Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Lifetime show Child Genius

I took a peak, and the show left me feeling icky. I agree it seemed like a huge game of "Memory" and for me didn't capture - or even attempt to capture - the capacity for synthesis/creation that I see as the hallmark of the PG child.

BUT - on a happier note, it reminded me to re-watch documentary Hard Problems about kids competing in an international math olympiad. Here is part one: Definitely cleanses the palate!

Ok I checked it out. First of all, there is something cathartic about watching these families. I'm thinking, wow, it's like I'm watching my son. I laughed-hard. The kids are adorable.

But....why can't MENSA do a documentary about G-kids doing something like contests where they have two teams that come up with solutions to major world problems?
That would be interesting. Or inventions?

Interview the parents differently, instead of the same ol'questions like, "so, you have a genius child, where do you think this came from?"

That is an interesting question. As a possible answer, some may find that approach to be exploitive; Issues of copyrights and intellectual property come to mind. It is my understanding that at one point these type of think-tank opportunities existed (facilitated by an outside firm, but were not televised) and there may have been some concern that others were benefitting financially for the work done and ideas generated by the synergy of think-tank participants.

Or just leave the child alone to be kids, not freak shows.

Sorry, but I have very strong opinions about this. We have heard time and again about the damaging effects of the child prodigy industry. I was just reading a piece by an ex child actor, Mara Wilson about how bad it is for most kids.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-child-stars-go-crazy-an-insiders-perspective/

There is evidence that the right side of the IQ distribution is fatter than statistics would predict, but even if it isn't Earth should have more than a thousand individuals with an IQ greater than 180. (I am aware that very high IQ's are difficult to test, and do not wish to go down that discussion path) Yet how many well documented cases are known to the public? Not many. I believe most individuals would not wish to have their IQs made public knowledge. There are a few that may wish to capitalize on the number itself, but not many. So, if a parent makes that decision for the child, there is a high probability that the child would not have been the personality type to have enjoyed that attention.

Now, I have not watched the show, but I do feel that often a child is better off being allowed anonymity until such a mental age that they can make decisions for themselves. Do they wish to be on stage, and understand the cons as well as the pros that such a public life offers?

There is rarely criticism of children competing in memory-intensive contests like spelling and geography bees or other competitions such as math contests and chess tournaments. Maybe the reason is that doing well in those contests does not certify the child as a "genius" and put undue pressure on him or her.

Great point. Possibly one difference is the balance of focus on the children as compared with the level of editing and attention given to parents?

I agree with that. I will also counter my own previous point with alternative argument. There are cases abound of kids that achieve great things then have tragic ends.

Example: The youngest kid to cross the Atlantic committed suicide. But there could be some confusion of the causality. It might be that individuals that are likely to achieve greatness are also likely to meet tragic ends due to an intrinsic characteristic rather than the act of greatness increasing the chance of disaster. Causality is often very difficult to tease out.

Also tragedy gets more press than non tragic happenings. It is not often brought up about the large number of people who do great things, then have happy lives.

I do stand by my previous post that the child's interest should be carefully considered before pushing them into the public eye. Of course, some kids are probably going to find their way into the public eye because their internal drive to do so is so great that it can not be helped.

I was more thinking of how these shows exist anyway and so why not give the children a chance to do something positive than just prove their intelligence. I find these shows very sad and always wonder what the parents are thinking. I would never tell anyone my son's I.Q., seeing them casually tell people something so personal is sad. "Genius" children have always been displayed in one way or another and sadly will continue to be. The parents are either desperate for something or just don't understand that putting children on a pedestal is making them a target for many adverse responses by people for years to come ("he never lived up to his potential").

Mostly because doing something "great" typically means winning some sort of competition, and when the talent pool is deep enough, hard work becomes a significant determining factor, at which point the arms race is on, and whoever is most willing to destroy themselves is the winner. When the stakes are high enough, and the child's will falters, the adults around them are ready to impose a will of their own.

A hundred grand for college is pretty big stakes, sooo...

I've seen the show, and it's a mixed bag as far as parenting goes. The last one I saw, some parents were exerting an unhealthy pressure on their children to study, some were just checking in with their kids while worrying privately, while another was arranging for a sleepover for her DS instead.

But yeah, I don't see the benefit of cramming to memorize random facts. That's why we write them down.