Gifted or 'just' bright?...

[bubbleymummy]

As they've gotten older, what has set your child apart from their peers? I think that when they are young it is easier to notice children who are doing things earlier/to a greater extent than other children their age, but as they get older skills such as numeracy/literacy etc obviously don't stand out as much. While my son seems gifted in these areas at age 4, he may not seem so in a few years! So what do you think it is that 'defines' your child's giftedness as such?

I think gifted/talented is farcical in most schools anyway.
There is a thin line between 'just bright' and gifted and talented at primary stage

Gifted to me means extraordinary

You know, Mozart piano recitals aged 5

Chess genius age d 6, that sort of thing

Exactly nnb, not a pushed child in numeracy/literacy but an original jaw dropping genius

The difference between the two terms: semantics.

Well that's certainly the case in schools.

Leaving aside the gifted definition, I think what sets bright children apart from their peers as they get older is thirst for knowledge (not all have this) and ease of grasping new skills and concepts.

I think they're easier to spot as they get older to be honest (the ones that haven't become disillusioned and switched off at least). When they're young they might do things a little early, but they are simple things that everyone will manage sooner or later (like reading). When they're older they do things that most people won't ever get their heads around or master and often they'll be excelling in more than one area too.

Good point snorkie.

So does anyone on here feel they have a truly gifted child? Or just varying degrees of bright children that we don't like to officially label? :)

May I tag on a "very stupid" question? (please don't shout at me ).

If someone says my child is "bright" -- what do they mean? I honestly don't know, I just feel very embarassed about not knowing what to say in reply. My cousin got labeled "bright" as a child, by that most people actually meant "gifted" as defined here.

With dd, I suppose I couldn't tell if she is really gifted or just bright. But I have noticed that she reads the same books as the university students I teach but much faster and without seeming to find them as difficult; also that the conversations I have with her about her reading are more intellectually satisfying that most of the seminar discussions I preside over.

When I was the same age, I proof read my mother's MA dissertation (in a foreign language) and gave her feedback which I believe she found valuable: I also used to help her proof read for academic colleagues. So at the very least, I was probably quite bright. No knowing how gifted I was on any sort of national scale, nobody ever cared about my IQ(which is probably low), but my PhD thesis was well received internationally and has had good reviews. Which was the bit I cared about.

I intend to let dd help with the proof reading of my next book, not for the spelling, but because she can spot halting logic or inconsistent ideas in a way that dh can't.

But there's no labelling, her secondary school doesn't really do G&T, she doesn't enter any competitions. She has a great time reading and thinking about things, she doesn't really need to know how bright or gifted or whatever she is, at least not for some years yet. If she is going to be a writer, chances are she needs many years to mature anyway.

Dd is 13 btw.

I think truely gifted is a child that makes you think "wow" in some way.

An ed pysch recently assessed ds as having an IQ of 157 (the assessment was for social skills). We were told he should be working about 7 years ahead of his peers.

In theory, this makes ds "highly gifted". However, I do not think this is the case. There is nothing he does that I find extraordinary, nothing that makes me go "wow". He is very bright though.

Cory - your dd makes me think wow!

There are things that most children do or have the potential to do. Bright children will find achieving these things easier. So most children will learn to read and can be encouraged to read progressively more difficult books. A bright child will do this faster, more easily and with little effort required.

A gifted child will achieve things that the vast majority of child can't do, no matter the coaching and input.

Reductive and simplistic I know and I'm cold-ridden so my explanation is lacking.

ie when did your child learn to read?

aged 6 = normal

aged 4 = bright

aged 2, with no coaching and within a year had learnt to read in several languages, self taught and with no input = gifted

Ah well, dd's out of the running then, not even bright by your definition SOH. Never mind, I am sure I can find her something useful to do.

Wow is right cory! :) we all seem to be in agreement really. Truly gifted children are blindingly obvious and very very rare. The term 'gifted' seems to have become interchangeable with 'bright' and this seems to have weakened it's meaning. Particularly in relation to G&T in schools which, I agree, Spinspin, is a bit farcical.

Eh? By my definition she's at least bright ie most children can read and will dissect meaning/themes etc from books. Your dd at a very tender age can read books aimed at adults and dissect them, understand them etc with ease. At the very least bright.

How have I suggested your dd isn't bright/gifted?

I couldn't comment on any child, was just putting forward my opinion. That bright is a child who does things better, faster, more easily than others. The gifted is the child that does something out of the ordinary. I think you could argue your dd was either. You know her though.

Clearly I meant its- stupid iPhone autocorrect!

Only joking SOH. She wasn't reading at age 4. In fact, I can't remember her doing anything at all particularly early, not even speaking. Not like the other children in her toddler group. It's just that when she got round to doing things she did them rather well.

Though I don't think she'd be blindingly obvious: she looks like any giggling teenager.

Gifted does not = Genius, stop confusing the two.

Aaah. I just meant that as a (ridiculously reductive) example ie the ability to read. My BIL who is 24 is probably worthy of the label gifted and talented. He's remarkably, utterly ordinary. I suppose unless you saw him doing what it is he's brilliant at, you wouldn't give it a second though. And nah, he's no genius.

If you look at Wiki it describes gifted as accademically ahead. I think you can tell when they get older because they appear to have a wise head on young shoulders, as well as one of the top achievers in the school year. They are often different to their peers and stand out for that. Almost as though they miss those early teen years behaviour wise and have to wait for others to catch up, or maybe they never do.

I don't know any 2 year olds that teach themselves several languages but I would descibe such children as genius freaks.

Oh I was being tongue in cheek about the languages thing. Read too many 'my 3yr old recognises the alphabet, should I contact the mensa and/or the pope?' threads.

You are describing DS abouteve Once he got to secondary his maturity was always being commented on. He is also an abstract thinker and his teachers describe him as gifted because of this. He is top set despite SLD and others in the class do get better academic results, his teachers say he is different because of the way he thinks.

DS certainly fits that description as well - he is 13 and is certainly old beyond his years. (He's always been like that, he complained to his reception teacher that the other boys wouldn't sit still ).

He just thinks in a different way to other people, if there's any degree of leeway in a homework he'll be off at a tangent.