Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Do our kids burn out?

That's really one of the problems with life.

You only feel good about yourself if you *are* at functioning the highest levels because you underachieve if you don't, but if you do that, then you end up essentially killing yourself.

Although part of this is the need for sleep.

Some people really only need about 4 hours of sleep a night.

Thus, you are faced with the choice of permanent/chronic underachievement along with the dissatisfaction that comes along with this or serious psychological damage.

I agree.

Some parents invest without understanding that the CHILD at the center of the activity may not be constitutionally well-suited to elite competition in the first place.

Searching for Bobby Fischer/Innocent Moves is an instructive way to spend a couple hours for any parent of an HG child. IMHO.

I suspect, in fact, that the story of Josh Waitzkin's early years (dramatized and told in the film) probably only REALLY resonates with parents like us. Other parents probably see Amy Chua TigerParenting when they look at kids like Josh. Or, for that matter, most of the kids around here.

Jon, I would offer that I hope that my DD can avoid that existential conundrum by placing herself and her own self-reflections firmly at the center of her self-worth and self-image-- and not the external indicators of self-worth such as trophies, ribbons, awards, and "first place" experiences... hopefully not even the value judgments of those around her. Understanding the key to one's own self-worth is crucial, in my experience. Best to tie it to something that is a locus of your OWN control, as Dude's post indirectly implies.

Being "the best at ______" is no way to have a healthy sense of self-worth, because you're ultimately at the mercy of your life circumstances. If you're a van Cliburn winner at 20yo, what happens if you're in an auto accident the next day that robs you of the use of both hands, hmm?

"Helping others" or "enjoying a challenge" or even "being good at ____" is far, far better. But it can't be FORCED externally-- that is, it has to be authentic, and it has to be something that is intrinsically of value to the individual. I think part of it is simply living in a way that aligns with one's internal values-- that is, devoting the appropriate amount of effort/attention to those things that one finds have intrinsic worth, and letting the results happen as they will, more or less.

I think that parents err when they assume that ALL children are motivated by "winning" to begin with. Those that are probably don't need any more encouragement-- for the reasons nicely laid out by Jon.

I would have expected this too, and I still expect that this effect kicks in eventually, but I've been surprised not to see it so far (and "so far" includes everything in the UK below the "top 1000 under-19s" competitions). I think what's going on is that presenting as "PG in maths" goes along with enjoying doing for fun the kinds of things you need to do to prepare, at the levels DS has met so far. If I think about it, he spends a fairly large amount of time doing maths, and a fair chunk of that is spent being stretched to the point of frustration, but he nevertheless doesn't think of himself as working particularly hard at it, and hence neither do I. It hasn't so far been necessary for him to work with doing well in competition as a goal: doing well in competition has been a side-effect of things he was doing anyway, for a mixture of ordinary school work and amusement. I am going to be interested to see how far that continues, and what happens when DS does have to choose, or not, to do something specifically in order to do well in competition.

I strongly agree.

I do think kids/students can burn out, particular around the teen years. But it's not just 'our' kids. Many of the hot housed kids weather they are PG or not, work so hard particularly as teens that they never have ANY downtime. And they often get pushed into directions in school that aren't particularly their choice.

I've also seen kids burn out in sports.

By the time school is out for the summer, my DS is very burned out and wants nothing to do with any schoolwork. I seen teens who never seem to have ANY time even in the summer to let their hair down. Some of them don't handle this too well.

Well, on the bright side, without hands, you're no longer at risk for underachievement since you no longer have the potential to be the best.

Well, only a perfectionist could see that kind of silver lining, though... so I guess there IS an important benefit in being a perfectionist!

Colinsmum and I are saying much the same thing, I think-- that is, her DS is enjoying his pursuits and feels that his investment is "appropriate" and not excessive... because it is intrinsically of value to him, independent of the trappings of the success that seem to have come along with the devotion to his passion.

DD has had competition level talent and potential at quite a number of things in her life-- but she has not had the passion to pursue them at that elite level. We haven't made her, either. That's the lesson of SFBF; it has to be their idea, or you're stealing a childhood they'll never get back. THAT, in my own estimation, is the very definition of toxic Hot-Housing, or of TigerParenting. It's the external direction of it all that makes the difference.

Now, back to Portia's second point-- why on earth would an acquaintance feel the need to relate such a sad tale to a parent? Well, probably because they FEAR that the parent is exercising undue influence on the child's choices in terms of effort, time, and energy devoted to participation in an activity. Maybe it's because they care (albeit in a misguided or ignorant manner) about the parent and the child in question. One wonders, though, whether or not such intervention is also directed at stage parents and sports ones. {sigh} I'm guessing not so much, actually.

You win the award for Best Optimist.

Rapidly diminishing marginal utility associated with consumption of a fixed amount of a "career" causes the gifted to require a new life focus to derive the same utility they once did when the earlier pursuit was fresh.

The Pareto reference has me confused, as Pareto efficiency generally refers to trade-offs in utility from various changes in group consumption, not at the individual level. I suspect Zen is using Pareto here in the engineering--not economics--context as a representation of an efficient frontier for the individual in terms of career choices, etc, with multidimensional trade-offs. Zen, do I understand you correctly?

Per ColinsMum's point, I get the sense that intrinsic enjoyment of pursuit X at advanced levels inoculates against overreaching and burnout. When work is play--essentially, pleasure-driven--is over consumption even possible (from the perspective of the over-consumer, not the average observer)? In the short term, probably, but I suspect long-term rationality kicks in with the need for sleep and sustenance at some basic level.

Yes, but for some competitive activities, the rewards are meager unless you are one of the very best. Chess is discussed often here. I would not advise someone to become a professional chess player unless they can become one of the top ten players in the world. "Burn out" in sports, chess, and other activities may be a rational response to the understanding that you are very good at X but that there are other people who are even better.