Slashdot Mirror
The Prodigy Puzzle
theodp writes "Once neglected, the NY Times reports that America's smartest children have become the beneficiaries of a well-organized effort to recognize their gifts and develop their talent. Programs like those offered by the Davidson Institute, run by Bob and Jan Davidson of Math and Reading Blaster fame, have sprung up to nurture the intellectual development of profoundly intelligent young people. But do we know how to identify the child whose brilliance might change the world? And do we really want to?"
When children say things like "This is boring" or "Will I learn anything this year in school?", their needs should be accommodated. It seems criminal, yet all too often such children's pleas simply go ignored.
Do we know how to identify all of them? No. But better to identify the ones we can, and give them every advantage we can, rather than simply running them through a system that, to them, would proceed at a glacial pace.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Hey, I understand that the more enlightened children should be groomed or challenged to help them reach their potential but they are still children and should be given time to grow. Also what about helpping out the other 97 percent. I think America would be better off with 97 percent average or above children then 3 percent genius and 97 percent retarted. ... then again ....
Michael
Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
No. Not now not ever.
Geniuses are human beings.
They are considered geniuses because they find ways to be brilliant in this mudane world. Separating them from the herd, so to speak, is liable to make them worse than the MENSA card carrying folk, and entirely disconnected from what it means to be human.
Oh, and genius often cannot be measured in IQ tests. IQ tests don't actually test the ability to learn or understand new concepts.
Sure, there is a certain amount of smarts required for those nifty inventions, those startling revalations and those 'hot damn why didn't I think of that' moments, but more often then not its about having the motivation. My sister who isn't too bright and barely grasps the concept of shared printers, got a UAI of 99.3, and was working 2 jobs, while studying at Uni. Me on the other hand, prefered to read slashdot and ended up working as telemarketer for a couple of months.
Motivation is what changes the world. Attitude is central to survival, not always intelligence.
Karma whoring
How long until every parent asks why little Johnny or little Mary isn't in the "gifted" program. Surely they are the smartest in their class. Why does it seem like we hear about some sort of drive for the gifted every few years, but then it amounts to nothing? I'd bet that it's simply that people are unwilling to tell parents that their kid doesn't know jack, if only because of the lawyers.
I wish I had been in something that would've challenged me when I was younger, rather than simply being bored to tears after either already knowing things or figuring them out after 30 seconds. Yes, it's a shame that smart kids are still relegated to the same level of classes as the below-average kids, but can you really blame school districts for not wanting to go out on a limb and classify students? How many lawsuits would that bring up?
Instead we get education that suits neither the brightest nor the dimmest, nor pretty much anyone for that matter. We just get simple, boiled down cookie cutter lessons for everyone. No wonder public education sucks.
Hear, hear.
When I was a kid, people asked me if I wanted to become "the next Bill Gates". Most seemed to think that money or power was my end goal in life.
While there are bright kids that seek that, I'd say the majority of them would rather pursue interests in some field of study that appeals to them. Most of them don't have the disposition that they'd need in the business or political world, because 1: they don't like to screw people over and 2: they aren't willing to compromise their ideals. Knowledge for knowledge's sake, good for goodness' sake.
Well, there are several kinds of "This is boring"-types of kids.
- The dumb slacker or jock, who doesn't bother trying.
- The timid kid who is scared to try and fail (my sister).
- The smart kid who is unchallenged by the course.
It is sometimes very hard to distinquish which kid is which.
- The unchallegned smart-kid may try to find entertainment in smoking pot, and end up a slacker-- when I was in school it wasn't cool to be smart.
- Nobody admits to being timid, so they act like a cool slacker instead.
- Some dumb slackers like to pretend that they are smart slackers and are just too cool to care.
We need to help all children, certainly. But there comes a time when the kids need to help themselves as well. If you're a 16-year old slacker who doesn't bother trying, I see no reason to give you special treatment because you're old enough to know better. Grow up, or you're going to be pumping gas when you're 30.
It's Thanksgiving and I'm going to go back to my hometown. I get to go see some slackers and jocks who never tried hard enough-- they'll be pumping the gas.
If I was bored in school, I simply found other things to do. I did Boy Scouts, track, marching band and concert band. And I read alot.
We didn't really have this Interweb thing back then, but I probably would have geeked out a fair bit if I had the chance.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
I know a lot of very smart people. Unfortunately, most of them will not amount to much. I mean, they'll be moderately successful, but they won't make the news or anything like that. Why? They have no ambition and no work ethic. What was that quote? "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."
But do we know how to identify the child whose brilliance might change the world?
We've been identifying those we think of as brilliant and world changing for centuries. We've also been laughing at those who think of themselves as brilliant or world changing and telling them to go back to the patent office or selling their lousy paintings and hanging out in Munich's beer halls.
This implies:
1) What we see as brilliant or world changing (whether world changing is good or bad) often isn't. What we don't understand and therefore, in our arrogance, can't identify as brilliance often is.
2) Ever notice how the truly brilliant ones are the ones who faced adversity? The ones who make a real difference seem to do so because they've learned to fight damn hard. The ones we tell are geniuses tend to expect things to be handed to them, are obsessed with their own genius, and rarely seem to really do anything that truly amazing - as opposed to simply being pretty successful and massively bipolar.
Given the second, perhaps the best thing we can do is not identify those poor kids? Adversity seems to harden the amazing ones; over attention seems to lessen them.
In a previous story about a brilliant Korean kid, there were a lot of Slashdotters who were like, "Well, most prodigies probobly don't amount to anything", or "How do we know if they'll contribute much to society". I think that is looking at this from the wrong perspective.
What we should be trying to do isn't trying to get the most out of these kids like we're shareholders in a company, what we should be doing is helping them go where *they* want to go. I am reminded of Dilbert's trash man, who is more brilliant than Dilbert, but works collecting garbage. If he's happy doing that, why should we lament how much "talent he's wasting"? You or I are probably not living up to our potential, either.
Some people were saying that putting kids in advanced classes were a waste because it doesn't lead to smarter adults in the end. I think that's not the point. Imagine doing 5th-grade level math for a whole year, when you can do much harder math. Even if it's easy, you'd be bored to tears and intellectually starved. It's thins kind of thing which leads a lot of bright kids to underperform or become discipline problems. For their sake, I think we should let them go to classes at their level.
a child gets... left behind?... :)
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
That saddens me. Why would you not want to help bright kids acheive their full potential? Are you afraid of change? Do you really prefer this current state? Or do you fear that bright kids will bring about the downfall of civilisation?
I am truly at a loss to understand that state of mind. Really.
I think America would be better off with 97 percent average or above children
Oh, wait...
I think the major problem with this kind of thinking is that gifted programs generally are mostly just trying to take up more of a kid's time. They basically just seem to give extra homework, and are maybe advanced by a year or so in terms of what they are studying.
I don't know anybody who's public school 'gifted program' gave them what they really needed, self expression. Smart kids generally will give that to themselves, but gifted programs, in my opinion, actually stifle their ability to do so by trying to fill up all their time with academic busywork, as if somehow rigid structure is going to make them smarter.
Intelligence is next to nothing without creativity. The benefits of being a couple years ahead of your peers academically diminish greatly as you age. Missing out on the freetime of youth is something very difficult to make up for.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but conformity and "proper" socialization are primary goals of the public schools. They may even be a higher priority than learning.
I hope I don't sound like the type wears a tinfoil hat to block and/or magnify my brain waves, but I really do think that is what the schools are set up to do. And for what it's worth, it's not an entirely bad thing to include some of that in your goals as a school. Society will work better if kids who beat up other kids learn they'll be punished, if people are taught to show up on time and be respectful to others (not just those in authority), if they're encouraged to be organized and dress neatly and all that. The problem happens when learning goes out the window in favor of all those other goals.
I second your theory on this .. I was tested several times in a G.E. program when I was young, and was given an I.Q. that I am always embarrised to share in mixed company, lets just say its a signifigant number.
:)
That out of the way, I SWEAR I have gotten dumber as I have gotten older.
First there were girls,
then money,
then 'advancing my career'.
With each step on society's ladder, i've shed IQ points like water off a duck.
I recently had a kid, He seems pretty bright, and thus will probably bring be down to a nice society average I.Q. in record time
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
Your Uncle is in good company. Einstien was working as a patent clerk because he couldn't find a University that would take him. Getting a formal education and a "good job" has a lot more to do with persistence than IQ. Also there are many differing opinions as to what a "good job" actually is. If your Uncle enjoyed his 40yrs of driving he is not only smart but wise too.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Unless your parents make you do LOTS of chores, the vast majority of your work up until your teens is learning. Your job is to learn, and it is pretty much a full-time job. If you are a really gifted kid, the learning you're typically called on to do is easy. Even trivial.
For example (not to toot my own horn), in elementary school, I was recognized for academic achievement at some kind of school-wide assembly. The principal or whoever was presenting said something like, "I bet you spend a lot of time studying, don't you?". And I said, "Not really." He got annoyed (I wasn't setting a good example or he thought I was being flip), but I was just telling the truth.
Anyway, the point is, if most of the "work" you're called on to do for the first 15 years of your life is trivially easy, then you don't establish very good work habits. You have no need to. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the necessity doesn't exist.
So, in my mind, that is one reason why a gifted kid program could be valuable: they can present you with mental tasks that are difficult enough that you do learn to work. With some luck, you'll establish good habits.
Knowledge for knowledge's sake, good for goodness' sake.
I think that this comment is an accurate description of the ethos that motivates highly intelligent people.
I was chatting with a friend of mine awhile back, and he made a comment that all that really matters in terms of a person's achievements in life is knowledge. Intelligent people achieve the thing they value: knowledge. Sometimes this might lead to diseases being cured or physics being revolutionized, or sometimes it might just lead to someone becomming the world champion on Jepoardy.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
When I was in grade school (East Coast US) I was put into a program called "ATP" (Academically Talented People). Basically they gave everyone in Kindergarten and later the 1st grade half of an IQ test in the classroom. The kids who did well were called into an interview to complete the test. Kids over a certain threshold were put into the ATP program.
Once a week we would leave our regular classroom, and board a bus for a spare classroom in another school, along with kids from other schools in the district. We would study things like Dinosaurs, try to work out puzzles and riddles, and do special "creative" projects like breaking into groups and writing, drawing, and filming our own cartoons using drawings or cutouts and a mounted camera. In 5th grade we were asked to do a project on any topic of our choosing, alone or in a group. I think one of the groups learned how to tie-dye shirts and that was their presentation.
The program also afforded us a second special "class trip" each year, to a museum or something generally educational. I think in the end the jealously from the other kids over this second class trip, plus the physical distinction of dissapearing once a week on the bus balanced favourably against the benefit of the specialized education.
In later years I was diagnosed with ADD (not ADHD), after trouble with grades and paying attention. The high school I attended put me into the "second track" because of it - mainly with the jocks and average students. The "smart" kids were placed in the first track. I think that too happened a just the right time. I spent most of my high school classes in the back of class reading novels, paying just enough attention to get reasonable grades. The jocks looked at me as one of the "smart" kids but I never acted like I was "above" them and made it through all four years without anyone giving me so much as a hard time - despite being a generally shy person.
In the ATP program I learned that I was "smart" and was rewarded with more interesting material and an extra class trip. In high school I learned that I wasn't "better" than anyone else and in a way it was "smarter" to get good grades without having to try hard, since in the end colleges didn't have any concept of which "track" I was in - it looked like I was putting in more effort than I really needed to.
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
Frankly, I think that streaming kids because of intelligence is a criminal act.
This is probably a contentious, inflammatory statement to the slashdot crowd, but there are good reasons behind it.
It has been my experience to watch the results of this misguided, hunchbrained thinking. They are not pretty.
Merely developing intelligence is a cowardly act of dastardly proportions because people are more then just a disembodied intellect. If the entire person is not cultivated, then the classical "brain" shows up; socially inept, emotionally shallow and oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
Contrast this with some of the more colorful characters that established new grounds: Claude Shannon ( Information Theory), Richard Feynmann ( quantum electrodynamics) and others.
These people had real personalities, were socially aware of the rules they were breaking, and why those particular circumstances could accept that challenge in the playful spirit it was offered.
Frankly, enriching the sterile classroom environment would benefit all learners, even if they were a bit slow. This is especially needed at the elementary level, when the realisation of the world as having both order and mystery can forge the best from every person.
Lose the calculators, use the slide rule which gives a tremendous feedback as to the "feel" of arithmetic. Make it real, not abstract and the illiteracy, innumeracy and "common nonsense" bugbears suffer a major blow.
Or, keep the things as they are and we can have our surgery done by educated fools.
Your call.
JB
This is progress?
Haven't you ever read Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's fairly obvious that those who want to run for public office are not qualified to do so. Consider the intelligent people who never stood a chance or voluntarily turned it down. Consider the people who hold the positions today versus those who held it in the past. Lincoln would probably not be even considered today. Quayle was ridiculed out of the chance not because he's ignorant (he's not really, he's actually quite smart) but he couldn't surivive the assault of the media. Gore is a very intelligent person but also could not manage the media presence. All of these people do not have a good presence on the television/radio.
It's not about politics, it's about marketing appeal and sales.
Things were rejigged back in the early 1900's to produce good factory workers. Hence the bells, report cars, raise your hand,
http://reason.com/0110/fe.dp.schools.shtml
Don't forget... Part of the reason nobody wants to change the education system is that most people can't envision a system other than the one they went through.
Every country's school system represents the values that country holds. Chinese citizens are taught to quite, respectful, non-disruptive, etc. The poor bastards won't raise their hands in class to ask a question because it would disrupt the teacher's lecture. Now I've had classes like that, but not an entire educational system.
If you didn't notice, most educational systems do not place the priority on education.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!