I would further argue that euphemisms for "extraordinary cognitive ability" that mask reality (that this is a tail end of {gasp} a normal distribution)-- do not help, either.
It is INCORRECT to state that a child like my DD is "advanced." She isn't. She's qualitatively-- and ultimately, quantitatively-- different from most children.
I know this because we've seen it in action in her deevelopmental arc. "Advanced" implies that my 6yo was "about like a third grader," or that acceleration is a sole solution to the problem-- something that educators already believe as part of the mythology of what asynchronous development means.
This isn't helpful.
Not all five year olds who can read like fifteen-year-olds should be studying Othello or The Holocaust. But "advanced" tidily implies that this might be, you know, a thing. It simply is not.
Again-- we know, because we were in fact forced to VERY carefully tease apart what emotional readiness our PG-let had at various points in her developmental arc, and what might be beyond her, or too much at the time. We made occasional missteps-- some of which I've posted about here. It was a minefield, quite frankly-- as a parent, one never really knew what she'd maintain a safe emotional distance from and what she'd unexpectedly personally-identify with.
"Advanced" is not the term for highly asynchronous development. Period. It's a gross oversimplification that is a huge disservice to children who are HG/HG+ in particular.
This is no better than assuming that a child with an FSIQ of 60 is "delayed." What, so eventually that child will "get" to calculus or esoteric theological analysis??
Again, I'm not saying that cognition is a fixed thing. Clearly it is not. But I do think that there is a lot of money to be made in promulgating the belief that anyone can be Einstein if they just try harder, and if they just "let go of what's holding them back" (preferably by some kind of "training" module, for a modest fee, no doubt).
What if there is an "optimized" developmental arc for an individual... and then there is everything LESS than that ideal?
That might not be such a popular idea, but it sure seems to be the one most consistent with every bit of data I've ever seen published, no matter what the authors suggest that it means.
