“What a gifted child is, in many ways, is a gifted learner. And what a gifted adult is, is a gifted doer. And those are quite separate domains of achievement.
Precociousness, in other words, is not necessarily or always a prelude to adult achievement. Sometimes it’s just its own little discrete state… Sometimes we call a child precocious because they acquire a certain skill quickly, but that skill turns out to be something where speed of acquisition is not at all important. … We don’t say that someone who learned to walk at four months is a better walker than the rest of us. It’s not really a meaningful category.”
The Myth of Prodigy and Why it Matters, by Eric Wargo, Observer Staff Writer
The Association for Psychological Science
This entry was posted on October 13, 2006 at 8:57 pm, and is filed under Quotes. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Malcolm Gladwell knows nothing about child prodigy. That is clear to anyone who does.
I am the father of a scientific child prodigy, Ainan Celeste Cawley, six. Funny enough, given Gladwell’s example above, Ainan spoke his first words in his first month, at a couple of weeks, with others following swiftly along. He was crawling at four months and walking at six. Far from being an irrelevant marker, it is clear that Ainan is highly co-ordinated, able to move in ways others might find too complicated to do. Early movement correlates with later athletic ability – so, as usual Gladwell is wrong: it does matter.
Ainan Celeste Cawley is a gifted doer much more than he is a gifted learner – to use Gladwell’s categories to illustrate the nonsense of his reasoning. Ainan writes scientific books – and has done for a year. He invents experiments of his own. He theorizes about the world and the material he comes across. He reads adult science material easily – and responds insightfully to it. He is “doing” all the time. Learning is secondary to his doing.
Gladwell is good at packaging thoughts – often other people’s – in ways that attract attention. However, he is not good at thinking with clarity, precision and originality. It is a pity for the understanding of prodigy and genius that Gladwell’s remarks have received so much coverage. He is distorting the truth of the situation.
To create a better understanding of prodigy I started a blog on my son: The Boy Who Knew Too Much: A Child Prodigy. Those who are interested would find a different picture to Gladwell’s.
Kind regards
Valentine,
It’s clear from your post and your blog that you’re very passionate about the subject of precociousness and gifted children, and interesting that you have a different opinion based on your personal experience. Thanks for leaving a comment.
It’s also interesting to note that you seem to be very upset about Gladwell’s opinion, to the point of using ad hominem arguments to “refute” him. From reading your blog, it’s clear that you consider both yourself and your children to be highly gifted, and interpret Gladwell’s article as something of an attack on your beliefs. While I understand that Gladwell’s opinion strikes very close to home for you, I’m sure you recognize that ad hominem arguments detract from the persuasiveness of your position.
Gladwell’s opinion seems to be that giftedness is somewhat overrated – that high achievement can come just as readily from steady practice over many years as from youthful genius. He doesn’t seem to suggest that there is no such thing as precociousness, only that true precociousness is very rare and in the long-run is less important than it’s currently thought to be.
Kathy Sierra of “Creating Passionate Users” has a post along these lines.
Kind regards,
Josh
Thanks Josh, for your comment on my comment. It gives me a chance to understand your understanding.
Firstly, I would like to address the contention that I have used ad hominem argumentation: that is not the case – and if it seems to be, then I haven’t made myself clear. It is Gladwell’s arguments that I have attacked, not Gladwell himself. I know nothing of him, other than what is public relations and so could not comment. I do however have his reasoning to look at: that is public – and very clearly flawed, when analysed without bias.
It is evident to me, from the opinions that Gladwell holds that they could not be founded on personal experience of the people he attacks: the precocious. His opinion is not even supported by the evidence he proposes to support it – as has been analysed on my blog.
The precocious of the world are rare, yes – and they are very misunderstood, since they are sufficiently rare that most people have no acquaintance with them. It is in this context that Mr. Gladwell is able to retail his damaging opinions. His view is an attack on all gifted people: that is the only ad hominem argument here.
My analysis of Gladwell’s own data shows that the precocious are much more likely to become accomplished as adults than those who are not precocious. However, I also note that you don’t have to be precocious as a child to succeed as an adult – though statistically that path is less likely, on a per head basis.
Gladwell is not fair to the evidence in his argument. He omits to introduce the huge body of evidence against his position: every adult genius who was a child prodigy – and focuses on those who weren’t. His argument is not one of science, therefore, but one calculated to influence opinion in the direction he favours. Such efforts cannot remain unopposed for they only further the misunderstanding of the precocious, the prodigies, and the gifted everywhere.
Yes, Josh, I am passionate about this matter – for it concerns my life and that of my children – but also the lives of many people around the world who come from a frequently misunderstood segment of the population. I wish to lessen that misunderstanding.
Kind regards
Valentine,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply – I understand your position much more clearly now. I appreciate your clarification.