Gifted vs. smart or talented?

[merry gardens]

What do you think distinguishes someone as "gifted" vs. "smart" and/or "talented"? Or, do you see them as meaning basically the same thing? Would you draw the line and call a child "gifted" at.... 90%ile? 95%ile? 99.5%ile? Somewhere else?

:bigear:

[Embassy]

While high percentiles are a good sign, I've found that this statement from http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Wha...ted/whatis.htm does a good job differentiating a bright academically advanced child and a gifted child.

 

Gifted children and adults see the world differently because of the complexity of their thought processes and their emotional intensity. People often say to them, “Why do you make everything so complicated?†“Why do you take everything so seriously?†“Why is everything so important to you?†The gifted are “too†everything: too sensitive, too intense, too driven, too honest, too idealistic, too moral, too perfectionistic, too much for other people! Even if they try their entire lives to fit in, they still feel like misfits.

[beaners]

I really wonder where the gifted "line" is set. I'm above 99.9% by a few different measures, but I'd feel ridiculous calling myself gifted. When I personally think of gifted, I think of the kind of person you may come across once in a lifetime. I don't think of 10% or .1% or even .01% of the population as gifted. I might just have some deep seated objection to the term gifted.

 

I'd call 15% of the population bright or talented. I might say very bright or extremely bright to differentiate within that group. I'd call my children bright (but I'm biased ;) ) and I'd call myself bright. I'd be more likely to use talented for an area where most people assume ability is natural instead of practiced, like music or art or athletics, even though those areas do require practice. I'd actually be more likely to use gifted in those descriptions than in a more academic area. I would still only use it in very rare cases.

[Crimson Wife]

Ruf's level 3 & up. What she calls level 1 & level 2 gifted, I would consider merely bright.

[2smartones]

I think "gifted" is something you have right from conception. It's potential. Some people have the potential to be an NBA athlete, and some have the potential to win a Nobel prize. "Talented" is what you do with your gift.

[SKL]

Personally, in my everyday speech, I use "smart" to describe anything that seems clearly above average. So I think my DD5 is smart in some ways, because (for example) she has a quick wit and makes detailed, logical plans for the upcoming days. I do not view her as "gifted" at this point. (I reserve the right, though, LOL.)

 

I use "gifted" to describe extraordinary abilities such as a very accurate memory, ability to reason out stuff that most kids that age would have to be taught or shown, speaking like a much older person, asking questions that demonstrate levels of understanding years ahead of peers, etc., along with a high stamina or need for studying and learning. For example, my DD4, after reading a book about Abraham Lincoln and tracing the route of a slave ship on the world map, wanted to discuss the politics behind the Civil War deep into the night (as DD5 slept).

 

"Talented" to me is "gifted" but applied to non-academic fields, e.g., my DD5 is pretty good at singing and physical stuff, so I refer to her as "talented." I don't think she'll ever be in the Olympics, but she's certainly got abilities that the majority of her peers do not have.

Edited October 23, 2011 by SKL

[Ester Maria]

I use talented to refer to well above average potential and performance in one distinct skill, which is typically a non-academic skill. For example, a child might be a talented musician. That says nothing about their cognitive skills as such, nothing about their academic performance, nothing about anything other than that isolated skill where they progress faster and show more potential than people of their age and experience level. Children who are "right on track" or thereabouts with regard to that skill are NOT to be referred to as talented, as their progress is 'merely' typical - talented refers to outstanding progress and capacities.

 

I use bright - or smart - to refer to a well above average potential and performance in general academic skills. This is a generalized label, obviously all children will have their preferred academic areas and areas they like less and succeed in less, but in order to earn this label, a child must not be a prodigy in math and struggling in reading - it refers to general academic skills, all across the board, and as much as children develop asynchronously, a certain amount of standing out in multiple academic fields is needed for this.

 

I use gifted to refer to that "je ne sais quoi" which is hard to pinpoint what it is it exactly, which is hard to diagnose - let alone "measure", yet you know it is there. Gifted =/= accomplished. Gifted is an anomaly, possibly a real neurological anomaly (though we do not have appropriate technology and diagnostic tools to pinpoint it), sort of a reverse of anomaly of mental retardation. Gifted children significantly stand out, not only in general reasoning skills, but in a (typically) highly precious mental development, atypical thinking patterns, excessive "ease" of learning, etc. In my estimate, the gifted in a random population are more measured in promilles than in percents - I find the vast majority of children recognized as "gifted" to be merely bright, not truly atypical, especially in the day and age of severely lowered academic standards when a child can be considered gifted for something as ordinary as conquering what used to be normal milestones of previous generations (for example, I notice how everything is "postponed" in some school systems by a full year or two compared to others - it does not mean that some nations are on the whole more genial than others, but that the expectations of what is normal at which age also have a social component, not only a cognitive one).

 

So no, the three are not nearly synonymous in my mind. They refer to distinct skills and abilities. I do sometimes use "gifted" the way most people use it, for the sake of "speaking the same language" as they do, but even then in my mind I treat it as the "bright" label.

[merry gardens]

I really wonder where the gifted "line" is set. I'm above 99.9% by a few different measures, but I'd feel ridiculous calling myself gifted. When I personally think of gifted, I think of the kind of person you may come across once in a lifetime. I don't think of 10% or .1% or even .01% of the population as gifted. I might just have some deep seated objection to the term gifted.

 

I'd call 15% of the population bright or talented. I might say very bright or extremely bright to differentiate within that group. I'd call my children bright (but I'm biased ;) ) and I'd call myself bright. I'd be more likely to use talented for an area where most people assume ability is natural instead of practiced, like music or art or athletics, even though those areas do require practice. I'd actually be more likely to use gifted in those descriptions than in a more academic area. I would still only use it in very rare cases.

 

I'd say anyone at 99.9% qualifies as gifted in my book, but I like the word "bright" better too.

[merry gardens]

Ruf's level 3 & up. What she calls level 1 & level 2 gifted, I would consider merely bright.

As the mother of someone who looks to be a "smart" and "sensitive" 2 yo (who is driving me crazy) I appreciated the description of what the various levels of intelligence look like at young ages.

[merry gardens]

Thanks ladies! I appreciate reading what all of you think. The National Association of Gifted Children listed various thoughts on what qualifies as "gifted" here: http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574&ir Several of them mentioned 90%ile or above. I consider 90-95%ile smart but not neccesarily "gifted". I wondered how parents on the accelerated learner board would define "gifted".

[LittleIzumi]

Thanks ladies! I appreciate reading what all of you think. The National Association of Gifted Children listed various thoughts on what qualifies as "gifted" here: http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574&ir Several of them mentioned 90%ile or above. I consider 90-95%ile smart but not neccesarily "gifted". I wondered how parents on the accelerated learner board would define "gifted".

 

This is always a weird question for me. I have an IQ that is, depending on the scale used, either the high end of mildly gifted or merely "bright." In school I scored in the 99.9% on every standardized test segment except math, including the composite, for as many years as I can remember, had a very high ACT, all of that jazz. That puts me at either not gifted at all, or eligible for Davidson's, depending on what you look at. (I do not know my scores in the various IQ test sections or what test it was. I just know "the score.") It never seems cut-and-dried to me. :confused:

[Donna]

I use talented to refer to well above average potential and performance in one distinct skill, which is typically a non-academic skill. For example, a child might be a talented musician. That says nothing about their cognitive skills as such, nothing about their academic performance, nothing about anything other than that isolated skill where they progress faster and show more potential than people of their age and experience level. Children who are "right on track" or thereabouts with regard to that skill are NOT to be referred to as talented, as their progress is 'merely' typical - talented refers to outstanding progress and capacities.

 

I use bright - or smart - to refer to a well above average potential and performance in general academic skills. This is a generalized label, obviously all children will have their preferred academic areas and areas they like less and succeed in less, but in order to earn this label, a child must not be a prodigy in math and struggling in reading - it refers to general academic skills, all across the board, and as much as children develop asynchronously, a certain amount of standing out in multiple academic fields is needed for this.

 

I use gifted to refer to that "je ne sais quoi" which is hard to pinpoint what it is it exactly, which is hard to diagnose - let alone "measure", yet you know it is there. Gifted =/= accomplished. Gifted is an anomaly, possibly a real neurological anomaly (though we do not have appropriate technology and diagnostic tools to pinpoint it), sort of a reverse of anomaly of mental retardation. Gifted children significantly stand out, not only in general reasoning skills, but in a (typically) highly precious mental development, atypical thinking patterns, excessive "ease" of learning, etc. In my estimate, the gifted in a random population are more measured in promilles than in percents - I find the vast majority of children recognized as "gifted" to be merely bright, not truly atypical, especially in the day and age of severely lowered academic standards when a child can be considered gifted for something as ordinary as conquering what used to be normal milestones of previous generations (for example, I notice how everything is "postponed" in some school systems by a full year or two compared to others - it does not mean that some nations are on the whole more genial than others, but that the expectations of what is normal at which age also have a social component, not only a cognitive one).

 

So no, the three are not nearly synonymous in my mind. They refer to distinct skills and abilities. I do sometimes use "gifted" the way most people use it, for the sake of "speaking the same language" as they do, but even then in my mind I treat it as the "bright" label.

 

:iagree: This is how I tend to use the terms, though, like Ester Maria, I will often say "gifted" when speaking with certain people just for ease of communication.

[ebunny]

What do you think distinguishes someone as "gifted" vs. "smart" and/or "talented"? Or, do you see them as meaning basically the same thing? Would you draw the line and call a child "gifted" at.... 90%ile? 95%ile? 99.5%ile? Somewhere else?

Tough question.

IMO, smart =witty, presence of mind, not necessarily academic, bright with the ability to win people over and make friends.

Talented= Natural skills enhanced by practice.

Gifted learner= High IQ. Huge capacity for learning and fascination with (new) ideas, retains information, analyses it and draws inferences from it. May be intellectual.

 

For eg- DD was identified as HG almost a month ago. Her thinking process is complex and multi-layered.

We are Hindu's and one part of the hindu philosophy is the cycle of birth, re-birth. She has been fascinated by it for a year now - every now and then, she asks us things like- when an ant dies, is it re-born as an ant? Will you be my mother in the next birth? Will I still be who I am next time? What about people who're poor? After re-birth, will they be wealthy?...and so on. We have touched the philosophy of "karma" and "immortality of the soul". Since that didn't seem to answer her doubts, we are now reading the "Bhagwat gita".

[zenjenn]

What some of you describe as gifted I would use the word genius.

 

"Gifted", in my experience, refers to a bright person who has special "gifts" in one or more areas, whereas (in my opinion) the genius is the anomaly.

 

I just think in terms of schools where there is a gifted program. These programs are routinely called "gifted" programs, and the students in them are identified by the school as "gifted". Such a program is not intended to serve the genius. It is intended to serve perhaps the 5-10% of students who excel beyond what can be provided in the typical classroom. The true genius is not likely to stay in a standard school system.

 

Of course this question is even more ambiguous than asking "What's the difference between tall and REALLY tall?", as if there is some arbitrary height at which someone is no longer tall, but really tall. Of course, there isn't, and height is a lot more objective than intelligence.

[enviromommy]

What do you think distinguishes someone as "gifted" vs. "smart" and/or "talented"? Or, do you see them as meaning basically the same thing? Would you draw the line and call a child "gifted" at.... 90%ile? 95%ile? 99.5%ile? Somewhere else?

:bigear:

 

Since beginning to frequent message boards, I've noticed that people seem to make a distinction -- a qualitative distinction, not just a difference of degree -- between "bright" and "gifted". This doesn't make sense to me. Yes, gifted children are more likely than other children to be intense, etc., but in my view these are simply other characteristics that accompany being very bright, they are not the giftedness itself.

 

I went to a private school for gifted children, and they used an IQ test. If you scored above the dividing line, you were gifted. To get in to the school, you needed to test at 145 or above. (On the newer tests I think that is more like 135.) So how is that different from bright? There are standard cutoffs for superior, gifted, highly gifted.

 

I know some people feel strongly about this, so I hope I'm not irritating anyone. I just don't understand how it makes sense to say someone is very bright but not gifted, unless it is a matter of degree.

[Spy Car]

Gifted children and adults see the world differently because of the complexity of their thought processes and their emotional intensity. People often say to them, “Why do you make everything so complicated?” “Why do you take everything so seriously?” “Why is everything so important to you?” The gifted are “too” everything: too sensitive, too intense, too driven, too honest, too idealistic, too moral, too perfectionistic, too much for other people! Even if they try their entire lives to fit in, they still feel like misfits.

 

I think that "gifted=misfit" is a gross overgeneralization, and often an entirely false characterization.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

Since beginning to frequent message boards, I've noticed that people seem to make a distinction -- a qualitative distinction, not just a difference of degree -- between "bright" and "gifted". This doesn't make sense to me. Yes, gifted children are more likely than other children to be intense, etc., but in my view these are simply other characteristics that accompany being very bright, they are not the giftedness itself.

 

Kids who are merely bright find multiple-choice tests easy. Kids who are gifted often tend to find them difficult because they can see more than one "right" answer depending on the specific assumptions made. Bright kids don't "overthink" everything the way gifted kids do.

[Mergath]

Ruf's level 3 & up. What she calls level 1 & level 2 gifted, I would consider merely bright.

 

How accurate are these supposed to be? I would have been a "level 5" as an infant and toddler, but my actual IQ would put me at a "level 3." Early childhood development is so random and so affected by environment and parenting that I just don't think you can say, "Kids who do this as toddlers will be in this IQ range as an adult."

[Crimson Wife]

How accurate are these supposed to be? I would have been a "level 5" as an infant and toddler, but my actual IQ would put me at a "level 3." Early childhood development is so random and so affected by environment and parenting that I just don't think you can say, "Kids who do this as toddlers will be in this IQ range as an adult."

 

No, I think Dr. Ruf did it the other way around- starting with folks of a certain IQ and looking retroactively at their early development.

[Spy Car]

I don't like the way Dr Ruf perpetuates the idea that all gifted children feel isolated, lonely, and incapable of making friends. Pish-posh.

 

Bill

[ChristineW]

I think that "gifted=misfit" is a gross overgeneralization, and often an entirely false characterization.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:I am HG/PG and not a misfit.

[Mommy22alyns]

I don't like the way Dr Ruf perpetuates the idea that all gifted children feel isolated, lonely, and incapable of making friends. Pish-posh.

 

Bill

 

 

You know, you're right. I'd put Becca at about a 3-4 and she's the happiest, friendliest, most outgoing kid I know.

[Mergath]

:iagree:I am HG/PG and not a misfit.

:iagree: I'm HG, and while I was shy in school, my learning faster was never the issue. Once I got to college, I had tons of friends and had a wonderful time. I hear so many people talk about how gifted people shouldn't have to "dumb themselves down" to be a part of society but how will they ever fit in surrounded by intellectual dullards and woe, woe, woe?

 

You don't have to have friends that are geniuses. You just have to take the time to care about things that are important to your friends, even if it isn't something you'd normally discuss. If you're putting the needs of your blinding and really huge intellect over the basic human needs of your friends, well, there's the problem.

[5 Hikers]

Kids who are merely bright find multiple-choice tests easy. Kids who are gifted often tend to find them difficult because they can see more than one "right" answer depending on the specific assumptions made. Bright kids don't "overthink" everything the way gifted kids do.

 

:iagree::iagree: I have always hated multiple choice, please just give me fill-in-th-blank. I way overthink everything.

[Spy Car]

To me it s a sign of "intelligence" to be able to look at a multiple choice test and (hypothetically) see:

 

A) Answer One is wrong

B) Answer Two is designed to trick some respondents, but is also wrong.

C) Answer Three might (depending on how far one wants to bend the interpretation of the question) have a claim to validity, but you are smart enough to know that is not what they are going for.

D) Answer Four is the one the test designers are looking for.

 

Part of intelligence is having common sense.

 

Bill

[EKS]

To me it s a sign of "intelligence" to be able to look at a multiple choice test and (hypothetically) see:

 

A) Answer One is wrong

B) Answer Two is designed to trick some respondents, but is also wrong.

C) Answer Three might (depending on how far one wants to bend the interpretation of the question) have a claim to validity, but you are smart enough to know that is not what they are going for.

D) Answer Four is the one the test designers are looking for.

 

Part of intelligence is having common sense.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

 

Exactly.

[ChristineW]

To me it s a sign of "intelligence" to be able to look at a multiple choice test and (hypothetically) see:

 

A) Answer One is wrong

B) Answer Two is designed to trick some respondents, but is also wrong.

C) Answer Three might (depending on how far one wants to bend the interpretation of the question) have a claim to validity, but you are smart enough to know that is not what they are going for.

D) Answer Four is the one the test designers are looking for.

 

Part of intelligence is having common sense.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

[FairProspects]

.

[Jen500]

To me it s a sign of "intelligence" to be able to look at a multiple choice test and (hypothetically) see:

 

A) Answer One is wrong

B) Answer Two is designed to trick some respondents, but is also wrong.

C) Answer Three might (depending on how far one wants to bend the interpretation of the question) have a claim to validity, but you are smart enough to know that is not what they are going for.

D) Answer Four is the one the test designers are looking for.

 

Part of intelligence is having common sense.

 

Bill

 

Hopefully the test was written by an intelligent person with common sense.

[quark]

To me it s a sign of "intelligence" to be able to look at a multiple choice test and (hypothetically) see:

 

A) Answer One is wrong

B) Answer Two is designed to trick some respondents, but is also wrong.

C) Answer Three might (depending on how far one wants to bend the interpretation of the question) have a claim to validity, but you are smart enough to know that is not what they are going for.

D) Answer Four is the one the test designers are looking for.

 

Part of intelligence is having common sense.

 

Bill

 

I used to agree with the above. But after parenting my son, the lines have become blurred in my head. I agree more now with Fair Prospect's following quote:

 

Giftedness and common sense often have nothing to do with each other. Some gifted kids are in a realm so far beyond everything else that there is no brain space left for common sense. :D

 

As the person with probably the lowest IQ in the house, I strongly believe my commonsense/ take-the-most-practical-route quotient is higher than my husband's and my son's. But my intelligence is obviously not as sharp as theirs.

 

Without the intense desire from within to achieve though, the labels don't make much practical sense. I have met so many gifted, talented, possibly genius people in my lifetime but the ones who seem the happiest and most satisfied with their lives are the ones with a particular drive or personality.

[Embassy]

Gifted kids of a certain personality or temperament will see it this way. However, gifted kids of an artistic/creative temperament will see it the way that Crimson Wife described. Intelligence is not just black/white analysis, but making connections that others do not see initially or at all. This perception is less about intelligence and more about personality than anything else.

 

My dear friend who is PG, perfect SAT scores, the works, still needs Right and Left labels on her car dashboard so that she turns the correct way while driving. Giftedness and common sense often have nothing to do with each other. Some gifted kids are in a realm so far beyond everything else that there is no brain space left for common sense. :D

 

:iagree: I have one son with an artistic/creative temperament and his common sense is often lacking. I have another son with tons of common sense with a totally different temperament. They haven't had IQ tests done, but I wouldn't be surprised if my child with an artistic/creative temperament had a higher score. My son with tons of common sense comes across as highly intellectual to others. My son lacking in common sense is the quintessential class clown, highly imaginative, and creativity oozes out of him. His brain is on full-speed and going in many different directions at once and common sense doesn't often hit his radar.

[merry gardens]

What some of you describe as gifted I would use the word genius.

 

"Gifted", in my experience, refers to a bright person who has special "gifts" in one or more areas, whereas (in my opinion) the genius is the anomaly.

 

I just think in terms of schools where there is a gifted program. These programs are routinely called "gifted" programs, and the students in them are identified by the school as "gifted". Such a program is not intended to serve the genius. It is intended to serve perhaps the 5-10% of students who excel beyond what can be provided in the typical classroom. The true genius is not likely to stay in a standard school system.

 

Of course this question is even more ambiguous than asking "What's the difference between tall and REALLY tall?", as if there is some arbitrary height at which someone is no longer tall, but really tall. Of course, there isn't, and height is a lot more objective than intelligence.

Thanks for sharing. Good points. Tall people who are asked, "What is really tall" might only consider really tall to be someone significantly taller than themselves. Others who are at the taller side of average might consider themselves to be really tall.

 

I score within the range that some consider gifted, but I don't consider myself gifted. I reserve the use of the word "gifted" for people significantly smarter than I am, approaching genius, in at least one area. People can be gifted in just one area and not in all areas--and such people might not be considered "smart" by most people's definition of the word "smart".

Edited October 25, 2011 by merry gardens

[Dmmetler]

To me it s a sign of "intelligence" to be able to look at a multiple choice test and (hypothetically) see:

 

A) Answer One is wrong

B) Answer Two is designed to trick some respondents, but is also wrong.

C) Answer Three might (depending on how far one wants to bend the interpretation of the question) have a claim to validity, but you are smart enough to know that is not what they are going for.

D) Answer Four is the one the test designers are looking for.

 

Part of intelligence is having common sense.

 

Bill

 

My DD's K teacher (after, I suspect, some frustrating testing sessions) took to telling my DD "This is a Kindergarten test. It wants Kindergarten answers". That is, if they ask what color leaves are in the Spring, they want "Green"-not a 30 minute explanation about all the various colors leaves can be, and what chemicals cause this, and how leaves that aren't green can still carry on photosynthesis.

 

It seems to have worked-DD commented after the SAT-10 last year that "I picked the answer I thought everyone else would think was right"-and she basically maxed the test.

[Penelope]

To me it s a sign of "intelligence" to be able to look at a multiple choice test and (hypothetically) see:

 

A) Answer One is wrong

B) Answer Two is designed to trick some respondents, but is also wrong.

C) Answer Three might (depending on how far one wants to bend the interpretation of the question) have a claim to validity, but you are smart enough to know that is not what they are going for.

D) Answer Four is the one the test designers are looking for.

 

Part of intelligence is having common sense.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: times 4.

 

And even if the child is the type to over think the tests while young, wouldn't a high intelligence mean that they could fairly quickly learn the format of this type of test, even if they didn't intuit it at first?

[Ester Maria]

And even if the child is the type to over think the tests while young, wouldn't a high intelligence mean that they could fairly quickly learn the format of this type of test, even if they didn't intuit it at first?

From my experience, that common sense is learned with time. The child just has to shift their mode of thinking from "what is the correct answer according to me?" to "what is the correct answer according to the target student of this test?" - and the mental exercise involved in doing so is definitely one of the default skills of an intelligent child, let alone of an unusually intelligent child. That is the secret of testing well for children who tend to sabotage themselves by overthinking. Do not. complicate. things. is the golden rule - it takes them a while to get used to it and to learn it, but once they do, it becomes a second nature and testing is no biggie.

[zaichiki]

You don't have to have friends that are geniuses. You just have to take the time to care about things that are important to your friends, even if it isn't something you'd normally discuss. If you're putting the needs of your blinding and really huge intellect over the basic human needs of your friends, well, there's the problem.

 

It's nice to have intellectual friends. It can be hard to have friends with whom you share few interests and can't be yourself. If you're limited to those kinds of friends, well, you are. And then you'd have to decide whether or not it was worth the effort to become interested in something you normally wouldn't be just to have a friend.

 

I've never had any trouble finding intellectual people to connect with -- but maybe it depends on where one lives.

[zaichiki]

Tall people who are asked, "What is really tall" might only consider really tall to be someone significantly taller than themselves. Others who are at the taller side of average might consider themselves to be really tall.

 

:lol: This is great! And it explains why some people I know who are really smart think they're "not that smart" and others who are somewhat smart think they're Einstein! :lol:

[zaichiki]

Kids who are merely bright find multiple-choice tests easy. Kids who are gifted often tend to find them difficult because they can see more than one "right" answer depending on the specific assumptions made. Bright kids don't "overthink" everything the way gifted kids do.

 

What do you call kids who are offended by the fact that they're supposed to pick the answer that most other kids their age would think was right and would rather boycott the whole stupid test? :lol:

[Dmmetler]

What do you call kids who are offended by the fact that they're supposed to pick the answer that most other kids their age would think was right and would rather boycott the whole stupid test? :lol:

 

Homeschooled?? (or, at least, good candidates for it?)

[Spy Car]

What do you call kids who are offended by the fact that they're supposed to pick the answer that most other kids their age would think was right and would rather boycott the whole stupid test? :lol:

 

Inflexible? :D

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

What do you call kids who are offended by the fact that they're supposed to pick the answer that most other kids their age would think was right and would rather boycott the whole stupid test? :lol:

Immature.

 

I would (did :tongue_smilie:) work with them on overcoming that immaturity (which is normal and understandable - children are immature by definition - but it is something to grow out of, not something to encourage): the point is not to change what you cannot change, the point is to manipulate every test to your advantage (for the record, I use to word manipulate in a more literal fashion, without the ethical connotations attached to it) and not let your character sabotage you or prevent you from showing that you are smarter than most other kids taking that same exam. I present it as a game - know thy enemy (the test) and beat it using its logic.

[EKS]

Immature.

 

 

:iagree:

[zaichiki]

Immature.

 

the point is not to change what you cannot change, the point is to manipulate every test to your advantage (for the record, I use to word manipulate in a more literal fashion, without the ethical connotations attached to it) and not let your character sabotage you or prevent you from showing that you are smarter than most other kids taking that same exam. I present it as a game - know thy enemy (the test) and beat it using its logic.

 

Immature?

:lol:

That would characterize most children, no?

 

So the point is to "play the game?"

What about those who don't want to play the game?

[Ester Maria]

Immature?

:lol:

That would characterize most children, no?

Wait, you have altered my quote without marking it so (i.e. without using [...] or something to show that you cut off a part of it) - the part which you cut off reads: I would (did :tongue_smilie:) work with them on overcoming that immaturity (which is normal and understandable - children are immature by definition - but it is something to grow out of, not something to encourage).

 

I explicitly stated that (i) such immaturity is normal and expected, but also (ii) that we as parents ought to work with our children to grow out of it (rather than tacitly encourage it or, even worse, interpreting it as an extra sign of intelligence and something "cute" - NOT cute when it is sabotaging your child, I believe it should be addressed as any other *problem* a child might have), so I do not really get this comment, unless you missed this part? :confused:

So the point is to "play the game?"

What about those who don't want to play the game?

In elementary school, not much, except that they will have poorer results.

But if that attitude goes on later? They will have to suffer the consequences of their immature decision and incapacity to play the game by its often meaningless and often pointless rules. They will have to watch the mediocre students taking over the top of class positions, dean list places, and so forth, which were 'supposed' to be theirs. Their superiors at further work will be intellectually inferior to them (and often understand this, and many of those out of jealousy further sabotage them!), because they could not be bothered to play the stupid game of life with often arbitrary and stupid rules the way they *could* have played. They will saw their name first... BELOW the line separating the candidates who got scholarships from those on "waiting lists" or who plain did not. Their inflexibility will come at a high cost when it comes to professional regard, employability on important projects, etc.

 

As I am writing this, I have in mind real, specific people for each and every one of these examples - extremely capable, intelligent people, but who are quite miserable with themselves and the world because they just. cannot. play. the stupid. game. while most others can.

 

This is fairly innocent when we are talking about elementary school tests, but with particularly resistant children I really find it important to snap them out of it before it develops into adolescent games of pride, before they internalize a ridiculous idea that it is a part of their essential being (BTDT) and before they start really sabotaging themselves.

*Life* is a game, at least most of it. People can choose not to play by conventions - but there is a risk and a price tag involved in it. Some people will take the risk and succeed. Many others will take it and fail. Yet many others will know the thing is stupid, yet estimate what is in their interest and what is not.

 

Overthinking CAN be overcome. People CAN be highly intelligent and highly conscious of these mechanisms and of the stupidity of much of the game, and YET not complicate their lives. It is a duo of intelligence and wisdom. Many people acquire that wisdom naturally, but I still find it necessary for many children to push them a little into that direction if we notice they are consistently working against their own interests. It is the lack of wisdom which messes up a lot of really intelligent people - and, especially past certain age, I treat that lack as an other *problem*.

Overthinking is great per se because it provides one with depth and intellectual richness, but not when it comes to those things in life where one has to be *pragmatic*. Sometimes you just have to draw the line and do things no matter how stupid they are. I found a lot of things in my life to be stupid, from attending classes (had a chronic problem with absences) to signing ALL the needed bureaucratic forms to writing using the conventions I was expected to use, if I knew the atmosphere was not conductive to true depth and expression (and standardized testing is not), but at the end of the day, I concluded that intelligent people also work for their own interest and that I am only sabotaging myself. Some (highly intelligent) people I know never had to struggle with any of that or stress about formalities because they were raised with a goes-without-saying attitude that one would do all the formalities in the conventional way if it is not in their interest to do otherwise. It really is all about a mental switch, I find.

 

ETA: Sorry if there are some "tone" issues with this post. It is just that this subject hits really, really, REALLY close to home for me and this is one of those things which are really important to me as a parent. I get that other people might not understand why do I fuss so much about the importance to stick to the conventions and have a good *formal* record, not only in this topic, but trust me, I have had some life experiences - and known of some other life experiences - which really solidified my view that these things are very important, ESPECIALLY for highly intelligent people, who are often their own worst enemies (from overthinking to "rebellions" to conventions of this kind, etc.).

Edited October 26, 2011 by Ester Maria

[zaichiki]

I will comment on your post *inside* the post b/c I cannot remember how to do multiple cuts. I will comment in green.

Wait, you have altered my quote without marking it so (i.e. without using [...] or something to show that you cut off a part of it) -

 

Sorry! I guess I didn't think of it at the time. I read these posts in some sort of order and I didn't think beyond "her post is still up there." Whoops!

 

the part which you cut off reads: I would (did :tongue_smilie:) work with them on overcoming that immaturity (which is normal and understandable - children are immature by definition - but it is something to grow out of, not something to encourage).

 

I explicitly stated that (i) such immaturity is normal and expected, but also (ii) that we as parents ought to work with our children to grow out of it (rather than tacitly encourage it or, even worse, interpreting it as an extra sign of intelligence and something "cute" - NOT cute when it is sabotaging your child, I believe it should be addressed as any other *problem* a child might have), so I do not really get this comment, unless you missed this part? :confused:

 

No. I read it. I was just commenting on the fact that you stated it was immature. Just stating that tickled my funny bone! (The whole children/immature thing.) And then there were "I agree"posts that quoted that word and I was just ROFLOL!

 

In elementary school, not much, except that they will have poorer results.

But if that attitude goes on later? They will have to suffer the consequences of their immature decision and incapacity to play the game by its often meaningless and often pointless rules. They will have to watch the mediocre students taking over the top of class positions, dean list places, and so forth, which were 'supposed' to be theirs. Their superiors at further work will be intellectually inferior to them (and often understand this, and many of those out of jealousy further sabotage them!), because they could not be bothered to play the stupid game of life with often arbitrary and stupid rules the way they *could* have played. They will saw their name first... BELOW the line separating the candidates who got scholarships from those on "waiting lists" or who plain did not. Their inflexibility will come at a high cost when it comes to professional regard, employability on important projects, etc.

 

As I am writing this, I have in mind real, specific people for each and every one of these examples - extremely capable, intelligent people, but who are quite miserable with themselves and the world because they just. cannot. play. the stupid. game. while most others can.

 

This is fairly innocent when we are talking about elementary school tests, but with particularly resistant children I really find it important to snap them out of it before it develops into adolescent games of pride, before they internalize a ridiculous idea that it is a part of their essential being (BTDT)

 

I personally have this thing against manipulation b/c I was manipulated a LOT as a child. I like blunt. I like honest. I don't like playing games.

(I wasn't talking about myself when I asked the question before, but now that I read your response I think a lot of what you typed hits close to home for me.) I was actually thinking of my oldest -- he'd rather bow out of "the game" and go off and do his own thing. He's not interested in competing with others or analyzing what good would come of playing. He wants to feed his own passions -- some of which are wonderful to feed and I hope just feeding them will get him far in life.

As for me-

I don't like the idea of playing the game to get what I want. It's inexplicably tied to morals and values, although it probably doesn't have to be... and I feel like I'm lying/cheating when I play. I know "everyone" plays the game... sigh... and there is a certain game I have in mind right now that I'm trying to avoid playing, which, IF I play it, will benefit my child. It's just that... I am currently a bit disgusted with the way *I* am being used by some other parents in this same game and I don't want to walk down the same road. The whole idea of playing this game for a certain outcome feels SO selfish. I just want to be GENUINE ya know? I don't have a "what's in it for me" attitude.

 

and before they start really sabotaging themselves.

Or their children. I am there right now.

 

*Life* is a game, at least most of it. People can choose not to play by conventions - but there is a risk and a price tag involved in it. Some people will take the risk and succeed. Many others will take it and fail. Yet many others will know the thing is stupid, yet estimate what is in their interest and what is not.

 

Overthinking CAN be overcome. People CAN be highly intelligent and highly conscious of these mechanisms and of the stupidity of much of the game, and YET not complicate their lives. It is a duo of intelligence and wisdom. Many people acquire that wisdom naturally, but I still find it necessary for many children to push them a little into that direction if we notice they are consistently working against their own interests. It is the lack of wisdom which messes up a lot of really intelligent people - and, especially past certain age, I treat that lack as an other *problem*.

Overthinking is great per se because it provides one with depth and intellectual richness, but not when it comes to those things in life where one has to be *pragmatic*. Sometimes you just have to draw the line and do things no matter how stupid they are. I found a lot of things in my life to be stupid, from attending classes (had a chronic problem with absences) to signing ALL the needed bureaucratic forms to writing using the conventions I was expected to use, if I knew the atmosphere was not conductive to true depth and expression (and standardized testing is not), but at the end of the day, I concluded that intelligent people also work for their own interest and that I am only sabotaging myself. Some (highly intelligent) people I know never had to struggle with any of that or stress about formalities because they were raised with a goes-without-saying attitude that one would do all the formalities in the conventional way if it is not in their interest to do otherwise. It really is all about a mental switch, I find.

 

ETA: Sorry if there are some "tone" issues with this post. It is just that this subject hits really, really, REALLY close to home for me and this is one of those things which are really important to me as a parent. I get that other people might not understand why do I fuss so much about the importance to stick to the conventions and have a good *formal* record, not only in this topic, but trust me, I have had some life experiences - and known of some other life experiences - which really solidified my view that these things are very important, ESPECIALLY for highly intelligent people, who are often their own worst enemies (from overthinking to "rebellions" to conventions of this kind, etc.).

 

Sorry to have cut up your other post.

Thanks for the response.

I'll be thinking about this one for a while.

[ElizaG]

Overthinking is great per se because it provides one with depth and intellectual richness, but not when it comes to those things in life where one has to be *pragmatic*. Sometimes you just have to draw the line and do things no matter how stupid they are.

This is going on my fridge.

 

Ester Maria, I wish you were my mom. :D ;)

[Ester Maria]

No. I read it. I was just commenting on the fact that you stated it was immature. Just stating that tickled my funny bone! (The whole children/immature thing.) And then there were "I agree"posts that quoted that word and I was just ROFLOL!

Ah, I get it. ;)

Sorry, I feel guilty for having "attacked" you about that quote - I do not personally mind the lack of [...] or anything - but being that I tend to write essay-style posts which I am sure only about five people on these boards occasionally read anyway, I thought many others who already automatically skips my posts might really think I expect perfect emotional maturity of children, etc. LOL.

I personally have this thing against manipulation b/c I was manipulated a LOT as a child. I like blunt. I like honest. I don't like playing games.

:grouphug:

 

My words are a bit problematic here, though, I admit it, as describing situations using expressions such as "manipulating" or "for one's own interest" might have some ethically problematic connotations; I just do not know in what other terms to put it. I just hope it is still clear that I am not talking about ethically questionable acts (you know, cheating on tests, etc.), but merely turning the situations one encounters the way one profits from them (as in, a deserved profit, because one is a smart person and deserve to pass the test they can and know how to pass well), without allowing some of those overthinking tendencies etc. to sabotage them.

[onaclairadeluna]

To me it s a sign of "intelligence" to be able to look at a multiple choice test and (hypothetically) see:

 

A) Answer One is wrong

B) Answer Two is designed to trick some respondents, but is also wrong.

C) Answer Three might (depending on how far one wants to bend the interpretation of the question) have a claim to validity, but you are smart enough to know that is not what they are going for.

D) Answer Four is the one the test designers are looking for.

 

Part of intelligence is having common sense.

 

Bill

 

I wish.:tongue_smilie:

 

My son is extremely precocious but at 13 I still have to remind him to put his book down when he picks up a hot pan from the stove. I think common sense is a very desirable thing to have but it is not the same thing as intelligence.

 

A) might be correct in modulo7 or something

B) could right be in an another dimension or possibly in Swahili.

C) could be right but probably isn't

D) looks trivial so it can't be right.

 

I just can't figure out which one too choose. Ow, something's burning me.:lol:

[zaichiki]

Ah, I get it. ;)

Sorry, I feel guilty for having "attacked" you about that quote - I do not personally mind the lack of [...] or anything - but being that I tend to write essay-style posts which I am sure only about five people on these boards occasionally read anyway, I thought many others who already automatically skips my posts might really think I expect perfect emotional maturity of children, etc. LOL.

 

:grouphug:

 

My words are a bit problematic here, though, I admit it, as describing situations using expressions such as "manipulating" or "for one's own interest" might have some ethically problematic connotations; I just do not know in what other terms to put it. I just hope it is still clear that I am not talking about ethically questionable acts (you know, cheating on tests, etc.), but merely turning the situations one encounters the way one profits from them (as in, a deserved profit, because one is a smart person and deserve to pass the test they can and know how to pass well), without allowing some of those overthinking tendencies etc. to sabotage them.

 

No worries: I did not feel attacked. In fact, I *did* clip your post... so...

 

I totally get the way you used the words "manipulating" and "for one's own interest." I wasn't thinking of ethically questionable acts, just acts that were maybe self-serving. And, like I said, I don't think my reactions are quite on target, anyway. I'm dramatic at heart. Heh.

 

I'm thinking of a particular situation where advancement in a certain field depends on who you know... and your child's opportunities will be either limited or expanded based on who you know (and what favors you do for whom) and who likes you... It *could* be easy to "use" contacts to further my purposes, and "everyone" does it. And those who don't "get connected" and "network" lose out. They just do. But. But. People are just using each other. And people who *deserve* the opportunities aren't getting them b/c they're NOT connected. And it makes me sick. Sigh! I just want to be real and genuine and interact/make friends for real and not have to plan who to talk to and who to search out.

 

It's not necessarily unethical. Many jobs in this world are given based on contacts. Without certain contacts there are no opportunities. And that's part of playing the game.

 

It could be a full-time job just doing the networking. (I'd have to quit homeschooling.) ;)

[peacefully]

.