Is There Such a Thing as a "Bad Seed?"

Dr. Richard Friedman, a professor of psychiatry, recently wrote an article published in the New York Times that I found to be both thought-provoking and somewhat disturbing. In the article he discussed the idea that sometimes even the most well-meaning and caring parents produce children that are what he calls "toxic." These children/teenagers are rude, misbehaved, and sometimes downright mean. The paradox, he says, is that these same parents often have other children that are perfectly well-mannered, kind, and well-adjusted. So, what's the problem, he asks? Dr. Friedman contends that in most cases it is not the parents' fault, but that these children are this way,

"because everyday character traits, like all human behavior, have hard-wired and genetic components that cannot be molded entirely by the best environment."

My reading of this is that he feels some children are in fact, "bad seeds."

Although I agree that all of children's behavior cannot be attributed to parenting techniques, I was shocked to hear a mental health professional basically make the argument that some children are just inherently bad. I strongly disagree with this idea and I think much of the child development research does too. Yes, children have genetic predispositions towards a lot of characteristics, both physical and psychological. However, this is just a predisposition, not fate. Much of what determines how a predisposition is expressed depends on how parents, teachers, and others in the environment react to the child. I am frustrated to find that many in the media, and even in the psychological community still prescribe to an "either-or" mentality when it comes to issues like this. The scientific community has made strides in finding genes that contribute to certain traits but much of the latest developmental research shows that many behaviors are the result of an on-going interaction between genetics and the environment. Gone (are almost gone) are the days of "nature vs. nurture." We should now start thinking about "nature and nurture." I firmly believe that in most cases, it is usually not simply an issue of "bad parents" or a "bad seed." Some of the most well-thought out and respected theories in child development focus on the interaction between the child, the parents, and other environmental factors (e.g., siblings, teachers, school, neighborhood). This kind of thinking, however, is much more complicated and difficult. With this type of research, you don't often find the easy sound-bite that the media loves to promote. I feel that this type of approach is closer to "the truth" that' science strives to find.

In short, I would encourage all of us to think outside the box of simply "bad parents" or "bad children" when we encounter a youngster (or adult) who is maladjusted. In science and in life, it is rarely that simple.

Thanks to Dr. Claudia Gold at Child in Mind for her thoughtful post on this topic which prompted my comments here.

Photo credit

"The Mozart Effect": When Good Research and Bad Journalism Combine

National Public Radio recently featured a great story about the truth behind the so-called "Mozart Effect." Like many other parents, I had heard that playing classical music (particularly Mozart) for your child was supposed to be associated with higher intelligence, better spatial skills, etc. It must be true since it's a scientific study reported in the news, right? Well, it turns out the Mozart Effect is just a great example of how the news media can take a perfectly good research study and distort it into something it is not.

In the interview with the actual researcher who conducted the study in 1993, it turns out that yes, he did find that listening to Mozart music was associated with better spatial ability. What's the catch? First, the effect lasted 10-15 minutes. That's right, listening to Mozart was associated with better spatial abilities for about 10 minutes afterward. So, unless you plan to have your child listen to Mozart right before an IQ test, it's probably not going to make a huge difference.

Secondly, the study was conducted among college students. Like many psychological studies conducted in academic settings, the sample of convenience is college students. Reporters and the public assumed that this finding was applicable to young children as well, but who knows. Young children were not the age group studied.

So how does a modest research finding get distorted into a media frenzy and fuel the marketing of hundreds of baby Mozart CDs? The original researcher was honest about reporting the findings in an academic journal. He did not exaggerate the results. It was simply a matter of the media taking a modest finding and running with it. Apparently, the study's author was misquoted several times and before you know it, "The Mozart Effect" was born.

Besides being an interesting case itself, this situation is a perfect example of how research often gets misinterpreted in the media. We, as humans, and especially the media, love sound bites. We love it when stories are easy, clear cut, black-and-white. We love it when something as simple as music seems to be the parenting remedy that will ensure that are children are intelligent. Unfortunately, child development research is rarely clear cut or black-and-white. There are usually shades of grey and nuances to the findings that make them complicated and sometimes difficult to understand. After all, we are studying human behavior and we humans (especially children) are notoriously difficult to study, even using the best scientific methods we have. Some reporters simply don't take the time or don't have the skill to understand these complexities. All this is to say, you might want to be cautious next time you read about a research finding in the news. If something seems to good to be true, it probably is.

Graphic credit