<p>interesting.......</p>
<p>
[quote]
Reading the posts by Allmusic and reflectivemom, I can see grist for two different mills.</p>
<ol>
<li>What is called talent is the visible result of sustained. consistent, guided practice. If AM's and RM's sons had practiced more, their talent would have shined brighter.</li>
</ol>
<p>2.Other students need more practice to attain a level of proficiency which AM's and RM's sons achieve with far less practice. It is unclear that more practice will result in the other students being seen as talented.</p>
<p>A fair summary?
[/quote]
Studies of profoundly gifted children that follow them over many years tend to show that they often do not accomplish what was often expected of them. Further, for those individuals that have achieved the highest levels of expertise, all have spent about the same amount of practice time, roughly 10,000 hours. The lone exception, I believe, was Bobby Fisher who spent 8000 hours practicing before becoming grand champion. In addition, many of those considered extraordinarily talented or "geniuses" as adults show little indication of this as children.</p>
<p>From the article that began this thread:
[quote]
No accepted measure of innate or basic intelligence, whether IQ or other metrics, reliably predicts that a person will develop extraordinary ability. In other words, the IQs of the great would not predict their level of accomplishments, nor would their accomplishments predict their IQs. Studies of chess masters and highly successful artists, scientists and musicians usually find their IQs to be above average, typically in the 115 to 130 range, where some 14 percent of the population reside - impressive enough, but hardly as rarefied as their achievements and abilities. </p>
<p>The converse - that high IQ does not ensure greatness - holds as well. This was shown in a study of adult graduates of New York City's Hunter College Elementary School, where an admission criterion was an IQ of at least 130 (achieved by a little over 1 per cent of the general population) and the mean IQ was 157 - "genius" territory by any scaling of IQ scores, and a level reached by perhaps one in 5000 people. Though the Hunter graduates were successful and reasonably content with their lives, they had not reached the heights of accomplishment, either individually or as a group, that their IQs might have suggested.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Idad, you spent the first several pages of the thread saying that there is no indication that innate talent exists, and now you are discussing how high IQ/talent is no predictor of future greatness. So now are you now agreeing that innate talent exists? </p>
<p>All along, several of us have shown, through personal anecdotal evidence, that there is an entity known as innate talent, that no amount of sustained or guided practice can create. We have also all agreed that whether or not a person achieves greatness is not solely dependent upon talent or IQ alone, but also upon motivation, ambition etc.</p>
<p>If one reads the paragraph carefully, it says IQ or other metrics. It is descriptive, and research has shown that it does not look like a likely candidate for an explanation either. There are plenty of anecdotes in which people deeply believe, that is their privilege, but it is not science. Scientific research over the past 25 years just does not support an explanatory entity called talent.</p>
<p>Idad:</p>
<p>This is a very confusing discussion.</p>
<p>What does it mean to have an IQ of 157? Nothing? No different than an IQ of 75? If a kid with an IQ of 75 and a kid with an IQ of 157 practice, practice, practice, they will get the same result?</p>
<p>NO ONE has been arguing that any metric--call it innate talent, IQ, "ït," what have you--predicts extraordinary accomplishment. Not I, not Allmusic, not reflectivemom, not mathmom or any other poster on this thread. We have argued that practice is needed to develop the "it". But we have also argued that "it" exists. As does the author of the original excerpt. You, however, began by denying the existence of talent (or what have you). I would not have joined the discussion if you had not done so. Post 162 runs counter to your previous argument and in fact accords with those that we have put forward. </p>
<p>I</p>
<p>No one really knows what it means. But what is clear is that the most predictive metric for great accomplishment is practice, not high IQ, "talent", or anything else for that matter.</p>
<p>Maybe that's why kids who can do 9th grade math in 4th grade are told to do 4th grade math. They just need practice. And if they don't want to practice, they are told that learning to cope with being bored is a great life skill. Yup, heard that one.</p>
<p>There are some of us who are more concerned with the "process" than the "product". And, for my son, the process is definitely impacted by the availability of "like minds". He has found that hardwork/practice does not equal natural ability when it comes to the "process" although it may very well generate the same "product". </p>
<p>"Scientific research over the past 25 years just does not support an explanatory entity called talent."</p>
<p>That's not my take. There is more and more research being done on intelligence, "g", etc. Many, if not most scientists, now believe there is definitely a biological basis for intelligence.</p>
<p>I haven't had time to read this whole thread - so I am not sure what has been debated here -- but as I understand the article that sparked the discussion, the point was basically the same as Edison's famous quote, "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration." The article wasn't denying the existence of talent -- but was focused on what leads to the greatest level of accomplishment -- who ends up winning the Nobel prize or becoming a famous musician? And what distinguishes the top achievers from the rest of the pack is effort. Hence the comparatively mundane level of accomplishments of highly gifted schoolchildren (such as the Terman study kids or the Hunter Elementary grads) -- IQ is not nearly as good a predictor of accomplishments as internal motivation & drive. (And it might also be argued that educators & parents do gifted kids a disservice by putting too much an emphasis on their innate abilities and IQ, simply because they may not develop the study habits and discipline that are needed when they reach the point in their education or careers when their innate abilities and their "potential" is not enough to keep them at the head of the pack.)</p>
<p>That is not to say that hard work is enough to compensate for lack of talent or ability -- its just that in real life a person with an IQ of 120 who is disciplined and driven by a passion may achieve far more in a given field than a colleague with an IQ of 150. At the same time, the individual with the IQ of 150 might have a far easier time achieving at an average or somewhat above average level at any given field -- which is what you get when you have student A achieving the same as students B, C & D with far less work. The question isn't whether student A should have been required to do as many problem sets as students B, C, & D to achieve the same -- clearly he didn't have to. The real question is, if student A is so smart, why hasn't student A achieved much more than his classmates? And what would student A have to do to achieve more? </p>
<p>"Practice" is probably not a helpful word because it implies repetition, and in many fields that is not the sort of extra work that would be entailed in making the leap between very good and great, and between great and extraordinary -- for example, in some fields it might be a matter of reading voraciously, or of totally immersing oneself in the topic, or of finding a mentor who is able to guide and challenge the student. I think what is really meant by "practice" is dedicated effort -- that is, putting in whatever type and amount of effort is required to hone one's abilities to perfection.</p>
<p>Calmom:</p>
<p>You've got the gist of our arguments. Idad began by saying that there is no such thing as talent, or, to quote Edison, the 1% inspiration. That's what started the disagreement.</p>
<p><a href="And%20it%20might%20also%20be%20argued%20that%20educators%20&%20parents%20do%20gifted%20kids%20a%20disservice%20by%20putting%20too%20much%20an%20emphasis%20on%20their%20innate%20abilities%20and%20IQ,%20simply%20because%20they%20may%20not%20develop%20the%20study%20habits%20and%20discipline%20that%20are%20needed%20when%20they%20reach%20the%20point%20in%20their%20education%20or%20careers%20when%20their%20innate%20abilities%20and%20their%20%22potential%22%20is%20not%20enough%20to%20keep%20them%20at%20the%20head%20of%20the%20pack.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is precisely why it is so detrimental to suggest that all kids are gifted and that no accommodation should be made for a kid who is more advanced than others. Underachievement is the bane of gifted kids. And they become underachievers because they get the same results as the more average kids by doing only a fraction of the work. By the time they are truly challenged, they have developed poor study habits. We avoided this problem for our S simply by accelerating him radically. We observed this for one of his friends who was gifted in a different area. Luckily for him, art schools are more forgiving of poor grades.</p>
<p>Quote from Marite: </p>
<p>"I know of one 4th grader in a suburban district who was so advanced that he could handle 9th grade math. The district accommodated him by sending a high school math teacher to his elementary school to teach him Honors Algebra."</p>
<p>I'm not sure if you were referring to my son, but that was precisely the circumstance. Initially, we had to fight hard for the "special education" (at the end of second grade my son took the middle school honors placement exam for math and had to place in the 99 percentile in order to qualify for the skip to the honors math track) But once things got rolling, the school really took over (they initiated another skip of a year when my son was in 4th). I am eternally grateful to our district for it's amazing accomodations, which had a monumental and lasting impact on my son's attitude and approach to learning. Without the challenges afforded him, school would have become an untenable experience.</p>
<p>Donemom: </p>
<p>Your S is then the second child I've heard about!
[quote]
I am eternally grateful to our district for it's amazing accomodations, which had a monumental and lasting impact on my son's attitude and approach to learning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So am I. Many disruptive students are highly able students who are bored by mundane practice work. I know that's not what Tokenadult is talking about; but that is what is practiced--nay, preached even--in most schools.</p>
<p>"This is precisely why it is so detrimental to suggest that all kids are gifted and that no accommodation should be made for a kid who is more advanced than others. Underachievement is the bane of gifted kids."</p>
<p>And, this is the reason that some of us are arguing so hard on this thread. As long as people equate "giftedness" with hard work, they see no need for special gifted programs, radical acceleration, independent study, grouping by ability, etc.</p>
<p>We didn't have that experience in 4th (still were dealing with the principal who thought all children were gifted), but moved to a new district shortly thereafter. We didn't have to fight very hard to compact math curriculum here, because other families had set the precedent. Several kids per year went to the high school for math in middle school, and ended up completing high school curriculum years early. </p>
<p>I shudder to think what could have become to my son had we stayed in the other school system, where he would have been forced to sustain interest through years of repetitive tasks, since they refused to advance or compact curriculum. A lot of kids do become behavior problems, lose interest in school or learning, or otherwise "check out"when they are so vastly underchallenged. </p>
<p>Many gifted children do not realize their potential, not because of "unsustained practice", but due to rigid rule bound curriculum structures that are typically focused on the bottom third of the class.</p>
<p>And, off-topic, could someone please explain how to insert text in shadowed boxes. That is much more effectively than merely quoted a previous poster. Thanks.</p>
<p>RM, if you type [ quote] before the quoted portions, and [ /quote] after, the shadowed text will appear. Eliminate the spaces after the bracket on both (I had to put spaces in or my instructions appeared as a quote!)</p>
<p>"I know of one 4th grader in a suburban district who was so advanced that he could handle 9th grade math. The district accommodated him by sending a high school math teacher to his elementary school to teach him Honors Algebra."</p>
<p>When my son was in second grade, his teachers requested (without my knowledge) assistance from the central office and a "math enrichment specialist" came to the school once a week to do math enrichment activities with my son. These same enrichment teachers were soon advocating for him to go to the middle school for Algebra. We refused - the scheduling was a nightmare and he would miss recess, lunch and all the fun "specials" with his friends. Additionally, the math "experts" agreed that any Algebra class would move too slowly for him. He did Algebra independently by just reading through the text in the back of the room or the library or a storeroom or.....</p>
<p>Thanks, Allmusic.</p>
<p>When I was about four, my mother started babysitting several early elementary aged children. They walked to our house after school, and we entertained ourselves by playing school. Through that play experience, I learned to read and was doing it pretty well when it was time for me to start first grade (no kindergarten in that small district back then). Believing I needed something else to do during reading time, my teacher arranged for me to join the fourth grade for music while my peers were having fun with Dick and Jane. The music teacher was instructing the fourth grade in the fine art of playing the "Tonette," a small plastic recorder-type instrument. He showed me a fingering chart keyed to notes on a treble clef staff, and I looked at the chart for a few minutes and started playing along with the rest of the class. I still remember being puzzled when the teacher asked me when I had learned to read music--he had just shown me himself! </p>
<p>Based on that music teacher's recommendation, my mom somehow scraped together two dollars a week for me to start piano lessons with the minister's wife (this was in the early 60s and I practiced at church until mom could afford a used piano). Through the years I continued with other instructors ranging from a college music major to one of the piano professors at the regional state college 85 miles away. I always understood that it was a financial sacrifice for my mom, but I was a typical kid and didn't work too hard at it. I progressed to my teachers' satisfaction, but I really don't think they knew that most of the time I put in very little practice; I won guild competitions and was considered one of the best young pianists in my state, and I've always been able to sightread music that would require a great deal of practice on the part of most students. I'm certain my natural ability could have been enhanced by regular dedicated practice, but still, I think I'm another pretty good piece of anecdotal evidence for the innate talent camp. I don't think my early childhood environment was particularly music-rich; my parents were poor and did not even have electricity until they moved from a farm to town when I was three. I guess the "what if I had really applied myself?" question is unanswerable, but the skill I do have is enough to bring me a great deal of pleasure and provides a meaningful outlet of service to others. Music will always be a hobby that I enjoy, but I have other passions.</p>