Child genius???!!!

[Calista]

Just found this post on another website..
What do you think?

Thanks freshname :-) Well I hope to god ds3 doesn't do that as I'll be quite paranoid enough about him as it is.

Depends what they mean though by add and subtract in double digits. Are they sitting her down?

the voiture stuff wouldn't bother me- DS2 picked up some words of Japanese pretty easily when we had Japanese guests- don't think that's anything amazing really- just kiddies copying.

But the tunes...... Hmmmmmm Well ds1 from the age of 15 months could hear a tune once then repeat it perfectly (in tune). He much preferred classical to anything else. Still soaks up music. I was mightily relieved to discover that ds2 has his father's singing voice (but again ds2's reaction to music is normal- he loves singing and he loves the social side of it and laughs at funny words etc- ds1's reaction to music is completely extreme- it kind of takes over him- some pieces he has to listen to outside the room- and he goes ballistic if a piece stops early- when he was a toddler he use to shake to certain pieces of music).

Mind you she is pointing .....

A lot of speed of development (especially of things like language) is biological though- depends how fast your neurones myelinate. She may be a gifted toddler but doesn't mean she'll be a gifted child or teen.

Very true. dds learning curve has flattened out a lot.

The other thing that strikes me is with such a young child we're talking about speech which is different from language. DS2's speech was psotively drongo (well disordered- god knows still what he was doing speech wise) but being paranoid mum I used to test his language (made sure he knew the difference between you and me for example). Now he speaks pretty well and he talks to me a lot about things from before he was 2- when he wasn't talking at all (things that I've forgotten). 300 words of language may not be that unusual (probably isn't) although 300 words of speech is.

Anyway point being - that being able to speak that well that young is certainly advanced, but being able to speak has more to do with being able to coordinate the complex motor movements needed for speech rather than intelligence. It may be that lots of quiet toddlers are taking in the same- they're just not able to be so forward with what they know.

I wouldn't put her down as a geniys yet (but I would worry about the musical stuff:-) No idea about the adding and subtracting as I don't know what they mean- and it seems a weird thing for any parent to try and do with their baby!

I agree with Jimjams tbh. If the post from the other site is true then the alarm bells would be ringing for me too.

Ds1 knew his numbers, shapes and letters of the alphabet and could read complicated words by the time he was 2. He had a keyboard which he used to copy tunes he's heard from the television or radio. They were perfect note-for-note. When he started talking (very late) he could say words from other languages with a perfect accent. He also imitated dialects perfectly and after a week of watching too much CBeebies he spoke with a Scottish accent for several weeks. He can still speak in other people's voices and will often recite entire conversations that he's overheard.

All of this is entirely useless to him though. His everyday language skills are not quite at the same level as his peers and when he speaks English he still seems to speak it as though it's a foreign language to him. The mistakes he makes are exactly the kinds of mistakes that a non-native speaker would make.

Ds2 could speak perfect words at 10 months old. No "dada" or "mama". He skipped that stage and said "Mummy" and "Daddy" just like a mini-adult. At 21 months he can't say a thing other than "Woweeee!" or "Oh nooooooo!" He's waiting for an assessment to see if he's autistic like his older brother.

Being advanced at a very young age is not always what it seems to be.

I agree with Jimjams tbh. If the post from the other site is true then the alarm bells would be ringing for me too.

Ds1 knew his numbers, shapes and letters of the alphabet and could read complicated words by the time he was 2. He had a keyboard which he used to copy tunes he's heard from the television or radio. They were perfect note-for-note. When he started talking (very late) he could say words from other languages with a perfect accent. He also imitated dialects perfectly and after a week of watching too much CBeebies he spoke with a Scottish accent for several weeks. He can still speak in other people's voices and will often recite entire conversations that he's overheard.

All of this is entirely useless to him though. His everyday language skills are not quite at the same level as his peers and when he speaks English he still seems to speak it as though it's a foreign language to him. The mistakes he makes are exactly the kinds of mistakes that a non-native speaker would make.

Ds2 could speak perfect words at 10 months old. No "dada" or "mama". He skipped that stage and said "Mummy" and "Daddy" just like a mini-adult. At 21 months he can't say a thing other than "Woweeee!" or "Oh nooooooo!" He's waiting for an assessment to see if he's autistic like his older brother.

Being advanced at a very young age is not always what it seems to be.

haven't read whole post but just wanted to point out that being able to recite is not indicative of anything. Reciting the alphabet, 1-100 or adult songs is actually no more advanced than reciting twinkle twinkle. I know this woman said other stuff, eg about maths - which is different, but there is really nothing special about being able to recite things. My mum is a teacher and it drives her mad when people say that kids know their alphabet and/or can "count" to some high number, thinking that it means something.

Message withdrawn

I've never met a child like this, but I'm sure they do exist (don't know whether this particular one is true or not). I agree with what jampot & coppertop are saying about assessment, in some cases it is crucial to meet a child's special needs. However, both DP & I would probably be considered "bright" or "gifted", in that we were both successful educationally (I did get a B, to my shame, in one of my GCSEs and we both only got a 2:1 from Oxford, but I think this does put us in the top 2% or something like that), but no-one at school or home ever labelled us as "gifted" or "brilliant" or "genius", and we are so so glad about that. I would have hated that label, it would not have helped me, and I think we both grew up much better knowing that we were just run of the mill kids who happened to be verbally, literally and numerically dextrous. DS seems to be "smart" but physically he always lags behind. But more importantly he is happy and derives great enjoyment from life - as do DP and I. Surely that's the most important bit?

totally off thread - fisil - I have a feeling we've chatted a bit before - you're sw london aren't you, like me? same educational background as me too! though you're clearly younger than me if you did GCSEs! I was at Oxford 1989-1995 (strung it out a bit with an MPhil)

Yes, I think we have, because dp was 1988 - 1991 and I was 1992 - 1996. I can't remember, I know you said before what it was you did, and where. But my memory isn't what it used to be! We're planning a trip there when new baby is a few weeks old - next June - but I am still overexcitied already - we love Oxford so much, and it is important to us to introduce the new baby to a place we both love.

and hatter, when you say "same educational background" do you mean in terms of results, or do you mean that you feel similarly to me about the "genius" label?

Message withdrawn

Fisil, snap. I want my sharp little dd to consider herself to be quite normal.

do you think my 3.5 year old is advanced? He told me I was getting on his nerves yesterday

LOL, don't you just love a child that knows it's mother!

I meant in terms of results but I also do feel it's important for kids to feel rounded and for education to be about more than results. I loved university with a passion, had the best time ever, but could you imagine doing it all when you're 14 or something awful? for me it's as much a social and cultural thing. We love Oxford too and visit fairly regularly - got married there (in college) too

OI!

exactly, hatter. university was about getting to know yourself in every way - and drinking, partying and sleeping a lot. So I agree with you about 14 year olds. Did you meet people who had always been told how brilliant they were and became very despondant and depressed when at Oxford because they discovered they weren't as unique as they'd always been told. Again, I'm glad I'd always been led to believe that I was normal - instead I got excited because at last there were people who enjoyed talking about similarly boring things to me!

I loved the fact that I didn't stand out because I want to know 'Why' and work to find out, tbh. I was never made to feel 'special' by my parents. I was just their kid. But I was badly bullied in school and called a snob because I wanted to work at school and loved school. It was great to be able to be myself with other people who were lioke me

interesting hmb - I hated school and was worried that I would get the piss taken out of me for good results, so I got crap ones and did as little work as humanly possible, smoked, swore and was generally a pain in the backside. When I was 17 I heard along the grapevine that my careers teacher had laughed out loud on hearing that I had thought about going to Oxford - it was the best thing anyone ever did to me, red rag to a bull and all that. Got me in and no doubt about it

I would've hated university at 14. All the hard work without any of the fun stuff.

I thought that too, jimjams and CT. My friend's little boy (same age as ds1) could recite his alphabet, count to a hundred, etc. long long before ds1 could do anything like that. But he wasn't able to make his own sentences or say anything that he hadn't learned by rote. And he's autistic...

My best friend's kids (a boy and a girl) were both exceptionally early and good talkers. Her ds started talking at 8 months and was using sentences by 12 months. In fact, he was so precocious that the local University did a study on him! I didn't know her when her ds was a baby but I have been astonished by how good her dd's speech is and she always says "oh she's not like ds was!" But, tbh, and she says this herself - it hasn't been an indication of genius. Her ds is an exceptionally bright little boy, brighter than a lot of kids - but as he has got older it has all evened out, he doesn't stand out from his peers any more.

Hmb, are you me? That is exactly how I felt at University! It was such a relief to be able to use long words without being asked if I'd swallowed a dictionary