair with the mother of the child.
1
I appreciate the research, and I'm sure there is something in what you say. But the origins of an exceptionally creative person are surely more complex. I mean, I have known lots of parents with very few rules who let their offspring follow their own creative muse. The boys tend to play video games 8 hours a day, join a garage band, smoke dope, and drop out of college after their freshman year.
If you are just saying, don't micro-control your child; ok, I get that. But I think you left out the completely unpredictable lottery of genius, along with an allowance for just a bit more parental guidance.
If you are just saying, don't micro-control your child; ok, I get that. But I think you left out the completely unpredictable lottery of genius, along with an allowance for just a bit more parental guidance.
44
Hahaha. I love it. They read my mind!!!!
I love the one "he had a pk teacher retiring after 40 years who had never seen such precocious artistic ability!" We are rolling on the floor in St Paul! Thanks so much for this article.
2
Adam Grant misunderstands the purpose of practicing. It's not to memorize by rote -- this may happen after only one or two run-throughs. Practicing not only builds up strength, it is the laboratory for mastery; exploring how to do it better, more efficiently. He is right about the freedom the lack of restrictions fosters. After I showed my third-grade teacher my poems and she accused me of plagiarizing, she told my mother that I should be *prevented from reading* or I wouldn't grow up "normal." By fourth grade I was already becoming depressed. It was many years later that my mother told me that she had been instructed to interfere with my enthusiasm and drive. As a great opera singer recently remarked in an interview, "You know your own voice better than anyone. Don't let anyone change you, or force you into paths that may harm your development."
10
I am not catholic but I would recommend that every parent that has a very intelligent child to send this child to a catholic school. Teachers in catholic school try to teach children at different levels of intelligence. It is not a matter as in the public schools of teaching at the lowest level. Teachers at catholic schools are different since there jobs are not dependent upon the scores of state exams.
This a good alternative for parents that can not afford to send their child to an expensive private school.
This a good alternative for parents that can not afford to send their child to an expensive private school.
You know nothing about gifted children. Gifted children are those with an IQ two standard deviations above the mean. Starting point about 130, then upwards - 145 - 150 -160 - the higher the IQ the greater the challenges including mental health challenges. These kids deserve special education services just as much as kids with IQ's of 80, and they get nothing but ignorant observations like yours. But, oh dear, now I see its my fault for being a bad parent of my little prodigy, sorry I am just doing my best to see she thrives and doesn't get eaten alive by the likes of you.
6
When you feel like an article is a personal attack is probably when it's best to really look inside yourself.
Gifted in terms of genius and disruption of social norms is way more than a high IQ. As a normal guy who does fine but nothing that interesting and who tests consistently between 135-150 but grew up in a Catholic house with a lot of rules I can say this confidently. I have trouble breaking out of the box, and at this point it's embedded in my character to a degree that is difficult to counter.
Gifted in terms of genius and disruption of social norms is way more than a high IQ. As a normal guy who does fine but nothing that interesting and who tests consistently between 135-150 but grew up in a Catholic house with a lot of rules I can say this confidently. I have trouble breaking out of the box, and at this point it's embedded in my character to a degree that is difficult to counter.
1
If you have the money send your child to a catholic school. Teachers at catholic schools teach at different levels.
Gifted programs in public schools are a total waste. The teachers that run these programs believe that gifted children can be ignored since they are intelligent.
Public schools no longer separate children in classes based upon intelligence. Instead they want intelligent children to help the children in classes that are not intelligent.
Gifted programs in public schools are a total waste. The teachers that run these programs believe that gifted children can be ignored since they are intelligent.
Public schools no longer separate children in classes based upon intelligence. Instead they want intelligent children to help the children in classes that are not intelligent.
2
What could be more bogus than the notion that there are possible households where parents make one or fewer rules? Oh really? So these kids were allowed to eat glass if they so desired? To never ever brush their teeth? To physically abuse people with whom they disagreed? There isn't a real household, "creative" or not, that functions without rules - the only difference is the way parents and children negotiate the things that will remain tacit or explicit. Once again, as business a professor steps outside the world of commerce, with all its peculiar assumptions and methods, we see how bafflingly incongruent that world is with the place the rest of us live. Just the state of the art in bad research.
14
I don't think the author was advocating for a lord-of-the-files totally without rules household. There are many valid points in the article, especially about turning kids into high-performing robots who will ultimately just be task masters but never be able to think beyond the system in which they operate. I'm not sure how that is bad research.
I think this Comment needs refinement in the concept of "rules." Not eating glass and brushing of teeth are different kinds of rules -- more like regulations, like finishing homework. Gratuitous violence has nothing to do with this discussion. As for Rules as Principles: One must render unto Caesar, but only the things that are Caesar's; the requirements of the spirit are the demands of the spirit and these demands are resisted at one's peril. I am reminded of the diary of an American man who went to study Zen Buddhism in Japan a long while ago. The new students were given only two rules: to meditate two hours every day, and not to smoke while making water. Given the motivation of the participants, the mind had nothing to do but become aware. To conclude, I will not even mention the embarrassingly loose use of the word "values" in the present discussion.
1
In these days of tiger parenting, I am constantly amazed at the large percentage of parents who believe their child is naturally "gifted", "advanced" or a "genius". It seems the ultimate parental vanity is to assume your child is gifted despite in spite of their apparent genetic inheritance of ordinariness from their parents. Genius must be the new average!
If their results or achievements do not reflect their child's alleged superior abilities, these parents blame the teachers, the schools or the education system for their child's ordinary performance.
Why can't parents accept that perhaps their children, just like themselves, might just be average? And there is nothing wrong with that.
If their results or achievements do not reflect their child's alleged superior abilities, these parents blame the teachers, the schools or the education system for their child's ordinary performance.
Why can't parents accept that perhaps their children, just like themselves, might just be average? And there is nothing wrong with that.
24
This is so true, and I hear parents saying over and over how gifted their kid is and how the kid's genius is unrecognized by school/teacher/society/peers. These kids get bounced from school to school, develop self esteem problems, and invariably end up coming up short and knowing it. Do your kid a favor and keep their test scores, aptitudes, etc. to yourself.
2
typical tiger moms (and Chinese parents) want their kids to be doctors and lawyers so they can get kudos ('big face') from their peers - and of course money.
Creativity ? - not so much - just watch how Chinese people tend to walk past street buskers (who are often professional musicians) - ignore them like dirt, as traditionally in China street buskers were equated with beggars - keep your nose in the air, don't look at them, keep walking !
Creativity ? - not so much - just watch how Chinese people tend to walk past street buskers (who are often professional musicians) - ignore them like dirt, as traditionally in China street buskers were equated with beggars - keep your nose in the air, don't look at them, keep walking !
3
In his book, "The Talent Code". Dan Coyle speaks to the power of motivation and passion. He shares the science behind talent and deepens and breaks apart Gladwell's 10,000 hours. Amazing book and speaks to this article.
Actually, most creative children will stay creative as adults, but they just fail the uncreative tests of valuing success.
35
I agree with this. Motivation ultimately must come from within, as a source of joy. That is the only way to sustain it. I think that is the true reason why the creative individual is so rare. It is, and will remain, a mystery.
1
This sounds a lot like a parenting and educational style called Unschooling, that I raised 4 kids on. All parenting paths and dogma has its traps and flaws, but it sure was fun.
1
' “Those who do must make a painful transition” to an adult who “ultimately remakes a domain.” ' An astute observation of the sad, life altering consequences one suffers when subjugating their innate, creative self to the expectations of others. I was that prodigy, and now struggle (painfully so) to leave the realm of duality and become wholly myself. From a very early age on, I absorbed the harm done from constantly shifting between two ways of being — either conform to the conditioning values of a punishing education, church, culture of industry, and family (don't be an artist, you'll starve!) which I accepted to survive, or maintain fidelity to the precious, precocious artist I knew to myself to be then, and hopefully still am.
2
How about love and acceptance? Would that help? and also a stable harmonic and supportive environment.
9
Very true! I think that it is essential though to give back to kids something that society has stolen from them: The capacity of amazement! Nowadays children don´t ever think about where the food they are putting in their mouth comes from, and how it got there! I also encourage parents of my students to desintoxicate their kids from tablets, smart phones, video games... Children need to develop the muscles of their hands by doing the kind of motor skills exercises we did in preschool. Today even babies are immersed in a whole bunch of gadgetry, of video. And also eliminate TV and internet from the map. I think it only fries their brains.I rather spend time with my little girl role playing games using our imagination, not following a mechanized drill from Disney Channel or MTV. And read to them from the womb, in different languages. Have them listen to all sorts of music, invent, create, imagine, solve problems not just Google for answers! Talk to them, face to face not by video or FB! How hard it is now to find job prospects capable of writing a letter on their own, filing a complaint, solving common senses stuff. That´s another thing that has been extradited along with morals, values, eye to eye contact, handshakes, hugs, smiles not emoticons.And SELF-ESTEEM! Particularly in little girls, but also boys,,. Now they all seem tio be Elmo freaks that cry for everything, are always sad and bored!
2
Real creativity requires a willingness to buck the system and take the ensuing flak, as the creative ideas may take a long time in nurturing and recognition.
Not everyone has the nerves for it and sometimes it just becomes easier to become "excellent sheep". One needs a tremendous amount of self-esteem and self-confidence to persevere.
Moreover, not every child who bucks the system is a creative genius.
Not everyone has the nerves for it and sometimes it just becomes easier to become "excellent sheep". One needs a tremendous amount of self-esteem and self-confidence to persevere.
Moreover, not every child who bucks the system is a creative genius.
14
I've read the first paragraph and three names quickly came to mind, Mozart , John Stuart Mill, Orson Welles. There is little basis for the thesis.
2
I was a moderately gifted child- and as an artist, pretty good. But I don't know how many times I heard that if I continued with my passion, I would end up an artist starving to death in my garret.
9
My wife and I have raised, and continue warm supportive relationships with, two artists. One's a drummer and one's a visual artist. We're both of the benign neglect/active encouragement school. We're also of the push back--HARD, when necessary--school when it comes to those aspects of schooling that stress rules and conformity and testing. We've ended up on more than one "bad parent" list because of our willingness to back our kids when they have inevitably tangled with teachers and administrators. So our additional advice, beyond benign neglect, is to not be obsessed either with their grades or developing an ivy-league academic pedigree. Real creativity--doing something NEW--requires trespassing boundaries and making others uncomfortable, and occasionally even angry. Parenting a true artist is not easy nor for the faint of heart. But providing an environment where an artist can truly flourish from a foundation of knowing they are loved absolutely... worth it. SO worth it.
4
The goal of parenting isn't solely to raise a creative child. It is to help raise a happy person. The strategies named in the article make sense in keeping barriers away from creativity goals, but more importantly: staying out of kids' way in general (while providing appropriate boundaries, particularly for the youngest) is the best way to help them be happy. Micromanagement leads to anxiety, and boy I wish the parents of America would knock it off.
4
"But just 1 percent ended up making the National Academy of Sciences, and just eight have won Nobel Prizes." So 20 of the 2250 members of the NAS and eight Nobel Prizes? Find another cohort of 2000 with those numbers, which sound pretty impressive to me. It will take a stronger adverb than "Just" to make them seem insignificant.
14
Does Mr Grant actually HAVE children? How can he have written this article and not known that the Westinghouse Science Talent Search changed its name to the INTEL Science Talent Search? Has he had a child who has ever entered a Science Fair (which one must win to move on toward ISTS. How did he miss this: "Seven decades since its launch, the program has recognized almost 3,000 finalists with more than $13 million in scholarships. Alumni include holders of more than 100 of the world's most coveted science and math honors. These include eleven National Medals of Science winners, eighteen MacArthur Foundation Fellows, two Fields Medalists and twelve Nobel Laureates." If that isn't creative, I don't know what is!
As for the "few rules" - well, perhaps that works if one doesn't care if ones child ever gets a job, but since most parents expect them to do so, rules that enforce good living and work habits are essential, no matter how brilliant one is. At some point, they must come out of the basement and interact with normal people.
Mr Grant is correct that parents need to back off. Creativity often comes from independent problem solving, and if parents jump in and solve every single problem, there is little chance for creativity (or self-reliance and confidence!).
There are very few child prodigies out there and very few parents are going to raise a Nobel prize winner. But a child with good problem solving skills is possible, will probably have creativity as well.
As for the "few rules" - well, perhaps that works if one doesn't care if ones child ever gets a job, but since most parents expect them to do so, rules that enforce good living and work habits are essential, no matter how brilliant one is. At some point, they must come out of the basement and interact with normal people.
Mr Grant is correct that parents need to back off. Creativity often comes from independent problem solving, and if parents jump in and solve every single problem, there is little chance for creativity (or self-reliance and confidence!).
There are very few child prodigies out there and very few parents are going to raise a Nobel prize winner. But a child with good problem solving skills is possible, will probably have creativity as well.
14
"just eight [of 2000] have won Nobel Prizes". What a sad state of affairs...
8
We have 4 children who are creative. Not one Nobel yet, but they like to think independently and do their own thing, at their own level.
They're not content to carry on with what other people do. There's always room to innovate and improve. Creating something new or better is interesting.. that's the passion they need.
Creativity also requires creating (work), so they can't be afraid of work. But it's a different kind of work. They can't be afraid to work at something that may not pay them in a way people are being used to being paid. It's art. It's ready when it's ready.
Maybe over-achieving children don't have experience working without rewards.. they're afraid to risk ten years with no reward. Its easier to take money isn't it?
I don't believe for a second parents reasonable rules limit a child's future creativity. Guidance often helps kids sort out the wasteful or harmful attitudes and behaviors, leaving them able to focus on creating something. The author reveals serious child rearing deficiencies.
Creativity comes from confidence, courage, skills, and interest in creating something new and better. Parents can use opportunities to encourage creativity, not with false praise, but with genuine interest in exploring the possibilities with them. That time inspires confidence.
Courage to do work without reward is a spiritual matter. Maybe at church they'll learn miracles happen when people don't follow "popular" wisdom, but look for something higher.
They're not content to carry on with what other people do. There's always room to innovate and improve. Creating something new or better is interesting.. that's the passion they need.
Creativity also requires creating (work), so they can't be afraid of work. But it's a different kind of work. They can't be afraid to work at something that may not pay them in a way people are being used to being paid. It's art. It's ready when it's ready.
Maybe over-achieving children don't have experience working without rewards.. they're afraid to risk ten years with no reward. Its easier to take money isn't it?
I don't believe for a second parents reasonable rules limit a child's future creativity. Guidance often helps kids sort out the wasteful or harmful attitudes and behaviors, leaving them able to focus on creating something. The author reveals serious child rearing deficiencies.
Creativity comes from confidence, courage, skills, and interest in creating something new and better. Parents can use opportunities to encourage creativity, not with false praise, but with genuine interest in exploring the possibilities with them. That time inspires confidence.
Courage to do work without reward is a spiritual matter. Maybe at church they'll learn miracles happen when people don't follow "popular" wisdom, but look for something higher.
2
We need a 'How to Raise a Person' article. People need to learn how to just be a person... It's this fanaticism with our children growing up to change the world and gain fame that's raising the next generation of entitled know-it-alls. Just be a person!!
5
Adam, there is freedom in freedom - rock on! Thank you for bringing the conversation to the table.
Not every "creative" child needs to grow up to be an artist, a musician, or whatnot. There's much to be said for getting a job that draws on part of one's creativity -- and then spending one's free time drawing, sculpting, playing the piano, learning a new instrument, weaving cane seats for old ladder-back chairs, and so on.
(Of course, those pastimes sometimes require a bit of money. But then, scrambling to earn a living as, say, a wannabe musician doesn't bring in the dough either.)
(Of course, those pastimes sometimes require a bit of money. But then, scrambling to earn a living as, say, a wannabe musician doesn't bring in the dough either.)
6
My son is a 2013 graduate of Princeton. When he was admitted, people asked us what kinds of "demands" we made of our son so that he achieved admittance to such an elite school. (No, he was not a legacy and received generous financial aid.)
In fact, we never pressured or pushed my son David in any way. I simply told him to "be the best David you can be," and he took it from there. True, his father and I love learning, so he grew up in an atmosphere of intellectual excitement. But he imbibed this intellectual ferment through osmosis, not through parental pressure.
To raise a creative child, I advise parents to let the child follow his or her passions, and the creativity will come. I think we all have the potential to be creative, but our educational system and society in general squelch that creativity from Day One.
In fact, we never pressured or pushed my son David in any way. I simply told him to "be the best David you can be," and he took it from there. True, his father and I love learning, so he grew up in an atmosphere of intellectual excitement. But he imbibed this intellectual ferment through osmosis, not through parental pressure.
To raise a creative child, I advise parents to let the child follow his or her passions, and the creativity will come. I think we all have the potential to be creative, but our educational system and society in general squelch that creativity from Day One.
77
We had a similar experience. I was shocked when people would ask us "how did you do it?" The answer is, we didn't, she did. My daughter chose what university she wanted to go to at age 12, she then read books about it and made a strategy. We enabled her to follow her passions, and rarely pushed her, though did sometimes remind her to stay on track. The motivation really must come from within.
Richard Feynman played the bongo. Rabindranath Tagore painted. Mozart never won a prize in his lifetime. Serendipity occurs to those who let their minds roam, driven by insatiable curiosity and backed by persistence. Many parents mistake drones for artists and so raise children who are like bees in their unchanging hives. They get the job done, perhaps with a flourish, but no one will ever mistake them for Shakespeare or Laser-inventor Charles Townes. Parents, don't rob your children of their childhood on account of your fantasy.
1
I had a child in the "gifted and talented" program who brought her teacher to tears because she walked her own path and did not fit into the slow paced group-think like the other students. Mine always forged her own way, which was seen as a passive-agressive affront to the educator. My student had to fight the system to take community college classes in 8th grade (receiving better grades than some of her 18 year old classmates), then earned a tuition scholarship to a state college, finished college in 4 years, and can communicate in English, Mandarin, and some Japanese, German, and Russian, and is employed and an international traveller. Give them age-appropriate information, advice when asked, and responsibilty for their choices, then let them do research and make their own choices.
3
Backing off will no more produce a creative genius than pushing your child. Neither strategy makes the slightest difference to what is essentially an autonomous process. Beethoven's father did not back off. And Lars von Trier's parents left him to his own devices. Both are geniuses and both hated their childhood.
My guess is that most parents who follow Adam Grant's spurious advice (one rule or none is better than six) will end up with the rude obnoxious brats whom you can see bouncing off the waiting room walls of any upscale Manhattan pediatrician's office. Maybe one of a million such brats will spontaneously become a creative genius as an adult but so will one out of a million drones who win spelling bees and piano competitions.
But guess what, a large proportion of the remaining brats will be all attitude and no skill while the drones will at least become doctors and corporate lawyers. By using creativity as the ultimate-and perhaps only-benchmark, Mr. Grant falls into the same trap as the Tiger Moms he so despises.
Enjoying a thing does make it more likely that a child will own it. But sometimes the initial drudgery is necessary to make the breakthrough to find something worth enjoying.
When it comes to raising children the golden rule is that there is no golden rule. The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter.
My guess is that most parents who follow Adam Grant's spurious advice (one rule or none is better than six) will end up with the rude obnoxious brats whom you can see bouncing off the waiting room walls of any upscale Manhattan pediatrician's office. Maybe one of a million such brats will spontaneously become a creative genius as an adult but so will one out of a million drones who win spelling bees and piano competitions.
But guess what, a large proportion of the remaining brats will be all attitude and no skill while the drones will at least become doctors and corporate lawyers. By using creativity as the ultimate-and perhaps only-benchmark, Mr. Grant falls into the same trap as the Tiger Moms he so despises.
Enjoying a thing does make it more likely that a child will own it. But sometimes the initial drudgery is necessary to make the breakthrough to find something worth enjoying.
When it comes to raising children the golden rule is that there is no golden rule. The greatest scientific creative genius of recent memory, Richard Feynman realized this when he tried to teach his children and discovered that what worked for his son did not work for his daughter.
361
Hmmm....this makes me think about Donald Trump's childhood. Wasn't he sent to military school?
Good points. But you, like Grant, are ridiculous to put down kids who win spelling bees or piano competitions. They are good hard working kids who practice and follow simple rules. They make their parents proud. Why do we have to tear that down?
5
Thanks for this article. It does a great job showing how to raise creative children. Unfortunately, many driven parent seem to be doing the exact opposite! I live in Silicon Valley and see the length in which parent go to for "creating" successful kids!
Our son, an accomplished artist and educator, was in fact raised pretty much like what this article suggests. we had no rules - instead we had values. We didn't punish him - instead we had discussions. If we didn't allow something we explained why and made sure he understands.
He did funny things - funny because from a grownup point of view they made no sense. But - and this is a big but - if you put yourself in the child's place, understanding his limited experience with the world and how things work - then most of what he does is quiet logical. Remembering that - seeing the situation from the child's point of view - is essential for raising a kid.
The other rule we followed was to treat him with respect. No matter how old kids are, never scold or punish them in front of others; never spank them; never compare them to other kids. Treat them the way you would like to be treated - with love and respect. Believe me that rule is the best rule.
I know that reading this article some parents now might go out of their ways to give kids "freedom" so perhaps we need more discussion to make it clear in what context this freedom is given.
Our son, an accomplished artist and educator, was in fact raised pretty much like what this article suggests. we had no rules - instead we had values. We didn't punish him - instead we had discussions. If we didn't allow something we explained why and made sure he understands.
He did funny things - funny because from a grownup point of view they made no sense. But - and this is a big but - if you put yourself in the child's place, understanding his limited experience with the world and how things work - then most of what he does is quiet logical. Remembering that - seeing the situation from the child's point of view - is essential for raising a kid.
The other rule we followed was to treat him with respect. No matter how old kids are, never scold or punish them in front of others; never spank them; never compare them to other kids. Treat them the way you would like to be treated - with love and respect. Believe me that rule is the best rule.
I know that reading this article some parents now might go out of their ways to give kids "freedom" so perhaps we need more discussion to make it clear in what context this freedom is given.
7
Great, at 61 I've still got a shot!!
1
This sounds exactly like what our local Waldorf School promotes: giving kids the time and mental space to be imaginative. Yes academics are important, but as Einstein noted,“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.”
3
Thoughtful, helpful column. Most telling sentence, to me:
Practice makes perfect, but it doesn’t make new.
Btw, I'm a public school music teacher, and your child has to like it. It's not fun ALL the time, but it usually is, and they need to enjoy it to be any good at it.
Practice makes perfect, but it doesn’t make new.
Btw, I'm a public school music teacher, and your child has to like it. It's not fun ALL the time, but it usually is, and they need to enjoy it to be any good at it.
61
My son was quite artistic as a child so in our playroom we installed a kid friendly closet organizer with all the art stuff neatly arranged. In a drawer we had all variety of paper. We stuck an easel in a corner with the painting apron attached.
We had crayons and color books and clay and play dough. We had a laminate flooring he could spill on and an oversized coffee table upon which to create. He spent hours in that room. Sometimes we colored our own pictures or did water colors. On nature hikes, we often collected flotsam and jetsam to use in collages. It was all about FUN, never about any long range plan. As a college kid, he has a great eye for design and still enjoys doing creative stuff. It is still all about the FUN.
We had crayons and color books and clay and play dough. We had a laminate flooring he could spill on and an oversized coffee table upon which to create. He spent hours in that room. Sometimes we colored our own pictures or did water colors. On nature hikes, we often collected flotsam and jetsam to use in collages. It was all about FUN, never about any long range plan. As a college kid, he has a great eye for design and still enjoys doing creative stuff. It is still all about the FUN.
69
Over the past 6 years, I lived in Singapore and China, two countries known for best-in-world national test scores, as well as a culture where parents obsess about their 3-year-olds’ academic, artistic, and athletic achievements in a way that puts the worst American Tiger Moms to shame. I worked with, and managed, the products of these cultures’ educational systems. When it came to book learning and knowing the technical aspects of their jobs, they were awesome. But every time we had a situation that required a new or creative way of looking at a problem, they would invariably shut down and come to me to solve their problems. Their educational systems focus on cramming extraordinary amounts of information but do not give them the tools to use that information effectively in creative problem-solving. I have returned to the US now with a feeling that maybe our “failed” American education system isn’t doing so badly after all.
183
8 Nobel Prize winner out of a pool of 2,000? That seems pretty good. I'd rather have my child in that pool than in the rest of the 7,000,000,000.
8
As long as most Ivy League admits are perfect robots like today, parents will continue to groom them.
There are also far more low risk high reward job slots for perfect robots, vs. high narrow peaks for the creative.
There are also far more low risk high reward job slots for perfect robots, vs. high narrow peaks for the creative.
Thank you for sharing this most interesting piece!
1
Here, here! So much is being written about creativity and education, but this article is more succinct than most: Support your child in his or her own interests and believe that your faith in him/her and those experiences will point the way. I hope many parents are reading this poignant article! Educators too.
3
You don't have to worry about raising a creative child. They just are. You raise your children to be as healthy and happy as you can, the rest is up to them. Creative, go it alone types aren't better than cooperative follower types. We need all types in this world! Just feed them, love them, and wash them once in a while!
7
Creativity comes in all shapes and forms. Many of the comments mention creativity in the arts alone. I am a teacher and prize my creativity in the classroom to construct an assignment that will spark creativity or the love of learning in a child. Luckily, I was raised by hands-off parents who didn't even talk to me about college. I figured it out for myself and made the best choices for me. Is that necessarily the best way? It worked for me. Now, if only I can take my hands-off my own kids...
3
As a student, I met several future members of the National Academy. All of them had work habits that would make any Tiger Mom proud.
I don't believe that there is one single trait that predicts whether a child will achieve great success. It's a combinatorial problem. Future NA members aren't simply smart or hard-working or creative - they are all of these things, as well as confident, focused, patient, and genuinely excited about their field. A large portion of the population is at least one of these things, but very few people are all of them.
I don't believe that there is one single trait that predicts whether a child will achieve great success. It's a combinatorial problem. Future NA members aren't simply smart or hard-working or creative - they are all of these things, as well as confident, focused, patient, and genuinely excited about their field. A large portion of the population is at least one of these things, but very few people are all of them.
14
Given that the National Academy of Sciences has only 2,200 members and less than 0.001% of the general US adult population are members, the 1% of Westinghouse Science Talent Search finalists who are members represents a success rate that is at least three orders of magnitude higher. 1% is actually a huge success rate in this context!
112
Agree...there have been only 583 Nobels in the sciences (not counting Econ, since they probably didn't do the Westinghouse...see at Nobel Prize website). So a little over 1% of the Westinghouse kids have won Nobels, BUT how many people have lived in the world since 1885? Clearly there is room for growth in statistics studies for op-ed writers. And is the Nobel really the standard Grant wants to apply here? Sounds pretty intense to me. BTW, we are not Tiger parents.....
2
And "only" 1 out of 250 won the Nobel Prize!
2
There is undoubtedly some truth to the argument, but the examples are sloppy.
So, 8 out of 2000 Westinghouse Science Talent Search finalists were Nobel Prize winners. First, that is actually a pretty high predictor! Do we expect ~ 0.5% chance of a Nobel Prize among average children? Second, what do we know about the child rearing practices of these Westinghouse finalists?
Nobel Prize winners are more likely to have participated in performance arts...Perhaps that correlates with better abilities to work with other people, build teams, take credit (e.g., Watson and Crick), focus on one's ego, etc. Science is not a solitary pursuit and singling out a few individuals for high profile prizes does not acknowledge how science is generally done. Science is very much a social activity, not a solitary creative pursuit that is still imagined in the public mind.
So, 8 out of 2000 Westinghouse Science Talent Search finalists were Nobel Prize winners. First, that is actually a pretty high predictor! Do we expect ~ 0.5% chance of a Nobel Prize among average children? Second, what do we know about the child rearing practices of these Westinghouse finalists?
Nobel Prize winners are more likely to have participated in performance arts...Perhaps that correlates with better abilities to work with other people, build teams, take credit (e.g., Watson and Crick), focus on one's ego, etc. Science is not a solitary pursuit and singling out a few individuals for high profile prizes does not acknowledge how science is generally done. Science is very much a social activity, not a solitary creative pursuit that is still imagined in the public mind.
51
Those poking at the numbers have the wrong end of the stick. It's not about 8 Nobel prizes out of a pool of 2000 of the brightest, it's about only 8 out of every child who has graduated with the requisite science education that started at the bottom of the selection process to become one of the 2000 and one of the 8 for all the years of the Westinghouse prize.
That's a LOT of kids, a lot of sheep, a lot of opportunity foregone.
That's a LOT of kids, a lot of sheep, a lot of opportunity foregone.
I don't want my child to bring original ideas to the world, I want my kid to get a job.
44
And therin lies the problem.
1
Unfortunately, just getting a job is not enough. Creativity is not just about winning Nobel Prizes, it is about being able to think for oneself to solve problems without needing someone else to tell you what to do. If your kid can't do that, he or she will be replaced by a robot.
2
Jeez, how many non-creative jobs do you think will be left in 20 years? 50 years? If your kid can't reinvent himself every ten years, he's doomed to the lowest salary someone in the third world would take to do the same work.
2
Creativity is defined by more than putting pen or paint onto a medium.
Just because someone's child turns into an architect or violinist/composer does not make them a special kind of "creative". They are not more creative than the person figuring out how to make computers, better traffic patterns or a plumber.
Just because someone's child turns into an architect or violinist/composer does not make them a special kind of "creative". They are not more creative than the person figuring out how to make computers, better traffic patterns or a plumber.
79
I was gifted/talented in language arts and have a high IQ, but well below average in movement ability and spatial relations (as they used to call it), I taught myself to read in kindergarten and was reading challenging adult books by fourth grade. I was the kind of kid who read Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain in 9th grade, painstakingly translating its lengthy French passage with my schoolgirl French and a dictionary. For fun. Not a school assignment.
However, I was also fascinated by machines and tools. It was a source of great frustration and humiliating angst that I could not make them work for me. My lack of coordination and balance also bothered me.
I was, in fact, grossly deficient in some of the other important intelligences. Nobody at the time thought this was a problem (though it felt like one to me).
Today in my 60s I am focusing on learning to repair vintage sewing machines. I read light books for pleasure only and I no longer write much (I had a career in marketing/business writing for 25 years.) And I go to a personal trainer twice/week to develop better balance and fitness than I had as a child. I'm so pleased with myself!!! IQ-type talents can be very narrowing even as the provide a means to attend a good college and make a decent living.
However, I was also fascinated by machines and tools. It was a source of great frustration and humiliating angst that I could not make them work for me. My lack of coordination and balance also bothered me.
I was, in fact, grossly deficient in some of the other important intelligences. Nobody at the time thought this was a problem (though it felt like one to me).
Today in my 60s I am focusing on learning to repair vintage sewing machines. I read light books for pleasure only and I no longer write much (I had a career in marketing/business writing for 25 years.) And I go to a personal trainer twice/week to develop better balance and fitness than I had as a child. I'm so pleased with myself!!! IQ-type talents can be very narrowing even as the provide a means to attend a good college and make a decent living.
Name the greatest plumber of five-hundred years ago, the greatest traffic pattern analyst of the last hundred years, or computer engineer? Or maybe they eclipse, Beethoven, Renoir and Hemingway.
On the one hand, I agree with the gist of this article (and I'd like to say that's how we raised our child). On the other hand, just reading the abstract of the cited study, it's not very robust. I really hope they do more research, as I'm quite sure that the "Tiger Moms" and "Lombardi Dads" are doing a lot more harm (both to their own kids and to all their peers) than good.
18
Parents backing off is the first step in raising a creative child. Second comes the struggle to find a school, then a university that values and nurtures that ethos. The system, even at its best, fosters excellence, only in service to producing highly functioning cogs for the wheel. There's no profit in learning,thinking, exploring for its own sake, and therefor no use in it.
How many gifted mathematicians are funded to explore the limits of their field in pursuit of pure knowledge; how many become creators of arcane algorithms that net billions for Wall Street? Universities are not being funded to produce the Einsteins of tomorrow. They are increasingly being funded by industry and their curriculum tailored to meet their needs.
Art, music, dance, philosophy, creative writing fall by the wayside in a world where everything is judged by how it serves the common good, in this case the growing of the economy. What use the philosopher when your GDP is down?
Nonetheless, I think we are about to have a renaissance in raising creative children and fostering them through adulthood, not in spite of our many and myriad problems, but as a consequence of them. Our best and most intelligent young people have been poorly used. They are waking up that fact and are not going to make the same mistakes their own parents made. They will make others for sure, but not this one.
How many gifted mathematicians are funded to explore the limits of their field in pursuit of pure knowledge; how many become creators of arcane algorithms that net billions for Wall Street? Universities are not being funded to produce the Einsteins of tomorrow. They are increasingly being funded by industry and their curriculum tailored to meet their needs.
Art, music, dance, philosophy, creative writing fall by the wayside in a world where everything is judged by how it serves the common good, in this case the growing of the economy. What use the philosopher when your GDP is down?
Nonetheless, I think we are about to have a renaissance in raising creative children and fostering them through adulthood, not in spite of our many and myriad problems, but as a consequence of them. Our best and most intelligent young people have been poorly used. They are waking up that fact and are not going to make the same mistakes their own parents made. They will make others for sure, but not this one.
17
I have a remarkably gifted child -- now closing in on 30 -- and all I can say is that as much as I have wanted to assist his efforts, my main role has always been to try to support his goals and at the same time, to stay out of his way. He has known his own goals, and he will leave us in his dust --IF we give him the space to figure out where he's going and how to actually get there.
This may be the most challenging thing a parent can be asked to do: let them realize they have wings, and let them use them. On their own.
This may be the most challenging thing a parent can be asked to do: let them realize they have wings, and let them use them. On their own.
35
And even these recommendations will not predict where the next "geniuses" will come from. The fact is, like many other psychological (cognitive) phenomena, the making of a genius is much easier to explain then to predict.
10
All beings are born creative. It is a quality that can be fostered by parents, caregivers, and teachers through movement, art, cooking, music and imaginative play of all sorts. Schools today don't have enough of this, as academics, testing & sitting all day long are the priorities.
Raising a creative child includes appreciating nature and teaching your child to be mindful in the outside world.
Validating who they are as people. What they say and feel is important. Kids give us clues as to who they are through creative activities.
Listen to them and help in them figure out what they think and what they believe without judgements. The world is complicated and kids just want to be heard.
Have books, crayons, paper, playdough, puzzles, games, and toys around.
Let them get messy and be silly!
Allow yourself be a child again in their world and play along. A little bit of that goes a very long way. Imagination, imagination, imagination.
Go against the grain of what "everyone else is doing" if necessary.
Let them try different activities and let go of telling them to "find your passion". Life is a journey and too short to pigeon-hole your child when they are young.
Show them empathy, compassion, how to speak assertively, and to learn how to develop an inner voice.
This is my recipe for how to raise a "creative" child.
Raising a creative child includes appreciating nature and teaching your child to be mindful in the outside world.
Validating who they are as people. What they say and feel is important. Kids give us clues as to who they are through creative activities.
Listen to them and help in them figure out what they think and what they believe without judgements. The world is complicated and kids just want to be heard.
Have books, crayons, paper, playdough, puzzles, games, and toys around.
Let them get messy and be silly!
Allow yourself be a child again in their world and play along. A little bit of that goes a very long way. Imagination, imagination, imagination.
Go against the grain of what "everyone else is doing" if necessary.
Let them try different activities and let go of telling them to "find your passion". Life is a journey and too short to pigeon-hole your child when they are young.
Show them empathy, compassion, how to speak assertively, and to learn how to develop an inner voice.
This is my recipe for how to raise a "creative" child.
20
Beautifully said!
I always found it interesting in my home that neither my father or mother pushed college and career choices down my throat. But now some 40 years later with the majority of those years spent as a professional artist I can sort of see why I'm the way I am. My dad was a professor and an artist in his spare time but he never encouraged me to follow in his footsteps. I always thought that was odd. We were free spirits growing up and all of his children have gone on to become artistic in some way. When I think about the path that got me to this point I can't help think it was because my parents simply wanted us to be happy.
23
I'm not artistic, but I too was raised by parents who pretty much left us alone. Some of it was partly due to the fact that they were immigrants and struggled with English, so meeting with teachers seldom occurred. Another was the fact that they were both raised within large extended families where parents would leave children with uncles, aunts and grandparents for long periods of time while they tried to make ends meet. Regardless, my siblings and I have all been successful and went to great schools - one of which was an Ivy League school.
Alternative reason: some gifted people have no desire to change the world. Regardless of how naturally gifted a person is, it still takes a lot of sacrifice and legwork to produce something that is worthy of a Nobel prize. Not everyone wants to do that, and that's okay. There's nothing wrong with using only 53% of one's potential, making enough money to be comfortable (and still be included in the richest fraction of a percentile in the history of human existence), and having enough free time to sleep 8 hours a day and enjoy all the amazing wonders that already exist in the world.
115
Much needed push back against the tiger mum nonsense, which is more likely to create high functioning dullards than creative minds. Gaining technical facility in any discipline requires hard work but there has to be a guiding vision for that hard work to really pay off and that vision comes from within, not from a well regulated study regime.
4
This is an interesting and thought provoking article. However, I have two questions/comments on the data informing the major conclusion of this essay. First, I think evidence from athletes should not be included with those from artists and scientists, at least in terms of creativity. Although elite athletes are obviously very accomplished, it's difficult to attribute their elite status to creativity, at least in most forms of popular sports. Second, I have a question about the evidence used to support the idea that polymaths or interest in wide ranging, particularly artistic endeavors contributes to scientific achievement, e.g. Nobel Prize, or is it a consequence of this achievement. In other words, did these prize winners participate in diverse artistic endeavors before winning the Nobel or after, when one would presume many had the freedom and the means to pursue far off interests that most struggling scientists/academicians do not have.
8
Before! By the time one gets the Nobel, they're almost retired, and by definition dulled.
in answer to your No 1., professional athletes absolutely are creative. No sport is entirely about brute force - they are all about strategy., which is intellectual and creative.
No. 2, saying thzt "freedom and means" are necessary to cultivate different interests suggests that curiosity and passion are elite qualities, not to be enjoyed by people constrained to earn their daily bread. Very pedestrian way or thinking. my grandpa was an amateur actor AND a public high school biology teacher. my other grandfather, who didn't have a hs diploma and who made eye glasses, loved literature and philosophy. my grandmother, mother of four and also a public high school teacher, knew a lot about wine, loved politics and could name all the players on the Mets until the day she died. my father-in-law is a plumber who loves motercycles. need i go on?
Curiosity is the most basic sign of intelligence. All intelligent people have varied interests. the more intelligent you are, the more interests you have... and you don't need exceptional "means" to exercise your curiosity.
No. 2, saying thzt "freedom and means" are necessary to cultivate different interests suggests that curiosity and passion are elite qualities, not to be enjoyed by people constrained to earn their daily bread. Very pedestrian way or thinking. my grandpa was an amateur actor AND a public high school biology teacher. my other grandfather, who didn't have a hs diploma and who made eye glasses, loved literature and philosophy. my grandmother, mother of four and also a public high school teacher, knew a lot about wine, loved politics and could name all the players on the Mets until the day she died. my father-in-law is a plumber who loves motercycles. need i go on?
Curiosity is the most basic sign of intelligence. All intelligent people have varied interests. the more intelligent you are, the more interests you have... and you don't need exceptional "means" to exercise your curiosity.
Creative children are by definition, non-conformists. As a result, they often exhibit challenging behaviors, stressing and perplexing the parents and perhaps the sibs. "Backing off" can lead to problems because conventional limits at home, in school and among friends have to be altered.
What worries me is the degree to which creativity, often manifesting itself in unconventional behaviors, becomes labeled as psychologically abnormal, like autism spectrum disorder. That opens the Pandora's Box of medicating children with all its unknown consequences.
All children are gifts. You open the package and see what's inside. The unusually creative ones may need those rare, skilled professionals who can preserve the notion of first, doing no harm and second, enabling them to thrive.
What worries me is the degree to which creativity, often manifesting itself in unconventional behaviors, becomes labeled as psychologically abnormal, like autism spectrum disorder. That opens the Pandora's Box of medicating children with all its unknown consequences.
All children are gifts. You open the package and see what's inside. The unusually creative ones may need those rare, skilled professionals who can preserve the notion of first, doing no harm and second, enabling them to thrive.
12
I think Alice Miller identified this and other painful difficulties in her book The Drama of the Gifted Child. The child being raised to be a genius quickly learns to gain approval and fails to learn many other things that would lead to happiness in life.
25
Their classmates do resent them, and while they may start out as trophy children when they are really small and nonthreatening, children whose parents might indeed feel like they "won the lottery", those same parents are generally increasingly uncomfortable around and intimidated by their gifted children as they grow up.
The kid stops being a cute pet to trot out at cocktail parties and develops adult abilities much earlier than his or her peers, abilities that may challenge or rival the abilities of the actual adults around them (and thus threaten to usurp their social positions). People don't like that, and they don't like children who make them feel that way. Children are supposed to be cute, seen and not heard.
All these kids know is that people don't like them and they are not very good at getting the positive responses other children get by being all of the things a normal child is supposed to be.
Eventually, especially if those gifted kids happen to be female, they learn to slouch so as not to threaten to overshadow anybody, it's either that or suffer ostracism.
It's sad that the smartest ones probably learn to slouch enough to blend in, in the end. A lot of creative potential is surely lost.
The kid stops being a cute pet to trot out at cocktail parties and develops adult abilities much earlier than his or her peers, abilities that may challenge or rival the abilities of the actual adults around them (and thus threaten to usurp their social positions). People don't like that, and they don't like children who make them feel that way. Children are supposed to be cute, seen and not heard.
All these kids know is that people don't like them and they are not very good at getting the positive responses other children get by being all of the things a normal child is supposed to be.
Eventually, especially if those gifted kids happen to be female, they learn to slouch so as not to threaten to overshadow anybody, it's either that or suffer ostracism.
It's sad that the smartest ones probably learn to slouch enough to blend in, in the end. A lot of creative potential is surely lost.
21
I agree. My nephew tested in the genius range and as a child his parents were so eager to show it off they give him no limits. After countless teacher meetings where they were told he didn't follow rules for assignments (which the parents said just showed his genius) I told my brother that if he did not begin to set some limits people who did not love his child would, and they would not be nice about it. He has grown into a loving, kind, curious if odd kid whose creative pursuits have allowed him to blend into the world. He still carries that genius, just not in blazing lights so everyone everywhere just saw that, not the complex and very interesting person he really is.
2
We know that the current habit of overbearing parenting is a disaster but are addicted to it anyway. I recently had a chance to have a one-on-one discussion with the president of a top liberal arts college, the kind of place that routinely admits kids with perfect SAT scores, etc. She lamented how emotionally immature the current crop of students are - young adults who are unbelievably stellar on paper but fall apart at the slightest challenge.
If I had to do parenthood over, I'd do a lot differently. But one thing I'd keep is my insistence that my teenage kids think for themselves. Once when my daughter was a junior in high school she asked me what time she had to be home by on a weekend night when she was planning to be out with friends. "I don't know," I told her. "What do you think would be best?" "Just tell me, mom!" "No," I said, "You know best what you need to do over the weekend, where you are going to be, and the route you need to take to get home. You decide." This drove her crazy, but she always made good decisions. When she asked if she could attend a party that seemed bad news, I told her to do what she thought was right. She said she would go. And then several weeks later I realized the date had passed. "Oh," she replied, "I decided it wasn't really my thing." And, yes, I'd say she is a pretty creative person.
If I had to do parenthood over, I'd do a lot differently. But one thing I'd keep is my insistence that my teenage kids think for themselves. Once when my daughter was a junior in high school she asked me what time she had to be home by on a weekend night when she was planning to be out with friends. "I don't know," I told her. "What do you think would be best?" "Just tell me, mom!" "No," I said, "You know best what you need to do over the weekend, where you are going to be, and the route you need to take to get home. You decide." This drove her crazy, but she always made good decisions. When she asked if she could attend a party that seemed bad news, I told her to do what she thought was right. She said she would go. And then several weeks later I realized the date had passed. "Oh," she replied, "I decided it wasn't really my thing." And, yes, I'd say she is a pretty creative person.
15
I'm the parent of an outstandingly creative adult. I won't give his name, but he's well known in his field. What I had to do as he was growing up was run interference, try to keep his schools from trying to make him normal. Each year I'd face a teacher at Open House who wanted to know "what's wrong with this child?"
We did have rules, like "don't hit your brother with anything except your bare hands," and "if you don't like the dinner you can have an apple and some bread and cheese." I take no credit for the creativity. It was all there. I just had to stay out of the way.
We did have rules, like "don't hit your brother with anything except your bare hands," and "if you don't like the dinner you can have an apple and some bread and cheese." I take no credit for the creativity. It was all there. I just had to stay out of the way.
97
Kind of how I felt, too.
I would have loved an apple with bread and cheese rather than the stuff my mother would cook. Maybe I wouldn't have eventually become 300 pounds -- which I eventually did lose by the way. Ah, life...
Seriously - you told him it was okay to hit his brother?
Why on earth would you expect that every single child can or should be in the top 5% for creativity? And really, when you dismiss the Nobel outcome sof hte Westinghouse ("only 8 out of 2000" you placing the bar for success awfully high - Nobel or bust! It should be just fine that some children indeed grow up to be physicians who heal or lawyers who help people. Perhaps they are also spouses and parents and community leaders in other ways as well. Perhaps that is a successful life too!
68
Very nice read. As a father of a toddler and another baby on the way, it's nice to read these type of perspectives. As with many things, I think parental moderation is healthy for a child's growth. I hope that both of my boys will become great leaders, but my wife and I will ultimately be thrilled if we raise two good men who care about others.
3
Creativity cannot be taught but everyone has something to offer. But I think this author confuses creativity with becoming competent in various arenas. If the parent has the means letting a child try several different activities is one way to tease out interests, talents, etc. That is okay. But dont persist in the endeavor if after a set period the child shows no interest, aptitude, etc. These efforts to try different activities engages the mind and the physical of a young person - that in turn may spark something completely new. In my case I wish my mother a talented seamstress had sat me down as a child - I might have picked up something useful. In retrospect as a hobby I am creatively designing my own clothes that I get complimented on all the time - who knows, if she had taught me the basics of sewing I might be doing designing as a profession.
6
I used to regret that I never did anything with my writing because I just love putting my thoughts into words. Then I did some volunteer newsletter work and suddenly it was just that -- work, and the deadlines that come with it.
My writing (and my professors' approval of said penning) did result in my obtaining my Bachelor's and Master's and one volunteer writing job put a line on a resume which eventually led me to a dream position.
So I ultimately did achieve a LOT with my writing! And I love typing comments on the NY Times website as well as composing my thoughts in journals.
My writing (and my professors' approval of said penning) did result in my obtaining my Bachelor's and Master's and one volunteer writing job put a line on a resume which eventually led me to a dream position.
So I ultimately did achieve a LOT with my writing! And I love typing comments on the NY Times website as well as composing my thoughts in journals.
1
A conflation of subjects. All individuals are equally creative; such is the nature of mind.
Talent, like intellect, is a separate issue. Intellect, a second-order phenomenon, merely facilitates the manipulation of artificial invariants. Creative vision, regardless of the medium of expression, is effulgent; parents can either attempt to interfere or stay out of the way. However, those driven by such vision find that which is external to them peripheral and insignificant when compared to the primacy of the emergent voice. (Ironically, a friend refers to such often-lauded effulgent creativity as "the curse" because its influence on the individual necessarily conflicts with received opinion. It's hard to find gainful employment.)
To distinguish between depth of knowledge and breadth of knowledge is to distinguish between the illusory capacity to pursue and realize specificity that is concomitant with the valorization of intellect and contrast this with the unbounded mind of the visionary. The latter, unencumbered by the individuation of phenomena expressed as ratiocination, is freed of the second-order impediments imposed by the antecedent presumption of absolute structure.
Of course, those committed to such a presumption rage against the visionary and that which necessarily undermines the purportedly immutable foundation or first principle(s) said to define the perceived.
Interestingly, ritual (e.g., 10,000 hours) induces spontaneity and with it, effulgent creativity.
Talent, like intellect, is a separate issue. Intellect, a second-order phenomenon, merely facilitates the manipulation of artificial invariants. Creative vision, regardless of the medium of expression, is effulgent; parents can either attempt to interfere or stay out of the way. However, those driven by such vision find that which is external to them peripheral and insignificant when compared to the primacy of the emergent voice. (Ironically, a friend refers to such often-lauded effulgent creativity as "the curse" because its influence on the individual necessarily conflicts with received opinion. It's hard to find gainful employment.)
To distinguish between depth of knowledge and breadth of knowledge is to distinguish between the illusory capacity to pursue and realize specificity that is concomitant with the valorization of intellect and contrast this with the unbounded mind of the visionary. The latter, unencumbered by the individuation of phenomena expressed as ratiocination, is freed of the second-order impediments imposed by the antecedent presumption of absolute structure.
Of course, those committed to such a presumption rage against the visionary and that which necessarily undermines the purportedly immutable foundation or first principle(s) said to define the perceived.
Interestingly, ritual (e.g., 10,000 hours) induces spontaneity and with it, effulgent creativity.
1
Whoa!
Very few tiger mums expect to raise Mozart or a Nobel Prize Winner. Your argument that well meaning parents who preach hard work, discipline and delayed gratification ... are stifling their children' genius, is irrelevant to parents who just want their children to have a good, secure job in a competitive world.
38
Newsflash. There is no such job. And it's getting worse. Better raise an adult who can walk on shifting sands and still get up to an alarm clock every day.
It's that "just" that is problematic. Why the ceiling? Why all that and not more?
I'm one of those parents of an intellectually advanced child who preferred staying in his room reading advanced math and physics texts to sports. More power to him. But he became so obsessed with learning that he was befuddled by school teaching styles. Homework he said was a waste of time because after he read the assignment, he already knew the material. He saw no reason to jump through a hoop - completing a simple one or two page worksheet - simply to inform the teacher that he understood. He'd rather spend the time learning something new.
Needless to say, this was a source of numerous family arguments through high school. "Just do the homework. You understand simple math -- it's 10 % of your grade!" Those exhortations fell on deaf ears.
He had the SAT scores, but alas not the grades, to go to MIT, Princeton or CalTech. It took three (expensive!) years at Carnegie Mellon to work through those issues, and he's finally on course in his senior year. However those three years affected his grad school potential as well.
Intellectual precociousness and maturity are two different things.
Needless to say, this was a source of numerous family arguments through high school. "Just do the homework. You understand simple math -- it's 10 % of your grade!" Those exhortations fell on deaf ears.
He had the SAT scores, but alas not the grades, to go to MIT, Princeton or CalTech. It took three (expensive!) years at Carnegie Mellon to work through those issues, and he's finally on course in his senior year. However those three years affected his grad school potential as well.
Intellectual precociousness and maturity are two different things.
190
That's a sadly common story and the fault isn't with your kid, but with a rigid, unchallenging system of education that rewards diligence and punishes intellect, passion, and creativity.
“It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom. Without this it goes to wrack and ruin without fail.” -- Albert Einstein
“It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom. Without this it goes to wrack and ruin without fail.” -- Albert Einstein
84
Intellectual preociousness and creativity are two different things.
2
I had to terminate the employment of an extremely intelligent man who learned that if you're smart enough, you don't have to do homework or any other tedious thing you don't feel like doing. His parents and his school did him a tremendous disservice by letting him slide. Yes, he was doing algebra in 3rd grade. He still should have been made to do his 3rd grade homework. By the time he got to me, he was actually unable to make himself do things that weren't interesting or that he couldn't personally see the point of.
12
I was listening to Lin Manuel-Miranda speaking about raising a creative child, and he said that they thrive in a state of 'benign neglect'. He encouraged giving them time to get into it.
My 7 year old is very artistic, from a line of artists and given the space, materials, food and love, she can go a long time making art. She'll make new drawings every day, sometimes when they've piled up I'll ask her to go through them because some are just doodles that we don't need to save, and it helps develop process of looking back over work. I don't want to hawk over her, but I do want to help her process.
Btw, great drawing by Brian Chippendale. He's a very talented artist.
My 7 year old is very artistic, from a line of artists and given the space, materials, food and love, she can go a long time making art. She'll make new drawings every day, sometimes when they've piled up I'll ask her to go through them because some are just doodles that we don't need to save, and it helps develop process of looking back over work. I don't want to hawk over her, but I do want to help her process.
Btw, great drawing by Brian Chippendale. He's a very talented artist.
24
I am an artist, from a long line of visual artists, and I too, am raising an artistically talented and motivated child. My best advice to you: fill the house with art supplies, and invest into bound blank sketchbooks. The bound sketchbooks make the clutter far less, it's easy to archive them (make sure you date them !!) and, with my child, I used to ask her when she was very young, to explain her drawings, and I would annotate them. This is now one of her favorite parts of these old books, and if she's feeling down, we'll pull one out and read/look at these very convoluted stories/illustrations, and it always makes her laugh.
I am trying to continue this, getting her to make these books into a narrative, with some success, but she's discovered the computer graphics programs in the Ipad, and she is using the physical books less, alas...
I am trying to continue this, getting her to make these books into a narrative, with some success, but she's discovered the computer graphics programs in the Ipad, and she is using the physical books less, alas...
2
We had a creative child. He could nicely draw recognizable species of hawks (as well as other birds) at age 3 when other kids were still scribbling random lines or, at best, shapes. His PK teacher, who was retiring that year after a 40 year career at a university lab school, told us she had never seen precocious artistic ability like this before.
I can't say we burdened ourselves with ambitions for him. Along with this genius talent came other ability differences, as is often the case when someone has a pronounced spike in one of his intelligences.
The only thing we did differently for him was to avoid "the" art teacher "all the arty kids" took classes with. Instead we set him loose in the woods behind our house where he could re-direct rivers by building stone dams, and we let him turn the space underneath the basement stairs into a heavily decorated room he called the Foo Chow.
He's in art college, still being creative and working in a variety of media. Famous artist? Que sera, sera…or as we say in English, Whatever!
I can't say we burdened ourselves with ambitions for him. Along with this genius talent came other ability differences, as is often the case when someone has a pronounced spike in one of his intelligences.
The only thing we did differently for him was to avoid "the" art teacher "all the arty kids" took classes with. Instead we set him loose in the woods behind our house where he could re-direct rivers by building stone dams, and we let him turn the space underneath the basement stairs into a heavily decorated room he called the Foo Chow.
He's in art college, still being creative and working in a variety of media. Famous artist? Que sera, sera…or as we say in English, Whatever!
61
Maybe he'll become an art teacher.
Hi jzzy55!
Us too. Our daughter's a sophomore in art school. She too had other "ability differences," in her case pretty severe dyslexia that made regular school, where you have to spit back information that you'd been fed through lectures and reading, a misery for her. Now in art school, majoring in industrial design, she's telling us, "Yes, I am in the right place" and "I would rather have to do a creative project and be critiqued by a crowd a hundred times over than take one multiple-choice test" and, my favorite, which I've been thinking about ever since she said it, "That's what art is: it's all about problem-solving."
This is Cheryl from Houston, btw. My husband changed the name on my profile and now I can't get it to change back. :o(
http://fewbricksshy.blogspot.com/
Us too. Our daughter's a sophomore in art school. She too had other "ability differences," in her case pretty severe dyslexia that made regular school, where you have to spit back information that you'd been fed through lectures and reading, a misery for her. Now in art school, majoring in industrial design, she's telling us, "Yes, I am in the right place" and "I would rather have to do a creative project and be critiqued by a crowd a hundred times over than take one multiple-choice test" and, my favorite, which I've been thinking about ever since she said it, "That's what art is: it's all about problem-solving."
This is Cheryl from Houston, btw. My husband changed the name on my profile and now I can't get it to change back. :o(
http://fewbricksshy.blogspot.com/
1
So true. But now I fear the tiger moms and dads will decide that they can mass produce creative children merely by cutting back on rules and letting their children follow their hearts. I would argue that the sources of creativity are deeper than that: creative children tend to have creative parents, who value creativity in their children, and those same parents may not have other attributes that can be socially beneficial or make life easy.
In addition, it may not be politically correct to say so, but not everyone has the gifts to be creative in a given field. I have seen creative friends who weren't among the lucky few suffer as a result. How many bands actually hit the charts? How many novels become best sellers, never mind being published?
Unless he's one of a very lucky few, the creative person will be punished for his creativity at every stage of his life. School rewards students only for completing simple exercises according to schedule. At work, gifts are taken from the creator while most of the profit and credit accrue to others. If the creator is too good, he will be misunderstood. If he is not, he will fail.
Creativity and talent do have their own rewards, but creativity is a cruel task master, since the creative person must create, and modern society offers relatively few opportunities and rewards for doing so.
In addition, it may not be politically correct to say so, but not everyone has the gifts to be creative in a given field. I have seen creative friends who weren't among the lucky few suffer as a result. How many bands actually hit the charts? How many novels become best sellers, never mind being published?
Unless he's one of a very lucky few, the creative person will be punished for his creativity at every stage of his life. School rewards students only for completing simple exercises according to schedule. At work, gifts are taken from the creator while most of the profit and credit accrue to others. If the creator is too good, he will be misunderstood. If he is not, he will fail.
Creativity and talent do have their own rewards, but creativity is a cruel task master, since the creative person must create, and modern society offers relatively few opportunities and rewards for doing so.
211
Sadly, I agree.
4
Being creative is really just being adaptable and open to unconventional approaches. I disagree that real creativity is punished. The truly creative develop work arounds and problem solve with a willingness to look for different questions when the answers don't match. Creativity is not a means to an end, it's an attitude with which one confronts the world.
8
Creative people don't get stymied by society's rules if they make an effort to make their creativity work for them.
1