Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Book review: Development of GT Across Life Span

Just got back. Your question Kriston, ability vs. achievement.

I think there is a very grey area in the middle. Obvious definitions on the extremes. The extreme on ability being the prodigy. But if you watched that video link on Mark Yu and what Lang Lang said about the teenage years and what the narrator talked about frontal lobe development during that time.

If the brain is developing, then it is possible that you can lose it, or it is modified to the point where you may not be GT anymore.

I think there is actual brain develop that occurs then that counters the fact that you cannot lose ability.

And if you get the training, that brain development may give you ability.

How much, I do not know. But I think ability vs achievement is a fine line in many cases until 21.

Ren

LOL - I'm much closer to 'O' - and I think I read the book from my parent's bookshelf (so that means it was in paperback) - sometime between the age of 10 and 16. Don't know why I bothered to retain it, except that I have a soft spot for 'contrarian' ideas. Kriston, I'll bet you did overhear your parents talking about it 'back then' so that makes you precosious too.

I also read 'I'm OK, You're OK' during that period - I wasn't ready for Jane Austin, but loved pop psychology/sociology! Now that I think of it, I'm still probably spouting what I read in that book.

And now, as a special Saturday morning treat - The problems of highly gifted children age 3-10 as seen through the 'I'm OK, You're OK' mindset.

I'm OK, You're OK: A child who is taught at their readiness level develops trust in themself and trust in the Adults who are in charge of them.

You're OK, I'm not OK: The Athorities put me in a classroom full of kids who can only do 'baby work,' and I can barely manage to force myself to do that - so I must be really stupid, and the Grown up know it!

I'm not OK, You aren't OK: School is terrible. The adults are stupid and I'm stupid too.

You aren't OK, I'm OK: My Adults are clearly stupid. I'm smarter than they are. I don't know everything, so if I run into a situation I can't handle, I'm out of luck. No wonder I'm so anxious and sad.

(If I remember correctly, this last position, although appealingly close to the truth at times, is the most dangerous - it is the one that really fills the definition of 'depriving a child of their childhood.')

I think that my DS had been in all of these 'positions' over the years. I'm grateful that he's in a -
I'm mostly OK, You are mostly OK, but we are human, so we all have weaknesses and make some mistakes.

Ahh! The joy of having the years knock the edges of that 'all or none' thinking!

I hope that brings back more happy memories than sad ones. I'm LOLing just to see what I can remember from way back then!

Love and More Love,
Grinity

"I'm OK, You're OK" I DO remember, Grin! Good summary! That one I read from my parents' bookshelf. But they didn't have "The Peter Principle," because if they had, I'm sure I'd have read that, too. I read pretty much every book in the house...

Ren, the question is how much can we affect the brain development that occurs. Yes, neurons are growing and shrinking, connecting and pruning connections all the time. But assuming a decent basic level of care and intellectual stimulation, that doesn't mean that the actions we take in the world outside the brain are going to make for more or better connections. Just different ones. The child who focuses on the violin to the exclusion of all else might be "made" a musical prodigy, but at what cost? Maybe she'd have been a great researcher who discovered the cure for cancer if her parents had taken a different tack. Maybe she'd have written life-changing novels. Maybe she'd have solved a great engineering problem. As Austin said, we don't know what the opportunity cost was, what the alternative could have been. Focus isn't necessarily good for kids, particularly if it doesn't come from the kids.

Do I think we can affect the outcome of our kids' paths by what we as parents (and by what the schools) do? Yes. That's why I'm homeschooling. I think I am affecting his work ethic, his interest in learning, his feeling of being accepted for who he is, etc. Without my intervention, I don't think DS7 would have gotten that "decent basic level of intellectual stimulation."

But do I think I'm somehow making my son "smarter" by homeschooling? No. I see no evidence of that. He's just using what he's got more efficiently.

FWIW...

Even more chilling, that mindset is pervasive in psychopaths and other criminals.

I wonder if hours of video game playing does permanent damage to a developing childs mind? I'd think if not by direct damage then at least by an indirect method of preventing them from learning other things.

I totally agree that options taken, can cut off paths. But I also think kids can find their own way.

I come from a small Canadian city, whose medical/enginnering parents thought that medicine or engineering were the ways. Particularly as they came post depression and WW2 from Europe. But after doing the engineering thing in college, I never worked as an engineer but went straight to Wall St. Don't even know how that happened. But I did always want to play "executives living in NYC" as a child, as my long time friend reminded me. So my path was somehow wired in.

DH knew a woman in college who was obsessed with learning Chinese, spent a summer in China learning how to write the script. She went to law school and became highly successful doing deals in China. A blond, American whose parents never pushed her towards this path.

I think if you give them options, they will find what they want. But I think giving them options is part of what we are talking about in how we educate them. But opening up options to all children is a good thing.

This went off tangent I think from ability/achievement.

Ren

Ren, now I'm picturing you as Baby Bette Midler in "Big Business." Don't hit me with your purse, OK?

Grins

Funny Grinity.

R

This is not a new idea. Hasn't anyone heard of Reuven Feuerstein? and his Instrumental Enrichment (FIE)? Dr. Feuerstein's whole premise is that intelligence can be taught. He's worked with children who survived the Holocaust, autistic and Down Sydrome children, etc.

While FIE may not make everyone brilliant, it proves that cognitive function can be improved.

As a world, we had better become invested in improving the cognitive function of all the members of our societies - students, workers, parents and elders, and from every location of the bell curve. So far it has been one group against another - I think we are ready to change that stance.

Grinity

I agree Grinity.

High quality education is the best way to provide opportunity for all.

As for developing a child's intelligence I believe it's all about stimulation. Talk with them. Sing with them. Play with them. Give them different experiences. Once they are in school experiences seem to become focused on advanced classes. But evern that is not enough to help them grow and learn and become a well-rounded human being. Frustration and learning how to deal with it is part of the formula.

Seems to me there are plenty of Alpha-parents out there pushing their kids to do more, sooner -- whether the child is GT or not. I'm not sure this is always a good thing.

We, as a world, can no longer afford to write off people because they are poor or of color or practice a particular religion. We also cannot affort to burn out our best and brightest. The more we have haves and have-nots the more unstable our world will be.

**stepping off the soap box**

By the way, St. Pauli Girl what is the exact title of the book reviewed? I haven't been able to find it in Amazon. Thnx.