Freeman identified that it’s simple to squelch this hearth by stuffing youngsters to the gills with school-type studying. It’s simple to smash a life by treating an individual, irrespective of how gifted, as a mind on a stick. “In spite of everything these years,” she wrote, “I’m sure that to take only one facet of a kid’s life, giftedness, as a foundation for making choices which is able to have an effect on them for the remainder of their lives is to danger their emotional steadiness, and even their success in life.”
The underside line is that we have to put intelligence as a replacement. We have to worth it and put precocious youngsters in settings the place they’re nurtured and stretched. However we don’t wish to overvalue it. In my opinion, it’s loopy that many prime universities search for college students who scored over 1300 or 1400 on their SATs and reject most candidates under that. That’s inserting too excessive a price on a slim facet of capacity.
Once you take a look at who actually achieves nice issues, you discover that almost all of them weren’t prodigies. They didn’t wow folks at age 18, however over the course of their maturity they discovered some deep curiosity in one thing, and so they achieved mastery. Lots of society’s nice contributors didn’t have an simply identifiable extraordinary capacity; they’d the proper combination of slight benefits and character traits that got here collectively in the proper method.
A recurring notion in Freeman’s e-book is “If I had stopped at ….” If she had stopped interviewing one particular person at 20, she wouldn’t have seen how a glittering childhood led to a tragic maturity. If she had stopped at 40, she wouldn’t have seen how a previously misplaced particular person discovered his method. Lives are astonishingly nonlinear. In his e-book “Youngster Prodigies and Distinctive Early Achievers,” John Radford argued that it’s practically unimaginable to foretell grownup mastery from giftedness in childhood.
Sure, a baby born extraordinarily clever is fortunate and more likely to do properly, however as Lubinski and Benkow talked about of their dialog with me, we wish to see every particular person complete. I’d put it this fashion: It’s good to know who is nice at taking intelligence checks, nevertheless it’s extra essential to know who’s lit by an internal hearth.
The Occasions is dedicated to publishing a range of letters to the editor. We’d like to listen to what you consider this or any of our articles. Listed below are some suggestions. And right here’s our e mail: letters@nytimes.com.
Observe The New York Occasions Opinion part on Fb, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.
