Oh, yes! Generally speaking, the average 2.5yo doesn't actually play, 1-on-1-style, with a 5yo. They're still in the parallel play stage, with little interaction. From what you described, I don't think any of us doubt that you have a GT child--and probably an HG+ child--on your hands.

Second-guessing yourself is normal. But it's good to get past it quickly and start seeing what you're really dealing with. Parenting these kids is wonderful...and hard...and scary..and even heartbreaking sometimes. But the sooner you realize what you have on your hands, the sooner you can start dealing with reality.

You're about 3.5 years ahead of where I was when I figured it out! Good on ya'!

Now the journey begins!

Ha! I really envy the people who are so ahead of the game on this issue.

It sounds like you're doing everything right to me! A day care situation where he can interact with bigger kids sounds ideal.

Even thought I didn't know my son was GT until 6, I was home with him as a preschooler and just followed his lead. I just assumed every other preschooler out there pursued science experiments and was obsessed in great detail with bacteria, germs, plumbing, electrical work, furnaces, etc. I don't think my son is too scarred by me not knowing just by following his lead and listening to my intuition. He attended a very part time play based preschool that was totally open ended and had a science component to it. It worked out quite well.

You'll want to continually reasses the day care/preschool situation but the status quo sounds really great!

Good morning,

OK Kriston, as an upper white family, I think I can call it as I see it. My DH was even more critical of Ruf's book. He thought it was a total ego stroker. She never said what she used to define her levels except some subjettive standard she had of measuring motivation. She did not even say how she observed these differences in motivation, how long, over what period of time. It was purely her judgement.

And her projections of penetration of these giftedness. Half the class in an upper class neighborhood of highly educated people.

If someone is new, as I was, and reads references to Ruf like it is the forum's bible, I think it fair to say what others think.

Clearly Mamabird has an amazing child. And there is a lot of great advice here. I think it is important to provide reviews of recommendations. Because when I read Ruf's book I posted a question, saying why is this so great because I had not seen a contrary opinion.

Ruf's book is interesting, but not scientific.

Ren

Ren,

For what it's worth, Ruf's work in LOG was pretty much spot on describing my two girls. From the apgar score and alertness at birth, to the early sight reading, santa clause, so on and so on.
I don't consider it "the bible" on gifted and I think most intelligent adults would realize that to do so wouldn't make much sense.
Obviously if it doesn't apply to a child, that doesn't mean the child is not gifted.
I never read the book, probably should. I got my info on her descriptions of LOG she posts online for free.
I'm not convinced she would post the meat of her results for free online if her motivation was purely the pursuit of money.
Besides, I haven't seen her on TV at 3:00a.m.!!
But to disregard all of her(Ruf) work because it may not apply to your child, is pretty unscientific as well, I'd think.

Peace,
Incog

I totally get what you are saying Kimck, and in many ways share those feelings. But in others, I likewise lament the loss of those "carefree and innocent" days. When my kids were 2, 4 and 6, I had a pretty good idea that all three had strengths over many kids, and that DS was pretty smart. But given their ages, it was virtually a non-issue for the most part.

Thankfully DD1 was tall, as we started her early in school primarily for that reason. She was clearly "ready" for preschool and kindergarten before hitting the legal age, but I hadn't yet thought at all about how IQ/numbers/data factored into that decision! In my mind she only missed by a few weeks, and that was the driving factor.

I think I was fortunate in having what Grinity calls a "cluster grouping" right in my house, and most of our close friends have kids in the GT program. Around these "peers", life was fine. We are fortunate to live in an area with a high 120+ population, and it was only when DS really stuck out in that crowd that I needed to search for answers.

I miss those days of "normalcy", .

That said....my advice to Mamabird would be to keep good records, but don't worry too much about the future just yet. He's clearly a bright boy, and you are wise to think ahead and adjust his enriching opportunities accordingly, but you also have plenty of time to figure things out. It's a nice treat to read about the little ones, so please do stick around. I can hardly remember those years, .

It's not your opinion I have trouble with, it's the nasty, insulting tone you're taking. As I said, it's perfectly possible to state your valid problems with Ruf's method and sample size without insulting others.

It's not the first time you've been disrespectful to those of us on the forum, though it is the most glaring example. So I'm calling it as I see it.

While there are plenty of contrary opinions on the forum about Ruf--we had a lively and interesting debate about her work not long ago--everyone managed to discuss the book without turning the conversation into a personal attack, as you have done.

You don't have to like Ruf. You are welcome to tell us that you don't like Ruf. But if Ruf is an ego-stroker, pure and simple, then those of us who found help in her books must be too stupid to see that she's a snake-oil salesman. That's unfair and it's mean. What's more, you can make your point without resorting to such treatment of others. Civil disagreement is possible.

Her work has helped a lot of us. We are educated, intelligent people who read a lot, and her work helped us. Insulting us helps no one, and it might very well chase away someone who found help through Ruf's book because she's going to think this forum is unfriendly to her and her child. I won't put up with that. That's not the forum I joined.

I'm asking you to please be polite. That's all I'm asking for.

Now Kriston, I was trying to change the subject, LOL!

I have to say, I wasn't a huge fan of the book at first, but having met Dr. Ruf personally, I found her to be such an emotional speaker, that I've learned to just accept her less than concrete statements as an understanding approach to the fact that people don't always fall into scientific boxes.

I love my numbers....but the more I analyze data to the extreme, the more I see their very real limitations. Dr. Ruf has a somewhat alternative approach that adds to the picture more than it takes away.

And yes, let's please all be polite! This is one of the few boards I've come across that has always had that aspect, and I'd hate to lose it.

I know what you mean too! After I typed my response in, I thought that I kind of feel bad about following my DD3 around with my GT radar now on. I felt like DS's preschool years were so fun and carefree and exploratory. Our area sounds very similar. Most of our friend's kids would definitely qualify for a general GT program.

I think this is part of the reason that homeschooling is looking better all the time since we have the ability to do it right now. Creating our own cluster!

Sorry, Dottie! We crossposted. It took me some time to compose that message and myself...

Yes, please, change the subject!

One of the reasons we didn't realize just how bright DS6 is, I think, is because at least 3 of the kids in our playgroup were at least vanilla GT, and one of those I'm sure is MG or maybe even HG. It made me think that they were average and DS was MG.

Those natural clusters can be good in some ways and distracting in others...

They're great for HSing though!