• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Child Prodigies

Sarahbeany said:
I've just stumbled upon this thread. I'm the mum of Jay (the boy in the article) So it's interesting reading it from an outsiders perspective.
Click to expand...
How fascinating to have someone drop in here out of the stories we read! It's good to be reminded that the stories are about real people in real world situations, and are not a bit of fiction made up to sell papers.

How did you find us? I suppose you (or Jay) went googling for your story to see how far it had got..?

Among the zillion or so threads here there are some on Aspergers: the main one is
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... 310#471310

I'm sure we all hope you'll find it interesting here, as well as fun.
 
rynner2 said:
Sarahbeany said:
I've just stumbled upon this thread. I'm the mum of Jay (the boy in the article) So it's interesting reading it from an outsiders perspective.
Click to expand...
How fascinating to have someone drop in here out of the stories we read! It's good to be reminded that the stories are about real people in real world situations, and are not a bit of fiction made up to sell papers.

How did you find us? I suppose you (or Jay) went googling for your story to see how far it had got..?

Among the zillion or so threads here there are some on Aspergers: the main one is
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... 310#471310

I'm sure we all hope you'll find it interesting here, as well as fun.
Click to expand...

Well that's debatable about them not making stories up to sell papers but yes, in this case there are real live humans behind it!

I found this forum by googling to see where else it had ended up. As I said, I had no idea about it ending up in the Daily Mail so I've googled a few times to see where else it was and found it as far and wide as the Trinidad Time and Indiavision -and here!

I actually kept Jay from reading the comments in the Daily Mail as not all of them were positive. I can handle that but at the end of it all he's still a little kid so I don't see the need in introducing him to the muppets that have nothing better to do that pull apart every news story that appears.

I've just started reading the thread on Aspergers, I could be gone a while! It's a subject I find fascinating. At times I still fear for J but he's holding his own really well, he is socially awkward in some ways but he manages to get by socially and his quirks are mostly seen as endearing at this age...I just hope that doesn't change too much as he gets older.
 
Personally I don't think any reasonable person should subject themselves to the Daily Mail comments section! Good to hear the story behind the story, anyway.
 
Thank you for posting Sarahbeany :) You sound like a good and dedicated parent :)
I think it's good that you're keeping a balance for Jay by making sure he still spends time with his friends.

I wanted to say also that in case you were worried regarding the people I mentioned in my earlier post, they're all on excellent salaries, so their traits don't seem to have held them back.
 
Girl joins Mensa before she starts school
A four year old girl with the IQ of a "genius" has been accepted into Mensa - before she has even started school.
10:07AM BST 12 Apr 2012

Heidi Hankins sat an IQ test after staff at her nursery said she was so intelligent they were struggling to find activities to challenge her.
The average score for an adult is 100 and a "gifted" individual 130 but the exceptional youngster impressed examiners with a staggering 159.

Heidi - who can already add, subtract, draw figures and write in sentences - was reading books for seven year olds when she was just two.
She beats numbers whizz Carol Vorderman (score 154) and is only slightly behind Big Bang scientist Stephen Hawking (160), who are both members of Mensa.

Heidi's dad, Matthew, from Winchester, Hants, hopes she can now skip a school year to ensure she is challenged.
The University of Southampton public health lecturer, 46, added: "We always thought Heidi was bright because she was reading early.
"I was curious about her IQ and the results were off the scale.
"I got her the complete set of the Oxford Reading Tree books when she was two and she read through the whole set of 30 in about an hour.
"It's what you would expect a seven-year-old to do.

"She was making noises and trying to talk literally since she was born and by age one her vocabulary was quite good.
"Now it is really good.
"The other day I gave her mash and fishfingers for dinner - something quite boring - and her response was 'That's impressive', so she has a sense of humour, too."

He added: "She is not precocious, she is just a little girl who likes her Barbies and Lego but then you will find her sitting down and reading a book.
"We are really proud of her."

John Stevenage, chief executive of British Mensa, said: "Heidi's parents correctly identified that she shows great potential.
"We wish them well and are pleased that they have chosen to join the Mensa network for support.
"We aim to provide a positive environment for younger members to develop."

Mr Hankins and his artist wife Sophy also have a nine-year-old son called Isaac who is a chorister at Winchester Cathedral.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... chool.html
 
The Growing Pains of a Teenage Genius

What do you do when your child is gifted and their academic ability has overtaken yours? In a lot of ways 13-year-old Cameron Thompson is a normal teenage boy - obsessed with computer games, sporting the first hints of a moustache and a newfound interest in girls. But he is also a maths genius who is currently doing an Open University degree in applied mathematics and it is this ability that has singled him out. That, and an intense social awkwardness his parents put down to his Asperger's Syndrome. Can Cameron balance the need to remain the genius he has always been - and therefore different - with the classic teenage longing to be accepted?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ge_Genius/

Available until 8:59PM Mon, 1 Oct 2012


A fascinating programme about a lively and personable kid. (I don't really know where the Aspergers comes in, or who diagnosed it.) He has a close and supportive family, and it will be interesting to see how his life turns out. (If I'd had his advantages, I'd have been ruler of the world by now! Or maybe not... :( )
 
Probably not, on balance.

These hot-house creatures come on like forced rhubarb and are fussed over for a week or two but they may feel a bit abandoned when the other fruits come into season. :(
 
Well, I have Aspergers, and am not much brilliant with computers.

in fact, very few people like me have much of an interest in computers either.
 
Rynner:

Both the last two stories you posted involve pre-pubescent children. Children's IQ scores are typically evaluated with respect to other children of similar age, not against adults. The Heidi Hankins score of 159 puts her circa 3.X or 4 standard deviations above the mean for other toddlers. This may or may not end up being her relative score later in life, when her test performance will be evaluated against norms for adults.

It's not unusual for young children to score what seem like stratospheric IQ scores early on because they're being compared against children at the same relative stage of development. It's also not unusual for children exhibiting such incredible relative scores to end up exhibiting less (relatively) stellar scores by the time they 'level off' and are evaluated with respect to norms for a population of young adults.

The point is that such early extraordinary scores only indicate they're 'off to a fast start' within their age cohort - i.e., they're 'early bloomers' with respect to the skill set being tested. Whether or not they remain so relatively 'extraordinary' (per the tests) will necessarily remain to be seen.

Such 'fast starts' used to be addressed in terms of a 'precocity factor' that basically contextualized such a high early score as a hopeful(?) sign but not a final measure. I'm not sure if the psychometric community still uses that label.

It is exceptionally rare for a young child achieving one of these stratospheric scores relative to other youngsters to maintain that same score level once evaluated in the context of an older cohort (many of whom have simply 'caught up'). I've known a few such youngsters. Some ended up ranking (per the tests / numbers) at an exceptional level, but numerically / statistically lower than their 'precocity' scores. I've also seem some that when mature ranked no higher than the 'average' to 'moderately above average' range. I've never met or heard of anyone who surpassed their extraordinarily high childhood score(s) at maturity.

Unfortunately, it is just as rare for a person scoring such a high score as a child (and becoming well known for it ...) to submit to testing as an adult and reveal those newer results in the adult evaluation context. This tends to perpetuate the myth that an early super-score necessarily remains a viable measure forever after.

Having said all that ... Yes, I was one of 'those kids'. As of age 11 - 12, I was maxing out the tests they gave us at school. At around age 17 I had the opportunity to view my own elementary school records, which stated my scores translated into an IQ rating at or approaching the theoretical (and, let's face it, mythical ...) maximum (circa 200, depending on the specific test). As of age 18, the records put my IQ scores in the 160's after later tests.

Compared to kids aged 11 or 12, I was ranked at (a statistically ludicrous) 6 standard deviations off the mean. Compared to 18-year-olds, the stats had settled down to a more modest (but still statistically 'iffy') 4 standard deviations off the mean.

This illustrates the sort of 'precocity roll-off' effect I mentioned above. There were no appreciable differences in my diligence in taking the tests years apart. It was primarily the evaluation context that shifted.

In my case, the scores remained pretty stable thereafter. At around age 30, I scored at the same level (160's; circa 4 standard deviations above the mean) on two different IQ batteries.

As to the 'growing pains' ... Having been one of those 'Kid Brainiac' characters, I can attest to the difficulties. To the extent you have that 'reputation', it can influence and distort social relationships. Some people assume you're a freak or bore to be avoided, while others lean on you as their personal Wikipedia. I've had teenage romances fall apart because young ladies couldn't figure out how they were supposed to interact with 'my reputed self' instead of just seeing where things went.

On the other hand, a certain amount of 'implied awe' among teachers and staff had benefits - e.g., it afforded me permissions to do pretty much whatever I wanted in secondary school. During some years I was explicitly advised I could walk out of any class and go do whatever I wanted in the library instead. I served as an in-house substitute teacher for science, history, and English classes hit with unexpected teacher absences. I created, administered, and scored English and spelling tests when I was in the 6th grade (and given 'A' grades by default).

It's a mixed bag, and it can go 'well' or 'badly'.

Frankly, IMHO the best approach is to not publicize such early scores / attributions and let the kid develop in his / her own way at his / her own pace.
 
Former child prodigy arrested in case of fatal road rage
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-seattle-road-rage-20120924,0,524272.story

"SEATTLE — He was a child prodigy, taking computer classes at Seattle Pacific University at the age of 13 and finishing in the top third of the Junior Olympics in fencing.

But Dinh Bowman was earning a different kind of recognition over the weekend, appearing before a judge Saturday in Seattle on suspicion of killing a 42-year-old local man in what detectives believe was a case of road rage."

more at link.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Rynner:

Both the last two stories you posted involve pre-pubescent children. Children's IQ scores are typically evaluated with respect to other children of similar age, not against adults.
Click to expand...
The TV prog about Cameron didn't even mention IQ, if my memory serves. But like many such things, it provoked more questions in the viewer than it answered! (Like mine about who diagnosed Aspergers, and when.) Perhaps I should watch it again.
 
Rynner: You're right - the originally cited story didn't mention IQ. I went looking for additional articles on Thompson, and I thought one of those other accounts included something about evaluated IQ. Maybe I misread that other account.

In any case, I find the borderland between attributions of 'gifted' (high IQ; other exceptional performance) and 'autistic' (broadly construed; including specific syndromes like Asperger's) a very troubling area. Some of the behavioral / social symptoms popularly associated with (at least milder forms of ...) autism spectrum disorders are also common among 'gifted' children. If a child exhibits relative preference for being alone and seems to maintain an unusually tight focus on some activity or subject, it seems parents nowadays are anxious to pin a label on him / her just for the sake of categorization.

Whichever label they choose to try first ('gifted' versus 'autistic, etc.') might make a lot of difference in how the child is viewed and treated.

Over the last 20+ years I've been struck by how many 'gifted' adults I've known who've commented on the rise of popular attention to 'autism, etc.' disorders and opined that they themselves could have - or even probably would have - been viewed as 'autistic, etc.' had such attention been as widespread back when we were children. I've had people ask me directly whether I thought I might be autistic or have Asperger's.

i guess my point is that 'labels' and 'diagnoses' (outside those cases with demonstrable somatic - e.g., neurological - underpinnings) can be questionable in attribution and potentially devastating to the course of a child's life.
 
Putting it frankly, labeling a child ASD will ensure they have zero job opportunities their entire life.
 
Kondoru said:
Well, I have Aspergers, and am not much brilliant with computers.

in fact, very few people like me have much of an interest in computers either.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Sorry - not sure I agree with you there.
Most of the people I've met who have Asperger's work with computers (I work in the software industry). Having Asperger's didn't stop them getting very proficient with computers.
 
Autistic teenager tipped for Nobel Prize
[video]
10 May 2013 Last updated at 11:22

A teenager who was diagnosed with autism and told he would never be able to read has been tipped as a future Nobel prize winner.
Jacob Barnett, who was diagnosed with moderate to severe autism at two years old, is now studying for a Master's degree in quantum physics.
Experts say the 14-year-old student from Indiana has an IQ higher than that of Albert Einstein.

His mother Kristine Barnett, author of The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius, told BBC Breakfast she initially found it hard to get Jacob the right education.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22477958

Let's hope he doesn't burn out.
 
Noah's a chess champion after only five months practice
Peter Johnstone, Reporter

A Falmouth Primary Academy pupil will be heading to London to take part in a national chess competition, just five months after taking up the game.
Nojus Ivanuskas, 11, known to the school as Noah, was taught the game by his father as a way to pass the time, but the pupil was soon beating the teacher and he started playing for a club.

In February he won the Cornwall Chess Junior Championships, and last weekend he was named the under-11 supremo for Cornwall at the Delancey Schools' Chess Challenge, meaning he will go on to further competition in London in July.
Noah said it felt good to win the competition, although he was a bit surprised as he has only been playing for a short time.

He said: "At the first competition we went to we were going to play five games but we had enough time for another one so we played six. Out of 18 points I won 17 and a half.
"On Saturday I won six out of six. It felt pretty amazing."

Claire Smith, Falmouth Primary Academy head teacher, said: "The school's really behind Noah, we're in awe of his achievement.
"He's our head boy as well, so a good role model to all the children."

http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/new...ess_champion_after_only_five_months_practice/

Noah probably proof-read the article too, because, unusually for the Packet, I can't find any typos in it! :p
 
Proposal, for genius children. We lasso them all in and don't let them go till they've solved the Cancer thing . . . :thought:

A tad ruthless, a few might say.

But get those those grey cells working, you champs! :evillaugh:
 
Last edited:
JamesWhitehead said:
Proposal, for genius children. We lasso them all in and don't let them go till they've solved the Cancer thing . . . :thought:

A tad ruthless, a few might say.

But get those those grey cells working, you champs! :evillaugh:
Click to expand...
Cancer. It's already been solved, but the scientists keep doing research in order to keep them all in work. It's a huge industry now. Thousands of scientists would be made redundant if the cure was released to the world.

As for the prodigies... well, it's amazing how little many of these very smart people have achieved in their lives, individually. Maybe you're right - they need some motivation, some focus to get them to achieve something. Collaborating with other smart people could lead to something amazing.
 
Mythopoeika said:
'Highest possible score'... Hmmm.
Yet Marilyn Vos Savant has the highest score of a living person at around 186 (or 228 on another scale).
Or William James Sidis, who had an IQ somewhere between 250 and 300.
I guess it depends on what IQ scale is being used.
Click to expand...

Most often such "whiz kids" are attributed such status because they're precocious, not because they're permanently prodigies.

The astronomical IQ scores such tabloid articles promote are almost always associated with children. These incredible ratings are effectively artifacts of the testing process. Modern IQ tests are plotted with respect to a "normal" distribution (i.e., a 'Bell Curve'), which in turn is normed for the test-taker's age group. Children mature (cognitively; intellectually) at different rates, and their final relative status isn't evident until they reach adulthood. In other words, a rapidly-matured child can be ranked as having an unholy IQ score compared to fellow kids, only to settle back closer to the mean when tested again at (say ... ) age 18 or older.

This is the well-known "precocity factor", which distorts the ability to reliably assess scores at the high and low extremes. See my 2012 post earlier in this same thread:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/child-prodigies.21170/post-1260451

Mythopoeika said:
As for the prodigies... well, it's amazing how little many of these very smart people have achieved in their lives, individually. Maybe you're right - they need some motivation, some focus to get them to achieve something. Collaborating with other smart people could lead to something amazing.
Click to expand...

The expectations foisted onto kids who've scored extremely high IQ scores are mistaken and overblown (see above), and the psycho-social impacts of drifting back closer to "average" by the time of adulthood can be ruinous if the kid has been brainwashed into assuming he / she was destined to be recognized as a genius.

This is why there's rarely any follow-up to check a former whiz kid's adult IQ ranking. In any event, high IQ folks aren't obligated to dedicate their lives to the grand achievements others project upon them based on their anomalous childhood test scores. See:

Intelligence / IQ (Issues; Experiences)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/intelligence-iq-issues-experiences.68461/
 
EnolaGaia said:
The astronomical IQ scores such tabloid articles promote are almost always associated with children. These incredible ratings are effectively artefacts of the testing process. Modern IQ tests are plotted with respect to a "normal" distribution (i.e., a 'Bell Curve'), which in turn is normed for the test-taker's age group. Children mature (cognitively; intellectually) at different rates, and their final relative status isn't evident until they reach adulthood. In other words, a rapidly-matured child can be ranked as having an unholy IQ score compared to fellow kids, only to settle back closer to the mean when tested again at (say ... ) age 18 or older.
Click to expand...
IQ 'settles' in the mid 20's generally, it's odd in that respect. Before then IQ can be hot-housed high or left underdeveloped. Our 'potential' IQ is one of the most genetically correlated traits. It's also one of the best explored and verified traits. It's literally the case that if you don't think IQ and General Intelligence are real things, you also have to discount a massive raft of other psychology work which is less well validated...

A very good book on this subject, which goes into well put together data and detail on these assertions above, is:

In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence​

Book by Russell T. Warne
Click to expand...

There were two hot-housed at our local school, one had lower SAT's than the eldest Coalette (I can read upside down), heading for great things etc etc...didn't happen...the other won most of the 'end of GCSE' prizes, despite having only one GCSE grade better than the boy* (and coincidently a child of a department head at said school). Crashed and burned at uni.

* I had to try and explain that rank and obvious injustice to my son. Not great.
 
Coal said:
IQ 'settles' in the mid 20's generally, it's odd in that respect. Before then IQ can be hot-housed high or left underdeveloped. Our 'potential' IQ is one of the most genetically correlated traits. It's also one of the best explored and verified traits. It's literally the case that if you don't think IQ and General Intelligence are real things, you also have to discount a massive raft of other psychology work which is less well validated...

A very good book on this subject, which goes into well put together data and detail on these assertions above, is:



There were two hot-housed at our local school, one had lower SAT's than the eldest Coalette (I can read upside down), heading for great things etc etc...didn't happen...the other won most of the 'end of GCSE' prizes, despite having only one GCSE grade better than the boy* (and coincidently a child of a department head at said school). Crashed and burned at uni.

* I had to try and explain that rank and obvious injustice to my son. Not great.
Click to expand...
That looks like an interesting book. The longest review of it, 3000 words, is by a psychologist, Michael Jackson, who condemns the book with the rhetoric of the politically correct (and makes some astonishing claims in the process). Did you find the book to be unfairly biased against non-whites?
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
That looks like an interesting book. The longest review of it, 3000 words, is by a psychologist, Michael Jackson, who condemns the book with the rhetoric of the politically correct (and makes some astonishing claims in the process). Did you find the book to be unfairly biased against non-whites?
Click to expand...
Nope, not to my mind. It does in fact cover issues regarding race. But it does makes the point that nutrition is very much an issue with the development of IQ to its full potential irrespective of race, and as a side point shows how free school meals are a very good levelling up tactic in this regard. Might upset people who wish to overlook the poverty of whole communities in certain parts of the world though.

I suspect the main issue people have with it is that whether we care to admit it or not, general intelligence (as defined in the book) exists, is quantifiable, quite inheritable, varies widely and poverty (as it affects nutrition and education) holds it back. This stuffs up several 'blank slate' and 'equality of outcome' based ideologies. We can't all be what we want to be.

As for 'different types of intelligence' - that feels like humpty-dumptying. The book (as does work on General Intelligence in psychology) clearly defines what it meant in this context. To rebut work done based a defined term, by saying there are other definitions so it doesn't count, is nonsense. It's like saying 'there are different type of mass and I consider mass means 'number of apples per orange', so work done in kilograms is wrong.

(Annoyingly I've put my copy somewhere 'safe' and can't find it right now).
 
After "The Bell Curve" was published, and instantly generated much controversy, I sat down to slowly read it, with two statistics textbooks next to me. Some of the stats were beyond what I normally dealt with, and I wanted to be sure I was understanding it correctly. I took about a month to plow through it. I did not agree with everything the authors wrote, but much of it. I remember clearly how cautious the authors phrased the limits and implications of the research.

Contextually for me, I remember that my university colleagues who were willing to discuss the book were strongly critical of the research, the methods, and the conclusions. The ones who were most against the book had not read it or had not read it entirely - by their own admission! In the mid-to-late 1990s, my disillusionment with liberal political correctness (does this constitute an oxymoron?) at American universities really reached the point of no return. It was the main reason I decided against a university faculty career.

....

I was a child of extreme poverty, neglect, and violence in a rustbelt urban area. I know first-hand what this means to the development and expression of intellectual potential - and how it is perceived by adult schoolteachers. In kindergarden, my teacher thought I was developmentally slow or mentally retarded because I knew no letters, no numbers, could not recognize my own first name printed out - all three letters of it, didn't know colors except for red and blue, etc. This wasn't a reflection of my native ability, but rather of my urban feral upbringing. I have kept those memories over the course of my life, because that was my beginning and it grounds me for real life.

In Catholic charity schools, I became aware that I was intellectually different and that this was ok. The nuns stressed that my gifts only made me more obliged to help others, as I could not waste what God had given to me. Similar to what EG has written, later in my life my gift stabilized at 3-4 standard deviations above the mean. However, in undergraduate and later graduate school, I was acutely aware of how intelligence is interpreted and responded to through the socio-cultural beliefs of educated middle-class America. By that time, I had cleaned up a lot socially, but apparently still not enough. I was different enough in my approaches to analysis to lead some people to wonder how I had got admitted in the program.

I knew a few graduate students who started with great fanfare (and big stipends!), but who flamed out in the program. It seemed to me that they could not bear to make mistakes, and were overly concerned with relative social status and pecking order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top