Jesus Christ this mother on Child Genius, AIBU to think it's so ironic?

[MamaPain]

Putting aside the fact she has in all seriousness pointed out how she is far more intelligent than her daughter who can only operate in an intelligent manner due to her parenting.

Is it just me who thinks it extremely a tad ironic that she is a psychologist, yet seems to lack the insight or understanding as to how her comments may affect her child or appear to others. Also surely being so informed and intelligent, she knows that yes you can parent without a detail understanding of neurolinguistic programming?

Yes ... and I thought what was nice about Rubiyat's dad was he had no problem saying that things were beyond him. He was showing that for him as an adult, there was nothing to be ashamed about in saying he couldn't do some of the maths - so if, at some point, his son does struggle, he'll know that this is not anything to feel awful about.

Felt a bit sorry for his poor sister looking so bored in the 'maths lesson' mind!

It's awful about Aaliyah's parents, but I suppose (horrible to think, but) if you have had an abusive childhood, you may not recognize something as abusive if it doesn't look like your experience?

That's an interesting thought, LRD - perhaps Shoshanna sees devoting every minute to 'improving' Aliyah as proof of her love for her child, and her worth as a parent. Keeping her child by her and controlling her environment is a Good Thing.

Whereas, for me, coming from a pretty straightforward, loving background, I am horrified (and yes, I do mean that literally) by the way she is raising her child.

Oh, I think she very much comes across as if she thinks it proves her love, absolutely. I mean, why on earth do it if you didn't?

The bit that really upset me was insisting her DD apologize to her dad, and mum immediately and very lovingly trying to 'centre' her (whatever that is). It was like saying 'we love you, now here is a technique to make you feel confident, so you can then go through the motions of a situation that is, frankly, horrible and cruel'. Because surely, it is cruel to force her to apologize when she's been pushed so hard?

Agree, Rubiyat seemed really genius level as opposed to "merely" very bright, but he also seemed a lovely lad, with a family who recognised the pitfalls of having a gifted child as well as the bragging potential. It was clear his parents were trying to ground him as well as encourage him and were not entirely sure they were getting it right. They seemed a really nice family.

They said somewhere that Jocelyn actually tested the highest of all the children on the show, so in a way I am not surprised that she's home educated. I know two children who are falling-off-the-edge of the scale gifted, and they've both ended up home edded as schools (and a whole range of them) couldn't really give them what they needed.

The thing about Ruth Lawrence is that, though she was mathematically gifted and got her degree early, she never actually shone as a mathematician. (This is judging her against other academics not the general population.)

Like a lot of gifted children she simply achieved early what she would have achieved later anyway. Thankfully she had the sense to ensure her own children were not brought up in the same way she was.

And was Rubiyat in any kind of school? In which case the programme very much focused on 'home ed' as being Jocelyn's one distinguishing feature.

my smart boy goes in phases where he focuses on one thing and learns all about it ( bee keeping was one noteable one) and then moves on.

But you don't have to be super-bright to be an academic, even a mathematician (and I think there's more super-bright maths academics than in some other disciplines). Most academics don't have IQs up in the 150s, I wouldn't think. It seems a worry to me, that parents like Ruth Lawrence's seem to imagine if your child is brilliant and gets a degree early, they'll naturally go on and become a brilliant academic.

Apart from anything else, I would imagine it'd be a spectacularly boring thing to do if you were one of those people who loves learning but isn't very social, because it's quite a social job if you're teaching people.

(Sorry, that was about Ruth Lawrence, if it wasn't clear.)

Not yet watched the series but as regard the OP and the 1st child mentioned, is and IQ of 135 that exceptional?

Lets look at the statistics...

It's top 1% I accept that, but that means 1-2 kids in your average truly comprehensive school, and, for my kids grammar schools ( which take in theory the top 10%) that's 1:10 ie 3 per class of the kids! It maybe wouldn't even gain you " class prize for cleverness" ( not that they have that- they have one for academic achievement, not sure it's the same).

And that poor kid is having a terrible abnormal childhood, and with all that pushing only manages the standard that 3 kids in every class at my DD2s school manage?

I'd stick my neck out and say she's not really that exceptional at all....

I think that was her mum's point, when she made that speech about how she herself is truly exceptional in terms of IQ, but she plans to make her DD exceptional despite her relatively more normal score?

I dont understand why she wants to make her not exceptional child exceptional. I can understand her wanting to do the very best by her child due to the effects of her own upbringing. I get why she uses all the techniques she does. But why all the effort to make this child appear to be something she isnt. Why not be satisfied that you are doing your best and your child is healthy and happy and achieving to their natural level of ability? Why force something that isnt there?

The bit where Shoshana explains that Aliyiah "only" has an IQ of 135 but can function as though its higher due to intensive tuition. I was thinking- but why? I mean its not as though a "functional" IQ of 135 would be insufficient for most things. Madness.

Jocelyn will be fine I think. Yes she struggled to focus compared to some of the other children. But you have to bear in mind that a lot of those children were unusual in their ability to focus. She would probably seem pretty normal compared to most kids.

She also has a lot of self motivation. She put herself forward for the competition and made the necessary arrangements. When she had difficulty concentrating she took herself out to the corridor where she was more comfortable- which is a solution she reached by herself and is unorthodox but worked for her.

Plus she took losing in her stride and was able to see it as an interesting experience.

All these traits will come in handy in later life I'm sure. If she has a lot of intrinsic motivation for something- she will work out for herself that persistence is important.

Yes i agree, jocelyn will be fine, if not, do very well. She has motivation and a hunger to learn things.

dia - I guess she thinks she is just doing what all loving parents would do if they could? From the way she seems so keen to push that juice on people!

To be fair to her, I do agree that IQ doesn't mean what you 'are' is set in stone. Someone with an IQ of 135 could perform in a very exceptional way, and test out lower than they seem to be (and the opposite, of course).

Horrible, though.

Yes- i think her intentions are admirable, she doesnt want to leave any gaps where her child could have achieved if given a chance. However i think the methods used are damaging. Maybe that's unfair of me to say but some of the language used i recognise as hurtful to a child of that age and not good for self esteem. She shouldnt be being conpared to her mother. Because she can never be what her mother is. So she will always, never meet that mark.

No, I think it's completely damaging, I agree. I guess I'm just rather grimly interested.

She didn't say the thing about being exceptional in front of her DD, I suppose.

What worried me about Jocelyn's parents approach to education was the clear gaps in her knowledge. When they talked about her doing maths, it was in the context of buying some sweets and working out the change, which is exceptionally basic. As she only does what she is interested in, and I don't think her parents are mathematically inclined, this showed in the maths round where she was asked a straightforward division problem, given pen and paper to do it with, and she couldn't.

I suspect that if she realised she ended some qualifications, she'd have a lot of catching up to do in certain areas.

Isn't the whole IQ thing pretty discredited now, anyway? Apart from for mutters like Mensa?

And why the f do they put those massive labels round their necks? So patronising and deminishing.

I agree she didnt say it infront of her but i noted she said she never ever lies to her and aliyah is bright, she could very easily want to know and ask.

My kids get told they are 'the cleverest boy in the world!' It's bollocks, they're not. But i'm not going to tell them they dont quite meet the mark or that they arent quite as clever as me (and never would be)

"Yes i agree, jocelyn will be fine, if not, do very well. She has motivation and a hunger to learn things."

It depends what "very well" means I suppose. Its pretty easy to quantify "very well" for children and young adults because they sit exams.

What "very well" means for adults is more difficult. I always wonder with very pushy parents, do they want their children to be part of the political and cultural elite?
I mean top political figures, heads of think tanks, editor of the London Review of books? That kind of thing?

Because doing "very well" in that way is very much to do with class and well as ability.
I suppose its part of a middle class anxiety- the idea that with education you can shoe horn your child into that elite world. I don't know how realistic that idea is. It isn't a world I recognise or could imagine being part of (I have an IQ of 150 something).

I work for a third sector organisation that specialises in fairly obscure and complex area of public law. No one I work with is "doing very well" in the sense of making large amounts of money or having a lot of power and influence.
We are all "doing well" in the sense of being able to give our families a decent standard of living and in that we are skilled in some very complex cerebral stuff.

This is the sort of future I imagine for most of the "child geniuses" as adults. Interesting work, relatively good (lower middle classish) standard of living, ordinary but pleasant.

The elite in this country probably number far less than the number of people with high IQ's after all. So it follows that most "geniuses" are living ordinary lives.

Doing very well for me would mean a well adjusted adult able to maintain themselves physically with whatever work they choose to do and function in healthy relationships. I think jocelyn will manage this with ease.

I haven't watched it and am not going to, but I can't respect parents who put their child forward for shows like this. If the initiative comes from the child then absolutely fair enough, but if it's the parent driving it then they should be ashamed of themselves.

And IQ really, truly isn't everything. I have a full scale IQ of 155 (two independent tests years apart) but I still need mechanics to service my car, plumbers to sort out my sink and builders to rebuild my breezeway. Having a high IQ only gives you an advantage in a few narrow areas which aren't always that useful in everyday life. People make far too much of it, and I wouldn't dream of trying out for Mensa.

I'm certainly not a high flyer, I'm just an ordinary bod living an ordinary life and working an ordinary job. I really wouldn't want it any other way.

"Doing very well for me would mean a well adjusted adult able to maintain themselves physically with whatever work they choose to do and function in healthy relationships. I think jocelyn will manage this with ease."

Apologies DiaDuit I misunderstood you. I thought you meant she would do fine but not "very well"
Yes I agree, she will manage the above with ease.