Rejection Sensitivity in Gifted and Twice-Exceptional Children
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
Rejection Sensitivity in Gifted and Twice-Exceptional Children
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
dahart · · focus · HN ↗
Isn’t this a good reason to stop using the term “gifted”? Isn’t it now widely acknowledged that effort (among other things like creativity and self-conception) actually is part of intelligence?
“Gifted” children are historically identified and classified via IQ tests (typically with the threshold IQ >= 130 - though the definition of what ‘gifted’ should mean is being debated), and using “gifted” for smart kids emerged and was popularized in the 1920’s when IQ tests were being developed by people who basically believed in eugenics, in the heritability of intelligence, and they wanted to identify the kids with the smart genes. [1] Using language like ‘profoundly gifted’ and ‘genius’ for high IQ has always been (mis)leading since IQ is a ranking, not an absolute measure of intelligence.
I just searched and found an interesting recent paper arguing that ‘gifted’ is problematic and attached to science that is no longer valid, and should be improved or replaced. [2]
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Overview" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Overvi...
[2] <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36278606/" rel="nofollow">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36278606/
ndriscoll · · focus · HN ↗
That sounds wrong? Like I found engineering courses at university easy, and never put in any effort or studied, but still got As on exams where other people who I know worked very hard got Cs. Maybe working hard is important for outcomes, but clearly it's a different phenomenon from intelligence.
The Wikipedia article you linked also mentions that high IQ people literally have measurably different brain structures.
Intelligence is also known to be highly heritable (twin studies), and we do have a fairly large set of identified genes now that contribute, though generally none has a very strong effect, and apparently in many cases, there's multiple genes that need to interact, so it's not like you can just identify "the smart gene."
That paper you link doesn't seem to actually say anything. Like they're saying that we should have more specific terminology because different "gifted" kids need different things, but it would seem to me that what you are saying is exactly the cause of that issue. Previously we said that if you have a certain IQ, you are gifted. If we expand the scope of that to be gifted in a bunch of different ways, then it becomes a non-specific descriptor that entails different needs and therefore becomes unhelpful for figuring out support services.
Like, you can also be amazing at music or art, you can be a hard worker, etc. That just means something different from having high intelligence. But high intelligence does exist. I would expect that if somebody's a hard worker, moving more quickly might overwhelm them as they eventually run out of hours in the day and can't keep up with the work. A high intelligence person, by contrast, can quickly grasp topics, so it's not really very much work for them to move at a high pace, and in fact it might cause them to become more engaged.
dahart · · focus · HN ↗
FWIW, I wasn’t arguing against the idea of intelligence being heritable or having a biological component. Intelligence is heritable, but also there are large environmental and nurture components as well. Using the word “highly” might be technically accurate but somewhat misleading, the heritability of IQ for example averages around 50% across many studies (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ).
I was just pointing out that the way we measure intelligence does not measure intelligence itself directly, it only ranks people. We don’t know how much smarter someone who’s IQ 150 is than someone who’s IQ 100, we only know how many people are smarter than either score. Calling someone with a high IQ profoundly gifted is not actually supported by the ranking metric we’re using.
High intelligence does exist, I completely agree. What “high” actually means is debatable. But why is being amazing at art or music different from having high intelligence? Not sure I agree, and I think that statement is suspicious and deserves some justification. I think a lot of people would consider Bach and Mozart intelligent.
The actual reference to different brain structures in the Wikipedia article also mentions the positive correlation between socioeconomic status of children and their measured intelligence. That’s enough to question what’s actually being measured, and whether a correlation between cortical thickness and IQ really does represent a correlation between cortical thickness and intelligence, or something else.
ndriscoll · · focus · HN ↗
It makes perfect sense to me that socio-economics would correlate. You might suppose that kids of lower SES could have a ceiling effect from e.g. worse nutrition, more pollution, or lower access to brain enriching activities (the Genie case is an extreme example of how early neglect can be long-term catastrophic). And of course, g correlates with economic success, and is heritable, so you expect that high g kids will correlate with high g parents which correlates with high SES.
dahart · · focus · HN ↗
The development of g rests on that assumption, but the measured correlations vary, and the correlations are lower for music & painting than between, e.g., STEM subjects.
Also interesting - the cross-subject correlations g measures actually decrease as intelligence increases. The smarter someone is (as measured by psychometric tests), the more likely they are to be “smart” in a single subject and not all subjects. This is an interesting self-contradiction in the whole theory.
> It makes perfect sense to me that socio-economics would correlate.
Yeah, I totally agree. But, it’s very important to know that the people like Spearman and others who developed IQ and g and other concepts of intelligence in the 1920s were specifically looking for the innate biological component of intelligence that explains “gifted” ability in the absence of nurture and environmental factors. That’s where this use of “gifted” came from - it’s pre-supposing that intelligence was not heavily influenced by the wealth of your parents, and they didn’t know how important nutrition and pollution were at the time. This is why I think using “gifted” is problematic. From that paper I linked to: “Reframing ‘gifts’ as ‘talents’ underscores both the domain-specific nature of these abilities and that their extent should be viewed as dynamic rather than static or preordained.”
One question that occurs to me - who are these gifts bestowed by? There are two obvious answers: nature and God. I think nature is historically what is meant by ‘gifted’ in the context of education, but I’ll speculate there’s at least a little bit of historical religious influence on the choice of that word. Given that we know that SES, nutrition, environment, education, parenting and many other factors have real measurable influences on both intelligence and outcomes for people, the nature & God explanations are somewhat lacking, right?