Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Tell me about your extremely literal kid

DS7 is an extremely literal and concrete thinker. He gets frustrated and annoyed when anyone asks him to make inferences or abstract interpretations (His GIEP says that he is "not inclined to make meaningful inferences").

I wonder how this should shape our choice of learning environment and materials for him.

For example, while is is extremely bright in math (160 on WIAT), I wonder if programs like the Art of Problem Solving would not be a good fit because of his rigidness.

While his reading is assessed at the 5th grade level, I wonder if literalness will make it difficult for him to thrive if he were accelerated more in this area.

I'd love to hear stories of your literal kids and their 'learning trajectory'

Ul.H.

Hmmm... well, DD's literalness tends to be quite spotty and we've generally attributed it to maturity rather than anything else. It's like it is one of those funky "blind-spots" where more normative development exists in tandem with the advanced cognitive development, KWIM?

That said, she REALLY struggled with this when she was 8-10yo and enrolled in a literature analysis elective intended for GT 7th-8th graders. The reason was precisely what you are (rightly) wary of; she simply read too literally to understand the connotative/implied/symbolic meaning in some selections. Some of that was a lack of life experience, frankly, and her observations sometimes differed quite radically from her typical-age classmates, but in the end it was good for her.

I believe, on the basis of what we saw with DD, that this is to some extent a set of learned skills. I'm recalling the thought-provoking statement posted here recently re: our kids and "deliberate" versus accidental learning.

I might give something like this a try as enrichment and see where it goes. Yes, it will probably be frustrating for both of you, at least initially, but it will make his learning experiences much richer in the long run. DD really digs into literature, art and history now in a way that she didn't before she learned to see past that literal surface.


ETA: In talking to the teacher about this problem (and wondering whether we should rethink the placement), the teacher's take on this was that MOST students struggle to develop this skill as middle schoolers. MOST elementary aged kids are quite literal, and inclined to think inside that box. As she put it; "some COLLEGE students struggle with this set of skills, and frankly, some of them never really learn to look past that literal surface meaning." In other words, she really didn't think that DD was experiencing a failure in terms of placement. Just learning. Which was what we were all actually hoping for, so that was good. LOL.

Other things which 'stretch' kids this way--

political cartoon analysis. Is it funny? why?

Caricatures-- both literary and visual

metaphors and similes

analogies.

HTH.

Interesting... DS's literalness could certainly be something he'll work through, though I've always seen it as just part of his temperament.

I wonder how common litereralness is among very bright kids. Perhaps the lack on responses on this thread suggest that it is not usually "part of the package".

UL.h

Part of the package with my kid but he has Aspergers so it is part of his atypical neurology.

DD9 is often very literal in her interpretation of rules, but she is capable of thinking about exceptions and reasons once someone else turns her attention toward them. She is very, very precise about the use of language, and we're still working on how it's not polite to interrupt someone to correct their word usage, especially if it's minor. But her mother has to work on that skill, too.

I completely understand what you mean about having a literal kid...

When my DS was 3, he hit his little brother (2). I asked him why he did that and he said, "He wanted me to." When I asked him how he knew that he said, "Well, the golden rule says 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' and he had hit me, so I hit him back."

I had to explain you weren't literally supposed to do what others do unto you.

Most recently, his basketball coach put him in a spot on the floor and said, "Whatever you do, stay there and guard your man." My son took him literally and while his team moved to the other end of the court to play defense, my son stayed planted like a tree. The coach is yelling, "move, move, move." The audience can't figure out why my son isn't moving. -- Sometimes I feel like I am raising Amelia Bedilia (?)!

I am pretty sure literal thinking is very common at age 7. Abstract thinking evolves with age and life experience, and some people never become very good at thinking symbolically. It is something that can be worked on and developed but I certainly would not "worry" about a literal thinker at age 7.

I agree with HK in that nonliteral language interpretation is a learned skill. As parents, it's easy to be guilty of contributing to the problem, because we know our children need literal instructions at a very early age, and that can be a hard habit to break. It's not like there's a "Figurative Day" marked on the calendar that announces it's okay to change your style.

It's not something my DD8 seems to have an issue with, but she's being raised in a family where spoken language is regarded as a plaything. It's common to hear nonsense rhymes, made-up songs, and invented slang in our household. We do this because it's amusing to us, but it also accidentally teaches DD to look at language from a more nuanced perspective.

Exposure to pop culture also helps.

DD has been studying idioms this year as part of her 3rd grade curriculum, too, as part of state requirements. Don't ask me why "the bees knees" is required, though.

DD is rather literal. We've worked on it by intentionally upping our use of idiom and asking her if she knows what they mean. I've noticed that her understanding of humor and nonliteral language has improved a lot since she started reading a lot of Peanuts, Calvin and Hobbes, Garfield, etc. She also got funnier! That's an easy prescription--comics.


This is absolutely true here, too, but DD still has the tendency. I think it's just the way her mind is. She's also extremely exact and remembers details that I never would. It can be very useful, I must admit.


Interestingly, she is extremely good at analogies. It was her highest subtest score on her IQ test and she can knock them out of the park generally.

We use a lot of nonliteral language here too. DS10 is pretty good, but not a native speaker at it. When he's upset, he reverts noticeably to being more literal.

Comics, as Ultramarina said, are a standby; we find that Gary Larson's Far Side cartoons (and Dave Coverly's Speed Bump ones too) rely hugely on inference, and are highly useful in practicing that skill. Plus we laugh a lot.

To the OP's question: we are people who seek to bring up the floor more than to push the ceiling for our kids; so we don't shy away from curricula that draw on our kids' less developed skills. In fact, a curriculum in the subject of the child's strength that also exercises the weak spots seems just about perfect from my point of view.

DeeDee