<shirarocklin@...>

This is only tangentially related to unschooling, I think.  But when I read it, I was immediately reminded of discussions I've followed in the past on this list.  They might have been about fears related to brain development.  And there were responses about how new brain pathways are still made in adulthood, among others.  So, this article is about a scientist who studies the brains of psychopaths, murderers, depressed, and alzheimers, etc.  He accidentally discovered that his own brain has the same patterns as a psychopath, which surprised him somewhat, although not much given his family history.  He has genetic markers for those things as well.  So, he tried to figure out what made him turn out 'good' - and he attributes it to the extra care and attention that his parents gave him as a child.  And the article goes on to say that certain brain 'stuff' (forgive my lack of terminology) can influence the development of a certain area of the brain based on how they were taken care of as a child  (I've read this before regarding attachment theory and infants/toddlers).  So, given how much more unschoolers spend time with their children, support them, help them, etc... this guy's insight into himself and his parents sort of supports the idea that whatever you are born with (or what your child is born with) is so changeable, and so dependant on what we do as parents to nurture and love our children - which is how I see unschooling a lot.  

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/11/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath/


Maybe it will spark a discussion, or maybe not.  I thought I would share it. 
Shira

Sandra Dodd

Last summer I was talking to an unschooling dad who is also a minister, in his kitchen, in Scotland. He asked kind of softly, as though we were talking about something dangerous, how much I though was genetic, in behavior, and how much was nurture.

He said it that wa because it is, politically and socially, dangerous.

I said more genetic than I used to think. He nodded and said he figures it's about 90%.

I'm crap with numbers and it was dark. he might've said 80%. I think he said 90%. In any case, it was nowhere near 50%.

People used to teach that environment was all of it, and it was considered really evil, racist, classist, horrible, to consider genetics at all.

These days it seems to me, looking back at everyone I've ever known :-) , and twin studies I've read and seen video reports about, that probably the Reverend Samuel Siroky was correct. But given a person's natural inclinations, they can be made meaner or nicer by the way they were brought up, or by the way they are treated in later life, maybe, some, too.

That last part I know from the rat studies of the 1960's where researchers bred mean rats, and nice rats for a few generations of selection (a few rat generations, not a few hundred years), and then gave some very nice environments and some very cramped environments without enough food, and compared behavior. As you would expect, Nice+nice was nicest. Mean+crummy was worst. But the real contest was for second and third place. They showed meann rats in nice enironments to be more peaceful than nice rats too crowded.

Those studies were used to encourage schools to be nicer to kids, and by architects and city planners and prison wardens and psychologists advising families on giving kids more room at home.

There are a couple of movies, one a creepy drama, and one a comedy (not suitable for all young children). The Bad Seed (1956) is about bad genetics and is not uplifting. Trading Places (1983) is about a bet placed between millionaire futures traders about nature vs. nurture. It's a Christmas movie (kind of), and has Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy, so there's a draw. :-) And partially naked, young Jamie Lee Curtis, in case you want to persuade a husband to watch with you.

It's not worth getting unhappy about (this genetics business) but it's probably worth keeping in mind if you have an ex-husband a kid who's really pissing you off. I have a friend who was in a situation like that. He grew up to look like and sound like his father, and his mom pretty well hated his father. Awkward.

Sandra

Schuyler

My understanding is that heritability of behavioural traits is about 50%. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/#.UpPaE9JQKSo has a table of heritability from 2004 that might help.  It is more complicated than that as there is an interaction between the two. There are also issues of "switching on" genes which is often mediated by environment. So you may have the gene for breast cancer, for example, and it will never be expressed because the environment was one that didn't produce the right chemicals to turn it on. That kind of outcome might argue that genes play no role in not getting breast cancer for that individual...

We just saw the National Theatre's filmed stage production of Frankenstein which got me thinking about attributing blame for outcomes. Frankenstein's creation blames Frankenstein for all that he is, all that he has become. That it is entirely the fault of one's maker. I haven't read Mary Shelley's book, I'll get it today, hopefully, so I don't know how much she lays at the feet of the creator or how much was Nick Dear's take with Danny Boyle's spin on her stor. It reminded me of Dr. Fallon's brain, of the idea that psychopathy is a brain pattern that doesn't have to be expressed. Frankenstein's creation was unhappy, was angry, was badly treated and lay all the blame of his monstrous behaviour at the feet of the father who created him and then abandoned him. I don't know it that was a fair cop, or not. I do know that I believe that environment plays a very large role in who one is, who one becomes, even if the general shape of a personality is defined by genetics,otherwise it wouldn't matter all that much what I chose to do as a parent as Simon and Linnaea would be who they are with or without my engagement. 

Schuyler

Sandra Dodd

-=- I believe that environment plays a very large role in who one is, who one becomes, even if the general shape of a personality is defined by genetics,otherwise it wouldn't matter all that much what I chose to do as a parent as Simon and Linnaea would be who they are with or without my engagement. -=-

Maybe.  I don't think it's 50/50 though, or if it could be proven to be so, the genetic 50 must be pretty solid.  If someone is very musical, he is.  The environment might not have nurtured it.  But a super musical environment won't make a musician if musicality wasn't already there.   Very non-musical parents adopted (and then unschooled) the son of two professional musicians, and by the time he was 12, 13, he was a musician, though they weren't. So they nurtured from then, by providing opportunity and musicians and instruments and such.  It's one example.  I know a few more.  None of my examples will make a scientific sample, but I know there are no scientific samples that will cover the kind of difference unschooling can make in such a case, either.

Sandra

Schuyler

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526093925.htm is a pop article on a paper published in Plos One in 2009 that puts the heritability of general creativity in music at .84 with 1.0 being entirely heritable. So, your anecdote fits in with findings in a Finnish population. 

I don't think Simon or Linnaea were blank slates. I think, as I wrote, that the general shape of their personality may have been framed by genetics. I do, however, believe that environment plays a massive role in how those genes play out. And while environment may have only .16 to do with musical creativity, I can strum a few bars on my ukulele whatever my inheritance. 

Schuyler

From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Brain development and parenting



-=- I believe that environment plays a very large role in who one is, who one becomes, even if the general shape of a personality is defined by genetics,otherwise it wouldn't matter all that much what I chose to do as a parent as Simon and Linnaea would be who they are with or without my engagement. -=-

Maybe.  I don't think it's 50/50 though, or if it could be proven to be so, the genetic 50 must be pretty solid.  If someone is very musical, he is.  The environment might not have nurtured it.  But a super musical environment won't make a musician if musicality wasn't already there.   Very non-musical parents adopted (and then unschooled) the son of two professional musicians, and by the time he was 12, 13, he was a musician, though they weren't. So they nurtured from then, by providing opportunity and musicians and instruments and such.  It's one example.  I know a few more.  None of my examples will make a scientific sample, but I know there are no scientific samples that will cover the kind of difference unschooling can make in such a case, either.

Sandra




Joyce Fetteroll

I think the question isn't as clear as it seems.

There are millions of Asians who play the violin well because their families were able to get them to put in their 10,000 hours to reach mastery. There are also people who play the violin well who have put in 10,000 hours without even realizing it just because their genes are such that they enjoy the challenge of it.

On the surface, judging by ability to play the violin, they both seem musical. But is what they do the same? If it is the same, then parents are justified in pushing kids to play a musical instrument against their wills.

Some aggressive people grow up in a nurturing environment where they learn to channel the aggression into healthy activities and acquire tools to be calm and supportive when it's necessary. Some aggressive people are shamed for showing aggression. So they keep their feelings bottled up inside to put on a non-aggressive face in public. Some people aren't aggressive so naturally respond in supportive-of-others ways.

If each of them can act supportive, does that mean they're all non-aggressive? Is hiding what you feel the same as not having the feelings?

What's important for children to grow up as undamaged as possible is knowing that a nice environment *does* support people in becoming people who are nicer regardless of their genes.

Joyce

<naomicfisher@...>

I think there is no clear answer to the question of how heritable (or dependant on genes) variation in behaviour is because it depends on the environment the child is in. In some environments behaviour will be more heritable than in others. This is easiest to visualise with regard to height, even though that isn't behavioural. Height is highly genetic. In an environment where everyone has adequate nutrition, almost all variation in height will be due to genetics and it will be highly heritable. However, in a variable environment where some people have enough to eat and others don't, height will vary for environmental reasons and so will be less heritable - some people with tall genes will be short due to poor nutrition, for example. So with behaviour, if we were comparing lots of unschooling families who provided lots of loving support and choices for their children, we would expect variation in behaviour to be highly heritable. But if we were comparing a full range of families, some of whom abuse or neglect their children, we would expect variation in behaviour to be less heritable, as the environmental constraints will limit genetic expression. Even a someone with the genetic potential to be a concert pianist has to have access to a piano (and enough time when they aren't struggling for survival) at some point in their life in order to be able to reach that potential. There is also the complication that the individual to some extent creates their environment - there was some interesting research a while back suggesting that even siblings in the same family cannot be said to share the same environment because, by choosing friends and how they spend their time, siblings can inhabit very different environments. So it can even be argued that given enough choices, your environment is another expression of your genes. So my hypothesis for a study of unschooled children would be that variation in behaviour would be highly heritable, as they have more choices and chances to influence their environment than other children do, and are hopefully in environments which do not constrain the expression of their genetic potential. But that does not mean the environment is not important - it is precisely because of the environment being good that the heritability is high. A good enough environment means that most variation in behavioural traits would be down to genetics and not environment. Sorry I do not have links to studies - I did some postgrad study in this area but the articles I used are from subscription only journals and I no longer have access to them. Naomi

<bobcollier@...>

The issue for me with the whole 'nature vs nurture' debate is that the formative influences on my personality and 'self-image' and the behaviour I've exhibited through my life are a complete mystery and probably always will be. My earliest recallable memory is from when I was about two and a half years old - before that, I have absolutely no idea what the billions of bits of everyday incoming sensory data were and what effect they had on the development of my brain and my character. And nor does anybody else. Before I learned to verbalise my experiences, they would, in any event, have been purely emotional impressions not even amenable to subsequent description. So in a sense my view has been that it's a matter of believing what's most useful to me - my genes may account for the shape of my ears and the rest but I can change how I express who I am and indeed I've done that over time in a number of ways that have produced different and better behavioural responses..Everybody can do that, in my opinion. Behavioural strategies generated in babyhood tend to be self-perpetuating and I've often seen that phenomenon assumed to be genetic. "I was born impatient and there's nothing I can do about it...". "Um ... no. I don't think so." Patience is a learnable and improvable skill. 


I would certainly expect there to be some kind of combinational effect between 'nature and nurture', as in the metaphor of 'the seed and the soil', though I do personally believe that there's far less to genetics (and far more to transgenerational habits and tribal culture) than vested interests would like me to believe. And I wonder, too, how much a person's behaviour is motivated directly by the degree to which he or she believes that the behaviour is motivated by our genes. 


I can say with some certainty from actual experience over time that respecting my two children's 'biological imperatives', as I call them (or 'human givens') - paying attention to helping them get their needs met, in plain English - has made a world of difference in a positive way. Not only were the kinds of problems most parents regard as inevitable when raising children conspicuous by their absence, both of my children have turned out to be adults I genuinely admire (28 and 18 now). 


I'm pretty sure that if my children's genes had been left to get on with it and my wife and I hadn't 'intervened' on a daily basis, the outcome would have been 'pot luck' and very different.


Bob



---In [email protected], <s.waynforth@...> wrote:

My understanding is that heritability of behavioural traits is about 50%. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/#.UpPaE9JQKSo has a table of heritability from 2004 that might help.  It is more complicated than that as there is an interaction between the two. There are also issues of "switching on" genes which is often mediated by environment. So you may have the gene for breast cancer, for example, and it will never be expressed because the environment was one that didn't produce the right chemicals to turn it on. That kind of outcome might argue that genes play no role in not getting breast cancer for that individual...

We just saw the National Theatre's filmed stage production of Frankenstein which got me thinking about attributing blame for outcomes. Frankenstein's creation blames Frankenstein for all that he is, all that he has become. That it is entirely the fault of one's maker. I haven't read Mary Shelley's book, I'll get it today, hopefully, so I don't know how much she lays at the feet of the creator or how much was Nick Dear's take with Danny Boyle's spin on her stor. It reminded me of Dr. Fallon's brain, of the idea that psychopathy is a brain pattern that doesn't have to be expressed. Frankenstein's creation was unhappy, was angry, was badly treated and lay all the blame of his monstrous behaviour at the feet of the father who created him and then abandoned him. I don't know it that was a fair cop, or not. I do know that I believe that environment plays a very large role in who one is, who one becomes, even if the general shape of a personality is defined by genetics,otherwise it wouldn't matter all that much what I chose to do as a parent as Simon and Linnaea would be who they are with or without my engagement. 

Schuyler

<bobcollier@...>

 



---In [email protected], <jfetteroll@...> wrote:

I think the question isn't as clear as it seems.

There are millions of Asians who play the violin well because their families were able to get them to put in their 10,000 hours to reach mastery. There are also people who play the violin well who have put in 10,000 hours without even realizing it just because their genes are such that they enjoy the challenge of it.

On the surface, judging by ability to play the violin, they both seem musical. But is what they do the same? If it is the same, then parents are justified in pushing kids to play a musical instrument against their wills.



This is a kind of relevant update on my son Patrick. For those newer members here who don't know, he was "growing without school" from the age of seven until he returned to the K-12 system here in Australia in 2011, just prior to his 16th birthday, to study for something called the "Year 10 Certificate".

He cruised through that and in the process of making new friends took up playing the guitar. At his first ever graduation ceremony in December 2012, he was good enough to be a member of the college band that performed during the interval. Less than a year later, he plays guitar, mandolin, banjo, ukelele, harmonica and tin whistle. Whenever he's home, there's live music in the house. He's a bona fide musician and it all seemed to come out of nowhere. There were no musicians in his experience throughout his growing up, his interests were completely in other areas. 

Though I've been a musician in the past. And now, as it happens, I've been inspired by my son's enthusiasm to start playing the fiddle again after not touching one for 22 years. 

I was 21 years old when I learned to play the fiddle. There were no musicians in my growing up either. During the Beatles era, I learned to strum a few chords on the guitar and that was it. I was convinced I had no aptitude whatsoever. The prevailing belief, unfortunately, was that you're either born musical or you're not.

One evening after I'd grown up and left home, I went into a pub in the south of England and there were two guys standing in the corner of a packed bar playing Irish reels on the fiddle and in that moment I thought to myself, "I want to do that". I guess something similar happened with my son.

My son works and works at his musicianship and here's the thing - it's not work for him. He's spending time doing something he's interested in and enjoys and getting better and better at it as a byproduct. He's had no lessons yet he's a better musician than people I know of who have. It's the 10,000 hours but also being fascinated to the extent that the hours are incidental. I doubt that my son's emerging musical talent has anything to do with his genes. Except, perhaps, in the sense that all human beings have a subconscious relationship with music whether it's expressed consciously or not.

Bob

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

I remember reading somewhere,  and I think it was in the book Becoming Attached by Robert Karan, that  even a Sociopath/Psycopath can be hugely influenced by people around them.
The story was about an individual that despite being like that he had never acted on his impulses to kill people because when growing up he had a great teacher who would say to him that she believed that there was a good person inside him. He had been a problem all his life but this teacher was always good to him and believed him to be good.
So he wanted to be that good person and never did things he otherwise felt like doing.
IT did not change who he was but it changed how he acted/behaved/reacted his whole life.
Now that reminds me of this;
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/11/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath/
 
Alex Polikowsky
 
 


Joyce Fetteroll


On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:55 PM, <bobcollier@...> wrote:

I doubt that my son's emerging musical talent has anything to do with his genes.

But you also picked up an instrument later as your son did. So that suggests you both have a musical gene that's different than the genes of kids who pick up instruments when they're young.

My daughter Kat wanted to play the guitar when she was young but *playing around* with the guitar didn't interest her. It wasn't until she was 16, I think, when Judas Priest inspired her that she had fun playing around with it. And now she's quite good. She's had lessons but most of what she's learned has come from playing with the guitar.

Neither Carl nor I have enough interest to play around with an instrument. My father plays violin, organ and sings.

There do seem to be talents people can be born with. Skills that kids will do naturally without needing to play around. My nephew had this incredibly fluid golf swing at 3! But I think using innate skill as a definition is too narrow.

Joyce

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

That is kind of funny! I thought about the article when I read the discussion because I read it some time ago.
I blame it on this new Yahoo Groups format. I miss several emails all the time.
Sometimes I check the group online and find them but most time it goes unnoticed by me.
I never got Shira's email!
:)


 
Alex Polikowsky
 
 
 


<bobcollier@...>

 



---In [email protected], <jfetteroll@...> wrote:


On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:55 PM, <bobcollier@...> wrote:

I doubt that my son's emerging musical talent has anything to do with his genes.

But you also picked up an instrument later as your son did. So that suggests you both have a musical gene that's different than the genes of kids who pick up instruments when they're young.


=======
I was convinced as a child that the ability to play a musical instrument is something you're either born with or you're not. I wasn't. End of story. That was obviously why I struggled to get beyond strumming a few chords on the guitar when I tried that in my early teens. It wouldn't have occurred to me to attempt to play the fiddle, even if I had been remotely interested in that particular instrument, until my chance encounter at the age of 21. When somebody subsequently showed me how to scratch out a few tunes, I realised from the evidence of that experience that musicianship is a skill, something learnable and improvable, and that I'd been lied to (or perhaps, to be more accurate, ignorant people had passed their ignorance on to me). It was a huge revelation. I didn't have that much of an aptitude for the instrument, I was good enough. Even that took a lot of hard work. My playing is actually much improved since I started again earlier this year and the reason for that is YouTube videos, an amazing resource unavailable in the 1970s.

I may have been interested in violin lessons at the age of five or something like that if I'd been aware of that as an option. I wasn't. I don't think my genes had anything to do with the time in my life that I became a musician, such as I was.

Bob

Joyce Fetteroll


On Nov 28, 2013, at 8:19 AM, <bobcollier@...> <bobcollier@...> wrote:

I don't think my genes had anything to do with the time in my life that I became a musician, such as I was.

I think interests are more genetically based than people realize. The type of "puzzles" we're each drawn to is genetic. Puzzles meaning stuff that needs figured out for understanding. Also what type of understanding we're each drawn to is genetic.

Part of my talk for Sandra's symposium last year was about how it's hard to tell a child's adult career interests from *what* they do as a child. Of the thousands of unschooled kids who were passionate about Pokemon, very few have ended up with careers in gaming. Or animal training. Or  bug catching ;-) That's because Pokemon tapped into a deeper passion than what is seen on the surface. A passion that connects to a particular way of organizing and understanding the world. 

If you could look inside and see *why* a child is interested in what they're drawn to, you would see several common threads running through their interests. And those threads will continue throughout someone's life. They'll just take different surface forms. There are genetic reasons why one person prefers the Stones to the Beatles, Star Trek to Star Wars, fantasy to contemporary fiction. IT's not "just because" that's what they like.

For me looking back, I can see the common threads between Nancy Drew, Star Trek, drawing people, D&D, homemade Man from UNCLE trading cards, writing stories, engineering, explaining unschooling, creating writing prompts. 

I suspect for people who showed little interest in musical instruments when younger but picked it up later it's because they can now see the type of puzzle in the instrument that interests them. They have greater experience in life. They have more mature brains that can see connections that it couldn't before. Kat did have violin lessons when she was 5. It didn't last long. She couldn't see the type of puzzle she likes to solve in it. But by the time she was 16 she could see the instrument differently. She could see the type of puzzles in it that interested her. 

I think the label "musical" is causing confusion. Ten people's ability to play a song doesn't mean they have anything in common other than being able to play that song ;-) What interests someone, what draws them to something is what's important. A fiddle player might have more in common with what sparks an interest in them with a car mechanic than another fiddle player. A fiddle player who can play from sheet music and a fiddle player who can make up songs may both be labeled musical but their brains might not have as much in common as their choice of instruments indicates.

Joyce

Sandra Dodd

-=-I think the label "musical" is causing confusion.-=-

I think so, but interesting confusion.

-=- Ten people's ability to play a song doesn't mean they have anything in common other than being able to play that song ;-) -=-

And ten people might be able to play a song but only one of them might be musical.  I haven't read the whole thread (I'm on a busy vacation and will catch up in a few days), so I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but someone whose mom presses him to play violin or piano for 10,000 hours, or 20,000 hours, might not have the musicality I'm talking about, especially if it's Suzuki or another rote method.   There are things like bluegrass where the rhythm is fairly fixed (or followed) and going too far from tradition isn't a good thing.  Then that can be done kind of by rote and still be really useful.  Same with polka, mariachi, or traditional Irish music (some of the drum and whistle kinds of traditional stuff).   There is a repertoire of traditional songs, there is a purpose to the music and a place and an audience expecting it to be the way it's supposed to be, so they can dance, or drink-and-be-merry with a familiar soundtrack.  Only one person in each group needs to be very musical, and the rest can follow competently.

Then there are people who are born musical who wouldn't need an instrument for that to show.  You can hear it in pianists who are really doing something from their heart, from their body, with subtlety.  And you can hear others who are doing the technical trick of playing all the right notes at the right time.  Maybe with dance it's easier to see.  Sometimes there will be a whole dance school with no real *dancer.*  They're doing what the instructor or choreographer said to do, but it's mechanical and not expressively flowing.

The following might be true, when wondering how a child is, .  When looking back to see paths and patterns, it seems VERY true:

-=-What interests someone, what draws them to something is what's important. A fiddle player might have more in common with what sparks an interest in them with a car mechanic than another fiddle player. A fiddle player who can play from sheet music and a fiddle player who can make up songs may both be labeled musical but their brains might not have as much in common as their choice of instruments indicates.-=-

That would be a fun list of things to consider.   How many different ways are there to see, feel, need a guitar?  A flamenco guitarist has very little in common (guitaristically) with someone who plays guitar to accompany singing with children.  Raffi, or an elementary school teacher or someone leading songs at a camp.  There are traditions involved, but totallly unrelated traditions.  And any similarity to Hawaiian steel guitar?  Maybe someone is dancing, so that's a connection to flamenco.  Also connects to Country&Western bands of the 1950's and 60's, which can connet to Chet Atkins, who wasn't playing guitar anything at all like Paul Simon who isn't playing anything like Prince.

It's okay for a topic like brain development and parenting to just be a momentary thought on the way to other thoughts about what parents can do to support and facilitate and accept.  We don't need to *know* whether a child is a little or a lot musical or why.  Or whether he's high on kinesthetic intelligence (sports, dance, maybe body building, juggling, these Cirque du Soleil acrobats we saw the other night, Teller's mime and sleight-of-hand magic come tom mind today), or mathematical intelligence (which might look NOTHING like numbers in one particular person, but might look more like patterns, building things, predicting things, playing strategy games...)

I hope that delving into thoughts of those things will bring each person back to the same actions:  pay attention to your child and help him do/find/see/experience things that will interest him.  Help him be his best self as often as you can.

http://sandradodd.com/intelligences has a list that's not *The* list or the only way to see these things, but it's a list, and something(s) to think about.

Sandra



Colleen

*****Of the thousands of unschooled kids who were passionate about Pokemon, very few have ended up with careers in gaming. Or animal training. Or  bug catching ;-) That's because Pokemon tapped into a deeper passion than what is seen on the surface. A passion that connects to a particular way of organizing and understanding the world.*****

Robbie (now 10) has enjoyed Pokemon for several years now.  He has older games (and a Gameboy to play them on), newer games on his DS.  He has many Pokemon books and guides, and has Bulbapedia and Serberii.net bookmarked on all our computers and on my iPad.  He's spent many, many hours over the last few years researching Pokemon, learning about Pokemon, memorizing which Pokemon have what attributes and who evolves into who (and when).  His ability to read, research/look things up, remember a huge amount of information, etc. all developed further through his love of Pokemon.

Recently, Robbie has really gotten into birding.  My husband and I were just saying recently, as we looked at him in the backseat of the car surrounded by bird books and field guides, iPad in his lap with the Peterson birding app open and the Cornell bird ID site bookmarked, that birding and Pokemon have a lot in common.  Both of us think that his ability to memorize a zillion facts about birds and a zillion different ID marks that help him tell one bird from another - his ability to quickly look up information about birds, either in books or online, and to process, remember, and then use that information in conversation or in an attempt to explain to my husband or I or anyone else who might be around how he knows that's a second-year male Herring Gull out on that pier, and not a first-year Ring-billed Gull  - or what the difference is between an old-world vulture and a new-world vulture - it all relates right back to what he used to do (and still does, sometimes, though less often now as other things have captured his interest) with classifying and organizing Pokemon.

Even this Fall when we went to Cape Cod and stopped at a birdwatchers's store, there was a similarity.  With Pokemon, he'd buy Pokemon cards.  We haven't found bird cards (yet :-)) but the store had bird bookmarks - with pictures of birds, descriptions, etc. on them.  He picked out a handful, and came home and sorted them on the table, arranging them just as he used to do his Pokemon cards (only this time, by species that were related in particular ways to each other, rather than (as with Pokemon) by Type).  He hasn't figured out a game to play with the bird bookmarks - yet - but knowing him, I bet he will :-)

Robbie says things like "When I grow up and work for Audubon…" or "When I work for the National Refuge system…" and such, casually, in conversation now.  I don't know if he'll work for either organization when he grows up - or if he'll even still be into birds as he gets older.  But I know that for now, it looks like there's a pretty direct parallel between one of his earlier-childhood loves/interests, and one of his current-childhood loves/interests.  And a direct parallel between the skills, preferences, etc. that drew him to Pokemon and those that also draw him to birds. 

And for my husband and I, it's super interesting to see how it all connects, and to think about where it might lead as he continues to grow and to discover new things to explore and enjoy.

Colleen :-)

Meredith Novak

>> I hope that delving into thoughts of those things will bring each person back to the same actions:  pay attention to your child and help him do/find/see/experience things that will interest him.  Help him be his best self as often as you can.<<
 
 
My partner is a punster - he loves to play with words, pull them apart, get into the fussy details of language and have fun with that. His son, my stepson, doesn't have that ability. He tries sometimes - and he is very clever and articulate, but he doesn't pull ideas apart that way. His mom doesn't either - she's very social and creative, but she doesn't have that gift either. I love word play, but I'm not as talented as George. Our daughter, Morgan, is. She's got the gift of pun.

In a lot of ways, Ray was the "odd man out" in our family. He doesn't think like the rest of us, doesn't approach problems the same way. So even though in many ways he's very like his dad, it was a challenge when Ray was younger for George to adapt to his needs, talk to him, and do things together. Their similar interests sometimes confused things - like with woodworking. Because they liked the same thing, George expected Ray to approach the same way - a very logical, analytic way. But that wasn't how Ray thought or learned - he needed big pictures not details.
 
---Meredith

<bobcollier@...>

 



---In [email protected], <jfetteroll@...> wrote:


On Nov 28, 2013, at 8:19 AM, <bobcollier@...> <bobcollier@...> wrote:

I don't think my genes had anything to do with the time in my life that I became a musician, such as I was.

I think interests are more genetically based than people realize. 




I think the opposite. :-)

Bob


<lisajceledon@...>

<<We just saw the National Theatre's filmed stage production of Frankenstein which got me thinking about attributing blame for outcomes. Frankenstein's creation blames Frankenstein for all that he is, all that he has become. That it is entirely the fault of one's maker. I haven't read Mary Shelley's book, I'll get it today, hopefully, so I don't know how much she lays at the feet of the creator or how much was Nick Dear's take with Danny Boyle's spin on her stor. It reminded me of Dr. Fallon's brain, of the idea that psychopathy is a brain pattern that doesn't have to be expressed. Frankenstein's creation was unhappy, was angry, was badly treated and lay all the blame of his monstrous behaviour at the feet of the father who created him and then abandoned him. I don't know it that was a fair cop, or not. I do know that I believe that environment plays a very large role in who one is, who one becomes, even if the general shape of a personality is defined by genetics>>


The creature blames his "genetics" and as the creator, Frankenstein.  He is pretty forgiving of all the people who treated him horribly based on his appearance.  

Focused on despair and anger, he forgets that he has choices.


 Genetics and environment seem so inextricably linked that to me I can't make sense of seeing them separately.  We don't have much control over genetic factors - except whatever may come into play biologically when two partners select one another for reproduction (and how much of that is influenced by the environment partners find one another in?).  We have limited control over the environment (much less so if you're a child), able to effect our immediate family environment (and the immediate environment of others by how we treat them, and then that ripples out) - and as someone was mentioning, different environmental factors activate and deactivate genes.  Our genetics manifest themselves with how we look (which may affect how others treat us, our environment), and how we interact and influence with (and how we are influenced by) our environment.  

And then there are mutations, or pieces of dna that were quiet in a family and come up again (skipping a generation or more).


This thread also reminded me of the "Dandelion vs Orchid" theory.  That some people are genetically predisposed to have strong behavioral responses to stress.  


I think it's good to have choices, and to focus on choices.  I come from a looong line of alcoholics, and I married into a family where that is also the case.  Less than ten percent of my children's living relatives have not had an issue with alcohol/substance abuse.  If I focus on that genetic fact, I might despair that my children are potentially doomed.  There are things I can't do much (or anything) about, like Frankenstein's creature could do nothing about his monstrous appearance, or how people reacted to it - but I can make choices about my attitude and behavior and the kind of environment my family is living in, choices that promote peace and love and kindness, and how I treat the people around me.


Incidentally, the most persuasive argument *for* genetics in this thread, to me, was the one 'against,' where a father and a son, raised in different environments, both picked up similar instruments in similar circumstances at similar ages/stages of life, without much previous exposure or inclination.  ;)


Lisa C



Sandra Dodd

This post goes to a dark place, so don't read it if you're having holiday stress and need to keep cheery. 

-=-  We don't have much control over genetic factors - except whatever may come into play biologically when two partners select one another for reproduction (and how much of that is influenced by the environment partners find one another in?). -=-

Much of "your father and I loved each other very much" is sugar-coating the past.  LOTS of kids are born whose parents did not "select one another for reproduction" in any sort of conscious way, but just rutted like any other animals in heat for a few minutes and discovered pregnancy as a by-product later.

In any such case, even if the parents stay together, I wonder whether that affects the environment in which the child grows up?  

Keith and I had one planned child. 
We were married, and loved each other, and are still married, but it is possible that even we treated the intended child better than the others.  It's a possibility.  

It's not that we planned to only have one child, it's that two of them were surprise pregnancies.  

Before birth control was readily available, maybe most children were surprise pregnancies, so maybe it's not worth thinking about or maybe it's been studied, or maybe it can't easily be studied because parents don't want to tell a child he was unwanted, or an oops.

I figured the lesson from Frankenstein was that if people screw with nature and play God, they're asking for trouble.  That was  not a naturally-born child with his own honestly-derived DNA.

Then, having written that, though, I realize that neither are "test-tube babies," in some ways, when it's not the genetic material of the two parents involved.   Known-donor situations maybe excepted, taking stranger-sperm is a great oddity in the history of this line of thought, isn't it?   It's not like post-battle rape, which is a natural instinct of a victorious force putting their mark on the conquered village.

Maybe, as with alcoholic genetics, the best we can or should do is create as good an environment as possible, warn the kids a bit about the possibility of genetic disadvantage, and play it out as it goes.

Sandra

Lisa Celedon

<<LOTS of kids are born whose parents did not "select one another for reproduction" in any sort of conscious way, but just rutted like any other animals in heat for a few minutes and discovered pregnancy as a by-product later>>

I was thinking of what kinds of pheromones or physical/behavioral attributes that come maybe sub-consciously into play with mutual attraction. There are all kinds of parings that don't involve mutual attraction. And how much of that is a genetic somehow or strictly environmental?

I would guess that the ability (or inability) to sustain a loving relationship, or grow into one deeper and more committed than lust has to do with the environment one was raised in. Even then, I wasn't raised in a relationship-promoting environment, far from it. And yet I have been focused much of my life on cultivating friendships and relationships- with limited success at times- complete failures at others- I've sought resources to help myself with that and my relationships have improved dramatically- even with people I was totally at odds with a year ago (previous and more recent exchanges with my mother in law come to mind in that category of 'dramatic improvement'). Or my husband, about whom a year ago, and as recent as six months ago, I decided I had nothing in common with, didn't love anymore, I had married him for all the 'wrong' reasons, it was a lost cause. Reading what you folks have to say about relationships and spouses has helped me and I now feel (really feel- deep in my heart) totally differently.

I was thinking, my mom was an only child of a very psychologically unstable mother and her dad died young- she intentionally had lots of kids because she hated feeling lonely as a child (it didn't turn out to be a good solution for her loneliness, but having lots of siblings in a range of ages certainly did something for mine, and for my social skills, that she couldn't have provided- so she provided better for her children in that way than what she had). You could say that was her reacting to her environment- or are we somehow genetically programmed to do those sorts of things in response to our environment?
So far all 5 of my siblings seem to be having major difficulty with relationships. But they're all younger than I am, and may be that will change. Is that genetics at play, or have I somehow ended up in a more conducive environment?

Is that odd combination of wanting to belong and conform, mixed with enough rebellion and mistrust of caregivers that allows people to seek out something different they were raised with strictly environmental? Somehow I dont think so. I imagine there are people who were raised without having to mistrust or doubt their caregivers who still seek out something different. Is it a genetic-conditional-on-environment thing? I have no idea, but whatever it is, I'm inexpressibly grateful for it.

Sandra Dodd

-=-I was thinking of what kinds of pheromones or physical/behavioral attributes that come maybe sub-consciously into play with mutual attraction. -=-

Okay. You're right, then.  Even if that is consummated in the back of a Chevy, there was some attraction that can matter.

-=-I would guess that the ability (or inability) to sustain a loving relationship, or grow into one deeper and more committed than lust has to do with the environment one was raised in.-=-

I think partly it is.  Studies of children of divorces suggest they're more likely to look for bail out points.

But I have seen some that looks like genetic in that, too, where a group of siblings are all faithful to a wide variety of spouses, or a mom and daughters have a certain kind of attention span—five years, or eight years, in series, a matching pattern.  I haven' seen hundreds so it's not "scientific," but I've seen enough to make me wonder.

And I wonder whether there might be something flighty and fleeting in some guys who love 'em and leave 'em, and might have children prone to do the same.  Could be some lack of biochemical bonding ability.

-=- Or my husband, about whom a year ago, and as recent as six months ago, I decided I had nothing in common with, didn't love anymore, I had married him for all the 'wrong' reasons, it was a lost cause. Reading what you folks have to say about relationships and spouses has helped me and I now feel (really feel- deep in my heart) totally differently. -=-

Him too?  Is he feeling better?  That's wonderful!!!  Thank you for sharing that.

Most of your questions were "I don't know!" from me, but Schuyler might know some of them, because her husband studies mating and attraction (among other things).

My sister and I are different in ways I can see.  She's like my mom, clearly and plainly, in some ways I am not, and I'm like my dad and paternal grandmother in ways way foreign to my sister (in appearance, habits, preferences and temperament).  I see in my boys that there are things in Kirby that are WAY like me and my dad, and Marty seems almost a clone of Keith, my husband.

Sandra

Colleen

****So, given how much more unschoolers spend time with their children, support them, help them, etc... this guy's insight into himself and his parents sort of supports the idea that whatever you are born with (or what your child is born with) is so changeable, and so dependant on what we do as parents to nurture and love our children - which is how I see unschooling a lot.****  

What I find most interesting about ideas related to genetics vs. environment/nature vs. nurture is that everyone brings both to the table.  We've all got genes, and we were all raised somewhere, by someone (or by multiple someones, in multiples places, sometimes).  No one can leave either environment or genetics aside, and stand as an example of just one of those things, or the other.  So it seems pretty much impossible (to me) to think that it's anything but an interplay of the two that make us all who we are.  

Even in cases of twins who were separated at birth and raised totally differently, but ended up very much the same, it can seem Obvious that that's genetics - but it might not be *just* genetics - because, again, they were indeed both raised - and who's to say how much influence that raising had, even if the influences, or even the similarities, weren't obvious to the researchers (or the twins) :-)

So when it comes to raising my son, and to unschooling, I figure he has a certain genetic make-up that will probably inspire certain traits, or habits, or behaviors.  I can't do much about that - genetically speaking, he is who he is, as a result of his genetic connection to my side of our family, and to my husband's side of our family.  A pile of DNA and other stuff :-) came together, and produced the 10 year old who is sitting right now in the other room by the Christmas tree, playing Legos.  

What I can influence greatly is the environment in which his genes and his DNA play around in, for however long in his life he lives with us.  I can provide a happy home, full of toys and games and interesting things to explore.  I can take him places, support his interests, talk with him, listen to him, and respect who he is as a person.  I can offer him a loving environment, devoid of punishment, threats, and yelling.  I can fill him up with good memories, so that when he strikes out into the world in his adult life, he will be building on what he already has, and (hopefully :-)) not seeking to destroy or rebel against or forget where he came from.

To me, in part, unschooling takes the genetic component and makes it, perhaps (and I don't mean this in a bad way :-)) less important.  Unschooling says to kids that whoever they are - whatever proteins and chemicals and other such bits that are inside them they bring to the table - they can learn, they can play, they can enjoy, and they can live as respected, valued members of a family unit.  

I like that about unschooling :-)

Colleen 

<bobcollier@...>




---In [email protected], <lisajceledon@...> wrote:

Incidentally, the most persuasive argument *for* genetics in this thread, to me, was the one 'against,' where a father and a son, raised in different environments, both picked up similar instruments in similar circumstances at similar ages/stages of life, without much previous exposure or inclination.  ;)


Lisa C



That would be me and my son.


Here's a thought. 


The first experience of my life that I can recall is an event that lasted a few minutes on a day when I was two and a half years old. I don't remember anything at all of what happened to me before that (and very little else afterwards until I was four or five). Two and a half years is thirty months. Or about 120 weeks. Or 72,576,000 seconds in which my brain was receiving approximately 11,000,000 predominantly novel sensory impressions per second. That's about 800,000,000,000,000 bits of information in total over the two and a half years. Add to that sensory impressions received in the womb and the total would be well over 1,000,000,000,000,000 predominantly novel bits of information before I get to the one isolated flash of sensory input that I can remember.


What exactly were those previous 1,000,000,000,000,000 bits of information and what effect did they have on me? Nobody knows.


That's why, in the case of all claims for genetic influence, I think the question, "What else could it be?" is always a good question to ask. 


I have no doubt whatsoever that the only genetic contribution to my musicianship is that I have small hands, which makes playing the fiddle more work than for people with larger hands and longer fingers. 


Bob

Joyce Fetteroll


On Dec 8, 2013, at 7:02 AM, <bobcollier@...> wrote:

I have no doubt whatsoever that the only genetic contribution to my musicianship is that I have small hands, which makes playing the fiddle more work than for people with larger hands and longer fingers.

Do you perhaps have wide ranging interests? Do they feel pretty random like they're influenced more by what you encounter than some pull inside you?

That might explain why the idea that interests have a genetic component doesn't sound right to you.

Because I know for absolute certainty that there are commonalities between my interests that I can trace way back. It's these commonalities that draw me to be interested in something rather than the other way around.

I'm drawn to finding patterns in randomness, especially when that randomness is created by humans. I'm vaguely interested in the idea that trees can be categorized. But very interested in discovering the patterns in names, in languages, in why people make the choices they do. I got this little book of baby names from the grocery store check out counter when I was 6 or so which lead me eventually to several dozen books on names, to pulling names from around the world out of news and sports articles and filling notecards full of them :-) I'm drawn to finding the thought patterns in unschoolers that causes them to see the world in certain ways (like believing children need to be taught to read). And I can see a direct link between that and loving reading advice columns as a kid.

I definitely have the draws and thought patterns from my father who was an engineer. I followed him around watching him fix things around the house. My sister had the same opportunity but it didn't interest her. And she thinks differently, has different interests.

Joyce

<plaidpanties666@...>

>>I definitely have the draws and thought patterns from my father who was an engineer. I followed him around watching him fix things around the house. My sister had the same opportunity but it didn't interest her. And she thinks differently, has different interests.<<


My brother and I both have the kinds of hands-on puzzling and problem solving tendencies as my dad - he's an engineer (both he's - my brother is, too), and my grandfather was an electrician, with very similar skills to all of us in that regard. But in some ways I was raised really, really differently than my brother by dint of our different genders. He was given tools, invited into my dad's workshop, shown how to work on motors, supported when he wanted to build and explore with hammers and saws and wrenches. I was pushed away from those things. If I wanted to use a hammer, I had to use my dad's or my brother's - and I Did use hammers and saws and wrenches, but only ever got lukewarm responses to my efforts. I was 21 before my dad gave me tools as a gift - but he did every year for my brother, birthday and xmas. 

So I was relegated to the kinds of projects and tools I could create and fabricate and snitch on my own - which often involved string or paper, fabric or cardboard because those were readily available to me. And yet I was also discouraged from "doing crafts" because "you can't make a living with stuff like that". In an attempt at feminist support, my dad even told me that I should actively avoid doing "traditionally feminine activities" because it would undermine my future success. He was trying to help! He even tried to stop me from taking a typing class so I wouldn't be "railroaded into a secretary's job". I did it behind his back. I did crafts behind his back, too - which meant I couldn't show him the things I built or ask for technical support. Eventually I found my way into fiber arts and working with my hands for a living by turning my back on my parents' advice and following what I enjoy doing - and found I'm very good at hands on problem solving, good at creating and building and fixing... like my grandfather and father and brother. In a sense, biology won out over my upbringing to an extent. Eventually.


My partner comes from a similar sort of background - good at hands-on problem solving with a dad good at that too... only here's an interesting twist: my partner is trans. She was born and raised as a boy. And unlike the more commonly told stories of MTF transfolk, she wasn't attracted to "girl stuff" as a child, she was a "tomboy" - like me only she was also Physically a boy. So she was treated as a boy. She was given tools and invited into dad's workshop and supported as being "very much a boy". And she grew into a teenage boy who liked normal teenage boy things like car and guitars - and being a very creative, hands on problem solver, started Building guitars. And working on cars. And building cabinetry. All very normal hands-on boy things... which has made coming out as trans really difficult in a lot of ways because in many ways, being raised male "fit" with who she was. And now she's one of a very few female professional artisan guitar builders... in part because she was raised to be a boy. Obviously there's some biology involved... but to me the interesting thing is the ways she was supported in terms of what she wanted to do.


I'm not trying to make this a feminist diatribe ;) It's something that's been on my mind lately, as Gwen has been exploring issues around biology and upbringing. Biology matters, but environment does too. The kind of support kids get for what they enjoy and value and are good at can shape the biological factors in ways that are subtle and not-so-subtle. 

Lisa Celedon

<<Him too? Is he feeling better? That's wonderful!!! Thank you for sharing that.>>

He was never one to complain or give voice to things that made him unhappy--
But there were lots of obvious signs of stress and resentment.

I can give an example that might be telling:

I used to nag him all the time about leaving his dirty socks in the living room. He ALWAYS left them on the floor in the living room no matter how often I reminded (nagged) him to put them in the laundry basket.

The other night after snuggling my boys to sleep I was tidying up the living room while he watched a movie. I was humming quietly and every now and then we chatted a bit about what he was watching, or things that happened during the day (we never used to chat much- he'd focus on his movies or his phone after work and not seem to see or hear or take note of anything else- and I often Inconsiderately interrupted what he was doing to get his attention) at home and at the repair shop he works at, and sharing some funny things off our Facebook news feeds for the day.

When I finished cleaning I gave him a kiss and went to bed. The next morning I got up and saw his socks laid neatly at the door of the playroom/office (the laundry basket is in there).

Six months ago I would have been pissed that he made the effort to get them that far, but not open the door and move another four feet to toss them in the basket. Now, I saw that, my heart melted a little, I smiled and thought, wow, he's never done that. And I didn't even ask him to not leave them in the living room.

That, and he's had more patience with our boys. When I extended abundance and sweetness and generosity to include him, and started taking his thoughts on what the kids should or shouldn't be doing into account, it made a huge difference in his mood. He laughs a lot more and is sweet with the boys more than he used to be. He even gave me Some awesome advice the other day when I was having a struggle with our 4 yr old over a game we were playing. That's so unlike what it was like before (a few months ago he probably would have stomped out of room without a word).

I still have things to work on. But it's definitely been a huge improvement.

And thank YOU. I might actually be in the process of separating right now had I not had this amazing resource.

Lisa C


Sent from my iPhone

Schuyler

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/07/brain-science-ditch-male-female-cliche is in the Guardian today. And it has very interesting points about the problems with attributing something to genetics versus environment. 

When I was at uni a biology professor got really irritated about a study on the difference between the gay male brain at death and a straight male brain at death. Someone had done a study of brains of out gay men, out straight women and out straight men and found the brains of out gay men more similar to those of out straight women. And the biology professor said "Of course there are differences. Experience changes the structure of the brain. It doesn't mean that those differences occur at or before birth."

So, there is always that. 

I think it is a blend between genetics and environment, these outcomes of things like musicality or shyness or whatever. I loved the idea that was put forward in this discussion, and that has a lot of support in the scientific community according to my go to scientist/husband, that if the environment is good the outcome is more true to genetics. I don't believe it, though based on nothing greater than my limited understanding of reaction norms. I assume that biology is sensitive to good conditions as much as it is to bad conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity has beautiful little pieces of data about phenotypic plasticity. But I don't think it is an easily untanglible thing, genetics and environment. At this moment, with what I've read and how I view the world, I think that genes define the parameters, the range of variation possible, and environment fills in the bits as you go along. 

Schuyler