A few weeks back, Arts Central was showing a feature on babies, from the moment they were conceived, to their growth in the womb, and until the time they were born. I did not get to watch the show since I hardly have time to watch any television nowadays, but I believe the show was pretty educational.
Few years ago, our then Senior Minister was remarking on how graduates should marry fellow graduates so their offsprings would also be smart, as by nature the parents are smart. One of my modules in NIE was on Educational and Child Psychology, so we had to learn how a child grows through nature and nurture.
There was an experiment where a pair of twins born of poor and uneducated parents were separated and given to different families to raise. One twin was given to a rich family and grew up priviledged, went to all the best schools, had all the best things, had the best tutors and education. He became rather successful in life.
The other twin, on the other hand, was given to a family just as poor and uneducated as his birth parents. He was hardworking, but due to limited finance and resources, he was not able to have the best education, so in the end he did not manage to do as well as his twin.
There was another pair of twins born to smart, educated and rich parents, and went through the same thing. Both became very successful in life as since young, both showed signs of pretty high intelligence and always did well in their studies.
So is this more nature than nurture? In the first case, the twins were born to parents of average intelligence, and one twin, due to all the nurturing by his adoptive parents, were able to achieve something good in life. The other twin did not have the priviledge and since he was supposed to have only average intelligence, could not do as well.
In the second case, the twins were supposed to be pretty smart, thus both were able to make it in life no matter what circumstances they grew up in. A coincidence? Probably.
But which is more fundamental? Nature or nurture? Will someone who was born with a natural high IQ and supposed to achieve great things be left behind if he did not grow up in a nurturing environment? Will someone who was born with just average intelligence yet have parents who were willing to groom him and nurture him outshine the smart one with no conducive environment for learning?
Einstein (or was it Edison?) once remarked that "Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration". In other words, intelligence only plays a small role. A big part is on how much one is willing to do to achieve the success.
Maybe this is one reason why those born in rich families are good-looking, talented, smart, top students, all-rounders, and often than not, always the ones winning top scholarships to top universities. They were mostly born of educated and intelligent parents who could have the ability to nurture them. Thus these kids have the best of both nature and nurture, so are the ones who normally make it big.
What about those kids who were born of middle to low-class families? The parents were just normal employees earning normal salaries. Does it mean they are any less intelligent? No doubt their parents may not have the luxury of nurturing them, but I believe the kids can still make it in life as long as they are willing to strive for it.
Just look at my parents for example. They definitely did not grow up in the environment which they are providing for us now, and my grandparents were not that educated as well, but my parents wanted to have a good education thus toiled in order to enter university.
Yet with all the conducive learning environment they provide for us and all the enrichment camps and courses they sent us to, somehow we could not be just a fraction as good. Then we see our cousins whose parents were not as educated as my parents, and have never gone for that many enrichment classes as I did, yet they were able to graduate with good honours and post-graduate degrees. So is it true that nature and nurture plays a part in making the child intelligent and grow up to be successful in life? Or does it also depends on the natural ability of the child?
Afterall, what distinguishes top students with just average scorers? What distinguishes scholars from average tertiary students? Are these due to their natural intelligence? Or the way they were nurtured and brought up? Or both? Or even none?
Few years ago, our then Senior Minister was remarking on how graduates should marry fellow graduates so their offsprings would also be smart, as by nature the parents are smart. One of my modules in NIE was on Educational and Child Psychology, so we had to learn how a child grows through nature and nurture.
There was an experiment where a pair of twins born of poor and uneducated parents were separated and given to different families to raise. One twin was given to a rich family and grew up priviledged, went to all the best schools, had all the best things, had the best tutors and education. He became rather successful in life.
The other twin, on the other hand, was given to a family just as poor and uneducated as his birth parents. He was hardworking, but due to limited finance and resources, he was not able to have the best education, so in the end he did not manage to do as well as his twin.
There was another pair of twins born to smart, educated and rich parents, and went through the same thing. Both became very successful in life as since young, both showed signs of pretty high intelligence and always did well in their studies.
So is this more nature than nurture? In the first case, the twins were born to parents of average intelligence, and one twin, due to all the nurturing by his adoptive parents, were able to achieve something good in life. The other twin did not have the priviledge and since he was supposed to have only average intelligence, could not do as well.
In the second case, the twins were supposed to be pretty smart, thus both were able to make it in life no matter what circumstances they grew up in. A coincidence? Probably.
But which is more fundamental? Nature or nurture? Will someone who was born with a natural high IQ and supposed to achieve great things be left behind if he did not grow up in a nurturing environment? Will someone who was born with just average intelligence yet have parents who were willing to groom him and nurture him outshine the smart one with no conducive environment for learning?
Einstein (or was it Edison?) once remarked that "Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration". In other words, intelligence only plays a small role. A big part is on how much one is willing to do to achieve the success.
Maybe this is one reason why those born in rich families are good-looking, talented, smart, top students, all-rounders, and often than not, always the ones winning top scholarships to top universities. They were mostly born of educated and intelligent parents who could have the ability to nurture them. Thus these kids have the best of both nature and nurture, so are the ones who normally make it big.
What about those kids who were born of middle to low-class families? The parents were just normal employees earning normal salaries. Does it mean they are any less intelligent? No doubt their parents may not have the luxury of nurturing them, but I believe the kids can still make it in life as long as they are willing to strive for it.
Just look at my parents for example. They definitely did not grow up in the environment which they are providing for us now, and my grandparents were not that educated as well, but my parents wanted to have a good education thus toiled in order to enter university.
Yet with all the conducive learning environment they provide for us and all the enrichment camps and courses they sent us to, somehow we could not be just a fraction as good. Then we see our cousins whose parents were not as educated as my parents, and have never gone for that many enrichment classes as I did, yet they were able to graduate with good honours and post-graduate degrees. So is it true that nature and nurture plays a part in making the child intelligent and grow up to be successful in life? Or does it also depends on the natural ability of the child?
Afterall, what distinguishes top students with just average scorers? What distinguishes scholars from average tertiary students? Are these due to their natural intelligence? Or the way they were nurtured and brought up? Or both? Or even none?
3 comments:
My take on this:
Nature provide the potentials.
Nurture will determine how far the potentials are fulfilled or neglected.
In nature, good qualities are not guaranteed to be passed down. The seeds from a mango tree that produces sweet fruits may not necessarily grow up to produce better fruits. A cuttings (artificial) on the other hand, is guaranteed to produce the same quality of fruits as the parent.
It is however true that the tree with better fruit has a better chance of propagating in a wild environment. Animals, the natural propagators, prefers sweet fruit, and would not eat sour ones.
As for humans, let's just say that being more intelligent does not always mean 'better'.
Will someone who was born with a natural high IQ and supposed to achieve great things be left behind if he did not grow up in a nurturing environment?
IQ is not everything. Recall about EQ?
Ole Wolvie : A good way of looking at this. And I also agree that being more intelligent does not necessarily mean "better".
Anon_X : EQ is playing a bigger role nowadays. But I'm always under the impression that only with IQ can EQ thrive. I may be wrong though.
Post a Comment