I do agree that as a parent that we should not try to shape our kids the way we want them to be but instead to help them grow up to be what they would like to be. But I do think the schools they go to do matter. I'm not saying forcing them to get into the top academic schools if they are not academically oriented. I'm saying we should help them get into the top environment that can develop their potentials and schools are one of the most important environment. For example if the kid loves music, then we should get him or her into a school that has a great music program and attracts like-minded students. The kid will likely be happier in that environment than in an average public school.
I think you’re absolutely right about that. It’s about matching the kid to the right environment that will maximize their particular abilities and experience.
Respectfully that is incorrect. It's more important to understand the child, see their point of view, account for their temperament and their personality. Matching a child (or anyone) to an environment isn't something sensible to advocate
@@doctorjonathanyoniajzner6779former special education and reading remediation teacher here. Some schools are absolutely necessary for a certain population of students and will not be appropriate for other students. You forgot about the most critical part to consider in regards to students and schools: the IQ of the student and the supports the school does or doesn't have.
1:03:00 What? Robert Plomin you said at The Royal Institution in 2018 we can use gene to predict 15% students scores, why four years later we still stuck at 15%?
Good suggestion, that would have been a great question to ask! However I think it’s safe to say that you can raise IQ, at least a little bit. There is something called the Flynn effect, which shows a historical rise in IQ (mainly in the domain of abstract reasoning) that can’t be explained by changes in genes but instead by changes in culture over time. Thank you for your comment!
This is interesting but Mr Plomin seems to draw to much from studies and the laboratory rather than real world experience and examples. It is demonstrable that there are mice, rats, chìmps (and yes humans) that engage better with their offspring than the majority of their peers. Likewise there are parents from these and other species observed performing their roles poorly (which need not include neglect or abuse). There are certainly schools and teachers who perform well above average and that's not just the postcode where the parents live. There are also well intentioned teachers and school staff who are not up to the demands of their job, and are frankly, poor at their role. I think i have to read his book or speak to the guy, because what he says here is demonstrably incorrect.
I understand what you’re saying. I think the main point is just that parenting and schooling have less of an influence than commonly assumed on the life outcomes for the child, and that genetics plays a substantial but under appreciated role. There are real differences in both parenting and schooling, but the issue is how much they matter for a child’s personal and intellectual development in the long run.
@@senseofmindshow Mr Plomin presents the state of things well, but I would argue that he doesn't sufficiently acknowledge the holes in his conclusions. There is plenty of 'good enough' parenting, schooling etc (if you're familiar with Donald Winnicott). But we've all seen people who are excellent at the trade they ply - think sport, art, music or any professional vocation. So it only makes sense that if people can learn excellence in spheres of communication, teaching, problem solving etc, that children can experience this and benefit as a result.
@not me A few things - You'll find that those with a lot of wealth disproportionately occupy positions of higher 'status' as do their children. Not always, but you can imagine it being a useful thing to be born into a family with resources to deal with the inevitable problems that occur in life - As Mr Plomin says, best conditions don't always result in the best outcome. So if you are a child that has an intellectual disability it will be hard for you to receive a mainstream education no matter where you live. But take that intellectually disabled child and give them and their family access to (for example) speech therapists, occupational therapists, child psychologists and schools that understand and cater to the needs of the child and you would expect a much more content and well adjusted adolescent and adult as a result. - If you put a healthy, sociable child in a schooling environment where there are few school-yard fights, better resources for continuing teacher education and an administration that supports/understands individual differences in children i.e. a school that allows teachers and students to thrive - how can you compare that child's outcomes to being sent to an under-resourced school? Was Michael Jordan always going to be the amazing basketballer that he was? Was Michael Phelps always going to be the Olympic champion he become? Could anyone have guided and coached them to their successes? Not a chance. So what I am saying is that for Mr Plomin to reach the conclusions he does, it appears that he assumes mediocrity in multiple avenues of life. And in the areas I know about, especially in parenting and schooling, I don't think he appreciates the value of those whose performance in supporting children is excellent.
