Child Genius

I watched it and by-and-large, I agree with you.

Being a member of Mensa at the age of 4, is all very well and good, but as you say, it could just be that some are born with the ability to do very well at IQ tests and I don't subscribe to the view that this automatically makes someone a 'genius' (although to be fair, this competition - as you have already pointed out - wasn't confined to just IQ tests, in fact as I recall IQ tests didn't actually feature at all).

The only real issue I had with this competition was the use of the word 'Genius' - highly gifted and talented of course - but a genius? Well, in my opinion, not necessarily and, apart from the fact that having a child like this would scare the living daylights out of me, to have it walk around thinking and believing it was a genius would be a step too far.

Yes some of the competitors did appear very well adjusted (Shrinidhi Prakash the winner for example) however, the likes of Oscar and Hugo proved just how not to bring up such children; encourage, stretch, stimulate - yes, but with that surely has to be instilled the realisation that the world does not revolve around you, that no matter how 'clever' you may think you are there is always going to be someone better and that just because you're uber-bright does not give you the right (at the age of 10) to be rude, self-centered and basically obnoxious. I think Longyin had it right when he said "It's not having talent, it's how you use it that's important".

What I didn't agree with, was the parents coaching these youngsters even further just to win a competition. Yes, I've just mentioned they need to be encouraged and stimulated and I'm prepared to accept that this could be seen as part of that, but I don't agree with the 'I'm super bright and I'm going to cram even more to prove I'm brighter than anyone else' attitude - if they're all that gifted (and they are) then just let them take part without extra study, which I think is where the 'pushy parent' bit comes in - I've always subscribed to the view that the clever, bright, talented (call them what you will), will always succeed pretty much irrespective of their surroundings, it's those less so, that require the extra help.

If you think you've said something that people may not agree with about 'gifted' children, then what I'm going to say is likely to enrage some but ... with a few exceptions, I can't help be inclined to the view that there is an element of Asperger syndrome going on with some of these children as sufferers are often of average, or above average, intelligence. In addition, many of these children have 'specialities', maths, languages, science which become an all-consuming passion often to the exclusion of much else - even in one highly gifted, this is not 'normal' and I worry for the parents who are so wrapped up in their child's ability that it's not something they've even considered.

The last thing I'd say is this - great to think your child may grow up to somehow 'change the world' but I'd be wary of the future, it's not unknown for these children to grow into unhappy, maladjusted adults and, sadly, more than one has committed suicide.

 

My mate was exceptionally clever at school, and his mam pushed him and pushed him to excel, to capitalise on his gift of great intellect. He has made his living out of stacking shelves in a supermarket, risking his life removing asbestos from derelict buildings (did 6 months on the sick after the upstairs floor he was on collapsed and after falling about 10ft, he landed on his back, on his breathing apparatus), fitting carpets, fitting kitchens, and generally whatever will pay him well. Some would say this is a waste of great intelligence, but I did the other thing. I worked hard to build a career that relied on mental focus and specialised technical skill, and now I'm stuck. Who's more intelligent?

I have another mate who was written off from an early age because he was just naughty all the time and wouldn't focus on anything. He's made his money by building several businesses from nothing and then selling them. He's the same age as me. His houses (plural) are paid for and he's worried because he only has £60k left of his savings.

There was a scientific study some years ago that found that kids that were exposed to the widest range of experiences developed the most neural pathways in their brains, and therefore didn't really have greater intelligence, but were much more adaptable and prone to success. That certainly seems true of my latter mate I just described. He has a very turbulent life yet no matter what happens, he always lands on his feet. I don't believe that's luck, I think that's because having been written off from an early age (even his parents hardly bothered), he has become the master of adapting and dealing with whatever happens.

I've only been a parent for 4 years, so not the most experienced, but I think the best we can do is give kids as much diversity of positive experience as we can. A kid that stays in and studies and specialises will become a genius in their specialist area, but what will they do if they decide in their 20s or 30s that they hate it? What about their social life, will they be happy if all their mates are scraping their knees after a failed 180 attempt on a BMX and they haven't even mastered a basic wheely? Will they happy that they struggle to find a partner because they have so little in common with anyone else?

I've come to the conclusion that life is nothing but trade-offs. You specialise in something at the expense of something else. You create a positive environment to generate happiness but then don't equip the kids to handle the bad times. Or, as in the case of one of my mates, you let them figure it all out for themselves so they learn to stand on their own two feet with the potential consequence that every time they get drunk in your presence they blurt out signs of deep seated resentment like "your dad was more of a dad to me than my own dad was".