Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums Highly gifted vs prodigy...how to tell the differe

I am new to this forum. My son is 9 yrs old and was identified as highly gifted in kindergarten, his full scale score on the WISC-IV was 147 (99.9%). He has breezed through school thus far however, has not shown a propensity toward any particular subject/area, until now. 5 days ago, he began the typical 4th grade recorder curriculum in our public school system. He is excelling at an extremely rapid rate. He can perfectly perform (from memory) selections that will not be formally taught for months and seems to have a natural ability to read music. Last night, he watched a video of someone playing jingle bells on a recorder once, then played the song with little difficulty and could recite (and remember) what notes were played on the video. He shows an intense and passionate desire to hone in on the craft by choosing challenging selections that he can "perfect". Is this ability typical amongst gifted children?

Welcome

Yup, he sounds just like me (IQ 153), and I don't consider myself a prodigy. Music, along with everything else, came easy to me at that age (still does for the most part). I started playing guitar at age 9 and quickly surpassed the other kids in my class to the point where the instructor told my mom she couldn't teach me anything else and I need to find someone new.

My DD (then 7) was playing two handed piano and writing her own arrangements after only three months of lessons. She learns very quickly and has a natural aptitude for music. She plays by ear as well as reads music and has never had a problem figuring out how to play songs from memory. This year she started clarinet in band (she's now 11) and sat on the counch one day and figured out how to play "In Flander's Fields" by ear... this was in November and she'd only had the instrument for a couple of weeks and hadn't been formally taught anything. Anyone who has picked up a clarinet and tried to get something other than a squeak out of it can attest to how impressive that is, lol.

She also does not seem to be a prodigy.

So here's my question (because maybe I'm wrong about the two of us)... what defines a prodigy? Is it exceptional talent, potential, drive and achievement all blended together, or is it any of those elements alone? To me "prodigy" is a very specific word to be used selectively, and I don't consider myself or my daughter in that category.

Are some kids at prodigy level because they're forced by their parents to spend hours practicing, or does the term "prodigy" encompass an inherent mastery drive that supersedes distractions or other interests?

If I compare myself and my daughter to the kids who I consider are prodigies, this question comes to mind: at what point does a natural aptitude for music cross over into prodigy territory?

This strikes me as a neat talent to have, in terms of musical skill, however I think of it as more of a cognitive feature that's nice to have.

I view it in the same vein as a photographic memory, but with respect to music.

I would think that a real "prodigy" to the extent that word means anything, would have an internal drive toward musical composition or performance.

One of the concepts out there is the idea of a "rage to master." This can be with many highly gifted or almost all prodigies or even some more typical kids. Some of us follow one topic for a whle until we feel done with it, then relax until another takes hold. I would guess you might have seen some of this before now. Like a Lego kit obsession or Harry Potter or something else that took hold for awhile outside of academics?

I don't think you can immediately tell that someone is a prodigy, despite the associations we have with the word. You have to watch and wait for a bit, and allow for some instruction or at least time with the subject. I would look into a different instrument for your child--perhaps piano or violin. Prodigy or not, sounds like he possesses natural musical talent for sure.


This seems like a good definition to me. But what kind of adult? I'm terrible at chess and I don't play piano, so lots of kids are prodigies by my standard. At the same time, I think you could be a child prodigy and not be at the level of a world-class pianist or chess player at 7.

Yes!! This... exactly. With everything, not just music. The problem with DD, DS and I is that we delve into something too deeply, beyond its practical application, then become completely bored and done with it and reluctant to resurrect it later when it becomes useful or relevant.

My DS learned to play chess a week or so after his 6th birthday and was the only grade 1 student in his school who could. He could beat adults. He's since become bored and stopped playing. Was he a prodigy?

My DD when she was 7 and burning up the piano recital circuit (lol) had(still has) an aptitude that surpassed many (non musical) adults. She also got bored and drifted away from it and has not progressed at a "prodigy rate" despite her early promise. She is lagging in skills because of her weakened interest (and I never played "tiger-mom") Was she a prodigy?

I think the term can be hard to define. To me it encompasses skill and achievement as well as potential, but I could be wrong.

Chess seems like a field where you could actually have quite a lot of prodigies by this standard, with my admittedly still somewhat surface knowledge of the chess world. A lot of kids are really good at chess! I almost feel like this is an area where kids are slightly advantaged over adults (compared to something like math, music, or certainly art).

Yes to UM's post; part of the problem in parsing this, it seems to me, is that the terms involved are just so darned slippery.

How do you decide which "domains" are worth the name, for example?

What about a child that can do NOTHING but play with Legos for hours? My attention would wander... so that child is better at this than this adult is.

My DD6 had the reading ability of a college-educated adult, for example. I hardly thought this worth applying the term "prodigy" to her, however.

I don't really know. The term prodigy seems to mostly be applied to children who have obvious talents that many adults DO NOT possess. These are not necessarily things that can be taught to just anyone-- at least not at such a level of proficiency, if that makes sense. Most adults can't learn to play chess more than "adequately" after all, so a child of 8-10yo who can beat most adults at chess might be considered a "prodigy."

What I find fascinating is that simply playing at a high level of technical skill seldom warrants the term, it seems. For some reason, most people interpret that as training-- not innate ability. I'm not sure that is correct either. What do you call someone like my DD, who doesn't really care much about music, yet plays late intermediate works on less than 15minutes of practice daily? Well, she certainly lacks rage to master, that's for sure. So does the fact that she can whip out Bartok and Scarlatti with such minimal practice say anything about her? I think that it probably does-- she has the latent ability... but isn't interested in developing that talent. But she's no piano prodigy. Would she look like one if I were willing to employ Amy Chua-level pressure? Perhaps. In fact, I think it plausible.

I'm not sure that I really understand the question completely-- after all, HG+ is a category which is inclusive of PG persons.

Not everyone who is PG has a talent that elevates them to "prodigy" status in the popular conception of the term. There is a lot of misunderstanding about that, in fact. The two terms aren't really synonymous.

A child can (IMO) exhibit a prodigy talent and not even be PG. Savants do this with some regularity-- it's what makes them so remarkable and fascinating.


On the other hand, a child with very high cognitive potential may lack a singular talent like this. My DD seems to-- she's quite well-rounded, but not "extraordinary" in any way that seems fascinating to others. I don't know how much of that is her choice to be this way, versus a lack of an area that could be developed this way. There's an element of intrinsic motivation that comes into play when you talk about prodigy manifesting in children.

My son's intrinsic motivation with chess has been quite extraordinary to watch. It is one reason I've wondered if he might be a bit of a prodigy. Some kids study chess. DS inhales chess like chocolate.

However, I still feel it's early to tell, though we have intentionally not rushed into hardcore competition.

ETA: Meanwhile, his sister is good at chess at well--much better than she lets on at school--but it is not and never has been intoxicating to her. She could be at least as good as some of the second-tier club players in her grade, which is not at all shabby at her school. But there's not the same spark. She plays because her brother wants to, and she's gotten progressively better because she really hates to lose to her younger sib.

The SAT is normed to have average scores of about 500 for each section, and I don't think that middle-aged adults do better on the SAT than 18-year-olds on average. A 9yo who scores 500 on an SAT section is talented, but I would be reluctant to use the term "prodigy". A 9yo who scored 750+ on a section or 2100+ on all three could be plausibly termed a prodigy, and I think a score of 2300+ would merit the term. So my implicit definition of prodigy is a child who performs at the level of the "best" adults, where best may mean top 1% or 5%.