[HPFGU-OTChatter] Gifted Children: An unsubstantiated psychological assessment

[Shaun Hately]

On 2 Jun 2002 at 16:03, Tabouli wrote:

> (I'm not saying this happens in every case, but I've certainly seen it.  I also went to 
> a seminar on this very subject at Melbourne University a year or two ago, which 
> presented research on IQ and self-esteem and noted that while children of above 
> average IQ generally had above average self-esteem, there was a dramatic drop 
> in self-esteem among children of very high IQ, and the research suggested that 
> this was because these children were using a different basis for measuring their 
> achievements).

Do you know who gave the seminar (I attend a fair bunch of the ones that have 
been run at Melbourne Uni, myself).

I should point out that the idea that kids with high IQs have lower self-esteem is 
*very* controversial at the moment. Several researchers believe that the whole idea 
of low self esteem among any section of the gifted is a myth, that's been reinforced 
by the fact that kids with problems are much more visible than those without. 
Personally, I do believe that there is a link but it's certainly a matter of great debate 
at the moment.
 
Tabouli:
> What's going on in the child's head is less easy to determine.  Don't know what 
> research has been done here, but I'd guess what's happening in there is harder to 
> access.  Qualitative research, maybe?  I wonder how willing or even able your 
> typical gifted child would really be to explain to an interviewer what has caused 
> the change.  I'll bet they get the school counsellors out in force when Junior 
> Genius suddenly slumps, but how many gifted teenagers would really be prepared 
> to tell them why?  They may not know themselves, not really (probably more EQ 
> than IQ, this sort of insight?).  I dunno.  Just can't be bothered any more, it seems 
> pointless.  After years of being held up as superior to other people they often, 
> alas, have difficulty respecting other people who are almost certainly "inferior" to 
> them (one gifted guy I know was going to a much-needed psychiatrist but was 
> convinced he had far more intelligence and insight than said psychiatrist and 
> therefore treated his sessions like an intellectual power game. No idea what the
> psychiatrist made of this).

This is why our program, and several other have people like me involved - because 
generally we can get the kids to open up to us, because they know we've been there 
- the experiences may not be identical, but there's enough commonality that they 
are more likely to tell us in some cases where they won't tell anyone else. Most do 
have a keen insight into why they feel the way they do. 

The 'superiority' problem is a rare one - but when it does happen, we can deal with 
that as well. I have on one occasion, when dealing with a kid who was really hung 
up about how high his IQ score was, and how because he was smarter than 
everyone else, nobody could understand him, drawn my file from a cabinet and 
shown him my scores. (-8 Probably not the best way to handle it most times but it 
worked with him.

Tabouli: 
> My anecdotal impression is that when you've spent the first 12-16 years of your 
> life being proclaimed a genius superior to other mortals, it's pretty hard to let go 
> of.  By then it's already become a central pillar of most gifted children's self-
> esteem, especially seeing they usually have social difficulties which erode their
> self-esteem in other areas.  I suspect many of the gifted children who keep 
> playing the game do so for this very reason: with minimal effort, the education 
> system will keep providing self-esteem stroking evidence of their superiority, on 
> which they become very dependent.  The path is rockier for those who rebel with 
> conviction.

OK - first of all, the social difficulties thing does appear to be a myth. Gifted children 
do not usually have social difficulties - the chances they do are about the same as 
any other child. And the more gifted they are, generally, the less social difficulties 
they display, even when they do exist. Again, the kids with the problems are more 
visible so people seem to think they are a higher proportion than they are.

But certainly there are some who do 'play the game' for the reasons you describe - 
but most of those are in the 'moderately gifted' category - (IQ130-144, very roughly) 
- for whom some challenge still exists in the education system.
 
Tabouli:
> For a start, as we've discussed, the typical reaction of the parents and educators 
> is horror.  What's happened to you?  You're *underachieving*!  Very stressful, 
> because the child is actually dependent on said adults.  But also stressful because 
> if the child rejects intellectual superiority as a valid measure of worth, what 
> replaces it in their identity?  What do they have left?  If the child is lucky, s/he will 
> find something else which isn't too self-destructive (computers, role-playing, art, 
> I've known a few who made it to university and then flung themselves into the 
> SCA, etc.).  If not, things can get very ugly indeed.  Crime.  Suicide.  Substance 
> abuse.  Mental illness.  Often coupled, at least in my observation, with desperate 
> clinging to the belief that they are, nonetheless, still superior beings, they're just 
> not prepared to make the compromises lesser individuals make to claim the glory 
> which could easily be theirs if they could just decide on the direction in which they 
> want to apply their genius

As you say, 'in your observation' - I don't doubt that this is what you've observed but 
I don't think you see the people who make it and are emotionally healthy when they 
do. Well, you probably see them - but you don't realise who they are. No reason you 
should - because their psychological health means they don't stand out.
 
Tabouli:
> OK, so perhaps in those last few points my sample size has dwindled to two 
> specific male case studies.  And there do seem to be notable gender differences 
> (thoughts, Shaun?). 

There are general gender differences. Lots of theories as to why - one big one is 
that girls are taught to be more 'compliant' at school - it's less acceptable for them to 
stand out and rebel. So they are under more pressure to fit in - and work harder at 
doing so. That eliminates some problems, but can create a wide range of new ones.

There's also the facts that girls are, on average, slightly more intelligent than boys, 
and, slightly more emotionally mature (at times, more than slightly) and this may 
mean gifted girls have an easier time finding people to fit in with than boys. And in 
some cases - for examples when there have been initiatives to try and get more 
girls to study high level mathematics or sciences, etc, in order to address a gender 
imbalance - it's been made more acceptable for girls to perform academically, 
which can make things much easier on a girl with interests and gifts in those areas.

Tabouli:
> How would people like these come out in the "gifted children" follow-up study
> stakes?  Probably fine. 

It depends on the study - but in most of the follow ups done in the last 15 years, 
they wouldn't come out as fine. Most of those studies have used detailed 
psychological questionairres which would expose all sorts of ego problems, etc - 
and these people are among the most likely to answer the questions honestly - 
because they tend to be proud of who they are (or at least want people to think they 
are) and because they know from past experience they do well on tests, so they 
regard them as a way to show off. 

Tabouli:
> So long as they're getting results they consider acceptable (i.e. extremely high) 
> they come across as fine.  They're "achieving" in a socially applauded domain of 
> endeavour.  But how healthy are they really?  (well, how healthy is anyone really, > but anyway).  As healthy as can be hoped for?  I think there's a very important 
> issue which, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been explored enough and this is 
> the child's *identity*.  Self-image.  It's the putting all your eggs in one basket 
> problem.  If  you single a child out on the basis of IQ and everything that happens 
> thenceforth revolves around being intellectually superior to others, the child is 
> being taught that intellectual superiority is his or her defining feature.  That it's 
> everything.  Their role is intellectual achievement, and if they don't get it, they are  
> a failure as a person.  If they try to reject this role, they tend to be judged as failur

The thing is, I've never encountered any type of gifted program where 'everything... 
revolves around being intellectually superior to others' or where a child is 'taught 
that intellectual superiority is his or her defining feature'. I know it happens - I've 
heard of it happening, but it seems very rare to me. And it only happens if 
something is seriously wrong with how things are being run.

> My thoughts (for what they're worth without extensive research into the area!) are 
> that gifted children should be encouraged to *diversify*.  Given the opportunity to 
> find roles other than "intellectually gifted" to play, preferably outside school, so 
> that their self-esteem can be spread a little more widely.  Acting.  Dancing.  
> Drawing.  Sport.  Whatever.  Something that they and other people can define 
> them by which isn't related to their high IQ.  As an example, I took up karate in my 
> early twenties, and by jingo it was good for me.  A domain of endeavour where 
> intellectual ability was not going to get me very far.  Where I might manage to be 
> good, but would never be exceptional.  Where there would always be a lot of 
> people Better Than Me, and I had to learn it was actually OK to be ordinary 
> (Embarrassingly, I struggled with this after a lifetime of indoctrination, but my 
> sinister social scientist went to work on my reactions and found them a very 
> interesting addition to my musings on gifted children).

This is rather problematic area. I happen to agree with the diversification to some 
extent - in fact my first published article on gifted issues includes the following:

"Secondly, I think it's important for parent particularly with a gifted child to 
encourage their children to take risks - to do hard things, even knowing they will fail 
sometimes. Perhaps it is advisable to find something the child is not good at 
(perhaps sport) and encourage them to do it - not something they are necessarily 
bad at, but something that they have to work for and they don't always do perfectly. 
If a child has never experienced failure, they will eventually come to view anything 
less than total success as a failure."

*But* it's also important for parents etc, to ensure they don't fall into the trap of 
expecting more from a gifted child than they would from any child. Diversification is 
something that *all* children need - not just the gifted. A gifted child should not be 
expected to diversity more than any other child.

See - certainly, it's not good if somebody is basing their entire self image on how 
smart they are. But by emphasising other areas *too much*, you can wind up giving 
the child the impression that being intelligent has no value - that it doesn't count. 
And that's not good for self esteem either.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter
the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen
to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who:
The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia