Tonight I watched ‘Where the Crawdads Sing,’ the film adaptation of the book of the same name.
It made me think about the things we carry in our hearts that we can never lay down. The things that were taught to us at such a young age that it’s hard to let them go, or even conceive of a world where they might not be true. These can be all sorts of things. It could be the belief that love is earned- there is no try, only results- and that being exceptional is the way to receive it. It could be the realization, as Kya in the book and movie comes to, that everyone leaves. Her family leaves. Tate leaves. There’s a rejection narrative, and it’s been lived and embodied to such an extent that it’s difficult for her to believe things could be different.
Kya is shunned and reviled because she was abandoned as a child and grew up alone in the marsh. Called ‘The Marsh Girl,’ her incredible talent as a naturalist (she understands plants, animals, insects and more and creates detailed drawings and takes notes on their life cycles and habits) goes unnoticed by everyone except Tate. Tate, however, finds that he has to choose between Kya (whom he knows will never leave the marsh) and everything else that is important to him. He chooses, leaving her open to the advances of a different man in town, Chase. Kya turns to Chase out of loneliness, but Chase is not a good man. He takes advantage of her and hurts her. Kya realizes the only person she can rely upon is herself.
The book is powerful because of its incredible depiction of nature- and the way it tackles the question of morality. One could argue there is no morality in nature. If Kya is wild, more animal than girl, ought she not to be judged by that standard as well? It was when I watched the screen adaptation- which, while vivid, does not match the level of depth of the book- that I realized the story is one that fits many gifted children.
Gifted children are often (not always) weird, different and shunned by their peers. They can be lonely. Rejected, they may retreat into themselves, or find other outlets- the Internet, for example, can be a haven for many of them. When understood by someone else, it may feel like a homecoming. This is what Kya experiences when she finds Tate, and also why his rejection hurts her so much.
I was underwhelmed by the recent article in SESP magazine entitled, ‘Who Gets to Be Gifted?’ The main focus of the piece was on understanding the term ‘gifted’ as it pertains to academic potential. The definition they use is
All children have strengths and positive attributes, but not all children are gifted in the educational sense of the word. The label “gifted” in a school setting means that when compared with others of a similar age or grade, a child has an advanced capacity to learn and apply what is learned in one or more subject areas or in the performing or fine arts. This advanced capacity requires modifications to the regular curriculum to ensure that these children are challenged and learn new material and move to higher levels of achievement.
This is, of course, true. And it is also not nearly sufficient. Equity and expanding access is all very well and good. What I care about, and what I think more people should care about, is the social-emotional experience of gifted children.
Northwestern would like to claim that everything is hunky dory. In their piece, they state
Most gifted children are socially adept and are as likely to be extroverted as introverted. Gifted students are not a homogeneous group. They have different personalities, backgrounds, temperaments, and interests. There is no one psychological or personality profile for gifted individuals.
This is true. Gifted kids cannot and should not be stereotyped. They come in all shapes, sizes and boxes. But stating “most gifted children are socially adept” obscures the problem. I guess if we are defining the term ‘gifted’ as a mere “advanced capacity to learn compared with others of a similar age or grade,” that’s true. But dig deeper, and you’ll discover that’s not the whole truth.
SWGT in the below reference stands for ‘students with gifts and talents.’
Giftedness presents a unique twist to the development of relationships. Although SWGT are often popular at the elementary age, their popularity often dwindles in adolescence (J. R. Cross, 2016). Adolescents tend to be more interested in dominant, athletic types than in studious, non-athletes. Verbally gifted students have more difficulty with peers, perhaps because it is easier to spot their differences in ability (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Thomson, 2012; Peairs, 2010). The SWGT in our studies who believed that peer relationships are affected when others know about their abilities may have learned to modify their behavior in social situations so as not to stand out. For verbally gifted students, this would mean changing the vocabulary they use in various settings. It may also mean developing an interest in sports or other popular activities. While it may be important to make these efforts for their peer relationships, it is equally important for SWGT to maintain a positive academic identity while trying to fit in (J. R. Cross, Bugaj, & Mammadov, in press).
-Source here.
I did this. As a kid I was mocked for being “the walking dictionary,” so I changed my speech and started using easier vocabulary words and inserting the word “like” into my sentences. I also attempted to deny I had any kind of unique ability, argued strongly that everyone was like me or could be like me, and, when I became savvy enough, tried to hide my ability. None of it worked.
See also
Gross (2002) reviewed the literature and found evidence that the children who were highest in IQ had the most significant social difficulties and adjustment. These findings were also present in Terman’s study where a child with an IQ higher than 170 was found to have social difficulties and to be socially isolated (Burks et al 1930). Other theorists (Hollingworth, 1942) suggested that IQs ranging from 125-155 were optimum for social adjustments among the gifted while IQs 160 and above were related to difficulties with peer relationships, social isolation and withdrawal. These hypotheses have been somewhat borne out in the research. Gross (1998) and Dauber and Benbow (1990) found that children who were profoundly gifted in mathematics or verbal skills showed significant social difficulties and had the lowest social standing compared to moderately gifted children with the children with profound verbal intelligence scoring the most poorly of the four groups.
-Source here
See also
The profile analysis revealed evidence suggesting that gifted students who score significantly higher on their standardized EOG tests assessing reading and verbal abilities were more likely to be rejected and victimized relative to gifted students who scored lower on these tests. To the extent that standardized test scores accurately measure cognitive ability and/or intelligence, it is possible that gifted students with more advanced cognitive abilities are at a greater risk for being rejected and harassed by their peers. Aspects of asynchronous development may increase gifted youth’s vulnerability to experience maltreatment by peers. Not surprisingly, gifted students report that hiding talents (e.g., “[I] cut back on raising my hand when no one knew the 124 answer.”), is one strategy they use to avoid harassment (Peterson & Ray, 2006), which overlaps with argument that verbally precocious youth may have a harder time hiding their talents than those gifted in the math domain (Brody & Benbow, 1986; Dauber & Benbow, 1990).
Additionally
More recent work finding that extremely gifted youth, compared to moderately gifted youth, report experiencing lower levels of popularity (Brody & Benbow, 1986; Dauber & Benbow, 1990), having fewer friends (Janos et al., 1985) and having more advance conceptions and expectations of friendships (Gross, 2001) draws attention to the relevance of examining level of giftedness in an effort to identify which gifted students have more problematic peer relations and are, subsequently, more at risk for poorer adjustment. Along that same line, the addition of domain-specific measures of giftedness (math vs. verbal vs. both) may prove to be an important factor in distinguishing between gifted youth with and without peer problems, especially considering the findings that differences in verbal and 128 math abilities were differentially related to self-reported social competence (Brody & Benbow, 1986; Dauber & Benbow, 1990). Without such measures of how a student presents as gifted, the current study was not able to accurately explore how aspects of asynchronous development, such as advanced cognitive ability, related to the peer relations of gifted youth.
-page 127, Peairs
Here’s a paper from 2020 called ‘Identification of Gifted Characteristics Using the Behavioral Assessment Scale for Children—Third Edition’ by Kristine Zytka.
It also seems that the type of giftedness may influence peer interactions. Several researchers discovered that giftedness in verbal abilities is more often associated with peer difficulties. Verbally gifted children may feel pressured to mask their abilities in order to communicate on the same level as typically developing peers their age, which may result in identity conflict (Lee et al., 2012; Peairs, 2010). Gifted students may also have feelings of guilt or injustice when they outperform others or if they have access to other educational opportunities such as gifted programs (Hertzog, 2003; Grobman, 2009; Niehart, Pfeiffer, & Cross, 2015.)
And here’s a fun fact about writers and mental health.
Ludwig (1995) conducted a large-scale investigation of over 1000 eminent individuals who were the subjects of major biographies written between 1960 and 1990. Over one-fourth of this sample was comprised of writers of some type- poets, non-fiction writers and fiction writers. Ludwig found higher incidence of mental illness among those in artistic professions (writing, art, theater) than in non-artistic professions (e.g. business, politics, and science), and poets tended to have among the highest rates of depression and psychosis of all the groups. Although Ludwig’s choice of using subjects of biographies as his testing population is defensible, it does pose a risk: As Rothenberg (1995) has pointed out, biographies of eminent individuals, especially creative artists, often emphasize traits and stories that might be considered signs of mental illness. In addition, people with severe problems, mental or otherwise, make better subjects for books. They are more complex and more interesting. Even though Ludwig’s list of eminent individuals had solid overlaps with other Who’s Who type lists, the high rate of mental illness may not necessarily be a perfect representation of writers.
-page 38 in ‘The Sylvia Plath Effect: Mental Illness in Eminent Creative Writers’
People hear the word ‘gifted’ and assume that someone is showing off, boasting or bragging. That’s not what’s happening. If someone were to say that a student had ADHD, or dyslexia or some other learning difference, they would need the intervention that would help them. There are students out there who are gifted (and not just in the academic sense where they can access more advanced material) and are in crisis due to it. They don’t have real peers, they are incredibly lonely, they feel rejection keenly, they try to hide who they are and can’t do it, and they may walk around feeling guilty due to all of it.
These are the Kyas of the world. These are the kids we need to help.
And pretending they don’t exist by re-defining ‘gifted’ to mean kids who simply need a higher level of academic challenge…isn’t useful.
The Kyas of the Gifted World
Oh yay! I'm actually currently in middle of listening to this book on audible! It's really good so far. Of course, I didn't read this post yet. Looking forward to coming back here after I finish the book to get even more meaning from out of it! :)