Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gifted children are special needs children

mleverything.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#121

Post by austin-cheney »

JohnBooty wrote: post #89
austin-cheney wrote: post #2

This talk about high performers and low performers needing focused environments to perform gets me thinking about the scenario of putting them together. I know this is not what the article is suggesting, but the thought is still there. This reminds me of conversations between the two ends of the Dunning-Kruger spectrum. In DK low performing people tend to vastly over-estimate their capabilities because their frame of…

This talk about high performers and low performers needing focused environments to perform gets me thinking about the scenario of putting them together. Well, hold up. I think that some large school districts in major cities have magnet schools for gifted kids. But to my knowledge in America most gifted programs are not some kind of total segregation and I don't see a lot of people arguing for that either. In my expe…

My wife works in a large public school system with academically disabled children. That school system, and it appears so in various degrees in neighboring school systems, that children with extreme academic performance disabilities are well separated from the general population, because they need more dedicated resources and if they are mixed into the general student population will consume a disproportionate amount of resources as to become a distraction.

Super high achieving students, likewise, have special needs. They don't necessary require as much assistance as the students at the low end of the spectrum but they do require more dedicated resources. This is part because they move fast enough academically to consume educational material faster than general education can fill their needs. It isn't that the education material needs to be more challenging, but that it must also be replenished at a much faster rate.

I have noticed these same sorts of trends during my software career as well. The low performers are bored because they have trouble with the standard tasks. If they are recoverable through coaching then its not a problem, but otherwise they can become a huge drag on the team. This is also true of high performers. High performers tend to get bored and distracted and have higher availability than there peers. Many of these high performers tend to do things they aren't supposed to, like contributing to competing open source or taking outside jobs, just to stay occupied.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#122

Post by ProllyInfamous »

ludicrousdispla wrote: post #113
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #13

Greetings fellow travelers [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional ---- In response to OP's link, my suggestion to primary schools would be to scrap the G/T programs, and instead focus on reducing class-sizes. You should also remove any students from classrooms whom routinely distract from others' learning. Give those timesinks a broom, instead.

My experience with G/T programs, both as a student and as a parent, has been: 1. the teachers have much more freedom in developing the curriculum which I assume is because their incoming students have a fairly high baseline proficiency in all of the required subjects. 2. bad teachers often get assigned to the G/T classes under the assumption that they can't do as much damage (which I can guarantee you is not the case…

>bad teachers often get assigned to the G/T

This is all relative (of course) but I feel the worst teachers for G/T are the ones that WON'T call certain shithead brainiacs out on our bullshit.

...at least that's how most of mine failed entire demographics.

¢¢

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#123

Post by cardanome »

austin-cheney wrote: post #120
cardanome wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Masking is a form of dishonesty and people who are good a communication see it as such. Masking is autistic people adjusting their communication style so they are more acceptable to allistic people while neglecting their own needs. For example many autistic people show emotions differently. They can default to a flatter tone of voice or show less microexpressions in the face i.e a flatter affect. (Just to be clear,…

I have an autistic child. I know exactly what it means. I understand the motivation to appear somehow different than they are, but nonetheless it is a form of active ritual deception that becomes habit. It does not matter how well intended any given deception may be the audience still sees it as a lie. > It is the same effect when people think they are good at spotting a liar. That is another Dunning-Kruger moment. T…

> Paul Ekman

Your knowledge of psychology seems to be outdated by... several decades.

I recommend reading "How Emotions Are Made" by Lisa Feldman Barret.

If you don't recognize the name Lisa Feldman Barret, please google her. She is very acclaimed in the scientific world.

I also highly recommend watching anything by Ember Green, especially this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnd74yyf4nQ

Realistically, I know what I am writing is not going to change your mind. It might cause you to get defensive if anything else. But the fact that you have an autistic child and are operating on very outdated scientific ideas make me wish I could somehow.

I mean it is not surprising. Those ideas by Paul Ekman are still extremely popular. There are many fraudsters that use them to this day to get government founding and the like. So note that I am not calling you a bad person for falling for this. I am just saying you could be a damn good parent if you updated your views with a bit of more modern psychology.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#124

Post by bccdee »

greygoo222 wrote: post #115
bccdee wrote: post #76

The primary reason I was admitted into my local gifted program was because my parents and teachers pushed to get me into it. At age 6, I scored a high enough IQ to get in, but my family had to pay to have the test administered privately. The makeup of my cohort was mostly white and Asian, but they were also distinctly middle-to-upper-middle-class, with a high density of stay-at-home mothers (like my own) who were act…

Affluent Black or Asian immigrants are typically high-skilled immigrants, a program that, by definition, screens for merit. Merit is heritable.

"Merit" is not a singular monolithic quality. Highly skilled immigrants have many meritorious qualities, like education and professional skills, which are not heritable and which cost money to acquire. Between an affluent child of average intellect and a clever child of modest means, both living in the developing world, the rich kid is much more likely to end up in America than the poor kid is.

Gifted programs seek to screen for childhood intelligence, which is distinct both from being an immigrant and from having a good career. And, as I pointed out, being a smart kid is (in my experience) less of a factor in terms of being admitted to a gifted program than having attentive parents with free time and money.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#125

Post by bccdee »

lostmsu wrote: post #110
bccdee wrote: post #76

The primary reason I was admitted into my local gifted program was because my parents and teachers pushed to get me into it. At age 6, I scored a high enough IQ to get in, but my family had to pay to have the test administered privately. The makeup of my cohort was mostly white and Asian, but they were also distinctly middle-to-upper-middle-class, with a high density of stay-at-home mothers (like my own) who were act…

Your anecdote does not support your own conclusion, because it is very possible that affluence was obtained by parent's merit, and merit is highly hereditable.

> merit is highly hereditable

That's a foolish statement on its face. "Merit" quantifies whether someone deserves something, and it depends both on the deserved thing and the rubric for judgment. Some forms of merit are fairly heritable (basketball skill) and others aren't (trivia knowledge).

My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#126

Post by lostmsu »

bccdee wrote: post #125
lostmsu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your anecdote does not support your own conclusion, because it is very possible that affluence was obtained by parent's merit, and merit is highly hereditable.

> merit is highly hereditable That's a foolish statement on its face. "Merit" quantifies whether someone deserves something, and it depends both on the deserved thing and the rubric for judgment. Some forms of merit are fairly heritable (basketball skill) and others aren't (trivia knowledge). My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program.

> quantifies whether someone deserves something

That's one definition of the term, but this subthread is talking about the other ones.

> Superior quality or worth; excellence > Demonstrated ability or achievement

These are highly hereditable.

> My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program.

It does not matter for the discussion. The point being discussed is whether skills or wealth came first, and heritability of skills indicate the first option. There's no data, including your grandparents, that would indicate the second one.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#127

Post by ProllyInfamous »

M95D wrote: post #109
dugmartin wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should also remove any students from classrooms whom routinely distract from others' learning. You can't do this without getting sued (at least in Massachusetts). Source: my wife is a long-time elementary school teacher and my daughter works as a one-on-one aide while she is getting her teaching degree. I don't want to start of flamewar but the current "push in" model created by educational bureaucrats creates…

>> You should also remove any students from classrooms whom routinely distract from others' learning. > You can't do this without getting sued (at least in Massachusetts). Yes you can. Group students by entrance exam results. Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45070793

Great link / discussion, thanks!

I think social ostracism is an effective tool to deal with anti-social behaviors (at any age).

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#128

Post by bccdee »

lostmsu wrote: post #126
bccdee wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> merit is highly hereditable That's a foolish statement on its face. "Merit" quantifies whether someone deserves something, and it depends both on the deserved thing and the rubric for judgment. Some forms of merit are fairly heritable (basketball skill) and others aren't (trivia knowledge). My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program.

> quantifies whether someone deserves something That's one definition of the term, but this subthread is talking about the other ones. > Superior quality or worth; excellence > Demonstrated ability or achievement These are highly hereditable. > My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program. It does not matter for the discussion. The point being discussed is whether skills…

"Demonstrated ability or achievement" is not highly hereditable. The word "demonstrated" should make that obvious. If I learn to play guitar and then have a kid, that kid will not know how to play guitar.

Aptitudes may be heritable, but an aptitude is very different from a skill. Potential is only useful once it's been actualized, and doing that takes resources.

> whether skills or wealth came first

Wealth comes first. The son's education is paid for with his father's money. We aren't born with skills.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#129

Post by burnt-resistor »

mobilene wrote: post #54

I entered middle school in 1979, at which time I was slotted into available "advanced" classes. This was as close to a G&T program as we had. It changed my game. Not because of the knowledge imparted, but because (a) I was with other kids who wanted to learn and were willing to work, and (b) I was largely removed from the disruptions I had increasingly experienced from kids who didn't want to be there. At last, I cou…

Interesting. CA GATE has little/no effect other than pulling me out of class to arrange triangles with a timer. The public high school I attended offered most AP classes (but was otherwise under-resourced), around ~15 perfect SAT-I results, and ~25 full scholarships to Ivy League schools per year. Not as fancy as a room full of IITians, but almost. Maybe there was some purpose for the G&T program other than bureaucratic pyramid-building or the specter of inventorying possibly intelligent people. Oh yeah, and I was bullied in middle school by a math teacher who encouraged the class to bully me as well who seemed to be offended at having a student added to her class.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#130

Post by lostmsu »

bccdee wrote: post #128
lostmsu wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> quantifies whether someone deserves something That's one definition of the term, but this subthread is talking about the other ones. > Superior quality or worth; excellence > Demonstrated ability or achievement These are highly hereditable. > My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program. It does not matter for the discussion. The point being discussed is whether skills…

"Demonstrated ability or achievement" is not highly hereditable. The word "demonstrated" should make that obvious. If I learn to play guitar and then have a kid, that kid will not know how to play guitar. Aptitudes may be heritable, but an aptitude is very different from a skill. Potential is only useful once it's been actualized, and doing that takes resources. > whether skills or wealth came first Wealth comes firs…

> "Demonstrated ability or achievement" is not highly hereditable.

False

> The word "demonstrated" should make that obvious.

No, it should not. Try to explain why you believe that.

> If I learn to play guitar and then have a kid, that kid will not know how to play guitar.

You full well know this is not how this works. If you try to learn guitar and fail, there's a good chance your kid will also fail if tries. And if you try and become exceptional there's a good chance if your kid would try they would also play way above average. That's what hereditability means.

> Wealth comes first. The son's education is paid for with his father's money.

Here's a good obvious point as to why wealth does not come first (that unlike yours is undeniable): how did the first person obtain the skill? There was neither anyone to teach it, nor wealth to pay for it.

> We aren't born with skills.

We most certainly are born with skills. Speed of learning is a skill.

Post reply on HN