Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 86 guests, and 12 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    Amelia Willson, jordanstephen, LucyCoffee, Wes, moldypodzol
    11,533 Registered Users
    October
    S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
    6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    13 14 15 16 17 18 19
    20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    27 28 29 30 31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 11 12
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    Q
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Q
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 1,432
    Even though your DS was identified very young (age 5?), it is likely that he is highly gifted. Whether he is also a musical prodigy requires more information and time to determine. Your DS certainly has musical talent but a musical prodigy is far more rare. In my mind, it is a wider distinction than that between moderately gifted and profoundly gifted (and I don't mean by the lower DYS standards). The recorder is a very basic instrument and therefore too blunt of a measure to determine the level of his musical ability. Perhaps it would make sense to try him on the clarinet or saxophone or something in the string family and see how far he develops in the next six months. I don't know whether there is an official definition but I personally would not consider any child under age 10 to be a prodigy unless he was at the level of a professional adult. It appears that in most cases, the prodigious ability appears far earlier although without opportunity . . .

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Originally Posted by ultramarina
    Quote
    There's an element of intrinsic motivation that comes into play when you talk about prodigy manifesting in children.

    My son's intrinsic motivation with chess has been quite extraordinary to watch. It is one reason I've wondered if he might be a bit of a prodigy. Some kids study chess. DS inhales chess like chocolate.

    However, I still feel it's early to tell, though we have intentionally not rushed into hardcore competition.

    ETA: Meanwhile, his sister is good at chess at well--much better than she lets on at school--but it is not and never has been intoxicating to her. She could be at least as good as some of the second-tier club players in her grade, which is not at all shabby at her school. But there's not the same spark. She plays because her brother wants to, and she's gotten progressively better because she really hates to lose to her younger sib.

    Yes; and see, DD learned to play at about five, but just wasn't that interested once she beat me, her dad, and her grandpa once each.

    She definitely lacked motivation or interest in it. She's as proficient as most adults will ever be, but has no interest in excellence in the domain, basically. She hasn't played in years at this point. Which is kind of disappointing to her friends who are chess geeks, because she is still awfully good-- way better than most people who are trying.


    ETA: This example points up the difference, I think, between "PG" and "prodigy." DD is quite likely the former (I could provide a lot of anecdotal support for the claim that her reasoning ability was that of at least undergraduate level when she was 4-7yo)-- but clearly not the latter. COULD she be in the right domain? Perhaps, but we've certainly not seen anything that lights her fire that way long-term. Mostly, she inhales information and is then 'done' with whatever it is, or dabbles periodically over a longer period of time.


    On second thought, she does have a current interest-- marksmanship-- where "prodigy" could turn out to be the appropriate term. As in, national rankings, possible Olympic level. She's probably going to qualify for nationals this year and she's been shooting for less than six months. She's passionate about it, and she's very very good. It remains to be seen, though, if she'll sustain the interest when she hits a rough patch. But she regularly out-shoots everyone on the range except the elite shooters who compete nationally/internationally. They are adults who have been shooting for years, and mostly for decades. She is 14. So yeah-- that might be an example of prodigy-like passion/ability.

    Also--

    Prodigy is about developing/developed TALENT, the way that I see it.

    Giftedness (profound or otherwise) is about cognitive potential.

    I'm not sure that the two things are really much related to one another by anything but coincidence.


    Last edited by HowlerKarma; 01/20/14 10:40 AM.

    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    ETA: This example points up the difference, I think, between "PG" and "prodigy." DD is quite likely the former (I could provide a lot of anecdotal support for the claim that her reasoning ability was that of at least undergraduate level when she was 4-7yo)-- but clearly not the latter. COULD she be in the right domain? Perhaps, but we've certainly not seen anything that lights her fire that way long-term. Mostly, she inhales information and is then 'done' with whatever it is, or dabbles periodically over a longer period of time.
    I think males are more likely to develop obsessive interests and thus harness their talents to become prodigies. It's not clear that if as many women were obsessive as men that things would be better. To make a good living it suffices to be very good at one thing, but a parent must play the roles of teacher, dietician, psychologist, and doctor, among other roles. Maybe females have evolved to be more well-rounded and less obsessive because their domestic roles have required that.

    Joined: Aug 2010
    Posts: 3,428
    U
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    U
    Joined: Aug 2010
    Posts: 3,428
    My DD would probably dress you down quite furiously for that remark, Bostonian. wink

    Actually, I would not describe DS as "obsessive" about chess. Chess is joy for him. What I see with him and chess is not something I have seen often in my lifetime.

    DD tends a bit more towards obsessive in personality than he does, TBH. DS is also dramatically more emotionally self-aware, has a much higher EQ, and is far tidier. Oh, and a much better dancer. DD can draw better, though. They both are uninterested in babies. Neither has ever liked superheroes, but they both loved cars as toddlers, though neither cares about them now. DD seems to be better in math than DS is currently shaping up to be, and DS read more than a year earlier than DD. And...

    Wait, did none of that fit in the boxes?? wink

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    ETA: This example points up the difference, I think, between "PG" and "prodigy." DD is quite likely the former (I could provide a lot of anecdotal support for the claim that her reasoning ability was that of at least undergraduate level when she was 4-7yo)-- but clearly not the latter. COULD she be in the right domain? Perhaps, but we've certainly not seen anything that lights her fire that way long-term. Mostly, she inhales information and is then 'done' with whatever it is, or dabbles periodically over a longer period of time.
    I think males are more likely to develop obsessive interests and thus harness their talents to become prodigies. It's not clear that if as many women were obsessive as men that things would be better. To make a good living it suffices to be very good at one thing, but a parent must play the roles of teacher, dietician, psychologist, and doctor, among other roles. Maybe females have evolved to be more well-rounded and less obsessive because their domestic roles have required that.

    And to follow onto UM's post above--

    my DD is not an example of "less obsessive" in any way, actually. She's serially obsessive about whatever interest she has which is new and shiny.

    This is the entire reason why I've been reluctant to call marksmanship anything but a current interest. She was at one time this way about almost everything. It's just that she's so clearly got prodigy-potential in this domain.

    Also laughing a bit at the notion that this particular skill set could have been shaped for some care-giving/domestic need by evolution. LOL.

    It's worth noting that far too many EG/PG people are distinctly androgynous in their interests and strengths to make gender-based statements about them. IMO, I mean.


    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    my DD is not an example of "less obsessive" in any way, actually. She's serially obsessive about whatever interest she has which is new and shiny.

    Being serially obsessive won't make you a prodigy. I still think males are more likely to obsess over a narrow field for a long period of time, as Bobby Fischer did with chess.

    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    It's worth noting that far too many EG/PG people are distinctly androgynous in their interests and strengths to make gender-based statements about them. IMO, I mean.

    I am a gifted adult interested in chess, politics, finance, and computer programming. All those fields are male-dominated.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    confused Meaning, Bostonian? I understand that you conform to your hypothesis quite nicely. However, any example which disproves the hypothesis renders it invalid as a generality, yes?

    My HG+ spouse is interested in dog training and cognition in animals, in apiculture, theater and in fine lathe-work. He's a regional authority in some of those sub-specialties, so his interest is pretty darned high there. He's also obsessive about his interest in popcorn consumption, but I hardly figure that this counts for much. grin


    I am a gifted (female) adult interested in history, political science, economic theory, and several arcane areas of STEM, in addition to my more gender-normative pursuits (fiber arts, pharmacology, neuroscience, music). But in any case, I hardly consider that even meaningful anecdote given that this is an N of one, albeit it does disprove the theory that gender determines obsessive interest areas. I have had any number of male-dominated interests in my life, and certainly spent much of my professional life in such settings without a lot of discomfiture that my interests were not supported, probably because my interests are not gender-normative in many ways. Even my more gender-typical interests, I have noticed that I tend to focus on the technical or logic-driven side of things. I'm a scientist at heart, I think, and it colors the way that I interact with the world-- I was very definitely born this way.

    I'd say that higher LOG correlates nicely with curiosity, which is probably more likely to result in an encounter that has the potential to be interesting enough to render it "obsessive" (at least it seems that way to others), long-term or otherwise. I also tend to believe (and studies that I have seen overwhelmingly bear this out) that being non-normative is relatively freeing from gender-norms in terms of exploring interests. Who knows, if not for gender norming and cultural pressures, perhaps non-gifted persons would explore more taboo interests more often, too. Instead, we get boys interested mostly in sports and first-person shooter games, and girls who want to cuddle horses and write i's with little hearts over them.





    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007

    Yet another fascinating thread.

    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    Likes: 1
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    Likes: 1
    Bostonian, you're making inferences from a subset of the tails of a statistical distribution and ascribing them to the remaining distribution. Mathematically it doesn't hold water.

    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    Maybe females have evolved to be more well-rounded and less obsessive because their domestic roles have required that.

    It's interesting, because the social psychology literature shows that males whose wives are the dominant household breadwinner are now exhibiting the classic socialized "female" behaviours-- remaining at home to care for children, faking orgasm, engaging in heightened preening. It appears that will dominates skill in the household labour allocation decision regardless of gender.

    +1 for gender non conforming females here.


    What is to give light must endure burning.
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007

    I'm really searching for a meaningful comment to add something to this thread.

    So far, nothing.

    Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 11 12

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Help with WISC-V composite scores
    by aeh - 10/28/24 02:43 PM
    i Am genius and no one understands me!!!
    by Eagle Mum - 10/23/24 04:11 PM
    Classroom support for advanced reader
    by Heidi_Hunter - 10/14/24 03:50 AM
    2e Dyslexia/Dysgraphia schools
    by Jwack - 10/12/24 08:38 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5