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

To the OP. My 6 year old is extremely musical - ever since he was a baby. He started piano at 4 years old and at 6 plays at the intermediate level. He is good at music theory too. The amazing thing for us is that he can play pieces by ear - and these are classical pieces that he listens to on classical radio (yup, that is all he listens to). And he has been cranking out musical compositions for more than a year now - cute songs about superheroes fighting bad guys and the rain outside canceling his playdate at the park etc. His compositions have amazing details -like pedaling, speed changes, movements, legatos, different octaves etc. Infact, he won a prize when I casually entered his composition for a contest open to 9 year olds.
BUT, we think that it is more of a passion than anything else. If I morphed into Amy Chua, we might see "results" from it. But, I am a wimpy Tiger Mom and want my child to "enjoy exploring" music - with a parental attitude like this, he will not end up a prodigy. He might pick up and learn 4 or 5 instruments and play really well at the school level and then go on to a STEM career as several have done before him in our family.
So, in our case, there is no prodigy lurking in there - just a fun loving, curious little kid with an aptitude and ear for music.

There are definitely different varieties of parenting a prodigy.

To say all prodigies are forced or areas of their life neglected sounds like sour grapes to me, akin to parents of average kids about gifted kids.

Thanks CFK - I was wondering about Jake Barnett with the non-STEM part. I didn't think he had the background for it either based on his mother's book. And yes, I'd say he's more savant-like than prodigy, though I can see why people classify him as a prodigy. Early college is seen as being an indication of a prodigy, but I agree that there are shades of gray with that classification.

Ultramarina - I've read Far From the Tree, Scott Kaufman's book, Ungifted, and been thinking about this as well due to my ds8. So I can commiserate with you. Yes, it's definitely not easy when it's your kid and even more challenging when it's a field/subject that is far from your proverbial tree. It does and can happen though. Genes can skip a generation or around. Funny and/or unusual things can happen in utero and affect them for life that pushes them into another world.

Here's Solomon's NY Times article on (classically trained musical) prodigies - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/magazine/how-do-you-raise-a-prodigy.html?pagewanted=all

That's very true about your point with Einstein, Newton, etc. - we don't always have the ability to recognize and nurture extreme talent at all times and places in history. Part of it is being born at the right time and right place. It's chance and happenstance. Still, it seems some of these 'prodigies' blossom regardless of when and where they're born. They're just so driven and determined, it seems.

An omnibus prodigy is one with a multitude of talents. That's rarer than a musical prodigy, for example, which tend to be more singular talent in nature - and significantly less studied too. Ainan Cawley and Tanishq Abraham are touted rare types, omnibus prodigies. Their talents cross many domains.

I think with math and someone like Tao, it's just easier to identify as a pg and/or prodigy (both labels have been applied to him). Tao's father gave some guidance and mentorship, but more importantly was able to identify the prodigiousness. There probably are other Tao-like kids around who are not being identified by their parents or picked up on by schools for a number of reasons. Remember, too, we know about Tao, in particular, because Miraca Gross studied him (http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10116.aspx).

Tanishq Abraham is being homeschooled by his parents who have also been successful at helping him. Still, geographically, the family lives in CA which has also played a huge role too. He's got more opportunities than someone living in other parts of the world.

Taylor Wilson's parents moved to Davidson Academy so he could pursue studying nuclear fusion (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/boy-who-played-fusion?nopaging=1). Naturally, not everyone is in a position to move across the country or is willing to do so. IF he didn't move to Davidson or if didn't contact certain people who were willing to help, he probably would have been hampered in his abilities.

There's no musical prodigy without usually instruments in the house. So exposure has to be a huge factor. You don't own a piano, your child isn't going to be able to practice playing it then. You don't play or listen to classical music; your kid/s aren't going to suddenly start composing it.

I don't know where the line is between an omnibus prodigy and/or pgness. I don't know if one exists. There seems to be a lot of slipperiness with these definitions and classifications. And not many studies at all, except on those classical, musical prodigies.

I think prodigies still need to be encouraged and their gifts/talents fostered. But there's a line and a balance in life, which I think Tao's parents realized and tried to address - or at least that's what I've read (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/s...ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&_r=0). And you do have to think about the child's emotional/social well-being irrespective of their prodigiousness.

What I also noticed from the various readings is that musical prodigies (who seem to be studied the most) start very early, like in infancy, toddlerhood, or as a preschooler (3/4 yrs old). STEM prodigies seem to flourish a little later in their field, around 6-11 years old. Taylor Wilson built his first bomb at 10.

I certainly know what you mean. It's a life of sacrifice for child and parent, even at high but not-stratospheric levels. Is it inescapably bad for the child in the end? I don't know. Are Olympic athletes and prima ballerinas stunted people? I'm quite sure some of them are. All of them?

(It's ironic to me to find myself arguing this end of it. I'm playing devil's advocate more than a little. Note that we still have not signed DS5 up for anything other than chess tournaments local to our actual city, despite pressure from his coach to travel overnight with him to regionals, states, and nationals.)

There's definitely a difference between people like Elton John, Yo Yo Ma, Lang Lang, and Marvin Hamlisch and a pg with musical talents. It's not just ambition, motivation, or drive. There seems to be a 'x' factor with them that propels them to world-class musicianship, which differs from the rest.

There's just something extraordinary about their gifts. Elton John acknowledges that he's got a rare, beautiful gift/talent and almost appears embarrassed by it when he's questioned on it by interviewers. He doesn't want to dwell on the fact. He knows it's not 'normal'.

Ultramarina - there's UK television series on YouTube which featured a chess prodigy. The parents were homeschooling him and went through a lot of hurdles (which you've mentioned) to compete at chess tournaments. The child ended up losing to Russians/East Europeans and was disappointed. I felt so bad for the parents who felt terrible and seemed so 'normal'.

So yes, I would agree that the parents, including us, make huge sacrifices - financial, emotional, physical, etc. That's a huge part of it. There's the school part or un/homeschooling, then there's the coaches, mentors, or other professionals for guidance and help.

I think there were some Olympic ice competitors who literally lived in trailers so they could afford the ice rink time/practice. The parents were willing to make the sacrifices.

You cannot ignore it. The child will often not let you.

There is a huge difference between a child being this driven and the parent. It can be very hard for outsiders to tell the difference. I went to university with a 11 year old child 'prodigy'. (You can still find articles, he was on TIME or Newweek magazine.) He was awarded his BA in math at the same time I did. I did in fact interact with this boy, and it was clear he was a VERY unhappy kid. By the time I'd met the kid, it was clear dad was the one pushing. No question the kid was HG+ and gifted in math, but his senior project was NOT up to par with the rest of us. The whole story deteriorated that summer, with the end result of the kid going back to live with his mom and his going back to junior high.

I am in no means saying that there is a problem with all 11 year olds in college. Just in this case dad lost his perspective on what was in his son's best interest.

Absolutely true in child-led situations. I definitely wasn't suggesting otherwise.


Nor, to address Dusty's remark, am I expressing "sour grapes" of any kind. Frankly, I do think that my DD probably has potential prodigy talent in a couple of domains-- but it would not have been child-led, and like ashley, I'm a wimpy, pale shadow of a TigerMom. Honestly-- I'm relieved that this isn't a parenting problem that I am faced with. I have quite enough on my plate already with a PG child, tyvm. I don't need or even want fame in my life or hers. I think media attention is fairly toxic-- IMHO.

I've known a handful of child-athletes who were elite level. Everything in their lives, and much of their parents' as well, revolves around the talent and its insatiable demands. Their lives are strange as a result of those sacrifices, and you really don't ever get those years of childhood and adolescence back. If you have no common experience with others to draw from, it can make you a lonely and awkward adult. I've also seen the "tempered" form of prodigy-raising; where parents place reasonable (though it might not seem that way to outsiders) limits on how much, and enforce them. No, those kids mostly do NOT rise to international prominence, but then again, they also take the time to develop OTHER aspects of themselves, so that failure in the prodigy domain doesn't assume epic proportions and prove destructive. It's inevitable that at some point you WILL lose, you will fail, etc. If you have other parts to your identity, it doesn't destroy you. My experience there is competitive gymnastics, btw-- male and female family members who were nationally competitive, but whose parents put their feet firmly down re: quitting school to do it full time, and were reluctant to do international competition. They did NOT push through injuries to compete, etc.

I think that most of us here can identify with that-- we all TRY to balance our kids' cravings for intellectually meaningful experiences with the ability to still be their chronological ages for some portion of their lives, right? Some of us make deliberate choices to encourage/provide popular materials (books, games, movies, etc. etc.) even if we think them vapid and pointless-- simply for social currency. It's a very conscious thing at our house, anyway.

But what happens when there just isn't enough TIME to do that? As a parent, it is awfully tempting to justify sacrificing normative childhood experiences in the name of extraordinary talent... but no, I am not sure that it is always a wise thing to do, even if it works out well on the talent side of things.

By definition, a prodigy has an extraordinary area of development, one that outstrips OTHER development. It's extreme asynchrony that has been encouraged and nurtured. So yes, I do think that probably is inherently not "balanced" development, and I also don't think that there is any way around the fact that it can dominate a child's developmental arc and swamp out other legitimate issues/concerns/needs. In spite of well-meaning parents.

I suppose that gets back to parenting philosophy when you get right down to it. I would probably discourage a prodigy by insisting on time away from the obsession. In the name of living in the world with others, I mean, and retaining additional facets of one's self. Parents who are 100% child-led or seduced by the idea of a prodigy for a child wouldn't see it that way.

It's not an easy set of conditions to parent. That much is certain.

I agree that it makes a huge difference whether all the effort is child-led or parent-led. But everyone also doesn't necessarily want the same thing. Whereas some might really cherish a "normal childhood", others think that the things that they do, which are so different from what other kids do, are entirely "normal to them". I think lots of parents here see this in their house all the time. I remember reading about this a lot in both Far From The Tree, and in Developing Talent in Young People. A world-class swimmer commented that he didn't play much with kids in school and in the neighborhood but he didn't mind at all. He said something like "those kids were trying out for neighborhood kids baseball teams, and I was already one of the best swimmers in the country. Why would I give up this and join them?" There was the mom of a music prodigy who said "look at what he does. He is not a normal child. Why does he want a 'normal' childhood?" And this prodigy himself said that playing piano for 8 hours a day is extremely normal for him and those kids who don't do this miss out a lot.

So it all depends on everyone's unique perspective.

Sacrifice is simply a fact of life for parents. We all do it at times. Some big, some small. As long as we believe that it's worthwhile for us, it's the right choice. We just can't justify it or regret it based on the outcome. We are not businessmen, we are parents.

I had fun reading ashley's post because she described so well our situation. Both of my kids are very talented young musicians, they play instruments at a very high level, my son composes ferociously, they do a ton of theory, have great ears, perform in many occasions, study with the best teachers around, and I go out of my way to find the best opportunities for them. But I'm not a tiger mom. I sometimes wonder how much further they would have been if I insisted that they practiced two hours a day instead of one. But that's just not who I am. I'd be happy to help my kids do things that they love to do as kids, and I'd be happy to let them decide who they want to be when they grow up. Those who choose other parenting styles will simply have a different set of challenges and rewards. (Like ashley, I also doubt that my son will end up being a musician. I think it's likely that he will have fun with music as an adult but pick a different career.)