Gifted children are special needs children • Hacker News Board

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#131

Post by foogazi » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 3:19 AM UTC

PaulKeeble wrote: post #71

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…

A lesson runs at the pace of the slowest students, and those slowest students don't want to learn and actively disrupt the class and everyone else. We tolerate this far too much its damaging to the other 20-30 children in the same lessons and moving them to their own classes would have a much bigger average impact than picking the brightest for special lessons. Ideally we would do both so people could go closer to th…

> and those slowest students don't want to learn and actively disrupt the class and everyone else.

Disrupting the class is something that can be proven

But I’m not sure about them not wanting to learn - maybe they end up not learning but how can you attribute it to a want ?

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#132

Post by bccdee » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 3:31 AM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #130

bccdee wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

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

Uh, okay. Let's do a thought experiment: Suppose I take some violin lessons and acquire an as-yet-undemonstrated ability to play the instrument. Later, I perform at a violin recital; after this demonstration, my violin abilities have become demonstrated.

Then I have a kid: 1. Can that infant child play violin? No. Thus they have not inherited my ability to play violin. 2. Has that infant child ever had a violin recital which demonstrated their ability to play violin? No. Thus they DEFINITELY do not possess a demonstrated ability to play violin.

Again, this should be obvious. I feel like you must be misunderstanding what the words "ability" and "demonstrated" mean.

> If you try to learn guitar and fail, there's a good chance your kid will also fail if tries.

You are no longer talking about "demonstrated ability." You are describing a lack of aptitude for guitar, which (as I said in my last post) is a different thing. Besides, pretty much anyone with working hands can learn to play guitar. It's not really a question of aptitude, it's a question of investing time and money into learning. Most skills are like that.

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

Well, no. It's an aptitude.

  aptitude /ăp′tĭ-too͞d″, -tyoo͞d″/
  noun
  An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent.

  skill /skĭl/
  noun
  Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience.

> how did the first person obtain the skill

What "first person"? I'm not talking about cavemen, I'm talking about our society and the impact that the socioeconomic status of a person's family has on their career relative to the impact of their innate intelligence. If you want to tell me that those factors are closely linked, you're flatly wrong: Many rich people are stupid, and many poor people are intelligent.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#133

Post by austin-cheney » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 9:16 AM UTC

cardanome wrote: post #123

austin-cheney wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your first comment was entirely self focused. Your second comment was exclusively about autism and masking success. Your third comment was about attacking a straw man, Paul Ekman.

That is a pattern I have seen before. Nothing you wrote is incorrect, but there is a familiar pattern to it.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#134

Post by lostmsu » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 10:07 AM UTC

bccdee wrote: post #132

lostmsu wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

> No, it should not. Try to explain why you believe that. Uh, okay. Let's do a thought experiment: Suppose I take some violin lessons and acquire an as-yet-undemonstrated ability to play the instrument. Later, I perform at a violin recital; after this demonstration, my violin abilities have become demonstrated. Then I have a kid: 1. Can that infant child play violin? No. Thus they have not inherited my ability to pla…

> Again, this should be obvious. I feel like you must be misunderstanding what the words "ability" and "demonstrated" mean.

You are talking about everything else except the subject: "heritability".

> which is a different thing

Statistically unrelated different thing? Most certainly no. Causally unrelated? Very probably no.

> Many rich people are stupid, and many poor people are intelligent.

That doesn't matter. What matters is exact statistic. And I didn't even need to look it up to know which way it goes.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#135

Post by DamonHD » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 10:17 AM UTC

silexia wrote: post #119

Destroying gifted programs is an insidious form of socialism. Socialism seeks to take from those who work hard and give to those who do not. Socialism inevitably collapses into dictatorship. That is the end goal of those who push it (other than fools who believe in an impossible utopia that ignores human nature). Destroying gifted programs is just another attempt to make everyone poor and under government control.

Socialism is building freeways and armies through socialised costs for a common good.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#136

Post by bccdee » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 1:16 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #134

bccdee wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it should not. Try to explain why you believe that. Uh, okay. Let's do a thought experiment: Suppose I take some violin lessons and acquire an as-yet-undemonstrated ability to play the instrument. Later, I perform at a violin recital; after this demonstration, my violin abilities have become demonstrated. Then I have a kid: 1. Can that infant child play violin? No. Thus they have not inherited my ability to pla…

> Again, this should be obvious. I feel like you must be misunderstanding what the words "ability" and "demonstrated" mean. You are talking about everything else except the subject: "heritability". > which is a different thing Statistically unrelated different thing? Most certainly no. Causally unrelated? Very probably no. > Many rich people are stupid, and many poor people are intelligent. That doesn't matter. What…

> You are talking about everything else except the subject: "heritability".

Did you miss the part where the kid does not inherit my having performed a violin recital? "Demonstrated abilities" are not heritable, because they presuppose achievements and you cannot inherit someone's achievements.

I'm starting to think you have some real reading comprehension problems. You're not really even responding to my post—just ctrl-F-ing for the word "heritability" and sneering when it doesn't show up.

> Statistically unrelated different thing?

A different thing. You can't treat concepts interchangeably just because you think there's a relationship between them. The unimportance of aptitude in this scenario was made clear in my next sentence, which I will repeat here because you were not paying attention last time: "Besides, pretty much anyone with working hands can learn to play guitar. It's not really a question of aptitude, it's a question of investing time and money into learning. Most skills are like that."

> What matters is exact statistic.

I'm not going to bother lecturing you on correlation and causation. You wouldn't read what I wrote anyway.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#137

Post by lostmsu » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 2:15 PM UTC

bccdee wrote: post #136

lostmsu wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, this should be obvious. I feel like you must be misunderstanding what the words "ability" and "demonstrated" mean. You are talking about everything else except the subject: "heritability". > which is a different thing Statistically unrelated different thing? Most certainly no. Causally unrelated? Very probably no. > Many rich people are stupid, and many poor people are intelligent. That doesn't matter. What…

> You are talking about everything else except the subject: "heritability". Did you miss the part where the kid does not inherit my having performed a violin recital? "Demonstrated abilities" are not heritable, because they presuppose achievements and you cannot inherit someone's achievements. I'm starting to think you have some real reading comprehension problems. You're not really even responding to my post—just ct…

> "Demonstrated abilities" are not heritable, because they presuppose achievements and you cannot inherit someone's achievements.

You seriously need to look up the word "heritability". Here's one from M-W: the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (such as height) that can be attributed to inherited genetic factors in contrast to environmental ones.

> I'm not going to bother lecturing you on correlation and causation. You wouldn't read what I wrote anyway.

It's a good thing heritability does not require causation then. Because it sounds like you figured out my understanding of causation vs correlation on the incorrect premise that the former is required.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#138

Post by bccdee » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 4:34 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #137

bccdee wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are talking about everything else except the subject: "heritability". Did you miss the part where the kid does not inherit my having performed a violin recital? "Demonstrated abilities" are not heritable, because they presuppose achievements and you cannot inherit someone's achievements. I'm starting to think you have some real reading comprehension problems. You're not really even responding to my post—just ct…

> "Demonstrated abilities" are not heritable, because they presuppose achievements and you cannot inherit someone's achievements. You seriously need to look up the word "heritability". Here's one from M-W: the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (such as height) that can be attributed to inherited genetic factors in contrast to environmental ones. > I'm not going to bother lecturing you on correlat…

  heritable
  /'hɛrɪtəbəl/
  adjective
  capable of being inherited

But if you want to use your definition, that's fine too. I can tell you right now that whether a person has performed in a violin concert can be attributed far more to environmental factors than genetic factors—for instance, whether their school had a music program where they were compelled to perform in a recital.

Of course, heritability is a population statistic. In order to talk about whether having performed a violin recital is heritable, we'd need to select a sample population. Even then, it might not tell us much. Whether a person wears earrings can be attributed primarily to genetic factors (XX vs XY), but it's still ultimately cultural.

> It's a good thing heritability does not require causation then.

And? What point are you making? Again, you're not really reading my posts—just finding details to nitpick, and wasting my time in doing so.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#139

Post by bccdee » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 4:50 PM UTC

oluminate wrote: post #52

eigencoder wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may misunderstand what a gifted kindergartener is. Like, some kids come in and they essentially taught themselves to read. That doesn't mean they have helicopter parents who think they're extra special -- it means they have distinct needs that aren't well served in the normal classroom, which is boring for them.

I don't think four year olds demonstrating the ability to read several levels above their grade level is 1.) rare and 2.) a talent you can realistically tease out from over-parenting at that age. Given the extreme levels of segregation in certain parts of the country (NYC for example has fewer than 5 percent of Black and Latino kindergartners in G&T programs, but higher enrollment for Black and Latino students in thi…

> I don't think four year olds demonstrating the ability to read several levels above their grade level is 1.) rare and 2.) a talent you can realistically tease out from over-parenting at that age.

Sure, but shouldn't those kids be in an environment where they can practice reading instead of being painstakingly re-taught the alphabet? As you said, it's not all rare.

I was one of those kids, and I was extremely disruptive in class because I couldn't bear to be made to sit and trace the letter "A" for 45 minutes when I was already reading novels at home. When they stuck me in a different class, things got much better for me, and it's not like doing that cost the school board any extra money.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#140

Post by yesfitz » Wed, Oct 08, 2025, 9:28 PM UTC

munchler wrote: post #105

yesfitz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on how gifted program students receive a disproportionate amount of education?

G&T programs are potentially disproportionate in terms of attention from the best teachers/classes, access to high-end resources, pipelines to the best colleges, etc. If those were available to everyone who could benefit from them, then there wouldn't be such competition for them. Source: Am a parent of a G&T student and I see the intensity with which parents push their kids into the program.

I think the word "potentially" is carrying a lot of weight there.

Do you have any sources that these things happen and/or that they negatively impact students outside of those programs?

The argument I've heard previously is that G&T programs remove peer role models from classrooms, which lowers the class's average behavior and achievement.

I was a G&T student for 5 years (2nd through 6th) and have close relationships with people who were educators then administrators in a G&T program.