What was your child like as an infant? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 47 Old 01-09-2010, 05:25 PM
 
ChristaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by expecting-joy View Post
They signed and spoke very young and were mobile very young (walking at 8 and 6 months) and I think therefore just very lacking in frustration.
Mine were both early speakers as well (speaking by 5-6 months and in sentences shortly after their 1st bds) although they weren't early walkers. Dd#1 was actually a bit of a later walker (15 months). I'm not sure that doing things early will guarantee an easy temperament, though. Dds' intensity seemed to create drama even when they were able to communicate their needs and wants quite well.
ChristaN is offline  
#32 of 47 Old 01-10-2010, 09:01 PM
 
ecoteat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
Mine were both early speakers as well (speaking by 5-6 months and in sentences shortly after their 1st bds) although they weren't early walkers. Dd#1 was actually a bit of a later walker (15 months).
Same here. I always thought it was funny that dd was putting together short sentences before she could confidently stand on her own two feet! She was always so social and loved people. She would crawl onto strangers' laps in airports. But when she was 4 months old and started going to a babysitter a couple hours a week (our cousin that we are all very close to) she would cry the whole time I was gone at first. It was awful.

She was a terrible sleeper. She didn't sleep through the night until she was 3. From 4 months to about a year she rarely slept more than 3 hours in a stretch. Getting her to nap was a struggle for a long time, too, but she did settle into a great napping routine well before sleeping all night. Now she still naps 2-3 hours a day and sleeps from 9:30-7:30, so I guess that makes up for before.
ecoteat is offline  
#33 of 47 Old 01-10-2010, 11:54 PM
 
Naomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My gifted Aspie daughter was actually a pretty easy baby. I joke to friends that she had clearly read all the Attachment Parenting books because she was as happy as a clam as long as I held her and slept with her and let her nurse whenever she wanted.
Naomi is offline  
#34 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 03:17 PM
 
MyZymurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by physmom View Post
All that being said... I think this is the wrong question to ask. Maybe it would be better to ask if there are kids that show all the signs of giftedness early on but don't turn out to be at least bright if not gifted. I'm curious does anybody know of a kid that hit all their milestones early (not just one or two but really across the board), didn't sleep well, was highly alert,e tc but didn't turn out to be gifted (or at least bright)? It seems like it would be something interesting to study but I haven't see anything conclusive on it yet...

Good question and good point. The child I know is very likely the exception to the rule... but he was well ahead in all milestones until around 18 months. He even knew all his letters. Then things changed. Other kids caught up. Then other kids surpassed him. He is now labeled as "globally delayed" and is in special education at 6 years of age.

I know another child that didn't speak until age two, but is extremely gifted with language now at age five.

Development is a funny thing. It isn't as easy to predict as all those timelines would have you believe. A kid can start out average or behind, and turn out gifted. A kid could also seem to be well ahead in all milestones at age one and then be far behind at age three. (The majority, of course, don't follow these paths.)

It seems like after the age of 7 or so (give or take! I just pulled that age out of my you-know-what) the vast majority of children are on a relatively even playing field, regardless of whether they were ahead or behind in early milestones. A small percentage of children (many of whom were ahead from an early age, but not all of them) will emerge at this age as "gifted". A small percentage of children (some behind at younger ages, but not all of them) will emerge with serious delays or mild mental impairments.

So, as much as we all wish we had a crystal ball to see our child's future, we don't. It's all a matter of probabilities, but it's still just probabilities. A baby that seems very ahead in all areas could very well end up gifted... but there is also a very real chance that he or she will not. All you can do is respond to who your child is and where your child is at right now. Meet his or her needs in the moment, give him a safe and loving environment, and trust that the chips will just fall where they may.

Mama and co-parent to our beautiful DS (08/08) and our mighty strong DD (04/10) . Life is good.
MyZymurgy is offline  
#35 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 04:21 PM
 
physmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyZymurgy View Post
Good question and good point. The child I know is very likely the exception to the rule... but he was well ahead in all milestones until around 18 months. He even knew all his letters. Then things changed. Other kids caught up. Then other kids surpassed him. He is now labeled as "globally delayed" and is in special education at 6 years of age.

I know another child that didn't speak until age two, but is extremely gifted with language now at age five.
That's interesting about that first story. I wonder how common that is? I'm a scientist(I don't do anything related to childhood development) and so I can't resist wondering about these things and I also wonder how thoroughly these things are actually studied, you know what I mean?

DH was a prime example of that second kid you mentioned. He didn't speak almost a word before two and is now quite gifted in languages (he's bilingual and you'd never know he wasn't a native speaker in his second language). Being a later bloomed doesn't seem as surprising to me as the opposite simply because some kids might be working on some less obvious milestones. But I guess the opposite could be true (a child could work entirely on the very obvious milestones while ignoring the more hidden, yet important ones. In theory that would eventually catch up to them... but it just seems less likely somehow).

But I do wonder how common it is for children to be globally advanced and then fall behind like you said?

Kind of going with that... I really wonder about the whole regression to the mean thing. Historically, I can really understand why it happened. Going back 50, 100 years or more people had a much more limited choice on who they married and had kids with (especially considering segregation and the fact that people tended to marry within their economic class and didn't move around as much). That meant that it was more likely that people would have kids with other people all over the IQ spectrum, which means that while two gifted people could produce a kid the previous genes from both sides were still pretty varied when it cames to IQ so that the kid could have a lower IQ.

Now-a-days, it is easier for people to meet and have kids with people of their same intellectual level. Sure, it doesn't always happen, but people tend to gravitate towards someone on their same level or near to it. So it seems regression to the mean would become less prevalent and make genes a better indicator for intelligence. Sorry that this is a little off topic but it's been something I've been wondering about. I'm sure I'm grossly overgeneralizing some things here but I still wonder about this...
physmom is offline  
#36 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 04:22 PM
 
physmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyZymurgy View Post
So, as much as we all wish we had a crystal ball to see our child's future, we don't. It's all a matter of probabilities, but it's still just probabilities. A baby that seems very ahead in all areas could very well end up gifted... but there is also a very real chance that he or she will not. All you can do is respond to who your child is and where your child is at right now. Meet his or her needs in the moment, give him a safe and loving environment, and trust that the chips will just fall where they may.
And I forgot to mention that I totally agree with this. Another reason why I love AP!
physmom is offline  
#37 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 04:23 PM
 
eepster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: growing in the Garden State ............
Posts: 9,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyZymurgy View Post
The child I know is very likely the exception to the rule... but he was well ahead in all milestones until around 18 months. He even knew all his letters. Then things changed. Other kids caught up. Then other kids surpassed him. He is now labeled as "globally delayed" and is in special education at 6 years of age.
In a situation like that, I would consider some kind of organic cause for the problem. I would be thinking lead exposure or a metabolic issue.

Timmy's Mommy WARNINGyslexic typing with help of preschooler, beware of typos
eepster is offline  
#38 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 04:49 PM
 
eepster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: growing in the Garden State ............
Posts: 9,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by physmom View Post
Kind of going with that... I really wonder about the whole regression to the mean thing. Historically, I can really understand why it happened. Going back 50, 100 years or more people had a much more limited choice on who they married and had kids with (especially considering segregation and the fact that people tended to marry within their economic class and didn't move around as much). That meant that it was more likely that people would have kids with other people all over the IQ spectrum, which means that while two gifted people could produce a kid the previous genes from both sides were still pretty varied when it cames to IQ so that the kid could have a lower IQ.

Now-a-days, it is easier for people to meet and have kids with people of their same intellectual level. Sure, it doesn't always happen, but people tend to gravitate towards someone on their same level or near to it. So it seems regression to the mean would become less prevalent and make genes a better indicator for intelligence. Sorry that this is a little off topic but it's been something I've been wondering about. I'm sure I'm grossly overgeneralizing some things here but I still wonder about this...
Regression towards the mean must be a somewhat limited phenomenon. It really has more to do with probability and statistics than genetics per se (of course genetics have a lot of chance in them.) If regression towards the mean was a strict rule, evolution wouldn't happen.

I think for the sake of genetics a great way to look at is as rolling sets of dice. Lets say you have 2 set of 2, 6 sided dice.

The first pair is your typical set with the sides ranging from 1-6. Say sya you roll them, you might get lucky and roll a 11, on the next roll, you might do poorly and roll a 4. this would be a simple and clear example of regression towards the mean. Over 100 rolls of the dice, your most likely going to average out to 6 or 7.

Now let's say the second set of dice is a bit different, the sides on this pair run from 2-7, instead of 1-6. So in the first 2 rolls, you may once again get 11 and 4, but over the span of 100 rolls, you are going to average more like 7 or 8, instead of 6 or 7.

The chance factors that cause regression towards the mean are acting the same way, but the actual mean involved has changed.

When a couple has children, those children (excluding environmental factors) will tend towards the parent genetic mean (includes unexpressed genes,) not necessarily the populations mean.

Basically the reason we see regression towards the mean in genetics at all, is b/c most people have several genes that aren't being expressed. As you said though, as people get to select mates with a similar IQ over more and more generations, those unexpressed genes become less and less prevalents.

Timmy's Mommy WARNINGyslexic typing with help of preschooler, beware of typos
eepster is offline  
#39 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 06:11 PM
 
mistymama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well my 7 year old also has Aspergers - as an infant, he was pretty easy. He was my one and only and while we had some challenges, they were nothing too out of the ordinary.

Now ask me about the toddler stage - OH MY GOODNESS, that was the age (prob 18 months - 3 years) that was really, really tough. It's not common for Aspies, but mine lost his language at around 13 months - he would throw tantrums like you can not imagine and was unable to self soothe. He would bang his head on walls or floors when he was frustrated. I could go on and on!! He had a burst of language right before age 3 and has never stopped talking. It also greatly helped reduce his frustration and many of his extreme behaviors improved.

So easy infant, alert & good natured. HARD toddler - extremely acitve, sensitive and that's when the SPD was the very worst. And the last few years? Pretty darn easy!!

Candacepeace.gif, Married to dh   guitar.gif, Mom to ds (8) biggrinbounce.gif , Gavin candle.gif (9/30/10 - 12/19/10) and cautiously expecting our rainbow1284.gif 4-29-12

mistymama is offline  
#40 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 06:17 PM
 
mistymama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know another child that didn't speak until age two, but is extremely gifted with language now at age five.

This is my ds. He actually lost the few words he was saying at a year old and didn't speak much until he was nearly 3. Now, at age 7 he's very, very much ahead of his peers. He's such an advanced reader that they have to borrow books from a different school for him to use - and he was banging his head on the floor and not talking for years.

Of course, he has Aspergers which explains that - but there is just no way to tell by early milestones, IMO. Also he crawled and walked very early, but now he's kinda clumsy and not the most athletic kid. He also walks on his tip toes. :

Candacepeace.gif, Married to dh   guitar.gif, Mom to ds (8) biggrinbounce.gif , Gavin candle.gif (9/30/10 - 12/19/10) and cautiously expecting our rainbow1284.gif 4-29-12

mistymama is offline  
#41 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 06:18 PM
 
stlmomof2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by physmom View Post
That's interesting about that first story. I wonder how common that is? I'm a scientist(I don't do anything related to childhood development) and so I can't resist wondering about these things and I also wonder how thoroughly these things are actually studied, you know what I mean?
I know a child who talked really early and knew his alphabet and numbers by 18 months. As he got older, it became clear he had some sort of autism. I don't think he's universally delayed now. He's in a self-contained classroom in elementary school and could tell you all sorts of math facts and scientific information but I don't think he's excelling academically. He definitely has problems with fine motor and social skills, though he's an awesome kid who seems quite sharp in many ways. I guess he'd be best described as 2E.

Mandy, mother to Alexandra (10/14/05) and William (12/21/07)
stlmomof2 is offline  
#42 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 08:21 PM
 
eepster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: growing in the Garden State ............
Posts: 9,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistymama View Post
and he was banging his head on the floor
Head banging in early toddlerhood is very common (especially in above average IQ boys,) and is not a symptom of autistic spectrum.

Timmy's Mommy WARNINGyslexic typing with help of preschooler, beware of typos
eepster is offline  
#43 of 47 Old 01-11-2010, 08:23 PM
 
greenmamapagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster View Post
In a situation like that, I would consider some kind of organic cause for the problem. I would be thinking lead exposure or a metabolic issue.
That would be my first thought too.

It's an interesting question though. I'd love to see any statistics if anyone comes across any.

grateful Mama to DD May '06 and DS May '09
greenmamapagan is offline  
#44 of 47 Old 01-12-2010, 01:36 AM
 
mistymama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster View Post
Head banging in early toddlerhood is very common (especially in above average IQ boys,) and is not a symptom of autistic spectrum.
Thanks I'm quite aware of the spectrum. That was said amongst several other issues, I didn't mean for it to sound like he was banging his head, thus he must be autistic. In fact I didn't honestly believe he was on the spectrum (just thought he was quirky) until we got the official diagnosis last summer.

Candacepeace.gif, Married to dh   guitar.gif, Mom to ds (8) biggrinbounce.gif , Gavin candle.gif (9/30/10 - 12/19/10) and cautiously expecting our rainbow1284.gif 4-29-12

mistymama is offline  
#45 of 47 Old 01-12-2010, 01:45 AM
 
eepster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: growing in the Garden State ............
Posts: 9,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistymama View Post
In fact I didn't honestly believe he was on the spectrum (just thought he was quirky) until we got the official diagnosis last summer.
Have you read the book on misdiagnosis in gifted children? (I actually haven't myself yet, but need to get around to it.)

I actually had a Dr speculating about autistic spectrum stuff based on just three things, family history, some behavior issues at school, and he can read. She made the biggest fuss over the precocious reading (this one is actually in the family history too, but not amongst the same people dx'd/suspected with ASD.) I won't bore everyone with the million and one reasons I'm not even vaguely concerned about ASD for DS, but it really doesn't add up.

If your gut is telling you he's not, then maybe you should look further.

Timmy's Mommy WARNINGyslexic typing with help of preschooler, beware of typos
eepster is offline  
#46 of 47 Old 01-24-2010, 05:34 AM
 
mambera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by physmom View Post
Kind of going with that... I really wonder about the whole regression to the mean thing. Historically, I can really understand why it happened. Going back 50, 100 years or more people had a much more limited choice on who they married and had kids with (especially considering segregation and the fact that people tended to marry within their economic class and didn't move around as much). That meant that it was more likely that people would have kids with other people all over the IQ spectrum, which means that while two gifted people could produce a kid the previous genes from both sides were still pretty varied when it cames to IQ so that the kid could have a lower IQ.

Now-a-days, it is easier for people to meet and have kids with people of their same intellectual level. Sure, it doesn't always happen, but people tend to gravitate towards someone on their same level or near to it. So it seems regression to the mean would become less prevalent and make genes a better indicator for intelligence.
OK but assortative mating is not the same as selection.

You're assuming that being homozygous for a 'smart allele' is better than being heterozygous for a 'smart allele.' But genetics aren't typically that simple; often something that's good in half-a-dose is not so great in a full dose.

A really well-known example is the sickle-cell gene, which is protective against malaria in a half-dose but creates a nasty disease when present in a full dose.

As a more general point, e.g. mixed-breed dogs are thought to be more clever and even-tempered than true-bred ones, suggesting that a mixed genetic background is a better deal.

WRT intelligence specifically, Simon Baron-Cohen has floated the idea that at least some of the 'autism epidemic' may be due to assortative mating between dorky engineers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathi...emizing_theory


Quote:
All that being said... I think this is the wrong question to ask. Maybe it would be better to ask if there are kids that show all the signs of giftedness early on but don't turn out to be at least bright if not gifted. I'm curious does anybody know of a kid that hit all their milestones early (not just one or two but really across the board), didn't sleep well, was highly alert,e tc but didn't turn out to be gifted (or at least bright)? It seems like it would be something interesting to study but I haven't see anything conclusive on it yet...
It definitely happens. Regression of communication/social milestones after relatively appropriate early development is characteristic of Rett's syndrome as well as many autism-spectrum disorders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rett_syndrome

Me, DH, DD1 (5/2009) and DD2 (10/2011).
I'm not crunchy. I'm evidence-based.

Vaccines save lives.

mambera is offline  
#47 of 47 Old 01-25-2010, 02:56 AM
 
leighi123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indialantic, FL
Posts: 1,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
DS was very alert from day one, even at the hospital nurses and doctors were commenting on it and suprised at how he was holding his head up and looking around at 2 days old (I had no idea that most babies dont do that!)

He was pretty easy going, as long as he had something to look at. I held him a lot b/c I wanted to, but he would be happy if I put him down to make dinner or something. He did wake up a lot to nurse until he was around 18months when I finally ASKED him to quit waking me up and he did right away!

Even at 3-4months old he could understand everyone around him. At the time I was babysitting a little guy full time who was only 2 weeks younger than my ds, and I was suprised that he didnt seem to understand anything I said, where ds would respond as if he knew everything. I didnt think much of it at the time though.

He could follow directions by 5 months (which is also when he had better control over his hands!). Most milestones were normal (sitting 7months, crawling 8months, walking 13months - but he was potty trained by 15months)

He said one word 'da' at a yr old, and 200+words by 18months, I lost count after that, he talks constantly.
leighi123 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off