Personalities are based on numerous things we're told. Genes, upbringing, conditioning etc. In my case, I'd have to agree - all these play a part. I react sometimes based on innate responses (like anger), sometimes based on principles, and sometimes based on mood. Maybe there are more classifications - but you get the drift. A lot of these can be attributed to my genetic structure and a lot to the way I was brought up. But can all of it? At some point I broke with 'family' I had my own experiences and thoughts and could make up my own mind. But maybe that just means that I'm 'hardy'.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene A cousin-in-law posted this article on Facebook and I loved reading it. It suggests that people who are hurt the most by the slings and arrows of a difficult upbringing, also have the most to contribute to society. Not by virtue of their upbringing, but by virtue of their sensitivity, creativity, or other such trait. They feel more strongly, so they may do more. It suggests that the personality type they call 'orchid' would die when not treated appropriately, but when in 'optimal' circumstances, would blossom spectacularly.
What I find special about this article is that there are no value judgements about parents, and there are no excuses for children. Stretching the 'orchid' metaphor, they are not only found in hot-houses. So, the circumstances for the 'orchid' child to develop completely could be completely naturally occurring. I just read 'The Last Lecture' by Randy Pausch (after having seen it on YouTube a few times), and one of the points he made is that he 'lucked out on the Parent Lottery'. I've also recently read 'Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman' which is an eclectic collection of life incidents, but what stood out for me, is that his parents were completely supportive of his experiments and curiousity. It was dangerous on occasion, but he survived, their house survived, and he went on to be very useful.
I'm contemplating becoming a parent and (as I've stated before) I think I'll be ok at it. What I'm learning though, is that we need to be sensitive to the individual child as well. I have 'principles of child rearing' that I occasionally discuss with OA and we tend to agree, but where we sometimes disagree is how much to 'curtail' a child. Especially with little boys, sometimes they're not very careful. They hurt themselves, they break stuff and such-like. This is not true of all boys, but assuming we have a child like this, is the right answer that we restrict their curiousity and movement to ensure minimum damage to themselves and property? Say we think the right approach is to scare the child into immobility, how would that help? It might ensure the child lives to adult-hood, but with a significant amount of fear. Is there a middle-path? Where we're able to evaluate risk in a split second, and allow some activities, but disallow others? Will a small child be able to evaluate these or understand the difference (i.e. using an electrical device v. putting nail into electricity socket)?
And moving along to the other issue that I wanted to write about. Now that I've read the article, I think my brother is an 'orchid'. There are some 'optimal' settings for him, which he may not have had for most of his life. Now he's an adult, and it seems sometimes like he's not able to get beyond this, probably for the same 'orchid' related issues. If this is true, I'd also like to know if professional help would work, I'd really like him to get it if it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment