2 year old gifted or bright?(53 Posts)
My son is 2 years 5 months, he can count to 100 + and recognise any number given to him into the 1000s, he knows all colours, letters (both names and sounds) and shapes, he can identify shapes such as hexagons, octagons, dodecahedrons,, and parallelograms.
Not sure if he is classed as gifted, he starts nursery next month and they have told me they will keep an eye on him and let me know their opinion.
He is also quite slow physically, he is still in a cot as he's never tried to climb out, still wants to go most places in the pram, can't jump, refuses to attempt to dress himself and has no interest in potty training at all.
Can't tell if he's gifted or if I just have my 'first child' rose-tinted specs on
Oh bless you, he's two. Yes those are wonderful things for a 2yo to know but I presume to know them you've introduced them? They are little sponges at that age.
Back off a little and wait until he's halfway through primary at least. I'm sure he's amazing and you are rightly proud of him but I wouldn't be speaking to nursery or contacting MENSA at this stage.
Just let him progress at his own rate, you'll soon know whether he's 'gifted' or not. He's got plenty of time.
My first child was very "advanced" as a tiny person - physical and "intellectually", she could talk the hind legs off a donkey in two languages by 2.5 and knew all her letters in English, could count to 50 in English and German etc.
It was mostly opportunity (English sahm, living in Germany) and having all my attention.
She's since gained 2 little brother's and is fairly average now at nearly 12 - good at some things, bad at others, in the middle at others...
Wait and see, but tbh any child of just a bit above average intelligence can appear very bright as a toddler if they've had a talkative adult's undivided attention all their life!
I think he is certainly very advanced. I would keep feeding him with his interest. But also keep an eye on physical/emotional/ social development as well.
Do you really think what op's dc can do is just above average for 2.5 years old? I don't think so. And just undivided attention from SAHP can produce gifted child, there must be so many of them!!!
I'm not going to comment on gifted but I am just adding that physically he isNT really slow. Some children never try to climb out of their cot etc.
They just learn things at different ages - it is a wonderful thing. My dd1 was pOtty trained when she could only just walk and only make sounds not words. She was 21 months.
He sounds very bright but the nursery won't care and neither will school. If you make a big deal of it they will try to prove you wrong. If he gets too far ahead he will get really bored at nursery so maybe turn your parenting skills to the other 5 areas of the early years curriculum now with lots of muddy, outdoor fun. X
He sounds like a little chap I know, he could read at two, could recognise the flags of the world and put them into alphabetical order, count up to 100 and more etc etc. His nursery and preschool teachers couldn't keep up with his ability, His parents had him assessed as he was also showing signs of autism.
He has hyperlexia,
Hyperlexia is a very rare condition, the opposite of dyslexia and is yet another type of autism.
Not saying your little one has the same but something to consider.
My DD could do all that at that age, she's not gifted. Very good at some stuff, average at the rest. Sorry but I do think you have rose tinted glasses on. No offence..
A dodecahedron? Do you mean a dodecagon? Cos a dodecahedron is a 3D shape.
Misses the point of the thread entirely
My 2.7 year old can do similar things. It all depends on what you talk to them about.
To me he sounds extremely bright, my 2.10 year old is pretty on the ball but nowhere near that. And neither is my 6 year old! I think you need to keep an eye on things and make sure that in nursery/school they are good at differentiating between ability levels so he remains challenged and engaged.
We saw friends with a 2.2 year old yesterday and she could name every major bone in the body. Friend is a biologist. Mine can't do that, because I've never taught her the bones in the body. If I had, I imagine she could. They are like sponges at this age and will learn what you teach them.
My ds was very interested in 3d models at that age, so, I don't think nothing wrong with 2.5 year olds knowing dodecahedron.
Hyperlexic, maybe. My ds was definitely hyperlexic, I think. Nursery believed he has HFA, now in YR4, no teacher seems to think he has.
That's pretty impressive for 2.5. As other say, way too early to make any assumptions but right now that is streets ahead of average. Definitely time to make sure he's getting lots of the other good toddler stuff too - messy crafts, outdoor play on bikes and scooters and in the mud and all the other good stuff most two year olds will love. And make sure he's getting lots of opportunity to learn to interact with other kids too (particularly important if he does turn out to be bright when older I'd say...)
Somehowsomewhere, do you really believe that?
Do you think your dd is capable but not just taught?
Then why don't you do it, I've read somewhere that child before 5 is capable to expand their neural network to near gifted degree.(Maybe not to profoundly gifted level though.)
More you use your brain, they will form more network, that's why they say stimulation is important in early years, imo.
I believe that to a certain degree they will learn what you teach them.
Why don't I put it into practice? Because I don't care if she knows all the bones in the human body! And because I haven't got time. I've got a life. I've got hobbies. I'm studying for a masters degree. I've got a 19 month old too. We spend a lot of time outdoors, getting fresh air and exercise, learning about the seasons, flowers, animals etc. All of which I think is as important as learning to count and learning to write.
I'm not denying that OP's son sounds extremely intelligent, of course he does. I just think that children of that age have the potential to learn a lot of things, if we teach them.
I didn't mean teaching her names of the bones, anything dc is interested.
Names of flowers or animals are perfectly good. But if the child has interest, they would want to go further, and parents can feed them with their interest.
Some likes cars or trains, and some likes numbers or letters. Anything is good for children's progress, I think.
It just seems we always get a bit negative comment if the child has particular interest in academics at young age. But I don't think there's nothing wrong with it. They must do normal kids stuff too, I assume.
No, I agree there's nothing wrong with it. I'm assuming the OP is feeding her child's interest, which is great. If they're interested and engaged, then teach them! I'm not sure I agree with early labelling of children as 'gifted' though, what good will that do them?
Feed their interests, let them learn and let them play. There's plenty of time for the rest.
He sounds very advanced for his age and I'm that people want to say otherwise.
I'd wait and see if the school wants to assess him, and I hope you have a good library near you!
Hyperlexia is a very rare condition, the opposite of dyslexia and is yet another type of autism.
I'm hyperlexic myself and am not autistic. Hyperlexia very often presents with delayed speech "Einstein's syndrome"...I was pretty quiet until I was 5 or so!
OP what's his speech and general communication like?
Do you know, I really do not think this is of any importance at all. Children acquire knowledge at different rates depending on the environment in which they live and what they are exposed to. Presumably you have talked about these things with him.
I think it is important not to focus on your thoughts of his intelligence or to discuss it with nursery or anyone else.
I remember when my children were little there was a mother who thought her child was exceptional and the poor thing spent her whole childhood trying to live up to expectations and was very miserable indeed in so many ways. She grew to be a miserable adult. My "average" children are well-balanced and happy young adults I am relieved to say.
One thing that you will find is that children develop at very different rates and an "advanced" child at 2 may be very average at 5 - children catch up.
Childhood is not a race and it is brilliant to feed his interests if they are being initiated by him, but it might be best not to be seeking a label for him, or asking others to do so. He has so much learning and development to do in so many areas of his being, and it is I think a bit too early to be concentrating one just one area.
I think there are big difference between a child forced to learn something by parents, and child just wants to learn something. Otherwise, why do 2 year old learn names of the bones or names of the more advanced shapes?
I do wonder if you try to teach uninterested 2 year olds what the parallelogram is , do they get it? Do they truly understand what it is?
I think early learning is more to do with child's ability and desire to learn.
I do also think it's perfectly normal to be not interested early, even they have ability.
Of course at this age, parents' involvement is needed in both cases.
And of course children learn at different rate, but a lot of very advanced child at 2 remain advanced at age 5.
Why do so many people assume academically advanced child have miserable life just because of it, I wonder.
If your child is good at sport/music/art, etc, people don't seem to see problem encouraging it. But if the child is advanced academically, people pile on to comment to do more age related things. Why can't they do both and be perfectly happy child?
Join the discussion
Please login first.