Gifted vs. smart or talented?

[Greenmama2]

- snip ;) -

 

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.

 

- snip -

 

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

:grouphug: Ah, you just described my pre-children working life :glare:. I hated it sooooooooooooooo much that I was shuddering reading Ester Maria's post about "playing the game". I often felt like I needed to give up on what I actually did to concentrate on the networking side because without that nothing happened and it was pointless.

I hope you figure out a way to help your child while staying authentic.

Interesting thread, apologies for the sidetrack...

[desertmum]

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

 

I haven't read the whole thread but I wanted to say that some very bright children are late talkers (the so called Einstein Syndrome). Ruf's description assumes all smart children speak early.

[zaichiki]

I haven't read the whole thread but I wanted to say that some very bright children are late talkers (the so called Einstein Syndrome). Ruf's description assumes all smart children speak early.

 

I think she says somewhere in there that not *all* level threes (etc) do what's listed by those ages. Didn't she gather her infomration from a group of kids who were already identified by IQ tests? And these were common markers?

 

Anyway, two of my kids have had IQ tests. They don't present strongly in any *one* of these levels. When they were younger, before the test, I thought it was interesting that they seemed to have traits from each group. So I didn't put much stock in her ideas. Ha!

 

ETA: I just went back and looked at the link to Ruf's levels. I seem to remember it being different. Oh well, I haven't looked at it in a long time.

There seem to be more specific markers for the earlier levels. Level 4 seems so much more general. Does anyone else notice that?

Well, all of my kids seem to have markers from all of the levels. We just don't fit the mold over here, I guess. Which IQ test is she referencing in that bell curve? Anyone know? Level 4 or 5 sound "wow," but the IQ scores don't look "wow." Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something.

Edited October 26, 2011 by zaichiki

[Ester Maria]

I was shuddering reading Ester Maria's post about "playing the game".

But I was not talking about networking at all. :confused:

 

I am also one of those crazy people who believe people should be judged on their concrete accomplishments only, who is against legacy policies and excessive networking, who thinks people should be given a chance regardless of their socioeconomic level, who thinks excessive commercialization of education (especially higher education) is a bad thing, etc.

 

By "playing the game" I had in mind things such as not overthinking tests one knows one should not overthink, things such as respecting some formalities (in terms of class attendance, etc.) which many children of this profile are too rebellious to respect and then only sabotage themselves on the long run, by having a good paper record if one has the ability to do so (rather than just refusing to do what is expected and thus sink unrecognized or close some doors for themselves because they do not have good official record of education), etc.

[Ester Maria]

Cracking the code of a multiple-choice test might be one sort of intelligence, but I would argue it's a mighty limited sort.

I would not consider the ability to crack the code of a multiple choice test to be a distinct *sort* of intelligence... but I would, in general, consider it *symptomatic* of high intelligence – NOT because a multiple choice test is a good litmus test for anything (LOLing at the sole idea of that :lol:, I thought we all here more or less agreed on the fact that, per se, standardized tests are pretty stupid), but because intelligence is traditionally conceived in terms of extraordinary conceptual *flexibility*, as opposed to extraordinary conceptual *limitations*. In other words, it is not that a multiple choice test 'means' anything per se, but the cognitive ability to approach a problem from different angles and perspectives (one of them being the 'what is the target student supposed to answer in such a test') certainly does. That is exactly what happens in a typical test situation, that flexibility / the ability to shift perspectives and operate according to the rules even of uncongenial perspectives, is what is being *really* tested for many children. I can maybe compare it with the experiences of children who grew up in two or more cultures and are capable sometimes of 'switching' entirely, not only linguistically, but also culturally. I am consistently amazed when I see this in such children, how they operate with entirely different sets of cultural associations without confusing them, sets of social etiquette where the differences are often incredibly subtle, how they switch entire historical frameworks (the same event narrated through the eyes of several cultures, drawing from the traditions and commonplaces of each one, never confused), etc. This is the type of cognitive flexibility I have in mind – one does not necessarily think in a particular way per se, but one can do 'AS IF' one did, one can locate and recognize the form and the standards of such a thought, penetrate the system and emulate it, enter such a mindset and then accomplish a certain task from such a mindset. In many ways it is similar to playing devil's advocate, LOL, another game in which highly intelligent people typically succeed precisely because they can conceive and enter different perspectives.

I do find this ability, in some form, to some extent, to be symptomatic of intelligence (in general, and also in particular of high intelligence, as that is what my experience suggests me). People who *cannot* enter / exit a perspective, who cannot 'play' (in the 'AS IF' situations), who cannot manipulate the information, are more characterised by conceptual *limitations*, rather than added breadth of perspective - though they may still possess unusual depth within their perspective.

 

I remember an interesting 'definition' of intelligence from a high school conversation with one of our professors: he said that one of the signs of intelligence was typically a sense of humor (or at least a cognitive potential to be humorous, if one as a personality is not of such a disposition to actually exercise it). Why? Because humor is the type of communicative situation in which one has to (i) know a particular piece of information, (ii) know how to reverse the information to attain a particular effect (i.e. know how to manipulate the information), (iii) know how to make all that within the established code of social communication for it to be recognized as such (quite a few subtleties at work there, it depends a lot on the culture, audience, there are different types of humor appropriate at different times, etc.). When you look at it this way, it is a rather sophisticated skill and pretty much symbolizes what intelligence is about – not only 'getting' something, but also being able to manipulate it to suit various contexts, i.e. it is fundamentally about *flexibility*. About the ability to invert, defragment, piece again in different ways, apply to different contexts with due changes, etc. Think of that classical cliche: the ability to entertain the idea without accepting it. This is what it looks like, it is just that one entertains actively and solves a test while entertaining a different perspective.

 

I see two possibilities: either a child *cannot* do that mental tweaking of things to successfully master uncongenial situations and operate in the world of conventions (including these testing conventions), either a child *will not* do that (i.e. they are capable of it, but rebellious).

 

I have little experience with people who genuinely *cannot* do it, who have a certain cognitive barrier which does not go away or it diminishes minimally with years, who just cannot switch perspectives. I do not doubt that a lot of them can be smart, but I am not sure whether a serious absence of what seems to be such a crucial component of high intelligence can coexist with... high intelligence, if you get what I mean, it is a bit like a paradox if you look at the situation from this particular angle. It seems like a *problem* to me, and a fairly serious one. Unless you look at intelligence differently and find this ability of switching a trifling matter which is not a sine qua non, but then if so, we have much more serious disagreements at hand and perhaps much of discussions like these have an underlying problem of semantics, as we may essentially be talking about different things and call them the same way.

I do have a lot of experience with people who *will not* do it, but who have repeatedly manifested the ability to do so (or who do so when it suits their immediate interests, but not their long term ones, etc.). That CAN be helped for sure, it is just a lot more 'pleasant' to start working on the self-sabotaging tendencies in childhood and slowly shift the children towards a kind of acceptance that sometimes some things just have to be done a certain way and from a certain perspective. I mean, the battles are smaller, you get plenty of practice to perfect this skill.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Ester Maria

[enviromommy]

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.

 

That is interesting. I remember an "over thinking" issue I had on the test I took to get into my elementary school. I was maybe 5 years old. There was a picture of a dog running along a road, and a cat running on a road that was at right angles to the first. There was a grassy field between them. The question was "what's wrong with the picture?" and I was supposed to say that the dog should be chasing the cat. I thought of that, but then I thought, "maybe the dog would rather run on the road than cross the grass, and he's planning to turn when he gets to the intersection." So I didn't get the question right. However, it was all oral, and I explained what I was thinking to the psychologist doing the testing. So that would have been taken into consideration.

 

I always did have a little trouble with second-guessing myself on multiple choice, and learned not to change my first answer unless I had a really good reason. I think this had less to do with common sense than with unconsciously sabotaging myself.

 

But I am still left with one unanswered question: if you say that "bright" children do well on multiple choice, and "gifted" children don't, I still can't tell if you are saying that the difference between "bright" and "gifted" is qualitative or quantitative.

 

If you are saying they are qualitatively different, does that mean that one (non-gifted) child could actually be "brighter" than another (gifted) child?

 

Granted that there are different kinds of intelligence, and someone can be gifted in one area and not in another, it still doesn't make sense to me to call them two separate things. Is gifted "very bright"? If not, then what meaning does "gifted" have??

[Spock]

 

ETA: I just went back and looked at the link to Ruf's levels. I seem to remember it being different. Oh well, I haven't looked at it in a long time.

There seem to be more specific markers for the earlier levels. Level 4 seems so much more general. Does anyone else notice that?

Well, all of my kids seem to have markers from all of the levels. We just don't fit the mold over here, I guess. Which IQ test is she referencing in that bell curve? Anyone know? Level 4 or 5 sound "wow," but the IQ scores don't look "wow." Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something.

 

I tend to interpret the levels as "Level 4 will do much of level 3, PLUS many of the following:", and so forth. My first two fit somewhere around a high level 4 or a low level 5. My second two fit somewhere around mid-level 3--but my 3rd has dyslexia and possibly some ADHD, while my 4th has severe ADHD and possibly Aspergers, which might throw things off. We have never been able to afford any kind of testing for any of them (beyond the Iowa test required by the state), so my estimates are based on behavior/achievement.

[zaichiki]

I tend to interpret the levels as "Level 4 will do much of level 3, PLUS many of the following:", and so forth.

 

It's still weird for us b/c my kids don't fit *enough* of any one level to choose one. But I do have IQ testing, so I know I'm not crazy to suspect that they're gifted. If I never had the testing, I'd doubt myself *forever.* (That's probably just me. And I'm guessing I'm weird.)

[The Governess]

This is an interesting conversation. I've always wondered if my dd7 is gifted or just bright. For some reason I've been hesitant to have her tested - maybe because I'm not sure what I would do with the results? She fits most closely with level 3 but displays some higher level characteristics as well: read fluently at a 3rd - 4th grade level when she was 3, is very "intense" emotionally and physically, has an amazing memory and picks up foreign languages easily.

 

I know how she learns best and when I need to push her, and she loves learning, both at home and at school. So I'm not having any issues that I feel that testing might help me solve. It would be more for curiosity at this point. I do wonder if down the road it would help to have a number if she wanted to qualify for a certain program or class, but I haven't looked that far ahead yet. Maybe there is something else I am not thinking of?

[Embassy]

It's still weird for us b/c my kids don't fit *enough* of any one level to choose one. But I do have IQ testing, so I know I'm not crazy to suspect that they're gifted. If I never had the testing, I'd doubt myself *forever.* (That's probably just me. And I'm guessing I'm weird.)

 

I doubt sometimes:tongue_smilie: I don't have official testing, but I did do some testing with my oldest when he was in Kindergarten when his skill levels for different subjects were all over the place. My kids don't fit neatly on any of the levels. My most academically advanced child was average or delayed during the first year of life too. His intensity and drive were present from birth though.

 

The cost of testing is prohibitive for us, but I'm not sure it would be good for me to test. If they test higher than I expect then I don't think I would do anything different than what we are already doing. If they test lower than I expect then I might lower my expectations when they are actually doing fine. Day to day life is the best determinate of level, IMHO.

[Crimson Wife]

 

But I am still left with one unanswered question: if you say that "bright" children do well on multiple choice, and "gifted" children don't, I still can't tell if you are saying that the difference between "bright" and "gifted" is qualitative or quantitative.

 

I didn't say that gifted children don't do well on multiple choice tests (they typically do) but that they find them more difficult than a merely bright child does because of the "overthinking" issue. A bright child quickly finds the answer the test designer intended because he/she doesn't have the same kind of "out-of-the-box" thinking as the gifted child. A gifted child has to sit there and figure out which of the multiple answers he/she could see as being correct is the one that the test designer intended. The final score may be equally high, but he/she probably will take longer to complete the test.

[Sneezyone]

But I was not talking about networking at all. :confused:

 

By "playing the game" I had in mind things such as not overthinking tests one knows one should not overthink, things such as respecting some formalities (in terms of class attendance, etc.) which many children of this profile are too rebellious to respect and then only sabotage themselves on the long run...

 

Emphasis mine. I wish someone had helped me be better with this.

[quark]

Day to day life is the best determinate of level, IMHO.

 

Yes! Because the test result is only a snapshot of how they felt/thought/performed within a particular period in a particular day.

 

Our son tested lower than expected but I still increased the challenge level because of what I know to be true from day-to-day observations.

Edited October 26, 2011 by quark
typo

[quark]

I didn't say that gifted children don't do well on multiple choice tests (they typically do) but that they find them more difficult than a merely bright child does because of the "overthinking" issue. A bright child quickly finds the answer the test designer intended because he/she doesn't have the same kind of "out-of-the-box" thinking as the gifted child. A gifted child has to sit there and figure out which of the multiple answers he/she could see as being correct is the one that the test designer intended. The final score may be equally high, but he/she probably will take longer to complete the test.

 

Any thoughts on kids who hit ceilings on processing speed being able to process the over-thinking much faster and thus coming off as bright instead of gifted?

[wapiti]

Any thoughts on kids who hit ceilings on processing speed being able to process the over-thinking much faster and thus coming off as bright instead of gifted?

 

coming off to whom? I think you're over-thinking this ;)

[Spy Car]

I didn't say that gifted children don't do well on multiple choice tests (they typically do) but that they find them more difficult than a merely bright child does because of the "overthinking" issue. A bright child quickly finds the answer the test designer intended because he/she doesn't have the same kind of "out-of-the-box" thinking as the gifted child. A gifted child has to sit there and figure out which of the multiple answers he/she could see as being correct is the one that the test designer intended. The final score may be equally high, but he/she probably will take longer to complete the test.

 

I still see this as a huge over-generalization. I have to imagine many highly intelligent test-takers can distinguish between the "possible" and the "probable" at lighting-fast speed.

 

Bill

[catz]

I didn't say that gifted children don't do well on multiple choice tests (they typically do) but that they find them more difficult than a merely bright child does because of the "overthinking" issue. A bright child quickly finds the answer the test designer intended because he/she doesn't have the same kind of "out-of-the-box" thinking as the gifted child. A gifted child has to sit there and figure out which of the multiple answers he/she could see as being correct is the one that the test designer intended. The final score may be equally high, but he/she probably will take longer to complete the test.

 

This is definitely true at our house. My DH, DS, and I all have shown issues on multiple choice tests where the answer is something that can left to interpretation of a question. Often questions that are asked in reading comprehension sections of tests. And all of us are avid readers with excellent comprehension. I wish someone would have taken me aside as a child and said "these questions are very straight forward. Do not think too hard". I'm actually really looking forward to seeing how my oldest does on the Explore this year. He actually did fine last year, better than the average 8th grader as a 4th grader. But I know at least 2 of the scores weren't reflecting reality that we see day to day (math due to speed, reading comp due to "over thinking" and probably speed, and sloppy work). My husband and I both learned how to play the standardized testing game in college when were doing grad level tests. Then suddenly our scores were sky high (we each took the SAT/ACT once with zero practice to get into college).

 

Anyway, I know there are definitely GT kids that have no issue here. I think we all tend visual-spatial and out of the box over here, so maybe that has something to do with it.

Edited October 26, 2011 by kck

[momsquared]

I find this conversation interesting, and consider these differences often.

 

Dd is very bright. I don't know that she is gifted. Not profoundly for sure. She is extremely verbal - off the charts verbal. Most people would assume she is gifted, but her fine motor took a long time to develop and she is only about a grade level ahead in reading. Most people would assume she is a genius by her ability to communicate verbally.

 

DS is so different. He might actually be gifted. However, he spoke late and has a speech delay so people don't realize he is sounding out words at three, doing addition and subtraction, and drawing and building train tracks based upon videos or pictures he sees. He also wrote early (as in already and he is three). It manifested itself so differently than dd.

 

I guess I also have to consider the artistically gifted. I work at a performing arts high school. I teach profoundly gifted students that have nothing to do with academics. Gifted is a very different thing to different people.

[quark]

I still see this as a huge over-generalization. I have to imagine many highly intelligent test-takers can distinguish between the "possible" and the "probable" at lighting-fast speed.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

 

coming off to whom? I think you're over-thinking this ;)

 

You are very quick, wapiti! :)

Edited October 27, 2011 by quark
missing comma

[Greenmama2]

But I was not talking about networking at all. :confused:

Ok, good :) Perhaps it's a cultural thing? In Australia networking is quite often refered to as "playing the game". I do agree with most of what you wrote re learning to do multiple choice etc. It's just that a lot of that post read the other way as well (at least in an Aussie sense).

[onaclairadeluna]

I still see this as a huge over-generalization. I have to imagine many highly intelligent test-takers can distinguish between the "possible" and the "probable" at lighting-fast speed.

 

Bill

 

Everything I have read about the highly gifted indicates that many of them process slower. This is not meant to say that a few gifted students can't do both. Perhaps even many can. But I have not read anything to indicate that quick processing correlates strongly to giftedness.

 

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/most-creative-brains-are-slow.html

 

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/blessings-and-burdens-of-high-iq.html

[onaclairadeluna]

I see two possibilities: either a child *cannot* do that mental tweaking of things to successfully master uncongenial situations and operate in the world of conventions (including these testing conventions), either a child *will not* do that (i.e. they are capable of it, but rebellious).

 

 

I think it is more complex than this. My son can and does take multiple choice tests but it is so much harder for him to take the grade 7 STAR test than to do problems from the AOPS Intro to Geometry Text. He gets good scores and all but you wouldn't believe how difficult it is for him. It's not so much a question of whether or not he can do it, it's a question of whether this is a good or accurate measure of what our children can do.

 

Many gifted kids do very poorly in schools and fall through the cracks. As homeschoolers we are fortunate to have other ways to meet the needs of our bright kids. So fortunately it isn't as much of an issue for us.

 

We are lucky. I don't think anyone is saying our kids can't take multiple choice tests, just that for many GT kids this type of testing is not an accurate measure of "G". Especially if it is at grade level.

[LibraryLover]

I still see this as a huge over-generalization. I have to imagine many highly intelligent test-takers can distinguish between the "possible" and the "probable" at lighting-fast speed.

 

Bill

 

 

This has been our exprience. They don't get tripped up. They get the game. They see it clearly.

 

Is it fair? Probably not. Is it one sign of being highly gifted? Yep.

[Crimson Wife]

I still see this as a huge over-generalization. I have to imagine many highly intelligent test-takers can distinguish between the "possible" and the "probable" at lighting-fast speed.

 

Bill

 

You're focusing on the wrong aspect of what I'm trying to say. It's not so much the speed issue, but the fact that the gifted kid even sees multiple "correct" answers in the first place. The merely bright child isn't doing the "mental chess game" that leads the gifted kid to see that answer X could be true given one set of assumptions while answer Y could be true given a different set. Obviously, some gifted kids are faster than others at deciding which is more likely the set of assumptions the test designer made. The point is, they're having to jump through the extra hoop to arrive at the answer in a way that merely bright kids don't.

[merry gardens]

I still see this as a huge over-generalization. I have to imagine many highly intelligent test-takers can distinguish between the "possible" and the "probable" at lighting-fast speed.

 

Bill

 

Everything I have read about the highly gifted indicates that many of them process slower. This is not meant to say that a few gifted students can't do both. Perhaps even many can. But I have not read anything to indicate that quick processing correlates strongly to giftedness.

 

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/most-creative-brains-are-slow.html

 

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/blessings-and-burdens-of-high-iq.html

The Eide's write about the "twice gifted"--"gifted" with both a high intellectual ability and a learning disorder. They aren't mutually exclusive. I like the term 2e--twice exceptional.

 

Spy car writes about one catagory of "many" highly intelligent/gifted people who typically don't have academic struggles, while Onaclairdeluna (and the Eides) write about different group containing the "many" highly intelligent/gifted people who may struggle in one or more areas. It might also come down to how we define "gifted" also. Some people--"many" people-- have a difficult time comprehending that not every "gifted" person looks smart. Maybe that's because they are using the terms "gifted" and "smart" interchangably, while others distinguish a difference between the terms.

 

It took me a long time to stumble onto the accelerated learner board here because I thought all of you were homeschooling little geniuses. I caught wind of a 2e discussion over here--and that's thing that prompted me to ask what people here consider gifted. I have a 2e child. His struggles with learning to read are well documented on the special education board. After reading your opinions, it's quite clear that "many" of you would consider my son "gifted"--and "many" of you wouldn't.

Edited October 27, 2011 by merry gardens

[MBM]

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.

 

I didn't say that gifted children don't do well on multiple choice tests (they typically do) but that they find them more difficult than a merely bright child does because of the "overthinking" issue. A bright child quickly finds the answer the test designer intended because he/she doesn't have the same kind of "out-of-the-box" thinking as the gifted child. A gifted child has to sit there and figure out which of the multiple answers he/she could see as being correct is the one that the test designer intended. The final score may be equally high, but he/she probably will take longer to complete the test.

 

I've never heard of this, but you are describing my youngest to a T. I'm not sure if he's gifted in English -- he does do well on standardized tests -- but the multiple choice questions, especially those following an essay, confound him because he often sees two possible answers. Ds usually gets them correct, but they tend to slow him down. His elementary teachers noted this about him, too. Very interesting. Is this something Ruf wrote about?

[EKS]

I still see this as a huge over-generalization. I have to imagine many highly intelligent test-takers can distinguish between the "possible" and the "probable" at lighting-fast speed.

 

Bill

 

Not all gifted people process quickly.

 

So if you have a kid who overthinks *and* is in the 1st percentile for processing speed, you get one slow test taker. Without accommodations, this kid looks far less than "merely bright."

 

But I keep lecturing to my son anyway about how the correct answer is the one the test *maker* thinks is correct, and doesn't have anything to do with what the test *taker* thinks.

Edited October 27, 2011 by EKS

[Spy Car]

You're focusing on the wrong aspect of what I'm trying to say. It's not so much the speed issue, but the fact that the gifted kid even sees multiple "correct" answers in the first place. The merely bright child isn't doing the "mental chess game" that leads the gifted kid to see that answer X could be true given one set of assumptions while answer Y could be true given a different set. Obviously, some gifted kids are faster than others at deciding which is more likely the set of assumptions the test designer made. The point is, they're having to jump through the extra hoop to arrive at the answer in a way that merely bright kids don't.

 

I don't accept your assumption that bright children doing cognitive testing aren't in a "mental chess game." Every child being tested is in a "mental chess game." Smart ones, less smart ones, everyone. That is why it is called cognitive testing.

 

Unless a child just gives up and "guesses" and answer—which I'm sure happens—they all have to reason through problems for solutions. I'm sure that there children at all ranges of intelligent that either "over-think" the answers or who make "out of the box" associations that get scored "wrong" (and usually with cause).

 

If "bright kids" only saw the "right answers" then they would be the ones scoring highest on the IQ tests, and—by the definition of intelligence testing—that is not the case.

 

All kids have to go through "loops." That is the purpose of the testing. Can we accept that some children may have a propensity to see more that one plausible answer? Sure. But not just the gifted. Will some kids "over-think"? Again, sure. But not just the gifted.

 

Think about it. If all the geniuses were so overly mental burdened that they could not function on IQ tests, then they would not be scoring so highly. And that just isn't the case.

 

Is there some sub-set of children who get so overwhelmed with "plausible" (at least in their minds) answers and as a result score lower than they might have if they were not over-thinking it? I have no doubt. But I think this is true across the spectrum of intelligence.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I have a 2e child. His struggles with learning to read are well documented on the special education board. After reading your opinions, it's quite clear that "many" of you would consider my son "gifted"--and "many" of you wouldn't.

 

No, you are missing my point. A lot of over-generalizing takes place in these areas. There are no doubt twice-exceptional children. But, unlike the common stereotype of the highly gifted, there are also children who are social, who make friends easily, who enjoy school, who are not constantly frustrated, who enjoy playing sports and are athletic, who have leadership qualities, and who in most measures appear quite "normal."

 

Last year at our school Open House we got a handout titled "What is Gifted?" It had a whole list of attributes (many arguably "negative") that didn't fit my child in the least. There are assumptions out there that ALL highly gifted children MUST BE "misfits", and I do not believe that for a second.

 

All children come in a wide rage of personality types no matter how they score on IQ tests. Some are extroverts, some introverts, some "social", some socially anxious, some loud, some quiet, some focused, some not. On and on.

 

There is a wide enough variation in human beings that we have BOTH highly intelligent people with particular areas of learning difficulties AND those who show a general consistency in the sub-sets measured in cognitive tests. Human intelligence is complex, and our measurement techniques are crude.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Not all gifted people process quickly.

 

So if you have a kid who overthinks *and* is in the 1st percentile for processing speed, you get one slow test taker. Without accommodations, this kid looks far less than "merely bright."

 

But I keep lecturing to my son anyway about how the correct answer is the one the test *maker* thinks is correct, and doesn't have anything to do with what the test *taker* thinks.

 

Which is why I think IQ tests are a very good measure of how good one is at taking IQ tests :tongue_smilie:

 

Seriously.

 

Bill

[wapiti]

I don't accept your assumption that bright children doing cognitive testing aren't in a "mental chess game." Every child being tested is in a "mental chess game." Smart ones, less smart ones, everyone. That is why it is called cognitive testing.

 

Which is why I think IQ tests are a very good measure of how good one is at taking IQ tests

 

You may be confusing pencil-and-paper multiple-choice tests with IQ tests. IQ tests are typically one-on-one with a psychologists and typically are not multiple-choice tests. Often, if there is over-thinking going on, the psych makes that observation. I thought this discussion was about multiple-choice tests of the type that typically take place at school (state testing, etc.).

 

Also, FWIW, certain IQ tests attempt to separate out processing speed from general intelligence (e.g., the WISC), which is how we know that there are some very intelligent people who also have slow processing speed.

 

All children come in a wide rage of personality types no matter how they score on IQ tests. Some are extroverts, some introverts, some "social", some socially anxious, some loud, some quiet, some focused, some not. On and on.

 

I agree with you but wanted to add this little factoid for context: more than two-thirds of highly-gifted people are introverted.

[onaclairadeluna]

There are no doubt twice-exceptional children. But, unlike the common stereotype of the highly gifted, there are also children who are social, who make friends easily, who enjoy school, who are not constantly frustrated, who enjoy playing sports and are athletic, who have leadership qualities, and who in most measures appear quite "normal."

 

Interesting. I have always encountered the opposite stereotype. The kid taking apart the microwave in the corner is often pegged as a sociopath. I think it's great that your school is bringing these kids in the fold. After all the bright high achieving kids are already doing really well. It's the kids that are failing in spite of there ability or because of their ability that need to be identified. It's easy to spot the valedictorian.

 

That's not to say that we should ignore the captain of the football team who gets straight As or anything. But I think those kids are usually supported and celebrated by their communities because their gifts are apparent.

[onaclairadeluna]

You may be confusing pencil-and-paper multiple-choice tests with IQ tests. IQ tests are typically one-on-one with a psychologists and typically are not multiple-choice tests. Often, if there is over-thinking going on, the psych makes that observation. I thought this discussion was about multiple-choice tests of the type that typically take place at school (state testing, etc.).

 

Yes, that was my assumption too. IQ tests are a whole different animal. Not a perfect measure but a reasonable measure of G (depending on the specific test, experience of the tester etc.)

[Spy Car]

You may be confusing pencil-and-paper multiple-choice tests with IQ tests. IQ tests are typically one-on-one with a psychologists and typically are not multiple-choice tests.

 

Some are one-on-one, and some are not. Due to budget cuts our school district—in a "make or break" situation where a student only gets one chance to quality for "highly gifted" magnet schools—uses (mainly) the RAVENS test. It is multiple choice, and done in a group setting.

 

We did the WISC test in a private setting, but that (from my understanding) has multiple choice aspects as well.

 

The schools also qualify students for "gifted and talented" (as opposed to highly-gifted) designations based on end-of-the-term multiple choice assessment tests. These have "ceilings" and will not qualify children for "highly gifted magnets" but do get student the prized "orange folder" that gets them into gifted programs.

 

Also, FWIW, certain IQ tests attempt to separate out processing speed from general intelligence (e.g., the WISC), which is how we know that there are some very intelligent people who also have slow processing speed.

 

True.

 

I agree with you but wanted to add this little factoid for context: more than two-thirds of highly-gifted people are introverted.

 

Which would mean that a third are not. If we over-stereotype we can miss a lot of children. One-third is not a small amount

 

Bill

[EKS]

You may be confusing pencil-and-paper multiple-choice tests with IQ tests. IQ tests are typically one-on-one with a psychologists and typically are not multiple-choice tests. Often, if there is over-thinking going on, the psych makes that observation. I thought this discussion was about multiple-choice tests of the type that typically take place at school (state testing, etc.).

 

Also, FWIW, certain IQ tests attempt to separate out processing speed from general intelligence (e.g., the WISC), which is how we know that there are some very intelligent people who also have slow processing speed.

 

 

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

The worst are the tests like the CogAT. Multiple choice, tightly timed, and very high stakes when used as the sole determiner for admission to a gifted program.

 

I'm actually fairly happy with how the WISC handles the processing speed/working memory issue. I believe my son's GAI is still somewhat depresssed by his LDs, but it's only by maybe 5-10 points, as opposed to 30 points when his FSIQ is reported.

[YourFidgetyFriend]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. My daughter was approximately a 4 (some markers at both levels 3 and 5 as well) in Ruf's levels. Her IQ testing through the RIAS intelligence test was lower. Her achievement testing has scores around 3-5 grade levels higher than her grade (they are doing in depth additional testing at the moment). I wonder if it's a fluke that she learns as quickly as she does, because her IQ doesn't match up with ability.

 

So basically, this whole smart vs gifted thing is confusing to me. I have to leave all the formal definitions to the powers that be before my head explodes.

[Spy Car]

 

That's not to say that we should ignore the captain of the football team who gets straight As or anything. But I think those kids are usually supported and celebrated by their communities because their gifts are apparent.

 

But I was that kid. Captain of the football team, class president, missed being valedictorian due to a grave injustice in one class, one marking period (still hurts :D).

 

But in elementary school they did not want to test me. I did not meet the "profile."

 

Only because they tested my little brother (who is pretty "normal" too) and he scored HG, did I end up being tested. And that is only because he was making life for me "impossible" and my mother demanded I be tested too.

 

They were so schocked by the results that I had to take the tests again. Different test I guess, but the second time I did slightly better and they gave up :tongue_smilie:

 

I can't cry boo hoo. But the truth of the matter is the schools never really met my needs. I think I got pegged as a "bright kid" and that was that.

 

Bill

[wapiti]

Some are one-on-one, and some are not. Due to budget cuts our school district—in a "make or break" situation where a student only gets one chance to quality for "highly gifted" magnet schools—uses (mainly) the RAVENS test. It is multiple choice, and done in a group setting.

 

We did the WISC test in a private setting, but that (from my understanding) has multiple choice aspects as well.

 

The schools also qualify students for "gifted and talented" (as opposed to highly-gifted) designations based on end-of-the-term multiple choice assessment tests. These have "ceilings" and will not qualify children for "highly gifted magnets" but do get student the prized "orange folder" that gets them into gifted programs.

 

Talk about missing and mis-identifying kids. FWIW, generally, school admissions testing for gifted programming often doesn't yield an IQ either (e.g., the widely-used CogAT), though I believe the RAVENS supposedly generates an IQ. I don't know anything about the RAVENS except that I thought it was designed for kids for whom English is a second language, and somewhere I thought I read that it wasn't even supposed to be used with kids for whom English is their first language.

 

Generally, twice-exceptional kids are the most likely to be missed in group ability testing, as their weakensses may prevent their strengths from showing. In other words, group tests may be very inaccurate in attempting to measure ability in certain kids (and of course the school doesn't know which kids those are).

 

The worst are the tests like the CogAT. Multiple choice, tightly timed, and very high stakes when used as the sole determiner for admission to a gifted program

 

Yep. My friend's ds was denied admission to the gifted program based on the CogAT result, which was a few percentiles lower than his WISC results (a kiddo with slow processing speed), and they won't take the WISC. (Fortunately, he's not missing out on all that much, as the gifted program isn't all it's cracked up to be.)

 

Which would mean that a third are not. If we over-stereotype we can miss a lot of children. One-third is not a small amount

 

Of course. Missed for what - are you saying that these personality traits were being used for gifted identification? Ah, I see your latest post - well using personality traits to exclude is just plain wrong. How dumb. (Bottom line, many of us do not trust the school district when it comes to gifted identification.)

[Spy Car]

Talk about missing and mis-identifying kids. FWIW, generally, school admissions testing for gifted programming often doesn't yield an IQ either (e.g., the widely-used CogAT), though I believe the RAVENS supposedly generates an IQ. I don't know anything about the RAVENS except that I thought it was designed for kids for whom English is a second language, and somewhere I thought I read that it wasn't even supposed to be used with kids for whom English is their first language.

 

I will have to admit a general ignorance then it comes to the various IQ tests available. I have a rough idea of the WISC, and have seen some RAVEN test "samples."

 

I do know there will be a lot riding on this one (and only) test. We will probably need to "demand" it, and I expect resistance from the school. It costs them money, and I'm sure, due to preconceived ideas about what "gifted vs bright" kids are supposed to look like that my son has been pegged as "bright."

 

I have private test score that indicate otherwise, but those count for nothing in our school district. It is a one-shot multiple choice test that qualifies (or dis-qualifies) a student for the highly-gifted magnets.

 

Generally, twice-exceptional kids are the most likely to be missed in group ability testing, as their weakensses may prevent their strengths from showing. In other words, group tests may be very inaccurate in attempting to measure ability in certain kids (and of course the school doesn't know which kids those are).

 

Maybe so. However, I think obviously intelligent children that are "quirky" often meet the preconceived "profile" and are tested, where less quirky kids are just considered "bright" and are not tested (beyond year end assents that all children take).

 

Just getting an IQ test administered can take a battle with a Principal. They simply don't want to do them. Not in my district anyway.

 

Of course. Missed for what - are you saying that these personality traits were being used for gifted identification? Ah, I see your latest post - well using personality traits to exclude is just plain wrong. How dumb. (Bottom line, many of us do not trust the school district when it comes to gifted identification.)

 

I don't think it is that uncommon for there to be assumptions about what a highly gifted kid is supposed to look like. That is all I'm trying to say.

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

He gets good scores and all but you wouldn't believe how difficult it is for him. It's not so much a question of whether or not he can do it, it's a question of whether this is a good or accurate measure of what our children can do.

But wait, then we are talking about two different things.

 

I am not talking whether those tests are a good measure of anything - I do not think they are. I am talking pragmatically now, about why I find it important to work with children not to sabotage themselves and not to fail those tests due to overthinking tendencies. In many cases intelligent children can be their own worst enemies - my reasoning is that one should try to diminish those tendencies if they see them apparent (which I am sure we all do anyway, at some level, because we do not wish our children to sabotage themselves in a myriad of situations when they will be judged on the test they will have to not overthink to attain the best results).

 

I think there is a difference between doing poorly at school because you do not understand things, and doing poorly at school because you are overachieving when you want and sabotaging the work in other situations (the "can concentrate only on the things she likes" thing :rolleyes:, BTDT and I know just how well calculated that "disability" is on parts of many children so naturally I assume that MANY children of such profile essentially manipulate, because I know that I did and I know many who also confessed of doing so, so I am not "falling for" that if I notice it in my own children so easily), "above" mundane things such as appearing in class and doing the formalities the way they are supposed to be, assuming preferential treatment because you are "gifted", etc. (Needless to mention, most children, and perhaps even parents, will not view it this way and will rationalize their way out of it, it takes a while to spot it.) Unfortunately, my experience has shown me a HUGE number of children who fit in the second category, and there is a whole range of better and worse cases. I am not saying this as an ethical judgment - I am not even sure to what extent children can control these things - but simply as a fact, that doing poorly at school can have a lot to do with personality traits other than intelligence itself, and that those personality traits ought to be somehow worked on rather than ignored (or, even worse - and I see it in some parents - used as an excuse to rationalize or even used as a "proof" of the child's exceptionality and the "need" for preferential treatment and not jumping through the same hoops as everyone else, because the child is "special" :confused:), otherwise they may develop the way to really sabotage children afterwards.

 

Not everyone fits that profile either, of course, but there are many bright and gifted I have noticed. They are not helpless, they are not incapable, they do not "need" to act out, they are not "doomed" to one way of processing / learning style, they get the test strategies extremely well, they can be fully adapted to all the formalities and structure but wish not to so they sabotage and get used to being exempted from things and the standard procedure and then they have issues when they grow up because they "cannot conform", etc. - in other words, they have, fundamentally, character issues, rather than "side effects" of high intelligence. And just like everything else, those tendencies can be worked on, minimized, children can be brought to understanding that they work against their own interests this way and that sometimes they just have to solve the stupid test the way they are "supposed" to do, punto e basta. NOW it is a stupid test. TOMORROW it will be a stupid job interview, a stupid deadline for an application, a stupid something else. The sooner they snap out of it and out of that "special" mentality, the better for them on the long run.

 

I know that a lot of people repeatedly get upset with me whenever I merely suggest the option that some children fit this profile and some parents fit the profile of tacitly approving it because of the intense focus on the child being so very "special", but I find that this is an important part of the picture which is often neglected when highly intelligent profiles of people are discussed. Simply not all are the same. ALL need adequate support and help, but for some of them, that help really comes along the way of character development rather than intellectual strategies of how to cope with an intellectually inferior world (LOL).

 

Ufff, this topic is so enervating for me, I guess it just hits too close to home. :D My ultimate conclusion has been that many highly intelligent children need not necessarily be told or suggested just how special they are and that it is typically better for them not to exempted them from the things we expect from everyone else (whether it be standard output - something we argue about so much on these boards - or other things, depending on circumstances). Including expecting that they do the normal tests the way normal people do them and quit making an issue out of conforming to some minimal formal standards. And believe me, many of them CAN do so without fussing if they only decide to do so - they are just really, really good at tricking you into thinking they cannot and that it is a side effect of their intelligence rather than a simple, annoying and highly (self-)destructive character trait it really is. Many people may not even recognize, often not even their parents, but those of us who had some similarities with them in our own childhood do recognize our own former strategies, it is just that now it gets on our nerves when we are on the other side of the cathedra. :lol:

 

I am not saying that your child fits the bill, I do not presume to know, in fact certainly many highly intelligent people do not, but I still think it is an important part of the overall picture of high intelligence and the possible profiles it takes to be aware of the possibility that many people ARE indeed like this. That even gifted children who do poorly at school may have character issues rather than intelligence issues at the core.

 

Maybe it is accidental, but I have met this particular profile SO MUCH in my life, and saw SO MANY people who essentially self-destructed due to character traits and yet they are so capable, and I really see a correlation between being treated in a certain - "preferential" - way as a child and developing and nurishing these strategies. And "he is so intelligent that he just overthinks", "he is just really special and cannot enter the mindset of a person of lower intelligence when taking a test" and similar explanations for a child not to do well on or not to even take 'normal' tests, always sound like red flags to me, especially if the child is aware of such thinking on the side of the parent. In my experience, they CAN do it, because an ability to shift perspectives and play "as if" and invert and dissect information is something I see as the very core of high intelligence, they just do not WANT to / are immature / etc. So they self-sabotage. I have honestly never met a person who was highly intelligent yet incapable of these mental tricks (not talking about processing speed, just the ability to figure out the mechanism of the test and solve it the way it was intended). I always conceived intelligence the way that it pretty much was about those exact same skills that those children refuse to apply in some contexts.

 

(Sorry, this was potentially one HUGE off-topic, but maybe it helps at least somewhat to see a bit of where I am coming from, not only in this, but in other matters we talked about in the past too. :))

[onaclairadeluna]

I know that a lot of people repeatedly get upset with me whenever I merely suggest the option that some children fit this profile and some parents fit the profile of tacitly approving it because of the intense focus on the child being so very "special", but I find that this is an important part of the picture which is often neglected when highly intelligent profiles of people are discussed. Simply not all are the same. ALL need adequate support and help, but for some of them, that help really comes along the way of character development rather than intellectual strategies of how to cope with an intellectually inferior world (LOL).

 

 

 

Hmmm... this seems like a can of worms that I am opening. I actually agree with quite a bit of what you are saying. I think it is important to teach our kids to function of course and yes. And as an educator I have seen these kids.

 

I have an alpha wolf thing with my son. If I need him to deal with something unpleasant he will. I have always based our relationship on give and take. I give him opportunities to do what he loves, to work deeply and intensely with content. I ask in return that he learns flexibility.

 

So I really support the idea that we should expect our students to be able to cope with worldly (and/or trivial) things. However, in order to do this it is important to recognize that this is not necessarily easy or pleasant. Too much of this too early can squash a kid, just as none of this could encourage them to be arrogant.

My ultimate conclusion has been that many highly intelligent children need not necessarily be told or suggested just how special they are and that it is typically better for them not to exempted them from the things we expect from everyone else (whether it be standard output - something we argue about so much on these boards - or other things, depending on circumstances). Including expecting that they do the normal tests the way normal people do them and quit making an issue out of conforming to some minimal formal standards. And believe me, many of them CAN do so without fussing if they only decide to do so - they are just really, really good at tricking you into thinking they cannot and that it is a side effect of their intelligence rather than a simple, annoying and highly (self-)destructive character trait it really is.

 

 

I think it is so hard to make judgments across the board on this. I know the kid you are talking about, so I am not saying these kids don't exist. I just know that this attitude would not have worked with DS. And I have gotten standard output from him. So, I know that with my kid something else was more effective. I am not sure I can generalize this to anyone else. I am positive that there are kids that you describe out there. I have seen them. However, I really did have to modify output expectations for years with my child. He is 2e so you can take that into consideration. I think PG kids have issues too. You know a kid who can do trigonometry but needs mommy's help writing it down because he is only 6. This kid I would allow to dictate. While at the same time making sure you give him the skills to do it on his own. You have to do both. It's like training wheels. You don't let a kid ride a bike with training wheels forever but some kids need them in the beginning.

 

But yeah we were talking about different things. I was just saying that the score on your typical standardized test isn't going to correlate that well with your gifted population. Not so much that they won't be able to learn how to deal with those tests or should be exempted from them. I really really really hate standardized tests but I make my child do them every year for this reason. It's a skill he needs to learn so I bit my lip and tell him to take the test.

[onaclairadeluna]

But I was that kid. Captain of the football team, class president, missed being valedictorian due to a grave injustice in one class, one marking period (still hurts :D).

 

 

Now I will always picture you in a football uniform.:)

 

Something tells me that you did ok in spite of your dismal education. And you were identified. So, you know, even when kids are identified it's not like they get that much. Avoiding failure and getting into a good school is usually the most we can expect. And of course there's always sports and music. Or at least there used to be.

Edited October 27, 2011 by onaclairadeluna

[Penelope]

No, you are missing my point. A lot of over-generalizing takes place in these areas. There are no doubt twice-exceptional children. But, unlike the common stereotype of the highly gifted, there are also children who are social, who make friends easily, who enjoy school, who are not constantly frustrated, who enjoy playing sports and are athletic, who have leadership qualities, and who in most measures appear quite "normal."

 

Last year at our school Open House we got a handout titled "What is Gifted?" It had a whole list of attributes (many arguably "negative") that didn't fit my child in the least. There are assumptions out there that ALL highly gifted children MUST BE "misfits", and I do not believe that for a second.

 

All children come in a wide rage of personality types no matter how they score on IQ tests. Some are extroverts, some introverts, some "social", some socially anxious, some loud, some quiet, some focused, some not. On and on.

 

There is a wide enough variation in human beings that we have BOTH highly intelligent people with particular areas of learning difficulties AND those who show a general consistency in the sub-sets measured in cognitive tests. Human intelligence is complex, and our measurement techniques are crude.

 

Bill

 

:thumbup1:

[Runningmom80]

Does anyone else find the dynamic of this board so......weird? I just can't figure you guys out. :lol: I don't mean to be negative, but I find myself like this :confused::confused::confused: at a lot of these posts.

 

 

No one kid is alike. No one gifted kid is alike. Some are misfits. Some are not. A lot depends on how gifted a kid is. I'm guessing, that since most gifted kids are MG, (bell curve) most gifted kids are in fact happy and thriving. That's not to say that you can't have a happy and thriving PG kid in a public school as well. But, for every PG kid that's happy and social and "normal," there's at least one that's frustrated and miserable. That has to be at least a tiny bit correct, or that stereotype wouldn't exist. I'd rather people assume that they are miserable and unchallenged, so that we keep an eye on them, and ideally, constantly re evaluate the situation, then it be assumed that all of them are successful social butterflies, and the miserable ones keep suffering.