his growth curve slowed?
Happens quite a lot. My guess is that it is mostly due to environmental inputs at this point, for if the testing is reliable, then we've established that the child has the processing equipment that allows them to excel.
Also, how much does socialization matter in terms of learning and growth?
his growth curve slowed?
Happens quite a lot. My guess is that it is mostly due to environmental inputs at this point, for if the testing is reliable, then we've established that the child has the processing equipment that allows them to excel.
Also, how much does socialization matter in terms of learning and growth?
It matters a whole lot. There are biological limits to potential but it is what is done with the equipment that you have that matters. Socialization is a very broad term but what I think you may mean is socialization via peer group. Every educator and parent should read The Nurture Assumption and No Two Alike (Follow the links to read our interview with the author.)
And the questions about the validity of IQ tests on the high end sound quite valid to me
As the story notes, the psychologist based her practice on working with High-IQ kids. The more kids that cross the threshold the more potential clients she can counsel. Definitely a vested interest there.
There is a validity issue as well. Also, the environmental remediation strategies for high iq kids differs from low iq kids. Obviously. With high IQ kids we don't know enough on how to best tailor an approach for kids with 180 iq versus 150, but that's not the case for kids with 100 IQ versus kids with 70 IQ.
When people look at low IQ kids they often see lost potential, meaning that the chips are off the table and if only the chips were on the table, the child would have a brighter future. With high IQ kids, the chips are on the table but with scant knowledge of how to help the kids maximize their potential, we're leaving money on the table as we walk away. In their case, actual potential is being ignored.
1) It is my understanding that this is pretty much what happened to the "termites" - Terman's giftedness study group from way back when - though many did well in life, none turned out to be an Einstein, Picasso, etc.
In any case, how sad.
My daughter was reading at the age of 2. She's not a genius, though she's smart enough to come in from the rain. Reading (and all forms of pattern recognition) came easily to her. She learned a lot in school about other things, especially how to deal with people and live in the world.
I've got quite a few geniuses in the family, including my ex who tested at 165 as a kid, and it's made me a strong proponent of letting kids go through school at the normal pace. It's not like they have to pay attention when it's boring.
It does help to live in a college town where a smart kid will meet other smart kids. Not that I want to dis Nebraska, the home state of my very smart father.
Did he get to ever be a kid?
There are extremes in both directions.
Some people think that when they have a child that's received a high IQ score, it will always stay that way, and they start to live their life through the kid, making it impossible for the kid to grow up normally, for what would be normal for him.
On the other hand, some people look down on giftedness and really torture gifted people with unkind remarks and abject neglect.
It sounds like this couple had absolutely no idea what to do with this child, didn't treat him like much of a human being, and probably neglected him so badly he was ruined. This happens on a regular basis, unfortunately.
PS, Ms. Frizzle,
That's NOT how Terman's kids turned out. It is a blight and a persecution to believe that all gifted kids are going to turn out to be prodigies which turn into entertaining public servants for the likes of you. They don't owe you anything. The fact that most of them had satisfying lives that suited them just fine is enough.
Commenting by HaloScan
