Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Stereotype threat: girls and chess

Actually, in my universe "talented" and "autodidactic" have different definitions and therefore are NOT "necessarily synonymous". However, based on my limited personal experience, those who are autodidactic in a particular area tend to have some measure of talent in that area. For example, DD is rather autodidactic with artistic endeavors and does have some talent with those endeavors. Accordingly, "autodidactic" is one of many variables I consider. However, that does not mean a particular individual who needs spoon-feeding can't have talent.

Ah-- my misunderstanding, evidently.

Surely there is something less derisive than "spoon-feeding" to describe the process of learning in a student who requires-- or merely prefers-- some instruction, though?

Perhaps I just see this as a continuum, with spoon-feeding at one end and total autodidactism at the other. Most of what we call "autodidactic" wouldn't have even been possible a generation ago, given the lack of opportunity and access yesterday's students had in comparison to Gen Z.

After all, perhaps TRULY "talented" individuals don't require anything but their own discovery and cognitive ability to achieve greatness... but it seems a bit much to expect even quite precocious individuals to, say, ignore Newton's work in favor of doing all of their own derivations and inventing notation themselves. Is it being needy to use a textbook to learn from those who have already figured things out? If a textbook is okay, what about a YouTube video? Surely one's own daily environment being enriched or not counts in some way... maybe one can only be truly autodidactic in a cave somewhere, alone with nothing but one's own thoughts, a stick and dirt to write in...

Perhaps I just believe that there's something in between because that seems to be the child that I have. Also-- I suspect that because I see all of the inputs (as most parents with 'schooled' students do not), that I can say quite confidently that she requires NOTHING like spoon-feeding, but she could soar a LOT higher than she does if she weren't being expected to learn in a relative instructional vacuum. She really does NOT get instruction from anywhere but a few power-point slides and her textbook. IMO, it shows.

Most here probably WOULD consider her an autodidact if they knew how little instructional input there is for her. I don't consider her an autodidact, because she does BETTER (about 30-40% better, IMO-- raising herself from "highly proficient" to "mastery") with fairly minimal (an hour or two a week) of human instruction.

I think that it significantly and unfairly maligns such students to derisively claim that they need spoon-feeding or hand-holding, or any other patronizing terminology.

I venture a guess that most of the kids who play chess-- even at an elite level-- do so after some instruction on the subject (shocking, I know).

In fact, I'd be willing to guess that most of the kids here who play chess get more CHESS instruction weekly than my DD gets math instruction-- in both of her college-level (dual enrollment) math courses.

So-- does she need "spoon-feeding"? Is this evidence that she lacks math talent? I'd say not. Perhaps she lacks DRIVE in the domain, and this might explain why she is not autodidactic there to the extent that some students are. But her raw ability is a different matter.

Priceless!

Every one of the talented chess players I know has one or more elite coaches.

While I don't think one need be an autodidact to possess talent in a field, I do understand what Quantum is getting at. Of my two children, only DD10 has asked deep questions related to math and tried to concoct her own "tricks" and theories regarding math. She clearly THINKS about math. At 3 or 4, she came to us with the observation that some number have "middles" and some do not, and one could classify them that way, and this seemed important. (She had figured out even and odd.)

She is also good at calculation and a strong math student, though not actually highly outstanding. Math is NOT her favorite subject. Yet it's this interest in *thinking* about math which still makes me think that there may be some latent math spark that will emerge in later grades.

DS5, in contrast, has never come to us with any such mathematical musings. He is certainly ahead in math, but I don't see any interest in math concepts or ideas. He knows facts and operations about as well as DD did at this age, but I would be surprised if math ever was a topic of great interest. Yet he is the one with the unusual chess gift.

It's not that DD tends autodidactic and DS does not. They both tend autodidactic.

I had a very successful scholastic chess career and never had a formal coach. A coach can help, but it may not be absolutely necessary. The article below says that knowledge of famous games, which can be acquired through self-study, is a good predictor of success in chess. When I was a kid I read and re-read all chess literature within reach. As I've said before, a male tendency to obsess over a small domain may partially explain why there are more male prodigies.

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12551/745/
How to Spot Top Talent: Greg on Chess
By IM Greg Shahade
February 9, 2014

Re chess coaches and children, I think this is one of these things that's changed with time, much as youth sports have changed and become more intense and competitive with time. Youth chess is also much more popular today than it once was, I believe.

But I'm sure there are at least some kids who do relatively well without coaches, perhaps because their school club or team is very intensive or they study a lot on their own.

It is common at adult tournaments (in which players keep score) to have a "post-mortem" where the game is analyzed. When I was a kid playing in adult tournaments I learned from many such post-mortems, in which a helpful master often participated. Chess players have different styles and develop different views about the game. Learning to separate the wheat from the chaff in the advice one is given is a useful skill to develop.

This would seem to be a flaw in the concept of IQ.

By definition, if you have talent in math, you should have a "high IQ".

If you have actualized a talent in math, by definition, you had the potential to actualize the talent, which ostensibly an IQ test would be able to measure.

So, the problem lies with the IQ test, not with the empirical reality of high achievement in an intellectual domain.

Bostonian, I'm somewhat unclear on what your comment has to do with my quote. (I don't mean this snarkily.)

I'm just saying that playing with more experienced players and analyzing with them later can be a partial substitute for lessons.