Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Article: The Wrong Way to Treat Child Geniuses

Okay, maybe "rhetorically splitting hairs" wasn't a good term, as others have pointed out, but it was pointing out the annoyingly obvious.

Okay so the top 0.01% aren't going to have the majority of "innovative contributions to society" (whatever that is; define it how you like).

But suppose the top X% (in IQ, or some other measure) contribute f(X)% of "innovative contributions to society" (or some such thing). What does f look like? For which X% is f(X)%=50%?

Maybe the top 0.01% contribute 1% (100 times their "share"), while
the top 5% contribute 50% (10 times their "share").

So the higher IQ kids end up disproportionately making intellectual contributions to society. (Duh, Captain Obvious strikes again.) But if they are to do this, they need to be properly educated to their ability level. J0rdan Ellenberg seems to be trying to rebut this claim by choosing X% so small that f(X)% has to be small.

The argument I just made is so obvious that it would have occurred to him as quick as a flash of lightning. Failing to explicitly present this argument was downright sneaky.

Except for a few "famous" prodigies I'm not sure most child geniuses get more attention that your standard hot housed kid. And perhaps less, since I know a lot of kids who spend years & years in private after school tutoring/classes who by the time they hit H.S. can do the same work through a lot more effort. Those kids are given a lot less time to play and explore. Quite different from a kid who's idea of playing and exploring is doing mathematics puzzles.

I completely agree with this statement.

On another note, I think so much goes into raising an adult who feels successful. Personality, perfectionist tendencies, work ethic, type of education, peer group, etc.

It seems silly to me to try and isolate one component and say, "this is what it takes to raise a person who has the ability to xyz."

For me, the biggest program a school could offer is a challenge. From my perspective, the kids who aren't challenged either get lazy or think they are so smart that they don't have to work very hard. To me, this is a shame.

It is hard to go discover a cure for cancer when you don't know how to work/think very hard. And going through x number of school years without challenge makes it hard to know how to work through a challenge.

I WANT every kid to be challenged appropriately. I don't understand why that has to be debated or difficult.

This is just my 2 cents, but probably isn't worth that much.

"But believe me, when you find a prodigy, you find an ambitious parent in the background."

Ruggiero Ricci

I think most people including teachers believe this and too often, their view is confirmed by crazy pushy parents. It's a vicious cycle.

I think this article says pretty much nothing meaningful about how to nurture the gifted, though I do agree with the secondary premise that deeper math talent in the general population wouldn't be a bad thing. The author seems to rail against filling GT children's heads with pie-in-the-sky dreams without inoculating them with persistence and direction. No news there.

I agree with 22B's point about the author's obfuscation of his underlying argument. Ironically, the author's argument actually implicitly places heightened demands on the GT, because he's arguing their relative multiplier is insufficient to merit supporting their development of their talents, which is exactly what he's railing against. He can't have it both ways.

Frankly, the author sounds like he's whining for not feeling being more personally impressive. Sour grapes, cognitive dissonance, etc.

In case my distaste for the article isn't apparent enough, I'll say that people like him set the case of GT students back. He'll be perceived by the general public as an authority on GT, and his negative portrayal of offering resources to the GT (nature and extent undefined) will probably cause some people to advocate against an appropriate education for the gifted. I shake my fist in his general direction.

I quite liked the article. I didn't see him offering any kind of proposal about gifted education, either for the extreme tail or for a broader segment of the gifted. I certainly didn't see any proposal that there should be LESS effort to educate these groups.

He was addressing one very specific issue, which is the excessive "media feting" (as HK puts it) of those in the extreme tail; and the consequent pernicious effects that this Great Hero myth has on both the feted kids themselves, and on those around them who are not so singled out.

I agree with MegMeg - it took me a while to get over the Great Hero thing, and I wasn't really as celebrated as a lot of these kids. I still feel vaguely guilty that "all" I do is write patent applications and raise my kids. Not only will I never win a Nobel Prize, I probably won't even have minor successes like making partner at a law firm or becoming a judge. I'll just practice law and live my life. It was embarrassing having people at my high school reunion telling me they expected to see me on the news accepting awards by now.

I don't see this article as having a lot to do with general gifted education - it's about the way we treat the extreme tail.

This problem isn't limited to extreme gifties. It happens to high school athletes all the time. It did a pretty good job of destroying a kid in my high school.

I think that US culture has a serious problem with hero-neediness, so we invent them to satisfy the need. It's not healthy.

Agreed. We have plenty of heros. Our problem, culturally, is that we want demigods instead.

While everyone sings for your day to be happy
you blow out those forty candles
with a pang of regret...