Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research confused -- PG

First, the disclaimer, what I am about to write is not meant to be insulting, I really would like opinions.

I asked,under Ruf's book question, about kids here that finished college by 12-14. I got answers that there were kids ready to take college courses by 12. I am paraphrasing. I took some college courses at 11. And I also see DD in this group, but in my research I see this very differently than those considered PG and finishing their PhD in physics at 12.

Just like there are big differences between MG and EG, it seems that these fat tails lump EG and PG together. I think there is a big difference between kids like my DD that are ready to enter college at 12 and those that are doing mathematical modeling at 10.

Opinions on the EG/PG lumping and why?

Ren

IMO, a lot of this lumping occurs due to two words: opportunity and motivation. Kids may fall under EG or PG depending on these factors.

Think of a PG child who is forced to stay with age peers, never given an opportunity to accelerate and does not have the motivation to teach themselves because they have given up fighting.

I think I responded to that thread, and I see your point. Rereading the thread now, I see that I was responding to someone who was asking about level 5 kids condensing all of elementary school into the space of a year or two, and then being ready for college around age 11-12. That would be the case for us in terms of elementary school, and very possibly the case for the college issue. I do not see our son being ready for graduate school at 11 or 12. But, I don't doubt that such children exist.

Just as there is a major difference between a 130 child and a 150 child (to use the IQ standard), there must be a major difference between a 150 child and a 180-200 child. And, as you say, it is just as unfair to lump those groups together. Their capabilities at the same age will be markedly different. I completely agree with you.

One question: I wanted to clarify something about what you said. Are you saying that it is an EG child who would be ready for college at 11 (as opposed to a PG child, who would be ready several years earlier)? I'm trying to be sure I understand the labels involved.

Tara

Good point, Crisc. This definitely applies to our situation, where our son is very self-motivated and is able to move through things at his own pace instead of the proscribed pace of a school's curriculum.

I know that some people have great experiences in schools, but by and large I see PG children in school being marginalized.

Tara

I tend to agree with Crisc as well. A PG child does not always start college exactly when they are ready. If they are kept at grade level, they actually may be disengaged from all schooling and at a great risk for being a drop out. I read some interesting statistics about all gifted children and their HS drop out rates. If a child is in public school, parents have to advocate constantly and do a considerable amount of afterschooling.

Also some EG and PG children have a very narrow focus of interest and tend to submerge themselves into this topic. They may not have the motivation to excel in other subjects the same way. They may have the cognitive readiness to absorb indefinite amount of concepts but not the motivation.

I am curious where Ruf sees the cutoff btw. EG and PG as it relates to college? I understand IQ differences but I would think with college so many external factors come to play. I also think the EG/PG lumping occurs when the number of PG kids is statistically small and while there are many differences, there are similar characteristics.

Wren,
I agree with you that if we has 'standard' definitions for MG, HG, and PG it would be easier to communicate. I've been directed to contact Del Siegle, Ph.D to call for a conference to do just this. I'm working on it and I encourage every person here to do so a well.

Short Biography: Del Siegle, Ph.D., is an associate professor and teaching fellow in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut, where he teaches graduate courses in gifted education, creativity, and research design. He is president-elect of the National Association of Gifted Children and also serves on the board of directors of The Association for the Gifted (CEC-TAG).

National Association for Gifted Children
1707 L Street, N.W. - Suite 550
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 785-4268
Fax: (202) 785-4248
Email: nagc@nagc.org

Wren, every group defines their LOG differently, and this is primarily because of the limitations on IQ test (except SB-LM, which isn't considered 'modern')
so it becomes very difficult for you and I to have a meaningful conversation if your Idea of PG excludes everyone who isn't in graduate school by age 12, and my idea includes Ruf Level III kids. Wow - what a gulf!

I think we both agree that the labels themselves don't matter so much as being able to communicate.

Smiles,
Grinity

Yes, I am sure that there is PG lumping. I typically try to use the term HG+ to indicate that there are many layers beyond MG.

The issue of graduated college by 12, though, while related, is perhaps not a fair marker of the extreme PG. The kids who do that are doing it because their drive and their field of interest happen to match well with what college and grad school have to offer and the family is able geographically to meet that need. Many kids who may be equally smart may not have personalities to fit well with college at an early age, or whose gifts are fed without the commitment to college, or have parents that cannot or chose not to put there kid in a college. So even if there are only 7 (and this seems low) kids who are in college or grad school full time by 11, there are probably at least another 21 who are just as smart but 'solving" the problem a different way.

Grinity,

Thank you for the contact info and extemely interested in how he views it. In what I have read, and being the dillente in this forum, those rare PG kids don't seem to need the exposure. It seems their non-linear circuitry is already wired to have the info. It just comes to them, like when our 2 year old suddenly subtracts 97 from 106. But when you ask them 5 minutes later, they couldn't tell you.

I am curious how the Giga Society views it since they are the extremes in non-linear wiring. So a six old who reads ancient Turkish script doesn't do it because his parents give him a DVD on lost midEastern languages but he just knows how.

I think taking out EG from PG lumps them together. In my barely scatched the surface opinion, the EG is really what Ruf is talking about Levels 3-5. Kids that learn easily, early, and are motivated at a very young age to learn deeply about subjects. Their retention rates are amazingly high for their age but they do not come out of the womb knowing derivative math. They can learn it quickly, easily but they don't just know how to calculate a nonhomeogenous equation to the nth degree at 8 just because thier brain is wired to figure it out.

There is a book: Child Prodigies and Exceptional Early Achievers By John Radford, so maybe these are not PG but prodigies. Though other books lump them as prodigies and PG.

So why? Because the EG child, as I define EG needs a great deal of educational advocacy. I agree with Ruf that these are the kids at most risk. The prodigy type do not get lost. They are at MIT by the time they are 10. But the next level need the challenge and acceleration to keep the motivation.

And since I think DD falls into this level, this is what I need to know as her parent. When I talked with Hunter about her non-linear processing, her comment was that until they are 6 or 7, they do not even know how the answers come into their heads. So I do not even know if at 6 or 7, if there are things to cultivate the non-linear circuitry. I do notice as her linear abilities in math increase, she relies less on the non-linear answers, but other things are coming non-linear. Her analysis and understanding of events and situations. Things she will describe. So I am looking at how to I support the non-linear development since the linear knowledge line is very straight forward.

I look forward to seeing what you hear Grinity.

Ren

I agree with the last three posts (before Wren's because we crossposted and I haven't read hers yet) in their entirety.

Judging LOG strictly (or even to a great extent) by school placement doesn't make any more sense to me than judging strictly by IQ score. Intelligence is more complicated than either of those would indicate. Motivation plays a big role.

Then, too, even if my DS is ready for college at 10 or 12 or even 14, he's not going! Frankly, I'M not ready for that! He'd take online college courses, have a private tutor, travel...but I'm NOT going to send him away to college at that age.

I think the majority of parents feel that way. I'd bet most PG kids feel that way, even. And there are so many things kids can do and learn between 10 and grad school that there's just no reason for them to go that route if it's not the ideal solution for them.

They need to learn, yes. But life is not a race with the one out of grad school fastest getting the prize. And for most of these "tail" kids, grad school at 12 is not something they need. If they do, more power to them, naturally! But most don't need that. Even the PG kids.

I guess it seems to me that you're looking for some hard and fast rule to define LOGS, Wren. There simply isn't one. Not yet, anyway. We're all stumbling along trying to figure it out. There are so few kids in the tails that the tails get lumped. It's almost inevitable because we don't have good ways to distinguish the PGers from the EGers from the HGers because there's so much involved in intelligence, including motivation and opportunity, as Crisc mentioned. Our tests are not designed to distinguish at the tails. Talk of 180 and 200 IQs are misleading and outdated--the tests that are usually given don't even go that high anymore! We're all sort of stuck, and none of us are crazy about it, as Grinity indicates.

Heck, Mia and I were fantasizing not long ago about creating a test designed exclusively for the tail, so that we could tell an HG kid from EG from PG with precision. Ah, what a lovely dream...with no real way of existing in the real world!

So I guess my question to you, Wren, would be why does the difference between EG and PG matter to you at this point in your DD's development? Does it change the way you're going to raise her or educate her if she's "only" HG or EG and not PG? Is this just curiosity or do you have a personal stake in the question?

Wren,

I asked you once about this linear/non-linear stuff, since I've never really heard anyone talk about it in terms of GTness, but I don't think you ever responded. I know what the terms mean, obviously, but I'm not clear about why you use them so much when talking about GTness.

Could you help me to understand? Is there some source for this take on GTness, or is it your own way of looking at the world that's reflected?

I'm trying to follow you, but I personally don't see much relevance to GTness. A nonlinear thinker can be GT, perhaps a GT poet or physicist who thinks outside the lines. But so can a linear thinker, who might be a GT chemist or a computer progammer, where following the process requires rigid logic.

Am I missing something? (I may well be!)

A thought: when you say "non-linear," are you talking about critical thinking skills like synthesis and analysis vs. lower level skills like memorization which you're calling "linear"?

Thanks!

K-