I wouldn't be so sure - plenty of parents have been suprised by 2nd born girls, expecially if first born is a boy. Fewer 'party tricks' and 'unusual social quirks' doesn't mean less gifted. I don't know why this is, but around here we sing 'test one, test 'em all.'
((wink))
Grinity
I really hope DD4 gets tested and proves to be gifted as well. She's definitely special (and I mean that with much love). She's definitely no where near (or was) DS6 at certain stages in life (he was the one trying to "stand" as a newborn, whereas, she was floppy as anything. He read before age 3, she can read only a few sight words). But, she is surprising us now, at 4, not with reading and math, but with how much she just "gets" that a lot of 4 year olds don't at all. [/quote]
DS13 didn't read until age 6, and was definitely a 'getter' - and he's in DYS so I wouldn't make too much of the missing milestones. At this moment, my feeling about milestones is that they are real clues if they are early, but I'd never downgrade my estimation of someone's giftedness if they are later than expected. Being a floppy baby isn't related to giftedness one way or the other, but it certianly will change the presentation of the giftedness. I think that my son didn't learn to read any earlier (in spite of knowing his letters and letter sounds super early) was that his visual system was 'only' age appropriate. Now he tells me that if I had verbally taught him to read that he would have learned much earlier. I think that this is the ODP talking, I mean really! But it is true that at age 3 when he asked to be taught to read, the first thing I would do is pull out the magnetic letters and move them around. I love tactile games!
Smiles,
Grinity
