Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Ruf's book question

I have to say "that is interesting" to the posts. I am about as non-linear as you get and I found it difficult to read between the lines.

I get there is that intrinsic element but as Dottie points out, if the scores are all over the map, who defines the difference to put a child in level 5 that has much lower scores than a child in level 3? Her bias on their motivation to learn? And if their learning styles are different, what is quantifiable, if the scores don't do that?

There is a little girl, birthdate 3 weeks before DD3, we met on the evaluation for the gifted preschool at Columbia. DD3 birthdate missed the cutoff by almost a month so they wouldn't take her. They did offer a spot to the other girl but they didn't take it, they put her in Montessori instead. Happen to run into them at the Harvard Club Christmas party. This little girl was extraordinarily smart. Her father gave me their contact and I was thinking I would like to try and set up some play dates and see how that works.

Someone mentioned about when their child played with a peer, the differnce or potential difference in development.

So thank you for submitting the idea.

Ren

Interesting post, J, and I see what you're saying. I've certainly had my moments of despairing over ever understanding LOGs and how they apply to my kids.

But if tests aren't enough and lists don't cut it, then I guess I have to ask what *would* cut it? I mean, should we reject the admittedly imperfect tools we do have because they don't work well for all kids? If these tools work for IDing some kids, then it seems to me we should improve the tools, not reject them, as I feel like you're doing.

Maybe we need a broader list to cover the sorts of things your particular kids ARE doing, which is what the proponents of "eating neatly" are really saying, I think. It's less about how these kids eat or the precise month when they read and more about unusual behavior, right? There are obviously some unusual behaviors that your kids are doing/have done to show you that they're more than MG, or you wouldn't have done any of the research you've done or the advocacy you've pursued. Maybe those milestones aren't on the list, but maybe they should be! Or maybe the list of milestones needs to be written in both the specific (which is what helped me) and the general, to funnel those kids with a more unusual profile to be IDd.

And BTW, I think that if reading emerges with spoken language, you've got a pretty early milestone there! Even if you don't know the exact month it happened, it's clearly unusual. I think the precise date doesn't really matter as long as you know that the behavior emerged unusually early, and I don't think Ruf's lists should have scared you off if you had kids reading THAT early! It seems quite obvious to me that there's a really, really GT kid behind that behavior!

I absolutely wish we had better, more definite ways to ID these kids, but until we do, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It really is sounding to me that, as delbows indicated, the problem is less with the conception of the checklists and more with the way individuals are applying the lists.

That is a serious problem, but it seems like a more correctable one! Better instructions, a less "This is how it is" tone...but I still think the substance of the lists is valid and useful in SOME form.

K-

Please correct me if I am wrong here because I have not ordered the book yet.

I seem to recall looking at an on-line preview of Exceptionally Gifted Children where Miraca Gross displayed a chart which specifically annotated the age at which each of her study subjects first walked independently. As I said, this was a �look inside� option, so I don�t know the full context but it seemed that the gist of it was that most of her subjects walked independently (much) earlier than usual. I was surprised to see this information because I thought the consensus of experts no longer believe there is any correlation between early walking and IQ.

I don�t believe even Dr. Ruf uses that milestone in her levels.

Data (test scores) are important snap-shots of performance. However, instruction can also enhance performance on these measures, especially multiple choice achievement tests. I think there is more to determining intellectual ability than just a test score or only early milestones.

I find these comments more interesting "between the lines" than Ruf's book.

And I have to agree with gratified3 that fastidiousness at the table doesn't make sense to me. DD3 can use her fork very well, many times she refuses as a challenge.

DD3 is a perfect Ruf example of a baby/toddler that ended interaction and attention, just for the stimulation but then she gives anecdotes about a toddler playing by themselves for hours, absorbed in some activity. How do I spell contraction in terms?

Working as suggested, I figured level 4. Maybe level 3, definitely not lower. The strange thing, when I went through Level 5 list, I could see many things, but the parental anecdotes were a few months ahead of my memory of events. So I don'get her perception of how she created the list. I also agree that physical development has to assist the verbal and early talking astounds me. What I did notice with DD is that when she did hit a milestone, she was away to the races.

I wish she would define the non linear and auditory differnces. I think that would be more interesting.

Ren

I've had the same experience with my kids. DD9 didn't read until she was 4 (almost 5), but then she was reading chapter books within a year. She was talking a lot way before her first birthday, too.

DD6 was much the same as DD9, except she read earlier and walked much earlier (10 months versus 12 for DD9).

DS2 went from crawling to running at 13 months and from barely talking to full sentences at 18 months.

Off to the races is right!

Okay, let me throw my hat in!

DD7-PG didn't walk until 14 months. I see a lot of Ruf's level 4 and 5 stuff with her. She did question Santa by 3. BTW another friend's child who is PG point blank looked at the fireplace and stated, no way Santa was going to fit down that. And I think she was 2, if I remember correctly.

DD5-HG walked at 9 months, running at 10 months, mostly running away!!!!!!
Could read sentences before DD7 but then didn't want to read til 5yr 5mo and has quickly just about caught up to where sister was at this particular age.

So,,,,I don't know.

They're all different.

Incog

But that's not a contradiction. It's just that some kids are extroverts and need stimulation--like your DD--and some kids are introverts and can happily entertain themselves--like my DS. What distinguishes the HG+ child is the *extremity*, the *intensity* of their need for alone time and/or stimulation. Your DD didn't merely like stimulation, she NEEDED it, and LOTS of it, all the time! My DS didn't just like to be alone sometimes, he preferred to entertain himself for HOURS with his puzzles, even though he was just a young toddler and wasn't "supposed" to have that kind of LOOOOOOONG attention span for anything! Neither sort of intensity is the norm for kids!

The developmental paths everyone is describing for their kids are, indeed, all different. (Ruf doesn't argue that all HG+ kids are exactly the same!) But all these developmental paths have two very important things in common: they're all significantly different from the norm, and they all demonstrate an incredible intensity!

What I think Ruf does is to try to make clearer what constitutes "significantly different" and "incredible intensity."

Okay, I will stop jumping in, I promise. Sorry!

K-

P.S. Just as an aside, the neat eating thing works like a charm with DS6--he actually got *booed* at his 1st birthday party because he was perfectly neat about eating his cake! Can you imagine booing a 1yo at his own BD?!?

DS7 did not, would not, and still pretty much won't, play by himself. He constantly wanted to talk and to learn information through conversation, books and tv (tv only after age 2). And I was constantly criticized by friends and teachers for it - e.g., he's too reliant on you, you need to ignore him, he needs to learn to play by himself, I see what the problem is - you're too nice to him, etc. And I, being ignorant as I was, listened to them. He'd just sit there no matter how long it took. And the principal at his last school told me not to google the answers to his questions. He needs to learn how to research by going to the library and looking up the answers. "Kids are getting too much instant gratification; they need to learn patience." (and that was respect to a five year old)

And he never believed in Santa until we rigged a convincing display with evidence a couple of years ago that I still feel guilty about. He asked for the truth right before Christmas this year and I asked if really wanted to know or just believe. He chose believe, but he knows.

Needless to say, I don't know where he fits on Ruf levels, and there is that 2E element...

Krison, I think you'll relate to this. DD5 is like, the pied piper with other children. It's not uncommon to see her running on the playground with, like, 10 children running and skipping along after her. HOWEVER, at some point she gets so overstimulated, she abuptly dismisses all of them!
So she looks like this highly social child, but she also chooses to spend hours in her room with her figurines creating elaborate story lines. Even at 5 she babbles along non-stop, creating different scenarios, voices etc.
Our highly respected Psyd. tester assures me she is NOT crazy, Phew!

Incog

LOL, 'Neato! I do love that!

That's totally me, you're right. I'm highly social...until I'm OVER IT. It's like I run out of social "juice" and have to retire to quiet.

I think this is pretty normal for GT people. I read somewhere (Lisa Rivero's "Homeschooling the Gifted Child," I think) that GT people tend not to fit as neatly into the intro/extrovert boxes: we're VERY social when we're social and we're locking ourselves in our rooms talking to ourselves for hours when we want to be alone.

Still, it's all about the extremes. What's more extreme than BOTH extremely extreme extremes in the same person?

<grin>