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.
Were they, though? Or is it the impression of moomin's DD that they must have been feigning such fear (in light of her understanding and feelings toward the spider)?
That's just it-- there is a real danger of being patronizing in this kind of situation, no matter how good our intentions as we "help" others to overcome irrational fears or merely the affectation of them.
I know that my perspective, being non NT, has often been wildly different from normative-- and that my interpretation of that difference (particularly as a child) was often to assume that others MUST be putting me on. That they couldn't possibly really be thinking or feeling what they seemed to be thinking/feeling. As much as others have trouble understanding MY perspective, it is a good idea for me to remember that I may not understand the NT perspective all that well, either.
I've also literally NEVER heard anyone thank me for helping them to dispel some closely held belief that they are passionately, irrationally in the process of embracing in front of me. I have considerable experience with that particular thing, actually, being both a scientist and an atheist. (Ever try to talk to someone who is fervently anti-vaccination because they "just know" that it's harmful?) I keep my mouth shut and let people believe what they wish, unless it does actually directly produce an impact that has wider consequences (okay, so I do actually speak up about anti-vax mythology, but I've learned that it's pointless to do so with individuals). It's an important social skill for someone who is never going to be normative in most settings-- learn to recognize when someone is NOT basing their responses on rational, logical thinking, and understand that arguing anything using logic/rationality is doomed to failure and acrimony.
Being normative may not be an option, but being able to pass as such (er-- or at least borderline or plausibly so) certainly makes life easier. And as a bonus, it does open the door to others being able to "hear" your perspective more readily. You know, once they've calmed down and quit screaming.
I got the sense that what bothered her most was the sense of different-ness, and the possible rejection/alienation that she felt as a result. Finding common ground, as Val noted, seems a very reasonable step to mitigating that particular problem.
Educating others as to why you are "right" (er, and as a subtext, why they are "wrong" or at least not "as correct" as you)... is not what some social situations call for. It's about recognizing teachable moments with others, and letting some stuff go when it isn't that kind of opportunity. Telling the other girls that the spider was harmless and actually, rather cool... I get WHY a HG+ child would do that-- but it's socially probably not the best choice while others are screeching. Maybe once they've calmed down. KWIM?
I am with HK on this one. And I have had parallel experiences--though I am in the social "sciences", and I am a believer. (Although my background in the hard sciences has probably led to very similar conversations with anti-vaxxers in particular.)
The thing is, people--all people--have some beliefs which they hold for no rational reason, or emotional responses which are not logical. It is ineffective to try to challenge those beliefs or responses on purely rational bases (though there is absolutely a time and a place for presenting the facts and the logic--but not when they are being flooded by feelings, when they won't be able to hear it anyway). Since the belief or response arises from a social-emotional origin, it can really only be addressed using a social-emotional approach, that acknowledges the authentic feelings generated, and the relationships involved. (On another topic altogether, this is why there is widespread support for many school safety initiatives, despite the facts--which are that your kid has a much higher chance of dying in a car accident than in a school shooting. But it makes adults feel like they are doing anything they can to protect vulnerable children to have locked-down schools, weapon-carrying security personnel, etc.)
In addition, an individual's motivation for behaving in a specific, non-rational way is often complex. Unless you have access to their motivations, it is unwise (and often inaccurate) to make assumptions about their motivations. And even when motivations are voiced, they are sometimes incomplete, or even misread by the individual themselves. Especially when you are talking about very young children.
Whether or not you are normative, it is well to learn to understand that there are certain principles and values which are worth confronting the norm of the group in front of you right now, and many other moments for which quietly letting the group swirl past you is essentially harmless to the group, and beneficial to the relationship. This does not mean having to pretend to be afraid of a harmless arachnid, nor does it mandate condescending to others' fears. There is a significant continuum in-between, which most of us are in an ongoing process of negotiating...
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
I still think that Val's point is well-made, however-- it will not be socially acceptable to point out to potential friends that air travel is many thousands of times LESS hazardous than a short trip in an automobile. Fear is inherently irrational much of the time, but you don't make many friends with others for minimizing their fears as "irrational." So I vehemently disagree with the idea of a "presentation" regarding risks. I think that most adults can see why this would (socially) be a disaster amongst peers in a professional setting, right? It's intrusive and presumptuous... Our risk assessment may well be skewed by previous personal trauma.
That's all and well if fear is the issue, but from moomn's OP, it isn't. Many of the girls feigned fear to fit in, and that groupthink is, in large part, what made his DD feel left out.
How does one know that the girls feigned fear?
polarbear
From the OP
Originally Posted by moomin
she felt like her reactions were more honest than many of the other girls who were really only pretending to be scared...
Thanks Aquinas, I was asking more from the point of view of how do *we* know the other girls were pretending when we only have moomin's dd's interpretation of the situation? Her interpretation makes sense from her perspective, and I was offering up an interpretation based on my perspective as an adult, who's been around a ton of 6 year old girls and seen lots of kids who are scared of spiders at that age, as well as lots of 6 year old girls who like to shriek. Unless the girls had (before the spider appeared) been purposely making fun or singling out moomin's dd or treating her as an outcast, I wouldn't automatically jump to the conclusion that the girls were pretending they were scared.
I think that HK, polar ear, and each have made some really good points.
TBH, an aspect of this anecdote that concerns me is this:
Quote
Later a dog ran into the group, and DD climbed a tree to escape it. She HATES dogs. She's convinced they're all going to bark and bite. She was terrified.
Not liking dogs is one thing, but I'm concerned about believing that ALL dogs will bite, and fear of barking. Sure, there are dogs that may bite, but most don't, and I think it's important to be able to distinguish aggressive behavior from friendly behavior. The world is full of dogs, and I think it would be very difficult to go through life being afraid of animals that are everywhere.
I also understand that having a negative experience with a dog will affect a person's outlook on dogs, but this doesn't negate the need for the skill I mentioned above.
"Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year, half of these are children. One in five dog bites results in injuries serious enough to require medical attention."
Yes-- but-- all the more reason to develop an understanding of dog behavior. THIS dog was clearly socialized and quite friendly.
Given the number of dogs in America, and the things that young and not-so-young children tend to do around dogs (staring at them, not reading avoidance correctly, reaching without allowing the dog to sniff and approach, etc. etc.), the miracle is that the number isn't HIGHER, quite honestly.
I also don't think that stating that plane crashes tend to be fatal is a useful way to defend a fear of flying-- as an analogy, I mean. The problem with this as defensive data is that the per capita or per incident risk is a bit more nuanced and certainly far, far, FAR lower than such statistics reflect.
Another thing that people may commonly be afraid of (irrationally so): heights. Falls actually injure or kill how many people annually? Well, it's a fair number, actually, if one were to look at the raw data. But on the other hand, if looked at in a per-incident fashion as falls FROM HEIGHTS, the risk is actually quite low. Yes, the risk is inherent. But usual caution seems to be adequate most of the time. Same thing with dogs. Usual caution and awareness really is enough most of the time.
The response of climbing a tree or going inside to "escape" the danger presented by a dog which was obviously friendly with the other children is therefore probably a bit disproportionate.
Ergo, I think that while the parental impulse would be to find reasons why the fear is completely rational-- it probably isn't. A strange dog that approaches a SINGLE child making eye contact and moving purposefully with the tail raised, "flagging" and ears forward? Yeah-- THAT is a dog to avoid, since those are aggressive postures and behavior.
To compare accidental injuries treated in emergency rooms, a person is roughly 23 times more likely to be injured from a fall than from a dog bite, 12 times more likely to be injured by a car, 7 times more likely to be injured by a sharp object and 1.5 times more likely to be injured by a bicycle. These data are all the more remarkable if the prevalence of dogs in human society is considered—an estimated 74.8 million dogs were kept as pets in the United States in 2007–2008.
That page has a LOT of good information about dog behavior and how children who may not be familiar with dogs should (and should NOT) respond to unfamiliar dogs.
All of that is not (in the least) to say that the group of children should have engaged with this strange stray animal-- they SHOULD have told an adult that the dog was there and appeared to be without an owner/handler.
"Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year, half of these are children. One in five dog bites results in injuries serious enough to require medical attention."
Out of those 4.5 million incidents, in how many cases, and under what circumstances, is the victim to be blamed? Why?
Also, a bunch of shrieking 6 year olds certainly looks like groupthink to me.
Also, what has all this got to do with gifted education?
"Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year...."
Also, what has all this got to do with gifted education?
It's showing that gifted people are susceptible to irrational fears, just like everyone else. Some good messages here have pointed out that trying to approach these fears by educating with facts and statistics doesn't work --- not even on gifted kids or gifted adults. Many of the responses in this thread are demonstrating that point quite effectively.
There are roughly 10-11 million US car accidents annually, but I haven't seen anyone claiming that hiding to avoid a trip to the grocery store in the family car or climbing a tree to avoid it is a "reasonable assessment of risk."
IMO, this thread is very relevant to gifted education, and I'll use some of the information I've read here to help one of my kids address his own fear of some dogs.
Likewise, I plan to use some of this to discuss with my own DD her fear of spiders, which is occasionally debilitating. Yes, we have Hobo spiders, but c'mon-- this is NOT a reason to jump onto the sofa in terror.
It's also a good reminder that perspective-taking may be a burden that is disproportionately on those of higher cognitive ability in social settings. Don't know about that-- but it's my hypothesis, anyway.
A good resource for education on animal behavior and avoiding a bite might be your local animal shelters. Some have education programs and even week long camps.
