
New research suggests new ways to nurture gifted children - nopinsight
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21739144-new-research-suggests-new-ways-nurture-gifted-children-how-and-why-search-young
======
rabboRubble
I have a young relative who was tracked into special education from early
years. Finally, his educators gave him a standardized intelligence test. To
their shock (and perhaps) horror, he came in in the top 1% for his age
bracket. He is really, really intelligent.

After this test, his guidance counselor sat him down and asked him how smart
he thought he was. Answer, a morose and defeated "I'm stupid." Mind you, this
answer came out of an 8-9 year old.

After being told repeatedly that he was not good at school and that classes
were too hard for him, he fully believed he was stupid.

Once the adults around him stopped seeing a redneck country kid, once the
adults recognized his poor school track record as a reflection of _their
biases and their poor performance_ he excelled.

He is now captain of his high school robotics team. The team just won a
position to compete in an international robotics competition in the next
couple of weeks. Assuming they can raise the $30k to travel to Kentucky, ship
their robots, find lodging, etc. It's a large fund raising amount for a non-
Texas, non-football red state.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I have a young relative who was tracked into special education from early
> years. Finally, his educators gave him a standardized intelligence test.

It stuns me that people are tracked into special education without an
assessment that included, at a minimum, an intelligence test. (I had public
school teachers raise concerns that I _should_ be in special ed in early
years, was given an assessment that identified a speech impediment and a high
IQ, was subsequently given a performance assessment that wasn't limited to be
grade-level skills, and it was realized that I was performing well beyond
grade level. So I was skipped ahead a grade _and_ moved into the gifted
program.

And this was back in 1980. I thought that virtually as long as gifted
education has existed it was widely recognized that gifted students frequently
underperform other students when not challenged, and, similarly, I thought it
was a fundamental concept of special education that it required individualized
assessment of the particular needs and abilities of the student.

~~~
whataretensors
I'm convinced society won't give IQ tests to kids out of cowardice. So instead
we spend 13-20 years of school giving different forms of IQ tests tiptoeing
around the concept.

Taking a test requiring abstraction and pattern matching skills is all the
same. It doesn't matter what the features are. The best you can do is also
test memory.

------
MsMowz
Despite going through gifted education programs myself, I'm deeply skeptical
of the concept of them in general, and I've only become more skeptical as new
research emerged. Here's a good example for why I'm skeptical:

>There is evidence that aspects of gifted education should influence education
more broadly. Project Bright Idea, developed at Duke University, saw 10,000
typical nursery and primary-school pupils taught using methods often reserved
for brainier kids—fostering high expectations, complex problem-solving and
cultivating meta-cognition (or “thinking about thinking”). Nearly every one of
them went on to do much better on tests than similar peers.

Another way to phrase this is that this study demonstrated that people may
become "high-achieving" because of gifted education programs, and not the
other way around. Or perhaps typical pupils can become high-achieving by
exposure to high-achieving pupils.

The article's refutation of these ideas is the King's College study that
determined that "50% of the variance in intelligence is heritable." Plomin's
more recent (2015) research suggests this estimate was far too high, and
should really be about 30% phenotypically, which makes me think there's no
point in trying to find young Einsteins. If students are of average or
slightly above average intelligence, Bright Idea style programs will be best
for them, and if they are truly a "young Einstein," they'll demonstrate it on
their own, just like old Einstein did.

~~~
kahnjw
When I was in 3rd grade, I was placed in a remedial math course. My mother
requested I be removed from it. I was. Today, I am a senior machine learning
engineer working on my third math heavy degree.

Needless to say, I am also very skeptical of identifying gifted students at a
young age. IMO society over-values so called natural talent, and trying to
find that talent in an 8 year old is silly, with rare exception.

Now, many of my higher performing peers from 3rd grade are lost. Hopping from
career to career, city to city without a sense of direction. A few of the high
performers have gone on to do impressive things, but nothing shocking, nothing
that is any more impressive than what my stoner friends and I were able to
accomplish after a few extra years to mature.

It took me more time to find that what I really enjoyed was engineering and
math. Of course, this is a first person account, so take it or leave it. Worth
noting that there is a whole lot of very bad education research, so anyone
whipping out journal articles to prove a point should be cautious.

The problem with treating "gifted" students differently is similar to gender
bias in STEM, and racial bias in education overall. Some people are told they
can, and other are implicitly told they can't. These messages get internalized
by students, especially if you are unlike myself and don't have a mother who
will stick up for you, and take you out of that remedial math course.

~~~
nopinsight
I have taught a few tens of gifted students. I could identify them based on a
short test from grade 1 (5-6 years old) onwards. I could even identify some
just by a short conversation.

All of them went on to become successful in college (only a few have graduated
so far). They consist of medical students in top medical schools in the
country, one International Physics Olympiad gold medalist (currently at MIT),
one International Chemistry Olympiad gold medalist (currently at U of Tokyo).
All of them from a 200k-people city in a developing country and I only taught
math to a few classes of these students (for about 4 years) before moving on
to another education venture.

I would say it is highly likely most of these students would go on to have
very good careers. We still do not know whether they will achieve great things
but their trajectory is much brighter than average kids.

I agree that putting young kids in remedial classes could be problematic, but
gifted kids do benefit from suitable gifted education.

~~~
kahnjw
>gifted kids do benefit from suitable gifted education

If you show me that other students don't benefit from suitable gifted
education, then you'll have an argument. Claiming that treating children with
gifted education increases their chance of success is obvious, but misses the
point, does it not?

I can specifically remember back to when the TAG Math students (Talented and
Gifted) were learning what negative numbers were. I kept hearing about them. I
imagined what they might mean, how you use them. When I was finally introduced
one year later, I was disappointed, you mean it's literally just subtraction?
I could have done that one year ago. And same with all the other students in
the normal math course, if they had the same level of attention and care.

The worst part was this: the students in TAG math had a student:teacher ratio
of 10:1, while the normal math students had a ratio of 20:1. The remedial
students had a ratio of 10:1, but the remedial teacher was from the special ed
department, not a specialized math teacher that the TAG and normal students
got. The TAG program at my school was praised, and the teacher acted as if she
was doing God's work. Of course, she had children who were students at the
school, and of course, they were in all of her classes.

Now, looking back on it, I realize how broken this frame of thinking is. Yes,
students will benefit if you put them in an elite math course with more
resources than other children. Other students will bare the cost. I think a
better allocation of our time and money would be to spread resources evenly.
If you really want to get ahead by one or two years, take summer classes in
middle or high school. That way, the students bares the cost of the additional
time and effort, and we can still evenly allocate resources so every eight
year old gets the same opportunity.

EDITS: spelling bear -> bare

~~~
jschwartzi
How well do you think those students would fare if placed in normal class?
Most of the normal people I meet either openly make fun of things I know or
assume I'm full of shit for the volume of information I can pull out of things
I've read. Most people also treat me as if I'm a geek because they wouldn't
have a use for the things I remember.

You're thinking about this as if they're taking your resources. Let me turn
this around for you. What if they aren't being given special treatment because
they need the resources, but because they need an environment where the way
they think is acceptable? How many of them would still show any talent or
aptitude in normal class with normal classmates? Think about your reaction to
negative numbers versus their own. Maybe gifted and talented classes aren't so
much giving them more resources as they are giving them an appropriate
education. Maybe it's about creating a safe environment for kids who tend to
be more abstract to flourish.

~~~
kahnjw
They'd do fine, because for the most part, the students who were placed in TAG
math were the same students whose parents were on PTA or whose parents had the
time and self entitlement to go to the school and not so politely request
their child be placed in the program.

The notion that gifted students need a special environment to learn is
comical. If they're actually talented and gifted, they should certainly be
able to learn effectively in the same environment as "normal" students.

Learning to read and do arithmetic is important in the 3rd grade, but it isn't
as important as learning social and communication skills. I don't deny that
there are gifted individuals among us, I'm advocating that we wait on trying
to identify the gifted ones at least until puberty.

~~~
Viliam1234
> The notion that gifted students need a special environment to learn is
> comical.

They may need a special environment to be allowed to excel in learning without
getting bullied.

~~~
jschwartzi
Which is what I was getting at, that intelligence and giftedness can function
as a handicap in a lot of situations.

------
scientician
As someone who has been through many forms of 'gifted' and 'enriched' and
'special' education, these articles always sadden me. Does anyone truly
believe that optimizing _children_ for their _economic output_ really leads to
a good life for their country?

Here's a radical idea: let them have childhoods!

I strongly support letting kids be free to develop and think for themselves.
If a 'gifted' child can succeed despite being imprisoned in a school for many
years, imagine how much they could grow and contribute if they were free?

For anyone with children, or who cares about the future of western democracy,
please look into
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school)

~~~
wyattpeak
I'll bite - yes, I think it leads to both a good life for them and benefit for
country.

I don't know what your gifted education programs were like, but I never recall
feeling like I missed out on my childhood. Occasionally I would take different
classes to some of my friends (but with others), and that was about it.

Far from keeping people from being free to develop and think for themselves,
most of the gifted classes I took actively encouraged that, with open-ended
problem solving and free-form classes often led by student interest.

But children need to be reined in, they don't have the reasoning skills or
understanding of adults; the one time I was allowed to fully control my own
syllabus it led almost directly to me losing the ability to speak Cantonese,
which I'd been fluent in up to that point. As a kid who'd spoken it all his
life, I simply didn't believe all of the people who told me I'd forget it
without practice. Because I was a child.

I don't know exactly how free-form Sudbury Schools are, but I'd have extreme
reservations about sending my children to one.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
So the lesson you learned wasn't that you had the power to choose what you
learned and how to do so responsibly?

Did you instead learn these things?:

• exercising that power could lead to you losing a skill

• doing so is bad

• you don't have the power to choose your own course corrections when you
notice a skill waning

Based on your suggestion that children need to be controlled, I think your
experience was limited and too short.

~~~
wyattpeak
I grant I learned all of those things, but I think pretty well everyone learns
those things by adulthood, and I don't think my forgetting a language
especially honed my understanding of those points.

I don't even know if you're arguing in good faith, because your second dot
point isn't really a thing that even a child needs to learn.

I'll also thank you not to suggest that our differences of opinion are due to
your superior understanding of my upbringing.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
I agree...I think those are things we're culturally taught, typically
implicitly and not explicitly.

And I don't assume to have an understanding of your upbringing. That's why I
was posing it all as questions. The points I made are things I think can
potentially hinder learning and are commonplace in society.

------
vinceguidry
"Giftedness" doesn't just refer to high IQ, at least not as the US educational
system treats it. It also refers to a cluster of personality traits that
combine to make some kids utterly fail to thrive in normal classrooms, yet
completely turn around in specialized environments.

I can't take any article seriously that doesn't appreciate that giftedness is
an educational concept, not a function of intelligence.

My insight regarding giftedness is that if we could afford it, all kids would
thrive if they could be placed in the kinds of small classroom creative
learning environments that gifted kids can _only_ thrive in. In other words,
we're all "gifted", it's just that some of us are less adaptable than others.

And while intelligence might be heritable, nurture is far more important when
it comes to the development of children. The argument that it's largely
heritable is the argument that the educational system is fine as it is and
doesn't need any new ideas or money.

~~~
colordrops
That sounds similarly euphemistic to the way the word "special" is used in the
US.

~~~
fjsolwmv
"special" isn't a euphemism in education. It literally means "non-mainstream
customized treatment". It's used for both disabilities and gifted. "Special"
is also a slang term for people with disabilities.

------
colordrops
Instead of trying to strengthen "gifts", I think a more effective approach
would be to remove barriers from growth. Even the most gifted children have
countless barriers, whether financial, emotional, or motivational. If a child
is painfully shy then therapy or some other form of work to open the child up
would be far more effective than special teaching methods. Helping a child
find a passion is more effective than deeper teaching on a subject they don't
care about. These examples are high-level and grossly generalized, but
everyone has countless micro and sometimes major traumas they've accumulated
over time, and more attention needs to be put on mitigating these.

------
contingencies
Did "gifted and talented" for two years in the government program in Sydney,
Australia, and it was awesome. Ages 10-11. This co-incided with my
introduction to programming and electronics (I now run a robotics startup in
China, after a successful software career). Almost no homework. Focus on
collaboration and discussion, creativity and inter-domain reasoning. On the
whole perhaps a big part of the benefit was being in the same school as others
who weren't in the program and realising it's OK to be
different/introspective.

------
ssivark
It is important to acknowledge that school serves multiple purposes. It is
definitely meant to educate students and hone their minds (and bodies). But
given that students spend most of their day at school or doing school related
activity, it is the only playground for kids to learn to socialize with their
ilk. And cloistering someone away from that experience in a formative phase
just to emphasize one axis of development (because they are “gifted”) is to do
them a profound disservice. At the same time, the same can be said of forcing
them to socialize while neglecting their mental development.

So, the “right” solution would involve giving kids opportunities to challenge
themselves in avenues where they are strong, and ensuring a rounded
experience.

Which is what schools are supposed to do, but they find it hard enough to
cater to the “average” student :-/

------
merricksb
For those impeded by the paywall:

[http://archive.is/DIVlJ](http://archive.is/DIVlJ)

------
drawkbox
I was in the GATE program in Utah [1] growing up and it was very project
based. I think all education should encourage projects. In one case, we had to
come up with products for younger kids and present and research the ideas,
brainstorm, build prototypes, do user testing, and deliver it. A key aspect of
the program was brainstorming which no idea is a bad idea but the best ideas
floated to the top, this is important to learning.

Finland is tops in education and lots of their teaching is letting kids pursue
projects together and individually especially, the latter is very important
for self-confidence. Finland does this through project- or phenomenon-based
learning (PBL)[2]. This empowers kids and more closely resembles real life,
you constantly have projects of all sorts going on in your life over
overlapping timeframes, sometimes in a team, sometimes all by yourself.

The best teachers also encourage projects. My 6th grade teacher had Apple II's
and let us experiment with building games in BASIC of which I built a Tron
game. I still think of it to this day. He also always had access to
educational games like Oregon Trail. My high school computer lab teacher Mr
Iles had gaming, programming and media/internet hardware and software setup to
experiment with, many of the kids in that class and group are great
programmers and some worked for intel while there. We had TV running on
computers and internet before most saw those things and built things on it. He
also let us play Scorched Earth and let programming projects be self-driven.
My art teachers did critiques so you learned to take criticism and explain
why. At Chandler High School there was a video class where you had to come up
with video content, edit, produce, direct, write etc and that was amazing in
terms of fun projects where I learned a great deal. All of this led to great
educational outcomes both in team projects and individual.

As long as a program is project based, a kid from anywhere or any level can
benefit. We need more project based education in the US. Most gifted programs
that do well do have a project based element to it, but not dictated to the
kids as much as curriculum but a set of requirements and the rest is a
creative exercise.

[1]
[https://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/giftedtalented](https://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/giftedtalented)

[2] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-39889523](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39889523)

~~~
DelightOne
> [...] but a set of requirements [...]. What kind do you think of? \- The
> steps you take? \- Requirements on the results? Please enlighten me.

~~~
drawkbox
For instance you say create a game that teaches people about handling money,
you might say it has the requirements of 1) earning interest on saving and 2)
a market value that changes upon events. Then let kids run with that. You can
say it must be played in a certain amount of time and other kids play the game
and give feedback or feedback from other schools. Make it a competition with
winnings for their school and some will go in depth.

Or create a game for kids to learn math, it must be targeted at kids ages 6-8
and include addition, subtraction, multiplication and division but it cannot
be flash cards. Then see what they come up with. The game creation projects
really teach people to simplify and iterate especially when you get feedback
from players.

Every kid needs the basics but besides that, projects to apply those skills.
Rote memorization doesn't work as well as application to a project. So you
find something that you can apply those skills. For instance math can better
be taught by making a software/web game, algebra/trigonometry/vector maths can
be fun that way. Markets can be taught with stock market games. Economics can
be taught with simulated mini economies. Critical thinking with looking at the
news and seeing sources of funding/content.

Check the BBC link on Finland for some of their ideas, their project based
programs have critical thinking skills in learning about fake news, sources of
those and why, learning about fallacies and making projects around that. It
also has projects where kids learn about immigration and what to do with
refugees including market research. Kids can learn to setup computers or
networks and then make something on top of it, or teach younger kids skills
they already know. I truly believe Finland is a mobile gaming startup hub
because of their project based education system and possibly a bit of Nokia
influence.

An example of one in Finland:

> _They use 3D printers to create a miniature of their Roman building, which
> will eventually be used as pieces for a class-wide board game._

 _This is a history lesson with a difference, says Aleksis Stenholm, a teacher
at Hauho Comprehensive School. The children are also gaining skills in
technology, research, communication and cultural understanding._

 _" Each group is becoming an expert on their subject, which they will present
to the class," he explains. The board game is the culmination of the project,
which will run alongside normal classroom teaching._

> _The school 's skate park came from an idea suggested by the children, who
> helped design and raise funds for it_

Other great things about Finland education systems:

\- Teaching is a highly respected, well-paid profession

\- School days are short and the summer break is 10 weeks

They get more freedom and more projects in Finland and generally school is
more fun but they are still testing well for basic skills.

 _For nearly two decades, Finland has enjoyed a reputation for having one of
the world 's best education systems. Its 15 year olds regularly score amongst
the highest in the global Pisa league tables for reading, maths and science._

Many times the projects are teaching through learning to teach or educate
others or make games for others. The moment you teach the ability to teach,
the mind opens up a bit more.

~~~
DelightOne
Reading this I feel like I want to go to school again, over there. (:

So to recap correct me if I’m wrong:

    
    
      1. Learn basics
      2. Form a project with rules where basics are applied (often teaching through learning to teach or educate others or make games for others).
      3. If that doesn’t work get tutoring from other kids and teachers.

~~~
drawkbox
Pretty much, don't forget they have much shorter days at actual school which
is nice. In the US people use school as a daycare/babysitter in early years so
that might be more difficult.

Finnish kids have more time to work on projects and play in addition to school
that is more interesting.

------
WheelsAtLarge
Gifted education has a big problem, pupils are fed the education adults feel
they need to excel. Problem is that if students are always given the answers
to life then they never learn how to maneuver thru the unknown path that life
is.

In academics the path to a Ph.D. is known, you can figure it out even for
newborns. The problem is that in life there is no determined path. Gifted
Education lacks the ability to teach children how to get from A to B without a
determined path. So many of these programs are teaching kids how to be great
students but not how to excel in life, 2 different goals.

What society needs from their brightest are trailblazers that solve problems
and make advances in any given field. What these programs produce are great
professionals that aren't likely to be leaders in any field.

I truly believe that once these kids know the basics these programs should
help them figure out how to excel at life when the path is unknown by letting
them make their own decisions and nudging them in the right direction rather
than showing them how to get there.

Also, every time I read about these kinds of programs, they try to identify
the best by some kind of IQ. But as we all know smarts, not necessarily high
IQ, and hard work is what makes the successful individual. Given 2 smart kids
at the same level, hard work will determine who comes in on top. There needs
to be a way to ID these kids so that it's not just IQ but a combination of
hard work and intelligence.

Also Gifted is a horrible name. It should be high achievers. My view is that
geniuses are made not born.

------
fny
It's upsetting that we've known about this for decades from an insane random
experiment that would never pass review today. Consider the 1966 study by
Rosenthal and Jacobson "Teachers’ Expectancies: Determinants Of Pupils’ IQ
Gains"[0]

> Within each of 18 classrooms, an average of 20% of the children were
> reported to classroom teachers as showing unusual potential for intellectual
> gains. Eight months later these “unusual” children (who had actually been
> selected at random) showed significantly greater gains in IQ than did the
> remaining children in the control group. These effects of teachers’
> expectancies operated primarily among the younger children.

[0]:
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495.5453&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect)

~~~
danieltillett
You can push g around quite a bit at an early age, but by adulthood everyone
regresses back to their original potential. This is just another way of saying
there is a shared environmental component to g at an early age, but none in
adulthood [0].

0\. There is a shared environmental component for deprived shared
environments, but it has to be very extreme to not washout by adulthood.

~~~
fjsolwmv
Ok, but g is an abstract psychological theory, not practical achievement and
success in life.

~~~
danieltillett
Yes g is abstract, but it is more a summary of all the different factors that
go into intelligence. It explains the otherwise very puzzling fact that if you
measure one aspect of intelligence (say speed at which someone can do simple
arithmetic) you can predict well how well they will do on something totally
different (say identifying grammatical errors in a text).

------
crawfordcomeaux
In my experience, children don't thrive in one-size-fits-all programming. I
apply intuitions from computer science when I think about this.

As an example, let's look at teaching them to use the word "yet" when speaking
negatively about themselves.

This is a practice I took up at one point in my recovery from information
addiction. It wasn't enough to really open me up. I had to make several other
language hacks. I learned how to speak in active voice, largely dropped the
words can't/should/shouldn't, and redefined a whole host of words for myself.
I had to believe what I said, too, which we're awful at teaching how to do.
I'm guessing it's because science is taught in a way that typically undermines
the skill of choosing beliefs.

I had to hack my language way more and I think a generalized approach to teach
kids how to identify words they use to undermine themselves will work better
than being told what words they need to change. The purpose of the hacks is to
change their perception, after all. Language is an indicator, but without a
process to identify what meaning they give you words and what they believe, we
probably won't see much improvement if we focus on superficial language hacks.
Hacking perception takes more than that.

~~~
IndigeniousWind
I'm a little confused. Why did you start to change the way your spoke? I
understand using the word "yet", but why the other ones like dropping "can't"?

>I had to hack my language way more and I think a generalized approach to
teach kids how to identify words they use to undermine themselves will work
better than being told what words they need to change.

Is this approach of yours about being more positive and less normative, and
also being more optimistic that you can improve?

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
I started working on active vs passive voice at the request of a therapist who
recognized I was taking a very passive approach to life and thought the
language shift might help with a mental shift. I found it helped me realize
the ways I could change my behavior. Simply the act of monitoring and
correcting my language was a practice in taking a more active role in my life.

I dropped most words with opposites as a practice in nonjudgment. I kept a few
around, like "love" and "can" because they're useful. "Can't" implies a belief
that something's impossible. Believing that can keep us from imagining ways
things CAN happen. It's therefore not useful to adopt the belief of "can't" if
we want to explore possibilities. Having an exploratory mindset is really
helpful while trying to learn how to meet one's needs.

This approach is about seeing a way through things by learning to let go of
how I judge something in order to see a way through it. Everything is a
learning opportunity, so I'm working to enable/configure myself to learn more
frequently. I do experience deep optimism. As for positivity, I prefer to
acknowledge both sides of the coin.

Does that answer your questions?

~~~
lndigeniousWind
Partially, yes. Can you give some more examples of changes you've made to your
use of language? Also, is this for speaking only or writing too?

>I dropped most words with opposites as a practice in nonjudgment.

Don't pretty much all words have opposites? Looking at verbs, it's hard to
think of ones that lack an opposite.

I really like this general idea, and thinking about it, I want to alter my
language accordingly. I would appreciate any resources.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
This is for speaking/writing/doing, which is to say it's for thinking/being.

A core set of principles and language hacks came from nonviolent
communication. I practically started with it and added a practice of
acknowledging both words and their opposites (Maybe I mean adjectives with
opposites, but maybe try it with whatever opposite-having words you catch?).

Here's a great free resource for NVC:
[https://youtu.be/O4tUVqsjQ2I](https://youtu.be/O4tUVqsjQ2I)

The nonjudgment practice went something like this:

1\. Hear/read a word I detected as having an opposite.

2\. Say "eh...<first word>...<its opposite>...eh" while shrugging and mentally
considering the opposite within the same context.

3 weeks after having adopted the practice every day, I started enjoying foods
I'd historically hated. Then I began enjoying everything in the world more,
including people, country music, and watching sports.

Let's connect off-site and keep this convo going.

------
truculation
A simple way to help _any_ kid: find out what he enjoys the most and help him
to do more of it. Rinse. Repeat. No compulsion. No testing.

~~~
kgwgk
Maybe if the kid enjoys torturing animals a different approach is better.

~~~
stevenwoo
I know you're joking but there is an approach that seems to salvage some of
those kids. [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-
yo...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-
is-a-psychopath/524502/)

------
z3t4
Unless they score very high on an _adult_ test it's impossible to tell how
well they will do on the same test when they get older. So it's impossible to
tell if a child is gifted or not. It has more to do with motivation and family
support. One problem when everything is easy at young age is that they do not
learn to work hard, and when their peers develop to the same level it will be
very though for these children because in their mind they are the best.

------
DGAP
I think there are a lot of good points being made here re: nature vs. nurture
and not allowing children to have a childhood.

As long as we agree that education should be a part of childhood, a good
middle ground would be normalizing "skipping grades." It was definitely
beneficial for me from a life and academic standpoint, the only negatives were
social ostracism which decreased as I got older. I think this ostracism from
peers would decrease if it was considered normal to skip.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
My personal opinion especially now is that gifted programs are a waste of time
for the following reasons:

1) All students should be learning the fundamentals.

2) If you are gifted, being able to work with, communicate with, and help
people less gifted than you is going to be a valuable life skill.

3) Finding new intellectually challenging things to do even in boring
circumstances is a useful skill to learn. Even Einstein had to sit through
boring faculty meetings.

4) In a gifted class, the child is probably substantially smarter than the
teachers. Highly gifted people aren't going into elementary education in large
enough numbers for their to be enough gifted teachers for the number of gifted
students.

5) With the Internet and widespread knowledge, the truly gifted can learn so
much on their own. Once a child knows how to read, curiosity, ability, and
time are the only limits. With a truly gifted child, the less challenging the
schoolwork is, the more time and energy they can dedicate to other things.

6) A stable, nurturing family that values and encourages intellectual
achievement is probably far more important than what kind of school you go to
as long as the school is competent.

With regards to number 5, how many of you that learned programming as a kid,
leaned it in school vs learned it on your own by reading books or via the
Internet?

As a society we should strive to make school something that teaches to basics
well for all children and stimulates curiosity and gives children the
necessary tools to learn on their own.

* As an example of a gifted child, Von Neumann [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann) is a much better example than Einstein.

------
rdl
I benefitted a lot from my public school district’s pull-out gifted program
(about 10% of days spent there, but 100% of the value I got out of school), as
well as JHU’s SMPY/SET/CTY.

------
pasbesoin
Having been labeled "gifted" and various things, growing up (and "blowing" a
few grade curves, either pleasing or pissing off the instructor, depending
upon their personality).

And after having suffered immensely, simultaneously, particularly because no
one accepted what I actually said: "I need peace and quiet to work." "Stop
fighting." "Just leave me alone."

Number one way to nuture gifted children (per me): TEACH THEM TO STAND UP FOR
THEMSELVES. AND TO RESPECT THEMSELVES, RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY DIMINISHING THEM
WITH "CORRECTIONS" AND "COMPLIANCE".

I was a pretty nice kid. And I've tried to be a pretty nice guy, as an adult.
(I don't know, maybe I ended up partly being that "nice guy", as well...
Clueless.)

I didn't need a bunch of "socialization". I needed some acknowledgement and
acceptance of what worked for me, and what didn't.

And some HONESTY. Some of the things that most fucked me over, were people
being dishonest. Whether maliciously or with "good intentions".

So, if someone had taught me how to (physically, when necessary) keep the
bullies off. And that I could indeed trust my intuition.

Well, retrospect, but I kind of think I would have had the rest.

In most of my classes, I pretty much ended up teaching myself, anyway. And I
remember the subset of genuinely _good_ instructors who did teach me things.

They didn't merely recite. They _paid attention_ , and added things they could
see would be informative and useful to me.

"Gifted". Right there, in the use of that term: You're often dealing with
someone who doesn't "get it".

/bitterness

P.S. Lately, I've been on a medication that tends to get me a bit ramped up
while also short-circuiting some of my natural "attention to detail" (aka
"pause and check", etc.) This may be reflected in some of my posts. Sorry.

Also, why didn't I do this for myself, as an adult. Well, the last couple of
years of college and right after, prior history culminated in a couple of
serious injuries that took away from my physical capabilities.

I'll add that, in my personal experience, that's a real cut-off: Once you
experience physiological losses you can't recoup, your world changes. The
journey back from that is much more difficult, especially if/when they start
to snowball.

Another real reason to teach kids how to take care of themselves. And to
respect themselves (NOT what you arbitrarily tell them). Get them self-
sufficient in keeping themselves in good health. "Health is wealth". Boy, did
I learn the aptness of that as I got older.

------
Rainymood
Paywall.

~~~
the-dude
Web link

~~~
Rainymood
I don't understand your comment. I can not read the article as it says "You've
reached your article limit."

------
napier
Paywall makes it impossible for most people to read this article.

