Is a big family bad for IQ?

A century of studies on family size and IQ have consistently come up with an unnerving conclusion: on average, across populations, (rather than individual families, who may be exceptional), a big family, means a lower average IQ of each family member. This is not one, isolated study showing this: there are innumerable studies over a century.

Now, what is the reason for this correlation? There are two obvious possibilities. One is that as the family size increases, the parents have less time to give attention to individual children, less money to pay for education and, therefore, the greater the number of children, the less stimulation each child receives. The other possibility is that large families are the product of low IQ parents, of lower social economic class - and indicate differential inheritance, rather than a difference caused by family size, per se.

Traditionally, larger families HAVE been the product of lower socioeconomic classes - and so these studies may be reflecting differences of income and educational opportunity rather than an effect of family size.

On the other hand, as I pointed out in my earlier post, "On being a father of three", http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2007/01/on-being-father-of-three.html, having a larger family does mean less time to apportion to each child, with probable consequences for their intellectual growth.

So, given this, what is one to do with regards to family size? I have three children and would like more - so in this I have joined the 28 per cent of American parents with three or more children. A recent report stated that the nature of these parents is changing: many more of them are from wealthier, better educated families than before. This could be the beginning of a good trend, therefore - of brighter parents, having more children. Are these families condemning their children to dullness? I don't think so. I think the genetic effects are stronger than the environmental and will still allow their children to be bright. Why do I think this? Well as I pointed out in an earlier post on Genius IQ and Genetic Inheritance, http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/genius-iq-and-genetic-inheritance.html, the IQ of parents correlates 0.8 with the adult IQ of their children. That argues a strong role for their genes, and a much smaller role for the environment provided.

If you have a gifted child, it is likely that you could have another if you chose. That your family is getting bigger and your attention would be diluted among more children is probably a smaller factor than the fact that you already have what it takes to make a gifted child, genetically.

Then there is the matter of chance. Which genes a child inherits is random: they will get a selection of half the genes of each parent. Anything can happen in that process - giving a spectrum of results. Yet, if you have more children, you also have more of a chance that one of them will get the right mix of genes and turn out to be gifted - if that is what you want in your child.

It is a difficult matter, family size, for there is no denying that, as the family gets bigger that there is a greater division of attention, time and money. It is, I feel, up to each individual to judge the weight of each of the issues and decide the question: just how big do you want your family to be?

I know the answer for me: at least one more: after three boys, it would be nice to have a girl, too!

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and one month, or his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks)

On being a father of three

Sigmund Freud came from a large family, with many siblings, as I understand it. He was also, in most eyes, "gifted". How did his parents cope with the demands of so many children, so many conflicting needs? Well, from one perspective, they didn't. They made the conscious decision to focus their attentions on young Sigmund, rather than the others - for they felt that he showed the greatest promise. We will never know what would have happened had they chosen to be more even in their handling of their children - but we do know what happened as a result of their decision: psychoanalysis was born and Sigmund Freud, grew up to be a Great Man.

I am the father of a young boy of seven, showing prodigious gift in science. However, I am also the father of two other sons, each of their own character and gifts. Being a father of three presents me with a smaller scale version of the Freuds' dilemma: how to raise my children? Do I focus my efforts on the one who shows so much promise...or foster the nascent gifts of the others, too, in an even handed way. The Freuds made their choice - and for Sigmund, it was a beneficial one - but at what cost to his siblings: what would they have been with a more even approach to their nurture?

I have observed that many gifted children are only children: their parents focus their attention on them solely, without the need for division of their attention. For the gifted child, this can only enhance their chances of making the best of their gifts. Perhaps, from the point of view of intellectual development, that is the best situation. Yet, a parent of several children cannot give that exclusive focus unless they are, to a degree, cold of heart. All my children are deserving of my fullest attention - yet, by definition full attention can only be bestowed on one person at a time. I observe in each of my children, some special character that deserves a father's fullest regard - yet, they pull me in three directions. So what do I do? I have chosen the even path - and give to each what I can each day. Perhaps if Ainan was my son alone, his mind would be that bit more nourished, his gifts that bit more polished - but I cannot help but feel that I would not give up any of my sons for such a thing. Ainan is one of three, today, perhaps more, another day. To each child I give what I can of my time, my effort - and do not think that any other way would be fair or loving.

Those who have but one child, gifted or not, do not have to make that choice, that division of attention between children. When a second child comes along they will understand this quandary that has no solution - for to be fair in attention, is to sacrifice some degree of the development of the "brightest" child. That cannot be helped, however, if one loves all one's children for themselves.

I will have more children, if I am fortunate, and as my attention becomes ever more divided between them, I will not for a moment doubt my choice. I would rather another child, than a situation in which I had but one to focus on. The house would be more the quieter, but it is not a quietness I would choose. Better the hubbub of many little voices: it is a sound which brings its own happiness - and one that I am quite content to know.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and one month, a scientific child prodigy, and his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks).