|
0 members (),
304
guests, and
16
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
You cannot ignore it. The child will often not let you. 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 am relieved too. But "let them have a normal childhood" is what people say when we want acceleration. Lots of people don't have that idyllic childhood people dream off but with TRUE prodigies (self driven) that is at least their choice. A child who puts their social life first will probably not be a prodigy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,690 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,690 Likes: 1 |
That is not true. Lang Lang said that many prodigies cannot sustain a professional career through the teens because of social pressures. He said very few continue. They were still prodigies but didn't continue professoinally. I know of 2 violionists who in their midteens, stopped performing professionally and took a different path.
And if you look at the documentary on Mark Yu, his mother made him practice. Is he a prodigy, yes, did his mother make him practice 6 hours a day at the age of 7, yes. She homeschooled him and his world became the piano. DD had a piano prodigy, now teacher from Juilliard. Her mother made her practice 6 hours a day and she stopped at 11 and didn't touch the piano again for 2 years. Then went back and got into pre Julliard at 14. She said it was such a big part of her life, she didn't know what else to fill it with when she stopped. It became who she was.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,489
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,489 |
That is not true. Lang Lang said that many prodigies cannot sustain a professional career through the teens because of social pressures. He said very few continue. They were still prodigies but didn't continue professoinally. I know of 2 violionists who in their midteens, stopped performing professionally and took a different path. I suspect this may be different depending on what field one is a prodigy. A field where it's important to stay in the public eye perhaps. But many prodigy's make their way into academia particularly those in math & science fields. While it may be true they no longer impress those outside their fields (ie.. win Nobel prizes or such), it doesn't mean they can not sustain a successful career.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
Here's a question: is it ever possible to be a prodigy and still have the practice of one's subject be hard work but not intensely grueling? Is prodigiousness painful to child and family in ALL arenas?
I think it depends on what one is a prodigy in. I feel like it is probably painful to be a true classical music or athletic prodigy (but some sports might be less so than others..for instance, maybe a snowboarding prodigy has it easier than a prima ballerina...probably a less competitive sport is better).
Chess? I don't know. It's a less glitzy, high-stakes world. Then again, there have been some really insane grandmasters...
Math? Not the same kind of pressure, I don't think. Intense pressure to achieve could backfire, but then we are in the realm of PG-kid pressure like we talk about here, I think...
We haven't talked about child actors. Could that ever be considered a type of prodigy? They seem MOST at risk of disaster to me, perhaps.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
I'm going to echo the previous comments about child-led parenting. It's such a subtle area, replete with shades of gray. If a parent suppresses time the child would otherwise spend enthusiastically pursuing the prodigious activity to engage in more normative childhood behaviours and activities, I don't think we can say with certainty that the parent is acting in the best interest of the child.
There is something to be said for well-roundedness, to be sure, in that a certain critical minimum level of social skills, empathy, multifaceted self-concept, etc are required to be resilient and mentally healthy in the long run. I'd argue these thresholds are largely personal, and parents and children might have dramatically different levels required, particularly if the child is a prodigy in a domain where the parent isn't. It's possible that these thresholds aren't even knowable ex persona. For a prodigy who has met his personal minimum critical thresholds and gains net positive utility from pursuing the prodigious talent for the twelfth hour that day, I say indulge the child. What is life if not pleasure?
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 710
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 710 |
I believe the definition of a prodigy is a child, usually under the age of 10, having the level of ability as an adult. This is roughly what I have read about. There is a very interesting chapter in Andrew Solomon's book Far From the Tree that discusses musical prodigies. Those are the kids who, before reaching adolescence, performed at the level of a reasonably accomplished adult. Talent is definitely a huge part of it, but it's not just talent, it's talent well developed when they were still 8-, 9- or 10-year-olds. So there is usually a lot of effort involved. However, the caution is that many of these prodigies don't grow up to be world-class musicians. There are many reasons, some burn out, some simply plateau very early, some resent the entire idea of being a prodigy and rebel, etc., etc. On the other hand, studies of world-class achievers (in music, math, science, etc) in the book Developing Talent in Young People have shown that these people were almost all not prodigies when they were children. They obviously had some talent but didn't stand out that much. What was different for them was the passion and the persistence. This reminds me of the fact that at HG+ levels (perhaps lower gifted levels too?) - without the necessary stimulation/challenge/environment you will see the older child not excel in their "specialist field"/ There are stats that back up that moderately gifted, or even bright kids more often than not outperform the higher gifted people in the workplace, academically etc. I would surmise that it's a similar idea - either the dislike of the term gifted, the frustration of never fitting in, learnt underachievement - all pointing to lack of opportunity, environment and encouragement. Even the most astounding self-motivation can die in the face of lacking options. It seems to be the same for the prodigy concept... I remember when my oldest was born thinking to myself that it would be best if he could try as many activities as possible otherwise "how on earth would he find his own talents and special abilities?". 
Mom to 3 gorgeous boys: Aiden (8), Nathan (7) and Dylan (4)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,898
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,898 |
Interesting thread which I'd avoided till now because I hate the p-word.
An eminent colleague whom I'd approached for advice about DS used it of him (without having met him). I'm still twitching, tbh.
Honestly, I think it's an unhelpful word. We see it in the list of prodigies on Wikipedia (getting a mediocre maths degree at 16 makes you a prodigy apparently!) and in people on this thread yet denying that Tao was one - honestly, if not him, then who?! It's a silly concept - even if we agree about it needing performance comparable to a talented adult in the field, how talented? Someone upthread (sorry, can't face trawling back to see who) in the same breath suggested that for music the comparison was a reasonable piano teacher, and that for maths it was a reasonable maths professor. Well, OK, but why not a reasonable piano soloist, or why not a reasonable maths teacher? You're going to catch quite different groups of children depending on exactly how you define it, and it's not clear that the resulting definition would be useful for anything, anyway.
About child-led vs parent-led: I think that's even harder than this thread has yet suggested. Parents push to overcome perfectionism, to provide challenge, etc, just as much for "prodigies" as for "HG+ children". When and how much that's the right thing to do is a genuinely difficult question. The presence of parental drive doesn't tell you much about the child, in itself, I think.
Email: my username, followed by 2, at google's mail
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478 |
This reminds me of the fact that at HG+ levels (perhaps lower gifted levels too?) - without the necessary stimulation/challenge/environment you will see the older child not excel in their "specialist field"/ There are stats that back up that moderately gifted, or even bright kids more often than not outperform the higher gifted people in the workplace, academically etc.
I would surmise that it's a similar idea - either the dislike of the term gifted, the frustration of never fitting in, learnt underachievement - all pointing to lack of opportunity, environment and encouragement. Even the most astounding self-motivation can die in the face of lacking options. I think the converse can be just as true, where the issue is a surfeit of options. The one track to excellence above average person fought each step of the way to their mastery level, and it is an epic haul to bring another skill to a similar place. So, they keep pushing with the same drive and tada. Speculation... Maybe "true" prodigies happen when they have extreme working memory capabilites and encounter the right topic with the right amount of neuroplasticity. Their brain rapidly starts hard-wiring into that topic, and it becomes central to themselves as even internal reward mechanisms are wired in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 309
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 309 |
Someone upthread (sorry, can't face trawling back to see who) in the same breath suggested that for music the comparison was a reasonable piano teacher, and that for maths it was a reasonable maths professor. Well, OK, but why not a reasonable piano soloist, or why not a reasonable maths teacher? It was my post. I was simply giving examples, not trying to be rigorous. Why not a piano soloist? Because there are very few of these in the world and it's almost a given none of the prodigies could compare to them when they were kids. Why not a reasonable math teacher? Because my experience tells me that the math competency of average K-12 math teachers doesn't need prodigious ability. Usually people think of prodigies as kids whose performance reaches the level of "pretty good" adults, not world-class adult achievers. I too don't really like labels, be they prodigies, or HGs, PGs, or, "gifted". I think everyone should have the opportunity to develop their potential to the fullest. I also believe that parents want the best for their kids and make sacrifices so that their kids can have a good life, regardless of whether their kids are classified as "gifted".
Last edited by playandlearn; 01/22/14 05:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,298 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,298 Likes: 1 |
I too don't really like labels, be they prodigies, or HGs, PGs, or, "gifted". I think everyone should have the opportunity to develop their potential to the fullest. I agree, but unfortunately, the labels are sometimes necessary in order to understand what "to the fullest" means. Children who are intellectually disabled need that label so that expectations won't be too high. Gifties need it so they won't be too low. Etc.
|
|
|
|
|
