"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Chookie wrote:

As a general rule, however, social development tracks cognitive
development, not age.

Eh, I'm not sure how much I buy that. I know an awful
lot of immature gifted kids. At the same time, that doesn't
necessarily mean that they are at the same place as their age-peers
either. Often gifted kids live with not fitting in all that
well socially *anywhere* (and therefore they sometimes feel
most comfortable with sensitive adults who can adjust as needed).

Are they immature, or do they just not fit into the
preconceived mold?

Immature, as in lacking the maturity displayed by
others their age in significant areas (delayed gratification,
handling disappointment gracefully, planning ahead to meet
goals, accepting responsibility, exhibiting socially
appropriate behavior, etc.). I doubt they are *more*
immature than their normal age peers, but immaturity
certainly isn't a rarity among gifted kids. Some kids
just are immature.

And, when you're talking about acceleration, you're talking about the
student having to be significantly MORE mature than most their age. My DD's
occasional tantrums due to frustration, needing to be prompted to go to the
toilet when she's playing because otherwise she will forget, days where she
just wants to cuddle her stuffed dragon and mommy, and the like are all
perfectly normal in a child who won't be 3 for several months yet, but
wouldn't exactly endear her to a kindergarten teacher, for whom those
behaviors would be a sign of an extremely immature child indeed.

A 12 yr old boy who acts his age is probably going to seem quite immature
when with 15 and 16 yr olds.

And when you're talking radical acceleration without a structured program
designed to support it or homeschooling on a 1-1 basis, that's what you're
talking about.


Someone who puts learning first is
not going to get along with the one who wants to play
tiddlywinks, or even baseball.

What's up with perpetuating this myth that all
gifted kids are non-athletic nerds? Gifted kids might
not want to play baseball (or engage in any other particular
activity), or they might rather enjoy it. Among my kids'
gifted peers, some are extremely athletic. Others avoid
it like the plague (but are just as in need of at least enough
physical activity to be healthy and strong). A number of
studies have suggested that early mobility (sitting, crawling,
walking) is characteristic of very young gifted kids, just
as is early literacy and numeracy. If that is so, why would
we assume that later in life, gifted kids are (or should be)
all about the core academics and not possibly *also* about
the arts, sports, or other non-academic activities.

And, really, in order to succeed seriously at an art or sport, being gifted
enough that the academics come easy and don't require much effort is a
significant advantage, at minimum. In music, I'd almost say it's a
prerequistite. Most children I've seen in the University Prep department who
are doing college level study in their early to mid teens are also quite
intelligent.

I haven't been around the really, really serious athletes, particularly in
individual sports (those in pre-olympic training, for example), but it
wouldn't surprise me to find that many of them are also intelligent, just
focused differently.




Best wishes,
Ericka