Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Do our kids burn out?

Thoughts?

Thought #1: Doing lots of math is different from doing competitions. Maybe the stress of competition ruined it for that kid. (Some kids thrive on it, but not all.)

Thought #2: What is wrong with that mom? "Oh, I just thought I'd ra-a-a-a-andomly tell you about a child who is like yours who came to a horrible end! No reason, I just thought you'd like to know!"

I would think that it would be possible for a pg person to burn out too.

I have seen PG adults burnout. But that has been in a field of work where the pressure is tremendous and people demand results on tight schedules.

My thought about that friend's child is that maybe that child really was PG. And even if his passion was not math, he was able to perform at a high level just because of his LOG. And then, by high school age, he figured out that math was really not what he wanted to do and decided not to pursue it. I have a nephew who is PG and pursued an engineering degree because his family expected him to. Now, at 24, he does not want to work as an engineer and is spending all his time composing music on his guitar and trying to write novels.

I was burnt out by the end of high school. You can perform at a high level just because of your high level of intelligence.

Because I was burnt out, I figure I only performed at about 30% of capacity in college (and law school, for that matter).

I obtained an engineering degree because it was free and my parents decided it was a good idea. I didn't have any actual interest in it.

Granted, I never really found any meaningful interests to pursue whatsoever, so I'm envious of the composer/writer.

Why are people assuming that there really was "burn out" (from excessive academic pressure). There could be other reasons an academically successful student fails to go to college such as drugs, alcohol, gambling, depression, family problems, medical problems, legal problems, etcetera.

Some people burn out once they've hit a certain amount of mastery as the thrill can be in the massive amount of knowledge assimilated early then no matter how gifted you'll eventually reach that flexion point and Pareto will kick you in the butt and you move to a new area. Though the drive-by cautionary tale sounds more like a locus of control sort of thing, or setting one goal and attaining it only to discover it's paper mache'.

What Zen Scanner said

What did Zen Scanner say?

I agre what Zen Scanner said.

My bf from H.S. is still that way. Reinvents her life approximately every 3 years, good thing she never wanted kids.

Lots of people quit doing things they are good at to do something else. And lots of people quit things that everyone thinks they are really good at because they know they are good not great (ballet, music, art are common here - everyone says "I never understood why she gave up.x to do y, she had so much talent").

A combination of parental pressure and self pressure, mostly.

I wasn't in school to learn. I was in school to win.

I never figured out anything to do with balance or with the level of challenge required.

My early life approach was more pouring 110% into whatever it was I wanted, working under the presumption that I could run at 110% forever because I absolutely awesome, and then completely crashing. Also, then then having no idea how to recover because my level of resilience was about zero.

I assume if you figure out how to learn actual intensity coping skills you avoid becoming me.

In terms of the regression, I think it has more to do with gathering psychological energy before the growth spurt. That part seems pretty normal and healthy to me.

So, rather than worrying you, you should use it as a tell to recognize that a growth spurt is coming.

College grades and graduation rates have a positive monotonic relationship with prior achievement, as measured by high school grades and test scores. There is of course a chance that someone with a good high school record will drop out of college, but the good record is not itself a reason for the parent to worry about this.

I lived in a town for a while that was well known for extreme tiger parents and had a friend who, in retrospect, was most likely HG or PG. She did well, but her sister who was suppose to be even more gifted flamed out and was supported by her parents even into her 30s. They both grew up in the same town and in the same environment but one thrived and the other completely burned out by early high school.

There was definitely extreme tiger-parenting in my town - and so many examples of "burnouts" by kids that other parents would say "oh, he was so smart - he was destined for great things, what happened?".

It is not LOG - I feel it is a combination of the environment AND the person's temperament more than LOG for burn out.

I definitely see "burnout" so much more in the sports world, from kids who spent so many years dedicated to their sport (especially in year-round sports) and then one day had enough and decide to do something else.

As others mention - balance is key. Obsession in a single area can be unhealthy - and I know, having walked that line in the sports world and seen people fall on the other side of that line in my sport.

I wonder if scheduling certain amount of unscheduled creative loafing is helpful ... also Coach John Wooden's approach seems helpful. He always focused on doing your best, and not worrying too much about winning or losing (since you can control effort, but you can't control who has happened to show up to compete on a given day). If the satisfaction from doing things is internal (I made this airplane out of legos and it was challenging and fun to do it) rather than external (my airplane is better than so and so's airplane) maybe that is a more sustainable long term approach.

22B I had a whole post written and then it sort of disappeared and Zen Scanner had written a similar post to what I was going to say. I read a book called Gifted Grownups that talks about how one quality of some gifted people is that once they master something they want to move on to something else. This can make it difficult staying in one career. Also perfectionism can be an issue. I remember in elementary school I was considered "the artist" and never really had to work for that. Then in middle school another kid (who actually was doing things with it like entering competitions) showed up and I basically decided that he should be "the artist" as he obviously was better than I was. This wasn't true, we were both good but if I couldn't be the best without trying I didn't want to compete. I wasn't very competitive as I knew that drew unwanted attention. It's possible also that as a kid get into middle and high school they want to fit in more than they want to stand out.

This possibility in my own DD (similarly able but not highly passionate about... well, much of anything in particular) terrifies us.

Her college major is a combination of what WE think will eventually suit her (and what she's ultimately expressed the most passion for that is scarce enough to be in high demand) and what the first faculty member who "adopted" her is into. It worries us.

I'm laughing at Portia's second post in this thread though-- point #2-- makes me both chuckle... and shake my head. DD has the same pattern-- she never even gets to stage 2 of "let me show you who I really am" with most people. It's made her a bit stand-offish socially, though most people never know because her facade is pretty darned good.

I would expect that PG/EG participants in math competitions find themselves up against other PG/EG participants in short order, at which point the number hours of study and practice become a significant determining factor in success. Once "Who wants it more?" is a major part of the activity, it becomes very easy for someone to say, "Not me," or, "Eh... I want it, but not that badly."

Competitions can be fun and healthy, but striving for the very highest levels is often unhealthy. Training at any one thing comes with real opportunity costs as it crowds out other healthy activities, and the individual has to be willing to pay those costs.

It's LOG plus the issue of temperament with respect to psychological resilience, and the use coping skills.

Meaning that the LOG/intensity makes the risk of this kind of burnout possible (not probable).

That's really one of the problems with life.

You only feel good about yourself if you *are* at functioning the highest levels because you underachieve if you don't, but if you do that, then you end up essentially killing yourself.

Although part of this is the need for sleep.

Some people really only need about 4 hours of sleep a night.

Thus, you are faced with the choice of permanent/chronic underachievement along with the dissatisfaction that comes along with this or serious psychological damage.

I agree.

Some parents invest without understanding that the CHILD at the center of the activity may not be constitutionally well-suited to elite competition in the first place.

Searching for Bobby Fischer/Innocent Moves is an instructive way to spend a couple hours for any parent of an HG child. IMHO.

I suspect, in fact, that the story of Josh Waitzkin's early years (dramatized and told in the film) probably only REALLY resonates with parents like us. Other parents probably see Amy Chua TigerParenting when they look at kids like Josh. Or, for that matter, most of the kids around here.

Jon, I would offer that I hope that my DD can avoid that existential conundrum by placing herself and her own self-reflections firmly at the center of her self-worth and self-image-- and not the external indicators of self-worth such as trophies, ribbons, awards, and "first place" experiences... hopefully not even the value judgments of those around her. Understanding the key to one's own self-worth is crucial, in my experience. Best to tie it to something that is a locus of your OWN control, as Dude's post indirectly implies.

Being "the best at ______" is no way to have a healthy sense of self-worth, because you're ultimately at the mercy of your life circumstances. If you're a van Cliburn winner at 20yo, what happens if you're in an auto accident the next day that robs you of the use of both hands, hmm?

"Helping others" or "enjoying a challenge" or even "being good at ____" is far, far better. But it can't be FORCED externally-- that is, it has to be authentic, and it has to be something that is intrinsically of value to the individual. I think part of it is simply living in a way that aligns with one's internal values-- that is, devoting the appropriate amount of effort/attention to those things that one finds have intrinsic worth, and letting the results happen as they will, more or less.

I think that parents err when they assume that ALL children are motivated by "winning" to begin with. Those that are probably don't need any more encouragement-- for the reasons nicely laid out by Jon.

I would have expected this too, and I still expect that this effect kicks in eventually, but I've been surprised not to see it so far (and "so far" includes everything in the UK below the "top 1000 under-19s" competitions). I think what's going on is that presenting as "PG in maths" goes along with enjoying doing for fun the kinds of things you need to do to prepare, at the levels DS has met so far. If I think about it, he spends a fairly large amount of time doing maths, and a fair chunk of that is spent being stretched to the point of frustration, but he nevertheless doesn't think of himself as working particularly hard at it, and hence neither do I. It hasn't so far been necessary for him to work with doing well in competition as a goal: doing well in competition has been a side-effect of things he was doing anyway, for a mixture of ordinary school work and amusement. I am going to be interested to see how far that continues, and what happens when DS does have to choose, or not, to do something specifically in order to do well in competition.

I strongly agree.

I do think kids/students can burn out, particular around the teen years. But it's not just 'our' kids. Many of the hot housed kids weather they are PG or not, work so hard particularly as teens that they never have ANY downtime. And they often get pushed into directions in school that aren't particularly their choice.

I've also seen kids burn out in sports.

By the time school is out for the summer, my DS is very burned out and wants nothing to do with any schoolwork. I seen teens who never seem to have ANY time even in the summer to let their hair down. Some of them don't handle this too well.

Well, on the bright side, without hands, you're no longer at risk for underachievement since you no longer have the potential to be the best.

Well, only a perfectionist could see that kind of silver lining, though... so I guess there IS an important benefit in being a perfectionist!

Colinsmum and I are saying much the same thing, I think-- that is, her DS is enjoying his pursuits and feels that his investment is "appropriate" and not excessive... because it is intrinsically of value to him, independent of the trappings of the success that seem to have come along with the devotion to his passion.

DD has had competition level talent and potential at quite a number of things in her life-- but she has not had the passion to pursue them at that elite level. We haven't made her, either. That's the lesson of SFBF; it has to be their idea, or you're stealing a childhood they'll never get back. THAT, in my own estimation, is the very definition of toxic Hot-Housing, or of TigerParenting. It's the external direction of it all that makes the difference.

Now, back to Portia's second point-- why on earth would an acquaintance feel the need to relate such a sad tale to a parent? Well, probably because they FEAR that the parent is exercising undue influence on the child's choices in terms of effort, time, and energy devoted to participation in an activity. Maybe it's because they care (albeit in a misguided or ignorant manner) about the parent and the child in question. One wonders, though, whether or not such intervention is also directed at stage parents and sports ones. {sigh} I'm guessing not so much, actually.

You win the award for Best Optimist.

Rapidly diminishing marginal utility associated with consumption of a fixed amount of a "career" causes the gifted to require a new life focus to derive the same utility they once did when the earlier pursuit was fresh.

The Pareto reference has me confused, as Pareto efficiency generally refers to trade-offs in utility from various changes in group consumption, not at the individual level. I suspect Zen is using Pareto here in the engineering--not economics--context as a representation of an efficient frontier for the individual in terms of career choices, etc, with multidimensional trade-offs. Zen, do I understand you correctly?

Per ColinsMum's point, I get the sense that intrinsic enjoyment of pursuit X at advanced levels inoculates against overreaching and burnout. When work is play--essentially, pleasure-driven--is over consumption even possible (from the perspective of the over-consumer, not the average observer)? In the short term, probably, but I suspect long-term rationality kicks in with the need for sleep and sustenance at some basic level.

Yes, but for some competitive activities, the rewards are meager unless you are one of the very best. Chess is discussed often here. I would not advise someone to become a professional chess player unless they can become one of the top ten players in the world. "Burn out" in sports, chess, and other activities may be a rational response to the understanding that you are very good at X but that there are other people who are even better.

Even if you are one of the very best, the rewards are still meager absent intrinsic enjoyment of the activity. The corollary is that, with intrinsic enjoyment, being "simply" very, very good and not the best can still be thoroughly enjoyable and rational, and create positive contributions to society to boot. Here, for example, I'm thinking of high quality PhD scientists who do not pursue tenure track for some reason and instead go into industry.

You need more than sleep and sustenance to avoid hypertrophy.

Perhaps it reveals my implicit assumption--and lifestyle preferences--that I read hypertrophy and immediately thought, "Now why would anyone want to avoid muscle gain?" Guess I'm showing my bias!

The "Pareto principle" which I know from engineering, manufacturing, and agile design where 80% of the results come from 20% effort. Nicely visualized by the power curve and the bend in the knee where effort becomes more palpable.

Though Pareto efficiency (based on my three minute Wikipedia expertise) could be relevant if one were to consider a person as an economic system and facets of life as players in the system; then you are allocating time and effort amongst varous life activities. It underlines Dude's and Jon's and others' points regarding balance and effort. But I don't know much about economics.

Er-- some of the very best in some fields are in industry. LOL!


The rest of it, ITA.

It's not that one necessarily couldn't (at least hypothetically) be "the best" and STILL find that the opportunity costs associated with some pursuit were excessive anyway, if the motivation to pursue it were non-intrinsic. It is also true that motivation is non-static-- so for example, I'm not highly motivated to do (anymore-- nearly 25 years later) what I earned my PhD in. My intrinsic interests have shifted. My DH is another example-- he makes a very nice income doing something that he is no longer intrinsically very motivated to do-- but he is certainly something of a rock star in the context of his employment in spite of that ambivalence, so one can be "that good" without being intrinsically motivated, but it's kind of soul-crushing. DH has compelling reasons to keep doing what he's doing, and the perspective that he controls his level of commitment, neither of which most children CAN have. Probably not what any good parent would like their child to recall as a part of childhood, anyway.

Thanks for the clarification; we're on the same page. I've heard of the 80-20 principle, but it never had a name ascribed to it when I encountered it. Glad to learn something from someone in a different domain.

Portia, I haven't had a chance to read all the replies, but re your OP - there are all kinds of possible reasons this particular student might have dropped out of math competitions and gone on to less-than-seemingly-stellar choices in school. Most of us here (I'm guessing) are motivated and driven personalities who typically have similar dreams of what we looked to as markers of success in our own lives as success for our children. Sometimes we dream bigger dreams for them And we're for the most part here sharing and asking questions in support of supporting those dreams. The thing is - as our kids get older, their lives become their own. No matter how high a child's IQ, at some point in time they are going to grow into their own skin and they might or might not follow along the path we've helped chart for them.

I suspect my sibling and I have very similar IQs, and I suspect that our parents IQs were in the same range. All of us are very different personalities and have gone in different directions in our lives.

The first thought that came to my mind (among the 18 million possible reasons) that a child who was extremely successful at math competitions in elementary school might not be a dazzling math superstar a few years later is that we as parents help make possible a lot of the directions our childrens' lives take in elementary school - no matter how able, how driven, how motivated, or how successful our children are - they are still, at that point in our lives, largely dependent on the situations we create for them. They need for us to pay fees, they need for us to drive them places, they often need us to make them aware of opportunities etc. This child might simply have enjoyed math competitions for a few years, then hit puberty or teens or middle school or whatever and realized he'd like to try something different. For instance, my 10 year old is a talented gymnast and she is part of a team that practices for a huge number of hours per week - that's the level of commitment required. She thrived on that schedule for a few years, and she still *mostly* thrives on it, but she's also interested in lots of other sports and other activities, and she's reached an age where she's very aware that her commitment to gymnastics is preventing her free time to pursue those other interests. I wouldn't be surprised at all if she doesn't give up competitive gymnastics at some point in the next few years - not because she doesn't love it, but because she wants to do other things, which is totally unrelated to burning out.

Another possibility is that something happened in this child's family life - what if he lost a parent through divorce, illness, etc? Suddenly the support that enabled him to participate might be gone (financial, parent to drive to competitions etc). Maybe he lost his emotional support with it too. I have *no* idea what happened to this child, just noting that there could have been a billion in one things other than simply burning out due to math competition overload.

So I wouldn't worry about burn out - or predict it. Continue to follow your child's lead wherever their interests are taking them, give them all the possibilities for fun, learning and challenge that you can, and then also freely let them go when they want to move on to something else. In the end, there are going to be so many things in their lives that we simply *can't* control.

Re the story your friend told you, the curious side of me is wondering if you asked her if she knew any details re what happened, or if this was someone she actually knew or just a story she was passing along?

Best wishes,

polarbear

True! The academy doesn't have a monopoly on top talent.

The academy also doesn't pay as well as industry… at least not in my STEM field

polarbear

This is not right. If you are talking about top 0.1%, then that's +3SD to +6SD (or a bit higher) which is a huge range. There's only so much ground that can be made up with effort.

LAUSD has more than 640,000 students, according to its own website. Of those, approximately 140,000 are enrolled in high school. The top 0.1% of this population would be 140 students. Assuming half of these best-and-brightest are entered into a district math competition (some because they're intrinsically motivated, some to pad their transcripts, and some because they're pushed by adults), that's 70 students at different grade levels competing for one prize, every single one of which is EG or higher.

And that's just for a local prize.

I wonder if math competitions are a good example here.

You can't really change your computational speed with effort.

I suppose you can learn some mathy tricks to take advantage of mathy shortcuts.

I think you missed my point. Your post suggested that the top 0.1% are all at basically the same level (so that "the number hours of study and practice [would] become a significant determining factor in success.") But there is as much of a range of ability in the top 0.1% as there is in the next 49.9%.

Pics or it didn't happen.

I didn't miss your point, but I think you're misunderstanding how distributions work.

Assuming a distribution of talent that conforms perfectly to statistical odds, there won't be any +6 or +5SD students in this hypothetical competition, because they're too rare (1:1 billion and 1:3.5 million, respectively). You'd have 4-5 students of IQ 160, and about 20 others or so who are within +/- 5 IQ points of them, all of whom are close enough in cognitive ability that it has a negligible influence on the ultimate outcome. Other factors become more important.

That's not the appropriate pic.

I'm pretty sure that the actual tail is fat.

Each year, the IMO will have a few dozen contestants at at least +5SD, and will occasionally have a +6SD contestant. (This is talking about math ability, not IQ per se.)

Then that would explain why we seem to be talking past each other, because I was quite clearly talking about IQ all along.

No it wouldn't explain anything. That was just a paranthetical comment to refer to the appropriate measure of ability. In almost any endeavour, achievement comes from a combination of ability and effort, and while effort can make up some ground, there is a limit to that.

You made this comment.

This essentially implies that people in the top 0.1% (i.e. at least +3SD above average) are all essentially at the same level of ability (and for this argument, "ability in what?" doesn't really matter). They're not at the same level of ability at all. There is as much difference between +6SD and +3SD as there is between +3SD and +0SD (average). While effort will certainly make a difference, it can't make up for huge differences in ability, for many types of endeavours.

When talking about IQ, the appropriate measure of ability is IQ.


No, it doesn't. It implies that normal distributions are normal. You responded with the absurdity that 1 in 1 billion mathematical talents show up at Los Angeles high schools every few years, validating my comment earlier that you don't seem to understand how distributions work.

Here is an article that alludes to the possibility of burnout in math competitions.
http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?page=pc_competitions
(I'm still skeptical of the story that the OP's son's friends, mother's friend's son dropped out before college due to math competition burnout, and not a combination of other reasons. But anyway, the story prompts an interesting discussion.)

Like many things, there's a question of balance. Even with high ability, effort/training/preparation/practice can be important for achievement/success. Too much exertion can lead to burnout, and at the same time no amount of exertion can make up for a too large difference in ability. (I mean, only an idiot would think that 10,000 hours of practice could make them a world class golfer if they weren't already at an extremely high level.) In a competitive activity, sometimes instead of trying to be the best, you should be happy with your best. And it's okay to quit activities that are no longer rewarding.

Activities like gymnastics, chess, ballet, sport, music, etc. should be the right combination of challenge and fun. But very few make a career out of these. Competing in math contests isn't a career either (though it can help one). But while someone at the 99.9th %ile (of math ability) isn't going to make it at the highest levels of math competitions, someone at the 80th or 90th %ile can have a rewarding career that makes use of their level of math ability. It's a question of perspective.

My understanding is that the tail ends of IQ bell curves are fatter than expected with a strictly conforming normal distribution. Also, IQ may not be distributed normally in different locations. For example, it's reasonable to expect that people at the right side will gather in urban areas.

You're assuming there is a meaningful notion of maths ability that's independent of effort. I don't believe this. How could you possibly define, let alone measure, such a thing?

But this idea applies to literally everything (you can't measure ability to learn a language until you measure what a student can learn after a certain amount of effort). Yet we still have ways of estimating ability. IQ is one of them.

Actually, now that I thInk about it, brain scans may be starting to reveal some of this kind of information.

Right. The fact that some people are intrinsically more able that other people at certain things is just part of the way the world is. Just because a "thing" like ability may be hard to pin down, doesn't mean it's not a "thing".

As to be not clearly stating assumptions, okay, mea culpa. ColinsMum's and JonLaw's objections are legitimate, but it's just an internet forum, so I like to say things succinctly, and let people fill in the gaps.

As to Dude's objection to my statistics: Consider what the "I" in IMO stands for.

In??

-ternational.

Yes, gifted kids can burn out. Related topics may be perfectionism, underachievement, fixed mindset, existential angst, and differentiated task demands.

Antidotes may include:
- Developing internal locus of control.
- Receiving affirmation/validation.
- Developing a growth mindset (Dweck).
- Webb's book Search for Meaning

Regarding a parent who may mention a cautionary tale about a gifted kiddo's burn-out seemingly out of the blue, some may not think of this parent's actions as engaging in schadenfreude, but rather an act of outreach, an insider's acknowledgement that gifted kids are an at-risk population, and raising a gifted child may be like a wild roller-coaster ride with its ups and downs, hairpin turns, and life turned upside down at times.

I know this was a rhetorical question but I'm beginning to wonder if people in general are just as judgmental with stage moms or sports parents but most don't want to come out and say "you cannot live your dream through your child."

When they see an academically advanced child, I don't think the common reaction is, "Oh poor little child, her parents failed to get a tenured professorship so they are trying to live their dream through their child." They probably think they have overzealous parents who need to back off and telling someone to back off is easier than telling someone to give up their dream.

Did it sound like the person was saying, "Oh, it's not so great that your child is highly intelligent. I know this other highly intelligent student and here's what happened to him."

Never underestimate the strong possibility of jealousy. It can be very hard on anyone, even family members, to feel like they struggle with what comes easily to someone else.

It's not a pleasant topic, but, there is plenty to observe of people chiding the highly intelligent people.

Just because the motivation for expressing a fact is jealousy doesn't make the fact any less true.

One possible approach, when faced with an anecdote regarding the rise and fall of a gifted individual, may be to thank the person for sharing, express empathy for the person being mentioned, agree that you've heard of such difficulties... then share that there is a great support network for the gifted, including hoagies facebook page & Davidson public forums, free and available to all... adding that with the advice and resources available from such gifted support communities your family is hoping to avoid major setbacks. Gifted adults may also look toward the gifted support communities for resources for healing and finding a positive path.

In helping to spread the word about the existence of gifted support communities, a person may keep the conversation positive, and may help a struggling individual. This approach may also help reveal the intention behind the anecdote.