where biography meets neuroscience, where biography meets nonsense
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Stark choices for Australian gifted students
"A concerning number of gifted students dumb themselves down to fit in at school, while those who don't may experience social isolation or even bullying" - report of a Victorian parliamentary inquiry into intellectually gifted students
I'm very skeptical about lots of what passes for research on "gifted" children. Far too much of it is based on anecdotes about high performers, with high performance virtually automatically seen as evidence of some mysterious innate inborn talent, with the role of environment and practice downplayed.
I saw that theres a due out next year called "The Complexity of Greatness - Beyond Talent or Practice". It's edited by Scott Barry Kaufmann, who hosted online the "Talent or Practice" debate where I had some discussions with Darold Treffert in the comments section. Darold Treffert apparently has a section in the book called "Savant Syndrome: A Compelling Case for Innate Talent".
That book sounds interesting, even though there are certainly reasons to have reservations about some of the authors. Thanks for the tip!
Please don't be skeptical about the concept of giftedness based on what you might read in psychological literature. The real scholarship on the subject of intellectual giftedness and gifted kids and gifted education is from specialist educators, and they all have first-hand knowledge from their personal contact with parents of gifted kids that these kids are different right from the start, and have innate differences. It is important to note that the real experts in giftedness make a distinction between giftedness and high academic achievement. A gifted child will probably have a high IQ score, or at least high scores in some sub-tests, but might not perform well or exceptionally in class,especially if the child isn't offered suitable classwork to study. As a parent of gifted and maybe non-gifted kids, I can say that gifted kids are individuals, but the things that they seem to have in common are high intelligence from infancy, an innate driven personality and possibly asynchronous development.
But you would probably be correct if you criticised the area of giftedness for lacking precise definitions and a base of published sound research studies. Education isn't science (yet).
The one thing that researchers such as Ericsson seem to overlook is that motivation to learn and practice skills should not necessarily be categorized on the "environment" or "nurture" side of the line. Personality is to a very large degree inborn, and degree of motivation or drivenness is a personality trait. Sure enough, there are ways and means of manipulating people to want to do or desire something, but I know that I never made my kids learn to read early or acquire whatever it is that musical aptitude tests measure.
In my opinion, a reason why there might be a lack of research into giftedness is that it is a politically incorrect and unattractive subject. Most ppl don't want to be reminded that some others are much smarter. I've read that one simple, easily measurable difference between the gifted and the non-gifted is speed of learning. A gifted student does not need to be presented with the same material repeatedly in class, she will absorb it on one or a few readings. I believe there are similar dramatic differences between the learning rates of dog breeds. This stuff could all be easily researched, but there's no groundswell desiring more research into the exact nature of human intellectual inequality. Dumb kids can be given a label such as ADHD and forgotten.
Ha ha! I had also wondered if you might be Ericsson.
I find it a little bit annoying that academic people and regular people find it hard to accept that someone who is outside of science and academia might have something to add to a debate or discussion, and might even be able to point out an error or two made by an insider. I guess this isn't how things should be.
I must say I'm surprised too at how easy it is for someone outside academia to add something to debate and discussion. It's the internet and search engines and blogs and open access to articles that make it possible - you and I couldn't have done the same a few years ago. The world is changing fast and some people are being left behind - like those in academia who still don't seem to be able to use search engines properly.
Incidentially, I've also posted a new comment on piano prodigy "Derek" here:
The case of "Derek" was reported in one of Dr Joanne Ruthsatz's papers - another researcher I've found whose work tends to fail to stand up to basic scrutiny.
I'm very skeptical about lots of what passes for research on "gifted" children. Far too much of it is based on anecdotes about high performers, with high performance virtually automatically seen as evidence of some mysterious innate inborn talent, with the role of environment and practice downplayed.
ReplyDeleteI saw that theres a due out next year called "The Complexity of Greatness - Beyond Talent or Practice". It's edited by Scott Barry Kaufmann, who hosted online the "Talent or Practice" debate where I had some discussions with Darold Treffert in the comments section. Darold Treffert apparently has a section in the book called "Savant Syndrome: A Compelling Case for Innate Talent".
There's some stuff from John Wilding on memory (one of the "Routes to Remembering" authors) and a debate between K Anders Ericsson and "giftedness' researcher Françoys Gagné, which should be interesting. I'm looking forward to reading it.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Social/?view=usa&sf=toc&ci=9780199794003
Tomas
That book sounds interesting, even though there are certainly reasons to have reservations about some of the authors. Thanks for the tip!
ReplyDeletePlease don't be skeptical about the concept of giftedness based on what you might read in psychological literature. The real scholarship on the subject of intellectual giftedness and gifted kids and gifted education is from specialist educators, and they all have first-hand knowledge from their personal contact with parents of gifted kids that these kids are different right from the start, and have innate differences. It is important to note that the real experts in giftedness make a distinction between giftedness and high academic achievement. A gifted child will probably have a high IQ score, or at least high scores in some sub-tests, but might not perform well or exceptionally in class,especially if the child isn't offered suitable classwork to study. As a parent of gifted and maybe non-gifted kids, I can say that gifted kids are individuals, but the things that they seem to have in common are high intelligence from infancy, an innate driven personality and possibly asynchronous development.
But you would probably be correct if you criticised the area of giftedness for lacking precise definitions and a base of published sound research studies. Education isn't science (yet).
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that researchers such as Ericsson seem to overlook is that motivation to learn and practice skills should not necessarily be categorized on the "environment" or "nurture" side of the line. Personality is to a very large degree inborn, and degree of motivation or drivenness is a personality trait. Sure enough, there are ways and means of manipulating people to want to do or desire something, but I know that I never made my kids learn to read early or acquire whatever it is that musical aptitude tests measure.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a reason why there might be a lack of research into giftedness is that it is a politically incorrect and unattractive subject. Most ppl don't want to be reminded that some others are much smarter. I've read that one simple, easily measurable difference between the gifted and the non-gifted is speed of learning. A gifted student does not need to be presented with the same material repeatedly in class, she will absorb it on one or a few readings. I believe there are similar dramatic differences between the learning rates of dog breeds. This stuff could all be easily researched, but there's no groundswell desiring more research into the exact nature of human intellectual inequality. Dumb kids can be given a label such as ADHD and forgotten.
ReplyDeleteI've been having a conversation on this subject in the comments of the blog here, which you might be interested in:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-anatomy-expert/201307/the-nature-and-nurture-expertise
Tomas
Thanks for the tip, Tomas.
ReplyDeleteHa ha! I had also wondered if you might be Ericsson.
ReplyDeleteI find it a little bit annoying that academic people and regular people find it hard to accept that someone who is outside of science and academia might have something to add to a debate or discussion, and might even be able to point out an error or two made by an insider. I guess this isn't how things should be.
I must say I'm surprised too at how easy it is for someone outside academia to add something to debate and discussion. It's the internet and search engines and blogs and open access to articles that make it possible - you and I couldn't have done the same a few years ago. The world is changing fast and some people are being left behind - like those in academia who still don't seem to be able to use search engines properly.
ReplyDeleteIncidentially, I've also posted a new comment on piano prodigy "Derek" here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-anatomy-expert/201306/the-expert-performance-puzzle/comments
The case of "Derek" was reported in one of Dr Joanne Ruthsatz's papers - another researcher I've found whose work tends to fail to stand up to basic scrutiny.
Tomas