I find this a fascinating discussion. There seems to be an emerging consensus on a distinction between the prodigy/little man tate/good will hunting level, on the one hand, and the PG level on the other. I agree with those who say that in the end what matters is not how you categorize your kid but whether they are getting what they need. Still, figuring out what they need depends in part on having some sense for who they're like - and that is a kind of a categorization problem. And as far as the categories go I'd assumed that PG and prodigy were virtually synonyms.
As a parent I find myself constantly looking for role models whose children are like mine and who seem to have done an admirable job giving them the opportunities and support they need. Terence Tao's father, for example, has some inspiring ways of talking about his experience as the father of a prodigy. But is my kid like Terence Tao? It's a bit hard to tell - DS is only 4.2 - but if I had to I'd bet against it. Some of the stories ring true but others, especially those describing Tao at ages older than my son now is, seem like they come from a different trajectory. If that's right, then perhaps Billy Tao isn't my best role model. The main advantage in having a label, it seems to me, is that it helps you to figure out who your role models should be. And that, in turn, helps you to determine which individualized approach will serve your child best.
BB
