<p>
[quote]
Have you read much of the published research on confirmation bias?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dontcha know "All Children are gifted." :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since I have two kids who have the same set of parents and genetic endowment, but are diametrically opposed in their abilities and interest and have been since a very young age, I have to attribute some of that of nature.
[/quote]
Not to be too pedantic here, but the shared genetic endowment of 2 siblings is only 50% (on average). Chromosomes come in pairs, each parent contributes one to the pair in their offspring (with the exception of the Y chromosome), and so on. If they had the same genetic endowment they would be identical twins.</p>
<p>Let me first of all say sorry for appearing to dismiss some of the interesting comments that have been posted in this thread. Perhaps that's my style of discussion of controversial issues, pressing hard for more detail--but I shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a personal rebuff, so let me try something new here. </p>
<p>I have at hand the book under review, the subject of the opening post in this thread. I do NOT have at hand Ellen Winner's 1996 book--I last reread parts of it a few years ago. The sole copy still in my county library system is checked out. I have downloaded the article Marite kindly mentioned yesterday, but want to read it carefully and look up some bibliographic references (some of which I have at hand for a current research project) before replying about that specific article. Meanwhile, some of you might want to see if you can find any of the articles or books cited to this thread in your favorite public or academic library. I enjoy reading research articles that get me thinking about and doubting ideas I thought I knew cold for years, so more citations would be welcome. </p>
<p>Below are two propositions to try to prove or disprove, for open discussion. I invite all participants here to think about how one would gather evidence that would convince a skeptical observer that your favored position on the propositions is correct, and about what kind of evidence, if found, might cause you to change your mind. </p>
<p>Proposition A: </p>
<p>Some large percentage of the human population (say, about 40 percent) can learn to perform on a musical instrument the usual literature for that instrument well enough to be hired to perform professionally and to make a living performing on that instrument. The observed fact that many fewer people than that actually play musical instruments professionally can be explained by </p>
<p>1) early lack of experience listening to music, </p>
<p>2) lack of access to musical training, </p>
<p>3) lack of sufficient free time to practice, </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>4) personal decisions to pursue other activities </p>
<p>without any need to posit that persons in this percentage of the population lack innate musical talent. </p>
<p>Proposition B: </p>
<p>Some large percentage of the human population (say, about 15 percent) can learn enough mathematics to earn a Ph.D. in mathematics and obtain full-time employment as a mathematician or actuary. The observed fact that many fewer people than that actually do mathematics professionally can be explained by </p>
<p>1) early lack of experience playing with numbers, </p>
<p>2) lack of access to mathematical training, </p>
<p>3) lack of sufficient free time to practice, </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>4) personal decisions to pursue other activities </p>
<p>without any need to posit that persons in this percentage of the population lack innate mathematical talent. </p>
<p>Both of the propositions above, and especially the population percentages they include, are made up for discussion and are not necessarily my position on either issue. They may not represent Ericsson's position (and they surely don't represent Winner's :) ) but I am curious how each of the college-educated participants here in this thread would go about </p>
<p>a) proving the propositions wrong, as against doubters, </p>
<p>b) proving the propositions right, as against doubters, </p>
<p>c) being convinced that one's initial position was wrong, after learning new evidence, </p>
<p>d) applying one's position (pro or con) to the issue of advising young people on college selection (our overarching topic here), </p>
<p>e) gathering and reporting more information on the propositions, and refining their support or their refutation. </p>
<p>Just something to think about. </p>
<p>Have a great Christmas and a very happy New Year.</p>
<p>I hesitate to mention this, but I will try and not reveal too much. My wife is a very accomplished investigator of special children. She has been looking at giftedness and accomplishments in reasoning and thinking for well over 20 years. She finds no "talent" in this area. She can pretty well describe the language environment and histories that account for much of what is said to be evidence of natural giftedness. She now has a very successful program that provides those repertoires for others not so fortunate to have fallen into those environments. She has taken below average kids, and in a couple of years, they are now in programs for the gifted. She and her associates have worked out very systematic and rapid practice methods on essential language and reasoning skills that compress years of practice into one or two. </p>
<p>It is possible for some skills, particularly psychomotor, such as in music or basketball, certain physical conditions (morphologies) may exist that allow one to come in contact with their subject matter in a different way than can another, and make early responses to that subject matter more successful, thus resulting in child spending more time on the particular activity, and less on alternatives (in a moment-to-moment sense). The children, as they become more proficient, respond at faster rates, producing more responses per unit of time as well. This applies to cognitive as well as psychomotor skills. This is usually the point at which parents notice and begin seeking out venue's for the "expression" of this repertoire (i.e., talent), which in turn results in more and better (guided) practice. Parents see this as innately gifted talent emerging, scientists see it as a somewhat rare path of child development. These paths can originate, as said earlier, from morphological differences, or from simply by behaviors simply "falling into" the path.</p>
<p>As far as pitch discrimination. The jury is out as to whether or not there is a physiological basis for differences in pitch discrimination that would account for the "perfect pitch" phenomenon. Pitch discrimination begins (for this purpose) in the cochlea. Hair cells vibrate in accord with the pitch (but, if one looks at the work in this area, it gets complicated really fast). Is it possible that differences in hair cells, their arrangement etc. could give some one the ability to discriminate finer grain differences in pitch? This is a possibility. However, complicating the picture is research on those who show perfect pitch, often fail to show any physiological differences from others. This of course, leads to neural just-so-stories trying to account for the differences through concepts of tonal memory, genes, and hypothetical neural organization, unfortunately little evidence exists for any of these. Animals often show perfect pitch, which causes problems for labeling theories, for example. Finally, those who don't have it initially, if taught when very young, may develop it. </p>
<p>As children are known to adjust their verbal and other behavior to find parity with the adult environment; and, that recognition of "closeness of fit" is a major reinforcer that maintains much of the developmental path (known technically as an absolute match-to-sampe, versus a comparative match when a sample is actually present). Such recognition of pitch differences in the sounds produced by one's own performance that matches the finer grain discrimination (whatever its basis) could form the substrate for the effects of this tonal discriminative difference, and serve as a launching pad for a more rapidly accelerating music repertoire. Even, if true, this is no more a "talent" than being 7 feet tall. What's more, we may observe this for the high achiever, but are we looking for it in those who don't achieve? That is, there may be many more who show this same physiological difference who do not fall into a similar development path. Further, many great composers are said to have had perfect pitch, but just as many have not, so even perfect pitch does not seem to be the critical component to musical success. What they do all have in common is good old fashioned deliberate, guided practice.</p>
<p>Mikemac:</p>
<p>Yes, I was in error. I might also say that, while I am mathematically challenged, as was my mother, my father was a math prodigy. My mother, on the other hand, is related to many musical performers. So, it could still be genetics that accounts for my kids' very different dispositions.</p>
<p>idad:</p>
<p>I'd appreciate if your wife could explain how my 6 months old could demand Beethoven's 5th? When he yelled "moo, moo" this obviously meant that he understood what we meant by music. But we did not play Beethoven's Fifth endlessly. Yet, he would not stop yelling until, by trial and error, he hit upon that particular overture. Eventually, he tired of it, and decided he preferred to listen to the slow movement of Beethoven's 7th. Again, a wordless request, since he was all of 7months. Keep in mind that he was also in full time daycare from 8am to 6pm. five days a week since he was 2.5 months old. I am quite positive that he was not listening to classical music during that time. I really do not know how to account for this. His brother, raised in the same environment, made no such request, verbal or otherwise.</p>
<p>Herein lies the reason that there is so little in the way of support or service for children with profound talents, or their parents, who are often dismissed, exactly as the parents on this thread have been. </p>
<p>Either we are told that such phenomena doesn't exist, or that "all children are gifted". While it is true that every person is comprised of strengths and weaknesses, it is simply not true that all people can learn new things at the same pace, the same depth or level, with the same reasoning or analytical skills. Nor is it true that these abilities are drilled or practiced; they simply <em>are</em> there.</p>
<p>When parents who have raised children like this share experiences, however, they find unbelievable similarities. So, I will respectfully disagree with those of you who dismiss our "anecdotes".</p>
<p>Auditory pattern discrimination of a particular type serving as a reinforcer in young children is not that unusual. See for example: <a href="http://www.tmea.org/080_College/Research/Flo2000.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.tmea.org/080_College/Research/Flo2000.pdf</a>
[quote]
Newborns in this study showed a clear preference for listening to the Bach classical piece in comparison to the Aerosmith rock piece. In addition, the longer they were allowed to listen to the music, the more they preferred Bach. The musical stimuli had been previously rated by college students for dimensions of positive emotional tone, arousal magnitude and compositional structure. Complete control of all dimensions of style was not possible. These include melodic, rhythmic, timbral, expressive (dynamics, nuance) and form (e.g. aba, sonata allegro). Pieces were selected on the basis of having similar high ratings in positive emotional tone and compositional structure and similar tempi. Ratings for arousal were significantly different indicating a higher rating for the Aerosmith piece.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tokenadult:</p>
<p>I have always had a facility for languages and difficulty with math/science, notwithstanding the fact that my father was a math prodigy and my parents tried to steer me into a math/science direction, thinking I would have a more lucrative career. I was learning four languages in high school, not counting French, of course. But I probably spent more time over math and science than all these languages combined, precisely because I had so little aptitude for the former, and absorbed languages so easily. Practice, in my case, made it possible for me to be achieve somewhat above average in math/science but only to that level, no more. Languages, however, I had very little trouble with and did not need to put in so much effort into learning them. However, lack of subsequent practice led at least two to atrophy.</p>
<p>Similarly, perhaps she could explain how my son at less than 9 months old could point to the title of a song he wanted to hear - on any of around a dozen cassettes (not as high brow as Marite's son's musical preferences - we're talking children's tapes like Raffi, Joanie Bartles, Joe Scruggs) and expect to hear the song he had pointed out. If you did not play the song he wanted, he would shake his head "no" and point to the title of the song he wanted to hear. When he had listened to the song he wanted, he would point to another - on the same or a different tape. (He didn't want the same songs or same artist over and over - he liked all of the songs and chose them at different times.)</p>
<p>Obviously, he had mastered symbol recognition on some level and related it to his preference in music. </p>
<p>He, too, did not spend much time on music - preferring to drive his Cozy Coupe, push toy trains and cars around and run around outside.</p>
<p>My oldest was not nearly as precocious as some here, but he was certainly like no other child I knew. He seemed to look on his entire environment as a code he had to crack. As soon as he realized that writing had messages he was asking what everything said. At two he could read dozens of words, and by the time he was three he could read many picture books even ones he hadn't seen before. He looked a clock when he was in preschool and observed that 12 5's made 60. Was his environment enriched? Sure, in the sense that I answered all his questions, but my second child never even thought to ask the questions or make the observations my older child did. He learned by practicing, but he practiced because he was capable of learning at a far earlier age than most kids. </p>
<p>That's not to say that perhaps more kids could perform at a higher level in more enriched environments. I just think precociousness is a true phenomena - whether it translates into lifelong success is an entirely different matter.</p>
<p>idad:
Thanks. I would not recognize an Aerosmith piece if I heard it. What confounded us was that we did play Beethoven's Fifth occasionally, but we also played many other compositions by him and other composers. Believe me, we did not play the opening bars of Beethoven's Fifth first thing on coming home! In fact, we never played that symphony as often as we did while S1 demanded it. We grew rather sick of it, but he seemed to think it was appropriate accompaniement to his dinner. The slow movement of the 7th is quite different from those opening bars of the Fifth. He was willing to listen to the whole symphony but reserved his smile for the slow movement.</p>
<p>But, just to show that practice is important, he never really practiced much. And he never developed his musical talent to the fullest.</p>
<p>Allmusic: No one is saying that children with exceptional repertoires should not get the programs and practices they may require. My wife and I have been long time proponents of gifted education. Both of our children have had the benefit of programs so designated and would, in our opinion, been underserved without them. Having said that, we claim no special talent or "gift" for them, just the good fortune of coming in contact with a particular developmental path.</p>
<p>idad:
I'm confused. What is meant by "exceptional repertoires?" How different is it from the meaning of "innate talent?" Is gifted education just another way of saying that most American children are not pushed hard enough (that's true, in middle school especially)? In that case, what would be needed would be a total curricular overhaul, not gifted education?</p>
<p>It is meant to be descriptive rather than explanatory. And to the later point, most children could indeed achieve to the level of those often found in gifted programs. We in this country do indeed suffer from CDD ...Curriculum Deficiency Disorder.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Herein lies the reason that there is so little in the way of support or service for children with profound talents, or their parents
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me ask a serious question here, based on my role as the member of the board of directors for the state association for the gifted and talented in a high-population state. What in the way of support or service for children with profound talents would you like to see in your community? What would you like the local school system to provide? What would you like to be provided through channels other than the school system? What in the way of support or service for children with profound talents currently exists in your community? Who participates in the existing programs? What could be done to make for a better match between children with profound talents and services that would be helpful to them? What in the way of support or service for parents would you like to see more of? </p>
<p>I'd appreciate any information or suggestions any parents have about the subject of this post, because my state organization expects there to be legislative action in this area in the upcoming legislative session, and we all want to be able to refer to examples from other states as we ponder what is best for us here.</p>
<p>Idad, living in a state with $0 (yep, zero) funding for gifted education, my H and I have pretty much been on our own in figuring out how to educate our children to their own potentials, and we are all too aware of CDD. </p>
<p>We have been exceptionally fortunate with the son I have described, in that he has been allowed to compact his math curriculum (after sitting bored for many years in elementary school), and has an extremely enriching music environment at school (that is supplemented by a private music school program, lessons, other ensembles etc).</p>
<p>Our daughter, perhaps because she is a girl (which is a whole other story when talking about gifts and talents) hasn't been well served at all in public school (despite quite a lot of work on our part), and we needed to put her in a private school for her special talents (which are entirely different from her brother's...neither music nor math proclivity, but exceptionally artistic and creative nonetheless) to be nurtured.</p>
<p>It isn't that I don't understand why people dismiss innate talent, because it seems in some way to make them feel inferior (which seems silly) but these children often do suffer if they do not have parents who are able to optimize their learning environments. Schools could do better, but they don't, because of the prejudices we have discussed.</p>
<p>As a friendly suggestion for parents who are looking for resources, I will mention three organizations: </p>
<p>The Davidson Institute for Talent Development Young Scholars program </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ditdservices.org/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=147&NavID=0_0%5B/url%5D">http://www.ditdservices.org/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=147&NavID=0_0</a> </p>
<p>offers a variety of services and networking opportunities for families in its defined population. It is particularly helpful in getting parents in touch with other parents. The DITD staff are very helpful and friendly and welcome inquiries about how to apply to the Young Scholars program. </p>
<p>The Jack Kent Cooke Young Scholars program </p>
<p>offers even more elaborate services to an even smaller population of families, defined both on grounds of high ability of children and low resources of families. This program interacts with the thoughtfully designed APEX Project of the Center for Gifted Education Policy of the American Psychological Association </p>
<p><a href="http://www.apa.org/ed/apexproject.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.apa.org/ed/apexproject.html</a> </p>
<p>(the URL may be password-protected) </p>
<p>to provide advanced talent development opportunities for a select group of learners. </p>
<p>The Julian A. Stanley Study of Exceptional Talent </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jhu.edu/cty/set/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.jhu.edu/cty/set/index.html</a> </p>
<p>is largely a research study on a group of profoundly gifted young people, as defined by SAT I test scores obtained by age thirteen, but it also provides some networking opportunities and resource information. Anyone from anywhere in the world with qualifying scores can join at any time subsequent to obtaining the scores.</p>
<p>TA, my son is already in SET, and the information we get from JHU is quite informative.</p>
<p>I appreciate your questions, and would like to think on them more, but I will respond. Thanks for posing them....</p>
<p>TA: I think I live in the same state as Allmusic, so $0 funding for gifted education. S is also in SET, but we did not find it particularly helpful. Still, with flexibility on the part of his teachers and easy access to college resources, I think his needs were well met.</p>
<p>As for S1, a combination of peer culture and lack of application failed to develop his musicality. That's life. </p>
<p>I know of your work on behalf of gifted children. But there are many issues involved. One is the unchallenging curriculum, especially in middle school. You and I are agreed on it. In math, in particular, we are agreed that the pedagogy is woefully inadequate and often betrays a lack of real math understanding on the part of teachers. Curricular improvement would benefit all children.</p>
<p>For gifted children, the stumbling block has always been their small numbers allied with the fact that their gifts are so diverse. A program or accommodation that suits a child who can paint extraordinarily well will not suit one who can perform music at a high level, or a student who can handle calculus at an early age. So I don't know if more resources are necessarily the way to go. Perhaps flexibility is key. For those who can afford it, homeschooling may be the best way to deal with outliers. As I've mentioned, I've met a few. I recall in particular the first time an 8-year old joined the advanced math enrichment class. She was so happy she was hyperactive. After a few sessions, she calmed down but never stopped enjoying the class. At 10, she was preparing for her A levels. Needless to say, she was homeschooled. I've met a few more, equally brilliant, also homeschooled. </p>
<p>For those whose parents cannot homeschool, whatever resources there are might go toward providing information and doing some coordination rather than bringing the resources into the schools, providing scholarships for students whose talents are not academic (art, music, dance). Perhaps schools might provide funding for k-12 students to take college classes, as our community does.</p>