9: The science of raising happily productive kids

Happily Productive Kids. Don, I just want to say thank you so much for being on my show today. You've been a huge influence on my work for many years. Well, thank you. I'm delighted to be here. I wanted to ask you, Donna, what is a happily productive kid. It's somebody who's engaged in doing something that he or she thinks is valuable and is moving in the in the close space what Mahi would to call it the close space. So somebody who's learning and growing and extending and extending

their areas of competence. Oh, that's really interesting. So you really do tie this this idea of flow, which has to do with this sort of optimal zone of challenge, right, So you're very well matched to the task at hand with being a happily productive kid. Well, that's that's wonderful. That's certainly not our predominant culture in schools, is it, or what we value? Yeah, for sure, I think that

is changing. You know. My personal observation is that schools are increasingly aware of the importance of engaging kids in the learning process. Yeah. And do you think that schools really are of engaging the kids in a way that is optimally challenging to them? Well, no, I mean you no, I mean some schools are obviously mostly not, but I think increasingly educators and parents are aware of these concepts.

So I'm optimistic that sort of with growing awareness, you know, there is increasing pressure on parents and on schools to make sure that kids are enjoying their learning and engaged in it and challenged by it, so they're learning in ways that the kids themselves find valuable. So the title of your book is called Beyond Intelligence, And in order to go beyond that, I thought we would start with

what is intelligence? Okay, And as you know, there are a million definitions of what intelligence is, and I think there's a lot of interesting work that's been done on this. It's very contentious. The sort of functional definition that Joanne Foster and I are using is that intelligence is the ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt objectively to the environment, to overcome obstacles, engage meaningly in various forms of briefly, and to learn from experience. They we talk about how

it developed incrementally and varies across time and situations and domains. Wow, that is a really it seems like a comprehensive definition of intelligence that that gives people a lot of opportunities to display this thing that we call intelligence. It sounds like you're not tying it necessarily to the kinds of skills measured by Q tests. Is that right for sure? I mean, in fact, that's certainly. One of my big motivators is that I see the IQ test as so limited.

It provides interesting information for people when they're case you are having problems learning, but it's so limited. What we're working on is something a lot more inclusive, with the notion that all children can develop their intelligence. Intelligence is something that does develop over time with opportunities to learn, and it's accessible to everybody, So people are a lot

less limited than they usually believe they are. Okay, So at any given moment in time, would you say that there are people who differ in their intelligence levels, even if everyone's capable of developing their intelligence, Yeah, for sure. I mean people vary in the extent to which they're able to reason, for example, or demonstrate mastery of a certain domain. Now, I think that we have a lot more capacity to develop those abilities than we usually are aware.

So there are fewer limitations on that than people often think. It's not a fixed thing. However, at any given point in time, one person will have develop their musical intelligence, say farther than somebody else. Okay, so you definitely uh view. It sounds like you're putting various things in the label of intelligence. So do you would you include like musical competency as a form of intelligence, Well, that would be

a foundation. You need a certain level of competence in the domain, you know, I like Howard Gardner's perspective the multiple intelligence. So you need some kind of competence in the area, but then you need to do something with it. So there is the sort of the understanding the complexity of ideas, so pulling ideas together, so you start with the competence that then there's what you do with that competence. How do you adapt to challenges as they come along?

What do you do about obstacles? I think that's all part of what intelligence is. Wow, that's so that's such a I think it's going to give a be very refreshing to a lot of people, a lot of parents, you know, and to hear that that that broadened definition of the intelligence. So if a student score is high on an IQ test, you you do think that's an indicator of high intelligence. It is an indication of sofiing a high intelligence at least in the capacities that the

IQ test tests. So, yes, an IQ test absolutely measures, for example, I think it measures linguistic reasoning pretty well. So how you know it's a vocabulary is assessed. That's a really important dimension of the ability to reason in the language domain. So a high IQ score tells you that a person has developed that particular capacity or intelligence

pretty well. Right. But you're saying that there are many many ways that if someone scores well on an IQ test that they could still be develop their intelligence even if that IQ score doesn't budge. Is that what you're saying absolutely absolutely. I think so. As you said a minute ago, a high IQ does indicate a high level

of intelligence of a certain kind of intelligence. However, a less than high IQ score could mean a child who doesn't test well for one reason or another, some anxiety in or test situation, some lack of opportunity to have learned certain dimensions of test taking skills. It could be an illness on a certain day. You know, there's a whole lot of reasons not to do well on an IQ test. The only way you can do well unless you're you're cheating, you know, unless you've been prepped for it,

and that does happen. But if that hasn't happened, Uh, you know, what it does mean is that you're highly capable in those capacities that the IQ test tests, right, So that's it's a really uh yeah, I really like this perspective that you have. And in this book you go through lots of myths of intelligence and even talk about some dangerous ideas. There's one idea you said you referred to in the book is the most dangerous idea? Do you could you? Uh, do you remember what that was? Uh?

It's probably about potential limiting potential like the no something else. No, that's exactly right, that's exactly year. Remember your book, Well, yeah, that some kids are destined for success because there are high IQ will others have limited potential. This idea, you know, this notion of potential is something that I'm fascinated with

as well. And I tried to think through what the word potential really means and if we ever can identify that, what are your thoughts on potential and why do you think it's a dangerous idea? Yeah, I really think that and a seamness in practice. So often where teachers and parents think, and it works on the high end as well as the low end to limit kids' ability and to push them away from higher level achievement. So when people say to a kid, oh, you know, you could

do a lot better than that. Your potential is to greatness, there's some terrible pressure on that kid and they are pushed into what Carold Wett calls the fixed mindset. So to talk about kids as having high potential is interestingly and somewhat counterintuitively very limiting. So it moves them towards the fixed mindset, where they're less likely to do risky

intellectual things to take on high level challenges. And then on the other side of it, it's a bit more obvious or intuitive, where the challenge kid they don't have the potential, then they typically live down to your estimation, and that obviously is very sad and limiting too. Now, of course, some kids take that as a challenge and do very well with it, as I think your story illustrates where the tolg to have limited potential leads you to work really hard to develop. So, but that's rare,

that is less common. I've seen it a lot lot more damaging to children than useful. Right, right, right, right, h You've worked a lot in the in the field of talent development, and you've edited some books on this topic which have very much influenced me. I'm just trying to think through you know, why is it called Why do you guys call it talent development? Suppose it's just like human development, like you know, yeah, I mean I think where this comes from, the concept of talent development

comes so one of his friends. At any rate is a push back against use of the word gifted, an attempt to move away from something that is innate and fixed, like we tend to think of somebody who's gifted as they were given some gift at birth of a higher level of potential to succeed, and so there's some innate and fixed quality with whereas talent development that the concept, the words are all the empathus on the development of human abilities. So it is much more that the doing

than the being. Yeah, and that is a big debate in the in the field of gifted education, is giftness and talent what you do or who you are exactly and you do? You do tend to focus on the what you do aspect more and you're that's that's reflected very much in your theory of intelligence and as very much something that's operating out there in the real world in an effective, adaptive manner, not just necessarily the essence of your being. That's you know, captured by an IQ test.

That's very evident in your book. And yeah, I can I can see I can see why you would uh you know, refer to this talent development and talk about and uh you know, and and you'd also admit though that there are things that we can develop even if we're not talented in those things. That's that's the thing that I that I want to try to understand as well, because you know, you have a talent development model, but what if you're a kid who just has a passion

for something and not the talent for it. Would you want to cut them out of the talent development program? Yeah? No, And you see, I would take it the opposite direction that I see talent as something that develops. I don't see it as innate. I don't. Yeah, And it's interesting because it's obviously very contentious. And in the book that I did with readA sebotni from Francis Horowitz, The Development of Talent and Gifted this. I love that book, by

the way, Oh thank you, thank you. I'm really proud of that book. But you know, we we had a lot of discussions among ourselves about about, you know, how much is any talent innate? Are some people just born more musical for example? And you know, in the end we agreed to disagree on that. And I certainly I have enormous respect for both of my co authors on that book. You know, they're both amazing human beings with

huge crudentials in this area. Francis and I were more of sport I think on this, and Riada had a lot more experience in the musical talent area and feels that, or felt at that time as we were working on that book, that there are some important musicality dimensions. It shouldn't maybe right, you know, this is something that I'm not sure about, but certainly for sure, and all three of us working on this book feel very strongly about this.

There are a lot of diffmensions that do develop that aren't in AIG at all, but that require opportunities to learn combined with the passionate interest. And he's talked about the passion for something. I don't think any of us Princess Horowitz readings, Avaki for lot, would disagree that somebody with a great passion for something is liable to go farther than somebody who shows up with more early level

ability but less passion or engagement. So the engagement factor is huge, and of course one of the big interesting questions is where that comes from and how much of that might be innate. And I think there are temperaments different for the class kids, and I'm certainly willing to concede that temperament factors can be innate. We have some pretty solid evidence about that, you know, in my book

and gifted. I define talent as having a passion and proclivity to massure the rules of a domean and I kind of see passion as a fundamental aspect of intelligence and talent. You know. I like that. I like that perspective a lot. Yeah, so you, I thought we could for the rest of this area. Can we go through some of these myths that a lot of people have and maybe can you can help to spell them for me or for listeners. I'm just going to read various statements to you and can you tell me if they're

true or false? Sure? Okay, by the time a child is three years old, his intelligence level is set for life. No, absolutely not. All this work is being done on neuroplasticity, the way the brain develops. We know for sure that the brain can keep on developing across the lifespan. Even I like brain age, I'm old, Even I can continue to develop my intelligence if I keep on thinking and

working and challenging myself. Sure, and Ray, and you already addressed a lot of that in some earlier comments you said in this interview about how you really do think anyone can develop their intelligence to a substantial degree. Yeah, and I mean, the three years old is you know, we chose that in this myth because of course those first three years of life from zero to three are hugely important in building the brain. So I'm not going to dispute the value of the importance of the zero

to three. However, at the age of three, a child is still developing his intelligence, and there's lots more room for growth across the lifespan. Absolutely, and that, of course give gives hope to lots of people. I think I wish that you know, I knew you when I was

a kid. H I wish I read your book me too, you know, because I am an advocate for kids like you who you know, like you were, as I know you through your book I'm Gifted and to other works that a child whose abilities didn't show up initially in an I protest, but he clearly had all kinds of strengths that needed to be affirmed and supportive. Yeah, I really do like a various strengths based approach to talent development as opposed to just, you know, focusing on what

we lack or needs. Yes, so here's another one, true or false. The more you praise a child for his intelligence, the more confident he'll be right. I mean, and again,

this is false. This is one of those myths that you know, a commonly health misconception is that it's good to say to somebody, oh, you're so smart, you're a genius, you're brilliant, stuff like that, when in fact, I mean and again, I'm reading heavily on the work that Perilgraph and others in the positive psychology and mindset areas have done demonstrating to my mind pretty conclusively that it's actually damaging to praise someone for their intelligence, which people tend

to think of as innate and fixed, and instead what we ought to be doing is praising people for their for their achievements and for their process. So to comment on a picture that a child is drawing, for example, and say, oh, my goodness, you're so talented there such an artist is actually harmful to their artistic ability. But a better thing to say of a kid is, wow, you work really hard on that. I love what you

did with the colors. That combination of the red and the blue and the yellow really makes sense in this picture. And what do you think you're going to do with the next one? So that you're focusing on the products and on the process, but not on some kind of innate quality of the person that's doing. It's understand, it's about the doing, not about the I was just going

to say that that's very consistent with that doing perspective. Yeah, a lot of a lot of what I write about is really there's a real strong connection between Carol Grex's work and my own, Like I really like what she talks about and how she talks about it and the research findings that she's bought in this in these areas. Yeah, that's very clear. That's very clear when you read your writings. Yeah, that's something. So here's another one. Some people are creative

and some aren't. Yeah, and again this is this is like these are sort of like really obvious kinds of out there kinds of statements when you you know, in our fields, but it is it remains to be a commonly health misconception. Some people are creative and some are and absolutely full anybody can learn to be creative. And I love Bob Sternberg's you know, ten Decisions for Creativity, Ten ways you can decide for creativity, And so he's really emphasizing very strongly the doing rather than the being

of creativity as well as intelligence. Absolutely, Yeah, he really does refer to it as kind of a creative spirit or attitude. Yeah. Yeah, creativity is a choice, right exactly. Okay, how do you know, how do you define creativity? Donna? Like, how do you do you distinguish intelligence from creativity? Yeah? I mean I think they're really connected. Obviously. I don't know if you know Dan Keating's work, but I love

what he's done in creativity. He wrote a paper in nineteen eighty that I don't think anybody's written anything that superseded at fourth clarity, and he talked about it's called the fourth Bases of Creativity and I think it was Get a Child Quarterly that it was in or something. I'm pretty sure that's where it looks. But what he talks about there, his fourth faces of creativity are content mastery, so you've got to know the stuff, you have to

have knowledge with which to be creative. And then divergent thinking. You know, a lot of people think of creativity as divergent thinking, so thinking outside the box. It's sort of novel novelty to a lot of people. Novelty isqu of creativity. Right, Well, the diversion thinking affect is an important it's it's necessary, but really very much not sufficient to creativity. So another dimension that Heating talks about that a lot of people

miss in creativity is the critical thinking component. So you have to you know, have lots of diversion ideas, but then you have to decide which one to follow. And that's where the critical thinking comes in because you can't follow all your ideas, so critical thinking about which ideas are most practical. And then is the communication skills where you translate so that content mastery, the diversion thinking, the critical thinking, you translate that into something useful for people.

So if it's in the world of music, you are able to perform or write something that is musically valuable to other people. Sure that sounds like a really good perspective and a very consistent with a lot of modern day theories of creativity is both novelty and usefulness. Yeah. Absolutely, I'm going to put that article in our show notes. Yeah, yeah,

you could send it to me. That great, Okay, I will highly intelligent people or children have more social and emotional problems than other kids, right, And I know, I

mean it's interesting. I mean there are so many duances and complexity to this, and you've done a lot of writing in this area, so you know, this is something that I'd enjoy a conversation with you about, but certainly from from my staff point looking at all the research on because my work has been in the area of gifted development, so I've predominantly worked with exceptionally capable of kids, and you know, both in private practice and academic or

research areas. It's it seems to me that the research is and my my experience is that at a certain point, and maybe once you get to three standard deviations above the meme I got an IW of one plus something like that. Once you get to that level, I think it does get harder for kids to relate to others.

They are more different than the thinking processes than others, harder for them sort of categorically, now you know people who have that level of you know, i Q tests for very so tremendously there way more unlike each other than they are like each other. So I'm talking generalities here, but it's only once you get to that real extreme that you get you know, so below that a higher i Q is actually a plus factor. Socially, typically I mean, it depends a whole lot on what else is going

on in the person's life. Depends a whole lot more on temperament than it does on IQ. It depends on like, your social intelligence and your your intellectual quotient are really different variables. They're they're very different, so that we've all known people who are socially extremely competent but would not score very well on an I protest and vice versa. It's neither a high IQ. It's neither an asset nor a detriment in terms of social ability. So much of

it seems to be contextual. You know, if you're if you're putting in an environment where you're you're you're with classmates and individuals who are operating at the same speed as you, it seems like you could be more socially adept than you know, you could feel more awkward if you're in a situation where you feel out of place. So some of that might be environmental effects, not trait

traite effects. I mean, that's true. I think, I think there's truth to that, but I would caution against, I mean, because that seems to argue for pulling high IQ. Kids being together with each other and it seems to me that there are a lot of costs to doing that too, So yeah, there can be some advantages, but well, you know, if you just take IQ out out of the equation, I mean, I don't know why why the center of

the universe is i Q for so many people. I mean, there's so many traits that people will vary on, so many characteristics. Yeah, I think there is something to be said for allowing people to kind of find their own you know, uh group, whatever it is. If it's interests, you know, based on interest, based on inclinations, whatever it is. You know, we really can move just beyond the i

Q thing. I don't know why these kinds of discussions, Why why i q's tread is the sacred you know thing that is, like, you know, there's just one trait, right, It's just one. Why you do you know why? Of course, because it's it's the thing that we have a test for. So we have that's true. I think we have a number on We think we know about it, like we've got this measurement and it seems to mean something, you know,

we treat it like it means something. And so whereas if we look at interest based groupings for example, like, wow, there's no numbers there. Yeah, we really do like the we we reify these things absolutely absolutely, Yeah that's true. Okay, here's another one. How about the faster a child completes tests and assignments, the smarter the child. Okay, and again, you know, it's funny going through this. It seems so obvious to me. It's sort of almost laughable in its simplicity,

and it's I know. But the reason each of one of these, including that one, is in there, is that that we've encountered so many circumstances where people really believe these things that a child who goes through his work slowly isn't as smart as the child who whips through it. And you know, again, in my work with kids, what I see is some of the most deep, amazing, thoughtful kids, like they're really really smart. Kids are really very slow.

And then you get other kids who do go through stuff very quickly, but it's only on a very superficial level. So so again I think there's a much bigger temperament faster see than there is anything else. Although that being said, of course, when you know something really well, you're likely to be a lot faster at it. So there's some connection there between speed and intelligence, but it's sure not the one to one corresponds that a lot of parents

and teachers think it is right. It does sound like you're including knowledge as part of intelligence, like expertise in specifics means absolutely, I do as well, I do. I agree intelligent children don't have learning problems. Well, my goodness, you know there's a book I'm going to recommend, un Gifted by Scott Kind. Do think, Yeah, you know, it's really very false and your book beautifully makes that point, like in a way I don't think it's ever been

made before that. Well, it's true that, yes, absolutely, there's we all have a variable profile of intelligencers. We all have strength, we all have weaknesses, and even the very smartest person in one domain is going to have weaknesses and other domains. So so smart kids definitely have learning problems. Not all smart kids have or smartts. Not all kids who show up as smart at school have an academic learning problem. A lot of them do, a lot of

them don't. So they're they're they're not mutually exclusive, but nor are they Nor is it a one to one parsondent having a learning problem does not mean you are not smart. Right, there's you know, there's a whole community called twice exceptionality, and I wanted to get your thoughts on that community. What do you think of that of that phrase? Mm hmm, Well, I mean it's interesting. I

like with any category, I have some initial resistance. I have some problems with categorizing kids gifted, learning disabled, attention deficit disorders, any of the categories tend to pigeon hole people and limit them. And I include twice exceptionality in that. In that is because it's a way of categorizing humans. Right, Twice exceptionality, I should say, is when you're simultaneously gifted

and learning disabled. To use two big loaded words exactly exactly, So you have to meet the criteria for both of those categories to get the twice exceptional label. And I mean it's a tough call because certainly I have worked with children who require that kind of label in order to get the services that they needed. So I have a lot of respect for figuring out what's going right and what's going wrong, making sure it's labeled if that

labeling is necessary to get the appropriate programming. At the same time, I'm always concerned when I see people identifying with the label, because a labeled by definition is going to be limiting people are. I mean, one intent, one way that I find useful to think about this stuff is to remember that people within any given category are way more different from each other within the category than they are from others outside the category. So there are

way more intro group differences than there are inter group differences. Right, that's a really good point. And you see that as well with discussions of sex differences and absolutely differences all that stuff. Pi. That's right. Yeah, it's a great, really great point. You really you want to smash the crystal ball? Am I right? Absolutely, let's imagine it. Let's do it right now. It's one of my things, absolutely, I mean,

that's the potential thing, the prediction thing. Yes, I've just seen it so damaging to so many, so many people, adults as well as children. Yes, yes, So do you think you can spoil a baby by being too available and responsive? No? No? I mean I would like to just end here this interview with a couple tips that we could give parents on how to develop a happily productive child, because and I really like that Freez that you use, because I think that that is really what

parents really want to develop in their child. That's what they want to see. They want to see a happily productive kid. Right. If you presented to a parent an option of your child's going to be the highest standardized test taker in your class or is going to be a happily productive human being the rest of their life, I think I think most parents would choose the latter.

What do you think? Yes, absolutely, they do choose the ladder, And sadly, I think what happens way too often is that they focus way too hard on the former, forgetting that the ladder is there. You know that the happy productivity is their real objective. So one of the things I'm trying to say in my work these days, and the reason I call this book Beyond Intelligence, is yes, intelligence is terrific, but there are a whole lot of other compotencies and abilities and ways of being that go

into living a happily productive life. So keep your eye and say, the parents on that ball, the ball of happy productivity, rather than on the ball of intelligence. So so to finish off, you know, in terms of my advice, you know, the hopes that I would have for parents to the things I would like them to take from my work is the need for balance in their kids' lives, the need for unstructured playtime, outdoor playtime, free time, day dreaming time, opportunities to figure out who they are in

order to find out what they really want to develop. Oh, that's great. You a couple quotes. Do you mind if I read back to you some quotes from your book that I loved. I would like that if I'm misquoting you at all. Parents can help children build their intelligence by remembering and reminding them that it develops over time with opportunities to learn, and that there are many different

ways of being intelligent. Do you you know just telling your child these things and get increasing their awareness of this, you think it can help that child help make their own decisions in life in a productive, happy way. Absolutely, And it helps some value their own developing abilities too, in a more well rounded way than can happen sometimes. And here's another quote I really like. The best way to raise children is to live the promise of possibility.

By the way, I love the word possibility. I prefer possibility over potential. Yeah too, Yeah, By seeing ourselves and our places within society as works in progress, by appreciating the myriad prospects that can result from change, by embracing opportunities to learn, and perhaps most importantly, by teaching our children to do the scene. Oh that's good. I think that's your quote right like you and joy Anne Foster.

It's it's I wish. I just absolutely love it. There's so many you know, this is such an important book that you guys have written. You talk, There's so much more I do reco I I do recommend that my listener is by your book and read it, because you listen lots of different specific things for parents, the parents

can do to help raise happily productive children. And I think were there any sort of last last thoughts who wanted to uh to say for our listeners many who are who are parents you know and are hungry for this information. No, thank you. I think you've you've looked at the important things and said the helped me say what I wanted to say. Thank you great, Thank you so much, Don for being on the show. Okay my pleasure. Thank you thanks for listening to the Psychology Podcast with

doctor Scott Barry Kaufman. Hope you found up that just a foremante Falkward look I did. If you don't as to read the show notes for this episode or here past episodes. If you go to the Psychology Podcast dot com