Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the missed-it-by-thaaaaat-much! dept.

An interesting article about the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) program and their findings.

Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which would transform how gifted children are identified and supported by the US education system. As the longest-running current longitudinal survey of intellectually talented children, SMPY has for 45 years tracked the careers and accomplishments of some 5,000 individuals, many of whom have gone on to become high-achieving scientists. The study's ever-growing data set has generated more than 400 papers and several books, and provided key insights into how to spot and develop talent in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) and beyond.

With the first SMPY recruits now at the peak of their careers, what has become clear is how much the precociously gifted outweigh the rest of society in their influence. Many of the innovators who are advancing science, technology and culture are those whose unique cognitive abilities were identified and supported in their early years through enrichment programmes such as Johns Hopkins University's Center for Talented Youth—which Stanley began in the 1980s as an adjunct to SMPY. At the start, both the study and the centre were open to young adolescents who scored in the top 1% on university entrance exams.Pioneering mathematicians Terence Tao and Lenhard Ng were one-percenters, as were Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and musician Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga), who all passed through the Hopkins centre.

[...] Such results contradict long-established ideas suggesting that expert performance is built mainly through practice—that anyone can get to the top with enough focused effort of the right kind. SMPY, by contrast, suggests that early cognitive ability has more effect on achievement than either deliberate practice or environmental factors such as socio-economic status. The research emphasizes the importance of nurturing precocious children, at a time when the prevailing focus in the United States and other countries is on improving the performance of struggling students. At the same time, the work to identify and support academically talented students has raised troubling questions about the risks of labelling children, and the shortfalls of talent searches and standardized tests as a means of identifying high-potential students, especially in poor and rural districts.

[...] Although gifted-education specialists herald the expansion of talent-development options in the United States, the benefits have mostly been limited so far to students who are at the top of both the talent and socio-economic curves.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-raise-a-genius-lessons-from-a-45-year-study-of-supersmart-children/

[Also covered by]: NATURE


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:48PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:48PM (#399194) Journal

    Yeah, except that the real innovators aren't in your "1 in 10" or 10%. They are the 1 in 10,000 or rarer. That's circular reasoning since you can't point to what makes a person a "real innovator" beforehand.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @04:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @04:06AM (#399929)

    I've met plenty of people who are or were quantitatively smarter than me. They know more, think faster, score higher on tests, etc.
    But, by quantitative, I mean they don't seem capable of things that I couldn't do if I put in the time and effort. I might be slower or need to focus more than them, but I could still do it.

    I have also met a few rare people who I regard as qualitatively smarter than me. They get results and do things I couldn't even when they try to explain it. Sometimes I can understand what they have created, but there is no way in hell I could have done it myself. "Hardworking, enthusiasm and discipline" just wouldn't be enough.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 10 2016, @09:39AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 10 2016, @09:39AM (#399953) Journal

      I have also met a few rare people who I regard as qualitatively smarter than me. They get results and do things I couldn't even when they try to explain it. Sometimes I can understand what they have created, but there is no way in hell I could have done it myself. "Hardworking, enthusiasm and discipline" just wouldn't be enough.

      And what makes you think you couldn't do the same to them in some other area? We've never been in a situation where someone could be the best in everything.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:30PM (#400282)

        Because I am talking about areas where I am good. Well above average, and these very few could still wipe the floor with me without trying.
        If you've never met anyone that far ahead of you then you are either the most special snowflake ever, or a shining example of the Dunning-Kreuger effect