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?"

27 of 539 comments (clear)

  1. The children will ask themselves by vijayiyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The children will ask themselves by mattwarden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a super smart kid can't figure out a project of their own, how smart are they?

      If that's the logic we're using, why are they in school at all? If they can't develop their own lesson plans, how smart are they?

      The point is: no matter how apt someone is, the ability to succeed at a task is limited by that person's experience. That's why we have teachers who have gone through the education system and then learned how to re-teach what they learned those 12 years. They can draw on that experience, plus direct teaching experience as their career continues.

      To me it's a little like math classes: you never really know what you're doing in a class until you get two or three classes beyond it. Likewise, a child can't be expected to both learn material and piece it into the bigger picture, most of which has not been exposed yet.

      You might think I'm taking your comment too far, and I probably am. My point is just that the child would benefit much more from guidance on those projects. After all, maybe the student projects were "REALLY REALLY stupid" because the students were never given a hint about what makes a good project.

    2. Re:The children will ask themselves by droptone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't a matter of the kids being unable to find projects to "entertain themselves", because they will surely do that. It is a matter of using the child's interest in learning/education and guiding them. Before you can learn anything in subjects like physics or math you need to know what to learn, because each step builds off of the previous steps. This is where, I feel, the school systems/teachers need to step in. If the child is catching onto basic math quickly, do not tell the child to sit down and wait for the other kids to finish. You are punishing them for being good at something. You don't need to neglect the others kids, if you make sure the exceptional children are mentally stimulated. I don't expect a child to know what he/she needs to learn. Sure, learning on your own is fine for certain subjects (and god knows plenty of people have done just that, e.g. Srinivasa Ramanujan). That does not mean all can do that. You really shouldn't be fatalistic about education, especially if you want any results at all.

      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    3. Re:The children will ask themselves by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You really, really don't understand how different the minds of exceptionally intelligent people work. I'm not talking about the "gifted" people way down there in the 125-140 IQ range, and the article isn't either. First of all people in the 99.9th percentile and better (145+) typically have a range of other mental problems, most famously in the social skills area. Coming up with good ideas for projects and entertaining yourself have very very little to do with intelligence. I have an IQ of 151, and thanks to the public education system, even in the gifted program, I lost all will to learn anything outside of the few topics that are extremely interesting to me, none of which I had any exposure to academically until college since even the gifted programs are aimed to the lowest common denominator, which is the 125-135 people, who aren't too bright. I don't get straight As. The problem in college is, topics that don't interest us still require learning of simple facts, which we are not necessarily motivated to exert the effort to learn.
      Being a genius does not imply being a good student, and vice versa.

    4. Re:The children will ask themselves by norton_I · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A few comments: learning to come up with ideas is the hardest that people can do. Among physics PhDs (a reasonablly intelligent bunch, on average) it is typically to get 12-14 years of training after high school before you are ready to be a professor (or other PI) and come up with your own research ideas. Even exceptionally bright kids will be hard pressed to come up with a complete project that they can do in their free time. In order to cultivate their talents, they need adults to help guide them. Second, most of their time is spent in classes which they are not permitted to leave or ignore even if they had something to do. Their time outside of classes must be divided between whatever extra projects they might be doing and sports, social activities, and family interaction, all of which are also important.

      I personally found ways to entertain myself throught grade school which mostly involved reading books in class, which landed me in both the behavior modification program and the gifted and talented program (I think the only student in both).

      Finally, while even the smartest kid will learn things in their mundane classes, it is still boring to master they days lesson in 10 minutes and have to sit around doing boring excercises while waiting for the other students to figure it out.

    5. Re:The children will ask themselves by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have an IQ of 151, and thanks to the public education system, even in the gifted program, I lost all will to learn anything outside of the few topics that are extremely interesting to me,

      Or maybe you're just fishing for excuses, and are a little too attached to the idea of you being an unappreciated genius? Learning requires effort, and sometimes you need to work harder to learn stuff outside your own interest. Even the boring, simple facts. I had to take classes that I hated because it led me towards a goal that I wanted.

      I mean no disrespect, but you can't pin all your problems on someone else. It seems like you like feeling sorry for yourself. I went to PUBLIC school K-12. In PUBLIC high school my IQ was 145. My school was not exceptional. I never got straight-As. People teased me because I was smart. I did fine because I found my own motivation and did other stuff outside school.

      Now I have a wife, kids, home, career and make 6 figures doing something that I mostly enjoy. I quit my old job on my own terms and start a new job next month.

      Yes-- school could have been much better and productive, but I'm happy I went to public school rather then some isolated elitist school for the new Reich. I got REAL experience.

    6. Re:The children will ask themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "which is the 125-135 people, who aren't too bright. I don't get straight As. The problem in college is, topics that don't interest us still require learning of simple facts, which we are not necessarily motivated to exert the effort to learn.
      Being a genius does not imply being a good student, and vice versa."

      Wait, the 125-135 people aren't too bright, but because you don't get straight A's as log as you got that IQ score of 154 you are somehow a genius? IQ is an outdated measure of intelligence, I scored highly on most IQ tests but I flunked many courses, so does that mean I'm a genius? Whoever still uses it as a total measure of ones intelligence or potential to succeed is a moron. I know people dumber then the brightest people I know that make much more money then they will in their entire lives. So you may be intelligent but that's not correlated to 'success' (i.e. see william james sidis for example).

    7. Re:The children will ask themselves by EEBaum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is the all-or-none way that "gifted" programs are run. You are declared uber-smart and placed in an uber-smart class, proclaimed average and placed in an average class, or labeled a moron and placed in special ed. Because, of course, there are only 3 tiers of ability, and they apply across the board.

      This leads to both isolation of people at each level from the people at other levels, and boredom some of the time at all levels. Someone may be really good at one topic and awful at another, but the classes are taught at just one of the three levels. Rather than giving you something for further enrichment, teachers seem more likely to give you something "to keep you busy while everyone else catches up."

      Also, including people generally pigeonholed at different ones of these artificial levels tends to be better for all. A "special ed" person who is included in a "normal" class will learn how to be around "normal" people, and the "normal" people will learn the material better by helping the "special ed" person along.

      It seems that how much a person learns in school has been quantified to "how many bucketloads of facts you can remember." People in gifted programs are given bucketloads more, people in special ed bucketloads less. Never mind that this tends to have little bearing later in life. The people in the harder classes just become more adept at spewing smart-sounding BS.

      /Dropped honors for regular english 2 years into H.S., not because it was too hard, but because it included countless hours of random busy work that wasn't worth the time.

      --
      -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
    8. Re:The children will ask themselves by HooliganIntellectual · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well some of us are smart enough to understand that IQ tests are only good for measuring somebody's ability to take a specific type of test. Throwing around your IQ on Slashdot is pretty funny. So you are good at taking tests. Some of us understand that intelligence is something more complicated than a test score.

    9. Re:The children will ask themselves by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Or maybe you just got lazy.


      You hit it in one. I know where the guy's coming from. I did the same finish in my sleep job in grade school, high school. Hell, I was famous for not going to any classes my senior year of college. And still being able to tutor my classmates on the subjects better than some of the profs. The problem in all that is I learned nothing in life takes effort. I'm extremely lazy, and procrastinate everything, getting by at the last minute because I'm that good.

      Is this school's fault? While they might have done things to prevent it, no. The fault is mine. I'm the lazy one, I'm the procrastinating one. The OP needs to admit the same thing to himself, and then decide wether to fix it or not. If he's happier the way he is fine, but stop blaming other people for his problems.
      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    10. Re:The children will ask themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Coming up with good ideas for projects and entertaining yourself have very very little to do with intelligence. I have an IQ of 151, and thanks to the public education system, even in the gifted program, I lost all will to learn anything outside of the few topics that are extremely interesting to me, none of which I had any exposure to academically until college since even the gifted programs are aimed to the lowest common denominator, which is the 125-135 people, who aren't too bright.

      Wow, that borders on arrogantly condescending, but as I don't think you meant to be, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :-)

      Here's a thought, though - consider that perhaps you're not really a genius. My IQ has been measured at 156 and 160, the only two times I've been formally tested (30 minute free tests on the internet don't count). And while I know I'm smart, a natural problem solver, one very clever dude - I know that I'm not a genius.

      As different as I am from most other people, I'm more like than dislike them. To me, true genius is manifested by remarkable originality and insight into something - anything, could be physics or math or music or science or even pseudoscience like psychology :-). I'm not talking about savants, who are profoundly deficient in all other areas.

      I think genius starts a hell of a lot higher than 145. The 99.9th percentile isn't all that special; you're still talking about 1 in 1000, or two at the high school I went to, or millions of people worldwide. You and I are smart, but we're still a couple standard deviations short of the genius bit of the bell curve.

      I don't get straight As. The problem in college is, topics that don't interest us still require learning of simple facts, which we are not necessarily motivated to exert the effort to learn. Being a genius does not imply being a good student, and vice versa.

      Speak for yourself. I hated organic chemistry, most of my "general education" requirements ... and yet I still was able to motivate myself to do well in them, because I was mature enough to realize that I needed a high gpa in order to have a strong application for medical school. And here I am, years later, done with school and happy in every way with my life.

      It's possible to be a lazy, undisciplined genius. You're not even that, though. You're a lazy, undisciplined pretty-smart guy who thinks his relatively high IQ makes him a genius and justifies his laziness. Quit making exuses for your lack of motivation.

      You're not a genius. Get over yourself.

    11. Re:The children will ask themselves by tabrnaker · · Score: 3, Insightful
      When we keep people confined to one area then we have failed. Life is growth and learning.

      You want to teach how to make better cogs, we need to focus on giving individuals the tools to become better individuals.

  2. And do we really want to? by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "But do we know how to identify the child whose brilliance might change the world? And do we really want to?"

    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.
    1. Re:And do we really want to? by nonlnear · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't care how smart your kid is they're GOING to learn something in their "boring" classes. Otherwise just get the exams and see how well they do.

      You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. True, everybody is going to learn something in the mainstream classes, but what?

      I'm sure I speak for many "above average intelligence" people when I say the only thing I learned in school was that hard work is pointless, my peers are dullards, and I am a freak of nature.

      If you have a clue about socialization processes, you'd realize that smart kids will be more "normal" if you let them interact with as many of their intellectual equals as possible. After all, it's these people with whom social interraction is the most stimulating.

      --
      argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
    2. Re:And do we really want to? by thedave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you see class, you click this underlined word that says "NY Times", and your browser will display a page from the New York Times. If you want to go back to Slashdot, and see the flame war, click that arrow button. Not the one that points right, but the one that points left.

      Now, I am going to this with the link that says "http://www.imaluser.com/". Look! The browser now shows us the Luser page.

      Now, let's all try clicking on "SourceForge" and see what happens.

      For tonight's homework, I want you to click on 4000 addresses, and click the back button to go back to your original page. Turn in your browser history at the beginning of class.
      Tomorrow, we're gonna talk about the "Forward" button.


      For most of us we got the idea at the first example. The rest was excruciating.

      That's what arithmetic was to me.

      I had it from the first class. It was just clear to me. I had basic addition on day 1. Carrying and multi-digit math, 1 day. Multiplication and division, after the first example.

      But, we did hundreds of problems under the premise of a solid foundation.

      Long division and multiplication were the worst though. We were expected to show our work, when you could just look at the problem and give the correct answer.

      So, instead I read books. I even read an encyclopedia (because I was right beside it, and I could sneak them out). I got in a lot of trouble in class because I never had any idea what was going on. I always finished my schoolwork in 1/10th the time of my class mates, and basically wasted a 5 out of 6 elementary school years waiting for the slow ones to finish reading, or working math problems, or getting that a-ha look on their face.

      And, the excuse parents, teachers, counselors and psychiatrists always gave was, "The extra repetition and explanation will give you a solid foundation."

      The truth is the extra repetition is just extra repetition if you don't need it.

      Extra repetition and detail is great if you are struggling with the basics, and need to reinforce the pattern of the work in your head. Or, if you get hung up on the basic ideas. Or, if you're still sounding out the words in your head. But, once you get it, and you can do 100 repetitions without error, or read 50 pages an hour and understand the content, more repetition is just torture, and it drives the joy out of learning.

      Perhaps needless, mind-numbing, detail and repetition are good training for board meetings, or political debates. But, they are not good for productivity and above all they are not good for learning.

      I believe that if you can prove proficiency and efficiency in a subject, you should be able to move on.
      --
      [ .sig removed due to death threats from zealots who seek to control me out of fear for their hidden d
  3. Typical ... help the top 3 percent screw the rest by Bluesuperman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  4. Its not the smart kids that change the world by ryg0r · · Score: 5, Insightful
    IMO, its not the smart kids. Its the kids that are motivated and put in the effort into doing something.

    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 .sigs don't work
  5. Riiight. by Chowderbags · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Brilliant kids have different goals. by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Slackers, timid kids and smart kids. by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Leave them to their jobs as patent clerks. by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. What do we want from them? by identity0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. And do we really want to? by DMouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Advantage? by vhold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:It's about time. by adrianmonk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Hell, in general the US could use a major overhaul of the educational system. It's way too focused on conformity and process than on results.

    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.

  13. Re:as someone lumped with the prodigies for awhile by RembrandtX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  14. Smart people, simple jobs. by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.