Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Recommended Resources anybody reading Gifted Lives?

Is anyone else reading Gifted Lives: What Happens When Gifted Children Grow Up? It was released recently. I have not yet decided if it is a "friendly book," but I like the premise that gifted kids are not predestined to greater psychological problems and that it covers people in the highly gifted to profoundly gifted range. I am mid way through the book and will need to mull it all over before I have an opinion about it.

I just finished it. I don't consider it a friendly book. I consider it a 'vent' about how hard it has been for psychologists to observe and be 'scientific' while witnessing really terrible parenting. I would have really messed with my head and my heart to witness without being able to intervene the lives of some of these children.

What drives me the most crazy about the book is that there doesn't seem to be a drop of sympathy or understanding that lots of the parents of these kids faced similar issues when they themselves were kids, and haven't had the opportunity that we here have to share with a peer group and gain insight.

I do like the idea that our kids deserve more than gradeskipping as the only way to get their educational needs met. There should be self-contained, multiage classrooms in every school for the kids who's learning needs aren't being consistiently met in the regular classroom. The problem is that the tone of the book is very 'anti-gradeskip' and blames parents for not finding other solutions. Maybe as a group we parents need to take more responsibility for there not being a full time self-contained classroom in every school, but at the moment when we are in the thick of raising our children, I think we have to choose the 'least-worst' option, and shouldn't be blamed for that.

The book claims that it's subjects are in the HG to PG range, which of course has no standard definition, but while the introduction claims 0.2%, another chaper in the book refers to 2.0%.

My other objection is the distinction drawn between 'gifted but unidentified' and 'parent-identified gifted' kids. Yes, the kids who were identified by their parents are more intense, emotionally needy, and less successful as adults. But is this a chicken or an egg kind of thing.

Yes, kids with a really high EQ as well as a high IQ handle their lives much more easily than kids with high IQ and normal or below average EQ. High IQ kids with ADD or ADHD or other 2e's have a harder time in life than High IQ kids without twice exceptionalities. This is true for people with average IQ as well, yes? To me, a fan of 'kids are born the way they are born, and we sensitive parents try our best to help them learn to work with what they have - provide challenge for the strengths and scaffolding and support for the weaknesses' school of parenting, it is a 'association/causation' error to see that kids who are identified as gifted by their parents make more of a fuss in life and blame the parents, as if all of them made the identification for their own ego needs.

Certianly the individual stories in the book highlight perfectly dreadful parents whom one could easily believe make the identification for their own ego needs, but given the parents I know, it seems like for the vast majority, gifted kids get identified early because the parenting is aware and senstivie and appropriate. Some of the kids stand out because they aren't particularly high in EQ enough to blend in or take life with a grain of salt. Some kids stand out because their abilities are just plain noticable compared to the other kids that are around them. Some kids stand out because they actually have 2es such as ADHD/ADD that interfer with their coping ability. Anyone of these things make sucess in life more difficult to achieve.

I only persevered in reading the whole book because I wanted to be able to have something useful to say to this group in case anyone read it. I hope I was able to say something useful in here.

Love and More Love,
Grinity

You were, thank you, Grinity - I was wondering whether I ought to buy it, and now I won't! Maybe you might consider putting a review on amazon.co.uk/.com too?

I would consider posting a review, but don't want to ramble 'in public' - if anyone want's to edit/consolidate what I've said into something that isn't offensive, post it here and I'll see what I can do...I really don't want to be offensive after so much work has gone into this project.

Did you know that none of the kids in the sample of 200 were diagnosed with ADHD/ADD or AS? No Learning disabilities either if I remember correctly.

Yeah. That sums it up. It seems like the book's premise is that most of dd's future failures and unhappinesses will be all my fault no matter how supportive, pushy, or hands off I am. I've been reading it because I figure people from dd's school are going to read it and I don't want to be caught unprepared. Waiting for Superman and Race to Nowhere films are on the same list.

Thanks Grinity!

I haven't read it but I appreciate you sharing the feedback. Was there any mention about whether the 'parent-identified' gifted were often children of parents who had been identified as gifted when they were children? It would seem these parents would be more likely to be familiar with the needs of the gifted and take the steps to have their child identified in order to get these needs met.

Here's a slightly cleaned up version of what you wrote - but I only expanded a couple of acronyms, reworded a few things slightly and fixed some typos. I don't think what you wrote was offensive; it was a one-star review, but it was reasonably expressed and likely to be helpful to people considering the book. Interesting about no ADHD/AS! (ADHD is much less used as a diagnosis here than in the US, but still.) This is (I assume) the same study with which I already had some issues on the basis of what was in the academic literature, see here

I'm halfway through the book, and so far there has been no mention of giftedness running in families.

In fact much is made of siblings not being similarly gifted to the kids in the study. I not recall a single story about a family where the siblings are 'similar.' That seems very weird to me.
Grinity

ColinsMum, thanks for linking back to the first thread - now I get what was so upsetting. It looks like the study was set up from the onset to 'prove' that parent-identification is problematic.

I think if I start talking about 'EQ' I'll confuse people. I like your edit - but let's cut it back even further!
Grinity