Yes, I think "tidbits" (good word choice!) often get absorbed so fast that we don't even realize they were there.
That's not to say that some kids don't figure things out completely on their own, sans tidbits. But I find it hard to define a kid as not PG for not knowing something that he has never seen before. That was really my main point. Am I making more sense?
If a K-er has never seen 6th grade math, he might master it on his own and would certainly fit CFK's definition of PG. (And mine!) But then again, I think it's absolutely possible for a child to be PG and not to have mastered math that he's never seen, even if math is his strong suit. I just don't think it's wise to base the definition on those extremely stringent terms.
