Would you do this with your kids?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
I think it kind of takes away from what the joys of learning your child through raising them naturally would be...
I might have the test done just for stats (the science needs to be tested eventually), but I'm not nearly far enough to the nature end of the nature vs. nurture spectrum to alter the child's upbringing based on the results.
Seems like a horrible idea in my opinion. These test results and parents are in essence forcing these children into a career, education, and/or lifestyle. It takes away the fun of discovery and from enjoying life.
Sure we could get some amazing talent from these results but at the same time we could miss talents that aren't necessarily shown in the genes.
I don't want my kids to be breed and raised to full fill a certain role. It takes away from individuality in my opinion. It seems pretty Orwellian to me. I'd rather let my kid fail at somethings but explore and experience life rather than have their life plotted out for them at the age of 5.
Sure we could get some amazing talent from these results but at the same time we could miss talents that aren't necessarily shown in the genes.
I don't want my kids to be breed and raised to full fill a certain role. It takes away from individuality in my opinion. It seems pretty Orwellian to me. I'd rather let my kid fail at somethings but explore and experience life rather than have their life plotted out for them at the age of 5.
Are you f***ing serious? What a horrible idea. You don't have to do something just because you are genetically inclined towards it, assuming that it is possible to be genetically inclined towards something. This is a case of parental self-interest. The parents are afraid, so their fear affects the children as well. A lot of American parents do similar things.
I don't know. Its not the science that bothers me; I'd be curious to see what my test says. What bothers me is that there is so much more to life than that; there is more to life than your career and the letters at the end of your name.
I don't know. Its not the science that bothers me; I'd be curious to see what my test says. What bothers me is that there is so much more to life than that; there is more to life than your career and the letters at the end of your name.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I would not do this to my kids. While I do agree there is a genetic basis to people having talent in certian areas, at that young of an age it could actually become damaging to their mind. In the essence of possibly being dissapointed with results, or being forced into something. It doesn't sit right with me.
That being said. If my child wanted,then I would of course allow it. If I were a kid and learned about this, and had I had relativly easy access to it. I would begged my mom SO much to do this.
Heck, I still want to do this for myself. Not so much to find where I have hidden talents, but just so I can see if areas that I do excell in show up on DNA evidence. The more I can learn about myself, the better :thumb:
That being said. If my child wanted,then I would of course allow it. If I were a kid and learned about this, and had I had relativly easy access to it. I would begged my mom SO much to do this.
Heck, I still want to do this for myself. Not so much to find where I have hidden talents, but just so I can see if areas that I do excell in show up on DNA evidence. The more I can learn about myself, the better :thumb:
I have to agree
This isn't a parents place to decide a child's path.
And what if they end up competently one sided individuals. Instead of having a well rounded education that challanges kids, they won't be forced to grow intellectually.
Its terrible thing to do.
Not only is this a bad idea...but heaven help you if you test "gifted" and get a big head from it. And then you wash out for one reason or another. You could ruin someone's life at a really young age, especially if they have preferences for something but the DNA test said they'd be average or rotten at it. You're basically putting these kids in a box. It takes talent *and* love of the ability to succeed at it. You can be talented at playing an instrument but if you don't like it (or you don't have the diligence to practice) then it's pointless to go into that career.
I deal with kids every day in similar situations. They were called "gifted" all their life, and their parents pretty much told them what they should major in in college. But then they get to me half way into their academic career and they're not sure what they want to major in anymore, because they hate all the classes they're doing.
If your heart's not in it, you won't succeed at it - no matter how "gifted" or "talented" you are in it.
I deal with kids every day in similar situations. They were called "gifted" all their life, and their parents pretty much told them what they should major in in college. But then they get to me half way into their academic career and they're not sure what they want to major in anymore, because they hate all the classes they're doing.
If your heart's not in it, you won't succeed at it - no matter how "gifted" or "talented" you are in it.
I think it's a good idea, but it seems a bit iffy.
I mean, parents will end up just forcing their children to do certain things and not let them just do what they want. I think the concept of knowing what they would be good at is a good idea, but the practise of the idea will just be dodgy. Like the video said, it could end up with the child not mentally developed enough.
I mean, parents will end up just forcing their children to do certain things and not let them just do what they want. I think the concept of knowing what they would be good at is a good idea, but the practise of the idea will just be dodgy. Like the video said, it could end up with the child not mentally developed enough.
Last edited:
I'm skeptical. I wonder what genes they are basing this on.
I'm leaning that this is in the parent's best interests (especially with the very young children). Since this is a scientific study, one will have to examine the data (and hope that it is not manipulated in any way; there might be a big push for this by individuals or group(s) in China).
I'm leaning that this is in the parent's best interests (especially with the very young children). Since this is a scientific study, one will have to examine the data (and hope that it is not manipulated in any way; there might be a big push for this by individuals or group(s) in China).
I really wish Americans weren't so squeamish about actually approaching and utilizing information that we can get from genetics, particulary with things like cloning and eventually genetic modification... I really think it is quite a loss for us, especially considering that, with our reluctance, we could probably take very responsible first steps into it, unlike apparently China, who are apparently dabbling too quickly in an extreme. It really does bother me the shame of this wasted opportunity. I say we gather as much information as we can, and with a lot of precautions in place, eventually start MODIFYING our genes...
I am definately behind this kind of science, but would not put my child through rigorous camps before they elected to pursue it. I would howevor want to watch closely how they develop with that information in mind and see that they are encouraged to grow and develop whatever they want, but with hopefully a greater focus on their natural talents. If they turn out to want to stray away from their natural gift, then so be it, but I would want to see that they have plenty of opportunity to be encouraged to take ahold of it...
I would of course have a very watchful eye of the legitimacy of the science, and how their gift combines with their "intelligence type"(with "intelligence type", David Keisery explains that the different groupings of MBTI personality types are more likely to develop certain types of "intelligence"), amoung, of course, every part of my child that I could percieve or that they would make known.
I am definately behind this kind of science, but would not put my child through rigorous camps before they elected to pursue it. I would howevor want to watch closely how they develop with that information in mind and see that they are encouraged to grow and develop whatever they want, but with hopefully a greater focus on their natural talents. If they turn out to want to stray away from their natural gift, then so be it, but I would want to see that they have plenty of opportunity to be encouraged to take ahold of it...
I would of course have a very watchful eye of the legitimacy of the science, and how their gift combines with their "intelligence type"(with "intelligence type", David Keisery explains that the different groupings of MBTI personality types are more likely to develop certain types of "intelligence"), amoung, of course, every part of my child that I could percieve or that they would make known.
Last edited:
To clarify: it seems like a misguided attempt to pidgeon hole children into their places in society at a very early age. I am unsure if the science that they are using is even valid or accepted by the scientific community.
I hope it works out in the end. Everyone should want the best for their children, but have different ways of going about it.
I hope it works out in the end. Everyone should want the best for their children, but have different ways of going about it.
I think this would put a bunch of negative expectations on the kids, and then when they fail to meet those expectations as many definitely will, they suffer immensely. Nobody should have to be depressed at the age of 8.
I don't see how genetic modification will be anything but abused. Most people will just want their children to be doctors or something else with high prestige, thus we'll completely mess up any kind of natural balance with masses and masses of people specialized to fulfill specific roles. I think genetic modification, when it becomes possible, will be like Gattaca but worse.
I don't see how genetic modification will be anything but abused. Most people will just want their children to be doctors or something else with high prestige, thus we'll completely mess up any kind of natural balance with masses and masses of people specialized to fulfill specific roles. I think genetic modification, when it becomes possible, will be like Gattaca but worse.
One word: Hitler.
Superior genes. Master race. Superman. Eugenics.
Genocide. Mass killing. Killing "undesirables".
Has mankind really evolved enough that we can objectively decide who is more important than another? And do we have the right to?
Ethically speaking, I'm appalled by the idea. Genetic tampering in the womb is next, or even finding 'desirable' genetic stock.
Gattaca comes to mind, too.
ETA: Jinx, Dragon - we were typing twins.
Superior genes. Master race. Superman. Eugenics.
Genocide. Mass killing. Killing "undesirables".
Has mankind really evolved enough that we can objectively decide who is more important than another? And do we have the right to?
Ethically speaking, I'm appalled by the idea. Genetic tampering in the womb is next, or even finding 'desirable' genetic stock.
Gattaca comes to mind, too.
ETA: Jinx, Dragon - we were typing twins.
Last edited:
I think this test would be good if it's used just as a reference. I mean it would be better if the test was taken when the individual is older and is about to choose what career path to take, this way the individual has already been given the chance to develop in other areas and lead a non-biased life depending on the environment they grew up in. I wouldn't mind knowing what I'm naturally good at as a reference when choosing my career. It would give me a chance to fully weigh what I'm good at and what I enjoy. Though I think I can work out those things myself now I'd be interested in what my test results would show.
The way it's being used on younger children though is horrible. Children need the chance to experience growing up and making their own decisions based on their likes and dislikes, etc. They need the chance to risk asses their future themselves and feel what it feels like to be an individual rather than an object bred to meet the criteria of a certain role. This test seems to be taking their freedom from them by giving their parents something to push them in from an earlier age. As horrible as it sounds I wouldn't be surprised if suicide rates increased. A child needs love to be nurtured, not a goal.
The way it's being used on younger children though is horrible. Children need the chance to experience growing up and making their own decisions based on their likes and dislikes, etc. They need the chance to risk asses their future themselves and feel what it feels like to be an individual rather than an object bred to meet the criteria of a certain role. This test seems to be taking their freedom from them by giving their parents something to push them in from an earlier age. As horrible as it sounds I wouldn't be surprised if suicide rates increased. A child needs love to be nurtured, not a goal.
No this is just.. Who wants this for their kid?
That's what I was thinking. How exactly do they test these 'talents'? Or are they just testing personality traits that make you more likely to be good at a certain thing? Isn't everyone capable of discovering their talents by themselves? However, it's a great way for parents to decide their children's future for them.. at the age of 4. It can't be a good thing to live your life according to an ideal that others have made out for you. Also, there's a difference between having certain talents and liking them. Isn't it more important to do what you want in life than to focus only on what you are good at?
The way I see it, it's only going to to do more harm than good. In fact, I don't even see the scientific use of this. Indeed, children need to be able to behave as children, and later on find their own way in life. They shouldn't be forced to live the life everyone else want for them, especially not at such a young age.
That's what I was thinking. How exactly do they test these 'talents'? Or are they just testing personality traits that make you more likely to be good at a certain thing? Isn't everyone capable of discovering their talents by themselves? However, it's a great way for parents to decide their children's future for them.. at the age of 4. It can't be a good thing to live your life according to an ideal that others have made out for you. Also, there's a difference between having certain talents and liking them. Isn't it more important to do what you want in life than to focus only on what you are good at?
The way I see it, it's only going to to do more harm than good. In fact, I don't even see the scientific use of this. Indeed, children need to be able to behave as children, and later on find their own way in life. They shouldn't be forced to live the life everyone else want for them, especially not at such a young age.
It's not really the scientific use, it's more the social use. In China they have a 1 child policy which means the future of a family is based on the only child they were alowed to give birth to. Some parents will actually kill their first born if it's not a boy, but this is besides the point. With so much hope riding on this one child they want to make sure they will bring the family success and so if their talents are able to be identified earlier on the view would probably be that this would be best for the future success of the family.
Yes, that's why it's not surprising that we see this kind of thing being created in China. I certainly understand why some people would want to do this, but for me the idea is just.. not right. What I meant is that I think it's ridiculous that people are actually researching this. Also, if this should ever get 'popular', I see it being used in other countries as well.
I don't know, it's kind of scary.. poor little kiddo's
I don't know, it's kind of scary.. poor little kiddo's
I don't know, it's kind of scary.. poor little kiddo's
I agree. It scares me to think what sort of life they will be leading as a result of this new found science.