Has anyone seen this? Any thoughts?

Interesting, as there have been a number of competitive game shows on TV for years and of course sports competitions are common.

While there is good and bad in everything and the series could result in exploitation and furthering negative stereotypes, it could also help raise awareness of giftedness and acceptance of gifted individuals. The "cast" or contestant profile pages are interesting. The point about the kids connecting with one another is a strong positive.

Inspired by this thread, here is a thread on another TV show featuring talented kids.

I haven't seen the Lifetime version, but the 2013 Channel4 version was both riveting and painfully and transparently exploitative.

I hate watched the entire thing and vowed not to watch any further iterations. I felt badly enough about myself for the the three hours that I invested that I skipped the 2014 series.

Looks like it was a project with Mensa.

I am sure they taped a lot of footage and they selected to show and also select tiger mom/dad more than anyone. The most likely conclusion the audience will get, is the "child genius" is the product of helicopter parenting. At least that was true from what I have seen so far from the show. I am afraid the show negatively portrayed the gifted kids. At least I am glad it's on lifetime and not a major network.

Another similar show is planning and recruiting the gifted kids (through Mensa) and promise to be on major network.

I wish this was a show that really helped give others an understanding of the challenges these families face...but it isn't.

Instead, this is a show that asks children to perform extremely memory-intensive tasks for show, and which through editing, perpetuates some very negative stereotypes about such children and their families. The children on this show are undoubtedly extremely bright, but this show seems most interested in showcasing extraordinary memory abilities. I am sure that the children and these families have more amazing qualities than are actually revealed on this show.

The title of the show just makes me cringe.

I have been watching it because my kids heard about it at school and wanted to watch. They are enjoying the episodes and honestly, it's pretty funny as long as you don't take it or yourselves too seriously. It's all for entertainment rather than a dedicated competition like Jeopardy or an educational documentary. A few of the participating kids are DYS as well. It gave us a platform to discuss different aspects of intelligence/ability and it was fun for DS to figure out on which categories he would have excelled and on which ones he would have struggled to survive.

No. I don't watch TV. Thoughts? You shouldn't watch TV either. Pop culture isn't normative. Just because others accept things as normal is not a reason for me to do so....

Sorry.... you asked.

Okay, I just watched a few clips on YouTube while eating lunch. The negative comments others have written pretty much sum up my reaction to this show. Stuff like this makes me glad that I cancelled our cable subscription some years ago (I'll add that it was two or three weeks before someone even noticed).

The vulgarity of this show meshes with the comments I made on this thread right before watching the YouTube clips:

This.

I haven't seen it and don't plan to. Val's assessment of the basic vulgarity of the concept is nicely encapsulated by a bit of insightful, but subtle advice penned by Harper Lee-- so, in the timeless and pointed words of Atticus Finch to Scout:

(on the subject of not using particularly offensive, if common, language and customs) it's common.

Different subject, obviously-- but clearly a regular theme in following popular practices and culture.

I often have that sense about reality television, in general terms.

And yes, this is one of DD's absolutely very favorite quotes from Mockingbird-- and one of mine, as well. It's very well to be normative, until it becomes something revolting.

I took a peak, and the show left me feeling icky. I agree it seemed like a huge game of "Memory" and for me didn't capture - or even attempt to capture - the capacity for synthesis/creation that I see as the hallmark of the PG child.

BUT - on a happier note, it reminded me to re-watch documentary Hard Problems about kids competing in an international math olympiad. Here is part one: Definitely cleanses the palate!

Ok I checked it out. First of all, there is something cathartic about watching these families. I'm thinking, wow, it's like I'm watching my son. I laughed-hard. The kids are adorable.

But....why can't MENSA do a documentary about G-kids doing something like contests where they have two teams that come up with solutions to major world problems?
That would be interesting. Or inventions?

Interview the parents differently, instead of the same ol'questions like, "so, you have a genius child, where do you think this came from?"

That is an interesting question. As a possible answer, some may find that approach to be exploitive; Issues of copyrights and intellectual property come to mind. It is my understanding that at one point these type of think-tank opportunities existed (facilitated by an outside firm, but were not televised) and there may have been some concern that others were benefitting financially for the work done and ideas generated by the synergy of think-tank participants.

Or just leave the child alone to be kids, not freak shows.

Sorry, but I have very strong opinions about this. We have heard time and again about the damaging effects of the child prodigy industry. I was just reading a piece by an ex child actor, Mara Wilson about how bad it is for most kids.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-child-stars-go-crazy-an-insiders-perspective/

There is evidence that the right side of the IQ distribution is fatter than statistics would predict, but even if it isn't Earth should have more than a thousand individuals with an IQ greater than 180. (I am aware that very high IQ's are difficult to test, and do not wish to go down that discussion path) Yet how many well documented cases are known to the public? Not many. I believe most individuals would not wish to have their IQs made public knowledge. There are a few that may wish to capitalize on the number itself, but not many. So, if a parent makes that decision for the child, there is a high probability that the child would not have been the personality type to have enjoyed that attention.

Now, I have not watched the show, but I do feel that often a child is better off being allowed anonymity until such a mental age that they can make decisions for themselves. Do they wish to be on stage, and understand the cons as well as the pros that such a public life offers?

There is rarely criticism of children competing in memory-intensive contests like spelling and geography bees or other competitions such as math contests and chess tournaments. Maybe the reason is that doing well in those contests does not certify the child as a "genius" and put undue pressure on him or her.

Great point. Possibly one difference is the balance of focus on the children as compared with the level of editing and attention given to parents?

I agree with that. I will also counter my own previous point with alternative argument. There are cases abound of kids that achieve great things then have tragic ends.

Example: The youngest kid to cross the Atlantic committed suicide. But there could be some confusion of the causality. It might be that individuals that are likely to achieve greatness are also likely to meet tragic ends due to an intrinsic characteristic rather than the act of greatness increasing the chance of disaster. Causality is often very difficult to tease out.

Also tragedy gets more press than non tragic happenings. It is not often brought up about the large number of people who do great things, then have happy lives.

I do stand by my previous post that the child's interest should be carefully considered before pushing them into the public eye. Of course, some kids are probably going to find their way into the public eye because their internal drive to do so is so great that it can not be helped.

I was more thinking of how these shows exist anyway and so why not give the children a chance to do something positive than just prove their intelligence. I find these shows very sad and always wonder what the parents are thinking. I would never tell anyone my son's I.Q., seeing them casually tell people something so personal is sad. "Genius" children have always been displayed in one way or another and sadly will continue to be. The parents are either desperate for something or just don't understand that putting children on a pedestal is making them a target for many adverse responses by people for years to come ("he never lived up to his potential").

Mostly because doing something "great" typically means winning some sort of competition, and when the talent pool is deep enough, hard work becomes a significant determining factor, at which point the arms race is on, and whoever is most willing to destroy themselves is the winner. When the stakes are high enough, and the child's will falters, the adults around them are ready to impose a will of their own.

A hundred grand for college is pretty big stakes, sooo...

I've seen the show, and it's a mixed bag as far as parenting goes. The last one I saw, some parents were exerting an unhealthy pressure on their children to study, some were just checking in with their kids while worrying privately, while another was arranging for a sleepover for her DS instead.

But yeah, I don't see the benefit of cramming to memorize random facts. That's why we write them down.

The Bachelor of Arts degree does not prepare you for any specific job but costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "prove your intelligence" to employers. If children could prove their intelligence and start work early at appropriate jobs, at least part time, that would be a good thing. I bet my 11yo could be as productive as some adult computer programmers, but he needs to spend another 10 years jumping through hoops to get such a job.

I just watched this show. DD wanted to tape it when we saw it scrolling through the schedule. There is a show in HS called Reach for the Top where teams from schools do this kind of thing.

I think that this is no different than piano or gymnastics competitions where kids practice forever. These kids are up for 100000 in scholarship money. And being on the show is great for college applications.

We've (DS8 and I) have been watching this show almost since it began.

Honestly, I previewed the show before calling him to see it. I was not impressed with some of the parenting styles, but thought it was important for DS to watch other kids like him be encouraged to do something positive with their gift, as well as see that he's not the only one who cries when he isn't perfect. He has no intellectual peers of the ages these kids are in our area, so seeing children like him makes him dance...literally...in front of the tv.

We have our favorite we are rooting for, and have seen some favorites have to go home. I use those moments of defeat as a jumping off point for conversation about coping with disappointment and not expecting too much of oneself.

I wish the interviews with the parents would center a bit more on the asynchronous challenges the kids face day-to-day at home, however. It seems some people would come away from the show thinking the kids have it made, and not realize they are watching kids just as much at risk of failing in life as others who "fall through the cracks".

It's interesting. On the one hand, our society is content push its children into situations where the maturity needed to cope with the stress levels is typically beyond their years. Yet on the other hand, we infantilize them. For example, parents often don't let 8- or 9-year-old kids walk home from school alone, play outside alone, or go to the park alone out of an unjustified fear of stranger abductions. And then we helicopter them and/or tiger parent them. We also tell them about the complete and utter importance of COLLEGE or IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS!! at very young ages and expect them to cope with the increasing pressure being piled onto them every year. In the words of a Stanley Teitel, former principal of Stuyvesent High: "Welcome Freshman. For the next 4 years, pick 2 out of the following 3: friends, good grades, sleep." Etc.

All this means that kids may have to cope with adult-level stress before they've even been allowed to walk home from school alone or had a first summer job.

This seems...wrong.

That's not the only fear. I regularly read about child protective services "abducting" children because they were not being supervised as closely as some adult thought they should be. For example, there is a recent story "Maryland family under investigation for letting their kids walk home alone".

I let DS play alone in our yard in our seriously safe neighborhood, and I let him ride his bike alone as long as he tells me where he's going and comes back as we agree. More than once, I've had neighbors at my door, letting me know he is unsupervised, and indignantly shocked when I say, as cordially as I can, "Yes, thanks for the heads up. But he's fine!"

We keep trying to march to the beat of our own drummer, but it gets harder and harder.

Yes, we live in a state of fear, and none of it is based on probabilities. The reason most folks are afraid to swim in the ocean is not due to the fairly high probability that they will drown, but rather the absurdly unlikely case that they are eaten by shark. We are afraid to let our children play outside, but not of childhood obesity. We take antibiotics when we do not need them out of fear of bacteria, but we re not scared enough of antibiotic resistant bacteria we are creating. And, the list goes on.

Disclaimer: When I swim in the ocean I sometimes fear being eaten by shark, so I am not immune to irrational fears.

I find it somewhat bothersome, to say the least. Never in a million years would I expose my child in this fashion. I can't relate to these parents at all. I did show a couple of clips to my son though. It had a positive effect. He was excited to see kids like himself. It was almost like he was having a play date...:-)

His jaw dropped when that one girl said the word "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis". He keeps asking everyone if they know it, especially teachers at the school, hoping someone will. This was the first time he actually heard someone say it.

Here's a blog list of several potential benefits of the TV show Child Genius, 5 Things I Loved about Child Genius.

I enjoyed that. Thank you. We are definitely going to be watching season two.

For those who don't recall , the "drink water" reference was a nod to Vanya, the winner of Child Genius. Vanya also won (tied) for first place in the Scripps National Spelling Bee this year.

Final Moments at the Bee

The kids and families in the final 3 were some of the most likeable people in the competition. I don't know if that was mostly editing or reality. Ryan's family was crazy dysfunctional. Poor kid.

Blame fear-mongering journalism. Heck, just the way you presented it here, (child abductions by CPS) reflects a fear-mongering narrative.

To be clear: Many states (mine included) have chosen to be deliberately vague in their wording regarding child supervision. Maryland is not among those. They chose, instead, to be very, very clear. Their law states that a child under 8 must be supervised by a reliable person 13 or older. That Maryland couple was allowing their 6yo to be escorted by their 10yo. That's a violation of their law.

If you disagree with the law, no problem, there are mechanisms for changing it. But let's please stop pretending that being investigated for clear violations of the law constitutes "kidnapping."

The parents under discussion are free to let their 10yo go to the park on his own. And in just two more birthdays, the girl can join him, or she can go unaccompanied herself. So, swaddled in bubble wrap and locked in a panic room, Maryland kids are NOT.

Terrible media is terrible, and it makes us all dumber.

For those who enjoyed the first season...

Second Season of Child Genius January 7th

So, DS and I watched the show last night. He was excited to see it again and was bouncing all around the room. When he saw the kids come to the podium and use a pencil, he ran to get his. He was trying to solve the math problems as quickly as possible, but of course they edit for time and so that was a downer.

As we were watching, it became apparent to me that drama was to become center stage. By the end of the show, I was wondering if this is another so-called, "reality show". The hysterics of one of the contestants just seemed contrived to me.

Did anyone who saw the show think it seemed staged to play up drama, maybe even to the point of planting a supposed contestant?

I watched the show last night as well. I feel that many contests seemed much more nervous than the kids from the last season when at the podium. The girl who has the IQ of 162 was so nervous that she forfeited the memorizing cards round. This left me with some unease feelings. She was either really pushed to the limit or it was just drama created for television.

I think a lot of the drama is drummed up, but I think they are aiming for the extremely volatile perfectionism that a lot of GT kids focus on. I'm pretty new to the GT world, so I'm no expert.
I'm a huge fan of Aiden though. He totally embraces his talents and truly seems to enjoy his gifts and his opportunities!
DS (18mos) loves the show and was just enthralled with the show. I have a feeling it'll be our new thing. I didn't watch season 1 until a couple of weeks ago after trying to find docus on GT kids.

This.

I recorded it but haven't watched this season yet, but why couldn't that could just be nervous? I don't think having stage fright probably has any relationship with knowledge of the material.

I've decided it's not in DS' best interest to watch this season. I don't want him to be influenced by the dramatics portrayed, whether or not they are contrived.

I really wish that this show were more like Jeopardy; but I guess it just wouldn't make the ratings that voyeuristic shenanigan shows do.