Les tests d'intelligence, en particulier ceux qui sont largement utilisés dans les systèmes éducatifs comme le WISC-IV (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) dignes heritiers du premier test d’intelligence de Binet, sont souvent présentés comme des outils objectifs pour mesurer les capacités cognitives des enfants. Cependant, leur rôle dans la légitimation des inégalités sociales est de plus en plus critiqué par les chercheurs en sciences sociales.

Stephen Jay Gould, dans son ouvrage phare The Mismeasure of Man (1981), a mis en lumière comment les tests d'intelligence ont été historiquement utilisés pour justifier des hiérarchies sociales et raciales. Il montre que ces tests, loin d'être des mesures neutres, sont enracinés dans des préjugés culturels et sociaux. Par exemple, les résultats des tests de QI (Quotient Intellectuel) ont souvent été utilisés pour légitimer des politiques eugénistes et pour classer les individus selon des critères supposément "scientifiques" qui reflétaient en réalité les biais de la société qui les produisait.

Pierre Bourdieu et Jean-Claude Passeron, dans La Reproduction (1970), approfondissent cette critique en soulignant que le système éducatif, à travers l'utilisation de ces tests, reproduit les inégalités sociales. Selon eux, les tests d'intelligence ne mesurent pas une capacité cognitive pure, mais plutôt une adaptation aux normes scolaires et culturelles qui sont davantage valorisées dans les milieux sociaux favorisés. Ainsi, les enfants issus de ces milieux ont plus de chances de réussir ces tests, non pas parce qu'ils sont naturellement plus intelligents, mais parce que leur environnement les a préparés à répondre aux attentes du système éducatif et scolaire.

D'autres chercheurs, comme Robert Sternberg, ont également critiqué l'usage des tests d'intelligence pour leur biais culturel. Dans son article "Cultural Bias in Intelligence Testing" (2004), Sternberg explique que les tests comme le WISC-IV favorisent les enfants qui sont familiarisés avec le langage et les concepts utilisés dans ces tests, renforçant ainsi les inégalités existantes. Il propose une vision plus dynamique de l'intelligence, qui tient compte de la diversité des contextes culturels et sociaux.

Cette perspective est cruciale pour comprendre que les tests d'intelligence ne sont pas de simples outils de mesure, mais des instruments qui peuvent renforcer les inégalités sociales en validant une conception étroite de l'intelligence. En valorisant certaines compétences au détriment d'autres, ils contribuent à la reproduction des hiérarchies sociales et culturelles.

Pour aller au-delà de cette vision réductrice de l'intelligence, il est essentiel d'adopter des approches éducatives plus inclusives qui reconnaissent la diversité des compétences et des talents. Howard Gardner, avec sa théorie des intelligences multiples, propose une alternative qui permet de valoriser des formes d'intelligence souvent négligées par les tests traditionnels, comme l'intelligence interpersonnelle, intrapersonnelle, et kinesthésique (Gardner, 1983). Mais plus récemment, j’encourage le lecteur à lire Carlos Tinoco qui s’est intéressé à l’écart entre surdoués et les autres, mettant en évidence des singularités d’approche majeure de l’individu surdoué dans son rapport au groupe, au discours identitaire et à l’autre de façon plus singulière.

Références

1. Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1981.
2. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. La Reproduction: Éléments pour une théorie du système d'enseignement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1970.
3. Sternberg, Robert J. "Cultural Bias in Intelligence Testing." American Psychologist 59, no. 5 (2004): 325-338.
4. Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
5. Tinoco, Carlos. Intelligents, trop intelligents - Les Surdoués, de l'autre côté du miroir. Paris: Poche, 2015

Intelligence is often perceived as a natural gift, an innate quality that manifests spontaneously in certain individuals. However, this perception is said to obscure complex social dynamics that shape how intelligence is perceived and developed, particularly in children categorized as "gifted." Léa Dousson's thesis, which inspired this article, explores how socialization within the family plays a crucial role in the construction of this "intellectual excellence." There are many generalizations stated in this thesis, elements that do not align with the current state of knowledge on the subject and are not substantiated, but more importantly, there are others that I believe cannot be taken seriously and constitute a significant statistical bias. For example, "Parents of HPI (high potential individuals) indeed have the financial means to enroll their children in multiple extracurricular activities during the year, as well as in camps or summer programs during vacations." It is obvious that this statement makes no sense and is certainly not true, even in the context of the "construction of a gifted child," because it is evident that giftedness is not exclusive to wealthy families! However, some elements of reflection can provide a unique perspective, which we will now examine.

I. Family Socialization: A Determining Framework

The Role of Professional Educator-Parents

According to Léa Dousson, the parents of gifted children, particularly mothers, play a central role in the socialization of their children. In Chapter 4, she explains that these parents, described as "professional educator-parents," are intensely invested in their children's education. They organize daily life to maximize their children's academic success and intellectual development, thereby creating an environment that values excellence. Dousson notes: "This intense parental investment is not only a factor of success but also a legitimizing force for perceived intelligence." This observation is corroborated by the work of Annette Lareau, who in Unequal Childhoods demonstrates how the practices of "concerted cultivation"—a concept she developed—promote the development of children's intellectual skills and is the typical parenting style of middle- and upper-class families. It involves strong parental involvement in encouraging their children's talents and stimulating their cognitive and non-cognitive skills. That being said, she does not connect this with the usual recommendations in the literature on the subject, which suggests that it is crucial for parents to nurture their gifted children. Moreover, it is also linked to the very nature of these children, who constantly ask questions about the world and therefore, when the family is receptive, foster stimulating exchanges on enriching topics. Furthermore, it seems evident that a gifted child raised in an environment that stimulates their appetite for knowledge and understanding, and who benefits from many other creative, cultural, and social contributions, will develop differently or more quickly than in a family where all of this is left solely to the child's responsibility. It is questionable whether we can call this a revelation.

The Importance of Educational Leisure Activities

In Chapter 6 of the thesis, Dousson analyzes how leisure activities in families with gifted children are not simply moments of relaxation but are part of an educational continuum. This, again, is an embarrassing generalization, even if one might think that any activity, including sports, brings a wealth of multiple learnings and potential development. And it's not just, contrary to what she indicates, "educational anxieties," but can have various sources. She observes: "Extracurricular activities, reading, and family discussions are oriented towards the intellectual enrichment of the children." This educational continuum, which encompasses all aspects of the child's life, reinforces their perception as gifted and contributes to their academic success. This observation echoes Pierre Bourdieu's conclusions on the role of cultural capital in the reproduction of social inequalities.

However, we encounter a limit here that must not be crossed: one can encourage a child's development, but overstimulation will not create a gifted child. Giftedness is also the difference from others, in the relationship to the world, relationships, questioning, the nature and intensity of emotions, and many other aspects.

II. Intelligence Tests: A Tool Shaped by Social Dynamics

You will find two articles on this topic in the blog that provide the basics on the origin of the tests and delve deeper into the subject. But briefly here for the sake of exploration, I will summarize. Intelligence tests, such as the WISC-IV, are often used to identify gifted children. However, Dousson criticizes these tests in Chapter 2 of her thesis, emphasizing that they are more influenced by educational and social logics than by an objective measure of intelligence. She writes: "These tests are designed within a specific educational framework and favor certain skills over others, thereby reflecting cultural and social biases." This critique is aligned with the work of Stephen Jay Gould, who in The Mismeasure of Man explains that intelligence tests are often biased and do not measure an innate ability but rather conformity to cultural norms. You will find more details in the dedicated articles.

The Influence of Parental Expectations

Parental expectations also play a crucial role in children's performance on intelligence tests. Dousson notes that these expectations, combined with specific preparation, can skew test results, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where intelligence perceived as innate is actually the product of targeted socialization. This observation is supported by sociological studies that show how parental expectations and guidance can influence children's academic and psychometric outcomes, further reinforcing the idea that intelligence, as measured, is more socially constructed than naturally given.

III. The Naturalization of Intelligence: A Myth Legitimized by Family Dynamics

Deconstructing the Ideology of Giftedness

Léa Dousson deconstructs the ideology of giftedness, which presents intelligence as a natural and inexplicable talent, without arguing it thoroughly and without questioning the differences identified between gifted individuals and others, beyond simple IQ tests, which shows that all empirical knowledge is set aside. In the introduction and conclusion of her thesis, she attempts to establish that intelligence perceived as "natural" is actually the product of intense socialization within families that invest heavily in their children's education. This perspective aligns with the analyses of Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron in La Reproduction, where they demonstrate that merit is often a façade for deep social dynamics that legitimize inequalities. Yet, intelligence is more complex than mere cognitive academic performance or social construction.

One might then ask whether intellectual objectivity guided this thesis or whether it was focused from the outset on demonstrating a particular point of view.

The perception of intelligence as a natural gift is widely questioned by social psychology, which considers it shaped by family and social practices. By investing intensely in their children's education, parents play a central role in constructing this "intellectual excellence" which, according to them, is paramount. Intelligence tests, far from measuring an innate ability, are influenced by social logics that reinforce inequalities, and in this, they are correct. However, it is interesting to recognize these dynamics to better understand how perceived intelligence is constructed and to challenge the ideologies that legitimize social inequalities. But gifted individuals are not characterized solely by a set of results and social construction; the difference lies elsewhere and has been sufficiently documented so that it cannot be excluded from any analysis or complementary analysis on the subject, as if only the IQ test had value, which is also criticized. There is a major illogic here that suggests social psychology views gifted individuals as simply children or adults who have benefited from favorable conditions for their intellectual development. This is a distressing reductionism.

References

1. Dousson, Léa. How Is a "Gifted" Child Shaped? An Analysis of the Socialization at Work in Families of Children Categorized as "Intellectually Gifted". Doctoral Thesis, Université Lumière Lyon 2, 2022. URL: https://hal.science/tel-04653863
2. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. La Reproduction: Éléments pour une théorie du système d'enseignement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1970.
3. Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1981.
4. Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

Intelligence tests, such as the WISC-IV, are often used to identify gifted children. However, Dousson critiques these tests in Chapter 2 of her thesis, emphasizing that they are more influenced by educational and social logics than by an objective measure of intelligence. She writes: "These tests are designed within a specific educational framework and favor certain skills over others, thereby reflecting cultural and social biases." This critique aligns with the work of Stephen Jay Gould, who in The Mismeasure of Man argues that intelligence tests are often biased and do not measure an innate ability but rather a conformity to cultural norms.

Intelligence tests, like the WISC-IV (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), are frequently used to identify gifted children based on high IQ (Intelligence Quotient) scores. However, Léa Dousson criticizes these tests in Chapter 2 of her thesis, arguing that they are more influenced by educational and social logics than by a true objective measure of intelligence. She notes that these tests are not neutral or universal, but are designed within a specific educational framework that favors certain skills over others, introducing significant cultural and social biases.

Dousson points out that the WISC-IV, like other intelligence tests, primarily values verbal and logical-mathematical skills, which are generally nurtured in privileged social environments, where exposure to formal and informal educational activities is more common. As a result, children from these backgrounds are often better prepared to answer the types of questions posed in these tests, which can give them an unfair advantage over children from less privileged backgrounds.

For example, the vocabulary or verbal comprehension questions found in the WISC-IV may reflect a familiarity with academic language or concepts that are more common in families where parents have a high level of education. These parents are often able to provide an environment rich in intellectual stimulation, such as complex discussions, advanced readings, and exposure to cultural activities, all of which are experiences valued by these tests.

Dousson also criticizes the fact that these tests are normed on specific populations, often from urban, Western, and economically advantaged backgrounds, which reinforces cultural biases. Children who grow up in different cultural contexts or who speak a different language at home may be disadvantaged not because they lack intelligence, but because the skills they have developed do not align with those valued by the test.

Furthermore, Dousson mentions that tests like the WISC-IV are built around school norms that reflect what the educational system values. As a result, these tests are more an assessment of conformity to school expectations than a true measure of innate intellectual abilities. This is particularly problematic as it creates an artificial correlation between academic success and intelligence, which can overlook or underestimate other forms of intelligence or talent, such as creativity, practical skills, or social abilities, which are not measured by these tests.

This critique echoes the concerns of several psychologists and educators who have argued that intelligence tests, far from being neutral tools, can actually perpetuate inequalities by reinforcing narrow conceptions of what intelligence is. Howard Gardner, for example, proposed the theory of multiple intelligences, suggesting that there are several forms of intelligence (linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic), and that traditional IQ tests capture only a fraction of these abilities【Gardner, 1983】.

This critique also resonates with the work of Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist, biologist, and historian of science, who in his book The Mismeasure of Man (1981) deeply explores the biases inherent in psychometric tests. Gould argues that these tests, far from being objective and neutral instruments, are actually deeply rooted in cultural and social prejudices. He demonstrates that IQ tests, often perceived as measures of innate and fixed intelligence, are in fact a reflection of the cultural norms of the society that designed them.

Gould outlines several critical points:

1. Cultural and Social Biases: Gould shows that the questions posed in IQ tests are often biased in favor of dominant social classes, which have greater familiarity with the cultural and linguistic references used. For example, a child from a disadvantaged social background may score lower not because they are less intelligent, but because the test does not account for their different cultural and educational context.
2. The Myth of Objectivity: He challenges the idea that IQ tests can measure a "pure" or "objective" intelligence. According to Gould, these tests are built on erroneous assumptions about the nature of intelligence, reducing it to a series of easily quantifiable capacities. He emphasizes that this approach oversimplifies a complex and multidimensional phenomenon.
3. History of Scientific Manipulation: Gould also demonstrates how, historically, intelligence tests have been used to justify eugenic policies and racist theories, claiming to measure innate differences between human groups. These tests were manipulated to support discriminatory ideologies, highlighting the danger of using such tools without a critical understanding of their limitations.
4. Intelligence as a Social Construct: Finally, Gould argues that intelligence cannot be understood solely as an innate biological capacity, but that it is also the product of social and historical contexts. IQ test results are therefore as much a measure of adaptation to a particular cultural environment as they are an indication of intellectual capacities.

In summary, Gould's critique of intelligence tests highlights that these tools are far from being neutral and objective measures. They reflect specific cultural norms and can perpetuate social inequalities by claiming to legitimize "natural" differences that are actually socially constructed. This perspective is essential to understanding the limitations of tests like the WISC-IV, and to questioning their role in categorizing children as gifted.

References

1. Dousson, Léa. How Is a "Gifted" Child Shaped? An Analysis of the Socialization at Work in Families of Children Categorized as "Intellectually Gifted". Doctoral Thesis, Université Lumière Lyon 2, 2022. URL: https://hal.science/tel-04653863
2. Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1981.
3. Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
4. Wechsler, David. The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1939.
5. Binet, Alfred, and Simon, Théodore. The Development of Intelligence in Children (The Binet-Simon Scale). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1916 (Original work published 1905).

The first intelligence test by Binet originated from a request by the educational institution.

At the end of the 19th century, France faced a major challenge: schooling had become compulsory, and the education system now had to manage a much wider diversity of students than ever before. This requirement for universal education quickly revealed difficulties among certain children who seemed unable to keep up with the imposed academic pace. To address this issue, the Ministry of Public Instruction decided in 1904 to create a commission tasked with finding solutions to identify these struggling children and provide them with appropriate education.

It was in this context that psychologist Alfred Binet was approached by the ministry. Binet, then known for his work in experimental psychology, was given the task of developing a tool capable of objectively measuring children's intelligence, in order to distinguish those who were capable of following a regular school curriculum from those who required special education.

Binet, in collaboration with physician Théodore Simon, then developed what would become the first standardized intelligence test, known as the Échelle métrique de l'intelligence (Metric Scale of Intelligence), first published in 1905. This test, composed of various cognitive tasks, aimed to measure the "intellectual capacity" of children by identifying those who, according to Binet's scale, were "abnormal" from an academic standpoint. The term "abnormal" referred to intelligence below the expected norm for a child of a given age, and these children were often directed to special improvement classes.

Binet's test was not designed to measure innate or universal intelligence, but rather to assess children's aptitude for success within the framework of the French school system. In other words, it measured the skills that were considered essential for academic success, such as verbal comprehension, memory, and logical reasoning.

However, this approach was not without criticism. Binet himself was aware of the limitations of his test. He cautioned against interpreting these results as an absolute measure of intelligence. For him, the test was primarily a practical tool intended to identify children who needed specific educational assistance, not a definitive judgment on their intellectual abilities.

Despite these precautions, Binet's test had a lasting influence on how intelligence was perceived and measured worldwide. It laid the foundation for the subsequent development of IQ (Intelligence Quotient) tests in other countries, notably in the United States, where they were widely used for educational, military, and even eugenic purposes. This evolution sparked significant debates about the nature of intelligence, the cultural biases inherent in these tests, and their role in legitimizing social inequalities.

In summary, Binet's first test, although designed as a practical tool for the educational institution, triggered a revolution in the way intelligence is measured and understood, raising questions about the validity and ethics of such evaluations.

It became the cornerstone for the development of the Wechsler test, which is still used today, continuing the same educational logic.

Positive parenting offers an approach based on understanding and empathy rather than repression to manage children's tantrums. But how can these principles be applied in situations where a child's emotions seem uncontrollable? Often, these approaches are filled with kindness and beautiful principles, but in the moment, they can be challenging to implement.

It might be necessary to give time for this new process of managing tantrums to work. Initially, it may be essential to de-escalate the situation, and staying calm can be a solution to avoid further escalation. Then, attempting to reintroduce dialogue by asking the child to calm down so they can explain themselves might also be a way to relieve the tension.

Tantrums often occur in response to frustration, injustice, aggression, or unmet needs. Daniel Siegel, in his book The Whole-Brain Child, recommends the "name it to tame it" technique, where the parent verbalizes the child's emotions. For example, saying, "I see you're really angry because you can't have that toy" helps the child feel understood, which can reduce the intensity of their anger. This might be a first step before asking them to explain themselves.

However, this method requires a great deal of patience and self-control, especially when dealing with fatigue and everyday problems, while the tantrum might seem trivial and unimportant to an adult. Parents can ask themselves: "What is my child trying to tell me through this tantrum?" and view these moments not as problems but as opportunities to strengthen the parent-child bond. It might also be helpful to put the problem into perspective—the child may not realize that the source of their frustration is a luxury they've grown accustomed to and is neither essential nor necessary. A conversation about primary needs and teaching them to put things into perspective could be a solution. You may remember your grandmothers telling you to finish your soup because other children in the world had nothing to eat? The child lives in a microcosm between family and school, with little to no awareness of global realities, and even if they are aware, they won't think about it in the moment because they are dealing with emotions tied to their instinct for survival and natural selfishness. Opening their mind, helping them to contextualize and rationalize their desires, frustrations, or whims might be an approach with multiple benefits.

This positive approach requires continuous reflection on the child's emotions and how the parent can respond constructively. It demands energy and persistence, especially when it might feel like it's not working or making any difference. As with any change, time is needed to see the effects, and sometimes they are minimal.

Sources:

• Siegel, Daniel J., & Bryson, Tina Payne. The Whole-Brain Child: 12 Revolutionary Strategies to Nurture Your Child's Developing Mind. Delacorte Press, 2011.
• Markham, Laura. Peaceful Parent, Happy Kids: How to Stop Yelling and Start Connecting. TarcherPerigee, 2012.
• Dolto, Françoise. Parler vrai aux enfants. Le Seuil, 2003.

Setting limits is essential for a child's development, but how can it be done without yelling or imposing authoritarian discipline? Positive parenting offers solutions, but it also raises questions about balancing firmness with kindness.

One of the core principles of positive parenting is to set limits with respect and empathy. Jane Nelsen, in her book Positive Discipline, suggests setting boundaries by explaining the reasons behind them while maintaining a calm tone. For example, saying, "I know you're curious, but this object is fragile. You can look, but please don't touch," educates the child rather than controlling them. This method allows the child to understand the rules while respecting their need for exploration.

However, it is crucial to ask: Does the child truly understand the importance of boundaries if they are always presented gently? Is there a risk that the child might see these limits as negotiable? The challenge for parents is to find a middle ground between kindness and authority. It’s important to consider how far one can go with gentleness without losing the effectiveness of the established limits. This reflection is essential to adapt positive parenting to each situation.

References:

• Nelsen, Jane. Positive Discipline. Ballantine Books, 1981.
• Kohn, Alfie. Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason. Atria Books, 2005.
• Gueguen, Catherine. Pour une enfance heureuse: Repenser l’éducation à la lumière des dernières découvertes sur le cerveau. Robert Laffont, 2015.

Positive parenting rejects traditional punishments in favor of an approach based on cooperation and mutual respect. But without punishments, how can parents teach their children about the consequences of their actions? After all, society is governed by a set of rules enforced by laws to ensure peaceful group living, and when those rules are broken, consequences follow.

Here are 7 examples of positive discipline:

1. Natural Consequences
• Jane Nelsen (Positive Discipline): Nelsen advocates for the use of natural consequences, where the child experiences the natural results of their behavior. For example, if a child refuses to wear a coat in cold weather, they will feel the cold as a natural consequence, which may prompt them to make a different choice next time.
2. Logical Consequences
• Alfie Kohn (Unconditional Parenting): Kohn critiques traditional punishments and suggests logical consequences, where the consequence is directly related to the behavior. For instance, if a child draws on the walls, a logical consequence would be to have them clean the wall.
3. Restitution
• Barbara Coloroso (Kids Are Worth It!): Coloroso suggests replacing punishments with restitution, where the child must repair the harm they have caused. For example, if a child accidentally breaks something, they can participate in fixing it or save money to replace it.
4. Time for Reflection
• Daniel J. Siegel and Tina Payne Bryson (The Whole-Brain Child): These authors propose the idea of "time for reflection" rather than a punitive "time-out." The child is encouraged to reflect on their behavior, understand what they felt, and discuss better ways to handle similar situations in the future.
5. Making Amends
• Catherine Gueguen (Pour une enfance heureuse): Gueguen suggests that when a child has hurt someone (physically or emotionally), it is important to encourage them to make sincere amends, such as apologizing and trying to repair the relationship with the person who was hurt.
6. Withdrawal of Privileges
• Lawrence J. Cohen (Playful Parenting): Cohen recommends temporarily withdrawing privileges related to the problematic behavior, but always in connection with the behavior itself. For example, if a child doesn’t follow the rules regarding screen time, their screen time might be reduced until they demonstrate better management.
7. Dialogue and Problem-Solving
• Ross W. Greene (The Explosive Child): Greene proposes a collaborative approach to problem-solving. Instead of punishing, he advocates discussing the behavior with the child to understand the reasons behind it and collaborating to find a solution that meets everyone’s needs.

These methods help the child understand the responsibility for their choices. But are these alternatives always perceived as fair by the child, or could they be seen as disguised punishments?

It’s also important to consider the effectiveness of these alternatives. Parents must ask themselves: Is the child truly learning from these methods, or are they just feeling frustrated? Striking a balance between reinforcing responsibility and encouraging reflection is crucial. This ongoing reflection is necessary to ensure that alternatives to punishment genuinely support the child's moral and emotional development.

References:

• Nelsen, Jane. Positive Discipline. Ballantine Books, 1981.
• Kohn, Alfie. Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason. Atria Books, 2005.
• Coloroso, Barbara. Kids Are Worth It!: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline. HarperCollins, 1995.
• Siegel, Daniel J., & Bryson, Tina Payne. The Whole-Brain Child: 12 Revolutionary Strategies to Nurture Your Child's Developing Mind. Delacorte Press, 2011.
• Gueguen, Catherine. Pour une enfance heureuse: Repenser l’éducation à la lumière des dernières découvertes sur le cerveau. Robert Laffont, 2015.
• Cohen, Lawrence J. Playful Parenting. Ballantine Books, 2001.
• Greene, Ross W. The Explosive Child: A New Approach for Understanding and Parenting Easily Frustrated, Chronically Inflexible Children. HarperCollins, 1998.

Autonomy is one of the fundamental pillars of positive parenting, aimed at developing a child's confidence in their abilities and a sense of responsibility for their choices—an essential skill for their future decision-making, including career choices. However, encouraging autonomy requires a delicate balance between support and freedom and raises certain questions about how to apply it in daily life.

Autonomy does not develop overnight. According to Jean Piaget, children go through several stages of development in which they gradually acquire the ability to think independently. Encouraging autonomy involves offering the child age-appropriate choices while supporting them in their decisions. For example, allowing a young child to choose their outfit or organize their free time can give them a sense of control and strengthen their self-confidence.

But how far can we encourage autonomy without risking putting too much pressure on the child? Too much autonomy, too soon, can lead to stress and insecurity. Every child is different, and it is crucial for parents to continually assess their child's needs and adjust their approach accordingly. In practice, what does encouraging autonomy mean? Is it letting the child fend for themselves? Or is it rather accompanying them in their journey towards independence while being available to offer support?

Moreover, autonomy must be nurtured in a context of emotional security. Children need to feel that they can rely on their parents if needed. It is this sense of security that allows them to take risks and learn from their mistakes. Parents may ask themselves: Am I creating an environment where my child feels safe to explore and experiment? In what ways? Am I present to support them without interfering excessively? This reflection is essential to creating a framework that fosters autonomy while respecting the child's pace and needs. But it is also crucial to ensure that this does not turn into "I do what I want," which could quickly become unmanageable.

The key is to find the right balance, considering the context and the child's personality.

References:

• Piaget, Jean. The Psychology of the Child. Basic Books, 1972.
• Deci, Edward L., & Ryan, Richard M. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press, 2017.
• Grolnick, Wendy S. The Psychology of Parental Control: How Well-Meant Parenting Backfires. Psychology Press, 2002.
• Dolto, Françoise. Lorsque l’enfant paraît. Gallimard, 1977.
• Gueguen, Catherine. Pour une enfance heureuse: Repenser l’éducation à la lumière des dernières découvertes sur le cerveau. Robert Laffont, 2015.