I agree with others-- especially MegMeg and Colinsmum, who point out the logical fallacy related to the statistics here.
Returning to the case in the article: What are the chances that a child prodigy (B) will go on to do great things (A)? Pretty high. What are the chances that the next Great Thing Doer (A) was a child prodigy (B)? Not the same thing.
Worth repeating.
YES.
I also found it puzzling that the
real problem highlighted by the author (well, in my own estimation, anyway) seems to have been quite clearly identified by many of those high-ability persons
commenting on it-- that is, that it's all the more important to give such children truly
appropriate educational and socio-emotional supports as children.
That's not the same thing as media feting, or parental fawning. The author seems to be stating that it's unfair to children such as he was to place unrealistic notions in their heads, and unfair to make them arrogant or 'too sure of their greatness.' (maybe it was just me?) Because, naturally, most of them (just like everyone else) are destined to be just one of a great herd of "pretty awesome" people, not "Very Superior and Awesome" ones, in the double-secret inner sanctum. Or something.
That false dichotomy really struck me as an out-of-touch kind of outlook, to be honest. For every HG+ person with this kind of upbringing, there are ten others who are berated, ignored, or just plain ground into dust by their circumstances.
I do agree that we should encourage non-prodigies to explore "hard" topics that prodigies shine at... and that we should NOT anticipate that there is "something wrong" with a prodigy that hasn't won a Fields or Nobel at at 25. Was Bach a less impressive composer than Mozart because he was a "late bloomer?" I hardly think so.
I'd also like to point out-- both to this author and also to Bostonian, above, that there
is life outside of the Ivory Tower. Even if you happen to have a PhD.
