I suggest you read your own sources again, then, because this clear-cut statement from your first one says nothing about intrinsic reward:
Definition: Hothouse children are children whose parents push them into learning more quickly and earlier than is appropriate for the cognitive age of the children.
Some may notice that in reading comprehension tests, the exact words of the Q&A may *not* be found in the story thereby testing the understanding of the meaning of various words and concepts. Similarly, in this case, the concepts presented by the words "parents push" may contrast with the child experiencing "intrinsic reward" when something is "appropriate for the cognitive age of the children".
As with many circumstances in life, the degree to which ideas resonate with different people, and each individual's take-away may vary considerably based upon their uniquely accumulated previous experiences and resultant knowledge base.
You're putting too much emphasis on this statement, which is poorly written, and I suspect, based on the examples given, the author intended it to be directed towards toddler and pre-K age groups:
Gifted children are not generally hothouse children even though they are learning material more quickly and earlier than most children their age. However, the learning is child-centered, which means the desire to learn comes from the child, not the parent.
The above is true for the years prior to 1st grade.
Agreed that this is geared toward toddler, pre-K, and/or years prior to 1st grade. The OP introduced the topic of hothousing focused on getting 2 & 3 year olds to read; The links I offered focused on this as well. Keeping the posts in context may be key to understanding. Rather than critique these sources, if you do not like them, might you offer other sources to consider?
Once they start pursuing a formal education, every child, no matter how intrinsically motivated, is going to find something they'd rather not learn. Making them learn it anyway is not hothousing.
Agreed. That is not the topic of this conversation and adding it here may be called "kitchen sinking".
Finally, the appeal to authority is a fallacy, and the term "experts" loses some of its authority in reference to About.com.
Some may say that your change of focus from the
specific author (Carol Bainbridge) to the
generalization of the overall website (About . com) is perhaps flawed logic? Ms. Bainbridge has both education credentials and experience with the gifted sufficient to write expert articles. She is listed several times on the Davidson Database, and is also one of recognized names endorsing the book "A Parent's Guide to Gifted Children".
In summary, parents tend to know when they are hot-housing their kids. Some parents believe these are good approaches to keep their kiddo/s competitive... others believe these practices may be detrimental. Some may believe hot-housing works (or they would not engage in it), others believe at least certain hot-housing practices do not work, still others observe hot-housing may provide a temporary boost to achievement/performance after which the child/ren's achievement/performance may even out.
