Talk:Child prodigy

Unmarked Spoilers

This article reveals the ending of the TV series Doogie Houser MD without any warning. Perhaps the article should be revised to be more general about the ending so as to not give it away. -FoxMajik 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Big deletion

I doing a giant deletion of material from this article. I am deleting the large sections of original research. The article appears to have been tagged for a year now.

Before replacing any deleted material, please write on the importance here of each part being replaced, and make sure that the replaced parts have complete CITATIONS. wes 15:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted material

Here are paragraphs I have deleted:

It is vital to note that the activity of parts of the brain which share a functional role with a more researched function, like visual and spatial memory, is only correlational, and may only indicate that they share some functions at a higher or lower level. One may point out that many mathematicians and theoretical physicists are completely hopeless in labs, falling victim to the annoying habit of constantly losing items . The idea of a Long Term Working Memory is only an abstraction, and psychology may be better served by a different set of such memory abstractions. LTWM is a surprisingly minimal abstraction, in the sense that it is rather obvious that the details of a problem remain lodged in our memory until we have let go of it. It is also as fuzzy as its definition, bearing on the meaning of 'field', 'expertise', and 'extended periods'.

(...)

Prodigies, regardless of their portrayal, are people, and as such are generally confined by much the same constraints on learning and emotional issues that most people deal with. It is impossible to learn to play tennis in a prison, and it is rewarding to learn music with encouragement. One cannot spontaneously have knowledge beam itself from the heavens into one's head: at least some time, and therefore energy, is required to learn and absorb the proper skill set. Emotions play an incredibly important role (as in almost all people), from the catastrophic tendencies exhibited by stereotypical examples of 'tortured geniuses', to the obvious distracting quality of bouts of uncontrollable depression, to the less tangible and poorly understood qualities of the effects of emotions on one's creativity and general thought patterns. Finally, if the person is particularly determined, stable, passionate, cheerful, focused, and energetic, they will likely fare better than a lethargic, and unhappy person of nebulous will or intent.

(...)

The tragic happening strikes many as a captivating and defining plotline. The vehicle upon which these personalities enter the public consciousness varies, but the essential elements are always, if perhaps unfairly, amplified. Famous examples include Thomas Chatterton, Bobby Fischer, José Raul Capablanca, David Helfgott, Ryan Chan, Blaise Pascal, and Ruth Slenczynska. In cases such as Zerah Colburn, William James Sidis, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, history is colored by early achievement and promise of something greater, and tragic events of adulthood are particularly emphasized in historical or popular accounts. One early literary example of a child prodigy with a tragic fate is found in The Hampdenshire Wonder, but again the portrayal is rather colored, describing not an accurate account but a fictionalized idealization.

Counter examples, such as Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Young, John Stuart Mill, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Murray Gell-Mann, Karl Benz, the Vilna Gaon or Pablo Picasso, suggest that it is possible for prodigies to have continued success well into old age.

It is often expressed that prodigies sometimes have difficulty adjusting socially. In the 1940s Leta S. Hollingworth noted that the "optimum IQ range" appeared to be between 125 and 155. Those above 155 had more problems with personal adjustment.[1]. Above a certain point there was a slight inverse relationship between performance on "the Concept Mastery Test Form A", a test of verbal intelligence, and personal adjustment. It should be pointed out that this is based on a dated test: the IQ scale that Hollingworth used, the ratio IQ, is no longer widely used today, and on a normed test 155 IQ is roughly 3+2/3 SD above the mean.

Although Hollingworth's findings may be outdated, some adjustment issues for child prodigies are obvious. It is not uncommon for the highly intellectually capable to be ostracized in school, or at least be emotionally dulled by the conversation of their average classmates. They typically have very different priorities than other people, with popularity, friendship, and common excitement being secondary to the quest for knowledge, mastery of skill, or more personal yearnings, creating a mis-step with society. In addition, the unusualness of a prodigy's priorities and capabilities may lead to difficulty in relating to peers.

Some may simply dream too large. The possibilities seem endless when one is young: one can progress rapidly through a subject which might take an average uninterested student much more time. As one matures, however, those that one is competing with are proportionally not much older, and possibly just as driven. Also, the subjects become increasingly difficult. For example, mastery of the fundamentals of calculus is not beyond most bright youngsters, but if this ability is misconstrued as a cue to jump into Quantum Field Theory when an individual is not ready, the result may be discouragement and burnout.

In spite of this, most individuals formerly identified as prodigies, go on to lead generally happy lives. A famous study by Lewis Terman indicates this, and although the participants were pre-selected to some extent, the results are true of the majority of individuals. The spectacular reversals of celebrity are held in the upper echelons of public awareness, but it should be emphasized that our history is filled with geniuses who have displayed phenomenal early talent. One must note that phenomenal early talent is de rigueur in classical musical performance, startlingly commonplace in the hard sciences and engineering, extremely well established in writing, journalism, debate, and law, and as is becoming increasingly clear as the World Wide Web opens up a showcase for blossoming talent, in artistic endeavours as well. One author notes that an extraordinary number of Nobel Prize winners in physics, Fields medalists, Dirac medalists, Abel medalists, and Turing Award winners were educationally accelerated (sometimes remarkably), had remarkable school careers, had an early obsession with computers, or more recently, won major international academic olympiads.

An interesting question concerns the effects of early public celebrity in mass media in the transition of child prodigies into adulthood. Some child prodigies, such as Gregory R. Smith (USA), James Harries (UK), or Carlos Blanco (Spain), attracted a strong public attention and even had frequent collaborations in high-share TV programs, where they were able to show their skills, however, this early public recognition might result in problems at later times, as it happened with William James Sidis (1898-1944).

In Fiction section

I decided not to delete the stuff from the Fiction Section, mostly because it seems "harmless". But it still is written in a form that constitutes original research in nearly every sentence. It should be reorganized to a list of characters/books/movies/whatever, rather than a discussion. Anybody want to do this? wes 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

moved fiction section to its own page

I moved fiction section to its own page and reorganized to a list of characters/books/movies/whatever rather than essay style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeWasCalledYClept (talk • contribs) 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

is this a joke?

In most cases (99% or higher) a child prodigy fails to succumb to his/her potential.[citation needed] One of the many issues is that the prodigys are given a false sense that they have no competition. Dr. James L. Himmes said "basically, once a child is told that they are bound for greatness they become lazy as if someone would just hand them [the facebook olympics medal for poking]Italic text." that cant be right someone please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.140.206 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples of prodigies

Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention a few generally accepted child prodigies, for example, Mozart? --Muna (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I think he qualifies as an actual child prodigy, considering he was the lead singer for the Jackson 5 at a very young age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.231.55 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

hehe, youre joking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.172.108 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Slug like you (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Title Redundancy

I'm not sure the title "Child prodigy" is completely appropriate for this article. I had always understood "prodigies" to be children by definition, and that assertion is backed up by Merriam-Webster (Specifically defines as a child), and to some degree, Wiktionary and Random House's Unabridged Dictionary (Via dictionary.reference.com)--both of which put emphasis on "child" and/or "youth". The only place I looked that didn't specify "child" or "youth" anywhere in the definition was American Heritage.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prodigy http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prodigy#Noun http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prodigy http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/P0580200.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbskid (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree- inserting 'child' before 'prodigy' just reinforces an already clear title. It's not at all necessary. 81.77.28.178 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree. The common use of the term child prodigy itself suggests other kids of prodigy. The cited dictionary references are simply wrong as other dictionaries define prodigy as not necessarily being a child. Thus this article is attempting to redefine the word prodigy, which only refers to a person who is prodigious in their output of exceptionally gifted works, regardless of age. A child prodigy is a particular kind of prodigy. A child prodigy who carried the gift into adult life such as Mozart is known in toto as a prodigy, though the term is not commonly used where it refers to a person who was also a prodigy as a child. The generalized term "prodigy" is required both from a grammatical correctness standpoint and because there must be a term to describe a person who is a prodigy in adult life but not as a child, such as Einstien, Edison (etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abunyip (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

'Mental calculators'

I think that this article is misleading and incorrect. For a start, a child prodigy is not a 'mental calculator'. Maybe being a 'mental calculator' at six years old means something but being a mental calculator when you are 10-12 means nothing. Mathematicians do not do 'calculator operations'; see Mathematics for a list of topics that mathematicians work in. I am therefore removing any suggestions that mathematicians are people who are 'mental calculators'.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

ART IS SUBJECTIVE, THEREFORE PICASSO CAN'T BE TOTALLY DEFINED AS A CHILD PRODIGY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.108.5 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Film Directors as Child Prodigies

Was very confused to see Paul Thomas Anderson and Xavier Dolan to be named under 'Examples of particularly extreme prodigies'. They both made their first films in their 20s (perhaps Dolan at 19) which directly contradicts the chief definition in the article as "a child, or at least younger than 18 years, who is performing at the level of a highly trained adult in a very demanding field of endeavour." The cited articles provide no evidence of them being particularly talented as children - they made short films in their teens, but many, many film directors did the same, to hone their skills. The articles call them 'wunderkind' but it would seem in the more general sense of 'someone who achieves success or shows great talent at a young age' (Merriam Webster). I hardly think they should be included in the same sentence as the likes of Mozart and Carlsen. --JamChiller (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Child prodigy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

See the talk page of Child prodigy for my comment. Topology Expert (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Adulthood and emotional development

Not all prodigies go on to become successful adults. One of the major problems is that they are deprived of their childhood through hothousing and proper social interaction at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.78.2.179 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the word "could" necessary?

Under the sub-heading examples, we read "Examples of extreme child prodigies could include"....and then a list of child prodigies. I was wondering whether the word "could" was really needed in this sentence. Vorbee (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Einstein

Where's Einstein in all this? 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:ACD2:4D0A:3FFA:6077 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Pleonasm

"child prodigy" is like wet water. Every prodigy is a child by definition. Why not to use "child genius" or just "prodigy"? 85.193.247.94 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 19th Century Concert Life

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AddieYoon (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jmares3218 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

math

i love math 60x4/240 71.38.9.212 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)