4 ms·

A study has been following 'gifted' kids for 45 years. Here's what we've learned

19 points by sebg 2y ago

simonw 2y ago
Weird. The top of the article says "By Upworthy staff 06.14.24" but a note at the bottom says "This article originally appeared on 09.22.17"
TehShrike 2y ago
It seems like the main source is a documentary-type video about the study, rather than any of the published follow-ups with the kids. A summary of a summary. You can find the follow-up papers here: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/ https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/
ghostpepper 2y ago
Pretty light article. If anyone wants more in depth resources on gifted kids, I recommend two books by Deborah Ruf. Her more recent one follows up on the kids she studied in the first one almost 20 years later. https://fivelevelsofgifted.com/about/ https://fivelevelsofgifted.com/about/
somenameforme 2y ago
This topic is interesting but the article is not good. It has no data and instead is just talking about data, without giving any sort of baseline. This paper [1] seems more relevant, but is only from 2016. The results seem surprisingly weak. Of the quartile that scored an average of 700 on their SAT math (at a time when the cap was 800) at age 13, only 10% went on to end up in the top 5% of earners. Add to that the context that the population since 1968 (when they were tested) has increased by about 65% (thus increasing the raw number of people in the top 5%) without necessarily increasing the number of academic outliers by a proportional amount. It would be interesting to see IQ results and contrast them accordingly. There's a well known quirk with IQ. Childhood IQ levels are heavily influenced by environment, but adult IQ levels are predominately hereditary - privileges or disadvantages in childhood notwithstanding. Though that's definitely not an argument against the paper's overall premise - that we should work to foster and advance excellence so much as possible. [1] - https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/826/2013/01/14084618/Article-NATURE-2016.pdf https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/82...
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
  How many of them are happy? I know it's a hard ask, but what I always think about is: do these programs affect happiness? Are they helping them achieve happiness? When you get pulled out of the "standard", suddenly people expect more from you, forgetting that happiness is at the core.
chx 2y ago
Not one word on asynchronous development and overexcitabilities.
- wenc 2y ago
  Ah you know. Most people don’t know much about giftedness (it’s not just an academic thing but more of a developmental thing)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 2y ago
Am I the only person who dislikes using the term "gifted" for high-performing students? I think the word downplays the amount of effort these kids put into learning and taking their education seriously and the amount of good upbringing their parents contributed. "Gifted" kind of implies that some unicorn flew down from the sky and just handed these kids a gift of big brains or something. There's probably a small genetic predisposition at play here, but don't discount the effort it takes to be able to pass a college entry exam in the 7th grade. Same with calling excellent artists and athletes "talented." They may have been born with slight advantages, but "talented" downplays the hard work and practice that it took to master what they're good at.
- dudul 2y ago
  It is undeniable that high performing athletes, artists, etc put in a lot of work, but I don't think it is incompatible with the word "gifted". When you enter college at 12 it is beyond a "slight genetic advantage" IMO. And it's not just genetic. A gifted kids was given the gift of having parents who care, who put in the work and who have the means to put in the work. I don't know, I think both things (predisposition and hard work) can be accepted as true.
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    Yep you have to have both. I think thats where the early to ripe, early to rot misconception comes from. If you think a kid is a genius just cause they are a little ahead for and just assums they will figure everything else out, then yeah the kid will likely not achieve much.
- digging 2y ago
  I totally disagree. "Gifted kid burnout" pretty much refers to the experience of being "gifted" with intelligence and never needing to work hard to be praised as a high achiever. The "gift" really does exist, and that's why it's harmful to focus on intelligence over hard work. The gift is a curse if not utilized well, leading to depression and burnout in young people.
- wenc 2y ago
gnicholas 2y ago
This was complete fluff, which isn't entirely unsurprising given the site. Great for inspiration, but very light on details.
fabiofzero 2y ago
HackerNews user discovers Upworthy is till around – you won't believe what happened next!

19 points by sebg 2y ago

Weird. The top of the article says "By Upworthy staff 06.14.24" but a note at the bottom says "This article originally appeared on 09.22.17"

TehShrike 2y ago

It seems like the main source is a documentary-type video about the study, rather than any of the published follow-ups with the kids. A summary of a summary. You can find the follow-up papers here: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/ https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/

ghostpepper 2y ago

Pretty light article. If anyone wants more in depth resources on gifted kids, I recommend two books by Deborah Ruf. Her more recent one follows up on the kids she studied in the first one almost 20 years later. https://fivelevelsofgifted.com/about/ https://fivelevelsofgifted.com/about/

somenameforme 2y ago

This topic is interesting but the article is not good. It has no data and instead is just talking about data, without giving any sort of baseline. This paper [1] seems more relevant, but is only from 2016. The results seem surprisingly weak. Of the quartile that scored an average of 700 on their SAT math (at a time when the cap was 800) at age 13, only 10% went on to end up in the top 5% of earners. Add to that the context that the population since 1968 (when they were tested) has increased by about 65% (thus increasing the raw number of people in the top 5%) without necessarily increasing the number of academic outliers by a proportional amount. It would be interesting to see IQ results and contrast them accordingly. There's a well known quirk with IQ. Childhood IQ levels are heavily influenced by environment, but adult IQ levels are predominately hereditary - privileges or disadvantages in childhood notwithstanding. Though that's definitely not an argument against the paper's overall premise - that we should work to foster and advance excellence so much as possible. [1] - https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/826/2013/01/14084618/Article-NATURE-2016.pdf https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/82...

Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
How many of them are happy? I know it's a hard ask, but what I always think about is: do these programs affect happiness? Are they helping them achieve happiness? When you get pulled out of the "standard", suddenly people expect more from you, forgetting that happiness is at the core.

chx 2y ago

Not one word on asynchronous development and overexcitabilities.

wenc 2y ago
Ah you know. Most people don’t know much about giftedness (it’s not just an academic thing but more of a developmental thing)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 2y ago

Am I the only person who dislikes using the term "gifted" for high-performing students? I think the word downplays the amount of effort these kids put into learning and taking their education seriously and the amount of good upbringing their parents contributed. "Gifted" kind of implies that some unicorn flew down from the sky and just handed these kids a gift of big brains or something. There's probably a small genetic predisposition at play here, but don't discount the effort it takes to be able to pass a college entry exam in the 7th grade. Same with calling excellent artists and athletes "talented." They may have been born with slight advantages, but "talented" downplays the hard work and practice that it took to master what they're good at.

dudul 2y ago
It is undeniable that high performing athletes, artists, etc put in a lot of work, but I don't think it is incompatible with the word "gifted". When you enter college at 12 it is beyond a "slight genetic advantage" IMO. And it's not just genetic. A gifted kids was given the gift of having parents who care, who put in the work and who have the means to put in the work. I don't know, I think both things (predisposition and hard work) can be accepted as true.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  Yep you have to have both. I think thats where the early to ripe, early to rot misconception comes from. If you think a kid is a genius just cause they are a little ahead for and just assums they will figure everything else out, then yeah the kid will likely not achieve much.
digging 2y ago
I totally disagree. "Gifted kid burnout" pretty much refers to the experience of being "gifted" with intelligence and never needing to work hard to be praised as a high achiever. The "gift" really does exist, and that's why it's harmful to focus on intelligence over hard work. The gift is a curse if not utilized well, leading to depression and burnout in young people.
wenc 2y ago

gnicholas 2y ago

This was complete fluff, which isn't entirely unsurprising given the site. Great for inspiration, but very light on details.

fabiofzero 2y ago

HackerNews user discovers Upworthy is till around – you won't believe what happened next!