Difference between "ahead" and "gifted" (well, sort of)

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by Marimami

Now, this lends itself to all kinds of questions for me--just one of which is... how many children are there in the world who are never given the opportunity to reach their potential?

I'd guess this to be the overwhelming majority... but apparently enough do reach their potential for us to progress as a species.

[Marimami]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

I'd guess this to be the overwhelming majority... but apparently enough do reach their potential for us to progress as a species.

Of course. However, there is a huge difference between individuals and that of an entire species. I guess that's the Darwinian response but hardly seems the humanistic one.

And, by potential, I don't just mean "gifted" potential by any stretch of the imagination.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by Marimami

Of course. However, there is a huge difference between individuals and that of an entire species. I guess that's the Darwinian response but hardly seems the humanistic one.

I guess I'm not enough of a humanist.

[EXOLAX]

Simply put this seems to be old nature versus nurture debate. Whenever I see it come up here I am always fascinated because I'm personally interested in the subject, I also always recommend the book "The Agile Gene" by Matt Ridley.

I'm not sure if it was from that book or a different one on the subject but I do recall reading (citation required) that birth order restarts itself around the 5 or 6 year age difference mark. A child with no siblings in close age proximity will statistically fall under the 'only child' average.

Of interest and as a teaser for the book:

Matt Ridley, "Agile Gene":
p. 90
IQ is approximately 50% "additively genetic"; 25% is influenced by the shared environment; and 25% influenced by environmental factors unique to the individual. Intelligence therefor stands out from personality in being more susceptible to family influence. Living in an intellectual home does make you more likely to become intellectual.

p. 91-92
Numerically, the contribution of "shared environment" to variation in IQ in a western society is roughly 40 percent in people younger than 20. It then falls rapidly to zero in older age groups. Conversely, the contribution of genes to explaining variation in IQ rises from 20 percent in infancy to 40 percent in childhood to 60 percent in adults and maybe 80 percent in people past middle age. In other words, the effect of being reared in the same environment as somebody else is influential while you are still in that environment but does not endure beyond the period of shared rearing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QAd...age&q=&f=false

[Marimami]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

I guess I'm not enough of a humanist.

I guess I just look at my daughter and imagine who she would be if she were living in severe poverty, likely dying of malnutrition, since Guatemala has the 6th highest rates of malnutrition in children in the world, particularly in the area she would have been living. I guess I don't find it quite as humorous.

Holli

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by Marimami

I guess I just look at my daughter and imagine who she would be if she were living in severe poverty, likely dying of malnutrition, since Guatemala has the 6th highest rates of malnutrition in children in the world, particularly in the area she would have been living. I guess I don't find it quite as humorous.

Clearly we were having two different discussions here. No need to get mean or write me off entirely.

[LiamnEmma]

(I read this book from the POV of sensory systems and executive function, not instilling giftedness, and IIRC the book would not purport to - it was about moving from dis-or sub-functional to funtional)

ETA that I think each individual has their own innate potential, across domains, and their life experiences and exposures can inhibit or enhance their ascension to their unique potential.

ETA, OP, I think kids can certainly look gifted in the preschool years due to their exposures and protections while not actually being gifted.

I would agree with that--perhaps my initial post was too absolute. I have seen the benefits of occupational therapy, for example, on a person with significant sensory processing issues, and that would certainly be within the realm of changing inherent brain function. I also agree with innate potential and I don't believe you can change from, say, a person of average innate ability to a person with superior intellectual capacity. I can certainly see moving up and down the line a few points, which I suppose falls within the inherent brain function argument. I also agree that young children can look gifted when indeed they are high achievers and I think that high achievers are frequently mistaken for having superior intelligence when that's not the actual case. So I think we agree on most bits.

[Holiztic]

So someone (or a few folks) mentioned possible denial going on here, and after today's 3.5 hours car ride with just DS and I, I have some thoughts. Feel free to help me with this!

I think maybe my possible denial could be due to a few things:

1) thinking that "giftedness" is/should be a very rare thing (like PG is) and the rest might be just varying levels of intelligence (i.e. "really smart kids, but not gifted--no flames please, I'm not accusing anyone's kids of not being gifted, just trying to work through my novice understanding!!!), so my kid at 2.5 not doing anything astounding or unheard of makes me a little less comfotable saying he's "gifted". This is just a feeling, not a real opinion or point of contention, just a gut thing. Really not sure about this yet. Feel free to help me, but gently, I really am not trying to make assertions here!

2) I do come from a waldorf pov and its hard not to buy into their ideas about asynchronous learners, though I am starting to do some serious questioning!

and 3) I am just getting so used to DS that I think I am forgetting he's not average (well, I know he's not average, but maybe I'm fogetting he's likely well above average--"gifted"). He's what I know and see everyday, and I'm kind of getting used to it, I guess?

Then today, at the Emergency Room while getting out stitches, the nurses were flabergasted by his speech (vocabulary, pronunciation, etc). Yesterday he saw a UPS truck and said "Big brown trucks go to a station when they are all done working. Its similar to a fire station 'cept instead of fire trucks it has big brown trucks" The sentences were pretty great for a 30 month old, but I was impressed by the concept and association even more.

Then today on our 3.5 hour drive, just DS, me, and some music, DS spent the whole trip asking "where are we now?" (wanting to know the town name and state) and "what are we going to do after we get to Grandaddy's?" "What are we going to eat for breakfast tomorrow?", etc. Then he asked me how planes get "all the way up there in the sky". Well, I thought this was pretty par for the course for a verbal 2.5 year old. so I said "they fly up". Umm, he said "but what makes them go up and how do they stay up there?" Oh boy, it reminded me of everything I keep reading from all of the moms in this forum about toddlers asking 'advanced' questions.

So I wonder about the moms that come in here asking if their toddler sounds gifted, and here I've been asking if mine might *not* be. How funny!

You all have helped with a great discussion, and maybe woken me up a little from my denial

[kgianforti]

Originally Posted by Holiztic

1) thinking that "giftedness" is/should be a very rare thing (like PG is) and the rest might be just varying levels of intelligence (i.e. "really smart kids, but not gifted--no flames please, I'm not accusing anyone's kids of not being gifted, just trying to work through my novice understanding!!!), so my kid at 2.5 not doing anything astounding or unheard of makes me a little less comfotable saying he's "gifted". This is just a feeling, not a real opinion or point of contention, just a gut thing. Really not sure about this yet. Feel free to help me, but gently, I really am not trying to make assertions here!

Actually, this was the reason why I was in denial for so long...If my dd is gifted, why doesn't she stand out?? Well, the James T Webb book (A Parent's Guide to Gifted Children) pointed out two important things:

there are more gifted children around than people think because gifted children aren't just kids starting college at age 12 or playing Mozart at age 3 (the media's portrayal). AND there's an "optimal intelligence" IQ where the child is gifted and bright enough to whiz through school and their career but not bright enough (like PG kids) to "stand out" like a sore thumb. I think the IQ range he gave was 125-140...I don't have the book in front of me but I'm pretty sure right around those IQs.

I thought all gifted kids were like what the media portrays. I didn't know you had different degrees of giftedness (I believe we are in the MG range). You should get that book...a very helpful resource. The first couple of chapters I was like a bobblehead - nodding and nodding at every page because it explained so much!!!

[Holiztic]

Originally Posted by kgianforti

Actually, this was the reason why I was in denial for so long...If my dd is gifted, why doesn't she stand out?? Well, the James T Webb book (A Parent's Guide to Gifted Children) pointed out two important things:

there are more gifted children around than people think because gifted children aren't just kids starting college at age 12 or playing Mozart at age 3 (the media's portrayal). AND there's an "optimal intelligence" IQ where the child is gifted and bright enough to whiz through school and their career but not bright enough (like PG kids) to "stand out" like a sore thumb. I think the IQ range he gave was 125-140...I don't have the book in front of me but I'm pretty sure right around those IQs.

I thought all gifted kids were like what the media portrays. I didn't know you had different degrees of giftedness (I believe we are in the MG range). You should get that book...a very helpful resource. The first couple of chapters I was like a bobblehead - nodding and nodding at every page because it explained so much!!!

Thank you! I will get it!