The Orchid and the Dandelion (2024)

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.

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 . . .

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.

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 circ*mstances, 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.”

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.

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.

„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. Asem*nea 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 - asem*nea 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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

I couldn’t finish it. The physician writes in a haphazard way, and even as a physician I found the narrative hard to follow

One part parenting book, one part crash course in epigenetics, fascinating throughout.

⭐️ 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 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.

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.

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.

3.5 stars

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.

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 circ*mstances. 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.

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.

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.

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.

W. Thomas Boyce does a profound job of teasing out the intricacies of this analogy in clinical research while humanizing these narratives of orchid children. We see that his sister is a major centerpiece in his discourse and he uses his own personal research and life experiences to paint a picture of children's individual needs. This book is a great overview on the phenomena of the highly-sensitive child (orchid children) and the more typical unperturbed child (dandelion children). Both in their developmental stages can incur lifelong traumas and illnesses, but it's apparent that orchid children assume most of these cases of life-debilitating diseases, mental health disparities, and emotional deficits. These personality types are merely metaphorical and social constructs use to explain this mysterious but seemingly real distinction between children. There's an underlying psychological and physiological phenomenon in these orchid children that branch over into giftedness, anxiety/depression, psychosis, along with other chronic health issues. As a researcher, brother, and parent, W. T. Boyce's writing is a wonderful combination of an academic witness, sensational romantic prose, and his struggles on this topic are balanced off with enduring faith. Quite an enjoyable and insightful read.

This one was a flop for me. I’ve read the theory and thought it would be neat to learn more, but I couldn’t get past the first few chapters. The author was incredibly self aggrandizing and had a really unsettling way of speaking about girls/women. He also spent an inordinate amount of time discussing dichotomies, as though the reader couldn’t possibly understand how some children/circ*mstances are opposite of others. I wanted the research and practical advice, not the prose. I couldn’t get past the author’s self importance and weird vibes. (I think reading Neurotribes this year might have influenced me too lol). I also don’t think all kids can be split up into two distinct groups (especially when you factor disabled kids in), which I’m sure was probably explored later in the book...but I just couldn’t sit through anymore of it.

Here’s a quick summary article to save everyone time:

https://www.scarymommy.com/raising-or...

A verbose and repetitive book that could be edited to a quarter of its length. The author makes a point that resilient children (dandelions) and less resilient children (orchids) are: the outcomes of a complicated mix of genetics, epigenetics, parenting-style, environment, poverty, past family history and any trauma that is encountered and how this all links to the child’s mental and physical health. The book gives basic tips on what to do if you have on orchid including giving them the opportunity to express themselves, play, providing some level protection in stressful situations, love and assurance.

The premise sounds interesting, and the reports on the data collection are definitely thought-provoking. There is a good book in here somewhere. I just can't get past the purple prose long enough to find it.

My sister and I lost our mother at ages 16 and 13 respectively and raised by an emotionally distant alcoholic father. She managed to thrive where I struggled. Finally there’s a book to explain the difference we only knew instinctually as a matter of family.

I got this book at a difficult time in my child’s (orchid) life to give me some hope, but that’s not what I got. Instead it was a difficult read with not much insight into my child’s behavior or his future. Lots of stories and fluff and not much concrete advice.

The Orchid and the Dandelion by W Thomas Boyce review – which are you?

Some people seem to have terrible childhoods and yet manage to thrive despite them. Others grow up in loving homes but suffer from mental and physical health difficulties, even if their siblings do not. Why?
Research shows that about 15 to 20 % of children experience well over half of the recorded psychological illnesses. The remaining 75 to 80 % are comparatively healthy. This pattern continues into adulthood, and appears to be true for children around the world.

The first variable you would expect to account for these differences is whether the child comes from a prosperous or a poor background. It’s true, children from poorer backgrounds suffer slightly more illnesses and show more signs of psychological disturbance, but socioeconomic factors by no means account for all children who are in that fifth of the population who suffer half the illnesses. Whether a child blossoms or falters is driven wholly neither by environment nor by genetics, but by the interplay between the two. In this book, paediatric health expert W Thomas Boyce identifies two personality types. He argues that four fifths of children appear to be “dandelions”, who can thrive in most environments. The remaining fifth are “orchids”, who are more exquisite and unusual and have a higher potential than dandelions – but for this to be realised they require a particular environment and careful gardening. Like delicate plants, these children, if dealt with insensitively, have a greater tendency to run into problems.

How do you tell if a child is an orchid? They tend to be sensitive, shy, have negative emotional reactions to novel or changing conditions, and perhaps display challenging behaviour. But these symptoms cannot be taken as proof that a child will necessarily respond in a certain way to tests and show a high stress biological reaction to an external stressor. The symptoms are only correlations, they can only indicate that it is likely.

Boyce and his team test the biological stress response in children by setting various tasks such as watching an emotional video, having to repeat a string of numbers back to the researcher and having a drop of lemon juice put on the tongue and being asked to say what that was like. Although the experiment is scripted, and the researchers who test the children are all warm towards their subjects, how much cortisol (a stress hormone) and how much their autonomic nervous system (flight-or-fight response) is stimulated varies enormously, though in a predictable way. Time and time again, about four fifths of subjects show low levels of biological stress in these tests, and a fifth exhibit significantly higher stress levels. The children who show the higher stress response often have a slightly warmer right ear when their temperatures are taken, while others often have a slightly warmer left ear. Again, these differences in ear temperature can only indicate a possibility, not a certainty.

When children are tested after a stressful time, such as a family breakup, an earthquake or a different change in environment a pattern emerges. If orchids get the right nurturing, sufficient soothing and opportunities for self-expression – in other words, an environment that allows their sensitivities to work for them – they come out on top, higher than the dandelions. But if their environment works against them, they sink to the bottom, below the more robust dandelions who are less affected by their environment. The take-home message of the book is: orchid children are more susceptible to both negative and positive social conditioning; they have both the best outcomes and the worst.

Boyce tells the story of himself and his sister: he the dandelion, she the orchid. Not being so susceptible to the sometimes critical atmosphere of their childhood home, he went on to excel, whereas her early promise was confounded by physical and mental illnesses – she killed herself when she was 53. With hindsight, he can see that he was only slightly troubled by, say, his parents fighting, whereas she was immobilised with fear, frozen and traumatised by it. He believes a more sensitive, nurturing environment would have allowed her confidence and obvious talents to blossom and her story to have had a happier outcome.

This is a necessary and important book. To know that one fifth of people do not have a choice about how they physically react to stress should make us more understanding of the differences between us all. Children should be nurtured so that both orchids and dandelions can thrive. But I worry about how the orchid and dandelion theory might be employed. The danger of putting people into categories is that we unwittingly respond not to the person, but to their label.