another one

[EthiopianFood]

Sorry, I hate to be that person. :glare: I just need to know so I can stop thinking about it. Definitions/structure/labels calm me. :tongue_smilie:

 

Dd will be three in January. She's very verbal, although I've only consciously counted up to seven word sentences (could have missed something). She wants to actually PLAY with other kids, not just parallel play, including letting the friend know specifically where she is going when the play date is done. Yesterday, at a restaurant, she was at the pop counter, and had taken out three straws (dh, dd, and myself were present), and two napkins. When I said, "Take one napkin for each person," she deliberately took another napkin and said, "Three." She can look at a set of three and know it's three without counting. At least six months ago, she accurately counted seven of something on a flashcard with no assistance (she refuses to do it now, of course :tongue_smilie:). Knows colors and shapes, has for quite some time now. Knows the letters and numbers that I've been more consistent with, but we haven't done that stuff in months, so she doesn't know them all.

 

Just based on this information, which isn't much (but I just want to know about this particular stuff anyway), would you say she is likely behind? Average? Bright? Gifted? I'm just never around other kids her age, so I have NO clue. I hear about kids her age doing a lot of this stuff all the time (and gifted kids doing much more), but then I get comments on how smart she is. I think, it's just because I've presented her with the information, you know? Right? :confused:

[EKS]

Here's a link that might help.

 

http://www.dirhody.com/discanner/levels.htm

[2smartones]

I often recommend that link as well. Based ONLY on what you've told us, I'd say that's all very normal. When someone comments about her being smart, be sure to ask them what they mean. It'll be easier to understand where they're coming from. Not everything on that link is set in stone, either. Both of my boys have been estimated to have extremely high IQ's, but there are many things their friends are doing that they aren't doing (well... mostly the older one, actually).

Edited October 18, 2010 by 2smartones

[SunshineMom]

I wouldn't read too much into labels for it really does not matter at this point. I would just simply enjoy the wonderment of your child. Talk to her about everything, read to her and keep bringing math into the real world. Remember that no one fits into a box and children cannot be counted on to "fit" on a particular timeline of development. If your child is gifted, you will have to get real comfortable with the ambiguity of development for they can be all over the place.

[Crimson Wife]

She's 3, which is *VERY* early to be distinguishing between truly gifted and garden-variety bright. Some kids who do turn out to be gifted show signs of it by age 3 but others are "late bloomers". And conversely, plenty of kids who start out ahead of the curve "even out" by the time they're "tweens". So at this point, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[Holiztic]

I generally shy away from labels, especially for such young kids as things can change so much between now and 7 or so. But since you asked (and I totally understand your interest, BTW!) it sounds pretty average to me--which is NOT to say she's not now nor will she be bright, but nothing jumps out at me (like my DS doing mental addition/subtraction at 26 months or his 15+ word compound sentences with the conditional tense, "if...then" statements, etc. before his second birthday.

 

We don't "work" on anything around here, didn't even have alphabet toys until he was 3.3. He does no TV, DVDs, computer, etc. (We're Waldorfy so far--not so much as he gets older). They don't need instruction to be smart/bright/gifted! (When older they DO need instruction to be educated.) There's ability and there's achievment--sounds to me like she's average for ability (whopping guess there!) and ahead for achievement (due to exposure). (My DS, due to our Waldorfy ways, is somewhat the inverse, I'd say). The ability sticks with them (to a degree) but the achievement will change based on a number of factors. I personally believe that when you start instruction early (under 5 or so, depending on child) you get above average achievement for a few years but end up with average or even below average later on (there are studies on this, no way I'm up to finding them tonight!)

[abbeyej]

If you *need* a label now, I think you can comfortably go with "bright". It encompasses a lot, and it sounds like she fits well within that category. As she gets older, you'll see more specifically where she fits -- though whatever you think, I guarantee you'll have moments where you think, "Oh! I was sooo wrong about *that*!" ;)

 

Really though, I think you can be very comfortable that she's a bright little girl who is thriving in the enriched environment you've created for her. The rest will be revealed in time.

[EthiopianFood]

Thanks everyone! I've seen that list before, but it didn't seem very helpful for a toddler/preschooler. And is she a cheetah compared to others her age? I have no idea! That's where I'm confused. I had actually decided she probably wasn't gifted, and moved on, but someone with gifted kids told me recently that she though she might be, and that opened it up again for me. The only thing that I really have thought "hmmm" about is the math stuff. I just didn't want to ask on a regular board if other people's kids had a natural grasp of numbers in the same way, because if they didn't, I would sound pretentious. :glare:

 

One thing I will say is that, especially when dd was younger, other people's kids of the same age always seemed sort of "spacey" compared to dd. It's just hard to know if that is only because I know her well. :)

 

I'll put it aside again, at least until she is school-age. I feel very, very fortunate that she at least seems to enjoy learning, so I'm not worried either way. :)

[2smartones]

I'm against "preschool" as the term has morphed into being over the past few years, but I'll say that the preschools in this area expect 2.5 year olds to be able to do that sort of math. One of my sons was briefly in preschool when he was 2.5 (not my choice), and each child would take turns as the leader of the class handing out cups, napkins, etc. during snacks and lunches. Everyone was counting quite well and even graded on the skill. (Why preschoolers need grades is beyond me!! :confused: ) Preschool today is what K-1st was when I was in school! Insane! Even Sesame Street isn't what it used to be. *sigh*

Edited October 19, 2010 by 2smartones

[EthiopianFood]

I'm against "preschool" as the term has morphed into being over the past few years, but I'll say that the preschools in this area expect 2.5 year olds to be able to do that sort of math. One of my sons was briefly in preschool when he was 2.5 (not my choice), and each child would take turns as the leader of the class handing out cups, napkins, etc. during snacks and lunches. Everyone was counting quite well and even graded on the skill. (Why preschoolers need grades is beyond me!! :confused: ) Preschool today is what K-1st was when I was in school! Insane! Even Sesame Street isn't what it used to be. *sigh*

 

Wow, they expected them to independently know how many of something they would need for the class before they passed them out? I've never looked into preschool, so I had no idea! LOL

[Ester Maria]

I just didn't want to ask on a regular board if other people's kids had a natural grasp of numbers in the same way, because if they didn't, I would sound pretentious. :glare:

Every infant does, according to some research my husband brought up recently. :tongue_smilie:

 

Human beings at an extremely early age can recognize sets of one, two, three and "more". I think the youngest they ever tested those stuff were with a few months old infants, by measuring their eye focus upon showing them sets of random circles, and they somehow managed to deduce that children focus differently on 1 / 2 / 3 sets than other sets. They did it with people of all ages, too, showing such pictures (with circles put in many different positions) for a split of a second even, and people could automatically "count" those sets without counting. My husband had a long and lofty explanation of that, which I'm unable to reproduce, but basically, it comes down to evolutionary something. :D

 

Kids of 2-4 are also often great at sight estimating quantities, especially if you give them two rows of little chocolates and just cheerfully tell them they may choose one. Suddenly all of them just "know" that 8 chocolates is more than 5 chocolates, even if the 5 are in a nice order and the 8 on a messy bunch. :lol: Even though generally, the ability to quickly sight estimate falls down the bigger the numbers, but hubby claimed that one, two, three and "more" are evolutionary automatic something, conscious knowledge of it or not.

 

Regarding your first post, honestly, I think you're reading into your daughter's development too much. (And I mean this in a warm, not harsh tone. :)) I understand. She's probably your first and so far only child (based on your signature), the only little child you got to know in depth that way while you see the other children only "touristically", so what are perfectly normal, mainstream milestones and experiences look utterly amazing to you - and they are utterly amazing in terms of how amazing little human beings are, but none of what you list are signs which would seriously set your daughter apart from other little children that age. Even though you can generally spot the "bright" ones in the earliest school age, it is only a few years after that when the gifted ones start to seriously stick out.

[Ester Maria]

I'm against "preschool" as the term has morphed into being over the past few years, but I'll say that the preschools in this area expect 2.5 year olds to be able to do that sort of math. One of my sons was briefly in preschool when he was 2.5 (not my choice), and each child would take turns as the leader of the class handing out cups, napkins, etc. during snacks and lunches. Everyone was counting quite well and even graded on the skill. (Why preschoolers need grades is beyond me!! :confused: ) Preschool today is what K-1st was when I was in school! Insane! Even Sesame Street isn't what it used to be. *sigh*

:banghead:

This country never ceases to amaze me; I seriously don't know how you people tolerate that happening.

Aside exceptional cases, you have complete academic failure on middle and high school levels of learning with regards to the European norms, paired with just utterly insane preschool expectations, all wrapped up in a set of often contradictory and nonsensous pedagogical fads.

 

Grading 2.5 year olds. Geez. I'm going to start need a cup (or, should I say, a shot) of something other than tea while reading these boards.

Grading 2.5 year olds!

Nuts.

[abbeyej]

...I just didn't want to ask on a regular board if other people's kids had a natural grasp of numbers in the same way...

 

It's typical to understand numbers to the child's own age at least. So understanding numbers to about 3 would be good but within normal/expected range and her age. Having a good grasp of numbers in the abstract to five and beyond would be possibly precocious.

[EthiopianFood]

Every infant does, according to some research my husband brought up recently. :tongue_smilie:

 

Oh, I read this study! COMPLETELY fascinating. I had forgotten about it. It makes me wonder at the wasted potential of so many young children. I guess I shouldn't go on an early versus late education rant, but suffice it to say, if they are doing it NATURALLY, and you keep it FUN, then it isn't PUSHING THEM. :tongue_smilie:Anyway, thanks for reminding me about this study. Like you said, this is my first child, so I just don't know. That's why i asked. :001_smile:

 

Even though you can generally spot the "bright" ones in the earliest school age, it is only a few years after that when the gifted ones start to seriously stick out.

 

People keep saying this, but I'm having such a hard time wrapping my brain around it. If a child is so smart, how can it NOT show up from the start? It is clear that dd isn't profoundly gifted, because it has ALWAYS been clear that she can't do the things those kids do. Why wouldn't that work for more moderately gifted kids as well? If everything that I mentioned she is doing is completely average (and I would say the napkin/straw thing, as well as her alertness/desire to interact with the world since birth, are the best examples to help someone determine if she is bright or average), then how could she suddenly stop appearing average later on? Could she be processing things in a unique way without sharing her process or end result?

 

It's typical to understand numbers to the child's own age at least. So understanding numbers to about 3 would be good but within normal/expected range and her age. Having a good grasp of numbers in the abstract to five and beyond would be possibly precocious.

 

This is very concrete, thank you.

 

Thus, we homeschool.

 

You beat me to it! :lol:

Edited October 20, 2010 by RaeAnne

[OlgaLA]

People keep saying this, but I'm having such a hard time wrapping my brain around it. If a child is so smart, how can it NOT show up from the start?

 

I am not sure eexactly, but I suppose it can be something like what I had with my son. By his second birthday he wasn't talking at all, maybe a couple of words. My daughter at 18 month was talking in sentences, so I started worrying about him. However, 2 months later he decided it was time to start talking. In two more month he was talking in compound sentences, and by 2.5yo he was much more articulate than average. So he started late, but then he progressed much faster than normal. Now, I am not saying he is gifted, just that any skill/ability can show up late and pick up fast :)

[Crimson Wife]

People keep saying this, but I'm having such a hard time wrapping my brain around it. If a child is so smart, how can it NOT show up from the start?

 

Albert Einstein didn't talk at all until he was 4 and struggled to learn to read. Thomas Edison nearly flunked out of grammar school and was told that he was "too stupid to learn anything".

 

Some intellectually gifted people manifest their talents at a young age (like Mozart) and others at a later age. Doesn't really matter in the long run whether a child is an early or late bloomer. :001_smile:

[EthiopianFood]

Albert Einstein didn't talk at all until he was 4 and struggled to learn to read. Thomas Edison nearly flunked out of grammar school and was told that he was "too stupid to learn anything".

 

Some intellectually gifted people manifest their talents at a young age (like Mozart) and others at a later age. Doesn't really matter in the long run whether a child is an early or late bloomer. :001_smile:

 

Right, but those are arbitrary skills. They also don't take differing learning styles into consideration. Do you think those individuals would have appeared "ditzy" to a parent here who knows what to look for? When children aren't achieving what society thinks they should achieve, what ARE they doing during that time? What are they thinking about? What do they notice? A teacher often doesn't have time to notice, and a parent is too busy trying to make it through the day with an active brood. The definition of giftedness isn't that the person is good at stuff. It is how they think about the world. Shouldn't there be some evidence that the child is thinking in an unusual way?

[OlgaLA]

Shouldn't there be some evidence that the child is thinking in an unusual way?

Not necessarily. If a very young child is "wired" to see numbers and their relationships in some unusual abstract way, for example, how will it manifest itself at that age? He may well appear about the same as a child who was trained extensively to count. Or, he may not be verbal enough, and while he can count and manipulate numbers, he cannot relate the numbers as he experiences them to words, and will appear lagging behind. I think it all depends on areas of giftedness, some are noticeable much earlier.

[Ester Maria]

Why wouldn't that work for more moderately gifted kids as well?

Because "moderately gifted" aren't gifted at all, at least in my book. They're more or less what you'd call a "standard" deviation from the most common condition, but ultimately, they don't function terribly differently than the most common condition, they're more like a speed-up common condition. Sort of accelerated vs. gifted thing, "bright" vs. gifted.

 

Giftedness is overclaimed today (and don't even get me started about the fads of overdiagnosing things today in general), and the current paradigm is that there are multiple levels of it, they mark pretty much any small deviation from the standard condition gifted, so the current paradigm allows up to a quarter or so of the population to be gifted. Obviously, something is wrong with the paradigm if so MANY people are gifted - that means blurring the differences and that means that, ultimately, we don't know what we're talking about. Giftedness manifests itself in not following the standard route of development, while there are many children who do follow it, only at a quicker pace. They usually label this subset of population as moderately gifted; in my book (as somebody who doesn't adhere to such a paradigm) those children aren't gifted at all, one can maybe describe them as "bright", but at the end of the day, they're typical. Their condition is not unique, they may only deal with it "better" than other kids.

 

What I call giftedness is pretty much only the subset one would call "profoundly gifted", which can include as much as a few percent and as little as a few promille of the population, NOT according to Gauss-style divison in which you take an arbitrary percentage and mark it X, and then just put the people in their subset based on how they do within some group or according to inadequate IQ tests they use.

If it were possible to measure it at all, in one class there may be 3% of the gifted, in another class none, the third one may consist exclusively out of the gifted; but with regards to the general population, giftedness as a term must apply UNIQUELY to the atypical, not to those who develop typically but at a fasted pace.

 

There also are cases in which one's development resembles typical or is even below it until certain age and then proceeds onto the atypical condition (Einstein), as well as those where the atypical condition is blatant from as early as you can compare some concrete things amongst children (Mozart), where you "just know" that something about the child is atypical. Not typical but accelerated typical, but atypical. Of course, one may end up in the long discussion of whether every atypical is fundamentally typical, only accelerated to the point that the typical typical would never develop up there within a lifetime, but I'll spare you that one. I'll just say that in my opinion, that's THE question of the whole giftedness debate. Many things depend based on how you answer that one.

 

The bottomline is, giftedness is a LOT more complex thing than usually presented; and the current paradigm is as biased within the overall relativistic paradigm as well as "don't hurt Johnny's feelings" way of doing things (where Johnny can be the child OR the parent). We have a whole generation of overdiagnosed children, of "gifted" who aren't gifted and "behind" who are typical at a slightly slower pace, and what was supposed to be average and include the vast majority of children now in effetti includes only a rather small subset of all children, since every other kid on the block is "gifted" or "LD" or you name it.

 

Okay, enough ranting for today. :D

If everything that I mentioned she is doing is completely average (and I would say the napkin/straw thing, as well as her alertness/desire to interact with the world since birth, are the best examples to help someone determine if she is bright or average), then how could she suddenly stop appearing average later on? Could she be processing things in a unique way without sharing her process or end result?

The kid is 3, not 13. At 3, one can hardly even begin to think in terms of intellectually typical and intellectually atypical. Not all "profoundly gifted" show up at that age, though they start popping up rather soon.

Early school age is a good indicator of where she is, but again it all depends who you compare her with and what the standards are (a "gifted" kid from America can go to Russia, where there is a different educational paradigm even today, and suddenly end up dangerously average and we can figure out that what appeared as giftedness in the US was simply a product of more exposure to some things and more accomplishment than giftedness, for example).

 

Basically, it's extremely hard to know exactly and to observe exactly, especially if you adhere to a scheme where there are "shades" of giftedness. If you're more like me and ditch that paradigm, things are more black and white, but even there are still many problematic questions to answer.

[HeidiD]

Giftedness is overclaimed today (and don't even get me started about the fads of overdiagnosing things today in general)

 

 

Overdiagnosing by psychologists who have only a "touristic" view (at best!):tongue_smilie:

[MBM]

Grading 2.5 year olds. Geez. I'm going to start need a cup (or, should I say, a shot) of something other than tea while reading these boards.

Grading 2.5 year olds!

Nuts.

 

Trying to reassure you here, Ester Maria. Grading did not happen in any of the U.S. preschools my children attended -- Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, or secular. As far as I know, this is still true.

[Ester Maria]

Trying to reassure you here, Ester Maria. Grading did not happen in any of the U.S. preschools my children attended -- Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, or secular. As far as I know, this is still true.

Thank you! :)

I know that it's a fad, but it makes me wonder how far those fads can go, if you know what I mean - because the idea IS ridiculous.

[Ester Maria]

Overdiagnosing by psychologists who have only a "touristic" view (at best!):tongue_smilie:

Not necessarily, there may be a great number of people who do know their material very well; however, I did learn more about specifically psychology, as well as about how human brain works, what's marked as a disorder, etc. from being around my husband's company (of doctors, biochemists and pharmacists) than from people with regular Psychology degrees. Their reasoning, which I'm inclined to agree with, is that most of those degrees are basically a lot of essentially unscientific philosophy with some cognitive science, which is usually watered down anyway, which does end up quite "touristic" unless one specifically focuses on the biomedical component, because ultimately, that's what most things come down to. "Proper" psychology, in this area we're discussing, should essentially be just applied medicine and biology; the problem is, it's too intangible (yet).

 

I for one don't understand how can anyone claim any expertise in things concerning brain without having undergone a study of basic medicine: of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry; then of neurochemistry, pathophysiology and evolution, to start with; it completely escapes me how can a course of study based on a very watered down version of some of that mixed with a lot philosophy produce somebody competent enough to diagnose anything to anybody. Psychology is on a very rocky terrain given its nature which is in-between scientific and unscientific (many of the things it deals with which cannot be properly dealt with scientifically yet); unfortunately, such a terrain is ideal for all kinds of people with only partial understanding of what they're dealing with, because they lack fundamental medical training. (Which is why I think it's better to, when you suspect pathology, to take the kid to the actual doctor; and where there isn't pathology present but only a small diversion from what's 'normal', often no professional oversight in dealing with the child is needed at all.)

Pair that up with pharmaceutical industry and their shared "market" and it's a deadly combination.

 

Not that the scary overdiagnosis doesn't happen in regular medicine too - sure it does, but that's a separate issue now - but psychology is an especially suitable ground for that to be happening even more.

[LibraryLover]

 

I for one don't understand how can anyone claim any expertise in things concerning brain without having undergone a study of basic medicine: of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry; then of neurochemistry, pathophysiology and evolution, to start with; it completely escapes me how can a course of study based on a very watered down version of some of that mixed with a lot philosophy produce somebody competent enough to diagnose anything to anybody.

 

Not that the scary overdiagnosis doesn't happen in regular medicine too - sure it does, but that's a separate issue now - but psychology is an especially suitable ground for that to be happening even more.

 

This is why I do my own internets research. ;)I don't trust anyone!! Plus, I know my child's diagnosis because there is a really great website with a check list-- and my child got 19 out of 18. The website also sells an essential mineral (which is banned in the US-- I hate the FDA, don't you?!) that 'research has shown' will reverse this condition. I saw an improvement as soon as the UPS guy arrived. My friend saw an improvement as soon as she sent Paypal, so I know it works.

Edited October 20, 2010 by LibraryLover

[HeidiD]

Their reasoning, which I'm inclined to agree with, is that most of those degrees are basically a lot of essentially unscientific philosophy with some cognitive science, which is usually watered down anyway, which does end up quite "touristic" unless one specifically focuses on the biomedical component, because ultimately, that's what most things come down to. "Proper" psychology, in this area we're discussing, should essentially be just applied medicine and biology; the problem is, it's too intangible (yet).

 

 

:iagree:

 

Intangible and the resultant void is filled with subjective judgements.

 

Imagine if your medical doctor demanded checklists from family, friends and teachers to make a diagnosis. :lol:

[EthiopianFood]

This is why I do my own internets research. ;)I don't trust anyone!! Plus, I know my child's diagnosis because there is a really great website with a check list-- and my child got 19 out of 18. The website also sells an essential mineral (which is banned in the US-- I hate the FDA, don't you?!) that 'research has shown' will reverse this condition. I saw an improvement as soon as the UPS guy arrived. My friend saw an improvement as soon as she sent Paypal, so I know it works.

 

Oh my lord!! :lol::lol: How awesome are you in person?? :D

 

Ester Maria, I'm having a hard time getting back to you here. Long day. My main comments are first, people who actually know about giftedness DO argue that it's more than just being accelerated. This doesn't have to rule out anyone other than the Mozarts in any way. You really don't think someone is gifted unless they are a prodigy? Level 2 and up individuals of that gifted classification list aren't at all "common" either. Or is this not what you meant?

 

As far as being 3, not 13, a 3 year old is still SOMETHING. You're a science geek (apparently), so I'm surprised you would essentially say you can't know just because they are young what is typical and what isn't. Maybe we don't have the means to observe or measure it all (?), but there is still a range of typical and atypical. And if a person's brain must be fully different, not just accelerated, to be gifted, then why wouldn't that brain be that way from the start? My question then was, wouldn't there be something that could be observed in such a child, even from a young age?

[Ester Maria]

My main comments are first, people who actually know about giftedness DO argue that it's more than just being accelerated. This doesn't have to rule out anyone other than the Mozarts in any way. You really don't think someone is gifted unless they are a prodigy? Level 2 and up individuals of that gifted classification list aren't at all "common" either. Or is this not what you meant?

Actually, not all of them argue that. By acceleration I mean precisely that which most of them mean by giftedness.

 

The classical definition of intelligence (note that it's actually more complex, but for the discussion's sake I'll use that one now to explain my idea) takes into account the comparison of one's "mental age" as opposed to one's "chronological age"; in fact, throughout history, intelligence has been mostly approach through those lenses - as a sort of matching, or dismatching, of mental and chronological age.

By that logic, a highly intelligent child at the chronological age of 6 had a mental age of 10, the ages of the child who was average pretty much overlapped, and children who were below average essentially were just a few mental years behind. Now, if you look at that paradigm, you notice an interesting point: the underlying assumption is that giftedness or retardation are simply failure to develop at the "standard pace". It took a long while for people to switch to consider giftedness a different route whatsoever, rather than just a different pace on the same route, if you got what I mean.

 

The tests which are used to determine one's intelligence even nowadays - at least those I know of - haven't developed much further than working pretty much along the same lines (not to mention they're actually "crackable", i.e. made by certain matrices which can be learned, one can be test-smart in this camp too; and even if they weren't crackable, they're still problematic as there isn't a necessary relation between the ability to solve them well and intelligence itself). A lot of the people from the field still argue for the concept of giftedness as, essentially, acceleration of one's capacities - sort of, "he was able to do at 5 that which children normally do at 8".

 

While I don't disagree with the notion that giftedness usually does assume significant accceleration, I don't adhere to the scheme in which the two are basically equal, especially not for very small oscillations (and differences up to 2-3 "mental years" are, in my opinion, still too little of oscillation from the imaginary "standard" to be considered actual different functioning of the brain whatsoever).

 

When you look at the "profoundly gifted", the typical pattern is that they reach the level of abstract thought which one reaches decades after their chronological age. It's not just a small jump (small jumps are always problematic, especially given the "nurture" component and the fact some children were simply more exposed to the world than the others and that their acceleration may, therefore, be the result of the environment), and other than the metal/chronological age mismatch, by the development of those children, one can notice that their brains work differently, not just more quickly.

 

I actually don't like this whole intelligence debate within psychology as the thing remains very intangible; for what I know, it's extremely hard to deal with it scientifically.

 

But basically yes, I consider giftedness to be an exceptional state of things, not just a more rare one. I call the other kids "bright", but they're essentially on the same route as the most, just with a somewhat different pace. Giftedness is, by my definition, basically a disorder (though not necessarily a "bad" one, of course), and the line between the very bright and the gifted may be very subtle indeed in some cases, though probably quite apparent in the other cases.

Medically, however, it would probably be classified as a pathological state. Now, pathology itself is a very problematic thing too, as well as defining what's a disease and what merely a condition (maybe it would be far more precise to speak of "conditions" than of "diseases" with regards to most states one may be in), but if I start on that, we'll go out of the format of the forum. Those are some very difficult questions the answer to which basically depends on the framework you work with more than on the actual nature of things.

As far as being 3, not 13, a 3 year old is still SOMETHING. You're a science geek (apparently), so I'm surprised you would essentially say you can't know just because they are young what is typical and what isn't. Maybe we don't have the means to observe or measure it all (?), but there is still a range of typical and atypical. And if a person's brain must be fully different, not just accelerated, to be gifted, then why wouldn't that brain be that way from the start? My question then was, wouldn't there be something that could be observed in such a child, even from a young age?

My one month old baby is also something, right? Volendo, one may also compare her to other one month old babies, right? Then why don't we do it?

Because the spheres in which one may compare her to other babies are very limited, it's nearly impossible to actually conclude something. Observing toddlers is a bit easier, I agree, but you're still dealing with very limited spheres, if you're interested in their intellectual development. You can observe what's typical and what's not in other spheres, maybe (motor skills, let's say, which are quite tangible at that point), but you cannot "transfer" those conclusions onto the intellectual development. You would be surprised how many "serious psychologists" are doing just that, again, based on the concept of acceleration which they (mis)take for giftedness - they actually consider some toddlers gifted, as in intellectually, because they're motorically (? is that the word? sorry, ESL here :tongue_smilie:) accelerated. That's why speaking early or late has very little to do with giftedness, for example, as it's an essentially motor skill, though it does require a certain level of abstraction and comprehension to do it - but concluding that other kids don't have that level just because they don't speak yet is a nonsense.

 

When people notice accelerated children, their approach to them usually changes, so that opens a whole new nature vs. nurture debate. Acceleration, after all, can be created, and we see it all the time - children of richer parents are usually "smarter" just because of their background and the fact they travel more, see more, meet more, somebody actively deals with them more, etc.; then you have different school systems in which trigonometry is learned in seventh grade by average children because the system is set up that way, etc. Basically, one can accelerate most average children up until certain point, and so many people are going to mistake acceleration and accomplishment for giftedness.

 

But giftedness, if we define it as a sort of brain pathology (which will hopefully be physically observable with the advance of medicine) rather than just acceleration and/or accomplishment, cannot be "generated"* - and that should be one if its main criteria. We may talk about it developing earlier or a bit later in life, but it cannot be "developed" by a different school system, ambitious parents, familiarizing oneself with the matrices of IQ tests, etc.

 

So, I don't know regarding what can and can't be seen in a 3 y.o. You know her the best, but you also don't know other little children; I'm still of an opinion that it's in the latter years than one can see whether she's average, "bright", behind or, to use that expression, "pathologically bright", i.e. actually gifted. :tongue_smilie:

 

All of those are still quite vague categories, mind you. It's just quite a problematic phenomenon yet to deal with properly.

 

* Actually, even this is debatable, since certain substances do indeed seem to produce the kind of pathology which has similar effects ("broadening the mind" :D, making one think in ways one normally wouldn't), but also side-effects, but if I enter there, that's really out of the format of the forum.

[angela in ohio]

but then I get comments on how smart she is

 

This is the new, "She's so cute." People have figured out that parents want more for their dd than to be cute or pretty, so they compliment intelligence instead. It may mean the child actually seems really smart, or they many just be polite. I wouldn't use it for any sort of measurement of my dc's abilities. :001_smile:

[Crimson Wife]

I agree that "moderately gifted" is just a nicer way of saying "garden-variety bright". But that's not to say there aren't different levels of giftedness.

 

I went to Stanford and my DH did graduate work at Harvard. Pretty much everyone we knew at those schools would fit the category of gifted (the few exceptions were those who got in because of family connections or athletic talent or other non-merit factors). But in this field of very, very smart individuals, a few outshown the rest in their absolute brilliance. One guy, who went on to become a professor of neuroscience, I'm convinced has a real shot at winning a Nobel Prize someday. If giftedness is 1 in 1000, then this guy is 1 in 1,000,000.

[HeidiD]

Giftedness is, by my definition, basically a disorder (though not necessarily a "bad" one, of course), and the line between the very bright and the gifted may be very subtle indeed in some cases, though probably quite apparent in the other cases.

Medically, however, it would probably be classified as a pathological state.

 

 

Caused by processing style, atypical physiology, or both (either separately or combined)? It's highly individualistic and there are still so many unknowns.

 

It's interesting that Einstein (prodigy brain) claimed to think visually (right hemisphere dominant) rather than verbally. I've read that when his brain was analyzed post-mortem, its structure supported this. His brilliance seems to have been highly concentrated in the visual-spatial realm. There is debate over whether or not he was autistic.

 

There are also studies indicating that more typical "gifted" children have a remarkably whole-brained processing style and frequently excel in pattern processing and retrieval. I don't know if that's generally true, but it's very much the case within our family.

 

This seems to be a debate over semantics. Why can't the uber-extreme and the unusually intelligent be classified as two distinct groups rather than as part of a continuum? I don't think it's a false distinction, statistically speaking.

 

In the real world, there's a necessity for recognition of both the extreme manifestations of the gifted condition and the less extreme (but still atypical vs the general population). For practical (educational) purposes, labeling the latter group "gifted" as compared to the general population makes sense.

 

What is the standard and how do we measure? Since IQ tests are flawed (too narrow and can be gamed - yes, you've convinced me :)), it's inevitable in our imperfect world that some people will continue to fall through the cracks using that tool.

[EthiopianFood]

When you look at the "profoundly gifted", the typical pattern is that they reach the level of abstract thought which one reaches decades after their chronological age. It's not just a small jump (small jumps are always problematic, especially given the "nurture" component and the fact some children were simply more exposed to the world than the others and that their acceleration may, therefore, be the result of the environment), and other than the metal/chronological age mismatch, by the development of those children, one can notice that their brains work differently, not just more quickly.

 

The only problem is that there is a huge range between three-years' disparity and decades, and this range is present even when one accounts for "nuture." :001_smile: There is not one group of bright kids, then preschoolers writing novels. You still must account for those kids.

 

My one month old baby is also something, right? Volendo, one may also compare her to other one month old babies, right? Then why don't we do it?

Because the spheres in which one may compare her to other babies are very limited, it's nearly impossible to actually conclude something. Observing toddlers is a bit easier, I agree, but you're still dealing with very limited spheres, if you're interested in their intellectual development. You can observe what's typical and what's not in other spheres, maybe (motor skills, let's say, which are quite tangible at that point), but you cannot "transfer" those conclusions onto the intellectual development.

 

No, but that's what I was saying about being able to observe something or not. Either way, it doesn't make sense to me to argue that giftedness just "isn't certain" until a child is older. Of course it's certain, we just may not know how to observe it.

 

When people notice accelerated children, their approach to them usually changes, so that opens a whole new nature vs. nurture debate. Acceleration, after all, can be created, and we see it all the time - children of richer parents are usually "smarter" just because of their background and the fact they travel more, see more, meet more, somebody actively deals with them more, etc.; then you have different school systems in which trigonometry is learned in seventh grade by average children because the system is set up that way, etc. Basically, one can accelerate most average children up until certain point, and so many people are going to mistake acceleration and accomplishment for giftedness.

 

Of course. What does this have to do with whether a child is gifted or not? Who cares what those people think? :001_smile:

 

So, I don't know regarding what can and can't be seen in a 3 y.o. You know her the best, but you also don't know other little children; I'm still of an opinion that it's in the latter years than one can see whether she's average, "bright", behind or, to use that expression, "pathologically bright", i.e. actually gifted. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, my explanation is above. I ask questions because I DON'T know. At the same time, I'm not just going to believe someone if it doesn't make sense to me; I want to understand WHY the arguement is right (and I'm sure you're the same way, so you know how I feel!). I don't see anything exceptional about dd (other than her being awesome, of course ;)), so my experience doesn't contradict your beliefs anyway.

 

* Actually, even this is debatable, since certain substances do indeed seem to produce the kind of pathology which has similar effects ("broadening the mind" :D, making one think in ways one normally wouldn't), but also side-effects, but if I enter there, that's really out of the format of the forum.

 

Hopefully! :lol:

 

I agree that "moderately gifted" is just a nicer way of saying "garden-variety bright". But that's not to say there aren't different levels of giftedness.

 

I went to Stanford and my DH did graduate work at Harvard. Pretty much everyone we knew at those schools would fit the category of gifted (the few exceptions were those who got in because of family connections or athletic talent or other non-merit factors). But in this field of very, very smart individuals, a few outshown the rest in their absolute brilliance. One guy, who went on to become a professor of neuroscience, I'm convinced has a real shot at winning a Nobel Prize someday. If giftedness is 1 in 1000, then this guy is 1 in 1,000,000.

 

When I say "moderately gifted," that would include 1 in 1000. I meant moderately compared to profoundly. I don't mean moderate as "half-way there." :D My understanding is that the pp would only call the 1 in 1,000,000 guy gifted, and the other bright. Is this what you are saying as well? I don't want to comment if I"m misunderstanding.

[mammaofbean]

This is the new, "She's so cute." People have figured out that parents want more for their dd than to be cute or pretty, so they compliment intelligence instead. It may mean the child actually seems really smart, or they many just be polite. I wouldn't use it for any sort of measurement of my dc's abilities. :001_smile:

 

i am totally guilty of this! i also round up when guessing kids ages. in my defense i do this because the kids are usually in earshot. i will also tell a five year old that they run faster than a nine year old.

[EthiopianFood]

This is the new, "She's so cute." People have figured out that parents want more for their dd than to be cute or pretty, so they compliment intelligence instead. It may mean the child actually seems really smart, or they many just be polite. I wouldn't use it for any sort of measurement of my dc's abilities. :001_smile:

 

I know what you're saying. This has usually been in response to her doing something specific, and I think it is because they don't really get what a child is capable of doing. One person was in awe of the fact that dd knows colors. :001_smile: Based on what I've read here and in early education books, I didn't THINK these things were advanced, but like I said, when my friend with gifted kids said she thought she might be gifted based on xyz, I doubted myself. I actually really hate this sort of thing, because obviously being "smart" means something to me, so it's not something I want to hear to stroke my own ego. I actually also tried as much as I could to be objective about how cute dd was when she was a baby (and now, although I don't think about it much anymore, of course). I thought, you know, my child is going to be the best child in the world no matter what. I don't want that opinion to be based on delusions. If I have an ugly child, I don't want to be the last to know! :lol:

[ReidFamily]

I know what you're saying. This has usually been in response to her doing something specific, and I think it is because they don't really get what a child is capable of doing. One person was in awe of the fact that dd knows colors. :001_smile: Based on what I've read here and in early education books, I didn't THINK these things were advanced, but like I said, when my friend with gifted kids said she thought she might be gifted based on xyz, I doubted myself. I actually really hate this sort of thing, because obviously being "smart" means something to me, so it's not something I want to hear to stroke my own ego. I actually also tried as much as I could to be objective about how cute dd was when she was a baby (and now, although I don't think about it much anymore, of course). I thought, you know, my child is going to be the best child in the world no matter what. I don't want that opinion to be based on delusions. If I have an ugly child, I don't want to be the last to know! :lol:

 

We got this a lot and still do. My daughter is bright and I think she is special because she is my daughter but at least until this point and I would venture that progressing forward she will always be a bit ahead but I don't think she'll ever be truly gifted. Maybe, but I doubt it. I honestly think people's expectations are just too low for what children can learn and accomplish if they are curious, loved, feel safe and are exposed to various experiences. My newly two year old can barely talk but he knows his colors and people are amazed. He has a favorite color all ready. My daughter spoke in complete sentences by 18 months, cut with scissors, wrote words, knew the alphabet all by mid 2. There have been lots of little things like that and everyone always gushes over how bright she is and I agree she is bright but I don't think she is gifted. I think she will always be inquisitive and a quick learner and she is a pure joy to us but I'm not seeing anything that makes my jaw drop. But yes, she is definitely ahead of normal.

 

But when she was 2 and 3 when her advances really stood out against the other toddlers/preschoolers who were still learning to talk and walk and jump I looked at a lot of gifted boards with the same questions you have. The differences were just blatantly obvious then and now they are harder to see. Not because she isn't advanced anymore, she is, but because it's harder to notice right off the bat.

 

Anyway, I've gotten really sidetracked but I think my point is that there are some really low standards for what kids can do.

[Crimson Wife]

When I say "moderately gifted," that would include 1 in 1000. I meant moderately compared to profoundly. I don't mean moderate as "half-way there." :D My understanding is that the pp would only call the 1 in 1,000,000 guy gifted, and the other bright. Is this what you are saying as well? I don't want to comment if I"m misunderstanding.

 

No, what I'm referring to as bright is what Dr. Ruf calls "level 1" and "level 2" gifted. If you read her descriptions, it's clear there is a qualitative difference between the level 1-2 folks and the levels 3-5 folks. These are the top 10% to top 1% folks, not the top 0.1% or above.

[EthiopianFood]

No, what I'm referring to as bright is what Dr. Ruf calls "level 1" and "level 2" gifted. If you read her descriptions, it's clear there is a qualitative difference between the level 1-2 folks and the levels 3-5 folks. These are the top 10% to top 1% folks, not the top 0.1% or above.

 

I guess it would limit confusion if I didn't inadvertantly use a label to suit my own definition when said label has already been used to define something else. :tongue_smilie:That's what I get for skimming text....