I was honestly surprised that the basic premise was at all controversial, but it was! To me it is simply that the average child averages out to be average but is rarely average at all things. Of course some kids average out higher than the mean, and some lower. That overall capacity seems to be fairly stable across time (see stability of the crude proxy of IQ, for example); we can teach kids to better reach their potential ; habits of mind and opportunities have allowed me to do more with what I got, but they didn’t increase my potential, just meet it.
I definitely see kids working on one developmental stream at a time, really fairly often. Being ahead on visuospatial skills, or fine motor, while on the slower side for preverbal and verbal skills, then staying flat on the former while they catch up on the latter. There is only so much developmental energy to divide up into the buckets.
Also it seems uncontroversial to me that parents often implicitly treat boys and girls differently from babyhood up with expectations of greater verbal skills in girls, and visuospatial skills (think blocks, puzzles, building toys) for boys. There are differences in those skills through preschool time, I believe primarily as a result of that. Note that is different than “math” skills like numeracy - early math skills are more of a verbal subset really.
It has been very consistent through the years that the child far advanced in puzzles and other visuospatial skills as a toddler and early preschooler becomes a math whiz by middle school No correlation with math in first or second grade.
Anyway, since this was, to me, surprisingly controversial, I figured better a new thread than hijacking thereabout the question. And I remain unsure if pushing either gender one way contributes to less achievement in the other, more than a push away from the other as the prime cause. Positive stereotypes have negative impacts too.
What people found “controversial” was your assertion that kids have a finite level of intellectual capacity that must be “divvied up”. As if being good at one thing means you must be bad at other things because there is only so much intelligence to go around and once it’s used up you can’t use it for something else. Which seems like total bullshit to me.
Over the years I’ve seen boys and girls who seemed to “do it all” well. My best friend from my youth was that way; he’s now a respected scientist. I guess I have the stereotypical female skill set; strong verbal skills with so-so math skills (I pretty much hit a wall in what would now be sixth or seventh grade math). My visuospatial skills are truly bottom of the barrell. As far as my fine motor skills go, it’s complicated. I play guitar reasonably well, but my drawing ability plateaued around first grade (which I heard somewhere isn’t that uncommon). I find putting things together excruciating, even though it’s something I had ample opportunity to practice growing up on a farm. My dad and brothers worked with me, but it never “took”. Where do social skills fit into all this? I didn’t get much opportunity to interact with kids outside of school during the week and church on Sunday, and I suspect that had a negative effect on the development of my social skills.
Agreed, I didn’t see the original thread but I’m having a hard time following this line of thought. For early childhood development, maybe there’s something to it, but by the time I was in school, the boy/girl divide was dwarfed by the “good at school” and “not good at school” divide. That is, boys may have outperformed girls at math, on average, and girls may have outperformed boys at language arts, on average. But by and large, the kids who were good at math were ALSO good at language arts, and the kids who sucked at math also sucked at language arts (and any other subject). Maybe around the margins between honors/gen ed courses there’d be a measurable difference but the honors/AP math classes weren’t, like, male dominated or anything. It was the same group of kids in AP lit.
That “as if” was not the intended meaning, but yes, it is my belief that no individual, no child, has unlimited developmental energy or intellectual capacity, and that a strong focus on one developmental stream can result in less strong development in another.
In the simplest and less controversial sense for the question in that thread think of it as simply that a child who is rewarded relatively more for their verbal skills than their visuospatial accomplishments, or the converse, will focus their finite energy more on what gets the most reward (attention, praise, etc.) and visaversa. And become better at it. More praise. Feed forward.
Even just look at it from the parent POV: there is a finite amount of time to play with your child. If you just by implicit bias read and do language based play with your daughter, then there is necessarily less time being spent doing the jigsaw puzzles and building the structures. Which per the article above at least correlates with visuospatial skills much later on. And of course in the other direction for implicit bias to those puzzle and building toys in boys. The parent is intending to enrich their child in their area of perceived strength … but finite resources …
Well, not entirely; you physically only have so much brain, and focusing on one thing can cause the portion of the brain assigned to that function to grow (not physically, more in the resource allocation sense) at the expense of others. For example becoming an expert at doing things with your hands tends to result in people becoming less facially expressive because the area of the prefrontal motor cortex controlling the hands is next to the area controlling the face, and the former expands at the expense of the latter.
We’re physical creatures and don’t have infinite amounts of anything.
While I appreciate any support I can get … cite please? My take is not based on control over literal cortical real estate, which does happen, for example visual cortex getting used for non-visual purposes by the blind, but more diffusely distributed basic skills. I am skeptical of your example.
FWIW I used the medical specific AI, OpenEvidence, to search for any studies in support of your claim. Interesting response, to me anyway, on hand and mouth motor function being hardwired as shared, likely reflecting the gestural origin of language, but nothing about competition between them for cortical function.
Hopefully my link to the response works.
Interestingly string musicians, experts at doing things with their hands, show more plasticity specifically within certain hand motor cortex areas. And pianists, very hand expert, not only are just fine with facial expressions, but often have facial movements while playing!
“For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” ( Matthew 25:29)
We’re physical creatures, and our abilities tend to be correlated, not independant, and not competing.
Correlated of course, and with spread between them. Whatever an individual’s overall capacities are, higher or lower than average, they still are finite. Some with above average general intelligence may be average in one subset (and still achieve in related areas by effort) and highly superior in another. The exact same spread for the average person may result in having an easy time in one class and struggling in another. Again, the average person averages out to be average but is rarely average in all things. And the genius even if bright in all things isn’t necessarily a genius in all things.
And they are definitely not completely independent of each other, nor is it accurate to think of skill acquisition and achievements as a zero sum game competing with each other.
Certain skill capacities tend to travel together, for example. (Most classically math and music.) Others support each other. (Again music, musicians tend to be able to pick up verbal emotional cues better, cool research.)
And, yes, I stand by my belief that we each have only so much energy, cognitive and otherwise, to divide up, and if a child is getting the reward hit for doing one thing, based on a positive stereotype expectation, then they will often focus their developmental energy on those skills to the detriment of others, even with no negative expectation of their capacity in those other skills. We chase reward with our energy investments in a reinforcing reinforcement cycle.
… cite please? My take is not based on control over literal cortical real estate, which does happen, for example visual cortex getting used for non-visual purposes by the blind, but more diffusely distributed basic skills. I am skeptical of your example.