Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Outliers, Tiger Moms, and Nature

That's a good thing to remember. We are dealing with degrees; there's not much point in making comparisons along the full spectrum. I think Shari was writing about nourishing his intellectual growth, but the point stands: we can assume someone else would've, too. And especially for a self-directed learner, as long as they have sufficient information to draw from, results may be pretty similar in different environments. (Note that Shari doesn't think it's a 50/50 split either.)


(I know you meant "affect" instead of "boost".) I read things a lot differently. I think that some studies that have been done are flawed, but even those show can show that environment can play a large role; they are in my opinion often summarized incorrectly. So, for example, a study that shows a .74 correlation in IQ between identical twins raised separately doesn't show that the environment cannot influence IQ, although it might not usually do so in a large way (which in my opinion could be explainable in a number of ways-- perhaps as we grow to adulthood we tend to get exposed to similar normative educational forces that can tend to flatten out an earlier spike). I don't think all the identical twins with dissimilar IQs can be explained away by brain injuries, malnourishment and the like.

With the cookie-cutter approach to education in the U.S. and seemingly the rest of the world, I wouldn't expect nurture to provide such a differentiating force on IQ tests as much as it could. I also don't think most parents, at least in the U.S.,do much education of their children after they come home from school. There's just not a lot of time in the day for a working family.

I think there are two important points:

* The first is that limits to individual talents exist. The corollary here is that everyone has different limits.

If humans really did have limitless (or nearly so) potential, we should all be able to train ourselves to run as fast as cheetahs or master complex mathematics. But everyone knows this isn't the case. Non-bionic humans can't run as fast as cheetahs* and most people can't become highly proficient at, say, tensor calculus.

It's when you get away from the extremes that people get wound up. Examples include: "all children should be able to work at age-grade level," "we need to encourage most of our young people to go to college," and "all students should take algebra in 8th grade."

All of these ideas are based on arbitrary standards, yet this fact seems to escape their proponents. I would argue, for example, "students should take algebra when they understand the prerequisites for algebra."

* The second point is that you can't know your limits until you push toward them in a way that is appropriate for you. Here is where the "nurture" part of things comes in. Pushing to your limits requires internal drive, help from family, teachers, coaches, circumstances, and so on.

I wonder about the extent to which people conflate these two ideas. It seems to me that our society doesn't like to talk about specifics as regards to limits, which may underlie the "all children are gifted" argument.

Letting different kids go through a math book at different rates is simply acknowledging different individual limits. It isn't saying that the kids in the slower group aren't being given a right to "try," as is argued by proponents of equity-based educational outcomes. In fact, letting them go more slowly will likely increase the probability that they'll learn more than they would have, had they been forced to go through material too quickly. A rate of learning is subject to limits, just as anything else.

Val


* In fact, I think Steve Austin only got to 60 mph, which is not as fast as a cheetah.

Excellent observations, Val.

I personally have observed this 'upper limit' for peers that simply could not cope with graduate level training in mathematics or the physical sciences. For some of them it was the pace/rate that was limiting-- but for others, it was a cognitive limit of some sort that caused shut-down. They had the foundational skills, and they had the speed, but they didn't have the surge capacity. It was heartbreaking to see this up close, incidentally. They were completely competent with bachelor's level understanding of the subject, but they simply didn't have the raw material to earn advanced degrees in those subjects.

Many of them were better teachers of the lower-level material than the rest of us, however, which I've always found interesting. They certainly had greater persistance than many of the more successful of us. They had a lot of different tools in their mental toolboxes, and seemed to be much more capable at switching from one mode of teaching to another situationally. Those of us that didn't struggle quite so hard with the material seemed to have fewer strategic methods of working/learning, and we'd often give up when we hit a wall that we couldn't work around.


Cheetahs. We're good at what we do, but really AWFUL at being 'generalists' in some ways. The generalists aren't cut out to be good cheetahs, but they sure can outlast us in sheer determination and endurance.

I also love how Wren put her daughter's piano experience. That is precisely how we approach tasks/obligations with our DD. She doesn't have to be a 'master' at something to make it worthwhile. She probably does need to get out of at least some activities what she puts into them, and music is an excellent tool for learning what that feels like.

Mostly, results don't seem (to her) to be related to sweat equity, which is not a good thing to learn. I think this relates to what Val is saying about arbitrary boundary conditions. I also think that this is the underlying principles guiding Dr. Chua with her parenting.

Just because broader culture says that {example} is the "normal" and "natural" progression and expectations, why is it mandatory to follow that path? Is it right for everyone? If it isn't, then how does one determine which cases are exceptions? What does "normal" and "natural" look like for those exceptions?



Take, for example, the notion that "everyone should go to college."

Well, everyone?? Really? Maybe not. Okay, so who should be excluded from that statement? Maybe "additional learning experiences beyond compulsory schooling are beneficial to everyone" is a better way of saying that, but that is certainly going to be harder to QUANTIFY and MEASURE.

Frankly, I think we've gone round the bend in our culture (meaning N. America and the US in particular) in our obsession with quantitative data-- to the point that it sometimes seems as though numbers are preferable to anecdote or plurality, even if when those statistical data are known to be meaningless in the context in which they are being used. Does anyone truly think that NCLB statistics mean anything much? In my mind, that is nearly as ludicrous as evaluating how many third graders know how to tie their shoes and take a city bus somewhere and calling that a measure of effective parenting. It's crazy, and everyone knows that it's crazy, but we can't seem to stop.

Savant abilities - sounds much better than 'party tricks' which is what I was calling them until now. My DH is one of those who can pick paint chips from memory.

For me, NCLB statistics are a good way of showing the extremes that people go to when a statistic about, say, mathematics knowledge among nine-year-olds, becomes far more important than the mathematics knowledge itself!

Have you ever read The Trouble with Physics? The first ~3/4 of the book is about problems in theoretical physics. The second part is about what you said: "It's crazy, and everyone knows that it's crazy, but we can't seem to stop."

Val

First, I have never had any trouble with physics, so I will look for the book Val.

Secondly, I still don't get what this is all about?

It is almost like parents of gifted kids want assurances that their talents will keep them safe or something. So what if your kids is the smartest kid in class, in the city, in the state? What then, what does it matter?

In these times of budget crunching, you are not going to get sympathy for gifted programs. We will be lucky if they don't get cut. I am paying for CTY accelerated math but I also know that accelerated math is not the be all and end all for my gifted kid to OK in this world.

It doesn't matter that her IQ is derived from her parent genes, or that she got a boost from the breast feeding or DHA tablets she gets or that we read to her.

It is well known that what she is born with is not the total story. The brain does a huge development from 5-9 and you can get big changes in IQ, though many on this board don't subscribe to the concept. And in teen years, there is another huge brain development. So how much is nature vs nurture when you combine these two periods?

I just know, as a parent, it is my responsibility to make sure she has all the options. She may choose to count birds in the Rocky mountains, be a vet, be a jazz pianist, be an astronaut. But I will make sure that whatever she wants she has the options and having an IQ in the HG+ range doesn't guarantee that.

My opinion is that the kid with 20 points lower IQ who has an amazing work ethic will have far more options than the kid with a 140 IQ that is directionless.

Ren

There, I conflated them. Yeah. I like the way that looks now.

Wait. Wait. Wait. I REALLY like this one too.


Val I want to pencil in your husband's name on the next presidential election so you can be the next first lady!