Article: Why Kids Need to Learn to Lose

[Crimson Wife]

This is about sports rather than academics or music but I think it's relevant to the recent discussion about competition: http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2013/09/30/why-kids-need-to-learn-to-lose/

[JumpyTheFrog]

One of the people commenting on the article had this to say:

 

 

 

After seeing high school freshman baseball players crushed because they were cut from baseball tryouts, I realized many of the kids playing sports had never been told they were not good enough to play on a given team. The parents also were shocked that their sons were not on the team and demanded the coach's head. If you wait until high school to experience true competition, then the fall is much harder for both kids and parents.

 

While our town sports league does give out participation trophies (even to kids who miss half the games and practices), I'm glad they at least keep score. It's silly to avoid keeping score in leagues for elementary kids because they all try to keep score in their heads anyway. I can understand not keeping score for 3-4 year-olds, but really, team sports at those ages is almost pointless.

 

[Dmmetler]

My DD's cheer does trophies for everyone-and by about age 5, the kids could care less about the trophy. What they want to know is-did their team place and move on to the next level? I really wish there were a box to check on the registration form for "Just skip the darned trophy"-because I'm pretty sure that most of the parents would check it.

 

I will say that I do participation awards for our homeschool science showcase because we simply have so few kids in each age group and category that we'd be comparing apples to oranges. When you only have two physics projects, and one is by a high school student and one is by a 6 yr old, it's kind of hard to compare them. So, we have the kids come in, demonstrate and talk about their project, our judges score each, but each child then gets their score sheet and participation certificate. If we actually had a decent number of entries, maybe.

 

 

We play a lot of board games at home, which I think helps. One thing I have seen with my DD in academics-she would rather lose to a "worthy adversary" than have an easy win. I'm guessing a big part of that came from parents who played Carcassone and Scrabble with a 3 yr old instead of Chutes and Ladders and Candy Land-even with a lot of tweaks, that's not an even playing field, so she got a lot of practice at losing and applauding "I made a BIG word this time!!!"  (although at almost 9, she can now give us a run for our money on a lot of strategy-type games-we may have created a monster).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SKL]

As the article notes, kids know the "everyone wins" trophies mean nothing.  My girls like collecting them but they know there is no link to their talent or effort.  Personally I think it is a huge waste of time and effort, but I don't think it's damaging because kids are not in fact being fooled.

 

I personally think it is OK to not compete to win.  It isn't everybody's thing.  Competition is not in fact motivating to every child.  As far as life lessons, there are plenty of other ways a child comes to realize that they are not great at everything they try.  I think it's good that there are competitive contests for those who thrive on them, and other beneficial activities for those who don't.  I think it is wrong to force a child into competition (as opposed to letting the child choose) in an area where the child is not talented.  And I also am not terribly impressed by the mom's preference that her child become essentially obsessed with a sport.  If the child is wired that way herself, that's one thing, but the mom seemed a bit too invested emotionally.

 

My kids go to the Little Gym which is non-competitive.  At present we have no appetite for formal sports competition.  However, there is a sort of exhibition team called the "Jets" which is invitation-only, and at least one of my kids aspires to be on that team.  She knows that she will have to develop her skills, her focus, and her ability to remember routines before she has a chance to be on that team.  It's up to her how hard she decides to work.  (My other kid could really care less at this point and that is OK with me.)

 

Another example - the national fitness tests at school - it is not technically competitive, yet both of my kids experienced disappointment as they did not reach the levels they wanted to reach.  I know they will try to do better next year.  One of them will try for presidential.  The other will probably try not to be the slowest runner in the school.  ;)  As long as they are active, I don't see a problem.

 

Similarly at TKD, there is no formal competition (at least at our level), but if you don't focus and learn your stuff, you are going to be a white belt forever.  Each person gets to decide how comfortable they are with their status quo.  Personally I don't plan on trying for the next belt until I'm pretty sure I qualify for it.  That's just the way I roll.  And I am actually pretty good at dealing with stress and disappointment.  Real life has dished out plenty of that; I never felt the need to pay someone to provide it.  ;)  I am pretty sure the same will be true for both of my kids.

 

I guess if you have a kid who is talented at everything, you might need to go looking for opportunities to disappoint her.  Fortunately neither of my kids has that problem.  ;)

[Nart]

Recreational sports leagues can be useful for kids starting out. It makes sense not to run up the score and to let everyone have equal playing time. If you live in an area with competitive leagues, then switch your kids over and they will get plenty of competition with no participation trophies.

My 6 year old in AYSO soccer was the star player on both his fall and spring teams. He wanted to play "real" soccer with goalies and keeping score. After he would score several goals in a game he had to play defense or sit out so the score wasn't run up. He didn't care about the participation trophy. So at the beginning of summer I had him try out for a team that plays in a primarily Hispanic league where there are goalies, score is kept, no guarantee of equal playing time, and you can run up the score- even for the U5 division which is for 4 year olds. It has been a great experience for my son. He was in shock that all the boys on his team were as good or better than he is. He is now motivated to work on things that are challenging for him like shooting with his left foot. The level of competition is intense and he loves it.

Most kids who are making the cut in high school sports like soccer and baseball have been playing on travel/club teams for years.

[MinivanMom]

Interesting article, but I'm not sure we can lay all the blame at the foot of youth rec sports.  I think the attitude of the parents in focusing on innate ability and wins/awards can cause more harm than handing out participation trophies.  Nor do I think that enrolling children in competitions is a magic cure for the problem.  Losing could be helpful if there is a parent in the background modeling good sportsmanship and pointing out that the winner probably trained (or studied or practiced) very hard to become the winner.  Losing isn't going to be helpful if the child doesn't connect their lack of effort to the loss or if (heaven forbid) the parent models poor sportsmanship.  Some of the worst examples of sportsmanship I have seen are in competitive youth sports.  It's not the first place I would look for my kids to learn how to lose gracefully.  On the contrary, I feel like we do a lot of damage control with our kids on the sidelines and after games.

 

For my own children, I have found that they haven't been ready to deal with competition and losing until they reach about the age of 8 or so.  I've been very grateful for noncompetitive sports leagues and other noncompetitive learning environments for my younger children.  We do the hard work of praising their effort in specific ways to encourage hard work and intrinsic motivation, and I don't think the participation trophies/ribbons/certificates have harmed them at all.  My two oldest kids are now older and they have participated in competitive sports, academic competitions, music competitions, and ballet auditions.  They have both probably done more losing than winning and it has been very good for them.  However, we continue to talk and talk and talk about the role of effort in achievement and about winning and losing gracefully.  I think the attitudes that dh and I display continue to have a much bigger effect on them than the act of competing itself.

[Crimson Wife]

As far as life lessons, there are plenty of other ways a child comes to realize that they are not great at everything they try.

I think you miss the point- that even if you ARE good at something, there are people out there who are better than you. Many of my college classmates could not handle going from always winning to being just average.

 

Failing at something that you are not great at isn't hard to handle emotionally. What kids need to learn is how to handle losing at something that is a strength.

[SKL]

I think you miss the point- that even if you ARE good at something, there are people out there who are better than you. Many of my college classmates could not handle going from always winning to being just average.

 

Failing at something that you are not great at isn't hard to handle emotionally. What kids need to learn is how to handle losing at something that is a strength.

 

I don't know, I'm finding this hard to picture.  (I was a college / grad school student for 9 years and have taught grad school courses as well, so I have some clue on these things.)  It's an adjustment to realize that you actually have to work hard to succeed in higher education.  I experienced the adjustment as well (in a competitive law school).  I'm sure there were times when I wondered if I was actually intelligent or those test scores were a fluke.  I felt anxiety over how I would pay my massive student loans if I was indeed incompetent.  But I figured out what to do and how to think about it, and I got through it.  This was no worse than many other adjustments we make as we move between life stages.  It isn't something young people need to be protected / immunized against.  That's just as silly as trying to tell young kids they have talents they don't possess.

 

I don't believe there are people who, by college, haven't noticed there are probably people who are better than they in every area.  That doesn't stop people from wanting to be the best, but wanting to be the best is not some sort of mental illness.

[Dmmetler]

I think the problem comes when kids are constantly told they're the best and are left in situations where they are the best without ever having the opportunity to challenge themselves. I can think of one particular former friend of my DD's who's mother seems to be setting her child up for this. She has a bright, athletically talented child. And she has habitually put her DD in situations where it's not challenging to her to be the best. For example, when her school put her at a higher level in the independent math and reading practice programs (where the kids compete for points and get awards), her mother bragged about going to the school and telling them to put her child's level back to her grade level because "it's not fair that she has to do harder work than everyone else to get the same points". Not surprisingly, her DD was able to rack up a lot of points in both and get awards for doing so at the end of the year. She truly doesn't understand why I don't just leave my DD in PS 3rd grade where she, too, would win a lot of awards and have a perfect transcript.

 

 

 

For my DD, losing in math contests, where she's good and where she regularly gets comments like "This is my friend DD-she's a math genius" (this happened at a science classmate's birthday party last Spring) from both kids and adults has been very helpful. It's helpful because she feels she's not alone-that other people really do understand where she's coming from and why this is important for her, but it's also important because she realizes she IS just one of a number of people who are good in math. It gives her reason to work instead of saying "well, I'm the only 8 yr old that I know who is doing algebra, therefore I'm the best at math ever".

 

I think that as a parent, this board (and other GT forums are important to me for the same reason). It's both comforting to hear from parents of other advanced kids that my DD isn't the only one out there-and it's also important to know that she's not the most advanced kid out there, so we can't just sit back and assume that she's going to get college scholarships and career opportunities for breathing. It's been a learning curve on both our parts to realize that getting a 40% on a science section pre-test means we've finally found the right level, and that it's OK to occasionally have no clue where to start a starred AOPS problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SunshineMom]

Wouldn't rewarding mediocrity actually be a factor in creating underachievement for those that would otherwise enjoy competition?   I have seen kids who have been over rewarded and later been disappointed when they realize they had been lied to. I am not sure why in our present culture we are extending childhood by giving out such unearned awards (i.e. according to the article 4&5yrs old know who is deserving).  Is it because the harsh reality is that others really are truly doing better, as in the world (i.e. TIMMS) and parents in an effort to pacify their own feelings, protect their children's self-esteem and over reward?  BTW US kids have the highest rated level of "overrated self-esteem regarding their achievement" despite evidence of actual achievement to the contrary. The idea that someone can win if they just believe is ridiculous, hard work is what builds self-esteem.  I do think in some cases trophies for effort are necessary, such as with special needs kids but to tell kids "everyone has earned a reward" is essentially creating a generation of underachievers.

 

[SKL]

I don't think that is even happening in truly competitive activities (which do still exist).  In "recreational" activities, isn't mediocrity kind of the point?  You can go do gym for an hour, get your exercise, be with other kids, and only improve your skill a little bit.  So what??  Sounds like childhood on the playground when I was a kid.  Is it wrong to parent a child without the goal of getting her into the Olympics?

 

In academics, the schools are supposed to set baselines and kids are not supposed to be promoted if they don't reach them, or at the very least, they are supposed to be informed that college is not going to go well for them if they can't do well in high school.  Is that not happening?  In my world all kids by around middle school have a clue as to whether they are going to vo ed, community college, state college, or something more competitive.  A few late bloomers do surprise themselves in a good way, but I haven't seen any mediocre kids get to college and say "how come nobody told me I had to actually be able to read and write??"

 

It seems to be agreed that the non-competitive medals don't fool the kids.  Given that, it makes no sense to then say the kids are being confused to a point where they are going to have mental problems over those stupid medals.  Think of it like school supplies.  When a little kid goes to school, his parents will try to buy a pretty pencil, notebook, or backpack to delight the child.  It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the child is an acer or a flunkie.  It's just part of the tradition.  When a child doesn't learn enough in school, does this mean we blame the inanimate object that nobody mentally attached to achievement level?  Is illiteracy caused by pretty pencils?

 

I think parents of all kinds of kids (competitive and non) need to focus on the fact that every human has value completely apart from his talents.  And that everyone has times when they fail.  I've worked with extremely intelligent people who had a hard time with the fact that their intelligence was not sufficient to solve every kind of problem.  They had never bothered to develop other strengths because they were so full of their superior genius, and the other stuff was hard for them.  Of course I've also seen people who were surprised that their charisma wasn't enough without intelligence, or their fancy diploma wasn't enough without mutual respect, etc.  Hyperfocus in one area is not something I would encourage, especially in a child whose strengths aren't naturally well-balanced.

[Nan in Mass]

I wonder how much of this sports trend is a reflection of a trend towards being a kinder, more cooperative society. Wouldn't that be nice? People may be the same but societies and the things they value do change, although I think it is tricky to find a balance between valuing the group and cooperation, and the inclusion of every individual, the valuing of every individual, and an atmousphere where every individual is encouraged to become the best they can be.

 

I think it is important not to lie to children, but at the same time, their world is of necessity small when they themselves are small. As they grow, their world needs to become bigger. Adjusting to the bigger world is difficult, sometimes, but most people manage to make those adjustments as needed. I think it is easier if that world grows in smaller increments rather than larger ones, but a child who is used to their world occasionally suddenly getting bigger and the adjustments this requires is more able to make a large adjustment, like to university, when it is necessary.

 

Despite the idea that they eventually have to learn that they aren't the best and that being the "best" and getting the correct answer does matter upon occasion when one is grown up : ), I think it is important that within the family we be careful what we praise. I think it is better to praise hard work than to praise success. When you praise success, you risk setting up a situation where children think you value success too much and refuse to try unless they can be assured of succeeding.

 

When it comes to sports, I think different sports support the idea of hard work and failure and losing and not being the best in different ways. My children were in gymnastics. It was abundently obvious whether they were "good" or not. They fell until they were able to do a skill properly. They shared space and equipment with older gymnasts who were able to do things they could not. When they were some of the best in the gym, they went to meets where there were people who were better than they were and watched meets where the people were spectacular. Advancing meant getting to learn cooler things and getting to compete against better gymnasts. It was hard not to understand just exactly how hard the spectacular gymnasts had worked and exactly how big a gulf there was between what you were doing and they. "Winning" didn't really enter into the equation the way it does when you are on a soccer team. Mine weren't particularly competative. I'm sure they would have been better gymnasts if they had been driven by the need to be the best, but it was perfectly possible for them to continue to work and compete at a fairly high level all the way through high school. Mine also did things with older Japanese people. They were not at all shy about telling my children where they had failed GRIN. Neither were my parents. Grownups in our family tend to be cautious with praise, anyway. And nobody would dream of losing on purpose so a small child could win, although we freely share our wealth so the game will continue if it looks like somebody is going to lose and end the game, or alter the rules to even out the age differences. We did it openly, though, and the object was to make the game LAST longer, not to win. Winning was a matter of smiling and saying, "I win! Want to play again?" Anything else was discouraged. I think this did a lot to tone down the competativeness of some of my children, something we wanted. We wanted children who worked hard, were generous with their gifts and successes, weren't afraid to try things that might not work, were willing to try again when they failed. We were fairly successful and I think a lot of it had to do with what we did with them when they were little. We could easily have wound up with highly competative perfectionists who refused to try or play unless they knew they were going to succeed or win. We worked hard to keep that from happening. I don't think a few participation awards as youngsters really had much to do with it one way or another.

 

Our youngest just left for university. It has been interesting watching him adjust to a larger world, one where instead of obviously being one of the smarter students, he is near the bottom, where his herculean efforts are producing C's. It has been especially interesting seeing what the university is doing to try to ease this adjustment from big fish to little fish and to encourage its student body to take risks. They have openly recognized that in order to get into university, their student population had to be competative and could not afford to take risks or put themselves in any situation where they might fail to get less than stellar grades or req's. That, however, is not the sort of person they want their school to be known for. They want cooperative players and innovators. Innovators fail a lot lol.

 

Nan

[SKL]

I think the problem comes when kids are constantly told they're the best and are left in situations where they are the best without ever having the opportunity to challenge themselves. I can think of one particular former friend of my DD's who's mother seems to be setting her child up for this. She has a bright, athletically talented child. And she has habitually put her DD in situations where it's not challenging to her to be the best. For example, when her school put her at a higher level in the independent math and reading practice programs (where the kids compete for points and get awards), her mother bragged about going to the school and telling them to put her child's level back to her grade level because "it's not fair that she has to do harder work than everyone else to get the same points". Not surprisingly, her DD was able to rack up a lot of points in both and get awards for doing so at the end of the year. She truly doesn't understand why I don't just leave my DD in PS 3rd grade where she, too, would win a lot of awards and have a perfect transcript.

 

I was thinking about this yesterday, wondering how much of this applies to kids whose parents redshirted them in order to make sure school was easy for them and they would be top students.  Studies have shown that kids will learn more if you let them be the youngest rather than the oldest in the class.  But it won't be easy.  However, who ever said easy is best?  At some point life is going to get hard.  Humans are designed to deal with a difficult life.  We just need to keep our egos in check.

 

In my kids' class I see that kids who are a year and more older than my kids are having an easier time with the material.  Well, of course they are.  But sooner or later they are going to be up against a tough problem that a one-year age advantage won't fix.  And those kids who had to work hard in school are going to press forth undaunted.

[SKL]

Although I think some people might red shirt simply because they feel kids are pushed too soon to do too much. 

 

I agree, but I suspect these are not the same parents who are focused on their kids being top students on paper.

 

[SKL]

I think it is perfectly fine for a parent to take their individual child into consideration when deciding when to send them. 

 

I am not debating that, but in connection with the "kids need experience in failure" theme, I think some parents are too afraid to send kids at an age when school will be an actual challenge (academically).

 

The sitting still thing is more a problem with the way schools structure kindergarten in my opinion.  Kids can do tons of learning without sitting still, but teachers need to be trained to facilitate that.  I do understand that parents have no control over that other than holding their child back, or dealing with the teacher complaints (BTDT).  Though for a bright child, there is a different kind of torture if they have to sit through the ABCs and 123s all day when they have known these things as long as they can remember.  I am sure I would have fidgeted more if I had to do the ABCs when I was nearly 6.  But again, all kids are different.

 

[SKL]

If one is not in the honors program, one is not in college prep...there is no other game in town.

 

I wonder how common that is in the US - I assume not very.  Here, everyone signs up for the classes they want.  As long as they have passed the prerequisite, there is no other restriction.  Of course a guidance counselor might try to talk one out of it, but it's still the student's choice.  My brother was a very intelligent student but very badly organized, and thus had rather low grades.  He had no trouble taking the highest math and science courses (which he of course aced since it was his "thing").  Then again, we were not picky about the college we went to.  Basically there was one college we could drive to and since we could not afford on-campus lodging, that is where we all went.  ;)  It didn't hurt us any in the grand scheme of things.

[SKL]

It depends on what the challenge is though.  If it's challenging for a 5 year old to sit still for several hours I don't think I need to set my kid up for that failure. 

This brings up another thing I wonder about.  When it comes to school, is it a given that a young child who is not up to the challenge (physical, mental, or otherwise) is a failure?  And we are OK with that but not OK with the same reality in sports etc.?  If that is so, why?

[Dmmetler]

Is it OK? I really don't think it is around here-that's one reason why there are so many "honor roll" students scoring at the "basic" or lower levels on state tests,and "citizenship" awards, "bringing up grades" and lots of other honors appear along with honor roll. The school I used to teach at would have saved a lot of time if they'd just handed a kid a packet of ribbons, trophies, and certificates at registration, because they truly did give an award, every grading period, to every single k-2 kid.And almost every 3rd-6th grader, too. They meant as much as participation trophies for any kid over about age 6. A lot of them ended up crumpled in the back of desks at the end of the year.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I get annoyed by participation trophies. It isn't because I think only the best few players should be acknowledged. My problem is that they are handed out even to kids who didn't really try, never worked to improve at all, and/or missed more games than they played! I am not bothered if a player on a team sport isn't very good, as long as he seem like he is trying to follow what the coach says, pay attention, and work to improve. Not everyone can be the best, but everyone can work hard and improve. Improvement and hard work should be rewarded. (Sometimes the best players don't improve and may not even work hard.) Merely showing up and standing on the field, while ignoring the game in progress, in my opinion, doesn't deserve a trophy.

 

Of course, I am a naturally competitive person. Maybe the above makes little sense to some of you, so let me put it another way: Kids should be competing with themselves, always trying to improve, whether in music, academics, and sports. Team sports don't make much sense until kids are old enough to pay attention, understand the rules, and try hard, and for many kids, that might not be until age 7-8. I see little point in putting kids that are only four in soccer, considering how many of them still have trouble with the coordination of running.

[SunshineMom]

Remember this Wellesley commencement speech last year?

[JumpyTheFrog]

RoyRogers,

 

Does the drama class have a lot of no-shows at rehearsals and classes? Are there kids who don't practice their lines? Or do they mostly want to be there and do well?

 

In our town rec soccer league, at least in the under 8 division, there are more than a few kids who don't seem to want to be there. It's frustrating to coaches and teammates to have to rely on kids who just complain about having to run or who just stand around and make no attempt to get near the ball.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Remember this

last year?

I just read the transcript. My favorite line was how Americans have "come to love accolades more than genuine achievement."

[jennynd]

I think you miss the point- that even if you ARE good at something, there are people out there who are better than you. Many of my college classmates could not handle going from always winning to being just average.

 

Failing at something that you are not great at isn't hard to handle emotionally. What kids need to learn is how to handle losing at something that is a strength.

I can't tell you how much I agree with this. I was one of those can't handle when I came to realize I am not the smartest in my class when I was in the PhD program... I did not finish it....

And this is the very thing that my pediatrician told me to do when my DS read a book in her office at his 2 year old check up. ...

[jennynd]

Again, I don't get this. If anything that sort of thing only makes me want to work harder. And if in the end I fall flat on my face, so what, I know I worked hard. I get back up and I try again or do something else.

You spent all your life believing and knowing you are the best and smartest without ANY effort. You thought Einstain only got his name because he was born earlier than you by few years.... All you illusions crushed when you realize that there is a whole universe that you never know...I never was able to get my self together to finish my PhD... I call my Mom every week that I can't bear that and I want to go home...

 

 

And what you said was the point.... Some kid need to learn how to fall flat on their face and " learn " how to stand up... I never did.... And oh boy if I have learned...

[JumpyTheFrog]

You spent all your life believing and knowing you are the best and smartest without ANY effort.

I call this "small pond syndrome." It's easy to be the big fish in a small pond, but being the "big fish" out in the ocean is completely different.

[jennynd]

I call this "small pond syndrome." It's easy to be the big fish in a small pond, but being the "big fish" out in the ocean is completely different.

And the little fish never knew that there is a possibility that ther is a big fish.... Out of my graduated school class.. One lady from China was ranked number 1 the year she graduated out her province of shangshi, china. Another lady was ranked number 2 in Mongolia province in her graduation year..1 gentleman finished his first year and transfer to MIT for PhD ... We had 11 kids in my phD class.... Only few kids that I can beat ..and they all managed to finished phD ..., My husband included... And he finished his PhD even though I beat him in every subject that we were in the same class,,,

 

 

I don't know... I just want to cry now thinking back..... My advisor who later became the head of graduate school told me that he will take me back but I decline it because my DS was just born .. And now he passed away due to cancer.. I miss my advisor so much.... Can I share this,....

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI7fOdd3aaw

 

He was my advisor....

[Arcadia]

You spent all your life believing and knowing you are the best and smartest without ANY effort

I assume Taiwan is as crazy competitive as Singapore. My friends who are in their early 40s believe in 胎教 （teaching baby before baby is born) and they are always comparing to international smart people. Maybe because Singapore is so small that my generation have been taught to always compete on the global scale or lose our livelihood to another country. We were taught to believe there is someone somewhere in the world that is smarter and being complacent is "dumb". The rabbit/hare and tortoise story is already ingrained since preschool in our memories.

[SKL]

You spent all your life believing and knowing you are the best and smartest without ANY effort. You thought Einstain only got his name because he was born earlier than you by few years.... All you illusions crushed when you realize that there is a whole universe that you never know...I never was able to get my self together to finish my PhD... I call my Mom every week that I can't bear that and I want to go home...

 

 

And what you said was the point.... Some kid need to learn how to fall flat on their face and " learn " how to stand up... I never did.... And oh boy if I have learned...

 

Another way to view this is that you just weren't one of those people who are motivated by competition.  And you never really met competition before, because you are so smart.

 

I think it's a personality trait that tells some people "enough is enough" while the same experience tells another person "never give up."

 

It is OK not to relish extremely tough competition, in my opinion.  Yes, that means you may not end up at the absolute top of your profession.  Neither will almost anyone else.  It's OK.

 

The fact that you were able to know when you had had enough might be viewed as a good thing.

[Dana]

Do you think this is a typical problem though? This sounds a bit on the extreme end. I'm not trying to be mean or insensitive. Just saying, I don't know how many people think like this.

It may be a bit extreme, but the general idea is also very common when reading on gifted boards. It's partially why I push my son the way I do. I want him to get used to expending effort. I LOVE it when I've been able to see him struggle with a math problem over a couple of days before finally getting it.

 

I know I could have gotten more out of my undergrad degree if I'd learned how to study better and how to struggle more. I can definitely relate to jennynd, although I only made it to a masters and didn't have the PhD experience.

[MinivanMom]

Do you think this is a typical problem though?  This sounds a bit on the extreme end.  I'm not trying to be mean or insensitive.  Just saying, I don't know how many people think like this.

 

I don't think it's a common problem among the general population, because the general population has never had the experience of being so smart and/or talented that they have always . . . always . . . trounced the competition with no effort.  My personal experience is that it is a very big problem among the highly gifted and/or prodigiously talented.  They have literally never not been number 1 in their area of talent . . . they have never lost . . . they have never come in second.  When that first failure doesn't come until college - or until you enter your PhD program - then it is going to be a tough, fall-on-your-face, demoralizing failure. 

 

It may not be a common issue for the general population or even for moderately gifted children, but it is a problem among the highly/prodigiously gifted.

[Nan in Mass]

I don't think it's a common problem among the general population, because the general population has never had the experience of being so smart and/or talented that they have always . . . always . . . trounced the competition with no effort.  My personal experience is that it is a very big problem among the highly gifted and/or prodigiously talented.  They have literally never not been number 1 in their area of talent . . . they have never lost . . . they have never come in second.  When that first failure doesn't come until college - or until you enter your PhD program - then it is going to be a tough, fall-on-your-face, demoralizing failure. 

 

It may not be a common issue for the general population or even for moderately gifted children, but it is a problem among the highly/prodigiously gifted.

 

[Nan in Mass]

Sigh - quote doesn't work for me.  It ate my post.

 

Trying again:

 

So - I only have this problem a little.  I am only brightish and my children are only brightish.  Lots of people out there better than we are at lots of things lol.  But still... my children were in many situations where they were much better than anybody else around, enough that arrogance was definately something that I worried about.  Drop a competent, well-trained teenager into a situation with typical utterly stupid, unthinking teenagers (or adults, for that matter) and you get a teenager who has a distorted view of himself.  Unless you value things that aren't something the child can do without effort and put the child in situations with people who CAN do those things well.  Travel to places with foreign customs and foreign languages helps.  Emphasizing unselfishness and compassion helps.  It helps if you know a few "saints", especially if those saints are publicly veneratated.  Situations where peole are working long days at something physical that requires skill help.  Things like music and gymnastics help, things that take long hours of practice even if one is talented to begin with.  Exposure to lots of different kinds of people who are valued for many different things helps.  It helps if that teenager has siblings, uncles, cousins, aunts, grandparents who are all holding him to a high standard and all of whom are good at things themselves.  Mine were dumped into situations where it didn't matter how good they were at some things, they STILL had to struggle.  For example, youngest (my biggest problem) was sent with fairly limited building skills and very limited Japanese to fix up, by himself, a dilapidated temple in Japan for a nun who didn't speak any English.  He had to deal with plumbing, woodwork, and electrical work in a strange language with strange tools.  This did nothing to help him be kinder to a typical idiotic US teenager, but it definately helped him not to think he could do everything well.  I think the biggest problems occur when the child's world is small or narrow. I think it is easy to narrow a child's world in an effort to keep them challenged and to fully train their gifts.  It is a tricky balance.

Nan

[Soror]

I'm definitely *not* a super genius but I well understand the belief that you are so smart and then realizing that you don't know half of what you thought you did, my biggest realization of this has been on this forum. I don't know if it is common or not. I think it is part personality and part upbringing. When you are a people pleasing perfectionist and praised for being so smart it is a likely outcome. My world was certainly small as well.

 

I think the book Mindset resonates so much for me because I have lived it, not wanting to try for fear of failure, believing if I had to work hard at something I wasn't smart. It is a very real phenomenon and one our American culture nurtures more often than not.

 

I hope to spare my children of this. I really try hard to emphasize hard work and persistence. My son seems to have the persistent gene, my daughter(1) takes after me so much I worry about how I can drive home the fact that failure is good, and trying is to be celebrated. She is wonderfully compasionate though, hopefully I can teach her to extend that compassion to herself.

[Soror]

I LOVE it when I've been able to see him struggle with a math problem over a couple of days before finally getting it.

I try to do this as well. I discuss with them often if they are getting everything right w/ little work or effort than their work is too easy. Ds was just telling me last week that I need to make his work harder. I have to watch this more w/ my daughter though as she gets frustrated more easily and is very hard on herself. It is hard to find that sweet spot of work that is *just* challenging enough. Getting rid of this idea that smart= no effort or 100% right all the time was a challenge for me at first as well.

[Nan in Mass]

I took the attitude that if they could do something well, we weren't doing the right thing.  I deliberately picked a math program that forced my children to struggle.  By struggle, I mean that it was not uncommon not to get 1/3 of the problems.  (We solved them together the next day.)  We didn't usually do curriculums where the assignments were laid out by somebody else.  I mostly chose methods of studying a subject that had a "routine" that one repeated over and over again.  The "routine" was very hard to do well at the beginning.  They slowly improved over time as they went through it again and again.  Often, the routine was something that *I* could have benefited from practising as well lol.  This made it hard to grade their work so I didn't assign grades.  We corrected and I critiqued but I didn't assign a grade.  They often picked their own paper topics, which meant they grew with the child.  Most of their written work started with a blank piece of paper.  They "failed" at most of what they did because if they could do it well, I said, "Oh, you obviously don't need to do that.  We better do something else."  And I'd pick something they COULDN'T do for them to practise.  This method has some major disadvantages, of course, for which one needs to compensate, but it has the advantage that they are used to failing.  Two of mine were builders, as well.  When they are young, builders try to build lots of things that won't work because they don't have the needed skills or the proper materials.  They are really used to failing lol.  (I am watching my 3yo nephew try to build an airplane out of straws and joiners that is too large for the strength of the joiners.  It keeps falling apart and he keeps saying to himself, "I am so frustrated that this keeps falling apart.  I will have to try again."  (Keeping that sort of persistence through the teen years is the challenge.)  Failing isn't exactly the same thing as losing, but I think failing lots helps one to learn to lose.

 

Nan