Is the phrase "Gifted student " or "talented student " thrown around too much?

[EEEEEEP]

Talented = skills are distinctly above average in one or more areas of human performance.

We often call kids that do normal things such as a simple drawing or reading one year ahead as gifted. Is that  just meeting basic competency and not being gifted?

In my eyes, being gifted is such as Finishing HS early, starting uni early, doing complex paintings at the age of say.. 12, finishing piano grades at the age of say 11.
E.g. http://www.azfamily.com/story/29178977/11-year-old-gilbert-girl-heading-to-harvard.. heading to harvard at the age of 11

E.g. http://wgntv.com/2017/02/20/piano-prodigy-emily-bear-performs-on-wgn-morning-news/... Bear recently released her seventh album, "Into the Blue", which debuted at number 5 on the Billboard Traditional Jazz Chart.

AS a society, there are standards that we should adhere to. We shouldn't be calling a little kid talented for being able to do "ding ding ding" on a keyboard or do some squiggles.

What are your thoughts?

[Sine]

Talented = skills are distinctly above average in one or more areas of human performance.

We often call kids that do normal things such as a simple drawing or reading one year ahead as gifted. Is that  just meeting basic competency and not being gifted?

In my eyes, being gifted is such as Finishing HS early, starting uni early, doing complex paintings at the age of say.. 12, finishing piano grades at the age of say 11.
E.g. http://www.azfamily.com/story/29178977/11-year-old-gilbert-girl-heading-to-harvard.. heading to harvard at the age of 11

E.g. http://wgntv.com/2017/02/20/piano-prodigy-emily-bear-performs-on-wgn-morning-news/... Bear recently released her seventh album, "Into the Blue", which debuted at number 5 on the Billboard Traditional Jazz Chart.

AS a society, there are standards that we should adhere to. We shouldn't be calling a little kid talented for being able to do "ding ding ding" on a keyboard or do some squiggles.

What are your thoughts?

Playing the piano is a lot more than "Ding Ding Ding"

[EEEEEEP]

Playing the piano is a lot more than "Ding Ding Ding"

I know, but that's probs just something anecdotal from my exp =)

(parents of a friend, that don't hold very high expectations)

[jamonwindeyer]

Really, really interesting matter for debate EEEEEEP!

I think what this essentially comes back to at its core is the "participation trophy" argument. Do we give rewards based purely on involvement to attempt to foster further development, or is this counterintuitive to success and the way the real world works?

I think calling someone talented when they show promise, even it is isn't prodigious, is a good thing. Talent isn't measured relatively, or at least I don't believe it should be, it is measured in absolutes. If you can play anything on Saxophone, you are talented. More talented than me at Saxophone for sure. While that might not reflect how the real world works, I think particularly for younger children, it's important to recognise progress. There's plenty of time to compare yourself to others in later life (the HSC is one of the biggest games of comparison out there).

That said, I do think there is something to be said for your side of the coin as well EEEEEEP. In a semi-related matter, I think there's a tendency for people to discourage celebration of success because it might "upset those who didn't win." Like, do I think that the winner of a Year 6 running race should get a bigger trophy than last place? Absolutely I do, and I think parents/caregivers should be able to teach their children that, "Hey, it's okay that they got a bigger trophy than you. They are good at what they do. You should give them a high five." Etc etc

Perhaps a little unrelated in my ramblings above, sorry - Do you think that a student needs to be a prodigy to be called gifted EEEEEP? At what point would you feel comfortable using the word 'gifted' ?

[ardria]

We shouldn't be calling a little kid talented for being able to do "ding ding ding" on a keyboard or do some squiggles.

I think this statement is unfairly exaggerated haha, I'm assuming you mean to refer to children who are more capable in music/art compared to the rest of the kids their age. I don't think many people consider standard music/art skills as "talented". But I see what you're getting at.

So what, in your opinion, are the thresholds that separate "standard" from "above average" from "naturally talented" from "prodigy"?

On a related note: I personally don't think that people who've had the privilege of being pushed by their parents to attend piano & art & dance & sport & tutoring lessons since the age of 5 should be called gifted or talented unless they display some serious natural affinity for something.

My point is that being "talented" at something and being "skilled" are completely different.
To me, it's exactly the same difference between "smart" and "hard-working". Not that this labelling really matters :p

What do you think ?

[EEEEEEP]

So what, in your opinion, are the thresholds that separate "standard" from "above average" from "naturally talented" from "prodigy"?

Very good question. Standard and above average would be quite similar. Naturally talented would be a step above. Prodigy would be a few steps above.

I think what this essentially comes back to at its core is the "participation trophy" argument. Do we give rewards based purely on involvement to attempt to foster further development, or is this counterintuitive to success and the way the real world works?

Perhaps a little unrelated in my ramblings above, sorry - Do you think that a student needs to be a prodigy to be called gifted EEEEEP? At what point would you feel comfortable using the word 'gifted' ?

No need to apologies! You make total sense!

I think awards on various levels should exist (not just based on involvement to foster dev.) In real life, you have your basic awards and your extras. If you do extremely well... they may reward you with a promotion or something ^^.
......

I would say so, to be gifted is to be exceptionally good at something. Say... producing works at a super young age (that people want to buy, composing complex music before they have finished HS (these are just the things that come to my mind.

Most people cannot be "exceptionally" good at something. TO be exceptional, means to stand out.

[Wales]

I'm going to look at this question from a academic point of view.

Personally I feel that while the phrase Talented Student does exist to a degree I feel it's too commonly misused. People always assume I'm a *talented* student simply because I do Extension 2 Mathematics. No, I am not talented. I worked my ass off to get here. I struggled through an ocean of papers to get into the class and still am struggling through conics. I'm where I'm at now because I work hard not because I'm talented. It irritates me when people call me talented and disregard the work and effort I've put in. My friends who screwed around are slowly understanding that now, albeit a bit late but it's better than nothing.

Yes, you do get those freak students who just magically appear to understand everything. A friend of mine just magically understands everything we learn in class while I sit there and flop about for a few hours til I get it. I've got a friend who's a national level swimmer, not everyone can achieve that naturally But that's not to say you CAN'T achieve greatness if you aren't born a certain way. I give the same response to those who say "It's in my genes". No it's not (bar some disorders etc). I'm a firm believer that your relations shape you. If your parents conditioned you to love and enjoy English then it's only natural you love English.

/endrant

Yes the phrase talented student exist but its far too overused, mainly as an excuse.

[brenden]

I'm going to look at this question from a academic point of view.

Personally I feel that while the phrase Talented Student does exist to a degree I feel it's too commonly misused. People always assume I'm a *talented* student simply because I do Extension 2 Mathematics. No, I am not talented. I worked my ass off to get here. I struggled through an ocean of papers to get into the class and still am struggling through conics. I'm where I'm at now because I work hard not because I'm talented. It irritates me when people call me talented and disregard the work and effort I've put in. My friends who screwed around are slowly understanding that now, albeit a bit late but it's better than nothing.

Yes, you do get those freak students who just magically appear to understand everything. A friend of mine just magically understands everything we learn in class while I sit there and flop about for a few hours til I get it. I've got a friend who's a national level swimmer, not everyone can achieve that naturally But that's not to say you CAN'T achieve greatness if you aren't born a certain way. I give the same response to those who say "It's in my genes". No it's not (bar some disorders etc). I'm a firm believer that your relations shape you. If your parents conditioned you to love and enjoy English then it's only natural you love English.

/endrant

Yes the phrase talented student exist but its far too overused, mainly as an excuse.

Pretty interesting point if you think of the idea of "talent" being used to separate "the regular folk" and "the talented folk". Maybe the mental separation helps us not compare ourselves to obviously smarter people or so on, because we don't hold ourselves to the same standards.

[Wales]

Pretty interesting point if you think of the idea of "talent" being used to separate "the regular folk" and "the talented folk". Maybe the mental separation helps us not compare ourselves to obviously smarter people or so on, because we don't hold ourselves to the same standards.

Indeed.

However, while I do think it's all in the psychology of one which determines how "talented" they are I can't help but notice this one outlier at my school.

He's Top 2 in both Chemistry, Physics, Top 5 in Extension 1 Maths and 3rd in Extension 2. He does NO work outside. I've known him for 12 years and can confirm that. He turned up to a Chemistry exam with no notes where students were permitted 2 pages of notes and came second, 2 marks behind first.

His father is a doctor who travels everywhere, mother is a physiotherapist, all 3 brothers studying some form of medicine with ATAR's of 99.7 and above.

Scenario's like that really make me second guess the idea how our talent is purely reliant on our influences.

Idkman

[vox nihili]

This is a really odd debate in many respects.

Beyond "accuracy" why does it matter whether or not the word talent is used properly? Some of you seem really quite passionate about this and I must admit to having a difficult time understanding why this is such an important topic to you and why you feel that it matters so much whether another person is considered talented.

Speaking from personal experience, this used to bother me, too. I used to hate the idea that people were celebrated as being talented, when there were clearly more talented people in the room. Then I realised that I thought that I was the more talented person in the room, and that my problem wasn't so much with the "incorrect" use of the term talented, but with jealousy. At that point I realised it was a cruel thing to resent other people's successes because I didn't view them as important as mine.

To be honest, that's what I think this debate comes down to. I firmly believe that this isn't a debate worth having, because to complain that people are referred to as talented when they're not is an expression of jealousy and says more about ourselves than it does about them.

Of course, I don't mean any of that as personal criticism. I just think that it's worth evaluating your own perspectives if that bothers you so much.

[peterpiper]

Speaking from personal experience, this used to bother me, too. I used to hate the idea that people were celebrated as being talented, when there were clearly more talented people in the room. Then I realised that I thought that I was the more talented person in the room, and that my problem wasn't so much with the "incorrect" use of the term talented, but with jealousy. At that point I realised it was a cruel thing to resent other people's successes because I didn't view them as important as mine.

Well there is truth to this. There are studies out there which strongly suggest that we do tend to think ourselves superior than many others in a host of intelligence: friendliness, compassion, morality etc. And I guess if we were to see another person deemed more talented than us in an area we're not otherwise quite as adept as they are, feelings of resentment would no doubt be a common response.

Honestly, I guess the use of the word 'talent' in the right context means a lot to some, because in some ways it continues that classist social darwinism narrative. But you're right; this shouldn't mean that we discourage the growth of one's giftedness with our base jealousy.

On a related note, this reminds me of a case I read awhile back with the kid Nadia Chomyn. Nadia was this autistic kid who had an extraordinary ability to draw from the young age of like five. She could draw amazingly, and in article I read by Nigel Dennis, he reviewed a book written by her psychologist which centred around Nadia's treatment. In the book, apparently (I haven't read it), they discussed about what they should do with her, and they realised that should they cure her, her abilities to draw would probably disappear.

In the end, they did cure her, and her abilities to draw did go away. She couldn't draw anymore, and what the reviewer of the book interestingly pointed out was a case for preserving that talent; that the psychologist shouldn't have intervened and taught Nadia normal communication (which in a later letter-to-the-editor, the author/psychologist vehemently disagreed with). The psychologist's justification for this disagreement was also quite interesting (I'll link her response down below).

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/11/23/nadias-case/