Click here to add your comments
"The ones that are innate, or natural, are the social skills...but often times social skills are a subset of personality, which is something we are born with."
————————————————————————
I'd have to disagree with the above premise.

Human beings are born with almost no personality characteristics. Technically speaking, there's little in a newborn's genes that makes him or her a leader, a follower, or, for that matter, a criminal. Phrases like "he's a natural born leader" are nonsense, since there is no empirical evidence that suggests leadership skills are innate characteristics.

What we are all endowed with at birth are certain (and, in some cases, quantifiable) inherited physical characteristics, among which is raw intelligence. Virtually everything that a human being becomes from birth onward is built upon that intelligence by the environment in which s/he develops. I believe that all human behavioral characteristics (with the exception of the expression of basic physical needs—sexual gratification included) are learned, not hard-coded into the brain prior to birth. How else to explain intelligent people who accomplish little in their lives?

It is possible for an intelligent and extroverted individual to be a total bust at management of any kind, simply because s/he never learned the fine art of negotiation, schmoozing and compromise. Oftentimes, a top-notch manager is neither the smartest or most extroverted person in the organization, but is instead the one who has mastered the ability to define realistic goals, motivate the team and objectively measure the results. In fact, I've often noted that truly extroverted individuals don't make particularly good managers, as they tend to not be taken very seriously by those whom they are expected to manage.

This entire process of creating an effective manager starts at a young age, generally by the parents (or at least one of them) exhibiting desirable traits that the youngster will imitate. With such a foundation in place, the likelihood of the child going on to be a successful anything (manager or otherwise) as an adult will be substantially greater than that of a kid raised in a household where the parents are unable (or unwilling) to set a good leadership example.

Speaking of good examples, something which ought to concern us all is the negative effects of children spending much of their early years in daycare centers. If parents do have leadership traits that can translate into desirable behavior in their children, how likely is it that daycare-bound children will actually benefit from those traits? Also, what will the children learn if most of their waking hours are spent in the company of strangers who may exhibit little in the way of motivation and leadership?

—BigDumbDinosaur

Having known a few twins with different personalities, I'm not sure. Obviously no one has exactly the same experiences, but the opposite has been shown to be true: birth separated twins exhibiting remarkably common personality traits. Nature/Nurture, a difficult problem.

--TonyLawrence

The "twin studies" have been in doubt for some time. First, they're anecdotal, not scientific, which makes them a little unstable for basing conclusions on. Keep in mind that anecdotal truths are what psychics base their living on. However, there's also been some questions over whether some of the cases weren't fabricated or used more than once.

I have an even bigger objection to this, however -- what's the point? The only reason to say "you're born that way" is to say you can't change whatever quality you're talking about. This is generally false, and certainly fatalistic and self-defeating. Since you're presumably not planning on direct chromosomal manipulation, any distinction is irrelevant.

Actually, I'd also question that people are born with "raw intelligence" (whatever that is). What's your evidence? IQ scores fluctuate widely through any individual's life (and many do not agree with IQ scores as a measure of "intelligence" -- in fact, many have trouble coming to a good, workable definition of intelligence).

Additionally, the use of the terms introvert and extrovert is misplaced. Introvert and extrovert aren't absolute states, they're descriptions of what you observe. You can't use descriptions of observations to prove the observations you've made.

I am somewhat surprised at BigDumbDinosaur's castigation of day care workers and blithe assumption that the natural parents would make better models for managerial skills. Frankly, it seems to me that the continuous management of twenty 3 to 5-year olds involves more skill than the management of one or two. Why are we not concerned instead about kids staying at home with abusive or neglectful parents instead of with people who have far greater experience with children? I think a lot of day-care workers would also take issue with BigDumb calling them "strangers" to the children (after all, if you spend "most of your waking hours" (huh? if your kid is spending more than 50 hours a week (assuming a 10-hour average per night sleeping) at a day care, you live in a very unusual location) with someone who feeds you, plays with you, takes you to the bathroom if necessary, and heals your boo-boos, would you call them a "stranger"?

Anyway, sorry about the diatribe.

Sam

"The ones that are innate, or natural, are the social skills...but often times social skills are a subset of personality, which is something we are born with."
————————————————————————
I'd have to disagree with the above premise.

Human beings are born with almost no personality characteristics. Technically speaking, there's little in a newborn's genes that makes him or her a leader, a follower, or, for that matter, a criminal. Phrases like "he's a natural born leader" are nonsense, since there is no empirical evidence that suggests leadership skills are innate characteristics.

What we are all endowed with at birth are certain (and, in some cases, quantifiable) inherited physical characteristics, among which is raw intelligence. Virtually everything that a human being becomes from birth onward is built upon that intelligence by the environment in which s/he develops. I believe that all human behavioral characteristics (with the exception of the expression of basic physical needs—sexual gratification included) are learned, not hard-coded into the brain prior to birth. How else to explain intelligent people who accomplish little in their lives?

It is possible for an intelligent and extroverted individual to be a total bust at management of any kind, simply because s/he never learned the fine art of negotiation, schmoozing and compromise. Oftentimes, a top-notch manager is neither the smartest or most extroverted person in the organization, but is instead the one who has mastered the ability to define realistic goals, motivate the team and objectively measure the results. In fact, I've often noted that truly extroverted individuals don't make particularly good managers, as they tend to not be taken very seriously by those whom they are expected to manage.

This entire process of creating an effective manager starts at a young age, generally by the parents (or at least one of them) exhibiting desirable traits that the youngster will imitate. With such a foundation in place, the likelihood of the child going on to be a successful anything (manager or otherwise) as an adult will be substantially greater than that of a kid raised in a household where the parents are unable (or unwilling) to set a good leadership example.

Speaking of good examples, something which ought to concern us all is the negative effects of children spending much of their early years in daycare centers. If parents do have leadership traits that can translate into desirable behavior in their children, how likely is it that daycare-bound children will actually benefit from those traits? Also, what will the children learn if most of their waking hours are spent in the company of strangers who may exhibit little in the way of motivation and leadership?

—BigDumbDinosaur

Having known a few twins with different personalities, I'm not sure. Obviously no one has exactly the same experiences, but the opposite has been shown to be true: birth separated twins exhibiting remarkably common personality traits. Nature/Nurture, a difficult problem.

--TonyLawrence

The "twin studies" have been in doubt for some time. First, they're anecdotal, not scientific, which makes them a little unstable for basing conclusions on. Keep in mind that anecdotal truths are what psychics base their living on. However, there's also been some questions over whether some of the cases weren't fabricated or used more than once.

I have an even bigger objection to this, however -- what's the point? The only reason to say "you're born that way" is to say you can't change whatever quality you're talking about. This is generally false, and certainly fatalistic and self-defeating. Since you're presumably not planning on direct chromosomal manipulation, any distinction is irrelevant.

Actually, I'd also question that people are born with "raw intelligence" (whatever that is). What's your evidence? IQ scores fluctuate widely through any individual's life (and many do not agree with IQ scores as a measure of "intelligence" -- in fact, many have trouble coming to a good, workable definition of intelligence).

Additionally, the use of the terms introvert and extrovert is misplaced. Introvert and extrovert aren't absolute states, they're descriptions of what you observe. You can't use descriptions of observations to prove the observations you've made.

I am somewhat surprised at BigDumbDinosaur's castigation of day care workers and blithe assumption that the natural parents would make better models for managerial skills. Frankly, it seems to me that the continuous management of twenty 3 to 5-year olds involves more skill than the management of one or two. Why are we not concerned instead about kids staying at home with abusive or neglectful parents instead of with people who have far greater experience with children? I think a lot of day-care workers would also take issue with BigDumb calling them "strangers" to the children (after all, if you spend "most of your waking hours" (huh? if your kid is spending more than 50 hours a week (assuming a 10-hour average per night sleeping) at a day care, you live in a very unusual location) with someone who feeds you, plays with you, takes you to the bathroom if necessary, and heals your boo-boos, would you call them a "stranger"?

Anyway, sorry about the diatribe.

--Sam (s_c_gardner at msn)






Sun Jul 31 20:29:24 2005: Subject: Daycare   BigDumbDinosaur


I accidentally stumbled into this article while looking for something else, saw the last comment and decided to reply.

I am somewhat surprised at BigDumbDinosaur's castigation of day care workers and blithe assumption that the natural parents would make better models for managerial skills.

First off, I did not castigate daycare workers or centers. Most of them try to do the best they can with limited resources and in the face of sometimes indifferent parents. Nor do I have any illusions as to how well parents might or might not nurture and raise their children.

Before continuing, let me point out that I'm not randomly tossing out opinions: my wife, who is a retired special education teacher, works in daycare with infants. Many of our conversations over dinner have centered (no pun intended) around what goes on in daycare centers and how small children, especially those younger than two years, react to being in the care of people other than parents or other immediate family -- strangers, in other words. In the last four years since she got involved with daycare, I've learned far more about the business -- and, mind you, it's a business intent on turning a profit -- than I really cared to find out.

I've also learned a lot about the priorities of some of the folks who put their kids into daycare. In some cases, children end up in daycare because mom and dad are hell-bent on acquiring as much material wealth as possible.

I stand by my assertion that a child being nurtured by motivated, loving parents is much more likely to succeed than a similar child spending a substantial number of his daily hours in the care of daycare workers. There is more than enough scientific study and observation to support such a claim. Children learn by imitation, and parents who are motivated and successful provide a positive example -- if they are there for their children. Daycare workers, on the other hand, are not there to be role models and, in some cases, provide nothing to a child other than food, drink, clean diapers, nap time and an opportunity to play with other kids. Daycare workers do what they do because they are there to earn a living, which just happens to be one of caring for other people's offspring.

Frankly, it seems to me that the continuous management of twenty 3 to 5-year olds involves more skill than the management of one or two.

No reputable daycare center will ever place that many 3-5 year olds into the charge of any one individual. Most states in the USA set a limit of five per daycare worker. No more than four children under 3 can be cared for by any one daycare worker. So the "continuous management" load isn't anywhere near as onerous as you might think.

The ability to manage that many children at any given time has a lot more to do with the organization and policies of the daycare center itself than the skill and motivation of the individual workers. Legally licensed daycare centers are required to have highly structured procedures for handling everything from dirty diapers to real emergencies, and generally leave very little decision-making in the hands of rank and file workers. And for good reason: daycare is a low-paying job (7-8 dollars/hours is average in our area), reflecting the limits of how much parents are willing to pay for the center's services. Just how much talent do you expect to attract at that pay scale? Someone with my wife's education and skill (especially in dealing with problem children, which she did for many years as a SPED) is a relatively rare exception in the daycare industry. If she truly needed an adequate wage to support herself, she'd be in a classroom, where the pay and benefits are much better.

There's little question that there are many well-intentioned folks working at daycare centers. However, let's be realistic: these people are there to collect a paycheck, not to become emotionally invested in their charges. Their concerns about the kids in their care are not going to keep them awake at night.

Why are we not concerned instead about kids staying at home with abusive or neglectful parents instead of with people who have far greater experience with children?

I'm not sure to whom you are referring by "we." I don't know anyone who is not concerned about children being mistreated or neglected. I personally get very distressed when I see examples of child neglect or endangerment, such as idiot parents who won't put their kids in suitable restraining devices while riding in an automobile. I find it equally distressing to see newscasts in which children are found living in squalor while mom or dad are out on what they think are important missions. I'd agree that in such cases, a child would be much better off at a daycare center where he or she would be properly fed, kept clean and exposed to a fun environment in the company of other presumably happy children.

I wanted to comment some more on the above posting but there appears to be a limit as to how large a comment post can be (guess I'm too wordy). Later, maybe.

Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email

Click here to add your comments

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar