I grew up gifted, but my life didn’t turn out the way I expected (2019)
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
I had speech problems. I was in the learning center. My best friend in elementary had down syndrome. Many of my friends took the short bus. I'm absolutely serious about the retarded bit as I did not do well on the IQ test... at all.
Somehow, me, an idiot became a principal engineer and is retired at 40. I spent the last couple of days playing with legos.
Life is strange and wonderful.
You are not going to survive life, so don't expect anything just do your best and play the game.
As an adult, I have learned that I may be on the spectrum from a few psychologists interactions.
I was always on the computer either playing games, making stuff, or installing linux for the 37th time trying to deal with WinModem.
Honestly, for most of my education, I just felt like people were disappointed in me and just didn't bother. Paradoxically, I did amazing in university (and it was kind of easy, but I did go to a state school).
Reading this wiki page is blowing my mind.
It's hard to initially distinguish future successful dropouts but there were a few things they had in common.
Firstly they usually came from at least "ok" families - they were confident enough in their social supports and knew they had "options" and second chances if they needed them.
Usually it was clear that they could do the work (and had no trouble in later in life learning independently).
But instead of believing what "the system" told them or following its rules, they either ignored or actively explored and exploited the rules and behaviour of the system itself. This looks a lot like skipping class, acting out and not caring...
But now that I look back it looks a lot like learning the "meta" game, which turned out to be much more important in life than what was being taught academically at the time.
We're not good at objectively measuring potential. We're definitely not good enough to make a lifelong judgement based on a cursory examination. Children grow, and change an awful lot - any such judgement is premature.
Identification of gifted children is unavoidably filtered through cultural/societal/personal bias & baggage. The 'best' case scenario here is that it only entrenches existing inequality, but in practice it both does that and causes a lot of dissatisfaction amongst former 'gifted' children like the author.
It's not that the label is perfect or that we have a perfect way to measure who's "gifted" and who's not, but an intelligence test coupled with subjective teacher evaluations is the best way we do have to identify which tracks are appropriate for which children.
They apparently smashed through the regular curriculum fairly quickly, then allowed the kids to pursue something that interested them. His son in particular learned how to produce music, and he was actually pretty bloody good at it for a kid.
At no point did they actually need 1:1 tutoring to ram education down the kids' throat; given a little bit of free reign the kids would gladly learn things on their own.
You can buy a lot of tutoring for $22k.
> but an intelligence test coupled with subjective teacher evaluations is the best way we do have to identify which tracks are appropriate for which children.
I'd call the above streaming or setting, and it's definitely valuable/effective. However, it doesn't need to be tethered to any system that focuses on labelling students. 'This is the stream you are currently in' is a very, very different idea to 'this is who you are', particularly for a child.
> being in an 8th grade classroom where teaching algebra has been banned because it's too advanced
This is definitely a problem, but I think it's best solved in other ways, rather than a poorly-supported regressive policy.
Gifted & talented programs often have positive intentions, but every implementation I've ever seen or heard of just reinforces existing systems without actually having a positive impact.
And, we do have evidence that we can identify high potential students early. Please look into Duke TIP and similar programs that involve administering the SAT to middle schoolers. High scorers are significantly more likely to earn advanced degrees and create intellectual property such as patents.
Duke's TIP program (and similar) don't limit themselves to just identification of gifted children.
> Duke has a long history of providing opportunities for talented middle and high school students to gain exposure to rigorous academic coursework and to communities of talented peers. Many of these opportunities were facilitated by Duke TIP, which was established in 1980 and provided valuable academic enrichment opportunities for several generations of pre-college students. Duke Youth Programs has also provided a range of engaging summer programs for more than 20 years. [1]
Again, that's not rigorously identifying gifted children so much as it is asserting that some children are gifted and then doing a lot of work to ensure that they get better advantages/opportunities than others. We don't have anything like enough evidence to claim that they are successful in their identification, or that the students would have achieved similarly on their own.
Gifted kids don't even need "better advantages" -- just either give them appropriate level material, or at least don't force them to do inappropriate material.
They used to let kids skip grades. Nothing "better" than anyone else, just the exact same thing earlier. Recognizing their actual abilities rather than declaring that their abilities are determined by age.
From what I understand, a big part of why this is discouraged now is because kids that are ready academically aren't necessarily ready socially - especially considering they'd be breaking into a new group.
Maybe question the idea of strict social segregation of children by age, social segregation of children by academic status, etc.
In all seriousness, why should this matter?
If a kid hypothetically couldn't handle a "gifted" workload were they to come from a bad family, that shouldn't stop them from being given opportunities.
Similarly, if a kid is failing academically because their parents mock their achievements, is that something the school can fix?
Either the kids can work at that higher level or they can't. I don't see the point of dragging down kids who could achieve more because others have bad home lives.
Well, that depends on who is being excluded and why. If the process is run by human selection, politics are inevitably involved. Assuming there is a positive net outcome for selected students, there is even more pressure to 'lobby' and 'influence' the decision.
Also, if the number of slots is small, but the cutoff isn't in line with percentiles of children in the population, there could potentially be more children on the cusp that aren't selected than those that were selected. This could mean that the assumed net positive effect of 'elevating' the small group is outweighed by a net negative effect of not elevating those on the edge, even though they were arbitrarily cut off.
Those are just a few reasons.
This is a bit different from "child prodigies" in music, sports, and other skills.
Yes, people expect great success from people who show extraordinary talent.
Yes, nature and nurtue are impossible to fully untangle.
Yes, visible natural talent can be smothered, and hidden natural talent can be uncovered.
Without knowing more about the author's life and what she presumes her alternate life would be, it's hard to really make sense of her position in this article. If she had been challenged more and learned the value of hard work she would be... what? What would be different? From her "About" page we see she has an English degree, is a mother of two, and writes articles like this one. If she had been challenged as a child would she have three kids? Write more articles? STEM degree?
I've watched bits of the Johnny Depp trial and one thing that has stood out to me is how miserable his life seems. On the outside he's a super-famous movie star with tons of money and a beautiful wife - and on the inside... On Lex Fridman's podcast Kevin Systrom said something about becoming a billionaire that was along the lines of life being similarly hard as it was before.
The author of this article seems to have an average life. Most people have average lives. Even people at the margins, your billionaires and movie stars, only have superficially extraordinarily lives that are, at core, fundamentally similar to the average person's life. So, in what sense does this author think her life would have been different had she been challenged more?
Suppose the author couldn't play music well and her parents forced her to confront her weakness and learn to play the piano. My intuition is that she would be in the same place in life but would remember, kind of, how to play a couple songs on the piano. The article strikes me as dodging responsibility - "I was not challenged and therefore am not a hard worker." If you want to work hard, then do that. Challenge yourself. And, if you can't do it now, why do you think you could have done it back then?
I think that is pretty accurate. Past accomplishments only nurture self-esteem for so long. I wouldn't doubt Johnny Depp is completely miserable. There is just not much he can do tomorrow with how high the bar was set in his past. At least the average person can still dream the best is yet to come.
I am sure being a child prodigy is tough in the same sense.
"I was told I was gifted as a child, and so now I use it as a crutch to justify being average. Woe are we, the gifted."
Most jobs in modern society require an average I.Q. and with most jobs, the skills can be taught. So people hire for likability instead.
Most people have average likability, including people with Mensa I.Q.s.
As a person with genius I.Q. and average likability and average success, I think that being successful is less about intelligence and more about schmoozing and selling and personality and being hyper-likable.
I wish there was a test to measure how good one is at schmoozing. The Schmooze Quotient. I bet that would be a much greater predictor of success.
An interesting perspective, but I suspect that you're using "likeability" as a cynical proxy for how well a person works in a team.
A person with an exceptional personality that motivates their entire team to work harder is likely infinitely more valuable to the employer than a more individualistic employee that might be exceptional when compared to any individual employee but still severely underperforms compared to a motivated team. Should the employer be compelled to pick the later just because they are smarter and more competent?
I've seen this pattern repeated alot throughout my many years. Most jobs aren't really that hard so the real way to keep the job and thrive is to just be likable.
2. She claims to have not lived up to expectations, something commonly attributed to people with ADHD
3. ADHD has a significant (70%) genetic component.
4. "if I wasn’t good at it, I simply didn’t do it."
5. "I didn’t have the drive or the courage"
Probably worth an evaluation, though it might well have already been done if her child has a diagnosis.
100%
Didn't find out till I was 40.
Half a life wasted.
This is classic “curse of the gifted”. To counteract it, praise your children on hard work and tackling hard, risky problems instead of correct solutions.
Instead of “wow, you’re smart - you got an a”, say “wow, it looks like you worked really hard. I can tell you took your time and focused hard on the problem”.
With sports, where the focus is on results even at a very young age, we always say “I love watching you try”.
Alan Kay often discusses the failed potential for technology with respect to education. He has some great quotes like:
By far the best way to invent a healthy future is to invent the children who will invent it. - Alan Kay
Children need to learn how to use the 21st century, or there's a good chance they will lose the 21st century. - Alan Kay
With a good programming language and interface, one - even children - can create from scratch important simulations of complex non-linear systems that can help one's thinking about them. - Alan Kay
Most good ideas in education are ruined upon deployment because they cost more than sociey is willing to spend (on average), except for the few who have wealthy private patrons (parents or "scholarship aid" / "gifted" programs). And most bad-looking ideas are attempts to make the best of the limited budget, or good ideas were ruined by lack of budget. "Individualized instruction" is the current one -- we can't afford good individualized instruction, so everyone hates the bad individualized instruction we get.
Gifted kids especially, have complex talents that don't always fit inside a software program in a 2-D screen.
Technology can be cost effective, but that's not the same as giving best results.
Economically, let's say out of 9-3PM typical school hours there are 4 productive hours. If we reduce by 25% due to 1:1 effectiveness vs. classes, 3 hours per day @ $20 = $60/day x 5 days/week x 4 weeks = $1200/month. That's really not so bad for 3 hours of private teaching per day. You could easily share it with another child/friend, so optionally divide by that factor ($600/month for 2 kids, $400/month for 3 kids). It's affordable, now, with no special circumstances, for many people. Look at what private schools charge. Here in China, for example, they start at $300/day.
I’ve met others who weren’t so lucky. I’ve met people that still thought they were “gifted” and “special” after reaching the workplace and then were utterly confused why no one agreed with them and nothing went their way. They never learned humility or how to work within an organization’s culture.
Surprising how damaging a few little words can be..
Outside of full-time opportunities in that ideal environment then, there are lots of yearners. Surprise, surprise, colleges don't worry much about such people. There's another crop moving in behind them, more grants to apply for. The outide world looks right past specialized outsiders. A lucky few become great writers.
We talk a lot about what happiness means and how to be truly happy.
I Grew Up Gifted, but My Life Didn’t Turn Out the Way I Expected - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20059589 - May 2019 (408 comments)
"...to claim that your performance in a cognitive task is entirely dictated by how hard you try"
This one in particular is silly. I personally lived the experience she describes in her book and reading it was quite useful. Never took it to mean, "I could be Einstein, if I just tried harder." You can't teach a dog calculus, no matter how hard both of you try. But we can improve through practice, it's pretty simple.
So simple as to be trivial. As applied to education (it was all the rage a couple of years back), Dweck's work is either unfalsifiable or just truisms.
A pertinent example. Every single job thread here has dozens of folks complaining that no interviewing company has a lick of interest in training. It causes untold harm to everyone involved. It certainly has negatively affected me. An incredibly-wide industry thinking that folks are unable to learn; it boggles the mind.
Dweck's growth mindset is just another Brain Gym [1] - it's shaky pseudoscience building on top of a couple of inoffensive claims that can't be refuted (and shouldn't be), using them to push unsupported assertions and expensive training on schools.
Industry's lack of focus on training is deplorable, but it's a separate problem. Growth mindset is already the kind of thing that recruiters and internal L&D love - it looks good on a slide, but it involves no practical improvement. Corporate L&D needs fixing, but more pseudoscience isn't the answer.
Last year I started learning maths again, 15 years after leaving school. Part of me wasn’t sure if I can do it. “I’m not a maths person” was my mindset (a fixed mindset).
Listening to Carol Dweck helped me understand the difference between helplessness (fixed mindset) and hopefulness (growth mindset).
Her ideas gave me courage. I changed how I viewed myself. I’m not “a maths person”, but I’m working hard at growing my maths ability. I’m not static, I can change.
It might sound simple and obvious to you, but it changed my world, especially after being raised in an abusive household. I wasn’t taught how to believe in myself, but Carol Dweck’s lessons in growth mindset replaced poor parenting with insights that actually help.
I’m now further down the line in my studying and I’m enjoying maths, which I can’t believe.
I wouldn’t have done this without her.