anti-intellectualism is a problem democrats can and should

[mopinko]

work on. the threads about a group for former gifted children (in my journal is you somehow missed them.) really brought out some hostility that i think we should try to work on as a party. i have high hopes that al gore will be our candidate in 08. i hate to see the kind of wounds that were exposed here hurting his chances.
what can we do to have a civil dialog about this?

[sgxnk]

1. i think part of the problem

is "knee jerk egalitarianism"

we are not all given the same gifts at birth, and like it or not, some people are naturally more gifted than others in various things (sports, math, whatever)

such an attitude (the pure tabula rasa it's all socialization) is pure rubbish, completely and overwhelmingly disputed by science (which evidence gets more compelling everyday) yet many stick to this mindset and won't let it go. cognitive dissonance 101

i think the pummeling of larry summers is a PERFECT example of this

[mopinko]

3. well. larry summers

deserved his pummeling, imho. yes, there are innate differences between men and women. but i don't think ole larry understands what they are, how they work, or what they mean.
in particular, he has no idea what gifted young women face. how they are systematically beaten down all through the educational system, and in the world, in general.

[EFerrari]

6. You're right. And it's still not much better now than it was when

I was in school in the late 60s and 70s.

[mopinko]

17. we tought we had won.

us hippies thought that we had won the battles of the 60's and 70's. but we have had our rear guard eroded ever since. i think we may be worse off now.

[EFerrari]

35. Burkas an inch away. I did notice that as soon as we had feminism

we were whooooshed into post-feminism.

That was short.

lol

[sgxnk]

21. totally irrelevant

look, larry summers was/is admittedly kind of a d*ck

and yes, gifted women face all kinds of rubbish

totally irrelevant to the issue

which is that Larry Summers *dared* to mention research (ie science) that supports the idea that men and women ON AVERAGE have relatively different abilities in math, language, etc.

it says NOTHING about individual women

it's like saying men (on average) are taller than women

it doesn't mean *i* am tall, or cheryl swoops is short

and the way larry summers was vilified by anti-scientific ideologues was disgusting

arguing with these tabula rasa nincompoops is like arguing with an intelligent design ideologue

science doesn;'t matter to these people. what larry summers said was OFFENSIVE. science be damned.

if science is offensive - IGNORE THE SCIENCE

[mopinko]

24. i don't ignore the science

but i don't ignore reality, either. and the reality is that far more of the disparity can be traced to prejudice that biology. way more. the genetic disparity is small. the functional disparity is huge. there is plenty of research out there to support that, as well.

[EFerrari]

37. You don't like the way Larry was vilified by

"disgusting anti-scientific ideologues" ?!

:rofl:

[porphyrian]

59. Tangential Question

I don't completely understand what gifted young women face, but I've known enough gifted women to have made some observations and I have a question. Do all gifted girls read "The Bell Jar" or just the ones I've known?

[Cerridwen]

60. I haven't - though I no longer qualify as "young"

But now that you've mentioned it; I'll check it out this week.

Thanks. :D

Better late than never, I guess.

[porphyrian]

74. Heh, I think it's a requisite... - n/t

[mopinko]

69. raises hand

but don't know about all. they should, tho, i can tell ya.

[porphyrian]

75. I was being a smartass, but it is empirically true in my observation.

I think it was tenth or eleventh grade when I saw every single gifted girl reading it at some point, and I've since asked every woman who admits their giftedness whether or not they'd read it, and they said they had. And these whippersnappers today think they know goth...

[alcibiades_mystery]

102. The Bell Jar at the Right of the Bell Curve

You must write a screenplay behind that immediately.

[porphyrian]

111. If I do, you'll get credit for the title.

;)

[Marie26]

142. I didn't. :) nt

[porphyrian]

156. I think you have to before you can receive any Social Security. - n/t

[manic expression]

190. No, that isn't a problem

what science shows is that diversity is natural and a positive thing. Everyone has talents, everyone is at the very least sufficient in something.

So saying that people are, to a person, all gifted and talented (or something to the same effect) is not incorrect and is right.

[unpossibles]

2. I agree 100%

or 110%, whichever is greater. ;)


seriously though, in my opinion, it is this that allowed the right wing to attack the media, distort the truth, and attack education and get away with it.

Sadly, I am not sure how it can be fought - their attack has a built in defense in that if you try to establish intelligence as something to be exalted they cry "elitism!"

We need to show how we are seriously losing (have lost already?) our edge in the world.

[mopinko]

5. it has done tremendous harm.

and the saddest part, i think, is that it is built on the resonance of childhood bullshit. on the damage done to individuals by a system that treats kids like cattle.

[cgrindley]

77. I agree

Sadly, I am not sure how it can be fought - their attack has a built in defense in that if you try to establish intelligence as something to be exalted they cry "elitism!"
Tell me about it. It's pathetic. There's nothing quite so chilling to any discourse than for someone to break out that old hissing chestnut. It's incredibly stupid and offensive, and I think it originates in the participation pin trophy prize generation who've come to age in an America where everyone gets an A, everyone gets a gold star, and no one, absolutely no one, ever fails. The main problem is that although the repukes revel in a sense of perhaps willed and blatant ignorance (like they're sometimes even proud of their bigotries and poor quality educations), our side also attempts to stifle internal dissent by the same means, attempting to shut down debate by a cringing appeal to some vague happy egalitarianism that they somehow interpret to mean that everyone gets an opinion, even if it's a stupid one.

We'd be well advised to remember: From each according to his or her ability to each according to his or her need.

That's "ability" and "need" and nowhere does it say anything about hurt feelings.

[SmokingJacket]

4. I don't think anti-intellectualism IS a problem with democrats.

Certainly in the larger culture. But what you see as anti-intellectualism here is seen as anti-elitism by others.

Personally, I think the whole "gifted and talented" thing is a crock. As a former teacher, I never met a single kid who was "normal" -- everyone has some kind of talent or gift or skill. Some of these talents are recognized and some weren't. It pissed me off royally that the kids who had certain talents were treated as special, but other kids -- I remember a boy who was a cartooning genius -- were totally ignored by most of the adults in the school because his skills were not valued by them. I had another kid who was a born comedian -- all he got from the school was grief.

IQ tests are BS. My father was a shrink and I used to be his testing guinea pig. I can tell you that all they test is how good you are at IQ tests -- not the most transferable skill.

The best thing you can do for "gifted and talented" kids -- and ANY kid, for that matter -- is how to recognize what you're good at and how to pursue your interests in SPITE of the larger culture.

I believe that "feeling special" is POISONOUS to children. It can ruin their lives.

[mopinko]

10. it's not a crock

there is a personality that goes with high intelligence and creativity that goes far beyond iq. there is plenty of research out there. yes, everyone is different. but there is such a thing as personality types, and your post shows the level of hostility to this particular type that i am talking about. your 2 examples, btw, fit perfectly into what i am saying.
you can call it what you want. but what happened here at du is part of what happened to al gore. it does exist.

[Rosemary2205]

12. Well

I was still considered one of those "gifted" people when Al Gore was in office and running, and I'll say, I thought he was a smarmy elitist who fairly oooozed the attitude that he thought he was superior to most people. I have no idea if he actually felt that way or not. He seems that he's really attempting to change that about himself and I wish him success. He has much to much to offer to let it be rejected by elitism.

[mopinko]

15. he was painted that way by the corporate media.

i do not think he is that way, or ever was that way. you should read "lies and the lying liars that tell them" by al franken. it is about the "war on gore" as he calls it, and how the media tapped into this wide, painful streak in our country's psyche, and sold an imbecile as president.
i know a lot of artists, and others that fit into the gifted category, and i do not know a single one that thinks their shit doesn't stink. not one. not a single one.

[Rosemary2205]

22. In my case

that "he is an elitist" feeling came from within, not without. And like I explained, it was an unfortunate mannerism that "rubbed me the wrong way" more than anything. I have never been able to get past the mannerism to make any fair judgement on my true opinion on Gore other than he has so much to offer.

I've met some people who thought their shit don't stink of various sorts. They are out there, and for your sake I'm glad you have not had the misfortune to suffer through one of them.

[mopinko]

28. well, i guess what i am trying to say is

i know that this visceral feeling is out there. it is part of human nature. i do not have all the answers as to its causes, or even its proper name. all i know is that it is hurting us deeply as a party, and as a nation, as well as all the person damage that it does. i do know that it is a deeply destructive thing on both sides.
it is my feeling, from where i sit, and how people have reacted to me, that this feeling about the odor of people's shit is mostly wrong. most of the people that you think that about are probably, in fact, deeply insecure. and profoundly damaged by this rejection that you, and others, feel toward them.
my question is, how do we rise above this? we cannot afford this kind of hate.

[Rosemary2205]

30. I have never hated anyone.

I will say I dread it when a certain "my shit don't stink" relative rolls into town and treats every living sole like her personal slave, makes an embarrassing scene at every store, every restaurant. She is not any sort of intellectual but she is incredibly rude - and I have no doubt in my mind she qualifies under the "my shit don't stink" heading.

I believe the same of George W Bush given his behavior around the world - for instance trashing Queen Elizabeth's home and gardens.

Elitism is not about intelligence of any sort. It's about a superiority complex. IMHO

[mopinko]

34. well, you seem to be

conflating the 2. there are a lot of "fragrant crappers" out there. but all you have to do is state the simple, verifiable fact that you are intelligent, and the odor of your shit will immediately come into question.

[Rosemary2205]

38. I never found that to be true.

not in my "intelligent" days before the accident and not now.....but we each have a unique experience in life.......

[mopinko]

44. maybe you do not have the same emotional antennae

i think that the gifted people who have the most trouble are those that also are sensitive. we feel these hostilities deeply. it makes it very hard. the ones who do the best, i think, are those with a more "normal" emotional make up. or those that understand, value, and can use those antennae.

[heidler1]

309. This may seem to some as off the subject, but I see DU's dislike

of Wal-Mart, especially the attacks about cheap merchandise, as elitist because it has a put down factor that points toward those who can not afford what others can afford. IMO this is counter productive and un democratic.

[Greyhound]

310. You're not wrong, he is a member of the elite.

This, however, is not due to any special talent ability, but rather which vagina he came out of. This is also true of the overwhelming majority of our "leaders, movers, and shakers". Honestly, do you think that * got selected because of anything he has ever done, or any capability that he possesses?

I hope that you see how absurd our notion of government by "the common man" is. We have never had it, nor is it likely that we ever will.

[unpossibles]

135. I know a couple who seem to think their crap smells like roses...

but on the whole, I would agree. And even the couple who do are probably secretly insecure.

There's a good book called Musicians in Tune and it's a bunch of interviews with musicians about why they chose to be an artist. It's amazing how many of them felt alienated and insecure and that they just were not "normal" - and how being an artist (of any kind) simultaneously helps them, but also makes them feel even more different.

I think we're just starting to scratch the surface of what intelligence is, and how it can take many forms. When I was in school I was the frustration of many teachers - I got amazing test grades and was (am) very intuitive, and was in all of the AP classes, but I goofed off A LOT, seldom did homework (or even remembered I had to do it), and was a distraction to the other students.

They all got mad and said I was not living up to my potential because my grades fluctuated between good and suck, yet I tested way higher than the "smart kids" on all of the IOWA and other standardized tests. I even got in trouble at the once a week 5th grade pilot gifted program for calling the bus driver a "dick" (it was actually not intentional, although I did cuss like a sailor) and stopped going because I was embarrassed to show my face.

Ironically, I love to learn - I used to and still do check out text books from the library and have sat in unofficially in college classes that I was not enrolled in just because it sounded fun. I just hate the way most schools are run. I don't know... Now days they'd probably have given me some meds and shut me up somehow.

what were we talking about?

[mopinko]

179. the mission statement specifically said- a broad definition

of gifted, and mentioned artistic and even athletic gifts. i wanted a group of people who think differently. it was the attackers who went on about narrow issues, and exclusion.
if i were to propose a group again, i would perhaps suggest- school misfits, past, present, and future.

[LostinVA]

265. I never perceived him as suck

INteresting how different people see different things.

[SmokingJacket]

20. I love Al Gore -- and remember... he WON.

Whatever anti-intellectualism there was out there was not enough to deny him the popular vote. It took the shenanigans of the Bushites and the SC to keep him out of office.

BTW -- I'm curious about this "personality type" you refer to. I know lots and lots of people with high intelligence (of all kinds!) but could not say that they have a personality in common. What am I not seeing?

Yes, I'm hostile to the idea that certain children should be segregated from the mainstream population and treated as special and superior. It's terrible for them and for the rest of the school. It's much better to teach ALL children to recognize what they're good at -- to whatever degree that is -- and to give them to tools to work on it. Not some children who happen to score high on some test... ALL children.

Some adults still cling to their "gifted and talented" label because it's the only thing that makes them feel good about themselves, far into adulthood with its ups and downs and disappointments and harsh realities. I believe its really damaging to kids to be told this -- they begin to believe they're special and worthwhile just because of WHO they are and with what they're born with.

I know, as I said, many many smart, creative adults, and the most happy and productive and successful of them are those who were taught that they had to WORK HARD at their talents. And that's a lesson that EVERYONE can benefit from.

[Rosemary2205]

27. I completely agree with you.

I come from a family of 6. I had the "book smarts" and didn't have even a single friend until I was 30ish. I finally married in my 40's. My emotional "stupidity" was an incredible handicap to me.

One of my brothers really struggled in school. He still does not read well and is hopeless in even basic math. However, because of his emotional abilities he has built a very successful cabinet making business from the ground up -- he is quite wealthy, happy husband and father. You could say he has it all.

Another brother was of average "book smarts" and got on fine with friends. Thoroughly average -- except that he can fix anything. Electrical, mechanical. He can listen to it and tell you what's wrong. It is actually a bit bizarre. My whole family and the community at large benefits greatly by his unique skill.

We all have something, it's just having someone help us find it.

[mopinko]

33. you can call them whatever you want.

in a perfect world, all kids would be treated like the precious individuals they are.
educating gifted kids is not about special or superior. it is about appropriate education. no more a "special" right than different accommodations for disabled kids. i think it is not fair to put a kid that taught him/herself how to read at 3 in a classroom where kids are learning their abc's. there is nothing there for them to learn. you are not educating them. thinking that it would make them special to actually teach them something they don't know is, well, fucked up.
i don't cling to the label. in fact, i was never given that label in school. i am old. there was no such thing. but there sure was plenty of hostility, in school, and at home. my little sister hates me to this day, because school was hard for her, and easy for me.
not every smart person fits that "nerd" profile. not every genius feels "tortured". but a great many of them have traits in common. for instance, great emotional sensitivity is common. i have this. it is at the base of my artistic abilities. i have really only recently understood this. before that, i thought that it was proof that i was crazy. because when you see through the emotional masks that people wear, they protect themselves by calling you crazy. and when you see that you are different, you feel crazy. i hope that understanding myself better will allow me to trust this gift, and use it better.
i do not "cling to the label" to make myself feel special. i find the research into the gifted personality to be a comfort, and make me feel like less of a misfit. not better, not special, just normal, and valuable. like i have a tribe.

[Rosemary2205]

39. IMHO there's value in teaching gifted 3 yr old how to

get along with other 3 yr olds. IMHO that lesson is as important as advanced reading, math, science, music or whatever. I believe an accomodation has to be made but IMHO it's not required or advisable that the child be removed from his/her peers.

[bmcatt]

55. But who are the child's peers?

I think that, right there, gets to the crux of the matter. For a gifted child or adult, using "age" as the sole definition for selecting "peer group" may very well be fundamentally broken.

I'll use a non-intelligence analogy and reverse the situations because people, for some reason, get offended if you use the words "smarter" and "less smart".

Assume that, for instance, you are a very slow runner. However, everyone else in your age-peer group can run a 3-minute mile. At your best, running downhill with a tailwind, you've never even broken a 7-minute mile. Your peers however, want to do nothing unless they're running. They talk about running while they're running and they run continuously.

Exactly how appreciative are you of being forced to be "with your peers"? What are you gaining or learning from them? How is your life enriched by the company? For that matter, how is theirs?

Now reverse the situation. For a gifted child or adult, it's the equivalent of being a *VERY* fast person (less than 2-minute mile) forced to be in a group of folks who've never broken an 8-minute mile. Are they the appropriate peers for this sprinter? Especially for a sprinter who can do it for more than simply a single mile?

That's what *some* gifted children and adults face almost all day, almost every day. They're the sprinter who's being forced to spend all their "running time" with folks who just can't achieve their speeds. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the sprinter. And, if the sprinter ever "shows off" what they can do *naturally*, the group abuses them (emotionally if not physically) because they're not being "part of the group". Then, when the sprinter tries to go to the folks who set up the groups, they're told "No, no... Those are your peers. You must learn to run with them, even if it means that you run slower."

Regardless of whether you "believe" in gifted intellects or not, the *reality* is that the above is an all-too-common expression of what gifted people face all the time.

[SmokingJacket]

78. That's just bad teaching.

My kids are in a school (public, incidentally) that happens to be near a large university. There are kids in there whose parents are particle physicists, and also kids whose parents are recent immigrants, and kids from "ordinary" families, and from poor families. Likewise, the kids' abilities and strengths are all over the map, too. There's no "gifted" program because, frankly, there would be too many students who qualified.

But somehow the teachers manage to challenge each student. During reading, the kids read materials at their level -- I've seen it work. In my son's kindergarten class, there was a small group of kids working on reading chapter books -- one little girl is way ahead of everyone, but they can still find material to challenge her. And you know what? She inspired some of the kids to work harder to catch up with her, including my own son. And my son has inspired her, one of his best friends, in other ways.

It takes creativity and energy to teach all different kinds of kids, but it can be done. I would like it if our schools spent more time and energy finding the good in every kid, not just the high scorers.

Your metaphor about the running race is a false one. A class room is NOT a race. Spend some time watching what goes on in a classroom sometime -- it's not six hours of phonics repetition. There might be ten minutes of phonics at a time in kindergarten, and the kids who can already read enjoy shouting out the answers as much as anyone. (Also, the early readers often have no idea how they do it -- phonics instruction can be informative to them on that level.) Then the class moves on to something else. If any child is bored, it's because the teacher is lazy, and I guarantee you that the NON-gifted children are also bored.

[bmcatt]

84. We're off-topic, but...

First off, the way to deal with very young kids (K-2 as a guess) is much different from higher grades where, for most schools, I'd venture, there's much less ability to deal with the students differently.

I'm a gifted adult (who was a gifted child) and the product of a public school education. When I lived, as a young child, in the suburbs/rurals, there were lots of attempts made by the teachers and the administration to keep me challenged. That meant that, for math and reading, I spent large portions of each day with the upper classes. I was reading and computing at least 2 grades out of level. My "normal" grade teachers were not *un*able to teach me, but they didn't have the time to keep me "fed" at the rate I needed while also keeping the other students involved in the class.

I moved to a city at the very end of 4th grade. I spent one month in 5th grade bored out of my skull. For me, the teacher could show a particular way of doing something (math problem, for example) once and I'd "get it". I could usually, from there, proceed to something else, having learned the lesson. For most of the rest of the class, though, it often took most of the rest of the week. With a harried, underpaid teacher of an urban class of 25-30 students, there isn't the time, nor, really, the inclination to deal with a "smart kid". They're trouble, not a joy.

To take a different tack on this, though, I agree that a classroom isn't a race... to a point. It's much more like a gang of gorillas who want to make sure that they're all conforming. The non-conformant ones are, at the least, ostracized.

I'm *happy* for you that *your experience* is different. Likewise, I'm happy for any gifted children or adults who have *never* experienced this. Please, however, don't belittle my own experience or the experience of others who did not have this utopian ideal experience.

One thing that I continue to not understand is the... willful dismissal (for want of a better phrase) of people's experiences. Just because you don't see torture, it doesn't happen? For myself, and some other GTs, school *was* torture - either at the emotional / physical level from dealing with the other students or the intellectual one of needing to hide what we were and "pretend" to fit in because it was easier than being the smart kid.

[SmokingJacket]

108. Something I've learned since I've grown up is that school sucked for lots

of people, not just us smart ones. Yes, it sucked for me, too, most of the time. I was a bright kid who wore all the wrong clothes and was tormented daily.

But school also sucks for fat kids. It sucks for the slow kids. It sucks for disabled kids, funny-looking kids, distracted kids, creative kids. I'm not saying that your terrible experience as a gifted child did not happen, at all -- but it is not the rare special experience that you think it is.

Your experience happened because most schools OUGHT to be better than they are, and that the solution is not to take a few kids whose talents most please the administration, label them "gifted," and give them a special high quality education.

That teaches kids that their innate qualities make them superior, which is not true, and it drains the smart kids from the regular classes while telling the rest of the kids that they're boring and "ordinary," which is not true either.

A better solution is improve education for everyone, and arrange it so ALL kids's strengths are recognized.

(I think it's better for us adults, in general, to give up the "GT" label and live life as fully-formed adults. It's not meaningful anymore. I know many people who were bright kids and lost it somewhere along the way, and just as many people whose gifts never came to light until adulthood.)

[bmcatt]

129. I still say you're living in a utopia that doesn't exist.

Your experience happened because most schools OUGHT to be better than they are, and that the solution is not to take a few kids whose talents most please the administration, label them "gifted," and give them a special high quality education.

Excuse me whilst I fall over laughing. Administrations, it's my experience, *hate* gifted kids. It's bad enough for them to deal with the identifiable LD kids. I've seen administrations bend all over themselves to provide educational systems for LD kids and barely lift a finger to help someone who's been, through demonstrable psychological testing, identified as being 5 or more grade levels ahead of their age peers.

That teaches kids that their innate qualities make them superior, which is not true, and it drains the smart kids from the regular classes while telling the rest of the kids that they're boring and "ordinary," which is not true either.

Much as I'm sure I'll get labeled elitist (or worse), I happen to feel that increased intelligence *is* a sign of superiority. It's as much an evolutionary improvement as are being stronger, faster, taller, etc., than others.

By the way, by not "taking the smart kids away from the regular kids" and letting them learn *at their own pace*, you're, instead, teaching the smart kids that the best way for *them* to get ahead is to sit down, shut up, and be a nice mushroom just like everyone else. The non-GTs do *not* learn anything more from the GTs. Instead, you've penalized the few kids for whom school (and the process of education) can actually be fulfilling and enjoyable.

A better solution is improve education for everyone, and arrange it so ALL kids's strengths are recognized.

If the "better solution" doesn't recognize (and acknowledge) that some kids *do* learn faster and better than others, then it's not a better solution.

(I think it's better for us adults, in general, to give up the "GT" label and live life as fully-formed adults. It's not meaningful anymore. I know many people who were bright kids and lost it somewhere along the way, and just as many people whose gifts never came to light until adulthood.)

If you wish to give up the GT label, then, please, feel free to do so. I choose, however, not to. Would you expect someone who is black to stop thinking of themselves that way? What about someone who's Jewish? Being GT is a fundamental part of who I am - more so, I would argue, than my skin color or my religion, because it's part of what *makes* me who I am.

Also, not all "bright kids" are GT. There's a bunch of things which are defining characteristics for various flavors of giftedness. Being a little bit smarter in school isn't, in and of itself, one of them. True giftedness is innate and is not able to be "lost", although it certainly can be beaten down.

[SmokingJacket]

136. Well, you are wrong.

Because you score highly on an IQ test -- or any kind of "specialness test" -- does NOT make you superior. Period.

I know it's important for your fragile self-esteem to think so, but it isn't true.

[bmcatt]

141. Rather than continue this

I'll just say that my self-esteem is not fragile in the least and I think it's sad that you seem to feel the need to try and attack others who do, in fact, feel good about themselves, but who have had troubling experiences in their lives.

As a side note, though, and one for which I don't expect nor desire an answer - I wonder if there is anything about which you'd be willing to admit that, at least in the abstract, someone could *be* superior to another person. If you don't think so, then you've lumped yourself in with the other hyperegalitarians who've been noted in this and other threads. If, on the other hand, you do think that superiority, in some sense, is possible, "just not for intelligence", then there's a fundamental hypocrisy there.

And with that, instead of continuing to torture myself by allowing others to, again, tell me that my life experiences aren't valid, I'm just going to stop viewing this thread.

[SmokingJacket]

146. No, you ask an important question.

Do I think some people are superior to others? In an absolute sense: No. Because even if they were, who has the authority to say so? Do the school boards, the psychiatrists, the tests, the government? Who?

But of course everyone has different abilities and skills and even geniuses. My time as a teacher and college professor (as I said in a different part of this thread) has taught me that we have to be very modest and cautious about how we judge children's talents, though. We are very likely to be wrong.

Having taken tons of IQ tests as a child (my father was a psychologist) I have become deeply cynical about what they measure. How quickly you can do math in your head? How fast you can do a spatial puzzle? Your knowledge of words and how they're related? These are all very different skills, yet the IQ test treats them as if they're some kind of inalterable measurable quality, like DNA. I got really good at tests of all kinds! Does that mean I'm superior??? Um, of course not.

Qualities like empathy, resilience, persistence, curiousity, and sensitivity are every bit as important to the way a person's life turns out as IQ, but no one seems to want to measure them.

IMHO, we have a moral obligation to encourage all kids to excell. It's not easy -- in fact, it's the hardest thing EVER. But we can't opt out and just choose a handful of kids to load the attention onto.

(I spent the evening listening to my non-musically-gifted son play Bach on the violin. He really *stunk* when he first started -- he's not very coordinated and has a short attention span. I knew that this would help his coordination and his attention, even if he wasn't Mozart, so we kept slogging away with lessons. And after three years of hard work, he can play -- and damned if it isn't the most freaking beautiful music I ever heard.)

[mopinko]

150. you misunderstand the meaning of the word gift

if you think that it means that someone can pick up an instrument, and play without training. it means the ability to LEARN more easily.
anyway, this thread is not about that.

[SmokingJacket]

184. I was just answering the question, ma'am.

I know what a gift is. Lots of people have a gift for music. Some of us don't -- but so what?

Gifts are over-rated. *Everyone* is born with something, some more, some less. It's how you work with it that matters -- and to overstate my case ONCE MORE, all children (not just the obviously gifted) deserve to have their particular talents recognized.

[mopinko]

185. most children do have their gifts recognized

most schools meet the needs of most children. the fat part of the bell curve is pretty adequately served. kids on the lower skinny part are served, or you can sue under federal law. kids on the top end are rarely served, except in upper class areas where they are more of a norm. (this is not elitism. it is a verifiable fact that a well nurtured fetus has a much greater chance of reaching its potential than one the grows in a harsh environment.)
everyone is not born with something they can be good at. many babies are born with no brain at all. that would be the very bottom of the curve. there is an infinite variety from there, including many who will never speak, control their muscles, see their first birthday. so, your statement is demonstrably false. that is not to say that their life is worthless. they deserve the best life they can achieve. i support doing whatever is possible for them. but your statement IS false.
gifted exists, whether you believe in it or not. this is not a faith based issue. it is proven by science.
so what you ask? so children who show a gift for music should get music lessons. children who show a gift for sports should have a team to play on. children who show a gift for science should get advanced science classes.
it would be nice if you were able to really examine your attitudes. you say so what, as if it doesn't matter. but it does matter, to all of us, especially as our planet disintegrates. and smart candidates like al gore, who can and does understand what is needed to save us from destruction, are defeated (no, i know he won, but...) in part by anti-intellectual bias, and people vote for a brain dead moron because he does not threaten their sense of themselves.
this is as serious as a heart attack.

[SmokingJacket]

191. Clinton was very popular AND very smart.

I don't know why ANYONE would vote for Bush, but it's not because he's dumb -- well, certainly a few people do. But it wasn't enough to make a difference for Clinton or Al Gore.

There are plenty of people who are anti-intellectual, of course, like most Freepers. But it is not the deciding factor in the recent elections, in my opinion.

Clearly there are a bunch of issues mixed up in this thread. You believe that people didn't vote for Al Gore because people -- including democrats! -- hate smart people. I disagree. 1) They did vote for him, and 2)They DID vote for Clinton, who is a real genuine, Rhodes Scholar smarty pants.

Another issue is the importance/existence of giftedness. I believe in gifts of various kinds; what I don't believe in is the fucking bell curve, whereby people can be numbered, ranked, and valued accordingly.

Once you start telling some kids they're gifted, you are by default telling other kids they're NOT, and that is harmful and contrary to the purpose of education. Not only that, but teachers/schools are likely to make terrible, life-altering mistakes when they pick out some kids for special treatment and not others. Like the woman elsewhere on this thread who was told her brother was gifted but she wasn't. NICE way for a child to grow up! NOT!

Any kid who wants to should get music lessons, not just the gifted. Likewise, anyone who wants to take an advanced science class (once they've completed the requirements) should, too. Why just the kids with a label?

On edit: Brain dead people are dead. I'm talking about living people. And yes, I believe every living person has something to offer (I make an exception for George Bush ;) ). Do we always know what it is? Of course not. But it's our job as parents and teachers to BELIEVE that there's something and to keep looking for it.

[mopinko]

192. the bell curve

is a fact. what people make of that is a different matter. but once again you admit to not believing a demonstrable fact. gifted kids who do not get an appropriate education have their lives altered in terrible ways. that is a fact.
and those other kids know who is gifted, and hate them for it, whether those gifted kids get what they need or not. in fact, the more damage you do to them, the more you escalate the war. and since when is it fair to deprive a kid of what they need so another kid doesn't get jealous? what kind of fairness is that?

it is also a demonstrable fact that anti-intellectual bias was not only a factor in 2000, it was a wedge that was used very subtly and effectively. your opinion does not change reality. and it was used on john kerry, and it will be used on the next dem candidate. it is an issue for this party. try to wish it away all you want.

[muriel_volestrangler]

198. The bell curve is an artifact, if you mean the IQ bell curve

IQ scores are designed to fit a bell curve, because that's the pattern of random variation seen in a lot of populations, and statisticians wanted a similar pattern. There's no 'real' quantity in an IQ score - it's all relative to other people. For each test, you work from the score of correct answers to an IQ in a way that produces a normal distribution around 100, with a standard deviation of 15 or 16, depending on which system you're using. Once you've produced that distribution, it's a subjective judgement at what score 'gifted' starts. There's no particular point in a normal distribution where something special happens, apart from the mean. 'Intelligence' is a continuum.

But high IQ scores are not an automatic indicator of needing special education either. Some children may want stretching, while others may be happy to be perfect at what is given to them, without following a special syllabus.

If you mean that intelligence is an issue that the Republicans will try to use against the Democrats, claiming 'elitism', I agree. If you think we need to work on ways to avoid that, and make the intelligence of Democratic candidates an advantage, when speaking to any vote, I agree. If you think DU is anti-intellectual, I disagree.

[LostinVA]

278. The Bell Curve is a fact, eh?

My, my... I have stayed out of the G&T threads you've started, but I can't let THIS statement pass.

The Bell Curve is a FACT??? Do you KNOW what the Bell CUrve actually says??? If you actually, and still stand by that statement, all I can say it: my god. It's a nano-step away from Eugenics.

Read Gould's "Mismeaure of Man."

[mopinko]

300. i am not talking about the book

just saying that intelligence is distributed throughout the population, like so many other things, along a bell shaped curve. most people fall in the middle. some people are on the ends. reality. just reality.
i am making no further claims about what that means in regard to skin color, or anything. at all.

[LostinVA]

315. The only Bell Curve is the book/theory

Maybe you're talking about about normal deviation or some kind of a "bell-shaped curve" that derives from that. I don't know, because I DO know what the bell curve is. And, you SAID THe Bell Curve., and the only Bell Curve is the very controversial, mainly discredited, close-to-Eugenics theory and bestseller by Herrnstein and Murray. I kn9ow all about this, since I'm in an area of education. And, I bet the teachers and sociologists on this thread know a hell of a lot more about it than me.

Maybe you should use a different teerm... because "bell curve," in regards to intelligence, DOES mean what I said it means.

[mopinko]

317. yeah right

it means what you say it means.

[Zhade]

223. Heh, I'm a guy.

:)

[SmokingJacket]

302. Oh, sorry!

:blush:

[Zhade]

327. Hey, not offended. My best friends say I'm a woman.

Truth is, I'm bi-leaning-gay, and I DO have a lot of feminine characterists. I likely have more estrogen than most men.

So please, no worries - I just grin when people assume I'm female. There's nothing wrong with it.

:)

[SmokingJacket]

336. I'm embarassed that I made assumptions based on NO information, though!

I guess I thought the little kitty in your sig was cute... therefore, woman! Duh!

[Zhade]

350. Well, I do like the cute critters!

:)

[bigmonkey]

267. Clinton was very popular and very smart.

And that is a _very_ unusual combination. Are you setting up someone with Clinton's qualities as the lowest bar for Presidential candidates? I'm not sure that will work out very well.

I do agree that there are a bunch of things mixed up in this thread. I think this discussion is helping to untangle them, so that further discussion is possible on the various parts. The fact that these things are mixed up _in people's heads_ is itself, I believe, part of the problem.

As far as giftedness goes, how is it any different than the other abilities you chose? Don't you diss some kids by telling them that someone else is good at music, or science? Doesn't that imply they are not good at those things? Do you give up all evaluation?

A further one of the "things" curled up in this thread like a ball is the experience of the person who was labelled "gifted," but wound up getting nothing but trouble for it, both from their peers and from their own inability, perhaps, to measure up to an Ayn Randish standard of individual achievement. But this experience, shared, has recieved nothing but disdain and contempt from some folks who felt duty bound to "contribute" here.

Of course anyone should be able to get music lessons, or take advanced science classes. You are the one who's assuming that the OP wants restrictive gates set up - I didn't see that at all. But you say you were a teacher - Do you teach at the pace of the slowest person in the class, so that they don't feel left out, and everyone else can learn by themselves, and learn also to be humble at the same time? Or, if someone has paid for a class, does that mean they must pass, or if they have failed the requirements, do they still get to participate, or will they be excluded?

[LostinVA]

274. I love what you wrote here:

"Qualities like empathy, resilience, persistence, curiosity, and sensitivity are every bit as important to the way a person's life turns out as IQ, but no one seems to want to measure them."

Wonderful point. I've had more than one supervisor tell me I was an "empathic genius" in dealing with other coworkers and my "subordinates." So, I guess that amoks me G&T too, even if I can't do spatial puzzles in my head...

[mopinko]

151. thank you for your contribution

take care.

[unpossibles]

138. I got the best of all worlds

I was smart, goofy looking, creative, distracted, fat, have glasses, and am weird. And a smart ass.

that said, I learned how to take a joke, laugh at life, and grew thicker skin. I also moved a lot as a kid, so I had to learn how to socialize. I actually kinda feel sorry for people who got their way all the time as kids because they were cute or whatever - most of the more interesting people I know had semi-crappy (we'll call it "challenging") childhoods. The ones who survived anyway.

[unpossibles]

137. I agree and think it continues on into adult life

that if you excel, some may reward you, but more might feel threatened and either avoid you, hate you, or actively try to hurt your career or what have you.

That said, I think learning how to deal with society is another skill set and a useful one - I just wish people did not feel the need to dumb down or to show off, and just accept that there are good points to be found in complexity and simplicity and in between.

To use music as an analogy, sometimes I want music that challenges my brain and the musician in me, and sometimes I just want to shake my ass, and both are equally valid. And frankly it is a challenge to play something that is simple and do it well.

[conflictgirl]

131. I agree with you, in theory

A lot of the aspects of the gifted program my son is in should be applied to all students. All students deserve better enrichment opportunities, smaller class sizes, and to be more challenged.

The biggest positive reason I see for having a gifted program is that most schools still reward conformity. Kids who usually get labeled gifted are often noticeably different than the majority, and that means that neither the teacher nor the other kids know how to handle the anomalies. If schools taught kids to be more accepting of others' differences, I could see doing away with gifted programs altogether. But keeping schools exactly the way they are and eliminating gifted programs is only going to mean that the so-called gifted kids are isolated and viewed as freaks.

[mopinko]

144. this thread is not about school. but

if the classroom is homogenous, then there is not need for any special ed of any sort, then is there.
somehow the teachers manage? that would not be what the research would show.

[muriel_volestrangler]

175. So if it's not about school, where is it about?

I really don't see anti-intellectualism on DU; nor, as far as I can tell from abroad, in the Democratic party. Sure, the Republican party is full of it (look at their attack on university professors, scientists, teachers and others). Why do you feel you need a sanctuary from the rest of DU?

[Zhade]

224. Claiming to need sanctuary is another way of proclaiming "giftedness".

The OP is clearly of the midset that she is something special. She's not, she's human like the rest of us - and I often find that the MORE people say they're brilliant, the less that's true.

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. No, we need this guy in college

:rofl:

[conflictgirl]

127. It's not the gifted 3 yr old who needs to learn how to get along

In my son's experience, when he was around other kids, it was the OTHER KIDS who were calling him "weird". Unless you mean that he should have pretended to have entirely different interests just so he would "fit in better," which I would completely disagree with.

In my experience, it's not that gifted kids don't know how to get along with other kids. It's that the other kids are not willing to accept their differences.

[mopinko]

147. anti-intellectualism starts early.

it does seem to be an innate feature of the human mind. i guess all prejudice is, an outgrowth of tribe/not tribe.
but what is it about intelligence that makes it the target of such hostility? that does not make sense. you would think it would be widely admired. but it sure ain't.
perhaps the intelligent are less warlike, and inspire whatever it is that warriors feel toward peaceniks.
it is visceral, tho, that i know.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Years ago, I saw a cross cultural study in which the researchers

asked people around the world how they could tell if a child was really, really smart. They asked everyone from urbanites in Western countries to Third World villagers and even one hunter-gatherer tribe in the Amazon.

The three factors that showed up again and again, even in the non-literate cultures were 1) Starts talking early, 2) Asks questions about everything, and 3) Gets along better with adults or older children than with other children his/her own age.

I've seen not only Americans but also Japanese and Somalis recognize exceptionally bright children without the benefit of IQ tests.

[nick303]

153. I followed the previous threads.

I think the problem laid more in lack of social skills and self esteem. I was in the TAG program as a child and rarely ran into the kinds of problems described.

[NashVegas]

210. Anti-Intellectualism v Anti-Elitism

Are two very different things, Mopinko.

I'm sorry for your disappointment that your group proposal didn't pass, but I think the reason it met with as much resistance as it did had far more to do with the latter.

The criticisms surrounding Gore's run may have been based on anti-intellectualism, but they were presented as anti-elitism.

There was one such criticism I recall from a press corp member and can't recall exactly who, but the person said that the vibe they got from Al was (paraphrasing), that he looked down his nose at them with disdain and superiority. Granted, Al was right; the press corps are idiots. But (if the allegations were true) he should have kept a lid on that attitude.

The means to working on the anti-intellectual problem is not to elevate intellectuals into elites. The means is de-emphasize the differences between intellectuals and the nons. Howard Dean knew this and tried, and got roasted for the I-wanna-be-the-president-of-the-guys-in-pickups-with-gunracks-and-confederate-flags line. And yet, among the candidates it was Dean who struck the most chords with the average Joes among Republicans.

[jonnyblitz]

18. good post. nt

[mopinko]

19. except that it is not true nt

[Zhade]

104. I couldn't agree more.

It's been shown that IQ tests are at least racially-biased, and can give wildly different results depending on when you take them, your state of mind at the time, etc.

"I believe that "feeling special" is POISONOUS to children. It can ruin their lives."

Okay, time to share - I went through this. At ten years old and my brother at eight, we both tested for the "TAG" program. He passed, I didn't, due to my undiagnosed ADHD (I wasn't diagnosed until I was an adult - I made it through college to earn a BS with a 3.5 GPA, the whole time unaware that I had ADHD).

From that point on, my parents treated us differently. He was the smart one, I was the Problem Child. I was TOLD it was MY FAULT that I "failed" TAG testing, that I couldn't concentrate and therefore only had myself to blame.

As he progressed (and he is very smart, indeed), he got into creative programs, while I did my own thing by myself, usually escaping into novels and away from my parents' then-hidden alcoholism. I'd started writing stories when I was about seven; he'd started drawing. We did both together at times, making little plays and whatnot. Cute, right?

Then, after a good ten years of him mostly drawing and me writing more than drawing, it became "clear" that I "wasn't talented" at drawing. This was not true, of course, it was only what I told myself because I somehow became convinced he was born with more drawing talent. As a result, I STOPPED my art completely in high school. Got too depressed to do it, fearing I couldn't learn because I wasn't "a born artist".

Well, now I'm 31, I've had articles published a few times, and in December I finally overcame the curse of "you gotta be talented" and started drawing again, only to find that I really COULD learn, that I was learning and improving every time I sat down (a number of people have expressed pleasant surprise at my learning curve), and that the myth of talent had robbed me of over a decade of joy.

I think "talent" is overrated to the point of hurting many creative, inquisitive, happy kids. I think it's monstrous to tell a child "you can't do that, you have no talent". If they're not good at it, and don't get better, they'll drop it. But to cut off a possible source of joy, as drawing is for me, is sadistic.

[SmokingJacket]

118. YES.

I know lots of stories like these.

Here's another: I'm a teacher of writing. One year, I had a terrible student. Really, he could barely put a sentence together. But the kid worked his *buns* off that semester and by the end of the year he was my best student -- his final story was just brilliant. What happened?? Was he talented all along, but I just couldn't see it? Did his ability just erupt out of nowhere, or what?

Incidents like that have taught me to be incredibly modest about a teacher's ability to judge talent. The ONLY way to do it is to encourage **all** students to find their voice, their talent, their thing. Because every person has something to offer, and sometimes it's not obvious what that thing is.

I'm really posting way too much on this thread, but it gets to the heart of something really important to me: all kids need to be encouraged to pursue whatever calls to them, and adults have NO business deciding who is worthy and who is not.

[Zhade]

123. If we had more teachers like you, we'd have less stories like mine.

Those like you are clearly a valuable resource, which is why I think great teachers should get NBA salaries!

[LostinVA]

280. Agreed n/t

[Greyhound]

166. What I've read time and again in these threads is that our educational

system is fundamentally flawed. It is still based on a tragically out-dated "factory system" with the goal of churning out obedient, multi-purpose cogs to be used where/when needed.

I was a mentor to several groups of full-ride academic scholarship recipients, to help them focus on what they were in college for. In ~25 students, only 1 wasn't embarrassingly bad at reading and writing, and the subjects they had the most serious problems with were those that posed questions without right/wrong, multiple choice answers. They were awesome little test-takers, they could absorb and regurgitate better than I could, they just didn't know how to think, how to learn.

So I don't think the issue is really about native intelligence as much as how inadequate the system is for dealing with the exceptionally quick individual.

[mopinko]

176. can't argue with that

the more we push "standards" the more we turn it into regurgitation instead of exploration. for all kids.

[Zhade]

202. THIS issue is about an individual's ego.

Once I found out that the OP was never even LABELED as "TAG", ever, I figured out the motive in about three seconds.

Your post is thoughtful. This thread, and the previous ones, were started by someone with a self-aggrandizing view of their own alleged superiority.

Complete waste of time, until posts like yours and SmokingJacket's (among others) popped up.

[LostinVA]

266. Good post

I agree with the point about the cartooning student...

[Joe Fields]

352. I believe that "pseudo-intellectualism" is a problem here on DU.

I can only imagine the number of posters here who frantically research to answer a thread, then act as though they have known that info. for years. Or research quotes by famous people, then use them as a politician would.

[kentuck]

7. How do the "anti-intellectuals" outsmart the "intellectuals"??

:shrug:

[Cerridwen]

9. They don't. They bludgeon them - verbally and physically.

Watch the neo-cons debate. They out-shout anyone who cares to discuss or debate. They interrupt and distract.

And when they're kids, they dump the "smart kids" in the trash cans, or slam them into lockers.

[laruemtt]

14. this really segueways perfectly into

the political situation now and what was done to Al Gore. easier to label him weird for those who couldn't fathom his depth. and what did we get? someone people want to drink beer with (not me no way no how)! i mean look at the offerings on tv (excluding the learning channel, discovery, pbs, etc.). the lowest common denominator is dragging us all down and we need to find a way to counter it to save this country and to save the world.

[Cerridwen]

25. Precisely. It's what we saw in the last couple of election cycles

as Kerry was piloried for being an "East coast intellectual" as though that was somehow a bad thing; and * was praised as being "every man."

The idea that someone can be knowledgeable or intellectual or whatever and be a part of the "every man" group seems to be beyond the scope of many peoples' frame of reference. When did knowledge and intellect become beyond the realm of possibility for "every man?"

When "Mr. Smith" went "to Washington" I'm pretty sure he was considered of the people and therefore knowledgeable beyond what the "ruling class" could possibly understand. When did that change?

edit: no "d" in an...LOL

[Democrats_win]

8. Fear of "well-read man" was a theme of Fahrenheit 451.

That was the main reason the fire chief gives for burning books.

Spoiler. In the end, the well-read men decide to be very careful about how they tell the stories of the books they read so that they don't appear to be elitist. That's what the truly smart people must do, tell people the truth without making it sound like you're telling them anything. Our nation and world needs to be healed.

[Rosemary2205]

11. I would just like to say

I grew up in the 70's and no teacher or parent ever shamed me for being more interested in books than dates. Now my peers were another matter and to this day I struggle with relationships but I am getting better. -- "thanks" in no small part to a brain injury in a car wreck 5 years ago that took a lot of smarts away from me.

My one big complaint about my childhood years, though, is that they didn't challenge me hard enough for me to learn to to study and research. It came too easy and I came real close to burning out in college. No child left behind was a farce then and it's a farce now. You can't teach to the slowest kid in the class and expect the faster ones to reach their potential. They are the ones that get left behind.

[mopinko]

13. yup. no appropriate education is mandated for gifted kids

just for disabled kids. i have no resentment for that. i think that the factory school system does a great disservice to this country. many, many kids do not fit in for many reasons. smaller class sizes would be a big help. that is a simple but effective fix.
but it is clear that gifted kids are the target of some serious "bad", whatever you want to call it.
so, i want to talk about it, understand it myself, and hopefully find a little healing, at least in my little corner of the democratic party, here.

[sgxnk]

23. again

this falls back on tabula rasa social scientists. many of these people have posited for DECADES (against scientific evidence and common sense) that there isn't even any such thing as GIFTEDness, that it's all environment, etc.

it's anti-scientific hyperegalitarian hogwash

[KitSileya]

323. Exactly!

In the Norwegian school system, which is claimed to be an egalitarian system (no one can jump grades, for example, the students have all their classes with the same 25-30 student, and we have very few private schools or home schooling) we (us teachers) are supposed to give individual education, i.e., tailor our teaching to each student. However, according to our school guidelines, only the weak students have the right to extra hours, tutors, tailored curricula etc. Why shouldn't strong students (in math, for example) also have the right to tutors etc to reach his or her potential? I realize that in American schools, there are programs and classes that make this possible - in Norway, all children have the same classes and curricula from grades 1-10. I guess what frustrates me is that I believe it would be to the betterment of society, any society, if we not only make sure that the weak students reach their full potential, but that the strong students do as well. However, it seems more acceptable to make sure weak students reach a satisfactory level while the main body of students is taught what is necessesary for society that they learn, rather than use resources on those who, while not future Einsteins, Newtons, Shakespeares, and Mozarts, are just one or two steps below them. The true geniuses (genii?) will almost always manage to shine, but we have desperate need for those who are merely gifted as well - we can't rely on the hope that an Einstein will be born to solve all our energy problems, for example. And by resources, I do not only mean those who will show up in a school's financial records. Gifted children require as much diligence with regards to teasing, peer abuse etc as weak or disabled kids - I saw that with my own twin brother who is gifted. We had the same classes, and average Jane me had a much, much easier time of it than he did. He was 'too much work'.

[Dora]

16. Will you please clarify something for me?

I don't understand. Are you saying that Democrats are anti-intellectual, or that Democrats need to develop strategies for dealing with Republican anti-intellectualism? Or perhaps you mean something different entirely.

I'd like to add that I'm not certain being an intellectual and being gifted are necessarily the same.

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

281. I agree with the point in your last sentence n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. I don't think Democrats are anti-intellectual

I can't recall anti-intellectual comments at DU. The high regard for Al Gore here is one example of how more intellectual politicians are preferred here - and the disdain for Bush an example of how the lazy and/or inept aren't liked. Your proposal to say a special place was needed on DU for 'talented' people to be safe in did go down like a lead balloon, though - perhaps because we think of ourselves as a welcoming place, and not somewhere you need sanctuary from.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Being dubious of the "gifted" category is NOT anti-intellectual

Nor is being against "gifted education" programs.

Is Mara Sapon-Shevin, a professor of education at Syracuse, anti-intellectual? She wrote an entire book (published by an "anti-intellectual" university press, no less) critiquing the "gifted" category and gifted education programs:

Sapon-Shevin, Mara. Playing Favorites: Gifted Education and the Disruption of Community. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994.

There are perfectly reasonable intellectual positions against the fuzzy category of giftedness, and there are perfectly good reasons to suspect the value of gifted education programs. Can these be critiqued? Yes, and they often are. The debate about gifted education is vigorous and worth investigating. Moreover, such debates have everything to do with precisely the kinds of core values we MUST debate in our society, and the neither the Democratic Party nor any other organization seeking wide membership gets to declare such values by fiat. To paint as "anti-intellectual" anyone who opposes "giftedness" as a category or "gifted education" as a useful policy is itself anti-intellectual.

[Rosemary2205]

32. I think Mara is right and wrong.

I don't think we need "the gifted glass" or "the remedial class" and make a big deal out of it. What we do need, IMHO, is quietly putting kids advanced in math into advanced classes where they can be pushed - and kids advanced in art to be put into advanced classes where they can be pushed --- I'm not talking about to the exclusion of every other learning opportunity - I'm just saying it would be nice to quietly recognize what kid has or doesn't have and put them in classes accordingly where they can make the most of whatever the good Lord saw fit to give them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. These are matters to be debated, for sure

My only point is stated in the previous post: being dubious of giftedness as a category or gifted education policies is NOT necessarily anti-intellectual.

I'll hold off on any specifics as to what the programs should or should not do. Cheers.

[mopinko]

181. i just have to say

it is human nature to embellish our prejudices with any information that we come across that supports them. it is no surprise that there is a great deal of academic support for prejudiced positions of all sorts. this is not to accuse people of heinous crimes, just to point out the subtle nature of the human mind. but as we see, these prejudices exist in the 3rd grade. that someone would, over a lifetime, accrue a detailed philosophical and academic defense of their gut feelings doesn't make it hold water, imho. being able to point to a book by a phd does not mean that you win the argument.

[mopinko]

43. i don't think you are being realistic

to think that we can accomplish what you are suggesting without kids noticing is just not gonna happen. in my kids school, they do that, and they all know. it is not called gifted class, and the ld class. it is not called the brains and the sweathogs. but every kid knows who the smart kids are, and which class they are all in. every kid knows who the ld teachers are, and which classroom they are assigned to. sneaking around about it, instead of confronting these things head on, will not solve anything. prejudice needs to be rooted out. period.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. That was an advantage of the old-style country school

with eight grades in one room.

My father taught in one of those schools for a couple of years, and he said that one of the advantages was that a child who was advanced in one subject or another could sit with the older kids and do their lessons.

My sixth grade teacher realized that some of us had to be bored in math class, because we kept getting perfect grades on our homework and tests, so he set up a special "math group." We were allowed to work at our own speed and skip over the homework exercises that served mainly to reinforce concepts for children who were having trouble. You had to have ten perfect homework papers in a row to qualify.

I moved out of town in the middle of sixth grade, but one of my friends finished the sixth grade math book and worked well into the seventh grade book.

[mopinko]

40. there was precious little intellect on display last weekend

it was visceral and viscous. and i might add, shallow.
but the point here is to have a debate about these issues.
i will point out that the book you cite is 12 years old. i have not read it. i can only surmise from the title that it fits into the vein of thought that says that gifted ed is some kid of "special right". i wonder if she feels the same about learning disabilities, etc. either we teach children at their own levels, or we don't. reaching for some sort of egalitarian ideal on the backs of kids from the skinny part of the bell curve seems not only cruel, but stupid.
i concede that there is much work to be done in understanding just what intelligence is, how to identify it, how best to nurture it, all that. all true. but there is certainly enough known now to teach these kids effectively, to understand their emotional personalities, to care for them, and to value them. many mistakes have been made in the past. mainstreaming these kids for the sake of "fairness", is, imho, the latest swing in the pendulum, and it has swung too far in the wrong direction. if nothing else, you have to admit that we need those smarts more than ever.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. There is DEBATE

That is the point. The debate about these programs continues. Wherever you may be positioned in that debate is of little concern to me. Moreover, if you wish to critique Professor Sapon-Shevin's argument in an intellectually rigorous fashion, I suggest you read her book first. My only point is that to paint critiques of the "gifted" category or "gifted education" programs as necessarily anti-intellectual is manifestly false. Beyond that, I will not speak.

But, some levity. A woman famously told Adlai Stevenson that "all the smart people in the country are FOR you!"

"Yes ma'am," he replied, "But I need a majority."

:rofl:

[mopinko]

48. well, i think i clearly qualified those remarks

and do not intend to waste my time on a 12 year old tome that i presume i will not agree with, just from the title. personally, i think it is a little like the debate on global warming. people with personal or political axes to grind get published and make a debate where the honest scientists find little or none.
i am well aware of the debate, however. and there is much to critique about gifted education. much of it is harmful bullshit. just about every approach has been taken, few of any real value. so, there are many cases of harm done by the eggheads, it is true.
but to pretend that this is all intellectual argument, without visceral reaction is very disingenuous, at best.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. It is nothing like global warming

There are strong empirical arguments on both sides, and there is reasonable debate about the very foundational concepts used to justify "giftedness." It is also an argument about values, as I've said.

Now, people concerned with pedagogy still read Dewey with interest, so to disregard a "tome" for being 12 years old is a bit much, if you ask me. Professor Sapon-Shevin's book is still taught in education programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level, in any case. People who are "intellectuals" seek out books with which they may disagree, and wrestle with those arguments in honest ways. That is, as far as I'm concerned, the very definition of an intellectual enterprise. That said, to this statement, I agree: "to pretend that this is all intellectual argument, without visceral reaction is very disingenuous, at best." Yes, and luckily for me I've done nothing of the sort. No universal quantifiers here. Some of the criticisms of gifted programs have been "visceral," and some may even be anti-intellectual. Of course. Obviously. Clearly. But not all are, and that - once again - is my only point.

[mopinko]

63. yes but you have missed my point.

this thread was not intended to even discuss gifted education. it was to discuss the visceral nature of that discussion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. What you intended the thread to do is of no concern to me

I saw a suggestion in your presentation that I found objectionable, and I sought to correct it. That's part of the game of making your views public. As for your discussion of the visceral nature of the various threads on THESE boards, I agree, so we don't have an argument there. ;-)

[bmcatt]

85. So thread hijacking is ok?

Since that's clearly what you've just said...

Oh, and, for the record - *plonk* - my ignore file just grew.

[Zhade]

124. Is correcting an erroneous assertion threadjacking?

Really?

[RagingInMiami]

163. Another "gifted adult" displays his talent in handling opposing views

"Oh, and, for the record - *plonk* - my ignore file just grew."

[mopinko]

70. i don't have enough time to read

i don't spend it on things that only piss me off. so shoot me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. That's your business

I just find it a bit discordant to accuse anyone of anti-intellectualism, then turn around and say you won't read something because you "probably" already disagree with it, but you're perfectly happy to criticize what you think it probably says anyway. We have a word for that in academe: anti-intellectualism. ;-)

[Cerridwen]

47. About schools and education

I remember, waaaaaaay back when I was a kid in the late 60's, early 70's that there were these amazing ideas that all children were different; that we each learned differently, some through rote, some through practice, some through books, some through hands-on; and that we were "teachable" at different hours of the day, some did their best in the a.m., some p.m. some in between; and that some children just didn't have a "knack" for certain subjects, I do okay with words, my former boyfriend who is a talented civil engineer can't string 2 words into a sentence; I can read a map and get from point a to z even if I've never been there before, my sister gets lost walking around the corner (I found this out the hard way on LA freeways in the middle of construction LOL); I can draw a plant that you might recognize has leaves if I were to trace it, a good friend of mine draws freehand the most beautiful artwork; I can't stand to sit still long enough to make 2 stitches in a needlework piece and the same artistic friend can spend hours making the tiniest stitches into a work of art.

The point being, putting children together in groups in classrooms denies to each and every one of them the attention to their needs that creates talented people from all walks of life in all endeavors. I do NOT in any way shape or form, blame teachers, parents, or even school administrations for the idea that children should be taught "en masse." There is something inherently wrong with the way we teach our children which I think is an offshoot of the ways in which we live our lives. School systems are too large. Classrooms too crowded. Teachers should be freed to teach. Parents should have time to teach and be parents. School administrators should be allowed to do the work which frees teachers to teach.

There are some serious problems with the U.S. model of education. Perhaps it's time we downsize to small community school houses? Perhaps it's time we think smaller rather than larger?

[mopinko]

49. don't need no phd to know

that kids would be better off in small classes. the last smart president we had pushed for just that. it's a no brainer. kids in poor neighborhoods should have 15 kids in primary grades, and they should have the same kids and the same teachers for all that time, too. it would change the world, and cost very little.

[Cerridwen]

54. The best school experience I had was

in a classroom which had 3 grades learning together. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades being taught in one room. I lived in a small village in which the school house had only 3 classrooms.

Kindergarten and 1st in one, the one described above, and 6th and 7th together in the 3rd classroom.

We were able to flow between each grade's lessons based on our particular interests and abilities. Of course, it was a very small number of children which made it possible for the teachers to know each of us and strengths and weaknesses.

Ah, the good old months.

[mopinko]

61. that's why we home schooled

i guess that is the sad part of these debates. my kids learned so much from the group that they were in. they helped each other, learned from each other, and cared a great deal about each other.
unfortunately, i think that the real key to this is something that is impossible to achieve. for every pregnant woman to be well cared for, loved, nurtured, fed, etc, so that her fetus develops into a loving moral person. read thom hartmann's "the edison gene" if you doubt that.

[Cerridwen]

64. I'm right there with you.

As a country and as a society our priorities are horrifically out of whack.

Profit over people.

Business over society.

Might makes right.

War as conflict resolution.

Celebrity over social contribution.

Work ethic over family.

Rich over poor.

Equating money with character.

And on and on. I don't need to preach to this choir. :D

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

93. Ah - stupid

Very nice

[SlavesandBulldozers]

170. thanks alci

[cgrindley]

338. Well, it'd be better maybe

If more jurisdictions ended social promotion. Likewise, skipping grades is a good alternative to "gifted" programs.

Having said that, I really don't care what educators do, just as long as by the time I get these kids, they all have mastery of a healthy group of traditional general education core competencies at the high school senior level: eg English, Literature, a second language, history, science etc. I'm all for the shrinking of cirricula to pretty rigid core competencies, and I'm a big fan of individual learning and really concrete learning objectives. I'm against pretty much everything holistic or group oriented in education.

[WinkyDink]

31. To whom would this appeal? Americans? I think not.

Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Another cross-cultural study I saw years ago

Some researcher asked ten-year-olds in the U.S. and several European countries to write a story about a horse with wings.

The majority of the European children wrote about how wonderful it was to have wings, how the other horses admired the horse with wings, and how the winged horse was able to help the other horses.

The majority of the American children wrote about how embarrassing it was to have wings and how the winged horse wished he weren't so different from the other horses, because they laughed at him.

[mopinko]

56. hmmmmm

[zbdent]

42. The smart kids were never the popular kids in school

because they always ruined it for the rest ...

So the Republicans have appealed to the "rest" ... at the expense of all but a few ...

[Sammy Pepys]

45. So....

You're upset that a some folks got upset about your bragging about being a gifted and talented student, and this somehow indicates anti-intellectualism in the Democratic party?

[mopinko]

51. i was not bragging, and neither was anyone else in those

threads. that was injected into the debate by others, and was extremely unfair. or at least, that's my take.
if it wasn't anti-intellectualism, then tell me what it was. because people sure objected to something. and people absolutely saw something that was not there. so, i am here to try to work that out.
weren't you upset to see such a rift?

[Cerridwen]

58. Interesting

most of the bragging I saw was of people proud they weren't one of those nerdy, neurotic types.

The rest of the posts I saw were a lot of people who have struggled through life trying to cope with not fitting in and trying to find words to explain their experiences without offending others who might not have the same frame of reference.

But then, I wasn't threatened by a bunch of people trying to deal with their common issues so maybe I read it differently.

[ulysses]

46. ok. what, exactly, would working on that look like?

That anti-intellectualism exists in America, and pretty much always has, is indisputable, it seems to me. That programs for students with particular aptitude in certain areas are needed is similarly obvious to my mind. That it would be good to enhance our countryfolks' ability to think critically - again, check. It's why I'm an educator.

I'm just not sure what we might do about it as a party, or on DU, where, no matter what you feel you saw last weekend, I've seen very little anti-intellectualism in five years.

[Cerridwen]

62. Conformity - "go along to get along" - conform to the norm

2 posts in this thread made me think of that. The cross cultural study in which American children describe the horse with wings as an outsider and the post in which someone said the kids who scored well on test screwed it up for the rest of "us." The teacher screwed it up by grading on a curve, btw. You don't rate children against other children. Stupid, mean and antithetical to the learning process.

[Greyhound]

320. "Stupid and mean" defines our educational system

in every sense of the words. What is laughingly passed off as an "educational system" in this country is nothing more than institutional suppression of the individual. A factory to produce obedient cogs.

Education has never been the goal, subservience with just enough information to carry out the required function is the desired result.

[mopinko]

65. ok, i gotta go to work.

looking forward to continuing the discussion tonight.

[patcox2]

66. That wasn't anti-intellectualism.

That was something completely diferent.

[mopinko]

67. what?

[patcox2]

86. Anti dramatic, self-pitying, passive-aggressive bragging.

You know, the kind of bragging where you claim it isn't bragging. "Gee, I thought all penises were 12 inches long."

Poor me, I am gifted, we gifted have to band together to support each other because it is so tough living among and being mistreated by these dull normals.

I was once stabbed for skewing the curve on a high-school test, one liar announced dramatically. Riiighhhht. High schools curve tests. Geniuses are in the same class as dumb jocks so they can screw the dumb jocks by screwing the curve. Sure. If that person got stabbed, it was most likely because they were an asshole, not for their intellect.

The disunity and division was caused by the divisive call for a special elite little club, not by the reaction to the call for an elite little club.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

95. exactly - why do we need to even discuss this?

The ridiculousness of this whole issue amazes me

[Zhade]

125. To further the "poor gifted me, I'm persecuted" meme?

Because the mods turned down their idea?

To once again point out how "gifted and talented" they are, as if thousands of other DUers aren't just as smart/creative/brilliant/self-aggrandizement-du-jour?

:shrug:

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

128. I love it when they scream that people are "stupid" for not giving them

the respect they're due. And, as I said the other day, I have been in TAG classes all of my school career.

But now I'm on ignore so it doesn't really matter.

[Zhade]

203. Especially people who never even qualified!

Granted, there allegedly wasn't a program at the time of the OP's schooling, but going off about being all "talented" and "brilliant" and "persecuted" when they haven't even been certified as the "personality" they claim is being persecuted?

It's hysterical!

[RagingInMiami]

214. You mean the OP is not even "gifted"?!

Perhaps the OP is "talented". Or maybe this is the irony the OP was talking about when accusing me of having an "irony deficiency".

[Zhade]

225. Per her own words, it didn't exist when she went through school.

So all this is an effort to pump up herself as something special and unique.

Well, she IS special and unique - just like every other human being on the planet.

[LostinVA]

282. I personally adore being a "Mundane"

It makes me feel all warm and tingly inside.... wait... that might be AShley Judd that does that...

[bmcatt]

71. To try and reply on point

I think that there's a problem that isn't "left" or "right" but is, unfortunately, much more integral to American society - someone else called it "hyperegalitarianism" and that's probably as close as any other description.

There's similar sorts of arguments if you were to talk about, say, equal opportunity vs. equal results. I'd venture to say that the position of the "right" is that even equal opportunity is too much. But, shifting to the other side, I think the "left" is too concerned with equal results.

At some point, there needs to be an understanding that the most important principles are:

1) Everyone must have an equal opportunity to succeed. This means equal educational *opportunities*.

2) No matter what you do, there *will* be unequal results. Some people are faster than others. Some are stronger than others. Some are smarter than others. To a certain extent, those attributes are "trainable", but, realistically, only within certain ranges of performance. You can train someone to run, but you can't make a sprinter out of everyone...

Until there's fundamental agreement with both of those statements, this discussion (and all of the things that feed into it) will persist with results that please no one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

180. Surely DU has equality of opportunity?

Once you got a handful of posts here, everyone can start threads. The only restrictions are on non-donating members in groups. Everyone can keep a journal, so even if few, or no, people seem to agree with you, you can still get your ideas together.

Yes, people get unequal results - some threads drop like a stone, and others don't. We get to vote for the Greatest page, so there's some chance of keeping the best most visible, apart from the 'incessant kicking' method (which just makrs the devotion of a few to an idea, rather than wider approval).

So DU gives equality of opportunity, and a way of getting the more intelligent threads to get more notice. Where's the anti-intellectualism, then? This isn't a place where books get dismissed, or people say "I don't trust these university theories". I could understand someone at Free Republic pleading for getting rid of anti-intellectualism - they wear ignorance proudly there, and voted for a president to show it. We don't. The more educated you are in the USA, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. Where's the problem?

[Odin2005]

72. As a Biology major, I consider Blank-Slatists fucking morons.

The "it's all nurture" people are just as stupid as creationists. Back in the 70's when Harvard naturalist E. O. Wilson published his work on animal behavior, Sociobiology, he got called a nazi and recieved DEATH THREATS from the Blank-Slatists because he made educated speculations on the evolutionary basis on human behavior. Certain women intellectuals might not like to hear it, but there are differences between male and female brains; there is a tragic case of a baby boy who got a sex change after a circumcision accident and was rased as a girl under the blank slate assumption, and his childhood was hell because of it).


I am a gifted and learning disabled. If anyone tells me that both were from the enviroment I will knck them silly.

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. There is a position between environmental determination and

biological determination, you know? Which is to say, people are born with various potentialities and blockages, which are then developed in specific directions through environmental interactions. No blank slate, but no born computer scientist, see? Much the same with language: most humans are born with the potential to acquire language, but it is the environment that determines which language and to what level. I'm not sure anyone with any sense could argue the absolute on either side, in any case. There is plenty that we are still grappling with when it comes to cognition and perception, so any absolute claims one way or another are suspect on their face.

Also, if you are concerned about social difficulties for the gifted, you may want to consider NOT going around knocking people silly? Luckily, there may not be any blank slatists left for you to pummel!

[Odin2005]

83. I know, I adhere to that intermediate position.

I'm just sick of ideologues supporting both extremes. The biological determinist types tend be be nazi-type people while the enviromental determinists tend to be Leninists, sociology proffessors with ideological axes to grind who give you an F if you don't parrot thier blank-slatism, and PC nuts who see any deviance from enviromental determinism as a pro-Eugenics conspiracy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. I agree with you to some extent

There is certainly some orthodoxy in the academic left (particularly in the humanities, where I work) on the question of "social construction" - a disastrous concept, to be sure. That said, this orthodoxy was forged in struggle, and was usually deployed to defeat even worse orthodoxies based on supposed biological determinism. Whatever the differences in male and female brains for example (we'll ignore statistical variations and problem cases like hermaphrodism), feminism was certainly correct in calling out the ridiculously pseudo-scientific function of something like "sexual difference" as it operated, often abetted by biology as a discipline, well into the late twentieth century. We think it's ridiculous now because feminism - thankfully - won these arguments. So yes, people hold on for dear life on some questions, because they came up in street fights around them. We might scoff at so-called "PC orthodoxy" (and I find it as annoying as you do, trust me), but a "nigger was a nigger" well into the late twentieth century, and even up til today for some, and biological determinism had no small part to play in such nonsense. See The Bell Curve for one example of such stupidities - and that was relatively recent. As for your Leninist professors, I suspect that some of it is as you say, and other parts have to do with the attempt to consider culture in different ways, in modes of thought that deviate from those constructed for the sciences. As an alternate theory, maybe they keep failing you because you keep misspelling "professor" in your paper headings? (Aw stop it - I'm just kidding ;-)) Luckily for me, I get the best of both worlds, since I study scientific and technical discourse and the history of technology, so I get a glimpse of the orthodoxies and truth functions in both of the so-called "Two Cultures."

Cheers.

[readmoreoften]

119. Thanks for vetting the question with intelligence.

Adherence to either side-- strict constructionism or biological determinism-- leads to absurdities. The case with John Money (the raising of the infant boy as a girl because his penis was amputated) is largely anecdotal and only goes to prove that in some cases, maybe even many cases, there may be a biological sense of male-or-femaleness. But we can't go from the singular case to the generalization that social construction may not only be a factor, but a determining factor of identity in many people.

I think that the clearest case of absurd determinist research is "A History of Rape", the book that proves-- using the genetics of the scorpion beetle-- that all men are genetically rapists. It also explains that females who are raped as young children and elderly females are less traumatized by rape. According to the authors, women who are raped in their childbearing years suffer more because they are concerned about how the rape will effect their ability to function as childbearers.

As a whole, I think that pure social constructionism gives a less-than-accurate account of human behavior. We have a duty to pursue the truth about our humanity. But I think that pure biological determinism is dangerous because it obviates the need for any real social change or social justice.

[mopinko]

143. let me chime in here to clarify my opinion in this

if i have given the impression that i adhere to biological determinism, that is the wrong impression. i certainly acknowledge that individuals are influenced by their environments. if i didn't, why would i care what kind of school programs kids got?
on the other hand, i believe the amount of flexibility in human behavior is limited. i firmly believe in evolutionary psychology, and find it a fascinating subject.
i do not think there can be much doubt that high intelligence REQUIRES a genetic package for it, tho. so, people are born with the potential, whether they achive it or not is all that is in doubt. it is there. we ought to be feeding it.

[deaniac21]

79. I saw all of those problems that people had been through. I was

a gifted and talented kid but (fortunately!) I've had a very successful and normal life. My saving grace is probably being unusually attractive. I've alwys been very good at sports , as well. I have had problems with men who didn't exactly want me for my mind....

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. ROFL

Brilliant parody. I hope. :rofl:

[deaniac21]

90. Parody? I'm just a very lucky albeit shallow woman!

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. Loving you

is easy because you're a beautiful, popular, athletic genius.

;-)

[deaniac21]

120. Did I mention that I was very good in bed?

[alcibiades_mystery]

122. I had assumed, given your history

;-)

[RagingInMiami]

164. Well at least show us a photo

[patcox2]

115. Me, too.

I'm not put off by these "gifted" people, its their self-pity and blaming their failure on their intelligence that gets me. I'm very, very intelligent, succesful, and rich, and I don't need a support group (I forgot to mention handsome).

I just had a clue when it came to not being so annoying that others were motivated into beating me up everyday, I guess.

[JackDragna]

80. If we're the party of intellectuals, then let's be smart..

..and not run Al Gore. When the going got tough in 2000, Al Gore withered like a dehydrated houseplant. Every ridiculous scandal thrown at him, from the "Inventing the Internet" to "Love Story" stuck because the man didn't fight back forcefully enough. I'm not backing some middle-roader "compromiser" who's not going to call a spade a spade in the hope he seems the more reasonable of the two candidates. Gore is finished as a presidential candidate, or at least I hope he is.

[HEyHEY]

82. If you're so smart, how come you can't capitalize sentences?

[arwalden]

Nor Proof Read (Apparently)

From the OP: << ...in my journal is you (sic) somehow missed them. >>

[Zhade]

87. It wasn't anti-intellectualism. It was anti-elitist brag-ism.

It was anti-setting-yourselves-apart-based-on-unverifiable-and-unimportant-alleged-superiority.

Trust me, we love smarts. Most of us ARE smart (I didn't make it into TAG because of my undiagnosed ADHD, not because I wasn't smart enough), but we don't like smug boasters.

But even worse was the idea of separating based on self-identified superiority. No other groups on DU do that.

[woo me with science]

114. Especially given that

most people who scored in the "gifted" range on IQ tests 20 or so years ago would receive merely high average or superior (instead of "very superior") scores today, as a result of renorming effects and improvements in test design.

Add to that the fact that many early gifted programs slipped in children who were merely in the "superior" rather than the "very superior" range, and you probably also have a lot of self-identified "gifted" folks who have been misled as to their true abilities.

Then you have the problem of milieu. Many of these kids probably WERE able to stand out in the mixing bowl of a public elementary school, where they truly were being compared to the normal curve. However, once they advance to professional work environments that selectively draw the other millions of "gifted" students, many of them probably become sore and hurt to find their functioning merely average. If these formerly "gifted" kids have wrapped their identity around that classification, you of course will see attempts to explain the merely average (for environment) functioning away based on prejudice, etc.

On a message board catering mostly to people who are literate, educated, and interested in politics and world affairs, the idea that some would try to set themselves apart based on gifted program membership in the fourth grade should be EXPECTED to elicit some ridicule.

Many DU-ers who consider themselves gifted would be sorely disappointed if they were re-tested today.

[Zhade]

126. I think that's true, and it's not comfortable for some.

I've had to rework my entire self-concept over the years, and it's not always fun.

[mopinko]

178. you very much misunderstood the whole premise

especially in that you assume that being unidentified as gifted in grade school had anything to do with participating in the group. it was specifically stated that there was no intent to restrict participation in any way, beyond expecting civility.
but this thread is not about that.

[woo me with science]

187. Well, if I'm remembering correctly,

the group was advertised as being for former gifted children. Most children receive that label through testing in elementary school, so I'm not sure what you are saying I did not understand. Unless we are now talking about children who were merely told by others that they were gifted or decided that they were on their own, in which case I think the odds that the classification was incorrect are even higher.

No, I didn't miss the larger point of the thread. But you are the one who specifically made the link to this proposed group, and that is where I directed my comments.

[mopinko]

189. it was tongue in cheek

and we knew who we were. that is why i didn't actually propose that for the name of the group. it was just intended to evoke a common experience. nobody ever proposed any kind of testing, or qualification. in fact, beating back the idea that it was any kind of exclusive group turned out to be impossible, hard as i tried. it was clearly stated that everyone was welcome. and as i say in another response in this thread, if someone wanted to come in and talk about why they always hated the smart kids, i would have been thrilled to death to have that conversation. it ought to make people think that it was perceived the way it was.
i only mentioned that thread as evidence that this feeling existed here.

[woo me with science]

196. "we know who we were."

That is the crux of my point. People often don't know. Many, many more people consider themselves gifted than actually are, for the reasons I described above.

True giftedness exists, but it is much rarer than claims of giftedness. People who are merely smart tend to overestimate how smart they are, especially until they get into environments where other smart people congregate.

I will give you one point: I believe that anti-intellectualism probably has contributed to people's overestimation of giftedness in themselves. I think the label in some cases has been handed out like candy in order to make everyone feel special and avoid singling out the few true prodigies. However, reality often hits hard when those who consider themselves "gifted" discover that they aren't quite as exceptional as they thought they were.

Also, on edit. I want to clarify that I'm not trying to bash anyone who truly believes that he or she is gifted--just to explain my comments above. I have no problem if people want to form such a group; i just think they should not be surprised if others think it is a bit silly. I would worry about a group like this much less than the groups formed around conspiracy theories, quack medical diagnoses and interventions, and psychic divination.

[Zhade]

204. "many more people consider themselves gifted than actually are"

See SmokingJacket's post upthread on talent - it's a keeper!

I think, and maybe it's just a hunch but it could be right, that the more people talk about how gifted/intelligent/brilliant/artistic/etc they are, the more they're overestimating their abilities. It's held true in my observations.

[woo me with science]

205. LOL, you may have something there. nt

[LostinVA]

285. Yuppers, in my experience, too

Both in college and in work environmnets...

[RagingInMiami]

230. You do remember correctly

new du group- former gifted children?

i know there are lots and lots folks at du who are what the pinheads call gifted and talented. at the risk of sounding like a braggart, i am, at the age of 51, finally realizing that my membership in this group has kinda screwed up my life. living among "normal" people (no offense intended) can be extremely difficult. most of us wish we were just normal folks. most of us deny our gifts, and consequently make a lot of bad decisions in life. gifted and successful go together a lot less frequently than most folks would think. gifted and miserable, or troubled, probably outweighs that by a lot.
i think it would be great if there was a du group where we could hang out with our peers.
anybody?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1641211

mission statement- talented and gifted individuals group

this group is a safe place for talented and gifted people to let our brains hang out, as well as our warts, scars and wounds. it uses an expansive view of who is gifted that includes talents in the arts, sports, business, etc, as well as those the have been identified as gifted, on standardized tests or otherwise. highly sensitive people are also included. it welcomes the families and friends of same, especially hopes to help and nourish parents raising gifted children, and welcomes those young people.
we hope to support each other in identifying and coping with the downsides of our gifts, the less than useful gifts that often accompany high intelligence, and our negative interactions with regular folks and institutions. we hope to share our knowledge of the gifted personality and the ways we are different. we hope to share knowledge and resources for coping with our trials and tribulations, and making the most of our talents.
we hope to create a place where the norm is "normal for gifted".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1647823

[Zhade]

270. I applaud the mods for turning down the proposal.

I feel it was a decision made in the spirit of DU's egalitarian nature - an egalitarianism, incidentally, that a lot of self-aggrandizers in that thread argued AGAINST.

Yes, they were arguing against a foundational principle of our country. Sad.

[Zhade]

226. No, you misunderstand me. I've seen this kind of thing before.

You're trying to paint yourself as something special. You're not. There's nothing superior about you.

That's not to say you're INFERIOR, no. But these threads, and I think you probably know this somewhere inside, are your way of reassuring yourself that you ARE "gifted" and "talented" and "persecuted for being brilliant".

I've seen this in so many smart people who overestimate, over-inflate really, their actual abilities into some unsustainable illusory self-image. It has all the classic signs, and I think you're just puffing yourself up.

I think it's a defense mechanism, actually, so I don't think you do it intentionally. And it probably sounds like I'm being an asshole. But having been around a number of "GT"s myself over the years, my instincts are pretty good.

I think focusing on BEING talented/gifted/etc to such an extent is detrimental. Are you all those things? Then use those alleged "gifts" to do things that make it obvious. Don't babble on about how smart you are, it's just off-putting to too many people, because you never know just how smart the person you think is "normal" might be. I had a friend, half-paralyzed to such a degree that he moved and sounded retarded, but he had an IQ of like 200+. People thought he was slow, but he could run circles around them mentally - yet he was the most modest, humble guys I've known.

He would have put your debate skills to shame. So don't get into the habit of assuming you're smarter than others, because it just might not be true.

Peace.

[LostinVA]

283. Nail on the head n/t

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

89. anti-woody allenism is a problem democrats can and should work on

[HEyHEY]

91. I knew you'd say that

Fucking pro-woody allen whore!

[Misunderestimator]

96. I bet you don't like fried chicken either do you?

Slut.

[HEyHEY]

97. Grease lover - Colonel Sanders was a bigot! And you eat his product!

That money all goes to Italy!

[Misunderestimator]

98. Soccer sucks too.

[patcox2]

110. The problem that there isn't enough of it?

Woody Allen's pretensions to being an intellectual are ridiculous. He defines sophomoric, as in the names he drops so pretentiously are the names that all sophomores drop pretentiously. Shut up about Kiekegaard, already, asshole. Apparently woody is still sensitive about the fact he never went to college.

Ever occur to anyone that some of what you perceive as anti-intellectualism is coming from above, not below?

[Misunderestimator]

113. LOL! Way to take it seriously!

:rofl:

[HEyHEY]

117. In this case it's coming from below

Cause if you can't figure out that was satire, you must have been in the class that used the larger building blocks.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

132. Pete Townsend?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

94. WOODY ALLEN!

[Richardo]

106. Tourette's post of the day

:applause:

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

92. Still at it eh?

Who cares about IQ or gifted or anything that divides one from another?

You are who you are and others are who they are.


But I'm on ignore apparently

[cinemaactivist]

101. hmmm

interesting.... well, that's politics for you.

[welshTerrier2]

103. my IQ is well over 200 and ...

no, i'm not serious ... but i do want to make a few points about the issues raised in the OP ... and i won't capitalize the beginning of my sentences either ... and i'll end them with "..." because i damned well feel like it ...

i read a little of your gifted children thread the other day ... i think you've found some truth but may also be drawing some erroneous conclusions ...

there indeed is some disdain and hostility against intellectuals ... one might ask if the same feelings are held by intellectuals about those they do not consider to "qualify" ... the term "intellectual snobbery" must have come from somewhere ...

and there is, perhaps at least to some degree, a kind of egalitarian ethos ... on some level, it's very important to not set the feelings or the votes or any one group above another ... i'm not suggesting you or anyone here has done that ... but still, it's understandable, especially in a community of progressives, that a sense of equality would be very carefully guarded ... we can't just let the geniuses tell us what to think ...

anyway, the reality is that i agree with your premise ... perhaps a phrase better than "anti-intellectualism" might be more politically viable ... i look at early education where the coolest kids are not often the brightest or the best students ... something is very wrong there and perhaps that's where we need to begin making changes ... the issue you've raised is killing us ...

the result is that our population is ignorant; not stupid but ignorant ... they would rather vote for bush because he's a good guy to have a beer with than listen to Kerry pontificate in his "stuffy, pompous, intellectually superior" way ... that is no way to have a democracy ...

we often blame the MSM and they deserve plenty of blame ... what's their big slogan? "if it bleeds; it leads" ... are they at fault? yes, they are ... but so are we ... they sold out to make money rather than to be "the fourth estate" and participate in their democracy by educating the populace ... but we are at fault because most of us do not read the long essays in the opinion section; most of us do not go online to discuss the issues of the day; most of us would rather watch American Idol or some reality show than an insightful discussion on C-Span or Link-TV or the Free Speech Channel ...

that is just not OK ...

i think you've put your finger on a very critical problem ... if we want to have a functioning democracy, our citizens are going to have to understand they have to invest more time in learning the issues ... they can't do that by grabbing a headline or memorizing a sound bite from a ten minute newscast on TV ... but i don't think that as a party, we will have the tools to make the case for the changes we seek ... a candidate cannot go on the stump campaigning against anti-intellectualism ... starting in the schools, however, and imbuing both young and old with an appreciation for their democracy and the obligations they have to educate themselves more deeply on the world they live in is a critically needed change ...

as for discussions of gifted children, even to demonstrate the problems you rightly raise, i think that is best left for a separate discussion ...

[HEyHEY]

107. Wha!

"i look at early education where the coolest kids are not often the brightest or the best students ... something is very wrong there and perhaps that's where we need to begin making changes."

So, now you want to take kids that are unfortunate enough to be dumb and make them unpopular as well?

See, there is this whole hypocrisy going on that really shows most "gifted" people are just fucking bitter at school still. Instead of working for people to be valued on their good qualities... you just want to change the system of popular kids being good looking and badass to them being smart. Either way, it's still a caste system, and it's wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

112. hmmmm ...

that's a pretty large synapse you leapt across there ...

you stated, erroneously, that "now you want to take kids that are unfortunate enough to be dumb and make them unpopular as well?"

my statement recognized that many kids are rejected or disliked because they do well in school or are "intellectuals" ... how you jumped way over to concluding i wanted to see "dumb kids" (your words) become unpopular is truly mystifying ... presumably you did not appreciate my comments about an "egalitarian ethos" that directly contradicted the conclusion you drew ...

[HEyHEY]

116. No, I just think picking on dumb kids is mean.

So, I should stop bugging you.

[mopinko]

148. those they do not consider to "qualify"

i think that in general, the more intelligent a person is, the less prone to prejudice and other forms of stupidity they are, by definition. not that there aren't smart bigots, there are. but one of the common components of the tag personality is a high need for truth and fairness. not that that doesn't lead some of them to become libertarians. but i do believe that it is no accident that there are many, many extremely talented and gifted folks at du. i'd be shocked to find two to rub together to make a fire at that other place. so, "intellectual snobbery" is not as common, i don't think.
egalitarian ethos is fine. but if it means that everything is identical for everyone, it is not reality. then it becomes tyranny. fairness dictates that needs are met, especially in kids.

but i am glad that you can see the point. i don't blame msm for creating these sentiments, it is too innate for that. i do blame them for fanning flames that burn us all.

[arwalden]

109. Oh God... Are You Still Haranguing On This??

For Pete's sake... give it a rest, will ya? :eyes:

[Dora]

121. Tape a nickel to his/her head.

That's what we used to do when the needle on my record player would get stuck in a groove.

[arwalden]

140. Ha!

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

130. Are you a "normal"?

I bet you are!

:grr:

[LostinVA]

289. I think they are a "Mundane," like me

I love being a Mundane. It means it's okay to say that Stephen Hawkings' books bore the beejebus out of me.... it also means that as long as I show up at work with my shoes tied correctly, my boss gives me a cookie. Yum.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

133. So we've started the same flamewar again

Awesome.

[conflictgirl]

134. I think we should separate this from the gifted issue

The fact of the matter is that American society HAS been dumbed down. Many people said they voted for Bush over Kerry or Gore because Kerry and Gore "seemed too smart" and Bush seemed like a guy they could have a beer with.

SAT scores have been "re-centered" several times, to the point that many experts believe that the current results are no longer a valid measurement of anything.

If I take the time to look up more examples, I know I could find them. People have written entire books about the dumbing down of American society, and I believe it's true. Even here at DU there are many people who suggest that being smart is not a virtue and is not anything an individual should feel proud of. I do think that we should try to combat this attitude in America that there's something wrong with being intellectual. I think that it's hurting our society and will only continue to do so.

I wish the OP would have separated the issue from the gifted issue though, because the anti-gifted sentiment around here seems to be a hot-button type of issue, and the issue of the ramifications of a "dumbed-down" society is worth discussing.

[bigmonkey]

139. I also think that there are two, maybe three, issues here.

I think, too, that the original poster was prompted by a personal negative experience of being labelled as a child. For myself, I think there are three issues here, all with political ramifications -

-How should education be arranged in the U.S.? Has it caused unnecessary suffering in the past, and how can the people negatively affected in the past best go forward?

-How destructive is anti-intellectualism in the U.S. in general, and how can that destruction be turned into progress, or at least mitigated?

-Is the "hot-button" effect we see in these threads related to the previous two issues? If it is, it provides a real-time opportunity to deal with issues of intellect, and how they are best discussed in the U.S.





On edit - changed title.

[mopinko]

149. i tried not to bring up the first point.

but i will say that moaning about my childhood wounds and disappointments was never my intent. i'm sorry that my tongue in cheek attempt to define my peer group was embellished so broadly. i think i was pretty badly misunderstood.
i really did not think about the effect of this on politics until i saw those threads, tho. i thought of it as a problem of the other side. the width of that streak here just took me aback.

[mopinko]

145. i did separate it from the gifted issue.

i just mentioned the thread as an example, but clearly stated my intent to discuss a completely different aspect of the situation.

[Zhade]

279. Again, it's not an "anti-gifted sentiment".

It's an anti-self-puffery sentiment.

[Beelzebud]

152. Anti-intellectualism has been America's number 1 problem for 20 years, IMO

[mopinko]

154. so, what should we do?

do you think it exists here at du?

[Greyhound]

160. Just look up.

:hi:


They will not allow it. :hurts:

[Marie26]

197. Or 250 years?

Seems like part of the Am. Rev. was throwing out those British eggheads that were trying to tell us what to do. Who are our icons? Cowboys, football players, soldiers - not teachers or authors. Anti-intellectualism seems to be an intrinsic part of American culture. Maybe that's the flip side of egalitarianism.

[Tsiyu]

155. As a former gifted kid

I thought the initial idea sounded cool, until it got piled on by everyone who felt excluded. I have never seen such a negative reaction to a group suggestion. I guess I should be ashamed of my high IQ and never tell anyone, as it seems on DU many folks are angry about not having one.

What a waste, huh? Being intelligent, unlike being gifted musically or artistically, seems to produce such a negative reaction. We didn't have suggestions for a "I can't sing a note" groups or "I can't draw a straight line" groups or "I can't take a decent picture to save my life" groups to counter the artists, musicians and photographer groups, did we? But show some gifts in the intellectual area, and it's as if you're calling everyone stupid.

Sad on here, for sure.

Don't know the answer, mopinko, but keep tryin'! :hi:

:)

[mopinko]

157. thanks buddy. really, if we cannot deal with

prejudice against people that we need more desperately every day, then, :wtf:

[Tsiyu]

158. It's really stunning

how people just jumped all over that group suggestion. I really felt sorry for some of the posters, as they seemed to be really insecure people.

Intelligence, like hair color, is something you're born with. Like hair color, you can do things to improve it and everyone should be encouraged in life, but damn!

As for my educational experience, much had to do with being raised in New York, where public education was important. When I came South, I was very advanced as related to my peers. The gifted program allowed me to flourish that one day a week. Some of the teachers were very hateful about the gifted program, and I'll never forget their cruelty to me, but I will also never forget learning about the Chinese dynasties and sampling water from the St. John's river and being able to explore math in a new way.

Other students never gave me any shit about it because most of them would have been bored to tears going to museums and working out math puzzles and studying river water. I never looked down on them for skipping school to get high and they didn't look down on me for looking forward to Gifted days.

Had I gone to school with some of the DUers here, I'll wager it would have been a different experience! Some of those who gave you grief sound just like those hateful teachers I had.

[bigmonkey]

159. I think this type of discussion is the beginning.

I was also shocked at the negative, jeering reaction. But I do think that "knee-jerk anti-elitism", as someone put it, is a real problem. It can even make it difficult to build any kind of analysis in an open group setting like this when, at a certain point, some folks are going to burst in and sabotage any discussion by accusing the participants of elitism. I had a post on one of the other threads where I talked about how healing whatever damage the "gifted child" programs did to folks is an important issue, but it does push buttons. Some of the jeerers seemed to be saying that no sympathy, no help was itself the only effective response to what they implied was whining. I'm quite certain that while some can heal up from anything on their own, there are others who could use help. Some folks damaged by school experiences need help to heal, that seems uncontroversial on its face to me. When the Buddha achieved enlightenment, as I remember, he wondered if it was useful to try to teach what he had found. It seemed about a third of people were doing fine on their own, and needed no help from him, another third were never going to listen to anyone anyway, but the last portion of folks maybe could be helped by advice. I think the "sink or swim" advocates need to realize that that doesn't work for everyone, even though it does work well for some.

But also, as I remarked before, discussion of intelligence is political in the U.S. Even Steven Colbert made fun of it in the speech at the White House Press Corps dinner. As if it's everyone's right in the U.S. to have their opinion taken seriously, even if it's demonstrably false. An unwarranted extension of Socrates notion that knowing how little you know is the beginning of wisdom into a general assertion that no-one knows anything. How can we apply reason to the problems we face, if applying reason to problems is itself attacked as dubious?

[mopinko]

167. you know, i was not looking so much to heal as

just to have a peer group to kick things around with. it is not so much school i am recovering from, as finally figuring out that i am different in a lot of ways from most people i know, but that i have a lot In common with people in my part of the bell curve. it is just a human compulsion to find your tribe.
i have finally been able to spend time with other artists. so, i am finally starting to believe that i really am one. all the rejection that you have to go through is a lot easier to take if people that you look up to believe in you.
i would like to be able to kick around other kinds of ideas. get advice from folks that have been in my shoes, and probably made a lot of the same mistakes. maybe i should just join mensa, and get away from my computer, anyway.

but i do think that this is a problem for the party. no matter who we put up, this will be a problem, because all our candidates are smart, and all theirs will be disguised as good ole boys. and i am not a big hillary fan, but i think it is sad that she would lose, not on her merits, but because prejudice would do her in.

[RagingInMiami]

162. This is what pisses me off about this whole thing

Those of us who are against this group are automatically labeled as being "jealous", "unqualified" or in your own words in regards to a high IQ, "angry about not having one."

Then you go on and say: "But show some gifts in the intellectual area, and it's as if you're calling everyone stupid."

Well, saying somebody is angry about not having a high IQ is not much different than calling someone stupid.

And no, you shouldn't be ashamed of your high IQ, but rather than go around and telling everybody that you have a high IQ, display it in your words and dialogue, which I must admit, you do, having talked to you in the past.

To me, the words "talented" and "gifted" are pretty abstract. How would you determine whether or not somebody is "gifted" or "talented"? While I was never labeled "gifted" in school, I've been told I'm "talented" thousands of times in my life. By professors, editors, clients and just people who appreciate good photography and good writing, whether it be poetry or prose.

And while I never have had my IQ tested, I have no doubt it would be comparable to many of those former gifted kids. But even if I do get my IQ tested and it turns out that I might "qualify" for such a group, I wouldn't see the point.

Because people of high IQs, just like people with low IQs, have varied interests. While one may be interested in mathematics, another into architecture, another into writing, another into history, it would seem logical that they pursue their interests with people of the same interests.

And that's the difference from the way this group was proposed to the way the photography, musicians and artists groups were proposed. This group was not pursuing a common interest but was simply setting itself above the common DUer.

Or as it was described in the mission statement, "a safe place" ....from "the negative interactions with regular folks."

[Tsiyu]

169. Well, having a very high IQ has never been mentioned by me til now

so I'm not sure why now - in a thread about IQ - it would be innappropriate.

You're not 'stupid" unless you think you're stupid, and IQ is really no measure of this anyway - it's just another feeble attempt by humans to classify one another, right?

Most people with average IQ's ( not "stupid by any means - why would you even think such a thing except insecurity?) do a whole lot better in this world than I'm doing, I promise you. They usually have better emotional intelligence and perhaps a more practical approach to life than I have.

IQ is no measure of your value or your success, and NO WHERE have I ever said that.

BUT, I find that there are discussions I could have in school and still do have with people of higher IQ that I don't get with more practical types. Not better discussions or more helpful discussions - just different, often more open to ideas out of the mainstream and people willing to listen to new ideas without ridicule.

Allowing a group to form of this nature shouldn't bother anybody. I just don't get the backlash against being smart.

I should be ashamed, I guess, for even saying it.

Bad, bad smart people! :spank:

[bigmonkey]

182. A suggestion for changing the terms used might have been more helpful.

Instead of raging. It's the rage that was such a shock, and paralleled the 'slammed into the locker" kind of school experience.

[mopinko]

186. nobody was able to come up with a better term

it is not the term that bothers people. that argument is just a rationalization.
(i am responding to the response, because i have this poster on ignore.)

[RagingInMiami]

161. It was never anti-intellectualism

It was anti-a-bunch-of-DUers-who-were-told-they-were-gifted-when-they-were-kids-and-have-never-gotten-over-it.

What next? A group for former Prom Kings and Queens?

A group for studs who fucked the head cheerleader?

The absurdity of the whole thing just boggles my mind. A group only open to "gifted and talented people". How fucking self-absorbed does that sound?

Your comparison of that failed group proposal to what you perceive as a problem with democrats being anti-intellectualism falls flat when you consider most democrats voted for Kerry against Bush, even though Kerry was being accused of being the "intellectual".

You're basically comparing us to republicans. It is republicans that have proven to be anti-intellectual by choosing a dumbass cowboy who is unable to speak English as their president.

I think you're way off in alleging that some of us may vote against Gore because of his intellect.

And I think you're being manipulative in suggesting that if anybody does not see Gore as the right candidate, then clearly they must lack the intellect. Either that or they must resent him because of his intelligence.

I would rather see Wesley Clark or John Edwards than Gore, both of whom display extremely high levels of intelligence. Not to mention a more charismatic personality than Gore.

And it doesn't take a former gifted child to see that charisma goes a long way in politics.

[Greyhound]

165. The problem is endemic in amerika (as evident by your misplaced anger)

Nobody ever suggested restricting membership, that was a product of an indignant imagination, they merely had the audacity to seek out others with similar experiences and to (hopefully) offer some advise or support. I guess you all showed them good, didn'tcha?

No one stated or suggested that if you don't vote for Kerry you were lacking in intellect.

The fact that the re:puke:s were able to use Al Gore's intellect as a weapon against him proves how pervasive this irrational fear is in amerika. It is also well documented in many newspapers from the time that significant numbers of people didn't vote for him because they felt he was "too smart".

The fact that your mind is boggled comes as no surprise to me, nor I imagine, to any others that have been around for awhile.

[mopinko]

168. i have the poster on ignore

doesn't sound like anything i should bother to respond to.
but i will ditto that nobody wanted to restrict membership, and it was clearly stated in the mission statement that anyone interested in the mission for any reason would be welcome. that's why i wanted a du group, instead of just going to some other dedicated message board. it was about healing this kind of crap, not having the all smarties tree house club dummies stay out. it was the people who had an irrational reaction and apparently lost their ability to read that insisted that we were restricting it to "qualified" people.

[Tsiyu]

171. They should ban all of the groups

for talented people.

How dare those photographers MOCK the rest of us who suck at photography! Who the hell do they think they are, anyway?

And get rid of the musicians group, because I can't play my guitar as well as most of them probably can and it hurts my feelings.

Shit, we could get rid of ALL the groups since there is somebody somewhere on DU who is not Latino, recovering from cancer, or studying astrology or........

Forget groups of common interests! We are all the same, dammit!

[mopinko]

172. now that we have journals,

and everybody has their own "group", everyone should shut up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

183. I think this discussion needs a little consistency

From your previous post:

167. you know, i was not looking so much to heal as
just to have a peer group to kick things around with. it is not so much school i am recovering from, as finally figuring out that i am different in a lot of ways from most people i know, but that i have a lot In common with people in my part of the bell curve. it is just a human compulsion to find your tribe.

From post 168:

but i will ditto that nobody wanted to restrict membership, and it was clearly stated in the mission statement that anyone interested in the mission for any reason would be welcome. that's why i wanted a du group, instead of just going to some other dedicated message board. it was about healing this kind of crap, not having the all smarties tree house club dummies stay out. it was the people who had an irrational reaction and apparently lost their ability to read that insisted that we were restricting it to "qualified" people.

So, is it about healing, or isn't it? Is it about finding a tribe/peer group, or somewhere anyone is welcome?

[RagingInMiami]

174. So if you're not restricting membership

Then what's the point of having the group in the first place?

If a mission statement says one of the purposes of the group is to provide support from "our negative interactions with regular folks" but then you let the "regular folks" into the group, you might as well just air out these issues (and believe, they are some serious issues you guys have) in GD.

And why do you insist on comparing my disagreement with this group to the anti-intellectualism in this country?

I've always said the education system in this country sucks. I've always said we're a nation of ignoramuses.

But that has nothing to do with me not supporting the group proposal.

"The fact that your mind is boggled comes as no surprise to me, nor I imagine, to any others that have been around for awhile."

Again with the backhand references that if we don't agree with this group, we lack the intellect. Get over yourselves. The more you continue to use that defense, the more you display your incapability to debate persuasively - an indicator that perhaps you're not as intelligent as you claim to be.

[mopinko]

188. ok, i took you off ignore. i am going to make one attempt

to address your comments, and see if we can have a civil discussion.
first, this thread is not about that group. the fact that those issues are the main topic of debate in this thread seems to me to show that the whole thing struck the kind of deep, hostile chord with people that i was trying to talk about. this comes as no surprise to any of us "gifted kids".
further, there is a severe irony deficiency here, if you do not see that the former gifted kids label was tongue in cheek, and never intended to be a requirement for "membership". it was not "only open" at all. at all. why it was perceived that way is a good question. the people that i wanted to get together with got it. the people who gave us a hard time in school got it also, apparently, and promptly returned to grade school mode. there never was any test proposed, it was clearly stated that it was intended to include people with other types of gifts besides intellectuals, although this was ridiculed also. everyone was invited. clearly stated. if people wanted to come in and discuss why they always hated the smart kids, i would have been thrilled to have that conversation. fucking thrilled. as long as that person could carry on a respectful conversation about it. my wildest dream for the group come true.
as far as the studs and the cheerleaders, they are more than welcome to join the bakers, the bicyclers, the latinos and the chronically ill. we had no more intent of holing up in our group and not coming out than the knitters. why our group set off so much hostility is something that i would hope would be an issue for a progressive community.
as far as gore, the fact that people voted against him because they thought he was "too smart" is not my assertion, it was widely reported, and al franken "lies" is all about the media "war on gore" and how they manipulated this exact kind of hostility to sway many voters. it was very subtle, striking there same chords. i think this kind of prejudice against the "smart kids" starts so early, and is so nearly universal, that it must be innate. i think that as a party, we need to find a way to address it.
ok, charisma. yes, i am aware that charisma goes a long way in politics. to our detriment for the most part, i think. but i am also aware that intelligence seems to be anti-charisma. i think that al has a lot more than the media image of him would have us believe. i think that his movie is giving him an unfiltered look at him, and people are liking him.
but i think that just as the thugs have been able to play on people's racial prejudice to get them to vote against their own interests, we are being manipulated. whoever our candidate is, they are likely to be very intelligent, because i do think dems are smarter. at least i hope we have a very intelligent candidate, because we really need one. i think we need to find a way to diffuse this knee-jerk reaction, whatever the hell name you want to give it. it is here in our party, which is made up of humans. it is here at du. it helped bush get into office.
please try to stop putting words into my mouth. the vast majority of your comments seem to be coming from your own internal dialog, or something. because i did not say most of the things that you have been objecting to, and have often clearly stated the exact opposite.

[RagingInMiami]

207. Does being gifted mean you have an obsessive aversion to

capital letters and paragraphs?

And did you have me on ignore before you started this thread or after you started this thread? Did you start this thread with a plethora of DUers on ignore in the hope that you would only see positive posts?

Although you say this thread is not about that group, you didn't hesitate to mention that group in your OP. You can double-talk or triple-talk all you want, but it's obvious you wanted to rehash an old flame war under the guise that those who didn't support your group are anti-intellectuals who would vote against a smart democrat. You give your proposed group way too much credit.

And now you're saying that the whole gifted child thing was "tongue-in-cheek" and I lack a sense of irony because I failed to see your humor. :eyes: Believe me, the first time I saw that thread, I thought you were being sarcastic. It wasn't until I started reading other posts by yourself and other DUers that I realized you were dead serious.

And this has nothing to do with people who "always hated the smart kids". As long as the smart kids stayed out of my way in high school, I didn't give a rat's ass about them.

And you keep accusing me of lying, of putting words in your mouth. You did that in the last thread and I asked you to give me examples, which you refused, instead asking me to provide examples of where you said things that I alleged you said. And I did. And you did not respond. Maybe that is when you put me on ignore.

So seeing that you're not going to let this issue die, provide me with specific examples of how I'm putting words in your mouth or else shut the fuck up with your allegations.

[bigmonkey]

208. Very revealing about your carried anger, seems to me.

"As long as the smart kids stayed out of my way in high school, I didn't give a rat's ass about them."

I have questions about this:

-Does this mean you expected the "smart kids" to give you a wide berth?
-What, if anything, did you do when the "smart kids" got in your way?
-Why are you so angry about this whole issue? Do you feel that the "smart kids" are getting uppity again? Is the original poster "in your way" in some sense?

[RagingInMiami]

209. Translation

If they didn't start shit with me, I didn't start with them.

Take your psychoanalysis somewhere else.

[bigmonkey]

212. Just asking questions and voicing opinions.

You seem pretty touchy to me. Just wondering why.

[RagingInMiami]

213. Gee, maybe I should propose a group for "touchy people"

[bigmonkey]

217. I think you're on to something there.

I've never been able to understand why there are touchy, defensive people who insist on vociferously judging and condemning others. Even to the point of disrupting other people's harmless activity. They just can't stay away, and complain if anyone asks them to stop. Can you tell me why anybody might want to do that?

[RagingInMiami]

228. I call bullshit when I see it

In this case you have a group of people who are claiming to be smarter than the majority of DU. People who say they this is the case because they were told they were "gifted" as kids. Or in the OP's case, people who just decided to label themselves as "gifted" because nobody ever actually told them this was the case.

And we are just expected to take their word that they are indeed smarter than the rest of us. God forbid we ask them to prove it. God forbid we challenge them on that notion. God forbid we display any skepticism.

It reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists who proclaim that they are the only ones who will go to heaven. And if you ask them why, they tell you because a single verse in a book written 300 years after the birth of Christ insinuated that this is the case.

And like in the case of the self-proclaimed gifted DUers, we are to just simply accept this as the Gospel truth.

[bigmonkey]

233. It's the "calling" that's the problem, as I see it.

Let's say Ed has been doing the "calling." Ed sees a group, or a thread, and he thinks there might be a chance that there's "bullshitting" going on in there. He reads the posts, and decides some of them are "bullshit." So far, nobody harmed. Then, Ed decides that it's really important for him to use his superior ability to "detect" bullshit by making repeated, accusative posts directed at specific people, or the whole enterprise. To the point that a large part of the discussion turns to dealing with Ed and his accusations rather than the original subject.

Seems like projection to me. Someone feels that they, unlike normal, "dishonest" people, can save humanity from "bullshit" by shouting and pointing every time they see or suspect it. Letting other people talk without this monitoring is somehow dangerous.

For me, this is a service that I could do without, thanks. Ed has his opinion, he can voice his opinion, and no-one stops him. But it's appropriate to ask him to back off if he's trying to control the conversation. Can it really be so important to have the last word, to make sure that this discussion is shut down? Satisfaction only comes then, with either silence or acquiescence? This is not government policy-making, not corporate behavior, not political platform-building.

It's conversation.

[RagingInMiami]

239. Do I have to remind you that this is General Discussion?

If you guys had your group, then you would be free to discuss whatever it is you would discuss among such gifted people. But the group was proposed in GD meaning that any DUer is free to add a comment or opinion.

I'm not the one who keeps this subject alive by repeatedly posting new threads on it. And as you can see from this thread, I've only contributed a fraction of the more than 200 posts on it. In fact, this is my 14th post of the 239 posts on this thread. I hardly call that "trying to control the conversation".

So you can ask me to "back off" but you should already have a good idea of how I will respond.

"Seems like projection to me."

Those were my exact thoughts when this subject came up.

[mopinko]

238. would it be different if i could prove it?

if i could prove to you that i am in the top 2%, would it matter to the discussion? i don't see how it would. i'm just trying to figure out why you and others keep insisting that it has some bearing.

[RagingInMiami]

241. Well if you could prove to all DUers that you are in fact in the top 2 %

And that is why you feel compelled to have a separate group where you could be among those of your mental caliber, then I would still think it's elitist. But I wouldn't be calling it bullshit.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

220. I agree with you.

I was labeled "Gifted & Talented" in school, but I think it's an absurd label for people to continue on as adults. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, people actually think it'd be a good idea to have a "smart" person group on DU. I think most DUers are pretty smart, regardless of what class they were in at school. It's just lame to have people continue their 5th grade label into adulthood.

Did I get slighted by some teachers/people? Yes.
Do I feel the need to focus on that into adulthood? No.

I don't get it when people use their "intelligence" as an excuse to make up for their lack of social skills. I was in GT, openly gay, and popular in HS. Maybe I should start a special DU group for that...not.

[mopinko]

237. feel free to suggest a better label

it is not our "focus", if it was, we would just go to mensa meetings, and not trouble the beautiful minds here.
gifted adults are different from other people in similar ways. they share a lot of experiences, the kind of bashing that we are taking here being one of them. we face unique problems. we would like to kick around solutions, successful and not, that other people have tried.
does that mean we have nothing in common with "regular" people? we never said that. ever.
you don't think you want to talk about this stuff? fine.

but the point of this thread is to say that people do have a gut level reaction to smart people. if is a button that the gop makes great use of. it is a button, obviously, that is wired up in too many dems. i presume we are going to have a smart candidate in 08. i think we ought to find a way to work on this.

[adwon]

173. Review the Fireside Chats

Roosevelt used a conversational tone to explain complex subjects. He didn't dumb them down, he simply didn't use technical language. Honestly, if someone in politics can't explain their position in about 4 sentences, and without resorting to jargon, that person doesn't understand their own position. Those 4 sentences don't need to be amazingly detailed, but they do need to give a fairly complete synopsis of a particular issue.

[mopinko]

177. clinton didn't do this

he would take four sentences to "unpack the question" as he often said. i don't recall him being knocked for being smart, but he is a very smart guy. maybe i am just not remembering.
as far as rambling, i wonder how often they ramble because they are just blowing smoke. they could easily state their real opinion in 4 sentences, but they are not going to give their real opinion on the tv.

[tlsmith1963]

193. People Here Hate Gifted Children?!!

Why? That kind of crap belongs with the conservatives. They are the ones who hate intelligence. I learned to read when I was three. Does that mean there is something wrong with me? Geez...

Tammy

[mopinko]

201. we are ok, as long as we don't say it out loud

or want to hang out together. so, just keep your head down, and you will be ok.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

206. I'm "gifted" and I think you're being arrogant

why can't you see that?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

251. The reactions you are getting aren't because you're "gifted."

You're getting these reactions because you're onoxious and arrogant. Except you choose to delude yourself by claiming it's because you're "smart" and DUers don't like "smart" people. That, my friend, is bullshit.

[LostinVA]

291. Great post, Haruka

[Skidmore]

194. Whatever your issues are with IQ points and being functional in society,

what about Dems just working on making certain that all children have equal access to a good basic education, and opportunities to use that education and whatever their natural talents when they are adults. I did not respond to your original thread at all, and frankly after reading through it, became irritated enough to hide the darned thing. I would hope that our own personal stumbling blocks wouldn't stand in the way of making things better for our kids and grandkids. Frankly, I find the preoccupation with "giftedness" to be elitist on its face.

[mopinko]

199. you object to children getting an appropriate education?

the other end of the spectrum is guaranteed an appropriate education. there is nothing elistist about the plain and simple fact that one size classroom does not fit all. there is plenty of science to back that up.
not that that was the topic of this thread.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

215. And school vouchers are not far behind

:eyes:

[Skidmore]

227. I object to an assumption that kids are necessarily destined to succeed

or fail in the absence of presenting them with materials and opportunities to learn. Not all kids are born into communities where such support exists. What I said was that access to a good education should provided to all children. I believe that a higher percentage would achieve "giftedness" if presented with raw materials and chances to get ahead. "Giftedness" is a label handed to one group of people in a society where education is seen as a privilege not a right. Go to any school in a rural or urban setting and see how they differ from those in the suburbs and private academies. I think there is much more to learn about how to deliver education than just embracing a label for one group.

And, lady, you are only special insofar as everyone on this planet is special. Right now, if I had a choice between you and your "giftedness" and the "giftedness" of my husband, who can fix about anything but couldn't give you the name of one philosopher, you can gues my choice.

[mopinko]

231. you don't achieve giftedness

it is by definition innate. you cannot nurture it where it does not exist. many children certainly would do better if given more opportunities. i do not question that. but you are born with the brain that your genes and you prenatal development give you. it can be either nurtured or squashed as it grows. but a well fed pigeon does not grow up to be an eagle, or a turkey, if that is what you think of "us". gifts can easily amount to nothing. many gifted kids end up committing suicide in high school.
it is a fine idea to treat all children equally. but they certainly are not all the same, and certainly all have different needs. if we can't sort out how to balance those to things, we are in deep trouble. these same kind of acrimonious discussions erupt when we try to advocate for our own kids needs. they have been played out at school board meeting after school board meeting.
the assumption, repeated over and over in these threads, that i am somehow proclaiming myself "special" and putting myself above anyone else, i take, and most of us who have a similar personality and life experience to me take, to be the same kind of anti-intellectualism/prejudice/jealousy/hostility/whatever word you want to put on it, that we have been dealing with all our lives. i confess to assuming that this is just more of the same. it is not hard to do. we have been dealing with people like this all our lives. if you have a better label to put on it, i'd be happy to hear it. but we sure do not understand it. and it sure always looks the same.
take a look at that hostile reaction you are having to this thread. now picture yourself of the receiving end of it. from people in your own family. from people you work with. from bosses who hold your future in their hands.
now, don't you think that if there was a bunch of people with similar experiences among a larger group of people that you hang out with, you would want to drift off into a corner with them, and see if they had any good advice for you? look through these threads, and you will see what the other people in the room would think about that.
now look at how people see al gore. this is an issue for our party. this is a deep seated prejudice, a gut level thing, that we had better understand. this is a button that the gop has pushed, just as sure as they subtly play the race card. this is the button that allows them to sell intelligent design, and to tear down public schooling in this country.
this is important.

[Skidmore]

248. I think that our educational system is so screwed up right now

that many children's potentials are never tapped because they are not recognized. Even you, in your giftedness needed something from the environment and a support system for you to achieve. I know many people who are "gifted" with all types of talents which are no less meaningful or valuable to whatever you identify as giftedness. I'd like to suggest you picture yourself on the receiving end of the disdain for those not "gifted" as you that comes across in your posts. People who may work with their hand with great skill but may not have the verbal or reading skills necessary for your type of "giftedness." I think I've seen other posts on these threads where people have tried to point this out to you, and it appears to be an idea that you do not want to entertain. Maybe you would have less angst about yourself and your gifts if you would just go outside of yourself and try to see what special gifts that others bring to the human family. Even the lowliest among us has something within them that is a gift, even if it is a gift for survival against the longest odds. Perhaps those gifted students with such psychological issues that make them suicidal that you describe would also benefit from looking outward and having parents and society back off with extreme expectations for success. Perhaps being a child when it is time to be a child is the greatest gift we can receive.

[mopinko]

253. i do not know what makes you and others think

that i have something against people i do not consider "gifted". i have, in many ways, fought for fairness for all kinds of people. in fact, i was one of the founders of a very successful organization for women in skilled trades. people are filling in their own blanks here, seeing all kinds of motives, emotions and opinions in what i have written here that are not only not there, but 180 degrees from the truth.
i never said i we are better than anyone. i never even said that what i wanted out of the group was some kind of pity party about school days. just that we have things in common with each other that we get shit for. as we can clearly see.

i have gotten a lot of pm's throughout all this. some from people who are afraid to even post in these threads, and some from people who have been very hurt by some of the things that have been said. to say nothing of the high school horror flashbacks. and this is a supposedly progressive community. it's a damn shame, is all i can say.

[Skidmore]

255. I congratulate you for your successes in life, and

I would hope you take to heart that I am not "anti-intellectual"--I'm not even certain what that means. I will tell you that I worked hard against much adversity to educate myself through graduate level and to educate my children and believe that children should be given the chance to realize their fullest potential, whatever that may be for them. I fervently believe that that a good education is essential for everyone. I believe that the mind is an amazing universe as varied and wonderful in its construct as there examples of it to be found. We are all intellectual in that we all problem solve. The range of problem-solving skills run the gamut from the cerebral to the practical, from the abstract to the functional. I would argue that even those with mental disabilities are only unique in their intellect. My main comment to you and others who identify with you would be that, as human beings, we are all more similar than we are different and that sometimes the difficulties we experience while interacting with others and the environment derive from forgetting to look for those bits of common humanity. Your many gifts will be better used by focusing on the universal.

[mopinko]

260. you have no idea how i have used my gifts in the past

or the present for that matter. i don't argue with much of what you say. but i can tell you that gifted kids are not usually "given the chance to realize their fullest potential", due to the kind of hostility that has been in evidence in these threads. i don't care what label you put on it, there is a knee-jerk, emotional, nasty feeling at work here. many people here at du, home of many very smart people, knew immediately what i was talking about when i brought this up. after sticking their heads up and taking a whack, they pulled back. we have seen it all our lives. we are sickened to see it here. it is a damn shame.

[Skidmore]

273. Well, I'm at a loss because apparently no one is able to supply

whatever affirmation you need for yourself. Are any of us ever truly given the chance to realize our fullest potential? That is the ideal that I would hope we all strive for. I guess the question for me is how is your human experience any different than those of anyone else striving with the condition of being human? Are you any more unique than anyone else on the planet? And as for labelling, I believe the label of "gifted", and the one of "pinhead", were brought by you for discussion originally. I went to your journal to glance over some the threads there. I repeat, I'm at a loss for what you are looking for in terms of affirmation.

[mopinko]

286. affirmation? no

just a peer group with similar experiences and ways of thinking, just like the folks in the chronic illness group can talk to each other about how it feels to be sick. i post there, but i still post in other places.
there were a lot of people in those thread who did understand. you don't? fine.

[Skidmore]

290. What I've understood from reading your posts

is that you struggle with trying to fit in and needing to belong, as we all do. You identify a specific set of issues that affect you as you try to achieve those goals. I understand alright. I understand in the way someone who has suffered abuse understands, someone who has had cancer understands, someone who has lived in extreme poverty understands, someone who often has felt three steps behind everything understands. Yes, you are unique, and you aren't. You are human. Speak to me as another human being struggling with similar feelings and similar needs. All of the trappings surrounding those feelings and needs are just trappings. I do understand. Give me credit for being human too.

[mopinko]

298. don't think i did anything to take your humanity away.

did i?
look, i have spent my whole life drawing on what i have in common with people. especially as a mom. big common area there. i have no intention of turning my back on that.
but there have been many times that i have cast out from that common ground. try talking to a regular mom about the trials of raising gifted kids. you end up pretty misunderstood. add to that that many of us do have high emotional sensitivity. really. it can suck.
if i had cancer, would i be sticking my finger in someones eye because i have health insurance? would that be something that was acceptable to a progressive group?

[Skidmore]

346. You come across to me as someone who has a very fragile

sense of self and is angry because everyone just doesn't seem to automatically understand your needs. It does feel as though you discount the humanity of others as you focus on your own issues. That you believe that no one else ever feels pain or rejection or fear quite the same way that you do. I may be wrong about this but this is how you come across in your postings. Accept my apology if I have misinterpreted your intent. I'm asking you to take it down a notch, get past your personal issues long enough to be willing to really understand what some of the posters are trying to say to you. I don't think many of the people here are deserving of the sideways lashing out that you are engaging in. I will likely not post again on this topic since I have put forth my thoughts on the the topic and personally do not care to deal with the hostility. I wish you health and peace and self-fulfillment in your life.

[mopinko]

377. well,

all i can really say is that you, like so many others here, are reading into this discussion a lot of things that are not there.
i don't think i am deserving the full frontal lashing that i, and others, have taken. in fact, i think that most of us have been pretty restrained.
peace.

[LostinVA]

293. This is way better than what's on Comedy Central right now

It doesn't take much to amuse us Mundanes, you know...

[BluePatriot]

195. My two cents.

The content of this thread is surprising but the rich vein of passionate debate on both sides is its own argument for the necessity of a group in which to further discuss the topic.

It seems much of the issue lies with having the group be for "gifted" only. Why not have a "differently abled" group, that could be a big tent for those that are gifted, or were labeled such, and those with learning disabilities, or that were labeled such? Including LD and GT together would likely generate more threads/content/interest than if they were seperate, fit in comfortably with the precedent of the Education / Homeschool groups, serve as a good resource for people who have been stuck with these labels at one point, and "sit better" with the sensibilties of DUers arguing against elitism.

BluePatriot (who was "gifted" once, but wonders against admitting it in this thread...)

[mopinko]

200. the group was never intended to be gifted only.

in fact, the opposite was clearly stated. the point of this thread is to try to understand the underlying hostility that caused such a gross distortion of the discussion.
do you think it ought to sit well with du'ers to have their words and intentions distorted by 180 degrees by their fellow du'ers?

[Warren DeMontague]

211. It's nothing new. They gave Adlai Stevenson a helluva time, too.

Oh well.

[cynatnite]

216. Are you saying that there are people who against smart people?

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but how is it a problem? People don't like know-it-alls or those that think they know it all?

Do you think smart people (gifted) are being discriminated against? How?

I guess I'm missing the point. :shrug:

[bigmonkey]

218. Gore was portrayed as a "know-it-all."

It hurt him in the election. Is it possible to counter that accusation, or is it a label that always works? If it is possible to counter it, it would be good to know how to do that, before other intelligent candidates are tossed out _because they can't hide their intelligence properly_.

[cynatnite]

221. Corporate media did that along with Gore's help...

What I saw with Gore in his debate with bush was he sighing and rolling his eyes. It turned me off, but not so much that I didn't vote for the man.

Corporate media had a field day with it. The rightwing nutjobs went rabid, too.

I don't think people expect politicians to 'hide' their intelligence. I think they want to see a little humility and they want to relate to them.

The sad fact is that no matter how smart some politicians are or how earnest they are in wanting to serve the people, they will get labeled with whatever hurts them the most and helps their opponents.

[bigmonkey]

235. You're pointing directly at the trap for Democratic candidates.

What you mention from the debate is Gore sighing and rolling his eyes. How likely is it that this was entirely conscious on Gore's part? I think it's very likely that, if he was aware of it at all, it was in retrospect. It was a human reaction - after all, we know how much Bush knows. The only way to totally control involuntary reactions like that is to go poker-faced, and that's precisely what another large portion of the population will find unsavory. Now he'll seem "inhuman." How can you react in a "human" way, and at the same time completely control your behavior? Why did Reagan get away with his "There you go again," but Gore simply rolling his eyes is somehow a scandal?

Republican candidates aren't held to this standard, I don't think. We constantly complain that the Democratic candidate is not perfect enough, yet they've convinced a huge number of people to vote for a mendacious, vapid, cruel, spoiled brat. I don't think it's the candidates we need to improve, it's something else, something to do with how Democrats support the candidate instead.

[mopinko]

240. who wouldn't roll their eyes, talking to bush?

i defy anyone on this board to spend 10 minutes talking to a bushbot, and not once roll their eyes. you are right on the money about the double standard.
thank you for discussing the actual topic of this thread.

[Greyhound]

222. What if there were some kind of a meeting place where people

that were interested in finding out that, yes indeed, there are far too many people in this country (most of the world really) that are punished for really being "the smartest person in the room", could go to get some opinions and experiences. Maybe that person could then offer his/her viewpoint and perhaps a fresh perspective. Hmm, if only such a thing existed.

[RagingInMiami]

229. Because everybody believes they are smarter than the average person

When you're sitting in a classroom setting and you have one individual who consistently answers all the questions and scores all A's on his or her tests, it is not to difficult to determine who is the "smartest person in the room".

But when you have thousands of people on an anonymous website, there is no way to determine which ones are smarter than others without requiring that they all go through some type of IQ test.

As it is now, you just have a bunch of people who "claim" to have been the "smartest person in the room" when they were in school or in any other social setting.

[mopinko]

234. we would be happy to talk to anyone who thought they were

the smartest people in the room, whether they were or not. we would be happy to talk to anyone who thought they were the dumbest person in the room. we would be happy to talk to people who hate us for being smart. we want understanding. discussion. dialog.
really, the most galling thing about all this was that people kept putting words in our mouths. we outright insisted that we wanted to talk to anyone who wanted to talk. that there was no test. but still, the opposition insisted there must be. why?
when i was a kid, telling kids their iq was verboten. i don't know that i am gifted because someone told me in third grade. i have a lifetime of experiences of being the smartest person in the room. including some rooms full of pretty smart people. and i have a lot of other gifts, besides those that show up on the tests. and i have 5 kids who are all following in my footsteps, for good or ill. and i have a family tree full of off the charts brains. i know that i am gifted because i still elicit this kind of violent reaction when i talk to people like you.
really, we have been hearing all the things that you and the other bashers have said here ALL OUR LIVES. but that's not our problem. these things are being repeated in school board meeting after school board meeting where these issues are discussed. many people chimed into those threads to say that they wanted to talk about raising their own gifted kids. several people on this thread have mentioned that al gore "rubbed them the wrong way".
i guess hating smart people is one of the last acceptable prejudices. shouldn't we try to move past this? look around. don't you think we could use a few more smart people in office?

[RagingInMiami]

236. This is turning into such a joke

"i know that i am gifted because i still elicit this kind of violent reaction when i talk to people like you."

I don't think you're gifted. I think you're clueless.

[Zhade]

292. Responses like that pretty much make my case...

...that this whole group idea, and this thread, was all about the OP asserting her self-proclaimed "giftedness".

This isn't about fighting anti-intellectualism, this is about her painting herself as a "gifted intellectual" that is being persecuted.

The arrogance, not to mention the self-deception she's engaging in, is disturbing. Shit, I'm probably at least as smart as her, I've been published, been told by literally hundreds of people throughout my life that I'm talented, quite intelligent, blah blah blah - but I don't go around bragging about it and trying to play the wounded victim of "normals" and their "hatred for smart people".

This is ridiculous, and I think it's symptomatic of a larger problem in America: the overvaluing of nebulous "gifts", and the obsession with "having" such gifts, rather than using those alleged gifts in ways that would naturally reveal they exist.

It's like the "I'm part Cherokee" syndrome. I really AM roughly a quarter Cherokee, and man, I hate hearing some whiter-than-white Whitey say something idiotic like "my family line had a Cherokee princess in it" when THERE WERE NO SUCH PEOPLE. It's trendy, it's hip, it's "in", and it's idiotic.

That's what being "gifted" is in this country - not something to appreciate and use to better society, but something to proclaim as a badge of superiority. That's what the OP's statements reek of, a self-proclaimed "I'm so gifted I'm special!" arrogance.

[LostinVA]

294. gigglegigglegiggle

As I said upthread -- better than anything that's on TV right now...

[Heddi]

328. It truly is!!

About an hour ago I put it on the weather channel to watch Local on the 8's...wasn't quite time yet so I went to DU, decided to post (even though i told myself I wasn't going to) and whaddya know---an hour later i STILL Haven't seen how horrible the weather is going to be for the next 7 days....

gah! My life and its mundaneness. Perhaps if I accepted my 20 year old gifted label, I could participate in much more intellectual activities like, oh, posting on DU about how gifted and intellectual I am :)

[Raksha]

326. Raging in Miami, your free-floating hostility on these threads

is getting to be a real pain in the ass. You are constantly ascribing to the OP and others sympathetic to this topic a sense of superiority over other DUers (including yourself, presumably) that I haven't seen at all. I've read many of your posts before this topic ever came up, and NOT ONCE did it ever occur to me to rank you or any of the other DU regulars on the basis of perceived intelligence. And I'm not doing it now either.

If I thought about it all, I guess I just assumed that in general Democrats are smarter than Republicans, less inclined to groupthink and more inclined to question authority, and that it was part of what made them Democrats, or liberals if you prefer. So I guess I assumed (again, without really thinking about it consciously) that all or most regular posters on DU would qualify for the "gifted" category, whether they were recognized in childhood or not and whether they achieved success later in life or not.

And then Mopinko started these "gifted" threads, and the amount of hostility and projection they evoked has been a real shock to me. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that you've been one of the worst offenders all along, constantly accusing others of a sense of superiority (apparently over YOU personally) that nobody ever expressed and that I certainly never even thought!

This is the first, last and ONLY time I'm going to pander to your insecurity, so listen good: No, I DON'T think I'm smarter than you, or smarter than anyone else else who has expressed hostility to this topic, but I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time constantly reassuring you of that fact. You can take your insecurity or whatever the hell it is and shove it! I've never put anyone on DU on ignore before, but in your case I'm strongly tempted. I'm sick of you hijacking these threads and sabotaging any possibility of serious discussion.

[RagingInMiami]

357. Put me on ignore

And go fuck yourself.

[Zhade]

LOL! Ah, RiM, that's not going to defuse the hostility charge.

:evilgrin:

[RagingInMiami]

381. She told me the same thing

In a lot more words.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

252. "i guess hating smart people is one of the last acceptable prejudices."

:rofl:

Yeah, those poor persecuted smart people. The poor things; I hear they're even more persecuted than fundamentalist Christians these days.

[Greyhound]

261. Wow...

yet another example or "liberal tolerance". :eyes:

Can you really look at the vitriol and derision that is dumped on this self-defined group, and still doubt that they are hated/feared?

[LostinVA]

295. Or white straight males...

[Greyhound]

259. As your posts on this thread amply demonstrate, inevitably the

veracity of those claims quickly become self-evident.

Also, I would point out, yet again, that the proposed group was for a topic that obviously has a large and interested audience (I think there are nearly 1000 replies to the various related threads). It has never been proposed as any kind of "members only" club, anymore than you having to prove you're blind or gay to join in discussions in those groups.

[bigmonkey]

313. Where's the problem?

Why do you keep reaching for some kind of "objective" criterion for entry to this proposed group? No-one proposed such. At most, I think the hope was that there could be a place to discuss certain kinds of experiences without actual attacks. Your objection to the proposed group seems to be that just anyone might show up. Yet the OP said clearly that that was not a problem. Do you think that music groups should require submission of music, or of critical essays?

[JuniperLea]

249. mensa.org

There's a sample test if you're game.

:)

[Greyhound]

263. Did the real one years ago,

was invited, but didn't care for the local group, and I'm not much of a joiner anyway.

[JuniperLea]

250. Here's a sample test if you're game

Lot's of people with many different experiences too.


http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=12&PHPSESSID=e7c8658986c2ff4e40799c79bb1c0fa1

[mopinko]

254. taken plenty of tests, thanks

and have multiple gifts that are not on the tests. what is your point?

[Posteritatis]

245. Equating "smart people" with "know-it-alls" is kinda telling... (n/t)

[bigmonkey]

256. I thought so too.

Kind of like a reflex, perhaps a long-standing pattern of reaction.

[Posteritatis]

319. Nice proof of the OP's point, though, wasn't it? (n/t)

[bigmonkey]

379. Yup. n/t

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

219. It may be a problem on DU but not in the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party has a history of attracting intellectuals and upholding intellectualism. Messageboards have a history of flamewars encouraged by posters' ability to post anonymously without fear of physical reprisal.

I've never known a Democrat who was hostile to intellectuals. But people in general resent any inference that someone else might be smarter than them.

[mopinko]

232. you might want to look around

the level of viscousness in these thread was a shock to me. it really was.
and people sure enough do resent it. but some people are smarter. and in a party, which, as you say, attracts intellectuals, that resentment should be dealt with before another good candidate is squashed by it.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

242. What Democratic candidate was squashed by Democratic anti-intellectualism?

I can't think of one in my lifetime except for Eugene McCarthy, but there were bigger factors in 1968 that doomed his run for the presidency; and it was not so much his undeniable brainyness as it was his reknowned standoffishness that turned off many in the rank and file.

I only glanced at the threads in question. I didn't have a dog in that fight, being neither a gifted child nor a gifted adult, and obvious flamewars do nothing good for my BP.

But it wasn't a fight over intellectualism. You'd have gotten the same results if you had proposed a DU group for members gifted with exceptional good looks or lots of money. Prickly people lash out against any inference that others are better than them.

But it is not a Democratic issue. It is human nature.

[mopinko]

243. you don't think it hurt al gore?

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

244. No, not among Democrats

He won the primary. He won the nomination. He won the popular vote.

The factors that hurt him had nothing to do with his intelligence. He was mocked as being a bore, not a brain. But it wasn't Democrats who led the mocking.

Republicans vilified Gore's association with Clinton. Democrats vilified his attempts to distance himself from Clinton.

IMO Gore's biggest problem was with his own conflict over Clinton and how it impacted his presentation of his own personality. With the passage of time and the redemption of Democratic leadership in light of GOP catastrophes, Gore has relaxed and become more engaging. His intellect hasn't changed but his presentation of it has.

The Democratic Party is not incipently anti-intellectual or they would not have run him. They're not even incipently anti-bore or they wouldn't have run Dukakis.

[Raksha]

331. Yeah, they resent the inference even when it isn't there

and I'm getting totally sick of it.

[Generic Other]

246. You spend too much time "telling" too little "showing"

The "gifted" folks on DU do not need to constantly brag about their "gifts" or rag on others for failing to recognize their intellectual prowess.

My mother once told me that if a person were truly good at something, that person didn't need to constantly remind others of that fact. Others would do it for you. And that it was bad manners to do otherwise.

I am a college professor and in my line of work I find those who must inform me that they are "A" students only do so because I would not otherwise discover this fact for myself.

IQ tests only predict one's potential, not one's actual achievements.

mopinko, I have been at DU for many years. I appear to have missed your "gifts." I can't recall a single example. But I do know you think you are pretty smart per the threads on this topic you have posted.

I reserve the right to make that determination for myself.

[mopinko]

247. you have completely mischaracterized the entire discussion

as have many others here. and done so is a quite meanspirited way.
it's really quite sickening. i am not the only one who now feels quite unwelcome.

[Generic Other]

258. I think I characterised it exactly as many have perceived it

n/t

[mopinko]

262. yes, you did

and why it was perceived so very differently by so many is something that ought to bother fair minded people.

[alcibiades_mystery]

272. Perhaps because your "gift" isn't expression?

:rofl:

I would think that so many gifted and talented people, once they got together, could devise a rhetorical strategy that would make such a group attractive to the vast majority on DU, without any significant push-back. The ancient sophist Gorgias once said that he could be persuasive on any topic whatever, and he'd have people throw argumentative positions at him to prove it. He even wrote a mock defense of Helen of Troy, then one of the most despised figures in Greek history to demonstrate the point: with a little rhetorical savvy, as the sophist Protagoras would say, one could always make the weaker argument the stronger. Yet the so very "gifted" on these forums haven't managed to invent an acceptable argument for even their innocuous little group; they haven't managed to sooth the savage beast called Normal, but rather inflamed its passions and caused it to chomp back, some times in anger, some times with argument, while the thoroughly unpersuasive gifted flail about with sniffy accusations and increasingly arrogant declarations of their own abilities.

The gifted have proved only one thing in this whole saga: that their gifts do not extend to the crucial areas of persuasion. And perhaps it is here that we can find the usual chants of "socially awkward" located concretely. Perhaps the so-called Normal beast is simply more adept at the arts of persuasion (see Aristotle's Rhetoric) than the so-called gifted. And one wonders whether this ability may not outflank and trump so-called giftedness every time...

[bigmonkey]

284. I hardly think Sophism, as exemplified in Plato, is a good exemplar.

Especially for Democrats. Perhaps for Karl Rove, or someone of his ilk, but not for Democrats. I think the point of the thread is how can democratic ideals encompass acceptance of intellectuals, or how intellectuals committed to democratic ideals can function best.

Frankly your attitude creeps me out, and seems to imply a really thoroughgoing elitism. Straussian, even - determining winners and losers comes first, last, and always.

[alcibiades_mystery]

308. Oh well

That the gifted have trouble being persuasive is not the best testament to their supposed gifts. I'll leave the various insults aside, as they're part and parcel of the problem. Salud!

[Finder]

257. Ahh, those that can't,... teach....so they say.

From the beginning of the discussion, Mopinko never touted IQ numbers or grades. The issue was a group of former children labeled "gifted" by others, not themselves, and the reaction/treatment by family and peers. Being singled out did nothing to assure success in life. As a matter of fact, the constant badgering and riducule by others(as witnessed by discussions here on DU even)led to a type of impotence by some who were expected to excel.

I assume many who were labeled learning disabled feel the same separation from what society calls "normal."

Originally the whole thing was about supporting others who were labeled and felt damaged psychologically by such labeling.

[mopinko]

264. i am wondering

if a group called "school misfits- past, present and future" would fulfill the same purpose without the nastiness.
i wish to correct the impression, even among the supported of this idea, that it was somehow about healing childhood wounds. it was not. although that is something many of us have in common, it was not the point. i was just trying to find the people who think differently. to find out what kind of things had worked for them in life, what kind of things didn't work, and why.
many people like me discover, in talking to others, that there is such a thing as normal for gifted. we all long for a tribe. that's all. i hung out with the other misfits in school. i was accepted by them, no matter their intelligence. i would be happy to find that kind of tribe again.

[RagingInMiami]

269. You did find that tribe

It's called DU.

[mopinko]

275. funny

i don't feel welcome.

[Zhade]

322. Well, obnoxious arrogance based on belief in self-identified specialness..

...tends to be unattractive to people.

I really am serious - STOP OBSESSING ABOUT BEING "GIFTED". Even if you ARE gifted, paying so much attention to BEING "special" is a waste of time.

I'm saying this as someone who thought gifts were so important, and so special, that I paralyzed myself into not pursuing creative avenues in which I apparently do have some natural inclination (talent, if you want to call it that). If you feel that you haven't "lived up to your potential", stop worrying about that theoretical (i.e., not realized) potential and just do what you love. You'll be happier. I speak from painful experience.

I guess part of my replies to you have been annoyance with how I used to be like you, except that I thought what qualities I possessed weren't "good enough". The Talent Trap, as I call it, robs people of their joy, and values the wrong things - like BEING an writer or an artist, rather than writing or drawing.

The obsession with being "gifted" is really unhealthy.

[Finder]

271. I noticed many of those who are adverse have come out as ADD...

on other threads and wonder if their labeling may have caused the emotional reaction we have seen regarding the "gifted" labeling.

Maybe a "Formerly Labeled Child Group" may be better.lol

[alcibiades_mystery]

276. Is that like the Backstreet Boys becoming BSB, or the New Kids

becoming NKOTB? "Formerly Labeled Child Group" :rofl:

[bigmonkey]

277. This might work, mopinko.

Although it is a form of hiding, still. It may be that the "tribe" emphasis is what's bothering some folks, although it didn't bother me. I, for one, thought that the sharing of methods used to cope with being an outcast could have helped myself and others, but that may not have been your intention. Such activity need not all be sharing of stories, it could be sharing of techniques as well.

I still think this thread, ostensibly about dealing with American anti-intellectualism, is (or could be) helpful on its own.

[mopinko]

301. talking is all i know

that could heal this divide. so i am trying to converse.

[Generic Other]

288. grade school merit awards: stick-on stars

Being labelled "gifted" has become a coveted designer label parents crave to bestow on their designer children. They come out of the womb having listened to classical music and their mothers reciting "Beowulf." The gifted children are pampered and rewarded, particularly if they are mostly compliant and conform to rules. Otherwise, they are "ritalin" kids.

When those so labelled are conditioned to believe they are somehow "gifted" above others based on childhood hierarchical rankings (IQ, grades, or test scores), they run the risk of believing this will always be true, that the average person could not catch up and surpass the "gifted" one. The "gifted" adults I know for the most part share one quality: they display their gifts as adults. Childhood measurements are hardly a good indicator.

I know a gifted plumber. A gifted musician or two. Even some gifted teachers. They developed those gifts. They were not meaningless designer labels.

As for the idea of a need for a "gifted" children's support group at DU, I have no opinion. Like I said, I'm more interested in what the gifted adults around here are doing.

Sorry to have butted in where I'm not wanted.

[Finder]

299. If only our parents and family saw it as a gift...

which is the part that many seemed to have missed.

In my case, neither parent had even graduated high school nor had either read a book in their lives.

I think many are mixing up the group with "privileged" which is what most of us were not, if many of the posts are true.

I do agree with you as far as IQ and tests and such and that was never part of the receiving the label that I remember. It has more to do with the way they absorb information, IMO.

Like others, I also read at about 3yo(due to a European grandmother) which is NOT outside the norm globally but is in our country in particular. Unfortunately back in the 60s and 70s we were separated from our peers in public school for some reason.

Of course this is only my experience and others had different ones but the result is the same...our worldview and the way we process information and socialize is very different from the majority.

[LostinVA]

296. What a nasty, nasty comment about teachers

Who are overworked,, underpaid, and often disrepescted... as your post shows.

Boo.

[Finder]

304. I was pointing out stereotypical responses...

and personally believe all teachers are to be respected.

[Greyhound]

268. I am wondering where you saw anybody bragging about their

"gifts" (excluding parents bragging on their off-spring, that is inevitable, whether it is deserved or not) or ragging on others failure "to recognize their intellectual prowess". I've followed these threads pretty closely and have seen quite the opposite.

In the initial post, the first replies were from folks that seemed to be very enthusiastic and generally supportive of a "safe place" to talk about their problems. Whether those problems are real of perceived is, IMO, irrelevant, just as whether or not they are really in the top tier of intellects.

The response was, however, quite shocking to me, and gave credence to the claims of wide-spread discrimination.

[Heddi]

287. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous

I've read the gifted threads over and over. I've read this thread, and all it's comments.

Lemme start off first by stating that I was labeled "gifted" when I was in 2nd grade and was in AP classes and Honours classes in high school.

Yes, I was picked on in elementary, middle, and high school.

There was a point in my life where I was SO CERTAIN that it was because I was 'smarter than them'.

But as I grew older, I realized that EVERYONE in school is picked on.

THe cheerleaders were called sluts
The sports stars were called airheads
the smart kids were nerds
the LD kids were retards
the art kids were pot smokers
the skateboarders were losers
the kids with glasses were called "four eyes"

THen there are the fat kids, skinny kids, poor kids, rich kids, ugly kids, pretty kids. Girls with big boobs and girls with flat chests. The kids who were in wheelchairs and the ones that could run a 2 minute mile.

You weren't harassed because you were "different." You were harassed because you were a student in school and everyoen in school was harassed, whether you're aware of it or not.

Throughout this thread and others, I've seen the non-gifted-labeled called "normals" "regulars" and other extremely offensive and pedestrian terms. Seriously. "normal"??? 'regular'? 'average'?

Several poasters (who are more than happy to tout their stellar IQ scores and horrific adolescent experience because of it) fail to understand that many people who are labeled "Gifted" are only labeled so because they are able to take a test and achieve a certain score on it. We have learned also in these threads that many who consider themselves "gifted" weren't even LABELED "gifted" in school (meaning they could not achieve a certain score on the test), but KNOW deep in their hearts that they are, in fact, gifted.

There have been proclaimations by these people that they KNOW they are the smartest person in the room at any given time.

It is this SHEER ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE that is so pervasive amongst many adults-labeled-gifted-as-chidren that has caused me to NEVER tell anyone that I was labeled gifted as a child. I don't want to be associated with the people in this thread.

I've seen antectodal evidence (no stats, of course, because they just don't exist) that gifted-as-children are more likely to turn to drugs (stats?) or commit suicide (stats?) or be underachievers later in life (stats?). What the "gifted" fail to realize is that this is the fact for ANYONE who has attended school. I mean, the oh-so-gifted are just as likely to end up in a minimum wage job as the "normals" are. It's a fact of life. It's called LIFE.

Get a grip. Seriously.

When I was in school, I was labeled "gifted" because I took a test and wrote a story and was able to read and comprehend at a 7th grade level when I was in 1st grade. In 2nd grade I was put in the "gifted" class.

I never EVER felt, and still do not feel, that I was ever any better than ANYONE who was in the class with me, or who was not able to be in the class. Parents had to pay for the test--not everyone could afford the test. Not everyone can pass a written exam. Not everyone has the same spatial skills or writing skills or math skills.

Had the test been comprised of 90% math, I would have failed and been--gasp--a "regular" throughout my life because I am horrible at math. In fact, I was dropped from all of my honours-level classes in 11th grade because I did not test into Honours Calculus. ALL of my honours classes were taken away because I was a poor student in math.

Who gave me hell? Was it the "normals"? The "regulars"? The "averages"?

No. it was the 'gifted' who scoffed and laughed at the dumb little girl who :scoff: couldn't do calculus. Oh the horrors!

Who were the TRUE anti-intellectuals? It wasn' the normals, the regulars, or the averages. It was the gifted students who could not find it in their massive cerebral cortexes that not being good in X does not equate to not being good in Y and Z and AA and BB.

Oh no, see, you must be gifted in EVERY area to be TRULY gifted :eyes:

===

The funny part is that out of the 30 or so students I spent nearly 12 years with in gifted classes, only 4 of them have achieved anything close to be considered "exceptional" post-high school

The majority of them didn't even GO TO COLLEGE. Oh my god! You mean the SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE ROOM could not hack being around other people who were most likely just as smart, if not smarter than them???

The class valedectorian now works as a teller in a bank. Great way of showing off your supreme intellectual skills.

----

One boy I went to school with was a loser. He was a pot-smoking skateboarder. Smart as hell but never tested into "gifted". He was shunned by the "smart" people and actively teased by them.

Know what he's doing now? He's a doctoral student at MIT and works on nanotechnology and has actually published several articles in major scientific journals regarding nanotech that he, himself, all by himself, created or discovered.

So much for that gifted label, eh?

----

I find the sheer arrogance for 'normals' and other non-gifteds in this thread to be just disgusting.

There is the constant wonder "why were we so harassed in school, and why does that 'hatred for intelligence' carry through in adulthood?"

Well, I can tell you it has NOTHING to do with your supposed inate ability and cerebral power. It's because of the snobby assholishness that just exudes throughout this thread. Maybe the hatred as adults comes from the fact that your interpersonal abilities rival that of garden slugs. The lack of ability to see beyond ones own life is amazing. You'd think that for being so fucking smart and being so intellectually superior to the rest of us, there would be SOME ability to interact with people. But all I see is derision for others that you all so claim is heaped upon yourselves. Ugly labels that YOU find unacceptable when given to you, but are perfectly fine to label others with, especially when you find that those are 'below your level'

It's disgusting. YOU ALL are the reason that I NEVER tell others I'm gifted. Not only that, but what does it matter? I'm such a different person than I was when I was 16---what does it matter what I was "labeled" as in High School? I've achieved every goal I've set in my life and live a happy and complete life. I don't need 20 year old labels to define me, and it's sad that so many do.

Life your life based on the abilities you have now and those that you wish to hone and grow. Don't rely on some sub-par standardized test that isn't ANY indication of intellect, intelligence, craft, skill, or giftedness.

---

I assume that this posting, like so many others, will lead to proclaimations of "I was only being sarcastic and if you can't get that, then you're unintelligent" and "you're now on my ignore list". But I think this whole bit of bickering over who is more gifted and who is smarter and who is this and who is that is just fucking ridiculous. You'd think we're back in fucking SEVENTH GRADE. It's surprising that, supposedly, the people who are participting in this thread claim to be adults.

[LostinVA]

297. Kisses -- great post (and, being called a "Mundane" was my personal fav)

Call Me Wesley is a lucky dude...

[Heddi]

307. Oooh...I didn't see "mundane"

My jaw hit the floor when, in one of the original threads about the group, one of the smartest-in-the-room-because-i-tell-myself-that's said how horrible it was having to deal with (no offense, of course) but "regular" folks and their "average" abilities blah blah blah puff puff puff inflate inflate inflate.

There's a guy I work with and I swear that if he weren't an avowed republican he'd be one of those posting upthread. He's in his 50's and takes EVERY opportunity to remind you that when HE was in high school (cue old timey music) HE was at the top of his class and HE was valedictorian and when HE went to community college (no slam--I got my nursing degree through comm. college as well) HE got a 4.0 and blah blah blah and HE is so smart and how HARD it is dealing with such DUMB patients and their DUMB families and blah blah blah.

Yeah. Big fucking deal. This guy SAYS he got a 4.0 throughout nursing school---maybe he did. More power to him. But a 4.0 in theory does NOT equate to having any level of satisfactory interpersonal interaction skills. The man is like a wooden board. He is openly dismissive of "stupid" questions as he so loves to call them. Yeah, stupid. A patient asking about a procedure, or a medication, or a treatment is "Stupid".

But, see, he is GIFTED. he is SMART. We poor peons are just 'normal' and 'average'

I didn't make a 4.0 in nursing school. About a 3.1 which is good enough for me. But I can tell you that while I was not at the top of the class academically, I have great patient skills and have been complimented on them throughout school and in my short time so far as a new RN. That doesn't mean I'm dumb, or don't understand the basics that I had to know to pass the program. I understand them fine.

To this guy (and many posters on this thread), I'm a dumb cuckold because I don't wear my IQ score on my sleeve like a badge of honour. I don't have my impressive creative resume tattooed on my forehead for all to see.

Instead, I allow my "gifts" and "Talents" to speak for themselves.

It's as if many of these people have nothing else BUT being formerly labeled gifted going for them in their lives. Their one shining moment in life came when they were 10 years old and put in the "special class" with all the other smarties.

Must be really tough being in your 50's and hanging on to a 40 year old label. That that is the only stellar accomplishment in your life. Perhaps if they dropped the label and started LIVING, they'd be alot happier.

Oh, and not calling people names and insulting their intelligence might go a long ways too.

PS--I don't think you're mundane. You're ABOVE AVERAGE :kiss: :D

[LostinVA]

312. Great post, and....

I do think YOU'RE a Mundane, but I adore you anyway...

:spank: :spank: :spank:

[Finder]

314. That guy sounds like an idiot...

and how the hell is he a nurse with that sort of bedside manner?

[Heddi]

329. because he graduated from a nursing program

and passed the state board licensing exam.

I don't think he'll last very long in direct patient care, though. He's as new as I am (we both just graduated within the last 2 months and are resident nurses at the hospital) but already people have complained about his lack of empathy and understanding with regards to patients.

[RagingInMiami]

303. Hell of a rant

If we could only recommend individual posts.

[enigmatic]

305. Great post, Heddi

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

306. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

311. Well said! Thank you. I couldn't have written such an excellent

rebuttal -- and would certainly have used much more swearing.

Like RagingInMiami, I would also like the ability ("gift"?) to recommend a specific post.

[Finder]

316. If the OP had used the words "anti-woman" you would get it...

I guess it depends what tribe one belongs to, eh?

[distantearlywarning]

318. Hit that one on the nose. n/t

[Heddi]

321. Huh? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

and please, if you're going to go down some road about feminism or women's rights, perhaps you should do a search on my name and you will find that a great majority of my posts are in the feminists forum and women's rights forum and deal with women's rights and issues.

Then again, aren't you the one who recently outright stated that it is perfectly acceptable for a teacher to have sexual intercourse with a 12-13 year old child, as long as that child was a boy, because it's okay because it's not rape even though it would be if it's a girl?

Oh yes. I see you did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x7842#7868


What tribe you belong to, indeed.

[Finder]

324. Attack the messenger...good luck. n/t

[Heddi]

333. I'm still not understanding your original point

were you suggesting that I would have responded differently if the OP were talking about misogyny in America, or schools, or anti-woman attitudes in society?

I probably would have.

And I do think there is a great deal of anti-intellectualism in this country and I do believe that it starts not just in school, but at home as well. I think that some parents do teach their children to treat other children "differently". I also think that some of that comes with being a kid. Fitting in. Peer pressure, the whole thing.

I find it interesting that on television or movies, when someone who is "smart" is portrayed, they are always portrayed as wearing glasses, being a total dork, geek, having no social or intrapersonal skills. Just like the "fat" person is always able to make self-depreciating jokes. Just like the man is always a numbskull who is fat and balding but married to a subserviant beauty queen who has all the answers, but lets him think that HE is the smart one.

I think that the media has done alot to form our opinions of people, whether they are smart, or pretty, or ugly, or fat, or dumb.

But what is a reflection of what? Does the media reflect reality, or does reality reflect what we are "taught" by the media?

I find it appalling that non-testable areas of school cirruculum are cut, such as recess, music, art, library time, creative arts, PE, so that more time can be spent "teaching to the test", thanks to NCLB and their ridiculus method of tying school funds to standardized test scores.

I think that teachers are vastly overworked and tremendously underpaid. I think that our public school system is failing, and that when people cry "Well how much MORE money do we spend on it?" should be answered with "well, we've obviously never even come close to spending ENOUGH to FIX IT".

I do not think a child can learn when they live in sub-standard housing with one or two parents who are forced to work 60+ hours a week just to make ends meet. A child cannot learn effectively when they are force-fed (through very powerful and successful marketing strategies) sugar filled, nutritionally devoid "foods". A child cannot effectively learn when they are pigeon-holed based on a standardized test that does not take into any account personal experiences or cultural or economic differences, as well as the all important differences of learning styles.

I think that it's a shame that "heroes" for children and "role models" for our youth consist of over-paid, marginally talented singers , rap, and sports stars. That no one strives to be an explorer or scientist or writer or artist. That the goal of one's life is to make as much cash as possible as quickly as possible so that one can have as much, if not more, "bling" than the next fellow.

I find it disturbing that we pay actors and rappers millions of dollars, yet teachers get paid, on average, a bit more than minimum wage. I find it appaling that "vocation" and "trade" and "blue collar" are synonmous with low pay and low education. I find it ridulous that more children are not encouraged to start out their college careers in a jr., tech, or community college.

I find it unacceptable that only the students with the highest GPA's are ever counceled on post-high school plans. That the only ones who are even TALKED to about college are the ones that would most likely go anyway. The only ones that are GROOMED for post-secondary education are those that don't need the grooming to begin with.

I find it unacceptable that we give children mixed messages--be all you can be, but don't be TOO much of it or else you'll be a nerd.

I find it unacceptable that parents do not teach their children more actively about the wrongness of bullying, and that bullying continues to occur regardless of the victim's GPA.

I find it unacceptable that we live in a dumbed-down society that values entertainment over exploration and development. That actors are worth more to society than an astronaut or physicist. That more children read Rolling Stone than Popular Science. That biology and chemistry are "electives" and not "required" of high school students. That we wait until after the "critical point" of language development has already passed before we offer our children the opportunity of bilingualism. That we spend more money on high school sports than all other extra cirrucular activities combined.

---
And I would have been HAPPY To address those points had this thread not turned into what the other 2...3 had turned into---a Gifted v. normal thread.

And if you notice, upthread, when these issues are addressed by other posters, those posters are QUICK to be reminded that yes, that's bad, but ti's REALLY bad for the gifted kids!!! As if that is the ONLY issue addressing school-aged children today. That there is NO greater issues that perhaps feed into that. No, we must talk about Gifted and gifted only.

[Finder]

339. I know you would have based on other threads you have posted...

and I do not think this is so much about the current way things are.

Are you a self-hating gifted child?

That is what your original post sort of said although I personally detest that label:self-hating--jew, homosexual, woman, etc...

I do agree with you and other as to boasting and such but I honestly do not think the OP in this or the other two threads was boasting by any means. Many interpreted it as such, unfortunately.

[Heddi]

344. Why would I be self hating?

I enjoyed my gifted classes as a child. We went on field trips and had a special summer camp where I took all kinds of interesting, if eventually useless classes during the daytime.

I got to read books like 1984 and Animal Farm when the non-gifted-classes were reading Anne of Green Gables. We talked about Future Shock and Flowers for Algernon. We had discussions about race and equality and logic and philosophy.

But, see, I don't think that I'm special because I took those classes. I think that the other kids were DENIED because they weren't allowed to participate.

Each according to his own ability, right? I remember having to read the Iliad and the Odyssey and my god, they bored me to tears and I just didn't understand them at all. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. It just means that not everyone will find every single subject as interesting as the next.

Would there have been ANY harm to take the non-gifted kids to the aquarium instead of having them watch a movie on undersea life? Yeah, we had a worksheet to do while we were there, but was it THAT "intellectually superior" for US to be there and THEY not?

Why can't the ENTIRE 10th grade English class read 1984, and not just the Honours 10th grade reading class? Would it be over some people's head? Absolutely--half of my honours class didn't get it and at the end kept asking "So did he die,or what?"

I'm sorry you don't see the boasting---I do, and many others do. The constant reminder that THEY are different from US is astounding. The reminder that THEY are smarter than US is ridiculous.

To answer your question--am I a self-hating gifted child?

I don't know. I'm not a gifted child. I'm not even a FORMER gifted child. I was a child who was labeled gifted who is now an adult who has no reliance upon labels that were placed upon me when I was 10,or 12, or 20. When I was 17, I was called a big-titted slut (even though I was a virgin). That doesn't make me a self-hating big titty slut anymore than I'm a self-hating gifted child.

I think that the whole anti-gifted thing (which I do admit exists, but I do not think it is the singluar issue many would have others to believe) would greatly decrease if we just stoped fucking labeling kids.

You know, my nephew is the brighest star in the sky--of this I"m sure :D When he was FOUR YEARS OLD he was labeled "gifted". How can a FOUR YEAR OLD be "gifted"? Bright? Quick? Sure--but GIFTED?

It is telling that 90% of his kindergarten class was labeled gifted as well. Surely they can't ALL be stellar, can they?

The other 10%--according to my sister in law---they were the black kids and the kids from poor homes. The ones that passes were from affluent families. All white. Coincidence? I don't know. But I think that it's an interesting antecdotal statistic.

I think alot of the problem lies with labeling kids SO early--beforethey can REALLY hone in on any natural skills or talents they may have. So you label a 4-year-old as gifted---what happens in a few years when come to find out, he was just accelerated for his age but is actually very much "average" For a 10 year old? DO you think THAT would have negative repurcussions on his ego and self-esteem to yank him out of his gifted classes---sorry son, you're not as smart as we thought you were..

I am very much in favour for the montessori-style learning--where everyone learns at their own pace and can find and develop their own personal skills. The kids that are great readers spend the day reading, while the ones who are good at art spend the day painting, and the ones who arne't really good at anything spend the day doing EVERYTHING to find out what they really like best of all.

Why seggregate? Is anything achieved? The real world SURELY slapped me in the face when I went to college and I was NOT the smartest in the land, oh humble heddi and her massive ego. Oh! They didn't prepare me for THAT!! Nor was I prepared for the real world, where jobs don't fall in your lap and employers could really give a screw about whether or not you were in AP Algebra when you were 14 when you're applying for a front-desk job making minimum wage. Can you answer the phones? Good. Get to work.

[Finder]

349. That was the original point...the labeling...

and you do get it.

[Heddi]

361. I think we should make a group ''Former children who are now adults"

because I think the SIMILARITIES between experiences far outweigh the individual-situation differences we all experienced.

Here's an example:

My husband has 2 older sisters. They were both OUTSTANDING in school, especially the middle sister. He told me of the day she tried to KILL herself because she got a 92 on an exam---she had gotten 100's on EVERY exam she had taken IN HER LIFE up to that point.

Anyway--he wasn't the most academically sound student. Not that he was dumb, he was just no "middle sister". To make matters worse, his parents, oldest sister, and teachers ALL doted on middle sister. He was constantly compared to her. Every year, on the first day of class, the teachers would see his last name (quite unique) and say "Oh, I hope you're as good a student as Middle Sister was" and of course he never was. Even when he did his best, it just wasn't good enough. He wasn't in honours classes and barely made the mark for General/CP classes.

It didn't end in High School. He and both of his sisters went to the same state university. Again, with the interesting last name and required core courses, he got many of his sisters' instructors. And again, on the first day of term they would always tell him that they held him to the same grade and ability of his middle sister.

He could never make it. She graduated with a 4.0, magna cum laude. He got a 2.89. She was a marine biologist. He was a graphic designer.

Eventually, in high school, he just gave up. He was never counceled about college plans--why would they waste the time on him? He's no Middle Sister, that's for sure.

He only went to college because his dad said "Get a job or go to college" and so he went to college on Daddy's dime and just schlepped around for 4 years, doing what he had to do to get by and eventually get a degree.

Fast forward to the present:

Middle Sister is stuck in a rut. Nearly 40 years old and still doing the same job she had when she graduated college. In debt up to her ears. Still hangs on to that Smartest Girl IN The World tag, though, and never lets you forget FOR A MINUTE that in some way, some how, she's smarter than you.

A few years ago I decided to go to Nursing School. It's a 2 year program, community college. Lots of biology pre-req's though. Lots of sciences. Hubby decides he wants to go to.

Middle Sister scoffs. HEre's the boy, she says, that couldn't add two and two to get four, and he's going to try to take BIOLOGY and CHEMISTRY?

So hubby goes to school and makes 4.0's in all of his classes. He's head of the class. Gets accepted to NUMEROUS nursing schools--2 and 4 years. Is currently in the nursing program. Sister continued to scoff at him until she visited us one day and he showed her his coursework in Anatomy, Physiology, and Microbiology. She was stunned. All of this at a community college? I thought their standards were low? I never took anything like this until I got my masters. Wow. That's impressive. Maybe you ARE smart.

---

He never tested as gifted or anything above "barely average" in school. But I think he's smart as a whip and made much better grades than I, the former gifted child, EVER did.

I think that labels are silly and counterproductive. They did nothing, in this case, but inflate my sister-in-law's ego and make her think she was more special than anyone and, at the same time, deflate ANY sense of self that my husband had, and it started at a very young age. I think teachers could do alot more adn NOT compare students who are related to previous students---whether the previous student was exceptionally good, exceptionally bad, or exceptionally average. Each according to his own ability, right?

I think had he tested now, hubby would indeed fall in the gifted category (if for no other reason than he can take a damn fine multiple-choice test). But he didn't when he was younger. Does that mean he's different now than then? That his learning style wasn't accomodated in his youth, but was in college? That he may have done better and had more aspirations had he not been forced to hang on the graded coat-tails of his older sister?

Who knows. I knwo he's put his sister to shame numerous times in the recent past. Is it petty? It sure is. But for him, it's a small and pedantric sense of self that he never had as a child or adolescent. Finally, HE is riding his OWN coattails. Now, when he goes from one term to the next in Nursing School, teachers ask whether HE is *THE* Mark Funny Last Name that they've heard so much about, and what a joy it will be to have him in their class.

[Finder]

375. I hear ya and feel the same way...

but I do not think Mopinko is anything like the two examples you cited. She is more like you.

[distantearlywarning]

363. I agree. Sort of.

Although I am sensing, as others have, some kind of personal anger in your posts that goes beyond this discussion or the other threads on the gifted stuff, you have made some points in this post that I agree with.

First, labeling. There is no doubt that labeling children, especially as early as kindergarten, affects how they learn and interact with teachers and peers later (see work by Rosenthal & Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom, + others in the "self-fulfilling prophecy" line of research - googling it will probably turn up a lot of really interesting stuff). Research has also shown, as you pointed out anecdotally, that low SES and minority kids are more likely to be labeled negatively. This is not a good thing at all. It's also not helpful for all the rich kids in the room to be labeled "gifted" to soothe their parents' egos.

At the same time, some kids clearly learn faster than others, and get horribly bored in a classroom setting. Any teacher can give you an example, and there have been many anecdotes posted on this board about this phenomena. The construct of IQ is controversial, and I don't want to get into that here, but there is no doubt that there are some kids in every school who just "learn faster", just like some kids run fast or paint well, or have great social skills. (And BTW, I was really jealous of the kids who got the blue ribbons on Track and Field day. That certainly wasn't me and I always wished it was. Those were always the kids who got picked first in gym too and who the cool gym teachers loved, and that never happened to me either, and it hurt. So, maybe in some small way, I understand watching the "special" kids get things that you don't.)

But, so anyway, if you take these kids out for special work, what then? Their classmates resent them, they get picked on, and the ones left behind have to do boring work while the smart ones go on field trips (as you pointed out in a later post). What's the solution?

What if we make "regular" classes like gifted classes? Why not train teachers to treat all their students like they have an IQ of 145 (insert non-controversial indicator of intelligence here if you so desire), and teach classes to the highest common denominator instead of the lowest? I firmly believe that EVERYONE, regardless of natural gifts, to some extent will live up to what others expect of them. Some will still excel more than others, and that's fine. But why not make school exciting and fun and make intellectual achievement cool for every student? Why do the (so-called) "normal" kids have to do flash cards or workbook problems while the gifted kids take field trips? Why not take everyone on the field trip, making it a stimulating enough environment for the gifted kids to stay involved and happy, and getting all the potential you can out of everyone else?

We spend a lot of time in this country "dumbing down" everything to the level of the lowest performer. Maybe that lowest performer is performing low because he's been told he's low. Maybe if we started "smarting-up" stuff for everyone, and expecting the low performers to keep up, we wouldn't have to worry about this gifted vs. non-gifted thing anymore. And BTW, I know of some recent research that suggests that the number one thing a teacher can do for low-expectation pupils is start to have high expectations for them - give them the "gifted" kids work and tell them they are able to do it, and will be expected to do it.

[Heddi]

368. I agree with you

I think that EVERY class should be a "gifted" class. Like I said in another thread--there were things we were taught in "G&T" that I found extremely boring, utterly pointless, or hoplessly above my comprehension. I know alot of people who WEREN'T in G&T classes who sat in school and learned things they, too, found extremely boring, utterly pointless, or hoplessly above their comprehension as well. That's what school is about--being boring and teaching you shit that you probably won't ever use unless you have agood memory and go on Jeopardy one day (joking!)

I don't think that any child should be denied having their skills "tested"--and by that I mean having that child push themselves, or be pushed, to achieve a level higher than the level they're currently at. if they don't succeed, that's great. If they do, that's great. But at least give them the chance.

How many "loser" students would have found great joy in reading Animal Farm, or Brave New World, but were never given the chance because they never took "the test" or didn't score high enough on it? That doesnt' mean they wouldn't enjoy the book, or understand its subtletlies. They were just never given the chance.

At my school, there were certain clubs that ONLY the G/T, Honours, AP students could join=-debate and academic bowl (like jeopardy) being two of them I can think of off my head. I was on the academic bowl (fast at the buzzer, not so fast at the answers) and one day our STAR PLAYER was ill, and we had a BIG tourney that night against our UTTER RIVAL. The team was dismayed---I suggested a friend of mine--non honours, but sharp as a tack. After much groaning they decided to let him try out. He was SO FUCKING SMART. But who knew? He was never allowed to try out because of the designation before his class titles. No AP, no way!

After that, they changed the rules and ANYONE could try out for the bowl. Within 1 year, 90% of the bowl was comprised of non-GT students, and we went UP in state ranking and consistently beat our UTTER RIVALS! Hooya! We even won an award! Whee!

Oooh...gotta pick up hubby. Be back soon. I'm sorry if the tone of my posts isn't coming across as I'd like. I'm not angry---I'm frustrated, and I suppose that doesn't translate so well over this medium

[bigmonkey]

343. Yet I would characterize your #287 as being essentially bullying.

Why can't you see that? You've taken incidentals in the posts that you've read here and misinterpreted them as essentials. You were using capitals in that post over and over, and we both know that's shorthand for shouting. One of your "fans" even congratulated you on finally shutting the discussion down. How can you say that you are against bullying?

This post I'm replying to seems so sensible. Where did the previous out-of-control rage come from, and why can't you see it as abusive?

[Heddi]

347. I have fans?

who knew? Please bring one over because it is SWELTERING in my house right now. Sigh.

Funny. Had no idea I had fans. Haven't posted on DU for...ever? a few last night--one about myrtle beach and one about a telephone call I heard on the internet.

Fans! Wow. I'm popular and I didn't even know it.

And I shut the discussion down? How can that be when there are replies to my post and several that came after mine that are not replies? We must have different meanings of the term "shut down"?

WHy can't I see it as abusive? Because it's not?!? That might be a reason. Then again, why can't so many on this thread see the pompous, self-congratulatory "I'm smarter than you-ooo" posts as being what THEY are--pompous, self-congratulatory "I'm smarter than you-ooo" posts.

I suppose that is the downfall of internet discussions. I use capitals because DU is the only website I visit that does not use the < before HTML tags and I find it bothersome to use funky HTML to bold or underline. So I just capitalize instead. Sometimes I use asteriks like *this* to indicate words that should be bolded, or stand out in the text.

I see what I see, and you see what you see, and forever the discussion shall continue.

[bigmonkey]

354. You've really hurt some people who started out asking for shelter.

And all you've got is jokes and dismissal?

By fans, I meant posts 311,307,303,and especially 334, who congratulates you: "Your post should really bet the end of these ..."

This thread started as a proposal to discuss whether anti-intellectualism is a problem for Democrats. You have this abusive rant, that nevertheless is also a sharing of certain experiences in the very format that you claim to be so hurt by, and want to excuse yourself over technicalities. I think the poster who suggested the "anti-woman" trope was pointing in the right direction. This whole collection of threads was started in a spirit of asking for support, and you have just heaped abuse on the OP and others, rather than stepping back and trying to respond in a civil, sympathetic manner.

I can understand that there are buried emotions in this, but I see the OP as admitting them, and the ranters here as trying to pooh-pooh them as "whiners." It's very upsetting.

[Zhade]

351. Stop lying.

I never congratulated her for shutting the discussion down - you can't be so reading comprehension-challenged to have mistaken approval of her points, and my feeling that she said it all and no more needs to be said, with shutting discussion down.

(And I'm only a "fan" of well-reasoned points like hers, even if they're ensconced in sharp language.)

[bigmonkey]

356. I'm not lying. Heres your quote, from your #334

"You know, it's true, everything you said. Your post really should be the end of these stupid (ha!) self-puffery threads."

[Zhade]

359. Wow, those gifts are really showing. Too bad reading isn't one of them.

"really SHOULD be the end", as I said, because IMHO - and in my opinion only, since I don't issue diktats - she nailed it.

Now, if I'd said "this discussion must now end", you wouldn't be making things up. But clearly, I didn't demand the discussion end, I merely expressed my opinion that there was no NEED to continue the discussion.

If you continue to dishonestly misconstrue my expressing an opinion as shutting down discussion, I can't help you with that.

[bigmonkey]

362. You want the discussion to shut down.

That's what that says. I didn't say that you _demanded_ it be shut down. You deny the emotional force of your statements, and resort to technicalities.

[Zhade]

367. I think you give my statements more credit than I do!

I didn't really think that my words had all that much emotional force, to be honest. And again, I don't WANT the discussion to end, I just think her post rendered it pointless to continue, because as I said I believe she nailed it, if rather forcefully.

People are free to continue the discussion. I just believe everything's pretty much been said, and this is going to devolve into personal attacks or redundant points. That's all my statement meant.

[bigmonkey]

373. As you have emphasized -

the poster is not in control of how their words are taken. I have no animosity towards you, I just can't let this stuff go past without saying something. Especially in the current dire world circumstances, finding ways to prevent other people from reaching out is not very helpful. The OP has said, specifically, that she's very sensitive to other's emotions. I am too, I'm just very inured.

[Zhade]

383. I have nothing against you, or HER, either.

Bu the fact remains, and I'm saying this again - I don't WANT the discussion ended, I just don't feel it's productive at this point.

I think Heddi made excellent points. Angry? Yes. Cogent? Yes.

You think she's sensitive? I can't count how many times I've been told I'm a woman because I wear my emotions on my sleeve (yes, a dumb comment). I'm not out of her league in understanding all this, it's just that I find her whining about the persecution that may go with the TAG label to be disingenuous when SHE'S the one who applied the label!

It's like bitching about having to pay $600 a month for a Lexus when you signed the lease. Self-indulgent victimhood is so dumb.

[bigmonkey]

325. You just shared the very kind of thing that was solicited originally.

In the original thread, that is, not this one. Who are you attacking? The OP, or the people who have attacked her? You seem to be saying that both have been disdainful, either intentionally or unintentionally. I'd agree.

You say you were labelled "gifted" at least three times, and also many times say that you never tell anyone about it. My only point is, doesn't the intensity of your post show that there is something for people to share about this experience? Maybe we don't have to all clam up and put our heads down? The OP herself was mentioning, in the original thread, just such experiences as you've mentioned. Maybe you don't have to go it alone, that's my focus.

I'm beginning to wonder, myself, whether the trouble we're seeing in these threads isn't "divide and conquer", either conscious or internalized.

[distantearlywarning]

330. Wow. This is an extremely harsh post.

It made me feel a little sick when I read it. I had no idea that there were people out there who thought this way, or who hated me this much.

My first reaction was to list all of my adult accomplishments to "prove" that I wasn't just re-living the glory days of my age 12 gifted classes (which weren't that glorious, to tell you the truth - I wouldn't do it again if you paid me). But then I realized that this is pretty much a lose-lose situation. If I don't say anything about what I've done since junior high school advanced English, you assume I'm an adult loser living in my mother's basement, or worse yet, working as a BANK TELLER (the horror!) If I send my vita via PM, you accuse me of thinking I'm better than everyone else and bragging. That's how it works, right?

So, forget it. Just assume I live in my mother's basement and go to work every morning at my low class bank job where I am totally socially inept and pathetic, and I won't bother thinking up ways to show you that I'm a decent, ok person who gets my feelings dreadfully hurt by internet strangers who don't even know anything about me.

BTW, I participated in those other threads, and I supported the formation of mopinko's group. I never called anyone "normal" or "mundane". I never said I was better than anyone else (whatever the hell that means anyway - define "better"). I suck at math too. I probably qualify as LD in math, if anyone ever bothered to test me. And for your info, I was always the kid at school standing up for the people everyone else picked on, which half the time at my snotty school were the poor kids and the ones in remedial learning. The other half of the time it was the smart ones getting the crap beat out of them, and I stood up for them too, and I was one myself. I was never, not once, the kid picking on someone else. The thought of doing that to anyone for any reason revolts me. I don't have the heart to be cruel to anyone because they are different than me.

Kids tease one another, sure, like you said, but some kids get it worse than others, and those kids are the ones at the ends of the bell curve for whatever trait you want to look at, intelligence, looks, socioeconomic class, race, or whatever. And those kids are the least able to deal with it. The cheerleaders can brush off being called "slut" because they know they have the social power and lots of friends to support them. The kid with the IQ of 140 or 75 can't do that as easily, and it's painful.

Anyway, I don't know what else to say. I guess I just wanted to let you know that I was shocked by your post, and the anger and bitterness in it. I'm sorry people looked down on you and that their behavior helped create that post. That's sad. And I wanted to let you know that you hurt my feelings. I probably wasn't the only one who was hurt either.

[Finder]

335. There are many shocking posts but...

I don't think the poster(Heddi) meant to be cruel.(although I am not thrilled with a couple of posts directed at me and the OP)Just the anti-social nature of gifted people?lol

Like Heddi, I have never come out as a labeled "gifted" child. Notice I am not saying I am gifted, only that I was labeled as such. I think that was the gist of Mopinkos wanting to start a group.

I did "come out" on one of Mopinkos threads because it was about issues many of us had to deal with at one time and many of us still deal with. Is that not why people want support groups?

There would not be a need for a support group if everyone was supportive.

[distantearlywarning]

342. I'm sure some people here won't believe this, but

I realized while thinking about all of this over the last week that this is the first time I have ever discussed the fact that I was labeled "gifted" with any person in my adult life other than my husband (and it's not like we have that conversation on a daily basis over the dinner table either). It's not a subject that ever came up in conversation in the last 12 years of my life, and I didn't bring it up.

I have, however, thought a lot over the last 12 years about why I just don't seem to fit in anywhere ever. After reading mopinko's original threads, what people were saying just struck a chord with me. Their experiences were my experiences. Maybe it's a "formerly gifted/still gifted" thing and maybe it's not. Maybe I, like some other random people here are just society's albatrosses, so to speak. I wanted to talk about it, but had no clue whatsoever that there would be so much animosity about it. My experiences on DU pretty much ensure that I will make an effort never to bring the subject up in polite company ever again, believe me. People saying the kinds of things to my face that have been written here would surely make me cry and feel totally humiliated and like a bad person for being who I am, and I want to avoid that. I've had quite enough of that in my life already.

Something Heidi said upthread resonated, though. She talked about bullying and how crappy people are to one another. She said that lots of people face that kind of behavior from others, and why does it have to be about the gifted all the time. Well, nobody ever said it had to be about the gifted. That just happened to be Mopinko's particular issue. This conversation could have been about growing up learning disabled, growing up poor in a rich school, looking different, being different in pretty much any other way and being shit on because of it.

Maybe that's the group we need. The different group. People who were bullied and harrassed by others because of something they couldn't control, be that something like high intelligence, which is supposed to have social status attached to it (and thus makes people angry when you talk about it and makes it socially ok for others to be mean to you about it), or something that is less "desirable" in the eyes of society (which makes one ashamed and feel deficient).

[Heddi]

340. Does it not occur to you

that those who have participated in these threads, those who have been called "normal" and "average" and "mundane" and "regular" have THEIR feelings hurt as well by these labels?

Have you not read the plethora of "I am the smartest person in the room" posts that abound in this thread as well as those in the past?

Do you not think that such things are hurtful to others?

Have you not read the posts that boast about supreme intellectual ability and how absolutely dreadful it is to have to deal with people who have such non-existent intelligence? Think that might be hurtful?

How about when posters suggest that maybe being "gifted" goes beyond how you score on the gifted test, and they are shot down and assured that if they were TRULY gifted, they would be labeled so. Or when posters suggest that inate ability to play a musical instrumen isn't REALLY a gift...the ability to LEARN QUICKLY to play that intstrument is, however.

Think those might be hurtful words as well?

Look--I was tormented daily in school and for the very longest time I was so CERTAIN it was because I was in G&T classes. That the other kids were jealous of me. That they were jealous of my grades and the special classes I got to take.

Maybe they were. Maybe they tormented me because I was a boor. Maybe they tormented me because the special classes I was in was a daily rub in their faces that I was somehow more "special" than them. And all the fieldtrips I went on while they were stuck in remedial reading, or remedial math---no, that wouldn't DARE form a bit of anger in the hearts and minds of 11 year olds. I mean, we all know that 11 year olds are fully functioning, logical thinkers with fully developed minds, right?

It wasn't until I was older and in college--when I had first realized that I was NOT the smartest person in the room, or in the grade, or even in the school. Heck, I wasn't even near being the smartest person in the STATE---which is NOT what I had been led to believe by the administrators of the G&T program. See, we were VERY smart and VERY talented and VERY much better than people who were NOT in that program.

Imagine my surprise when I got to college and was out of my cherry picked classes of the same 20 people for 12 years and realized that there are not only people who are ALOT smarter than me, but that "Smartness" comes in so many different flavours. Music, Arts, Reading, Literature, Writing, Comprehension, Logic, Science....

But I wasn't exposed to that in school. For being gifted, we were quite homogoneous. All the same grades, all the same strengths, all the same weaknesses. And we were cocooned in our little classroom, sheltered from those awful "normals" and their mundane ways of learning. Flash Cards? Those are for babies!

It was then, when I was in college, that I realized what a fucking sham the whole idea of being "gifted" was. So many people I knew were never tested as "gifted" and they had marginal grades in school, yet excelled in the 'Real world" of post-highschool life. They are successful and happy and content with their lives and they are not one bit smaller because of their lack of giftedness.

My comment about the bank-teller valedictorian was to illustrate (which perhaps I did badly) the fact that here is this girl--she was a good friend of mine--my best friend, actually---until I was dropped from honours classes because of my dismal math grades. She was in National Honor Society, got like 20w9er80w9e809 scholarships, and generally refused to speak with me once I wasn't honours-level because it was bad for her image (her words). SHe routinely made crass comments about non-gifted-labeled kids, their lack of ambition, how they'll be working for minimum wage, how her life was one big yellow brick road laid out before her, how she was going to get her MBA and law degree and have her own firm and pitty that none of THEM will ever even go to community college, MUCH LESS law school! Scoff!

But here she is at 30. No law degree. Just a bachelors from a sub-rate Christian school. All of her puffery did nothing but inflate her overly inflated self-esteem. She looked DOWN on anyone who was not pulling in $200k a year. And yet here she is, working as a bank teller.

I have nothing against bank tellers at all---I have 2 in my family. I have nothing against anyoen in any job. But what I am against is people who feel that their intellectual superiority means they'll never have to scrape by, that they're better than everyone and I think there's a bit of kharmic justice in her present job. I doubt she makes $200,000 a year---but by gum, anone else BESIDES her that does is a dumbed down loser.

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. My intention was never to hurt anyone's feelings. I just wanted to put into perspective that people are teased for a variety of reasons, not always the reasons we (teh tormented) think they are. Being gifted and being teased does not mean you were teased because you were gifted. It means you were gifted, and you were teased. Most likely, you were teased becase you were a kid, who went to school with other kids, who did things that they thought other kids would find cool. Teasing is just one of the myriad of ways that kids accomplish "being cool"

[conflictgirl]

372. Please remember that your former best friend is NOT typical of everyone

Just because you had a good friend who looked down on people who weren't in honors classes or assumed that they would be forever relegated to minimum wage jobs, does not mean that most people who have been labeled gifted feel the same way.

Whoever used the word "mundane" was wrong to use that term. But normal, average, regular, etc are NOT insults. For example, if people are describing body types and there are categories like petite, average, and plus size, is average an insult in that case? Some people do look down on others, even in those threads, but some people are also reading insult where there is none intended. I also think it's part of the language in which people go overboard trying to come up with names for categories of people that WON'T be perceived as offensive. (See: adding -American to the end of almost any ethnic group. Most black people I know call themselves black, not African-American. I took an "African American History" course last semester and talked to one of the black students afterward. She said that she and several others used to get a laugh out of how all the white students would lower their voice when saying "African-American" or "black" in class. Here we were, learning about all the injustices that whites had put on blacks, and now we were extra-conscious about wanting to prove that we were respectful. Many people have no idea which term they're supposed to use. I think the same thing was occuring in the gifted threads.)

I did not, however, read any posts in which anyone said it is 'absolutely dreadful it is to have to deal with people who have such non-existent intelligence' - can you link to one, or were you reading between the lines and assuming that was what someone meant?

I do agree with one of the above posters who said that it seems like you can't win when discusssing this issue. If you say you're gifted at all, someone will challenge your right to claim that label; if you were tested, then the validity of the tests are called into question and if you weren't tested then someone thinks you're just trying to claim special status without anything to back it up. If someone thinks you're a snob because you mention that you were labeled gifted, you might try to explain that you didn't think the label was anything to be proud of because you were an outcast because of it, people say you're in victim mode. If you mention any positives of it to counteract the victim mode, you're bragging. :banghead:

I did say that I didn't necessarily think there was a need for a whole separate forum, and I can see why that might rub some people the wrong way. But yet the reaction to the threads got to the point of being downright insulting to anyone labeled gifted, so that made it seem like maybe there really was a need for a separate forum.

I do absolutely believe that there is a need for different education for students who would be labeled gifted. I also absolutely believe that setting a certain group of kids aside creates problems at both ends of the spectrum. But mainstreaming the LD kids and advanced kids in with everybody else means that the kids on both ends of the spectrum won't have their needs met. Education is, as you probably know, usually treated as a "one size fits all" situation. If schools had the leeway to have smaller teacher/student ratios that would allow for more individualized attention, a lot of the problem would be solved. But it costs less to establish a separate "gifted" program than to incorporate the best aspects of the gifted program in all classes and shrink the class sizes.

I really wish we could discuss this issue without the insults and the defensiveness. There are some VERY interesting underlying issues in this whole discussion of giftedness - the way our society does or does not value intelligence, the whole issue of "mainstreaming" in schools in general, how the school systems would function best, etc. But it's unfortunate that people on both sides seem to be having trouble getting past that it's all about the gifted issue.

[bigmonkey]

376. Amen!

n/t

[Skidmore]

353. Why would you assume that the kid with the lower IQ doesn't

feel the pain of putdown? Why would you assume that they brush it off? More often than not that pain is channelled into acting out or dysfunctional behavior.

We all grow up eventually and hopefully develop coping skills with maturity. We learn to deal with rejection and pain and learn to find avenues in which we can succeed.

[distantearlywarning]

366. Sorry, I don't know what you mean.

Go back and read the post again. In it, I stated very clearly that the kid with the lower IQ would feel the "pain of putdown" more so than your average high school popular kid, and at least as much as the gifted kid. Further, I have never suggested otherwise in any post I have ever made on this topic.

[Zhade]

334. THANK you. That's exactly why these threads rankle people.

I know it's a typo, but you've just invented a new term - "poasters", people who post to boast (of their self-identified "giftedness", for example).

You know, it's true, everything you said. Your post really should be the end of these stupid (ha!) self-puffery threads.

"Life your life based on the abilities you have now and those that you wish to hone and grow. Don't rely on some sub-par standardized test that isn't ANY indication of intellect, intelligence, craft, skill, or giftedness."

If you've read about my experiences above, you know how very much I agree with that sentiment. YES! That's what everyone should do. Pursue your joy, man, and forget the grade-school labels.

[bigmonkey]

337. I think you've revealed something.

That you dislike this very discussion so much, that you actually want to shut it down. I find myself disgusted. What arrogance.

[Zhade]

348. Shut it down? You clearly misunderstood me.

I think the post I replied to said it all, and no more needs to be said.

That's a far cry from demanding the discussion be shut down. But hey, if people like you are so gifted, you must know that, right?

Sounds like her post, and mine, hit pretty close to home.

[bigmonkey]

360. Re-read your triumphant 334.

Perhaps it was just misinterpreted on my part, just as some of the other comments might have been misinterpreted by you?

"You know, it's true, everything you said. Your post really should be the end of these stupid (ha!) self-puffery threads."

[Zhade]

369. I've addressed this above, hopefully.

NT!

[union_maid]

332. There are no "normies" on DU

Just being here is an indication of people who are very interested in substantive issues, whether or not they also have time in their lives for American Idol or whatever's going on with the latest Jessica. If you're not lucky enough to work in a lefty non-profit (I am) or something like that, you're going to have a hard time finding people to talk about the kinds of things that most interest you. That's what's great about the internets.

Now, about kids. I had two - both of whom are now adults. The older was a very average child. She was pretty decent at music, but she had to work very hard at getting good grades and her attempts at sports never ended happily for her. We really didn't pressure her. We were happy with the effort and when she had trouble with a subject, we just tried to get her help when she really needed it. A very perceptive secondary school teacher found talents that weren't so obvious, helped her develop them and as it turns out, she is gifted and talented. Just not in ways that showed during elementary school - or that helped her with some required courses in high school or college.

The other was definitely gifted and talented and born under a lucky star. He could do anything well. He got great grades whether he studied or not. He was a natural athlete. He wasn't just decent at music, he was always the best in his age group. He got a bunch of awards at every award giving occasion. He was in the Honor Society. Our biggest worry with him was whether he was learning to make an effort at a thing.

Which kid do you think suffered more in school? It was the average one. She was quite a bit older and she didn't have to compare herself to her younger brother, but she felt like she was butting her head against the wall trying to learn advanced math and science. She wanted to excel and be a star sometimes and it seldom really happened for her. I think she's over it, but I also think it took her to some bad places in early adulthood. All I'm saying is that every kid has his or her problems to deal with and all parents have to try to figure out the best way to help their kids.

[KoKo]

341. Well...Mopinko...I think you kind of "set yourself up for this" and many

here (not me and a few others) saw you whining about the "trials and tribulations" of being identified as "Gifted and Talented."

I had no problem with your proposed "Group" but the "underbelly of DU" which isn't often exposed is VERY POPULIST for the "Little Guy" who hasn't gotten a break.

Both sides of the issue sort of got exposed with your "proposed Group" and while I wish it could have gotten approval....Skinner gave it the "No Go!"

I agree with you that "anti-intellectualism" reigns in that we have "Manicured Haired Bimbo's and Bimbettes (Male/Female) reporting our news sayng "You GUYS" to any and everyone and not capable of proper pronunciation or grammer on CNN/MSNBC and when our OWN P-RESIDENT uses SHIT and says to the Prime Minister of GB..."YO Blair" and says: "Russia is Big, China is Big....I gotta get home for something." then one does wonder about
our "eduction system" in America.

But many DU'ers thought that the "DU Group" would become like an "Elitist Think Tank" spewing out stuff here on this site.

It was our "Common Woman/Man" sensibilities that might have done you in....

:shrug:

[bigmonkey]

345. It's a little unfair to characterize mopinko that way.

Whining? And this thread was originally intended to address the negative consequences of that "populist underbelly." You want to leave it that it's immovable?

[RagingInMiami]

378. As a proud member of DU's populist underbelly (Love that label, KoKo01)

I can assure you that my resentment towards any self-perceived elitism does not compel me into voting against a smart democrat.

The original point of this thread was to compare those who were against the proposed group to those who voted against Gore because they were threatened by his intellect.

I would be surprised if any DUer who spoke out against the group also voted against Gore on the basis that he was too smart. I would be shocked.

[bigmonkey]

382. Just pointing out,

_this_ thread was mopinko's attempt to focus more on the issue of anti-intellectualism, and how it might affect the Democrats. I realize that your emotions, and the emotions of many, have run high about this, but it's still true that you are "responding" to issues not strictly in this line of discussion.

Maybe everyone's emotions have run long enough that tiredness can get us to reconciliation of a sort. Your reaction to perceived (I would say misperceived) elitism could easily have come down against Gore, who was accused of wordlessly dissing people, of acting "elitist." I'm glad to hear you won't be voting against "know-it-alls."

[Zhade]

355. SELF-identified, at that. Railing about being mistreated for the label...

...she applied to herself out of her belief that she's gifted.

I mean, hey, believe that about yourself all you want. It might even be true. But to piss and moan about how the "mundanes" (granted, not sure if SHE used that exact term) hold you back from achieving the potential you believe you have based on...your belief, is arrogant and silly.

And like I've said, it gets in the way of using whatever alleged gifts you may really have! Which is why I get so irritated with people who obsess about titles and labels from grade school (and even more so when no such labels were ever earned in grade school) - it furthers the idea that "gifted and talented" people somehow are more unique, more special than others.

They're not, and often less happy, because they have to live up to an ideal that often isn't attainable due to intelligent peoples' inclination to overinflate their abilities.

Just stop worrying about BEING gifted, and use those gifts to fulfill yourself. Stop fucking WHINING about not living up to some nebulous potential and just ENJOY WHAT YOU LIKE.

It's much healthier, in my experienced opinion.

[bigmonkey]

358. The tragedy is that you and the OP basically agree.

What you say in this post is completely compatible with her original thread. If you could just react with some detachment, instead of condemnation. She was not originally obsessing about titles, she was musing about how the labelling had affected her, and how the decisions she had made then and thereafter might have been thereby influenced.

Jeepers. You guys just insist on the last, snarky word.

[Zhade]

364. Wait a minute here. Your argument (or hers) makes no sense.

"She was not originally obsessing about titles, she was musing about how the labeling had affected her"

SHE APPLIED THE LABEL TO HERSELF, and now she's bitching about how it's affected her? She is apparently not recognized by any authority, save her own mind, as gifted and talented. Yet she's bitching about how HER OWN SELF-LABELING has affected her?

Might I suggest that if she didn't have such an overblown sense of self-importance, of her alleged giftedness compared to others, based all on her own belief that she is such, she might not feel so persecuted?

We don't agree at ALL. She's harping on being "gifted", I think focusing on BEING anything is, frankly, stupid and detrimental to personal happiness and growth.

How that's agreeing is beyond me!

[bigmonkey]

370. She wanted to talk about the cluster of experiences around this labeling.

That was how I read it, and some other people as well. You also have things to say, that would have been helpful in the original proposed discussion. Instead, even though you could discuss this on another level, you have focussed on personal attacks. That's what's hard to understand, this personal, vindictive, dismissive attitude. Where does it come from?

And stop "SHOUTING!"

[distantearlywarning]

374. I don't understand the "self-labeling" argument.

I suppose it depends on what you define as "gifted", but if you go by the strictest definition, she would be saying "I attended a gifted and talented class when I was in school". If this is technically true, regardless of what that actually means in terms of IQ, fast learning, or whatever, then by calling herself gifted she is just making a statement about reality. On the other hand, the use of the term "self-labeling" implies some kind of lie or dishonesty (at least to me in the context of these comments).

So, did she lie or didn't she? If she actually was in TAG or similar in school, then her statement about being a gifted person is as factual as saying she has red hair or lives in Minnesota. You can argue about what that actually means in terms of the real world if you want, but it remains a true statement, and not one that she "made up" or used to "self-label". Even if she is dumb as a bag of hammers and was in TAG because her parents paid her principal $1000 to fudge the tests, the fact that she belonged to that particular social group might have negatively affected her interactions with her peers, leading her to seek out others in adulthood to commiserate with.

[mopinko]

384. my "label"

no, i was not in a tag program. that stuff is after my time. beside, i went to catholic school.
the usual threshold is testing in the top 2%, or sometimes 5%, on standardized tests. (i realize that many equally intelligent people do not score up to their actual ability due to a lot of things, from cultural bias to test anxiety. that doesn't mean that the whole thing is meaningless, tho.)
i never scored below 98% until i was in high school. i started dropping down to the 95's in math computation, since i had no need to hone my skills. i was already hated by everyone in my math classes. (the teachers gave me hell for trying to help the other kids, also.)
there are lots of gifts that don't show up on those tests, as i have included repeatedly, and i have several of those, also. i am an artist. i have artistic talent. that is not to say that my work is great, just that i have good function in the parts of my brain that you use to make art.
i have good 3 dimensional visualization, and enjoyed a lot about my years as a union apprentice carpenter. got tired of this type of crap there, as well, tho. the boys didn't like it that, on the day that they taught 3 dimensional projection, i was done in less than an hour, and told to go home. or that i could read blueprints without being taught.
i could go on if i wanted to. no brag, just fact. but i don't even understand why this is an issue, since i never had any intention of making anybody prove anything.

[Zhade]

385. But it's not true, by her own words she never attended those.

Never tested for the program. Apparently, it didn't exist when she was in school.

So she's complaining about bad experiences with being labeled "gifted and talented" when SHE'S the one who applied the label.

It's arrogant, and silly.

[RagingInMiami]

365. But she labeled herself

[Raksha]

380. Oh, well clearly YOU are SOOOO much better than ME

because you're so much HEALTHIER and HAPPIER, while *I* OTOH am a "whiner" because I self-identify with the "gifted" group!

Re >>They're not, and often less happy, because they have to live up to an ideal that often isn't attainable due to intelligent peoples' inclination to overinflate their abilities.

Just stop worrying about BEING gifted, and use those gifts to fulfill yourself. Stop fucking WHINING about not living up to some nebulous potential and just ENJOY WHAT YOU LIKE.

It's much healthier, in my experienced opinion.<<

Hell, it's probably true! I imagine you ARE a much happier, healthier, better-adjusted and less dysfunctional person than I am. That would not be very difficult to be at all. Just don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, okay?

Maybe now you'll get it, although I'm not too optimistic on that score. I'm hoping you'll re-read your own post and see just how much self-vouching and self-congratulation is being done by those who (for whatever reason) do not self-identify as gifted--whether they actually are or not, which I have no way of knowing.

I do know when someone is being snarky, smug and self-satisfied. That's immediately obvious, and doesn't even require a high IQ to figure out.

[countingbluecars]

371. Have you ever considered

volunteering to work with brain damaged or mentally handicapped people? You just might learn to appreciate your gifts and grow up.

[pinto]

386. Locking.

This has gone on long enough it seems. There's not much left to say in this round robin that hasn't been said, debated, alerted and rerun for another go 'round.

Thanks for your consideration.