or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Parenting the Gifted Child › gifted steriotype
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

gifted steriotype - Page 3

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by connieculkins View Post
Exactly and this version of respect is more of the popular usage of it so when you tell your gifted kid to 'respect' the non-gifties you are really sending a clear message from your subconscious about what you really think of them and it is condescending.
I disagree. I do not see your definition of respect in the world I run around in. I talk with my kids about respect quite often - just this morning I was encouraging my DS to respect my DD's space and let her play by herself on a little tabletop (she's 4, he's 2), and then later I have encouraged my DD to respect my DS by leaving the crayon box open for him when he asked. I do not have the same negative associations with the word respect that you do. I had to chew on what you had said before for a while to figure out why it rubbed me so raw/ the wrong way, and it was precisely because of the way you were defining/using it. I do not, in my conscious or subconscious, associate put-downs with the word respect. I come from things with a view of inherent equal value before God, so that may be why my view and any affect of culture on my view may be different from yours. I don't buy into varying values of individuals based on money or smarts or looks - but I also don't think I am particularly unique in this belief system (I think that plenty of people who do not espouse the same beliefs in God have a similar definition of respect as I do).

About the teaching - What a terrible way to help kids with trouble socializing - taking them away from the opportunity to practice it.

Tjej
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjej View Post
. I come from things with a view of inherent equal value before God, so that may be why my view and any affect of culture on my view may be different from yours. I don't buy into varying values of individuals based on money or smarts or looks - but I also don't think I am particularly unique in this belief system (I think that plenty of people who do not espouse the same beliefs in God have a similar definition of respect as I do).

Tjej
No, you're not unique in this and if we were to take a poll we would probably find that almost everybody agreed that we are all equal spiritually. But almost every culture around the world is set up in such a way that people are treated very unequally and so there is a major mismatch between what people supposedly believe and what actually happens. And as people we need to be realistic about this and ask ourselves why there are so many people who have a moral superiority about them yet we still have plenty of inequality. Even in gifted programs you have all the 'nice' parents who claim that we need to work on including more minorities and those from lower socio-economic groups, but somehow I feel that there is emptiness and a placating of their liberal guilt in those words. I don't want to harp too much on the word 'respect', but language is powerful and we do have to be mindful of how our words can work against the very values that we have. Even in your examples, you only used the word respect because you were trying to avert inconsiderate behavior. But the presumption of inconsiderate behavior between two parties is what needs to be eliminated. I think it is necessary if we really want disparate groups to get along and treat one another equally to not presume that they wouldn't. There is nothing wrong with respecting others, but having to treat others as intelligent too is taking this to a higher level and maybe people don't really want to have to do that.
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by connieculkins View Post
There is nothing wrong with respecting others, but having to treat others as intelligent too is taking this to a higher level and maybe people don't really want to have to do that.
I would still like to know what you mean by this.
post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by connieculkins View Post
And as people we need to be realistic about this and ask ourselves why there are so many people who have a moral superiority about them yet we still have plenty of inequality. Even in gifted programs you have all the 'nice' parents who claim that we need to work on including more minorities and those from lower socio-economic groups, but somehow I feel that there is emptiness and a placating of their liberal guilt in those words.
Though it may not have much to do with the opening post, I'm curious as to why you think a liberal political view affects gifted programs. Do you think entry should be based strictly on scores, without the goal of racial and/or economic diversity? Do you think such goals are motivated only by "liberal guilt"? Is the stereoptypical gifted person of a certain race or economic class?

Your definition of respect seems to equate "respect" with a thinking that the other person or view is somehow "lesser than," but this is not the definition used in common parlance. Being respectful is not equivalent to being condescending. In order to "respect" someone, you do not have to be "right," with the other person being "wrong."
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by connieculkins View Post
Exactly and this version of respect is more of the popular usage of it so when you tell your gifted kid to 'respect' the non-gifties you are really sending a clear message from your subconscious about what you really think of them and it is condescending.

And since I don't particularly like this version of 'respect' I probably wouldn't tell my kids to 'respect' those with severe disabilities either. In my eastern heritage we see people who have severe disabilities as having taken on a much more challenging life to develop spiritually and this is no easy feat. Most spiritual entities would not choose such a difficult life. As for being in the same peer group, the reality is that they are not, even when grown ups try to force this to happen in more liberal communities. The children may even be in the same school, but they don't choose to 'hang out' socially. That's just what the kids choose.
I think I now understand part of the gap in the way "respect" is being looked at. I think it is a cultural/linguistics issue. I have some perspective on this from my chinese-canadian DH.

What has generally been translated as "respect" from Asian languages is a concept that is closure to devoted-obidience. When MIL uses the word respect and talks about respect for elders, she really means that DH needs to do what she says, act how she wants, and think the same way she does.

Generally when european-americans or african-americans talk about "respect" they simply are talking about viewing others as people of value, seeing that the other person view point is valid, seeing that the other person is worthy of fair treatment, and so forth. We usually talk about showing respect for those that are different from us, b/c all those things a pretty much automatic if the other person looks/thinks/acts/etc just like we do. It is only when the other person is somehow different (be it race, religion, age, socio-economic status, political view point, fashion sense, etc) that respect becomes a necessary element to get along with that other person.
post #46 of 55
On another note: this thread actually inspired me to look up one of the most classic "nerdy" guys from my elementary and high school (which was a selective school for gifted kids). The one who pops to mind when I think of the "gifted stereotype". The one with the poor social skills, terrible fashion (and with a mom who was very similar), who was a strange and withdrawn all through school, is now a head honcho at, lets just say, an extremely well known internet company (who knows, maybe he has kids and reads this forum, don't want to put too much identifying info in there).
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post
Um. Well, I think that you and I must be using the word "respect" to mean different things, if you don't think it is something one should have for one's peers.

What exactly do you mean when you say that ND kids (as distinguished from special needs kids) are intelligent people? It sounds as though you are denying that there is a difference between ND and gifted people. As I said, I believe that intelligence is a spectrum, and it makes no sense to me to think of it as an absolute, that you either are or are not intelligent.

It makes perfect sense to me to treat all people as equals. It makes perfect sense to me to treat one's peers (however they are defined) as one's peers. But it does not make sense to treat people who are not the same as though they are the same. If you are a naturally fast walker, and you have a friend who is a slower walker, you either slow down when you walk together, or you ride your bikes instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster View Post
I think I now understand part of the gap in the way "respect" is being looked at. I think it is a cultural/linguistics issue. I have some perspective on this from my chinese-canadian DH.

What has generally been translated as "respect" from Asian languages is a concept that is closure to devoted-obidience. When MIL uses the word respect and talks about respect for elders, she really means that DH needs to do what she says, act how she wants, and think the same way she does.

Generally when european-americans or african-americans talk about "respect" they simply are talking about viewing others as people of value, seeing that the other person view point is valid, seeing that the other person is worthy of fair treatment, and so forth. We usually talk about showing respect for those that are different from us, b/c all those things a pretty much automatic if the other person looks/thinks/acts/etc just like we do. It is only when the other person is somehow different (be it race, religion, age, socio-economic status, political view point, fashion sense, etc) that respect becomes a necessary element to get along with that other person.
I just wanted to add this about the definition of "respect" - from a social science point of view "respect" is equated with "social distancing." You see this a lot in Eastern cultures, Native American cultures and Western cultures too - at least in formalized settings. You can kind of understand it as a duty of individuals to pay attention to the social asymmetries of differing social roles. So, there may be lots of rules about respecting elders, in-laws, someone of different gender, class, etc., but you really wouldn't be socialized to "respect" your friends in this sense. It is a much more formal, traditional use of the word that we've gotten away from in the U.S.

In pop American culture in the past 30+years the word "respect" can almost be defined as seeing an inherent value in someone or even something. i.e. I remind my dd to respect people's spaces or even her toys.
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
Though it may not have much to do with the opening post, I'm curious as to why you think a liberal political view affects gifted programs. Do you think entry should be based strictly on scores, without the goal of racial and/or economic diversity? Do you think such goals are motivated only by "liberal guilt"? Is the stereoptypical gifted person of a certain race or economic class?
These are good questions for discussion, maybe on another thread. I don't want to go way off topic.
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmaegbert View Post
On another note: this thread actually inspired me to look up one of the most classic "nerdy" guys from my elementary and high school (which was a selective school for gifted kids). The one who pops to mind when I think of the "gifted stereotype". The one with the poor social skills, terrible fashion (and with a mom who was very similar), who was a strange and withdrawn all through school, is now a head honcho at, lets just say, an extremely well known internet company (who knows, maybe he has kids and reads this forum, don't want to put too much identifying info in there).
It looked like it all worked out for him. You know I was talking about social skills among the gifted with a friend once and she believed, at least in her personal experience, that there is an inverse relationship between intellectualism and social skills. She said that for her, as her social skills have increased her IQ has decreased somewhat. But she had no regret about this because she was much happier as a more average social being than a lonely gifted being.

The other poster who said that introversion is linked to higher IQs is right and the higher the IQ, the higher the likelihood of introversion. Maybe an effort to become more extroverted could actually change the brain's way of operating and could decrease some gifted traits. I could see how it could be possible.

Does anyone recall the Terman study of highly gifted youths? I remember reading that none of the kids who qualified for the program actually ended up being great intellectuals. They became professionals such as doctors and engineers, but didn't make any ground breaking discoveries. And one of the reasons for this is that they didn't have the creativity aspect and at least some of them hinted that they 'chose' to lead a more regular life, to be socially normal, have a happy family and so forth. And of course, they still had their high IQ, but it seems that in choosing to be more 'socially acceptable' they sacrificed some of their potential.

So with regards to the Terman kids, they had every right to live their lives they way they wanted and needed to, but I think it should give us pause when we make huge attempts to get smart kids to try and fit in. Are we somehow killing some of their giftedness when we do so?
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by connieculkins View Post
Exactly and this version of respect is more of the popular usage of it so when you tell your gifted kid to 'respect' the non-gifties you are really sending a clear message from your subconscious about what you really think of them and it is condescending.

And since I don't particularly like this version of 'respect' I probably wouldn't tell my kids to 'respect' those with severe disabilities either. In my eastern heritage we see people who have severe disabilities as having taken on a much more challenging life to develop spiritually and this is no easy feat. Most spiritual entities would not choose such a difficult life. As for being in the same peer group, the reality is that they are not, even when grown ups try to force this to happen in more liberal communities. The children may even be in the same school, but they don't choose to 'hang out' socially. That's just what the kids choose.

This is unbelievably offensive. I can't tell if you sincerely believe what you are writing, or you are just clueless., or if you are trying to incite debate. The fact that anyone responds to this type of remark, including me, is more respect than your ideas deserve.
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by connieculkins View Post
I think it should give us pause when we make huge attempts to get smart kids to try and fit in. Are we somehow killing some of their giftedness when we do so?
post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by karne View Post
This is unbelievably offensive. I can't tell if you sincerely believe what you are writing, or you are just clueless., or if you are trying to incite debate. The fact that anyone responds to this type of remark, including me, is more respect than your ideas deserve.
There's been a distinctly trollish vibe on this forum for a while now. I am trying to ignore and hoping that people looking for genuine feedback and/or support aren't scared off.
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by connieculkins View Post

Does anyone recall the Terman study of highly gifted youths? I remember reading that none of the kids who qualified for the program actually ended up being great intellectuals. They became professionals such as doctors and engineers, but didn't make any ground breaking discoveries. And one of the reasons for this is that they didn't have the creativity aspect and at least some of them hinted that they 'chose' to lead a more regular life, to be socially normal, have a happy family and so forth. And of course, they still had their high IQ, but it seems that in choosing to be more 'socially acceptable' they sacrificed some of their potential.

So with regards to the Terman kids, they had every right to live their lives they way they wanted and needed to, but I think it should give us pause when we make huge attempts to get smart kids to try and fit in. Are we somehow killing some of their giftedness when we do so?
It could be a side-effect of Terman cooking his sample. Terman specifically wanted to prove that gifted people were well adjusted and happy and healthy. He rejected children for the study who were quirky. He made sure his starting sample was socially well adjusted. He probably ended up with a sample who placed a high emphasis on social conformity, instead of creativity and a willingness to step outside social bounds to innovate.

Terman's data is interesting on an anecdotal basis, but useless to generalize from.
post #54 of 55
Havent read all the posts. Here's my 2 cents.

Im going with the notion expressed earlier, that a child whose academic needs are not being met, is going to find refuge in things that
a)might make them seem different
b)will take also protect them from the urgency of fitting in. If they re invested emotionally in some subject, then they care less about fitting in with their peers
c)it takes the energy required to fit in with their peers. Lets face it, it takes a certain amount of energy to follow fashion, buy it, wear it etc. You have to care enough to invest that energy.

A non gifted child doesn’t have that refuge. They cant go home and play their piano sonata, and continue composing their opera, they don’t get to write their 4 part epic novel, they don’t get to be inspired by investigating mathematical theorems.

All they’ve got in is commercial/family/peer culture immediately avaiable to them(these may be the same or not ) (well, they might have other refuges too, im generalizing here for the sake of argument)

Their need to fit in is more immediate, more intense. So they make the effort.

They might actually feel the need to pass the ‘virginity’ test ( we had that at age 12, which required boys poking your private parts)

Gifted kids are more likely to be able to see the bigger picture, and not feel such an urgent need to succumb to peer pressure.

On the other hand, I am not saying peer pressure or culture is bad. It doesn’t have to be. It is what it is.

A gifted person is just more likely to do their own thing for this reason. They will be the same way as adults, regardless of temperament.

On the other hand, they might get a lot out of fitting in, and put their effort there.

Im just saying , on the whole, they have a way out, so they are more likely to stand out or be deemed ‘weird’.

Theres also a higher proportion of the aspies on the gifted category, and they don’t have the social skills because of a medical condition. anyway. So that contributes to the stereotype.

Social skilles are important, and a gifted person might be gifted in that area too. So it doesn’t have to be either or. Its just a pattern that I think is behind the stereotype.

Also, I think when a gifted persons emotional needs are met, then they are more likely to fit in. This is true for anyone. You put in the effort, where you get the reward.
post #55 of 55
This is interesting. Around pg9 there's a study comparing gifted gr3s to their peers. The book is 2004
http://books.google.com/books?id=B1V...page&q&f=false

Social/emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling of gifted...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting the Gifted Child
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Parenting the Gifted Child › gifted steriotype