So interesting. I can't even tell you how much I was harmed by the idea that "intelligent" was the most important thing one could be and that intelligence was some sort of raw material I was blessed with and duty-bound to refine and express.
One part of this topic I've been coming back to frequently recently is the idea of effective or functional intelligence (a term I invented, idk if there's a real or better one). But I've made significant progress dealing with my ADHD, depression, and anxiety in the past few years and I've had the startling sense that I'm MUCH smarter now.
Of course, I don't know more things than I used to (now that I'm outside the college life, I probably know less) but I feel smarter because I'm better able to manage my energy and distribute my work.
Like, I've always written. But only recently have I been able to consistently organize myself and finish actual pieces and then feel comfortable publishing them. Who's smarter, the me who maybe knew more and thought more complexly but who never published and never affected anyone? Or the me who actually articulates and affects people?
I don't even know how much I care either. I'd rather be effective than intelligent.
I remember those Mensa ads in some magazine or other my grandmother always had around the house when I was a kid.
Reading this, I'm thinking about the great section on the culture of "smart" in Karen Ho's Wall Street ethnography Liquidated, and how the idea of smartness has such power in certain circles, in this "we're so smart we don't need to actually be experts on anything" kind of way. I feel like you really, really see that in certain kinds of media figures (Nate Silver, Matt Yglesias, to a certain extent Emily Oster) whose belief in their own raw intelligence makes them think themselves qualified to comment on literally anything after only the most shallow investigation of what's going on -- and that they get taken seriously in doing that!
This is utterly amazing. I have long thought of IQ as BS, primarily because I have witnessed so many other qualities as being far more important. Persistence is HUGE, for example in being a successful human. Kindness makes our world go around. My highly intelligent son was never able to get more than average marks in his uber-competitive high school because he was crippled by anxiety and depression, and yet he was and is one of the most empathetic people I know. (He is now a teacher, and tells me he wants to be the kind of educator that kids can turn to when they feel the stress he did in high school). Thank you for shedding light on this important subject and society’s hypocrisy.
I absolutely want to read this book as a 1) former gifted/definitely neurodiverse kid whose school did not have the resources to support me as such and so just had me skip a grade and then basically be all unmoored on my own K-12 and 2) currently a teacher IN a gifted/accelerated learners program that I swear is trying our best to do right by our students. We are constantly fighting ingrained notions of intelligence, tell teachers and counselors to not just send us the kids they think are "bright," and craft curricula that is not just shoving more and more into our students' faces. I teach English and humanities in this program, too, and when I tell you it is a constant fight to even have the SUBJECT MATTER recognized as valuable for quote-unquote gifted kids who are always having STEM and capitalism shoved in their faces...I could go on.
This is really interesting perspective K! Thank you for sharing this. I have a 6-year old daughter who is ‘twice exceptional’, and I’m trying to figure out how to best support her growth and education as a parent. Anything you wish your parents did differently to support you?
Also, interesting point about STEM. I am Gen Y, and I work in STEM but come from a liberal arts background. But I do wish that STEM has been pushed more when I was a girl. I think as a non-high achieving tween/teen I just thought STEM was for “smart” kids, or boys, not me. When I did make the switch, I found my income was radically higher, so I do wish I had been encouraged more in this regard. But perhaps our culture has been in overkill mode?
Oh, the 2e business! I'm so glad we're looking at "giftedness" that way (because in my opinion, all gifted kids are 2e, but that's sort of another ball of wax of discussion). Honestly, the best thing my parents did do was listen to me and let me choose my own path and interests, which included a lot of arts, writing, humanities, etc. I didn't get shoved into all the smart kid programs and skipped a lot of stuff like honors society, Key Club, etc., because I just didn't fit in and didn't want to. I would also pay attention to whether or not your kid is thriving in or actually enjoying any accelerated programs she might get put into. Not every exceptional or 2e kid is going to do well in any accelerated program and she might be perfectly happy chugging along the standard education program. And of course, the biggie: normalize failure and normalize challenge.
I do think STEM is being pushed too unilaterally, especially for gifted kids. My juniors and seniors almost never consider majors in the humanities or arts. There's another accelerated program in our town that's just for STEM, and it's been really silly and frustrating to see how we're basically in competition with them (the fact that they're a much better funded program adds insult to that injury). I think I'm just frustrated with the idea that the sheer fact that they are smart means they get funneled and pressured in very particular fields -- it feels exploitative and reductive, a la this article, like you're not "really" smart or "utilizing" your smarts enough unless you go into STEM work. But you're right, the gender aspect to it is super complicated. I don't know if I see that being as much of an issue among my students today though (I'm thinking of the recent CS piece on gender and education), but perhaps that's just a very certain sample size.
Really appreciate this K! Will take this advice to heart. Right now she is so curious and loves learning so much, and I just want to make sure nothing discourages that growth mindset. I try to emphasize more the social/emotional side because that is where she struggles more, and self regulation is so important to success as an adult.
I can see what you mean about having a STEM-focused education being limiting. I was a C student and very interested in the arts and humanities. In college I studied musicology (hey, it was before 2008!). But now that I have transitioned into STEM I apply that same curiosity and excitement to what I’m writing and researching. And all of that arts training helps me present my work in a more narrative way. But again, I was not a gifted kid by any stretch of the imagination.
Honestly, if you're seeing that she's curious and you're encouraging that with a balance on that SEL side, you're doing great and I bet your kid can feel it. I think a lot of gifted kids get treated like smartness factories / productivity automatons, and so anything to push back against that cultural normal is so beneficial, IMO.
That is interesting -- I do wonder how much the STEM push could be tracked over the years. It sounds like you landed in an ideal place either way! I wonder if you could identify specifically what helped you transition into STEM from your humanities background?
I think, too, that folks forget/consciously decide that writing and history and interpretation don't happen and aren't needed in STEM and that's a problem
Totally agree that STEM is overrated at the cost of undervaluing everything else. STEM is even overrated in the STEM-fields, like medicine and technology. Kudos to you for pushing back at those "ingrained notions of intelligence." I can imagine how frustrating that must be.
Apr 5, 2023·edited Apr 5, 2023Liked by Anne Helen Petersen
This is a thing that really happened. I am in eighth grade, and the teacher is calling each of us up to her desk, one by one, to quietly tell us our IQ scores. I remember the slope of the shoulders of one of my classmates as he passed me and the blank expression on his face. I don’t know why our teacher did this. Apparently she had decided it was important to share this information with us. But it felt like some kind of life sentence. You could be dumb, smart, or average. Those were the only choices. And even if you didn’t want to know, you were going to be told anyway. I am in my 60s now, so that was a long time ago but I know a lot of damage was done during that class on that particular day. Great newsletter today, thank you.
I have so many thoughts and feelings on the public shaming of kids re: their intelligence and the many ways it shames folks on ALL ends of the spectrum. How about the walk of shame to turn in your test when you're done so everyone knows exactly how long it took you to do the test? Either you're done early and everyone stares at you because you're an alien, or you're the last one standing and it's also a total nightmare.
Once in fourth grade, our teacher had us self-score a math test, then had us RAISE OUR HANDS if we got 0 wrong, 1 wrong, 2 wrong, etc. I was a third grader who got promoted into fourth grade math and I did not want to raise my hand (I was super shy! and also bullied!). As he kept going down the line (5 wrong, 6 wrong, half wrong, etc.) the teacher called me out ("No way you got the entire test wrong") and made me say my score out loud in front of everybody. Absolute nightmare.
I had a fifth-grade teacher who would make the top three scorers on every test stand up in front of the class. It was almost always the same three kids (me being one), and after a while, he started adding on to our tests -- extra credit questions that were optional for everyone else were required for us. I'm sure he felt he was pushing us in a beneficial way, but I swear, the one boy among the three of us learned the lesson that being seen as too smart was a liability, and became the biggest doofus. Like he would not, could not associate himself with anything that seemed suspiciously related to doing well in school, including people who did well. It was really sad.
When visiting my 2nd grade class, the GT teacher came in and held up cards with word puzzles (like, the word STAIRS on a downward slope to mean "Down Stairs" etc.). She told the class that if we didn't know the answer, we could just pass. Which was great for me, a dyslexic kid who couldn't see letters straight on a page, let alone jumbled up. But when I said "I pass" (LIKE SHE TOLD ME I COULD), she replied, "What are you, stupid? This is an easy one!" And her saying that gave permission to all of the kids to did get into the "gifted" program to treat me like I was stupid. I remember the humiliation, but also just a total core of anger and indignation. I knew that I was smart too, even if I couldn't read yet. I often think about what if I didn't have the disposition, or the family life, that gave me permission to say "I'll show you wrong!" What other kids did she diminish? My blood is still boiling!
Apr 5, 2023·edited Apr 5, 2023Liked by Anne Helen Petersen
Excellent piece and read. Thank you!
I agree that intelligence as we understand it, i.e. as a direct correlate to worth/productivity/future potential/whatever, is ableist, harmful, and bullshit. At the same time--and I am sure my own training bias comes into play here--we (psychologists) use a variety of intelligence testing to rule out or rule in a series of mental health diagnoses, including AD(H)D. These tests are absolutely biased toward English speakers and folks who have significant exposure to standardized testing (notably, there are tests that do not rely on language or that have been adapted for people whose primary language is not English.) Those reasons are why, in my opinion, any testing psychologist who deserves to be recognized as such (strong wording, I know) *must* administer, interpret, and score intelligence tests in context. By context, I mean not only the person's background and clinical history, but also with the results of other tests. I could speak about this topic forever, since we are required to take a brutally rigorous, yearlong course on psychological assessments and because I then TA'd that same course for three years. The tl;dr is yes, IQ testing is harmful and, in popular culture especially, completely meaningless AND that IQ testing is supremely helpful with a variety of caveats and with appropriate context and countermeasures.
Edit: I speak from the biased lens of someone who just received their PhD in counseling psychology.
Second edit: IQ tests today--at least those that are used for psychological assessment--measure different aspects of intelligence, such as processing speed, crystallized intelligence, fluid intelligence, and working memory.
I wasn't graded in school until high school (although this was partially because I passed a gifted assessment and was put in a local gifted program that was less competitive and more humanities focused than most in the US) and I really think that experience gave me a base level of confidence and comfort that most of my peers don't have. my friends with developmental disabilities grew up being overlooked or punished by teachers that didn't have the time to connect with them, and given explicitly ranking that said they were worse than the rest of the class. I would have failed math class in elementary school most years, but I didn't know that because we didn't have failing or classes, so I was able to work through my struggles at my own pace. it was a rough adjustment to a normal high school and I did break down crying the first time I got a C but now that I'm an adult I can feel the lack of shame and trauma that my weird schooling gave me, lending me the resilience to graduate college despite experiencing abuse and physical disability on the way. I wish everyone could have this.
"I wish everyone could have this" -- exactly how I feel as a teacher in an accelerated/gifted program. Yes, I'm a great teacher, and yes, my students are brilliant, but we also have 1) tiny class sizes that allow me to mentor individual students so closely 2) loads of teacher autonomy re: curricula and grades, 3) strong support from our director and throughout our tiny team. I think all the time how I wish I could just teach all students in this way.
yeah, the small class sizes probably is even more important than the grade thing. it's really the combo of the teacher not having the time to connect and understand your individual needs + the main feedback you get from them being grades. it would hurt a lot less to get a C from a teacher who delivers it with a personal connection and understanding of your struggles.
This really makes me think about the fact that my oldest is about to move from a level of school with no grades to a level (Upper Elementary/4th Grade) where she will receive official grades for the first time. Her school is a public Montessori school where I am so impressed with the work that they do to nurture each child's intelligence and foster growth mindsets. I'm hoping that making the transition to being graded (as required by the district) will go OK for her since her school has lots of practice with helping kids making the switch. I also desperately wish that every family had access to this kind of education for their kids but the waitlist/lottery for our school is huge every year because usually you have to pay $$$$$ for this kind of individualized education.
Looking forward to reading the book! Apologies for my super long response, but I have been thinking *a lot* about this question lately, and I honestly have felt very conflicted. It seems like there are 3 camps when it comes to intelligence testing:
1) the eugenic white supremacist Charles Murray "Bell curve" camp that uses IQ testing to "prove" white supremacy; (let's just discount this one entirely, shall we?)
2) the "gifted education/IQ testing is a complete sham" camp, that makes the argument that gifted programs are really just ways of reifying white privilege and should be abolished;
3) the "giftedness = neurodivergence" camp, which argues that those who are two or more standard deviations on the intelligence tests (so >130) are actually people with unique academic and SEL needs, who are currently being *underserved* by school systems, and where "universal screening" needs to occur so that *more* students of color and low income kids are being identified and included in gifted programs.
I personally feel torn between camps 2-3. As someone who was identified early in schooling as "gifted" and accelerated a grade (skipped kindergarten), I do feel like school systems are not well set up to support students whose intellectual (academic? not sure the word here) interests/skills are not in step with the rest of the group -- including *both* those who are "behind" and "ahead." There are, in theory, IEPs and other accommodations set up to support students who read as "behind" (although they are woefully inadequate and often egregiously steeped in racism/abelism), but for those who are "ahead," there's been no real national consensus or support. Gifted education differs wildly by state and district. Differentiated instruction can only go so far in a classroom where a single teacher is expected to provide personalized learning and different activities/assessments for 30+ kids at a time.
On my local mom's facebook page, a mother asked about what to do about her prospective kindergartner, who was already reading at a 4th grade level and performing multiplication/division. This mom was careful to note she wasn't a "tiger mom" -- her child's intellectual abilities unnerved her, as he seemingly learned most of it with very little guidance/explicit instruction. The overwhelming response, which included some teachers, was that kindergarten was about "leveling," and that kindergarten was not about learning academics but social skills, and that the student should remain in kindergarten to pick up those skills. I really wonder about that. If the child isn't feeling intellectually engaged/nourished, how will they thrive socially? Seems to me that the child in that environment will learn really quickly that they are "different," that they should mask their intellectual interests, and that school is not going to be a place where they go to learn new things. Is that child being served?
Further, while there is a history of IQ = white supremacy, we all know there's also a correspondingly long history of American anti-intellectualism, where "being smart" (i.e. interested in academic pursuits/knowledge gain) is worthy of contempt and derision.
I guess my question is this: is there a space to acknowledge the racist/sexist/eugenic history of IQ tests, acknowledge the inadequacy of using any single measurement to determine "intelligence" as fixed, *while also* acknowledging that there are people who have geniunely different brain-based/cognitive needs across the "intellectual" spectrum?
"Correspondingly long history of American anti-intellectualism" -- yes yes YES, I want to see that as part of this conversation. Like so many cultural contests in this country, you must do/be/want the thing (intelligence, motherhood, whatever else), but finally getting/being the thing is also a punishment in and of itself.
As a general principle I lean more toward camp two than camp three, but this comment does help crystallize that if the language and structures shifted away from "gifted" to a more nuanced view that different kids have different needs and some of them need more advanced work in some specific areas without being uniformly "gifted," I could go with that. If we could set aside all the ways that "gifted" is being used to define people for life and allocate resources unequally.
I know a kid in a situation similar to the example you give from the Facebook group -- he entered kindergarten way beyond grade level in math specifically and was just miserable with the kindergarten curriculum, to the point where he threatened suicide if he had to return to that school for first grade and will not go to the school for the speech therapy he is still getting from the district although he now goes to a STEM-focused private school. But to me, that is definitely a kid with *different* needs than other kids, not a *gifted* kid -- he's around grade level in reading, he has a whole package of other strengths and weaknesses, he might be neurodivergent -- and I suspect that's true in a lot of cases, in addition to the profound harm of separating some kids out as "gifted."
I agree -- we don't have the language right. "Gifted" is, ironically, a very stupid label that does nothing to actually describe the myriad cognitive traits/aptitudes/behaviors/needs that are currently not being well-supported.
All of my worst bullies growing up were "gifted" kids (aka early readers) who were (implicitly) taught that I was less than because I had learning disabilities. As I've grown up, I see that they've never even realized they were bullies because they were praised and beloved by the adults around them.
I have found that gifted programs, IQs, testing, etc., are such a devaluation of what intelligence really is--to be mechanical, linguistic, visual, mathmatical, intuitive, analytic, musical... All of these qualities are about how we perceive and process the world around us. I think awareness is a really good way of being able to talk about this, and it helps us take responsibility for our environments. There are so many people in my life who have tremendous intelligence, but it's not easily quantified by culture, and they don't know how to celebrate it in themselves. And this...cultural devaluation of intelligence-diversity scares the crap out of me when thinking about CRISPR. Biodiversity is always more stable.
For another take on this subject, Franz de Waal, a primatologist, wrote a book called 'Are we smart enough to know how smart animals really are?' It is well written and includes how fallible the tests have typically been that purport to measure intelligence in animals.
I don't know whether the IQ tests are a lot of crap (oh, probably), but let me tell you how they benefitted me.
I was born and raised at Hanford in the post-war era. By then, most of the Hanford construction workers had departed, leaving a population of white scientists and engineers and their families. My dad was somewhat of a "savant", on the spectrum and brilliant in physics. Mother was a nasty, violent narcissist who also was quite smart and expected her children to be smart. One of the sisters took after her; the other sister and I are truly our father's daughters. All three of us were always at the top of our classes and aced most of the aptitude and intelligence tests. We all graduated within the top 3 of our high school's large graduating classes. I was #3 in a class of 650; the fellow ahead of me had gotten perfect scores on his SATs. Okay, skipping through university and early work life (nothing related to my bachelor's degree) .........at 26 I married nasty, violent, drug-addled narcissist. A women I worked with at the time kept introducing me to others as the Genius of the place and that I should join Mensa. One night I joked about it at dinner and, as I should have expected, the spouse was dismissive and nasty. Being at just about the lowest place of my life, I dismissed the idea. Then, a few months later I signed up for the test. I sailed through the first part of the test but grew increasingly panicky as time was running out and I had two items left. I didn't finish them, and I could barely drive the 2 hours home. I had ostensibly been shopping and entered the house with shopping bags and tried to act normal. (I still have test anxiety, even for a urinalysis.)
Several weeks later the Mensa envelope arrived and I had scored 99.8%, just missing the Triple-Nine Club (damn). I erupted in joy and flashed the acceptance letter in Nasty's face. He immediately ran down to the storage room to retrieve his SAT scores and other items to show that he was still smarter than I was, and inwardly I laughed and raged. Not much later than that, we were relocated to the southern part of the state and, instead of looking for a job, I enrolled in the local university to complete a second degree in a subject far away from the science degrees of parents and older sister. Within a few months I moved out to be on my own. (Eliding over the ecstatsy of living alone in peace, graduating, and moving to be close to my other sister, and beginning a 25-year career from which I retired in 2015.)
That Mensa qualification saved me. It reminded me I was smarter than the average bear (Yogi, you know, of 60s television) and I could accomplish anything I set my mind to. Here I am today, living my spectrum life with almost 3800 books on my kindle and hundreds more on the shelves, because am interested in too many things and my now-husband is damn proud of my *cough* brilliance and totally supportive of my whims and fancies. My gaudily-framed Mensa Life Membership Certificate is there on my home office wall, and every day I remind myself that I am smart and capable. Nobody told me that except a few high school teachers and my Mensa test.
For me, Mensa was worth it. It's still probably a crap test, but it saved my life.
Sorry. This is driving me crazy. The photo of the young man being tested at the top of your post. You say the photo is from 1948. His shirt says something else. Like maybe 1978?
You are absolutely correct that the shirt is saying something a whole lot more like 1978 — I've double-checked the Getty info, and that's what it says, but it must be wrong! (It's part of a series of shots of several kids taking IQ tests)
Great interview and looking forward to reading the book! I think about intelligence as a concept/construction a lot because 1) I'm in academia, so I am surrounded by people who are mostly read as "gifted" and many whom tout their high-IQs, 2) because I now have a PhD, I feel like I can say that intelligence is fundamentally overrated in terms of measuring success, satisfaction, etc.
IQ is only good at measuring legible and conforming intelligence, and it is used as a disciplinary tool. Being interpreted as "smart" or "intelligent" doesn't mean much if you cannot collaborate, cannot articulate your knowledge situationally, or even teach what you know (one of the smartest and kindest professors I ever had was also the worst teacher I ever had). I'll stop because I could go on, but yeah, IQ is bullshit and it always has been, but it is bullshit with real world consequences.
I wish more high schoolers choosing which college to go to knew that at most R1 schools, tenure is granted based only on how much research money the professor brings in
Super interesting read. I'm thinking about how we measure intelligence as a parent. My kid is only 16 months but conversations around schools and test scores have already seeped in. It's crazy how much we value this understanding of what intelligence is.
On another note, Blake Crouch's latest sci-fi book Upgrade touches on this topic in a scary dystopian way. What happens to our emotions when we upgrade our IQ? It's not my favorite book of his, but he always gets me thinking!
I find the French have an interesting way of talking about "gifted" and have reverted to the phrase "high potential", which I think is helping move away from the basic intelligence measured through IQ tests. It really takes into account more ways to b intelligent. But I really came here to say that y'all would probably enjoy listening to this Onbeing podcast: https://onbeing.org/programs/james-bridle-the-intelligence-singing-all-around-us/ which I found absolutely amazing in how it shifted my approach to intelligence (and so many other things). I have not read James Bridle's book but I am looking forward to and maybe @AHP you might want to interview them?
I've got an admission. I cling to the persistent notion that smart is better. Correlates include necessary productivity of the bright ones, i.e. if you're smart, you better be contributing to society. Your moral compass will vary. I know why I value the concept so: Intelligence was "my ticket out" of poverty and all its discontents. It's not like I'm uncritical of my stance. I mean, I take steps - like reading the article at the subject of this post - to challenge my bias. But, really, I don't see a way to throw a bone to all the people who'll be left adrift when we overthrow the power that 'intelligence' has to shape lives. I'll admit, there's gotta be improvement. Look at what a crap job we do now and at least since the childhoods of the people in this forum with supporting the smarties in the school system. Loads of intelligent people are traumatized, corralled, under served, and disengaged. Guess I'll need to read that book.
So interesting. I can't even tell you how much I was harmed by the idea that "intelligent" was the most important thing one could be and that intelligence was some sort of raw material I was blessed with and duty-bound to refine and express.
One part of this topic I've been coming back to frequently recently is the idea of effective or functional intelligence (a term I invented, idk if there's a real or better one). But I've made significant progress dealing with my ADHD, depression, and anxiety in the past few years and I've had the startling sense that I'm MUCH smarter now.
Of course, I don't know more things than I used to (now that I'm outside the college life, I probably know less) but I feel smarter because I'm better able to manage my energy and distribute my work.
Like, I've always written. But only recently have I been able to consistently organize myself and finish actual pieces and then feel comfortable publishing them. Who's smarter, the me who maybe knew more and thought more complexly but who never published and never affected anyone? Or the me who actually articulates and affects people?
I don't even know how much I care either. I'd rather be effective than intelligent.
" I'd rather be effective than intelligent." — 100% agree. I learned this through the humbling aspects of being a parent, but wish I'd learned sooner.
I remember those Mensa ads in some magazine or other my grandmother always had around the house when I was a kid.
Reading this, I'm thinking about the great section on the culture of "smart" in Karen Ho's Wall Street ethnography Liquidated, and how the idea of smartness has such power in certain circles, in this "we're so smart we don't need to actually be experts on anything" kind of way. I feel like you really, really see that in certain kinds of media figures (Nate Silver, Matt Yglesias, to a certain extent Emily Oster) whose belief in their own raw intelligence makes them think themselves qualified to comment on literally anything after only the most shallow investigation of what's going on -- and that they get taken seriously in doing that!
This is utterly amazing. I have long thought of IQ as BS, primarily because I have witnessed so many other qualities as being far more important. Persistence is HUGE, for example in being a successful human. Kindness makes our world go around. My highly intelligent son was never able to get more than average marks in his uber-competitive high school because he was crippled by anxiety and depression, and yet he was and is one of the most empathetic people I know. (He is now a teacher, and tells me he wants to be the kind of educator that kids can turn to when they feel the stress he did in high school). Thank you for shedding light on this important subject and society’s hypocrisy.
I absolutely want to read this book as a 1) former gifted/definitely neurodiverse kid whose school did not have the resources to support me as such and so just had me skip a grade and then basically be all unmoored on my own K-12 and 2) currently a teacher IN a gifted/accelerated learners program that I swear is trying our best to do right by our students. We are constantly fighting ingrained notions of intelligence, tell teachers and counselors to not just send us the kids they think are "bright," and craft curricula that is not just shoving more and more into our students' faces. I teach English and humanities in this program, too, and when I tell you it is a constant fight to even have the SUBJECT MATTER recognized as valuable for quote-unquote gifted kids who are always having STEM and capitalism shoved in their faces...I could go on.
This is really interesting perspective K! Thank you for sharing this. I have a 6-year old daughter who is ‘twice exceptional’, and I’m trying to figure out how to best support her growth and education as a parent. Anything you wish your parents did differently to support you?
Also, interesting point about STEM. I am Gen Y, and I work in STEM but come from a liberal arts background. But I do wish that STEM has been pushed more when I was a girl. I think as a non-high achieving tween/teen I just thought STEM was for “smart” kids, or boys, not me. When I did make the switch, I found my income was radically higher, so I do wish I had been encouraged more in this regard. But perhaps our culture has been in overkill mode?
Oh, the 2e business! I'm so glad we're looking at "giftedness" that way (because in my opinion, all gifted kids are 2e, but that's sort of another ball of wax of discussion). Honestly, the best thing my parents did do was listen to me and let me choose my own path and interests, which included a lot of arts, writing, humanities, etc. I didn't get shoved into all the smart kid programs and skipped a lot of stuff like honors society, Key Club, etc., because I just didn't fit in and didn't want to. I would also pay attention to whether or not your kid is thriving in or actually enjoying any accelerated programs she might get put into. Not every exceptional or 2e kid is going to do well in any accelerated program and she might be perfectly happy chugging along the standard education program. And of course, the biggie: normalize failure and normalize challenge.
I do think STEM is being pushed too unilaterally, especially for gifted kids. My juniors and seniors almost never consider majors in the humanities or arts. There's another accelerated program in our town that's just for STEM, and it's been really silly and frustrating to see how we're basically in competition with them (the fact that they're a much better funded program adds insult to that injury). I think I'm just frustrated with the idea that the sheer fact that they are smart means they get funneled and pressured in very particular fields -- it feels exploitative and reductive, a la this article, like you're not "really" smart or "utilizing" your smarts enough unless you go into STEM work. But you're right, the gender aspect to it is super complicated. I don't know if I see that being as much of an issue among my students today though (I'm thinking of the recent CS piece on gender and education), but perhaps that's just a very certain sample size.
Really appreciate this K! Will take this advice to heart. Right now she is so curious and loves learning so much, and I just want to make sure nothing discourages that growth mindset. I try to emphasize more the social/emotional side because that is where she struggles more, and self regulation is so important to success as an adult.
I can see what you mean about having a STEM-focused education being limiting. I was a C student and very interested in the arts and humanities. In college I studied musicology (hey, it was before 2008!). But now that I have transitioned into STEM I apply that same curiosity and excitement to what I’m writing and researching. And all of that arts training helps me present my work in a more narrative way. But again, I was not a gifted kid by any stretch of the imagination.
Honestly, if you're seeing that she's curious and you're encouraging that with a balance on that SEL side, you're doing great and I bet your kid can feel it. I think a lot of gifted kids get treated like smartness factories / productivity automatons, and so anything to push back against that cultural normal is so beneficial, IMO.
That is interesting -- I do wonder how much the STEM push could be tracked over the years. It sounds like you landed in an ideal place either way! I wonder if you could identify specifically what helped you transition into STEM from your humanities background?
I think, too, that folks forget/consciously decide that writing and history and interpretation don't happen and aren't needed in STEM and that's a problem
Totally agree that STEM is overrated at the cost of undervaluing everything else. STEM is even overrated in the STEM-fields, like medicine and technology. Kudos to you for pushing back at those "ingrained notions of intelligence." I can imagine how frustrating that must be.
This is a thing that really happened. I am in eighth grade, and the teacher is calling each of us up to her desk, one by one, to quietly tell us our IQ scores. I remember the slope of the shoulders of one of my classmates as he passed me and the blank expression on his face. I don’t know why our teacher did this. Apparently she had decided it was important to share this information with us. But it felt like some kind of life sentence. You could be dumb, smart, or average. Those were the only choices. And even if you didn’t want to know, you were going to be told anyway. I am in my 60s now, so that was a long time ago but I know a lot of damage was done during that class on that particular day. Great newsletter today, thank you.
I have so many thoughts and feelings on the public shaming of kids re: their intelligence and the many ways it shames folks on ALL ends of the spectrum. How about the walk of shame to turn in your test when you're done so everyone knows exactly how long it took you to do the test? Either you're done early and everyone stares at you because you're an alien, or you're the last one standing and it's also a total nightmare.
Once in fourth grade, our teacher had us self-score a math test, then had us RAISE OUR HANDS if we got 0 wrong, 1 wrong, 2 wrong, etc. I was a third grader who got promoted into fourth grade math and I did not want to raise my hand (I was super shy! and also bullied!). As he kept going down the line (5 wrong, 6 wrong, half wrong, etc.) the teacher called me out ("No way you got the entire test wrong") and made me say my score out loud in front of everybody. Absolute nightmare.
I had a fifth-grade teacher who would make the top three scorers on every test stand up in front of the class. It was almost always the same three kids (me being one), and after a while, he started adding on to our tests -- extra credit questions that were optional for everyone else were required for us. I'm sure he felt he was pushing us in a beneficial way, but I swear, the one boy among the three of us learned the lesson that being seen as too smart was a liability, and became the biggest doofus. Like he would not, could not associate himself with anything that seemed suspiciously related to doing well in school, including people who did well. It was really sad.
When visiting my 2nd grade class, the GT teacher came in and held up cards with word puzzles (like, the word STAIRS on a downward slope to mean "Down Stairs" etc.). She told the class that if we didn't know the answer, we could just pass. Which was great for me, a dyslexic kid who couldn't see letters straight on a page, let alone jumbled up. But when I said "I pass" (LIKE SHE TOLD ME I COULD), she replied, "What are you, stupid? This is an easy one!" And her saying that gave permission to all of the kids to did get into the "gifted" program to treat me like I was stupid. I remember the humiliation, but also just a total core of anger and indignation. I knew that I was smart too, even if I couldn't read yet. I often think about what if I didn't have the disposition, or the family life, that gave me permission to say "I'll show you wrong!" What other kids did she diminish? My blood is still boiling!
Excellent piece and read. Thank you!
I agree that intelligence as we understand it, i.e. as a direct correlate to worth/productivity/future potential/whatever, is ableist, harmful, and bullshit. At the same time--and I am sure my own training bias comes into play here--we (psychologists) use a variety of intelligence testing to rule out or rule in a series of mental health diagnoses, including AD(H)D. These tests are absolutely biased toward English speakers and folks who have significant exposure to standardized testing (notably, there are tests that do not rely on language or that have been adapted for people whose primary language is not English.) Those reasons are why, in my opinion, any testing psychologist who deserves to be recognized as such (strong wording, I know) *must* administer, interpret, and score intelligence tests in context. By context, I mean not only the person's background and clinical history, but also with the results of other tests. I could speak about this topic forever, since we are required to take a brutally rigorous, yearlong course on psychological assessments and because I then TA'd that same course for three years. The tl;dr is yes, IQ testing is harmful and, in popular culture especially, completely meaningless AND that IQ testing is supremely helpful with a variety of caveats and with appropriate context and countermeasures.
Edit: I speak from the biased lens of someone who just received their PhD in counseling psychology.
Second edit: IQ tests today--at least those that are used for psychological assessment--measure different aspects of intelligence, such as processing speed, crystallized intelligence, fluid intelligence, and working memory.
I wasn't graded in school until high school (although this was partially because I passed a gifted assessment and was put in a local gifted program that was less competitive and more humanities focused than most in the US) and I really think that experience gave me a base level of confidence and comfort that most of my peers don't have. my friends with developmental disabilities grew up being overlooked or punished by teachers that didn't have the time to connect with them, and given explicitly ranking that said they were worse than the rest of the class. I would have failed math class in elementary school most years, but I didn't know that because we didn't have failing or classes, so I was able to work through my struggles at my own pace. it was a rough adjustment to a normal high school and I did break down crying the first time I got a C but now that I'm an adult I can feel the lack of shame and trauma that my weird schooling gave me, lending me the resilience to graduate college despite experiencing abuse and physical disability on the way. I wish everyone could have this.
"I wish everyone could have this" -- exactly how I feel as a teacher in an accelerated/gifted program. Yes, I'm a great teacher, and yes, my students are brilliant, but we also have 1) tiny class sizes that allow me to mentor individual students so closely 2) loads of teacher autonomy re: curricula and grades, 3) strong support from our director and throughout our tiny team. I think all the time how I wish I could just teach all students in this way.
yeah, the small class sizes probably is even more important than the grade thing. it's really the combo of the teacher not having the time to connect and understand your individual needs + the main feedback you get from them being grades. it would hurt a lot less to get a C from a teacher who delivers it with a personal connection and understanding of your struggles.
This really makes me think about the fact that my oldest is about to move from a level of school with no grades to a level (Upper Elementary/4th Grade) where she will receive official grades for the first time. Her school is a public Montessori school where I am so impressed with the work that they do to nurture each child's intelligence and foster growth mindsets. I'm hoping that making the transition to being graded (as required by the district) will go OK for her since her school has lots of practice with helping kids making the switch. I also desperately wish that every family had access to this kind of education for their kids but the waitlist/lottery for our school is huge every year because usually you have to pay $$$$$ for this kind of individualized education.
Looking forward to reading the book! Apologies for my super long response, but I have been thinking *a lot* about this question lately, and I honestly have felt very conflicted. It seems like there are 3 camps when it comes to intelligence testing:
1) the eugenic white supremacist Charles Murray "Bell curve" camp that uses IQ testing to "prove" white supremacy; (let's just discount this one entirely, shall we?)
2) the "gifted education/IQ testing is a complete sham" camp, that makes the argument that gifted programs are really just ways of reifying white privilege and should be abolished;
3) the "giftedness = neurodivergence" camp, which argues that those who are two or more standard deviations on the intelligence tests (so >130) are actually people with unique academic and SEL needs, who are currently being *underserved* by school systems, and where "universal screening" needs to occur so that *more* students of color and low income kids are being identified and included in gifted programs.
I personally feel torn between camps 2-3. As someone who was identified early in schooling as "gifted" and accelerated a grade (skipped kindergarten), I do feel like school systems are not well set up to support students whose intellectual (academic? not sure the word here) interests/skills are not in step with the rest of the group -- including *both* those who are "behind" and "ahead." There are, in theory, IEPs and other accommodations set up to support students who read as "behind" (although they are woefully inadequate and often egregiously steeped in racism/abelism), but for those who are "ahead," there's been no real national consensus or support. Gifted education differs wildly by state and district. Differentiated instruction can only go so far in a classroom where a single teacher is expected to provide personalized learning and different activities/assessments for 30+ kids at a time.
On my local mom's facebook page, a mother asked about what to do about her prospective kindergartner, who was already reading at a 4th grade level and performing multiplication/division. This mom was careful to note she wasn't a "tiger mom" -- her child's intellectual abilities unnerved her, as he seemingly learned most of it with very little guidance/explicit instruction. The overwhelming response, which included some teachers, was that kindergarten was about "leveling," and that kindergarten was not about learning academics but social skills, and that the student should remain in kindergarten to pick up those skills. I really wonder about that. If the child isn't feeling intellectually engaged/nourished, how will they thrive socially? Seems to me that the child in that environment will learn really quickly that they are "different," that they should mask their intellectual interests, and that school is not going to be a place where they go to learn new things. Is that child being served?
Further, while there is a history of IQ = white supremacy, we all know there's also a correspondingly long history of American anti-intellectualism, where "being smart" (i.e. interested in academic pursuits/knowledge gain) is worthy of contempt and derision.
I guess my question is this: is there a space to acknowledge the racist/sexist/eugenic history of IQ tests, acknowledge the inadequacy of using any single measurement to determine "intelligence" as fixed, *while also* acknowledging that there are people who have geniunely different brain-based/cognitive needs across the "intellectual" spectrum?
"Correspondingly long history of American anti-intellectualism" -- yes yes YES, I want to see that as part of this conversation. Like so many cultural contests in this country, you must do/be/want the thing (intelligence, motherhood, whatever else), but finally getting/being the thing is also a punishment in and of itself.
As a general principle I lean more toward camp two than camp three, but this comment does help crystallize that if the language and structures shifted away from "gifted" to a more nuanced view that different kids have different needs and some of them need more advanced work in some specific areas without being uniformly "gifted," I could go with that. If we could set aside all the ways that "gifted" is being used to define people for life and allocate resources unequally.
I know a kid in a situation similar to the example you give from the Facebook group -- he entered kindergarten way beyond grade level in math specifically and was just miserable with the kindergarten curriculum, to the point where he threatened suicide if he had to return to that school for first grade and will not go to the school for the speech therapy he is still getting from the district although he now goes to a STEM-focused private school. But to me, that is definitely a kid with *different* needs than other kids, not a *gifted* kid -- he's around grade level in reading, he has a whole package of other strengths and weaknesses, he might be neurodivergent -- and I suspect that's true in a lot of cases, in addition to the profound harm of separating some kids out as "gifted."
I agree -- we don't have the language right. "Gifted" is, ironically, a very stupid label that does nothing to actually describe the myriad cognitive traits/aptitudes/behaviors/needs that are currently not being well-supported.
All of my worst bullies growing up were "gifted" kids (aka early readers) who were (implicitly) taught that I was less than because I had learning disabilities. As I've grown up, I see that they've never even realized they were bullies because they were praised and beloved by the adults around them.
I have found that gifted programs, IQs, testing, etc., are such a devaluation of what intelligence really is--to be mechanical, linguistic, visual, mathmatical, intuitive, analytic, musical... All of these qualities are about how we perceive and process the world around us. I think awareness is a really good way of being able to talk about this, and it helps us take responsibility for our environments. There are so many people in my life who have tremendous intelligence, but it's not easily quantified by culture, and they don't know how to celebrate it in themselves. And this...cultural devaluation of intelligence-diversity scares the crap out of me when thinking about CRISPR. Biodiversity is always more stable.
For another take on this subject, Franz de Waal, a primatologist, wrote a book called 'Are we smart enough to know how smart animals really are?' It is well written and includes how fallible the tests have typically been that purport to measure intelligence in animals.
His work is fascinating. I saw a talk by him a couple weeks ago and he's also a great presenter!
I don't know whether the IQ tests are a lot of crap (oh, probably), but let me tell you how they benefitted me.
I was born and raised at Hanford in the post-war era. By then, most of the Hanford construction workers had departed, leaving a population of white scientists and engineers and their families. My dad was somewhat of a "savant", on the spectrum and brilliant in physics. Mother was a nasty, violent narcissist who also was quite smart and expected her children to be smart. One of the sisters took after her; the other sister and I are truly our father's daughters. All three of us were always at the top of our classes and aced most of the aptitude and intelligence tests. We all graduated within the top 3 of our high school's large graduating classes. I was #3 in a class of 650; the fellow ahead of me had gotten perfect scores on his SATs. Okay, skipping through university and early work life (nothing related to my bachelor's degree) .........at 26 I married nasty, violent, drug-addled narcissist. A women I worked with at the time kept introducing me to others as the Genius of the place and that I should join Mensa. One night I joked about it at dinner and, as I should have expected, the spouse was dismissive and nasty. Being at just about the lowest place of my life, I dismissed the idea. Then, a few months later I signed up for the test. I sailed through the first part of the test but grew increasingly panicky as time was running out and I had two items left. I didn't finish them, and I could barely drive the 2 hours home. I had ostensibly been shopping and entered the house with shopping bags and tried to act normal. (I still have test anxiety, even for a urinalysis.)
Several weeks later the Mensa envelope arrived and I had scored 99.8%, just missing the Triple-Nine Club (damn). I erupted in joy and flashed the acceptance letter in Nasty's face. He immediately ran down to the storage room to retrieve his SAT scores and other items to show that he was still smarter than I was, and inwardly I laughed and raged. Not much later than that, we were relocated to the southern part of the state and, instead of looking for a job, I enrolled in the local university to complete a second degree in a subject far away from the science degrees of parents and older sister. Within a few months I moved out to be on my own. (Eliding over the ecstatsy of living alone in peace, graduating, and moving to be close to my other sister, and beginning a 25-year career from which I retired in 2015.)
That Mensa qualification saved me. It reminded me I was smarter than the average bear (Yogi, you know, of 60s television) and I could accomplish anything I set my mind to. Here I am today, living my spectrum life with almost 3800 books on my kindle and hundreds more on the shelves, because am interested in too many things and my now-husband is damn proud of my *cough* brilliance and totally supportive of my whims and fancies. My gaudily-framed Mensa Life Membership Certificate is there on my home office wall, and every day I remind myself that I am smart and capable. Nobody told me that except a few high school teachers and my Mensa test.
For me, Mensa was worth it. It's still probably a crap test, but it saved my life.
That was beautiful! You should write a memoir
What a story...I’m so glad you got to where you got to and that Mensa was a tool you used to get there! At least one good thing it’s done.
Sorry. This is driving me crazy. The photo of the young man being tested at the top of your post. You say the photo is from 1948. His shirt says something else. Like maybe 1978?
You are absolutely correct that the shirt is saying something a whole lot more like 1978 — I've double-checked the Getty info, and that's what it says, but it must be wrong! (It's part of a series of shots of several kids taking IQ tests)
Great interview and looking forward to reading the book! I think about intelligence as a concept/construction a lot because 1) I'm in academia, so I am surrounded by people who are mostly read as "gifted" and many whom tout their high-IQs, 2) because I now have a PhD, I feel like I can say that intelligence is fundamentally overrated in terms of measuring success, satisfaction, etc.
IQ is only good at measuring legible and conforming intelligence, and it is used as a disciplinary tool. Being interpreted as "smart" or "intelligent" doesn't mean much if you cannot collaborate, cannot articulate your knowledge situationally, or even teach what you know (one of the smartest and kindest professors I ever had was also the worst teacher I ever had). I'll stop because I could go on, but yeah, IQ is bullshit and it always has been, but it is bullshit with real world consequences.
“Bullshit with real world consequences” is such a great summary.
I wish more high schoolers choosing which college to go to knew that at most R1 schools, tenure is granted based only on how much research money the professor brings in
Super interesting read. I'm thinking about how we measure intelligence as a parent. My kid is only 16 months but conversations around schools and test scores have already seeped in. It's crazy how much we value this understanding of what intelligence is.
On another note, Blake Crouch's latest sci-fi book Upgrade touches on this topic in a scary dystopian way. What happens to our emotions when we upgrade our IQ? It's not my favorite book of his, but he always gets me thinking!
I find the French have an interesting way of talking about "gifted" and have reverted to the phrase "high potential", which I think is helping move away from the basic intelligence measured through IQ tests. It really takes into account more ways to b intelligent. But I really came here to say that y'all would probably enjoy listening to this Onbeing podcast: https://onbeing.org/programs/james-bridle-the-intelligence-singing-all-around-us/ which I found absolutely amazing in how it shifted my approach to intelligence (and so many other things). I have not read James Bridle's book but I am looking forward to and maybe @AHP you might want to interview them?
I've got an admission. I cling to the persistent notion that smart is better. Correlates include necessary productivity of the bright ones, i.e. if you're smart, you better be contributing to society. Your moral compass will vary. I know why I value the concept so: Intelligence was "my ticket out" of poverty and all its discontents. It's not like I'm uncritical of my stance. I mean, I take steps - like reading the article at the subject of this post - to challenge my bias. But, really, I don't see a way to throw a bone to all the people who'll be left adrift when we overthrow the power that 'intelligence' has to shape lives. I'll admit, there's gotta be improvement. Look at what a crap job we do now and at least since the childhoods of the people in this forum with supporting the smarties in the school system. Loads of intelligent people are traumatized, corralled, under served, and disengaged. Guess I'll need to read that book.