The biggest gap in parenting advice is the fit between the parent and their kids. This article explores how two types of kids and three types of parents' match. The result may be the difference between greatness and ruin.
Thank you, Dr. Gagrarin, for sharing your perspective on parenting. It’s incredibly insightful—especially your thoughts on parental intuition and the “garden vs. forge” concept, which really resonated with me.
I see these ideas reflected in my own children. My youngest seems to benefit from a balance of exposure, discipline, and a “gardening” approach—while still needing clarity around choices. I feel it’s my responsibility to provide the right mindset, guardrails, and pathways to help guide him. My eldest, on the other hand, appears to need more initial guidance and structure, but ultimately grows more independently once planted.
I would love to hear you expand on this further—perhaps in a talk, Q&A, or presentation.
From one tennis fan to another, I’ve always been fascinated by the contrast between Toni Nadal’s approach with Rafael Nadal and the more rotating support system of Novak Djokovic. That difference—especially during his time working with Boris Becker—really highlights how varied high-performance development philosophies can be.
This is a strong piece because it rejects universal parenting formulas. The same method does not work for every child. That part is right.
But I would push the argument one step further.
The danger is that “seed” and “ore” can become another form of labelling. Once we decide what a child is, we may simply justify our preferred method. Pressure becomes “forging.” Freedom becomes “gardening.” Either can be wrong if it is not attuned.
Children are not fixed materials. They are living systems. A child who looks directionless may not need fire. They may need the right environment in which direction can emerge.
That is why I would ask a different question.
Not: what is this child made of?
But: what conditions allow this child to reveal themselves?
At Willows, continuous provision creates that field of possibility. It allows a child to find their passion. Then the teaching moment introduces the right level of challenge — a micro-stress followed by micro-reward. That cycle builds curiosity.
The aim is not to garden or forge the child.
The aim is to give them the tools to decide what a good life looks like for themselves.
So I would slightly amend the final line:
Before you decide what the child is, build the conditions that allow them to show you.
Great perspectives, Ruben. It reminds me a bit of Nancy McWilliams with the perspective that we can't treat everyone the same. People are nuanced and we need to allow them to be different.
How do parents respond, when you talk to them about this? And how do you see it unfold itself in psychopathology?
I’ll be 33 this year and haven’t gone to university yet but I would love to take enough university courses that will eventually earn me a doctorate degree (in arts and humanities, not in the hard sciences) some day (10-15 years). My father was right when he said that no one would so much as look at me if i didn’t have any credentials. Most of my peers have ignored me and made me feel almost completely unimportant. Aside from that, I genuinely would be fulfilled by gaining real knowledge, developing critical thinking skills, and bringing people life-changing, life-giving value, the sort that makes the world a healthier, greener place.
I would love to work with adolescents and families and people of all ages actually to help them tap into and optimize their creative, physical, social and spiritual potential, especially the more I tap into and realize my own. I would love to be able to become a competent life coach and a global community leader.
When I tell people what I do, their faces change. Half of them start sharing something deeply personal — despite me being a total stranger with a title.
Sometimes I play the doctor's card deliberately. It usually softens attitudes.
Acquiring knowledge is the stated goal of a university degree. But I think what it really does is train a particular way of thinking. Engineers and doctors don't just carry different knowledge. They see the world differently.
The biggest gap in parenting advice is the fit between the parent and their kids. This article explores how two types of kids and three types of parents' match. The result may be the difference between greatness and ruin.
Thank you, Dr. Gagrarin, for sharing your perspective on parenting. It’s incredibly insightful—especially your thoughts on parental intuition and the “garden vs. forge” concept, which really resonated with me.
I see these ideas reflected in my own children. My youngest seems to benefit from a balance of exposure, discipline, and a “gardening” approach—while still needing clarity around choices. I feel it’s my responsibility to provide the right mindset, guardrails, and pathways to help guide him. My eldest, on the other hand, appears to need more initial guidance and structure, but ultimately grows more independently once planted.
I would love to hear you expand on this further—perhaps in a talk, Q&A, or presentation.
From one tennis fan to another, I’ve always been fascinated by the contrast between Toni Nadal’s approach with Rafael Nadal and the more rotating support system of Novak Djokovic. That difference—especially during his time working with Boris Becker—really highlights how varied high-performance development philosophies can be.
Thank you Pawel. You are right - there is no black and white - we should still strive for balance.
This is a strong piece because it rejects universal parenting formulas. The same method does not work for every child. That part is right.
But I would push the argument one step further.
The danger is that “seed” and “ore” can become another form of labelling. Once we decide what a child is, we may simply justify our preferred method. Pressure becomes “forging.” Freedom becomes “gardening.” Either can be wrong if it is not attuned.
Children are not fixed materials. They are living systems. A child who looks directionless may not need fire. They may need the right environment in which direction can emerge.
That is why I would ask a different question.
Not: what is this child made of?
But: what conditions allow this child to reveal themselves?
At Willows, continuous provision creates that field of possibility. It allows a child to find their passion. Then the teaching moment introduces the right level of challenge — a micro-stress followed by micro-reward. That cycle builds curiosity.
The aim is not to garden or forge the child.
The aim is to give them the tools to decide what a good life looks like for themselves.
So I would slightly amend the final line:
Before you decide what the child is, build the conditions that allow them to show you.
Thank you for your comment.
Any attempt to put kids into neat categories is a reductive exercise.
The main point of the article is to emphasize the dyad. Kids respond to parents and vise versa.
Life in motion
Great perspectives, Ruben. It reminds me a bit of Nancy McWilliams with the perspective that we can't treat everyone the same. People are nuanced and we need to allow them to be different.
How do parents respond, when you talk to them about this? And how do you see it unfold itself in psychopathology?
I’ll be 33 this year and haven’t gone to university yet but I would love to take enough university courses that will eventually earn me a doctorate degree (in arts and humanities, not in the hard sciences) some day (10-15 years). My father was right when he said that no one would so much as look at me if i didn’t have any credentials. Most of my peers have ignored me and made me feel almost completely unimportant. Aside from that, I genuinely would be fulfilled by gaining real knowledge, developing critical thinking skills, and bringing people life-changing, life-giving value, the sort that makes the world a healthier, greener place.
I would love to work with adolescents and families and people of all ages actually to help them tap into and optimize their creative, physical, social and spiritual potential, especially the more I tap into and realize my own. I would love to be able to become a competent life coach and a global community leader.
Credentials are a strange thing.
When I tell people what I do, their faces change. Half of them start sharing something deeply personal — despite me being a total stranger with a title.
Sometimes I play the doctor's card deliberately. It usually softens attitudes.
Acquiring knowledge is the stated goal of a university degree. But I think what it really does is train a particular way of thinking. Engineers and doctors don't just carry different knowledge. They see the world differently.
The credential signals the mindset.