What do you think?
Rate this book
The Orchid and the Dandelion: Why Some Children Struggle and How All Can Thrive
Listening length: 10 Hours and 24 Minutes
From one of the world's foremost researchers and pioneers of pediatric health--a book that fully explores a revolutionary discovery about childhood development, parenting, and the key to helping all children find happiness and success.
In Tom Boyce's extraordinary new book, he writes of his acclaimed and pathfinding work as a developmental pediatrician working with troubled children in child-development research for almost four decades, and explores his major discovery: that certain variant genes can increase a person's susceptibility to depression, anxiety, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, antisocial, sociopathic, or violent behaviors. Rather than seeing this "risk" gene as a liability, Boyce, through his daring research has recast the way we think of human frailty, and has shown that while these "bad" genes can create problems, they can also, in the right setting and the right environment, result in producing children who not only do better than before, but far exceed their peers.
His work has revealed there are two different kinds of children: the "dandelion" child (hardy, resilient, healthy), able to survive and flourish under most circumstances, and the "orchid" child (sensitive, susceptible, fragile) who, given the right support, can thrive as much, if not more, than other children.
Orchid children, Boyce makes clear, are not failed dandelions; they are a different category of child, with special sensitivities and strengths, and need to be nurtured and taught in special ways. In The Orchid and the Dandelion, Boyce shows us how to understand these children for their unique sensibilities, their considerable challenges, and their remarkable gifts.
From one of the world's foremost researchers and pioneers of pediatric health--a book that fully explores a revolutionary discovery about childhood development, parenting, and the key to helping all children find happiness and success.
In Tom Boyce's extraordinary new book, he writes of his acclaimed and pathfinding work as a developmental pediatrician working with troubled children in child-development research for almost four decades, and explores his major discovery: that certain variant genes can increase a person's susceptibility to depression, anxiety, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, antisocial, sociopathic, or violent behaviors. Rather than seeing this "risk" gene as a liability, Boyce, through his daring research has recast the way we think of human frailty, and has shown that while these "bad" genes can create problems, they can also, in the right setting and the right environment, result in producing children who not only do better than before, but far exceed their peers.
His work has revealed there are two different kinds of children: the "dandelion" child (hardy, resilient, healthy), able to survive and flourish under most circumstances, and the "orchid" child (sensitive, susceptible, fragile) who, given the right support, can thrive as much, if not more, than other children.
Orchid children, Boyce makes clear, are not failed dandelions; they are a different category of child, with special sensitivities and strengths, and need to be nurtured and taught in special ways. In The Orchid and the Dandelion, Boyce shows us how to understand these children for their unique sensibilities, their considerable challenges, and their remarkable gifts.
11 pages, Audiobook
First published January 15, 2019
576 people are currently reading
3851 people want to read
About the author
W. Thomas Boyce
13 books14 followersDr. W. Thomas Boyce, M.D., is a pediatrician and Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Departments of Pediatrics and Psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. Previously, he was Associate Dean for Research in the UC Berkeley School of Public Health and the BC Leadership Chair in Child Development at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. He co-directs the Child and Brain Development Program for the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, is a member of the JPB Foundation Research Network on Toxic Stress, serves on the Board on Children, Youth and Families of the National Academies of Science, and was elected in 2011 to the National Academy of Medicine.
Dr. Boyce's research addresses individual differences in children’s biological sensitivity to social contexts, such as the family, classroom and community. His work, which has generated over 200 scientific publications, demonstrates that a subset of children (“orchid children”) show exceptional biological susceptibility to their social conditions and bear higher risks of illness and developmental disorders in settings of adversity and stress. Taken together, findings from his research suggest that the supportiveness of early environments have important effects on children’s health and well being and are the subject of his forthcoming book entitled The Orchid and the Dandelion: Why Some Children Struggle and How All Can Thrive (Knopf, 2019).
Dr. Boyce's research addresses individual differences in children’s biological sensitivity to social contexts, such as the family, classroom and community. His work, which has generated over 200 scientific publications, demonstrates that a subset of children (“orchid children”) show exceptional biological susceptibility to their social conditions and bear higher risks of illness and developmental disorders in settings of adversity and stress. Taken together, findings from his research suggest that the supportiveness of early environments have important effects on children’s health and well being and are the subject of his forthcoming book entitled The Orchid and the Dandelion: Why Some Children Struggle and How All Can Thrive (Knopf, 2019).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews
March 4, 2019
There is a good book in here trying to get out, but ultimately I found it disappointing. The Orchid (sensitive) / Dandelion (robust) analysis is an interesting one. I bought this book as I thought it might give me some insight into my own young children, one of who seems more sensitive to life's ups and downs than the other. Unfortunately, Boyce's book meanders around too much, giving long anecdotes about individual cases which were hard to relate to one's own experiences. At the end of it, there was little practical advice on how to help the orchids in our lives and I was left unsure as to whether either of my children (or even me) would actually be characterised as an orchid.
May 12, 2019
Heard a review of this book on NPR and even just the title was intriguing to me. As an sometimes inept, but eager gardener, the premise of children as “dandelions” or “orchids” was a metaphor that made sense to me. Reading the book with its vast amount of data and research did not deter me from finishing it. Instead, it made me put the book down periodically and just reflect on my own upbringing, and that of my children and grandchildren, also my parents and their parents. As someone who interacts with kids as part of my job, this book made me also reflect on them and my effect on their future lives.
The full title of the book is “The Orchid and the Dandelion - Why Some Children Struggle and How All Can Thrive”. Anyone who deals with children will find this book interesting - teachers, parents, grandparents, librarians, caregivers, doctors, nurses . . .
The full title of the book is “The Orchid and the Dandelion - Why Some Children Struggle and How All Can Thrive”. Anyone who deals with children will find this book interesting - teachers, parents, grandparents, librarians, caregivers, doctors, nurses . . .
May 15, 2022
Приемам много навътре всичко, което се отнася до благополучието на децата и имах големи очаквания към тази книга. Уви, тя спокойно може да мине като статия; под формата на книга тя е губене на време.
Половината съдържание са риторични въпроси, пълна е с безброй потворения на една и съща идея и удавящи същността отклонения, без да се каже нищо кой знае колко съществено. Резюмирах си някои от тезите, с цел да спестя време на други читатели, без да считам тези тези за общовалидни, а просто като повод за размисъл:
Отстъпчивите деца (както хората на по-ниски позиции в обществото) имат повече проблеми със здраве и благополучието си. Извод: човек трябва да отстоява себе си непрекъснато.
Децата отрано създават йерархии помежду си, детската невинност е мит, особено при взаимодействие с други деца.
Две основни деления на децата според реакцията им към заобикалящата ги среда: глухарче – устойчиви и не толкова възприемчиви към средата, в която растат, независимо дали тази среда е благоприятна или не. Орхидея – силно чувствителни към средата – ако тя е неблагоприятна, това се оказва ключово за тяхното здраве и развитие. Но ако растат в подкрепяща среда, те разцъфват като успешни и щастливи възрастни.
Извод: Не всяко дете, което расте в мизерия и насилие, е обречено да стане нещастен и неуспял възрастен, както и обратното – децата, които израстват в семейства с добър социално-икономически статус, не са застраховени от големи житейски пропадания.
Половината съдържание са риторични въпроси, пълна е с безброй потворения на една и съща идея и удавящи същността отклонения, без да се каже нищо кой знае колко съществено. Резюмирах си някои от тезите, с цел да спестя време на други читатели, без да считам тези тези за общовалидни, а просто като повод за размисъл:
Отстъпчивите деца (както хората на по-ниски позиции в обществото) имат повече проблеми със здраве и благополучието си. Извод: човек трябва да отстоява себе си непрекъснато.
Децата отрано създават йерархии помежду си, детската невинност е мит, особено при взаимодействие с други деца.
Две основни деления на децата според реакцията им към заобикалящата ги среда: глухарче – устойчиви и не толкова възприемчиви към средата, в която растат, независимо дали тази среда е благоприятна или не. Орхидея – силно чувствителни към средата – ако тя е неблагоприятна, това се оказва ключово за тяхното здраве и развитие. Но ако растат в подкрепяща среда, те разцъфват като успешни и щастливи възрастни.
Извод: Не всяко дете, което расте в мизерия и насилие, е обречено да стане нещастен и неуспял възрастен, както и обратното – децата, които израстват в семейства с добър социално-икономически статус, не са застраховени от големи житейски пропадания.
March 29, 2019
I listened to Maureen Corrigan interview pediatrician Thomas Boyce on NPR’s Fresh Air and was intrigued. In his new book, Boyce gives some reassurance and advice on how to parent “orchid children.” Boyce explores the “dandelion” child (hardy, resilient, healthy), able to survive and flourish under most circumstances, and the “orchid” child (sensitive, susceptible, fragile), who, given the right support, can thrive as much as, if not more than, other children. Truly, the same conditions that may be good for one child won’t be ideal for another.
Interestingly, he writes of the stress response on the Central Nervous System, exactly what led me to read The Out-of-Sync Child. Stressful experiences have a profound physical effect, which of course affects the mental state. There were many similarities in the science behind SPD and “orchid” children.
Orchid kids are characterized by: 1) their sensitivity to the new and unexpected and their reliance on routine; 2) their special need of parental affection and time; 3) their perceptive read of acceptance and affirmation of the child’s true, tenderhearted, and creative self.
Then there is the dichotomy that is frequently discussed at my house: “The families of orchid children must also seek and achieve a well-tempered balance between measured protection and emboldened exposure. On the one hand, because orchid kids are prone to an easily triggered physiological reactivity, a certain level of parental insulation from the world’s abundant challenges is often a needed and helpful protection.
“On the other hand, the parenting of an orchid child must never be solely about protection and sheltering; parents must also know when to push, when to nudge, when to encourage a child’s venturing into unknown and even uncomfortable psychological or physical territory. For it is the successes in such terra incognita that will foster the child’s growth, revealing her capacity for mastering situations that seem at first impossible to abide. All parents of orchid children walk this fine, constantly shifting line between sheltering and provoking.”
Is that not a blog post in itself???
Boyce writes from personal and professional experience on child developmental differences in such a way that I hope will cause others to become more sensitive to the needs of the orchid child. Boyce encourages the reader to focus on an orchid’s hidden strengths and uncommon sensibilities, thus helping them to blossom into their own resilience and possibilities.“
“Orchids are not broken dandelions but a different, more subtle kind of flower. Within the struggles and frailties of orchids lies an unimagined strength and redemptive beauty.”
Interestingly, he writes of the stress response on the Central Nervous System, exactly what led me to read The Out-of-Sync Child. Stressful experiences have a profound physical effect, which of course affects the mental state. There were many similarities in the science behind SPD and “orchid” children.
Orchid kids are characterized by: 1) their sensitivity to the new and unexpected and their reliance on routine; 2) their special need of parental affection and time; 3) their perceptive read of acceptance and affirmation of the child’s true, tenderhearted, and creative self.
Then there is the dichotomy that is frequently discussed at my house: “The families of orchid children must also seek and achieve a well-tempered balance between measured protection and emboldened exposure. On the one hand, because orchid kids are prone to an easily triggered physiological reactivity, a certain level of parental insulation from the world’s abundant challenges is often a needed and helpful protection.
“On the other hand, the parenting of an orchid child must never be solely about protection and sheltering; parents must also know when to push, when to nudge, when to encourage a child’s venturing into unknown and even uncomfortable psychological or physical territory. For it is the successes in such terra incognita that will foster the child’s growth, revealing her capacity for mastering situations that seem at first impossible to abide. All parents of orchid children walk this fine, constantly shifting line between sheltering and provoking.”
Is that not a blog post in itself???
Boyce writes from personal and professional experience on child developmental differences in such a way that I hope will cause others to become more sensitive to the needs of the orchid child. Boyce encourages the reader to focus on an orchid’s hidden strengths and uncommon sensibilities, thus helping them to blossom into their own resilience and possibilities.“
“Orchids are not broken dandelions but a different, more subtle kind of flower. Within the struggles and frailties of orchids lies an unimagined strength and redemptive beauty.”
July 5, 2020
As a parent with a textbook orchid child I have felt the deepest dread and anxiety over how the world will accept him and the greatest frustration at trying to teach him basic survival skills (like rules of conversation or how to eat with a fork instead of your hands). This book was an uplifting and hopeful relief for me. I worry for my son who is so sensitive, easily overwhelmed, does things his own way, and is often misunderstood and a target for bullying. I found in this book a place to relinquish my fear for him and see that it is possible for him to overcome his challenges and I just have to love him and allow him to flourish. It was what I needed to read when I needed to read it.
I know that a lot of reviewers complained that there’s no real practical advice in this book but that’s kind of what I loved about it. It reported the research and had the data to back up most claims but spent time sharing stories and examples rather than giving me checklists and dos and don’ts. The concepts were simple enough that I think anyone can apply on their own (love your kid, have healthy routines, support individuality, lean more toward positive parenting than negative, etc). This looks different for every parent and every child but the sometimes narrative tenor of the book made it enjoyable, relatable, and instructive for me. I admit that my mind tends toward the abstract and those who aren’t naturally conceptual thinkers might really miss the checklists like other parenting/self help books have. I certainly didn’t miss them and felt that “practical application” would have oversimplified and spoiled the principles presented.
Not an organizational masterpiece and sometimes meandering but the writing was good enough that it didn’t bother me.
I know that a lot of reviewers complained that there’s no real practical advice in this book but that’s kind of what I loved about it. It reported the research and had the data to back up most claims but spent time sharing stories and examples rather than giving me checklists and dos and don’ts. The concepts were simple enough that I think anyone can apply on their own (love your kid, have healthy routines, support individuality, lean more toward positive parenting than negative, etc). This looks different for every parent and every child but the sometimes narrative tenor of the book made it enjoyable, relatable, and instructive for me. I admit that my mind tends toward the abstract and those who aren’t naturally conceptual thinkers might really miss the checklists like other parenting/self help books have. I certainly didn’t miss them and felt that “practical application” would have oversimplified and spoiled the principles presented.
Not an organizational masterpiece and sometimes meandering but the writing was good enough that it didn’t bother me.
March 27, 2019
This book was a tough one! It was filled with endless in-depth higher level medical jargon that I became bored with. Considered “a must read for all parents, teacher and psychologists,” I would beg to differ. I found some of Dr. Boyce’s studies fascinating, but hard to understand for a medically untrained mind. For these reasons, I do not recommend this book unless you are willing to put a lot of effort into understanding its content. I’m ready for something much lighter as my next book-my brain hurts.
September 27, 2020
I decided to read this after really enjoying Philippa Perry's book and her recommending this. I approached it with two concerns though - firstly that it would try to conjure a false dichotomy of kids (after all, it says on the back in big letters: "There are two kinds of people in this world"), secondly that it would end up in a sort of genetic determinism that some medical doctors are wont to adopt.
The first concern was mostly warranted. Throughout most of the book, children are discussed as if they can be neatly fitted into these two boxes, with anecdotes where individuals are labelled as clear orchids or dandelions. Later on in the book, there is discussion of a semi-structured interview study of a small number of 'representative' subjects (which the author describes as ethnography, presumably purely on the basis that it's qualitative) which generally undermines his broad thesis. At this point he accepts that dandelions and orchids are actually a spectrum rather than a dichotomy, but this is a minor detour in a dichotomous narrative.
On the second point, I'd say I was generally wrong to be concerned, though the book does tend towards determinism at times. Add in some pretty dodgy pop-evolutionary psychology, some cloaked political views passing for science (the author believes that some people should be dominant and some should be subordinate and this is the only sensible way of building society) and it really wasn't my cup of tea.
Having said all that, the central thesis is an interesting one - that those children most vulnerable to the impacts of environments of deprivation are also those who would benefit most from a privileged or supportive environment. The evidence presented is interesting but seems only part of the picture, not enough to know how well the thesis is supported by facts.
The first concern was mostly warranted. Throughout most of the book, children are discussed as if they can be neatly fitted into these two boxes, with anecdotes where individuals are labelled as clear orchids or dandelions. Later on in the book, there is discussion of a semi-structured interview study of a small number of 'representative' subjects (which the author describes as ethnography, presumably purely on the basis that it's qualitative) which generally undermines his broad thesis. At this point he accepts that dandelions and orchids are actually a spectrum rather than a dichotomy, but this is a minor detour in a dichotomous narrative.
On the second point, I'd say I was generally wrong to be concerned, though the book does tend towards determinism at times. Add in some pretty dodgy pop-evolutionary psychology, some cloaked political views passing for science (the author believes that some people should be dominant and some should be subordinate and this is the only sensible way of building society) and it really wasn't my cup of tea.
Having said all that, the central thesis is an interesting one - that those children most vulnerable to the impacts of environments of deprivation are also those who would benefit most from a privileged or supportive environment. The evidence presented is interesting but seems only part of the picture, not enough to know how well the thesis is supported by facts.
March 2, 2020
„Cei mai mulți copii - din familia noastră, din clasa noastră sau din comunitatea noastră - sunt mai mult sau mai puțin ca niște păpădii care se dezvoltă și cresc oriunde ar fi plantate. Asemenea păpădiilor sunt majoritatea copiilor a căror stare de bine este asigurată de robustețea și forța constituției lor. Apoi sunt ceilalți, care, mai degrabă ca orhideele, pot să se ofilească și să pălească când sunt lipsiți de sprijin și afecțiune, dar care - la fel ca și acestea - pot deveni ființe de o rară frumusețe, complexitate și eleganță, când sunt tratați cu înțelegere și bunătate.
Sunt copiii de a căror prezență blândă și curajoasă avem atâta nevoie în comunitățile și societățile noastre. Ei pot să fie, așa cum afirma terapeutul Salvador Minuchin, „pacientul identificat”, sacrificat pe altarul unei familii disfuncționale și abuzive. Cu alte cuvinte, receptivitatea lor fină îi face să plătească emoțional și fiziologic prețul pentru situația vătămătoare în care se găsesc. Pacienții identificați devin, în contextul unor sisteme familiale încâlcite și dezechilibrate, un fel de „figură hristică” metaforică, aleasă „să moară” pentru familie purtând povara suferinței și durerii ca un mijloc de a asigura supraviețuirea și permanența acestei disfuncții triste, dar compulsive. Dar un copil-orhidee poate fi și o sursă de idei, de gândire creativă și de valoare umană. Pe parcursul a 25 de ani de cercetare, am descoperit că aceeași extraordinară sensibilitate, încorporată biologic, care-i face pe acești copii excesiv de vulnerabili la pericolele și adversitățile vieții, îi face și mai receptivi la darurile și promisiunile ei. În asta constă secretul uluitor și însuflețitor: orhideele nu sunt păpădii defecte, ci o cu totul altă floare, una mai subtilă. Odată cu dificultățile și fragilitatea copiilor-orhidee vin și incredibila forță și compensatoarea frumusețe.
Nu era vorba despre „sau/sau”, ci de „și/și”, căci copiii în chestiune erau înzestrați cu o sensibilitate deosebită față de caracterul și natura ambelor tipuri de medii sociale: atât ale unuia plin de adversități, cât și ale unuia favorabil. Eșuau într-un mediu dificil și prosperau într-unul bun din același remarcabil motiv: erau mai deschiși, mai permeabili, mai sensibili la influențele puternice, și bune, și rele, ale contextului în care trăiau și creșteau. A fost un moment de epifanie după care tânjește și la care speră orice cercetător.
Și nu are întru totul sens ca sănătatea și supraviețuirea noastră să nu fie afectate direct și unilateral nici de prezența unei vulnerabilități interne (cum este smalțul dentar mai subțire), nici de confruntarea cu o amenințare exterioară (cum sunt bacteriile orale)? Nu este eminamente plauzibil ca geneza unei boli să presupună o coincidență nefericită și mult mai puțin frecventă - o sinergie, o interacțiune sau o confluență - între cauze interne și externe care acționează împreună? Indiferent dacă cineva crede în inteligența unui creator divin, în infailibilitatea selecției naturale evoluționiste sau în ambele, e ceva liniștitor de complex - asemenea unui sistem de control și echilibrare - în privința modului în care boala și predispoziția trebuie să-și aibă rădăcinile în același timp în factori de risc, atât interni cât și externi.
Ca urmare a acestei vaste transmiteri de informații timpurii despre mediu, fătul și nou-născutul recurg, în mod inconștient, la adaptări condiționale în favoarea „programării timpurii”. Ideea este că în loc să aștepte să se producă adaptarea la condițiile de viață cu care un copil va trebui să se confrunte în cele din urmă, ajustările biologice la acele condiții încep de foarte devreme și fără conștientizare, imediat ce creierul fătului sau al nou-născutului începe să detecteze provocări adaptative importante. E o formă de precauție, un fel de a juca la sigur, evitând riscurile. Această programare timpurie face să crească probabilitatea supraviețuirii pe termen scurt.
Chiar dacă studii anterioare pe populații umane arătaseră clar că interacțiunile sunt cheia dintre gene și context, știința emergentă a epigeneticii ne-a făcut să înțelegem pentru prima dată cum au loc aceste interacțiuni. Ele apar prin modificări chimice ale genomului în urma experiențelor trăite (familiale, traumatice sau alte influențe mai banale), modificări care controlează când, unde și în ce măsură sunt decodate și exprimate anumite gene. Astfel, identitatea noastră - de orhidee, păpădie sau orice altceva între acestea - reacționează și la mediul în care trăim, și la diferențele genetice care ne limitează devenirea.”
Sunt copiii de a căror prezență blândă și curajoasă avem atâta nevoie în comunitățile și societățile noastre. Ei pot să fie, așa cum afirma terapeutul Salvador Minuchin, „pacientul identificat”, sacrificat pe altarul unei familii disfuncționale și abuzive. Cu alte cuvinte, receptivitatea lor fină îi face să plătească emoțional și fiziologic prețul pentru situația vătămătoare în care se găsesc. Pacienții identificați devin, în contextul unor sisteme familiale încâlcite și dezechilibrate, un fel de „figură hristică” metaforică, aleasă „să moară” pentru familie purtând povara suferinței și durerii ca un mijloc de a asigura supraviețuirea și permanența acestei disfuncții triste, dar compulsive. Dar un copil-orhidee poate fi și o sursă de idei, de gândire creativă și de valoare umană. Pe parcursul a 25 de ani de cercetare, am descoperit că aceeași extraordinară sensibilitate, încorporată biologic, care-i face pe acești copii excesiv de vulnerabili la pericolele și adversitățile vieții, îi face și mai receptivi la darurile și promisiunile ei. În asta constă secretul uluitor și însuflețitor: orhideele nu sunt păpădii defecte, ci o cu totul altă floare, una mai subtilă. Odată cu dificultățile și fragilitatea copiilor-orhidee vin și incredibila forță și compensatoarea frumusețe.
Nu era vorba despre „sau/sau”, ci de „și/și”, căci copiii în chestiune erau înzestrați cu o sensibilitate deosebită față de caracterul și natura ambelor tipuri de medii sociale: atât ale unuia plin de adversități, cât și ale unuia favorabil. Eșuau într-un mediu dificil și prosperau într-unul bun din același remarcabil motiv: erau mai deschiși, mai permeabili, mai sensibili la influențele puternice, și bune, și rele, ale contextului în care trăiau și creșteau. A fost un moment de epifanie după care tânjește și la care speră orice cercetător.
Și nu are întru totul sens ca sănătatea și supraviețuirea noastră să nu fie afectate direct și unilateral nici de prezența unei vulnerabilități interne (cum este smalțul dentar mai subțire), nici de confruntarea cu o amenințare exterioară (cum sunt bacteriile orale)? Nu este eminamente plauzibil ca geneza unei boli să presupună o coincidență nefericită și mult mai puțin frecventă - o sinergie, o interacțiune sau o confluență - între cauze interne și externe care acționează împreună? Indiferent dacă cineva crede în inteligența unui creator divin, în infailibilitatea selecției naturale evoluționiste sau în ambele, e ceva liniștitor de complex - asemenea unui sistem de control și echilibrare - în privința modului în care boala și predispoziția trebuie să-și aibă rădăcinile în același timp în factori de risc, atât interni cât și externi.
Ca urmare a acestei vaste transmiteri de informații timpurii despre mediu, fătul și nou-născutul recurg, în mod inconștient, la adaptări condiționale în favoarea „programării timpurii”. Ideea este că în loc să aștepte să se producă adaptarea la condițiile de viață cu care un copil va trebui să se confrunte în cele din urmă, ajustările biologice la acele condiții încep de foarte devreme și fără conștientizare, imediat ce creierul fătului sau al nou-născutului începe să detecteze provocări adaptative importante. E o formă de precauție, un fel de a juca la sigur, evitând riscurile. Această programare timpurie face să crească probabilitatea supraviețuirii pe termen scurt.
Chiar dacă studii anterioare pe populații umane arătaseră clar că interacțiunile sunt cheia dintre gene și context, știința emergentă a epigeneticii ne-a făcut să înțelegem pentru prima dată cum au loc aceste interacțiuni. Ele apar prin modificări chimice ale genomului în urma experiențelor trăite (familiale, traumatice sau alte influențe mai banale), modificări care controlează când, unde și în ce măsură sunt decodate și exprimate anumite gene. Astfel, identitatea noastră - de orhidee, păpădie sau orice altceva între acestea - reacționează și la mediul în care trăim, și la diferențele genetice care ne limitează devenirea.”
February 15, 2020
It is an interesting research and help to understand high-sensitive persons. Dandelion mostly are stress-resistant and deliver stable average results. Orchids though in good environment and conditions deliver the best results which are high above an average score. They bloom in good conditions as a result, but in a bad environment or under the difficulties(which are above an average) they respond quickly and feel all hidden social changes which affects their own health.
The main idea: it is for the best of humanity if orchids help dandelions to notice changes in the world and pay attention to it. While dandelions should help orchids to fight the stress of environment and society.
Очень интересный взгляд на чувствительных людей, и как многое зависит от среды и стресса. В кратце, одуванчики всегда стрессоустойчивые и результаты всегда стабильно средние. Орхидеи в хороших условиях расцветают как и их результаты и не болеют, а вот в плохих условиях они быстрее всех реагируют на изменение среды, это и плохо и хорошо. Хорошо, потому что кто-то должен замечать изменения, а плохо это потому что это сказывается на их собственном здоровье.
И основная идея, то что желательно чтобы, одуванчики помогали орхидеям в трудные времени, а орхидеи помогли одуванчикам заметить перемены в мире и обратить на это внимание.
The main idea: it is for the best of humanity if orchids help dandelions to notice changes in the world and pay attention to it. While dandelions should help orchids to fight the stress of environment and society.
Очень интересный взгляд на чувствительных людей, и как многое зависит от среды и стресса. В кратце, одуванчики всегда стрессоустойчивые и результаты всегда стабильно средние. Орхидеи в хороших условиях расцветают как и их результаты и не болеют, а вот в плохих условиях они быстрее всех реагируют на изменение среды, это и плохо и хорошо. Хорошо, потому что кто-то должен замечать изменения, а плохо это потому что это сказывается на их собственном здоровье.
И основная идея, то что желательно чтобы, одуванчики помогали орхидеям в трудные времени, а орхидеи помогли одуванчикам заметить перемены в мире и обратить на это внимание.
May 3, 2019
A thought-provoking book based on child-development research. About 20% of children can be categorized as orchids--with a sensitivity to their environment that can throw them into a catastrophic spin, but also with a sensitivity to nurture that can, under good conditions, unleash remarkable potential. Boyce comes through as a very thoughtful, compassionate doctor who thinks deeply about how to help children thrive. The categories of orchid and dandelion I found very provocative. Like all category systems they don't capture the nuances of life, nor do they seem to have a great deal of predictive value, but I found myself thinking about orchids I know and the nurture or lack of it they have been affected by.
August 29, 2020
I really liked the interview with Boyce on NPR, but found the prose so over-the-top-florid that it felt unreadable at times. This book could have been a great read at half the length and with less storytelling/editorializing.
As the parent of an orchid, and probably a dandelion, I found much of this helpful and hopeful, but at the same time there's a growing consensus that this is a false dichotomy, and there's more of a spectrum, with orchids and dandelions as the endpoints.
As the parent of an orchid, and probably a dandelion, I found much of this helpful and hopeful, but at the same time there's a growing consensus that this is a false dichotomy, and there's more of a spectrum, with orchids and dandelions as the endpoints.
November 15, 2021
Hard work.
Lots of build up, and detailed background, supporting a simple argument that some individuals are highly sensitive to their surroundings, and some are not.
Unfortunately, it didn’t give much of the promised advice about how to use this information.
Lots of build up, and detailed background, supporting a simple argument that some individuals are highly sensitive to their surroundings, and some are not.
Unfortunately, it didn’t give much of the promised advice about how to use this information.
February 10, 2020
Nice to understand my introverted origins and why me and my sister are dangerously different
November 16, 2025
Kirjoittajalla on aiheesta syvällistä tietämystä ja hauskoja anekdootteja.
Lopussa kirja toisti itseään, ja loppupuolen tosielämän esimerkit olivat jotenkin hämmentäviä luokittelujen suhteen.
Toisaalta kyllä Boyce itsekin tietää ja toteaa useaan kertaa, että elämä on aina monitahoisempaa kuin mustavalkoiset luokittelut.
Huomio esikoulun/ensimmäisten luokkien opettajan suuresta roolista lapsiryhmän sensitiivisen (tai epäsensitiivisen) ohjaamisessa ja sen vaikutuksesta lapsissa vielä myöhäisteini-iässä oli erityisen kiinnostava. Kaikissa lapsiryhmissä (ihmisryhmissä) on väistämättä sosiaalinen hierarkia, ja sensitiivinen opettaja osaa tasoittaa tilannetta. Erityisesti hierarkian pohjalla oleville lapsille vaikutus on suuri sen suhteen, millaiseksi käsitys itsestä (koulussa, ryhmätilanteissa) muodostuu.
Lopussa kirja toisti itseään, ja loppupuolen tosielämän esimerkit olivat jotenkin hämmentäviä luokittelujen suhteen.
Toisaalta kyllä Boyce itsekin tietää ja toteaa useaan kertaa, että elämä on aina monitahoisempaa kuin mustavalkoiset luokittelut.
Huomio esikoulun/ensimmäisten luokkien opettajan suuresta roolista lapsiryhmän sensitiivisen (tai epäsensitiivisen) ohjaamisessa ja sen vaikutuksesta lapsissa vielä myöhäisteini-iässä oli erityisen kiinnostava. Kaikissa lapsiryhmissä (ihmisryhmissä) on väistämättä sosiaalinen hierarkia, ja sensitiivinen opettaja osaa tasoittaa tilannetta. Erityisesti hierarkian pohjalla oleville lapsille vaikutus on suuri sen suhteen, millaiseksi käsitys itsestä (koulussa, ryhmätilanteissa) muodostuu.
September 24, 2019
I have never suggested a book more. I'd highly suggest this to any teacher. I think it is one that every teacher needs to read. It is written so that the average person can understand it and this book helps one understand themselves as well as understand others. It has to be one if if not the best book I have ever read. It is definitely the best non-fiction book I have ever read. I haven't taken so many notes in a book.
April 14, 2019
Really interesting opening few chapters but then it falls away badly. What it has to say is very worthwhile and interesting but the style is garbled. It moves from science to anecdote to advice in a meandering, confusing way. It’s insight is mixed with cliche and a sometimes patronising tone.
April 1, 2019
I couldn’t finish it. The physician writes in a haphazard way, and even as a physician I found the narrative hard to follow
June 19, 2020
One part parenting book, one part crash course in epigenetics, fascinating throughout.
September 7, 2020
⭐️ 3,0 stars ⭐️
I felt that it repeated itself and dragged out quite a bit, but I guess it was inevitable as the author tried to ease a lot of pain with this book and that's the form it took. Still, the book was somewhat informative and I will pay much closer attention to how I interact with children from now on.
I felt that it repeated itself and dragged out quite a bit, but I guess it was inevitable as the author tried to ease a lot of pain with this book and that's the form it took. Still, the book was somewhat informative and I will pay much closer attention to how I interact with children from now on.
October 2, 2023
I thought this was a great read. A helpful way to frame thinking about "Orchid" / "Deeply Feeling" / "Highly Sensitive Person" kids. I think it was ultimately positive and spent some time highlighting the Orchid strengths, and not just their vulnerabilities and challenges. The autobiographical elements were touching.
August 7, 2024
There’s some good insight into research the author has conducted and I learned a decent amount, although there wasn’t a lot of practical application offered. Most of the book is marked by extraneous vocabulary and his own emotional ties to the topic. It easily could’ve been half the length.
January 23, 2023
This offered some insight into some of the things I have been dealing with with one of my daughters, who is absolutely, 100% an orchid. I'm trying to help her see her extra-sensitive soul as a gift, but I know it is not feeling like one to her right now. I really appreciated the information on how study data was collected and stories from those who were considered "orchids" or "dandelions". There is no set answer to how to make things easier for either kind of child, but I can attempt to help my daughter thrive.
November 26, 2024
Interesantă idee, care are în spate multă cercetare. Nu am rezonat cu felul în care a fost scrisă, dar am rezonat cu multe idei.
June 20, 2019
I didn't finish this, partially because I didn't feel drawn in by the central thesis, which struck me as pretty straightforward and maybe better presented in the format of an article. The anecdotes were amusing at times, though.
February 28, 2020
3.5 stars
November 6, 2023
More of an exposé on what is, less on how to respond to it. It has some fascinating studies, though, and is an interesting read.
March 28, 2019
This was a fascinating read. If you are a teacher or a parent (especially one raising kids who seem particularly sensitive to their environment) I would recommend this book. Boyce, a pediatrician and researcher, explains that, while most kids are very resilient and able to cope with a less than ideal environment, others are highly sensitive. Those sensitive kids excel in healthy environments, but struggle disproportionately in difficult or stressful circumstances. He sites so many fascinating studies that point to these differences. I love that he concludes that, while resilience is a great character trait, sensitivity can also strengthen kids in different ways. The only thing I found a little problematic was that this understanding of child development could lead to blaming parents when kids fail to thrive.
May 22, 2024
The most salient message from his book is this: Support highly sensitive children because low sensitive children thrive anyway.
Apart from this conclusion and a lot of very insightful science "The Orchid and the Dandelion" should've better been written by an Orchid. The way it is the author constantly guilts sensitive children, others and stigmatizes them. It seems Boyce can not grasp the reality of a sensitive child, no matter how often he circles back to his own sister.
There are subtle and not-so-subtle re-negotiations of unprocessed feelings of shame and guilt towards his sister which have nothing to do in a book that wants to be based in scientific research.
His focus on evolutionary psychology, SES, and Social Darwinism supports those who are already on top, and has the effect of saying what is wrong with you, why are you not like that. (Well we haven't heard that before.)
He even cites Alice Miller, and quotes a case of a boy's unexplained stomach ache - which makes it an even bigger omission to not name trauma, or narcissism, as two factors in any kind of negative environment.
Boyce is all about evolutionary theory and Social Darwinism, but he insists on the majority of parents being good, more from a moral stance than from actual evidence.
If you believe that most parents have good intentions than you are bound to misinterpret and overlook a certain amount of cases. Only if you account for intentional harm will you get the full picture.
Very late in the book he dives deeper into his family of origins and one can conclude that his sister was the scapegoat of a narcissistic mother. It is sad and almost weird that a man of his educational background with his willingness to turn over every stone doesn't ever go there.
Apart from this conclusion and a lot of very insightful science "The Orchid and the Dandelion" should've better been written by an Orchid. The way it is the author constantly guilts sensitive children, others and stigmatizes them. It seems Boyce can not grasp the reality of a sensitive child, no matter how often he circles back to his own sister.
There are subtle and not-so-subtle re-negotiations of unprocessed feelings of shame and guilt towards his sister which have nothing to do in a book that wants to be based in scientific research.
His focus on evolutionary psychology, SES, and Social Darwinism supports those who are already on top, and has the effect of saying what is wrong with you, why are you not like that. (Well we haven't heard that before.)
He even cites Alice Miller, and quotes a case of a boy's unexplained stomach ache - which makes it an even bigger omission to not name trauma, or narcissism, as two factors in any kind of negative environment.
Boyce is all about evolutionary theory and Social Darwinism, but he insists on the majority of parents being good, more from a moral stance than from actual evidence.
If you believe that most parents have good intentions than you are bound to misinterpret and overlook a certain amount of cases. Only if you account for intentional harm will you get the full picture.
Very late in the book he dives deeper into his family of origins and one can conclude that his sister was the scapegoat of a narcissistic mother. It is sad and almost weird that a man of his educational background with his willingness to turn over every stone doesn't ever go there.
May 9, 2019
I really learned a lot from this book. So many of the author’s personal experiences mirrored my own, and I enjoyed his many anecdotes about the grown children from his research in the 1980’s.
October 10, 2019
I really wanted to like this book. I found some parts of it very enlightening and validating but I also was disturbed by some of the conclusions that were drawn. For me this book had a lot of fascinating scientific information but there was too much fluff. And as an orchid through and through I REALLY didn't appreciate all the negativity towards Orchids. Throughout the book there was just a lot of disdain and negative language towards orchids. Even in the poem at the end, dandelions are made of "sturdy stuff" and orchids have a "gifted flaw." It just perpetuates the negative societal attitudes we have towards empaths, calling us "bleeding hearts." Telling us we're "too sensitive" all the time. He talks about an experiment where there was a box in the middle of the room and inside was a video of Finding Nemo. The kids had to look through eye holes to see the film but they couldn't push the buttons on the sides to turn on the video themselves. So they had to work together. The kids were timed for 15 minutes to see how long each child was able to watch the video. They found that so-called "orchid" children who had higher stress reactions to new stimuli had less time watching the video than the dandelion children. It's because the orchid children were trying desperately to figure out how to make the situation equitable for all while the dandelion children probably just started bossing everyone around to get what they wanted. In that same chapter was the part that angered me the most about the whole book. The part that made me put it down for a few days. “Not altogether surprisingly, kids occupying the bottom rungs [socially] of these little classroom communities were substantially more likely to show symptoms of depression than were kids at the top. By contrast, children who enjoyed the loftiest, most dominant ranks in their classroom hierarchies were the most mentally healthy.” Equating popularity with mental health? What? Maybe those dominant children were actually bullies or showing narcissistic traits. What if we had more Orchids in the world? Maybe it would a kinder and more equitable place.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews