The assertion that this is the prevailing scientific thought is purely anecdotal.

Well, he teaches gifted education at the Hunter College of education. But this is what I found:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011105073104.htm

Which disagrees with what he said. In fact, he mentioned twins separated and having different IQ scores. But the article I posted says differently.

So I said what he told me, I questioned the findings myself and I looked it up.

Ren

Did anyone happen to see the national geographic video on Susan Polgar, the chess grand master? It showed how her brain was programmed (by her father making her read thousands of chess books) at an early age to instantly recognize patterns in chess. Then the scientists studied her brain to see if it was different from normal. After seeing the video, I agree to an extent that your brain can be programmed into being "smarter." But this poor woman appeared to have nothing else in her young life except chess. And it seems like her father was a gifted chess player too, which wasn't mentioned in the documentary. But it was very interesting. Here's a link to the video:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/11/national-geographic-documentary.html

Wren,
I'm not disregarding his or any other opinion. I'm just saying I don't think it's a representative agreement of the whole scientific community.
Personally, I think it's a combination or nature and nurture, just like anything else.

From my reading, it is my understanding the scientific community feels it is about 50:50 nature:nurture.

I'm reading a fascinating book "Spark" by Dr. Ratey on how new neurons are formed and how exercise affects cognitive function. Very interesting! Now whether this would affect only achievement and not ability, I don't know but intriguing nonetheless.

Agreed, 'Neato. It seems patently obvious that there must be SOME nature component.

If you have no brain matter, you cannot be GT. Physically impossible. So there is some nature there. Genetic factors seem to set the ceiling for what a person can learn. I didn't research this--no coffee yet this morning!--but it seems to fit all that we know about genetics and psychology. Then, after physiology and genetics have set the ceiling, environmental stimulation allows a child to grow into that potential, or lack of environmental stimulation stifles intellectual growth. So some kids start with a higher IQ than others because of the genetic lottery, while for others, a positive learning environment allows them to achieve more than they might have done without such stimulation.

This doesn't seem to me to be at all controversial. <shrug>

Directing growth through hothousing can probably make a child a better performer in one area, but I really think that strategy works against all natural brain development. Focusing all attention on one thing all the time--like chess--is not the way the brain *wants* to develop. In my experience, kids have "ripe periods" for things like math and language, times when they're just ready to learn that subject matter. I suspect that ignoring these natural growth tendencies in order to hothouse something else might actually delay development overall, though I only have my own experiences as a parent to support that claim.

If Susan Polgar hadn't been hothoused in chess, for example, would she have been GT at something else other than chess? Or would she have been GT at chess AND other things, but all the focus on chess actually prevented her from developing other talents? (Disclaimer: I didn't watch the documentary.)

We'd need an alternate universe to try all the "what if" scenarios to know what really works best.

But if we want to develop kids into happy, productive adults who grow in ALL areas--including socially and emotionally--I think there's ample evidence that hothousing in the early years is a lousy idea. Following the child's lead is a much better way to maintain for life the child's natural love of learning.

I wondered this while watching the video. My thoughts were that not everyone would be able to trained this way (at least not to the same extent)- there must be some genetic component too. I think her family (her sisters are chess masters too, same training) must be GT to start out, and the training pushed them further. Just my thoughts.

I agree with following the child's lead. Much healthier, IMHO.

This is how I understand it also!

I think most folks agree that an optimal environment is necessary to achieve intelligence potential, which is inherited. What people disagree on is what that optimal environment is. I think the optimal environment is pretty bare-bones, i.e., a "good enough" environment, within which a person can develop at their own pace. Kids are smart in developing their smartness and messing with that by intense training in specific areas, while influencing brain development, doesn't change their overall functional intelligence IMHO. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - so perhaps messing with nature through training that is not self-initiated may cause another skill area to suffer. Then again, I could be completely wrong and my parents cost me several IQ points by not making sure I did those math workbooks they got for me...

LOL - after all the reading i've done after being informed that DS4 is HG+, I have certainly wondered if my IQ perhaps was decreased since my parents chose to ignore the fact that I was identified as gifted. But I sure had a happy childhood, so it all worked out!