Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy What do you think?

Do you think that it is easier to fail/damage a gifted child as a parent, as opposed to a typically developing child?

Obviously until the schools become expert at identifying and accomidating GT based issues, then parents will have more work and more stress. But I also think we have more advantages too, so it sort of evens out for most families, I think.


I don't think it's easier to damage a gifted child, based on the fact that generally for gifted kids grow up mentally healthy than ND kids. Of course it could be that the high IQ is very protective and our terrible parenting wears off about half of the protection.

I think GT kids give the impression that they are being damaged or failed pretty well. But I think that's sort of healthy actually. Like the billboards on the McDonalds say 'easy on-easy off.' I think GT parents are better at feeling like we are doing it wrong - more perfectionism, higher standards, better memories, more excitable emotionally.

I also think that there is more mobility in the GT population. If this is true, more mobility leads to weaker community ties and weaker family ties which leads to more self-doubt as parents and more stress from less hands on help.

OK, I think that the question is too large to generalize about! But still a good question - can you say more D-trip about why you asked?

LOL,
Grinity

Is that true? I've known a lot of highly neurotic, highly intelligent people. I've also read that "neurotic perfectionism" (i.e. the bad sort) afflicts the gifted much more than the non-gifted, and can go hand-in-hand with eating disorders and other badness. Sensory issues can persist into adulthood, etc.

On the failure end, we have statements by gifted experts (IIRC such as Cardillo) that the gifted are the least likely to thrive and realize their potential. Then you have the 2E kids, who stand a greater risk of not being identified and perhaps getting a lesser education as a result. Normal kids with learning disabilities don't have that extra issue of masked giftedness.

On the other hand, on the extreme low end of the intelligence scale, there is definitely going to be an increase in emotional disorders along with the developmental disorders, brain damage, etc. Of course, those aren't typically developing children, either.

I'd be interested on seeing whatever stats may exist, on mental health of gifted grownups vs. the general population. I see a lot of pitfalls for parents of gifted children, especially since a lot of people who give advice to such parents may not be well-versed on what gifted kids need as opposed to regular kids, and especially with the problems of denial and missed identification. There's also less and sometimes conflicting information available on how to parent the gifted.

ETA: A couple of interesting links, and the Google search that found them (I have to get back to work for the nonce):

http://www.sengifted.org/articles_counseling/Webb_MisdiagnosisAndDualDiagnosisOfGiftedChildren.shtml
http://www.hydeparkcps.org/ourpages/auto/2010/10/7/50921883/Dissecting%20Articles%20_1.doc
http://www.google.com/search?source...atistic+OR+statistically+OR+statistical)

ETA2: Belay that, about getting back to work, I guess:
http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10492.aspx

It was a knee-jerk reaction I had to a group of people poking fun at parents of gifted children. This particular group of people seems to think that gifted children are a myth made up by parents who need to feel special. So, because this group feels this way they were laughing at some concerns that parents of the gifted have (i.e. embarrassment of having your child do XYZ thing before other children and dealing with others reactions, worry over schooling choices, dealing with teachers who are less than helpful...) I kept my mouth shut because I knew I wasn't going to get anywhere with them but my original question was my reaction. After my knee-jerk reaction I started to think about it more and wondering if it only seems harder because I am the one doing it or what.

Probably that self-preservation was what giftedness was naturally selectively bred for. �It was posted in another thread here that the more highly gifted people were more likely to "hesitate to bring a child into the world in the current state of things". �Also a self-preserving giftedness trait would make survival more likely and create less need for more babies. �Most people would naturally have more babies knowing that some will not make it and more babies will mean more survive to carry on the family line. �I read that but it was written about national poverty leading to larger families for that reason. �I told the hubby maybe that's why people here have more kids because for so many generations it must have been tough to live here before modernization. �(115 degrees for weeks at a time). �He said now people have large families because more kids means more chances some of them will be successful and do something with their lives.

Maybe you're right in that one way or another gifted people are needing community belonging, that it's lacking somehow. Maybe because a gifted identity is taboo and self-derisive.

I've read a lot of parents say that they're afraid if they do this or that they'll squash their children's giftedness and originality. �I think it's non-squashable and adaptive. �Of course better choices lead to better results. I think that the hurting usually done to gifted kids is that they are treated more roughly and with less protectiveness. �Like if two kids are in a fight and one is very bright they will be told, "you should have known how to avoid this, you're much smarter." �And even though giftedness usually comes with extra protection it also comes with a greater hunger for understanding and fairness.


Oh. �Well dt a lot of people say that gifted children are just like every other children and need only the same things as regular kids except maybe subject acceleration in school. �I believe there must be social development, family structure, discipline, and community involvement differences as well if there really are any differences at all. �But have repeatedly been told this is not the case even on gifted discussion forums. �It's been argued that giftedness only applies to educational needs and is not integral to a person's charachter in the way that race, for example, would be. �I'm not convinced, but that's what they say and I don't really know. �It's hard to say because you can't make a checklist of things like that. �Dr. Ruff tried. �But that involves unequal measures like "knows there's no Santa by age 3". �What about the kids who were never taught about Santa? �But "reads with comprehension before kindergarten" is definite and can be accommodated.

I think you're right about discipline being different to do properly for highly gifted kids. On social development, it's bound to be a little different for kids placed with much older academic peers. I don't know if it's necessary to cater to social development differences if there aren't any problems, though.

What do you mean by family structure differences? We don't have set bedtimes, and allow DS5 a lot of autonomy. I think I'd be that way with a normal kid, though, on the same grounds: if he's up learning at midnight and doesn't want to stop building or whatever, I'm not going to stop him. I think you must mean something different.

I don't know. I'm not completely sure what I'm thinking here. I've posted before to ask those that are more experienced. I just can't believe that a differnt kind of mind applies only to just one aspect of a person's life. Discipline I ask about because my mom's complaints about it is nagging the back of my mind. Family structure, if I have to think why I would have added that, um, I would say that maybe gifted kids would be more interested in taking responsibility for their own choices more? But you don't want to dump more responsibility on a kid than they want or are ready for. But it's hard to tell because gifted kids "present different", I think's how I've seen it worded. I still have to parent my kid. But I can tell I want to baby him more than he wants to be babied so I fight the urge.

I've seen what the parents were likely joking about in a movie. I forgot which one. Some parents were bragging to another family at a barbecue about their "little johnnie is so gifted" while the little brat was destructively terrorizing the place and the parents had no control over him because he was too "gifted" for school and society. It's a cliched snark.

OTOH I'm not really easily embarrassed. I'm not embarrassed by parenting. I'm not embarrassed by carrying a screaming child out of the store because I tried to drag him shopping when he's tired. I'm not embarrassed by the poo or puke badges I clean off of my shirts and jackets. And I can't imagine I'll be embarrassed when the kids start school and don't fit neatly into the box. I do worry about embarrassing myself when faced with a teacher who is "less than helpful" at some point in the future. But I'm actively practicing using my big girl words. I'd hate to call the teacher an ass-butt for being rude and unreasonable. Sadly, I might.

I think all parents have their battles. A child who has a special need, or a child with behavioral issues, or a shy child, or one with ADHD, or just a high energy child, etc, etc.

Was this online or irl? Because really, there are quite a few people who exaggerate things to make themselves feel special or different or simply don't have much experience with children so they don't really know what's normal and what isn't.

Heh heh, La Texican. I'll never forget the mortified look on my son's face when he started doing the scream-and-slither-to-the-ground one night at the mall (we were leaving without getting him ice cream IIRC) and I dropped to the floor, wailing at the top of my lungs. He tugged at me to get me to stop and stand up, but I kept at it so he'd really get the message. He was two, I think. He never did it again.

I'm definitely seeing a strong tendency in DS5 to want to be seen as grown-up. It applies in lots of ways. He will refuse to spell "baby words", for instance, which to him is any word that doesn't meet some internal criteria of length, or uncommonness, or those in combination. When I pushed a bit to make sure he knew the words he was skipping, he always did, so I let it go. I've done my best to do more things with him lately to show that I understand that part of him. I recently gave him his first pocket knife; he doesn't have to hold my hand when we walk in the parking lot; I let him use the stove by himself; etc.

He came home the other day saying someone at his school was a "stink-ass" or "stank-ass" or "punk-ass", I can't remember which. I was too busy snickering to make a plausible fuss about it. He knows a lot of fun language-- for a while "jerkwad" was a fave, because of Bender from Futurama. And he probably knows I won't censor him, after I stood up for him at the playground one day, against a Christian mom who was aghast that he'd dared to say "hell".

Some parents of gifted kids do things that are just dead stupid, and do have a negative impact. But overall I would say gifted kids are much more likely to get positive, or at least non-damaging influences at home, and influences that hurt their creativity and intellectual development in school.

Zhian, you could also say that of a child with ADHD or on the autism spectrum.

Yeah, but what should the schools do differently for everybody? �Would you refine the core standards or do you mean the inevitable contentious teacher here and there? �Or is there a psychology class teachers could take before earning a teachers degree that would make them be better with children? I agree, most parents are the best supporters of their own children.

Many parents do not understand gifted children (or even education). I was recently speaking to a parent about his gifted child and his response was to put his son in wrestling so he could become a professional wrestler.

Parents on this forum are very different than most parents.

Sounds like a fun crowd!

These seem like classic reactions to giftedness (some of those folks might even be gifted but just not recognize it) and your self-doubt, classic, right? I mean who among us hasn't said, well maybe I am just crazy/pushy? Then you get some testing back or your 4 year old is really holding their own in adult conversation and you are thrown back on the other side of things. Fun fun fun.

As to the question, I really like/hope that Grinity's answer is about right....my ds10 expressed that he was depressed about social things very early on, but now he is doing ok happy-wise...hopefully his ability to express himself has lead to better early intervention and therefore a good outcome (of course time will REALLY tell on that one)...

Fingers crossed.

It's the core standards, and the insistence of higher-ups that said standards are more important than the kids' happiness and psychological and academic well-being, that create the problem in the first place. Teachers make it worse (and I'd challenge you on the phrase "here and there"!) by buying into the notion that keeping all their students at the same point on the same path at the same time is the goal. Assembly-line education doesn't work perfectly for anyone, doesn't even work well for the majority in my opinion (I say this as a teacher), and certainly doesn't work for the vast majority of gifted and creative kids. I'm something of a heretic in my field and generally believe the whole system has to be completely overthrown, in favor of something that realizes it's better not just for the individuals concerned but for society as a whole if we allow kids to learn in their own way, at their own speed, and according to their own strengths and passions.

I've read it said that maybe we should work the bugs out of Montessori and it would be a fitting replacement for free universal public schools. �What do you say? �The big complaint I've read is that Montessori wants you to master activity A before you begin activity B. �And that Montessori schools often only go through elementary. �
I went to a self-paced private highschool for awhile with the ACE cirriculum, which was shallow and weak, IIRC. �But at least it was self-paced. �So there's two programs with a working history that are at least successfully non lock-step timewise. �Then there's the quiestion of how to level the lessons. �There's even a discussion about how far to follow a kid's interest out of order knowing that a little time going over the basics first will deter a lot of getting sidetracked later. (link 1). And a discussion about computer classes being the most realistic way to differentiate education for all (link 2). �But the ace thing I used that time used booklets, self-paced booklets. �And the montessori uses that shelf full of manipulatives. �So computer's not the only way. �I don't know if linear progression is or isn't the only way. �I think I hear you saying it's not. �The davidson academy is doing something with the kid's that's much more individualized. �But, in all three of those cases the student teacher ratio is smaller, to start with. And the students in all three cases come from families that are more involved in their children's daily education as well. �But let's talk about how we can make it universal. �I'm not saying the system should stay, I'm asking what you would replace it with? �Oh I wish teachers weren't contentious. �I wish they all loved everybody and loved learning and loved ideas and loved conversations in the classroom. �Is there a psychology class that teaches that so all the teachers would be the good one's?
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted...._I_buy_curriculum_two_gra.html#Post90935
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/80647/8.html
Oh, sorry daytripper. That's way off from your original thought in this thread. But I still want to know.

One off-the wall suggestion that I kind of like is to nationally allow kids after sixth grade to choose vocational training or higher education based on their interest and aptitude. I don't really like it because I've heard that in communist countries this is mandatory and I think i would not like to see it ever become manditory. I've read theories that in the old one-room schoolhouses where no one but the college bound made it past eighth grade, they supposedly studied fewer subjects deeper while they were there. The after school job market is yet another whole different conversation. And it involves the changed labor needs of a new technology society. Education reform is just such a big thought. There's just so many details. And which way should we go with them?

I think everyone should get a solid grounding in math, science, arts, and humanities. As long as they get that, I don't have an opposition to a focus on vocational skills.

To add to the mix:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....0320/Anyone_had_experience_with_DI_.html

I don't think that a lecture format is necessarily a terrible thing, as long as it's done well. The main problem would be IMHO that you need to make sure the pace is appropriate for everyone in the class, and the obvious tension is that for money and resource reasons the tendency is always to squeeze some kids where the fit isn't very good at all.

I like a lot of things about Montessori, including their autodidactic approach which is at the heart of it, but I haven't fallen in love so much with their actual math autodidactic tools that I've seen. That would fit under the category "Working Out the Bugs".

I don't that it's a good idea to just let kids stagnate in certain areas because they didn't pick to work on them for extended periods, so some mechanism should make sure they're well-rounded, implying that they are actually forced (gently) to work on their less-favored and weak areas sometimes. As long as they don't fall behind, though, I am generally all for letting kids go at their own pace, and increasing that ability however possible, through manipulatives or computers or whatever else.

Yeah, lucounu. I sure embarrassed myself in that thread. Insulting someone who's kid has downsyndrome. Sure didn't mean it that way. I'm still quite embarrassed. I do like studying how we learn things. And a solid foundation, step by step, at any age or level is the most convincing promise I've heard yet.

I'm thrilled with that new post they made today. Gifted kids really just need tools, techniques, and training. And let em go.

Zhian, I wanted to show you something. But I'm going to put it in Poppa Rex's thread under "Thinking Big". Check it out.

No, I didn't mean to embarrass anyone. I just remembered about the DI stuff, since I read about it here first, and thought I'd throw in some evidence that a lecture format isn't necessarily terrible, at least if done well and if the kids are all at roughly the same level and pace. I'm sorry, but I also don't think you should be embarrassed over a mistake. We know you mean well, even if you are horribly prejudiced.