It appears to me, after reading a good few hundred replies, that in the view of most people, something should actively be done about a 'child prodigy,' almost as if they were prime stock, or an excellent specimen of raw material. Whether the suggestions are about guiding the kid toward more socially-oriented endeavors, more math, less math, more C++, more OOP, less electronics, more nanotechnology, this or that--there are two implicit ideas underlying these suggestions:
(1) The child must be guided.
(2) The study of any particular field is but the means to an end.
Now, both of these ideas are interconnected.
Since the child "knows not what it needs," or rather, needs to *become*, we have to guide it toward a career of some form. Give it a future that is tangible to our adult mindsets. A PhD, a researcher position, programmer, success, and so forth.
On the other hand (and I certainly hope I'm right on at least this one), a 9-year-old, regardless of analytical skills, would tend to view activities only as either fun or not fun. Any perception of ambition (if I practise, or learn this, I could become that) has not had an opportunity to seep in yet, which of course creates a serious conflict of interest involving ALL parties--A parent would naturally want the child to be 'successful,' or at least 'tap into its full potential,' or (god forbid) 'be all it can be.' Tutors likewise, don't exactly want their tutees to measure less than par on anything. Schools, too: they like to see good grades and excellence to crank their reputation.
Now, in between all these intermingled desires, there is probably the simple hope of any nine-year-old to just have a good time (which involves having self-esteem, social interaction, challenges, etc.) How it is best accomplished varies from child to child--some kids are more amused than others by intellectual activity. Some get bored quickly when stuff is too easy for them.
Ambition and ideals aside, I honestly think that this little wish is the best I could wish any person, child or not, prodigy or not.
Somehow it seems that a majority do not feel that happiness comes out of doing things that you enjoy, and only because you enjoy doing them. Not because it will get your name printed everywhere, or a neat salary, or some letters attached to your name?
Would it be a "waste" not to map out a kid's life for him? To just see to it that needs to fight boredom are fulfilled? Maybe he wouldn't ever be a PhD or a successful something-or-other. Maybe he'd just enjoy his life in its multitude, its intellectual challenges and its complexity. Maybe he'd go around picking up things as he feels like it and enjoy the process. Would that be a "waste"?
So in all this verbosity, I have two simple suggestions: Encourage the child to try out as many different activities as possible. Support the child's interests unconditionally (even if he child wants to spend time with something he has no 'talent' for, or something that won't "lead to anything.") And take him out for ice cream.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears to me, after reading a good few hundred replies, that in the view of most people, something should actively be done about a 'child prodigy,' almost as if they were prime stock, or an excellent specimen of raw material. Whether the suggestions are about guiding the kid toward more socially-oriented endeavors, more math, less math, more C++, more OOP, less electronics, more nanotechnology, this or that--there are two implicit ideas underlying these suggestions:
(1) The child must be guided.
(2) The study of any particular field is but the means to an end.
Now, both of these ideas are interconnected.
Since the child "knows not what it needs," or rather, needs to *become*, we have to guide it toward a career of some form. Give it a future that is tangible to our adult mindsets. A PhD, a researcher position, programmer, success, and so forth.
On the other hand (and I certainly hope I'm right on at least this one), a 9-year-old, regardless of analytical skills, would tend to view activities only as either fun or not fun. Any perception of ambition (if I practise, or learn this, I could become that) has not had an opportunity to seep in yet, which of course creates a serious conflict of interest involving ALL parties--A parent would naturally want the child to be 'successful,' or at least 'tap into its full potential,' or (god forbid) 'be all it can be.' Tutors likewise, don't exactly want their tutees to measure less than par on anything. Schools, too: they like to see good grades and excellence to crank their reputation.
Now, in between all these intermingled desires, there is probably the simple hope of any nine-year-old to just have a good time (which involves having self-esteem, social interaction, challenges, etc.) How it is best accomplished varies from child to child--some kids are more amused than others by intellectual activity. Some get bored quickly when stuff is too easy for them.
Ambition and ideals aside, I honestly think that this little wish is the best I could wish any person, child or not, prodigy or not.
Somehow it seems that a majority do not feel that happiness comes out of doing things that you enjoy, and only because you enjoy doing them. Not because it will get your name printed everywhere, or a neat salary, or some letters attached to your name?
Would it be a "waste" not to map out a kid's life for him? To just see to it that needs to fight boredom are fulfilled? Maybe he wouldn't ever be a PhD or a successful something-or-other. Maybe he'd just enjoy his life in its multitude, its intellectual challenges and its complexity. Maybe he'd go around picking up things as he feels like it and enjoy the process. Would that be a "waste"?
So in all this verbosity, I have two simple suggestions: Encourage the child to try out as many different activities as possible. Support the child's interests unconditionally (even if he child wants to spend time with something he has no 'talent' for, or something that won't "lead to anything.") And take him out for ice cream.