Depression

[flexibeast]

My life has been rather fraught of late, and i guess at some point i will probably provide a proper update; but for now i just wanted to post this link regarding existential depression in gifted individuals. When i was young, i was regarded as 'gifted', and i really feel the article in question resonates with my own life experiences, both then and now. Key paras for me:

Why should such existential concerns occur disproportionately among gifted persons? Partially, it is because substantial thought and reflection must occur to even consider such notions, rather than simply focusing on superficial day-to-day aspects of life. Other more specific characteristics of gifted children are important predisposers as well.

Because gifted children are able to consider the possibilities of how things might be, they tend to be idealists. However, they are simultaneously able to see that the world is falling short of how it might be. Because they are intense, gifted children feel keenly the disappointment and frustration which occurs when ideals are not reached. Similarly, these youngsters quickly spot the inconsistencies, arbitrariness and absurdities in society and in the behaviors of those around them. Traditions are questioned or challenged. For example, why do we put such tight sex-role or age-role restrictions on people? Why do people engage in hypocritical behaviors in which they say one thing and then do another? Why do people say things they really do not mean at all? Why are so many people so unthinking and uncaring in their dealings with others? How much difference in the world can one person's life make?

When gifted children try to share these concerns with others, they are usually met with reactions ranging from puzzlement to hostility. They discover that others, particularly of their age, clearly do not share these concerns, but instead are focused on more concrete issues and on fitting in with others' expectations. Often by even first grade, these youngsters, particularly the more highly gifted ones, feel isolated from their peers and perhaps from their families as they find that others are not prepared to discuss such weighty concerns.

Comments

[penguinpusher.livejournal.com]

seems to affect all too many on my friends list :( myself included sometimes (though I suspect you've noticed)

[indigo1.livejournal.com]

the picture of existential depression in gifted kids seems pretty accurate to me, remembering back to my own experience of (undiagnosed and untreated) depression at age 12. (yes, i was allegedly 'gifted', whatever that means. and allegedly 'troubled'.)

however, their answer to the problem seems trite and superficial - give them a hug and a book and let them know they are not alone. it seems to me that the big thing that my parents gave me was not a sense that i was not alone, because i was, but an acknowledgement of the fact that i was beyond my peers (and in some things beyond my parents) and that i would have to deal with this difference if i was to get along in the world. they also gave me an ethical approach that basically states that the higher your ability the greater your responsibility - a good basis for learning to live with different levels of ability. (that and having a 'learning-disabled' brother)

but the thing i think would have helped me most would have been to be put somewhere with other smart children so i could find out i wasn't the only one who was so goddamned special, but that never happened. i think it was quite detrimental to my development as a person to spend most of my childhood without meeting any kids smarter than me. (i went to really crappy schools) i think the best thing anyone could ever do for this problem is to put gifted children in with others who do have the intelligence to share their concerns.

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

Meh, I'll admit, spending time with other smart kids (I got placed in an accelerated learning class at about 13) really didn't help me at all. It didn't help that I was a pretty subby kid, so the smart kids who realised that they were top cheese now started bullying me. Not pretty.

It probably didn't give me a particularly nice picture of teenage psychology, years after the fact. One thing I realised is that smart kids tend to have even more social issues then not-smart kids, and given an opportunity to "rise to the top" of other smart kids, will do so immediately, without care of others.

Mostly because many smart kids are raised (intentionally or otherwise) to make their intelligence (or at least, their showing off of that intelligence) their primary means of gratification, I suspect. Thus, put them in a situation where other kids are around who are smart, but maybe smart in different ways, or not quite as smart as them in their chosen field... It becomes very interesting.

Of course, my experience was a little more complex then that, now that I look back. It's not just ego-games that get played, but even smart teenage kids still play the same social games as not-smart kids, complete with the same solidarity-by-ostracisation tricks. Heck, I suspect I'd've played those tricks just as much when I was younger, given sufficient opportunity.

Many people kinda forget that intelligence is not connected to social development, not really. Children and Teenagers play the same social games regardless of their age, because they're going through the same stages of development.

[indigo1.livejournal.com]

well, there goes my fantasy of smart-kid solidarity shot down in flames...

they didn't have accelerated learning classes back in my day. i was in high school before i ever met another kid who was my intellectual equal, and i was an adult before i met anyone significantly smarter than me. (which is not because i'm that smart, it's because i grew up in unfortunate socio-economic circumstances.)

so what do you do with smart kids? my experience of total isolation was really bad for me, but your experience of being in with other smart kids seems pretty bad too.

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

This question is one that a lot of researchers ask. How do you deal with highly intelligent children?

I think, honestly, that the best option is to keep them together, but understand that they're going to be teenagers, and there are going to be power struggles in the classroom. Treat them as the teenagers they are, frankly, but give them more intellectual stimulation. It's really all you can do - teenagers do eventually become adults, and eventually become more socially minded. Encourage this, like you'd encourage any other teenager, and hopefully you'll end up with intelligent adults with decent social values. Just remember that not all intelligent kids are geeks, and don't expect them to instantly merge together as a unit, and things will be all hunky-dory. The point is managing it so it doesn't completely destroy them.

Although, with that said, I'm not 100% certain that gifted classes are the best thing for all bright kids - A friend of mine who was in the same class with me burned out in the second year of the program (I left about half-way through the two-year program due to my parents moving to Melbourne). Intensely bright guy, but the acceleration didn't do him any favours. He's happily married now (went to the wedding last January!), and is enjoying where he is in life, so don't think it screwed him up horribly at all (hell, he's doing better than I on that point), but it's interesting to see how different people react differently to the same regime.

[indigo1.livejournal.com]

intellectual stimulation! at school! now that would have been nice. my memories of school are total, unremitting, brain-numbing boredom and piss-poor teaching by ethically sub-standard adults. and disdain and contempt for the people around me who were nonetheless the only teachers and peers i had. i left in disgust at 16 and got a job. i'm amazed i didn't turn out to be a complete arsehole given that start in life (or maybe i have, and haven't noticed).

i've done pretty well for myself despite all that, but i've (obviously) got a chip on my shoulder about the lack of educational opportunities that were available to me. now you've gone and ruined my little fantasy of how wonderful it would have been to go to a decent school where they knew how to teach smart kids. oh well... i probably would have fucked-up at a decent school by being the bad kid from the wrong side of the tracks anyway...

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

To do some justice to this discussion, my own experience being grouped into smart programs was generally positive. kirby1024 is certainly right that even the brightest kids are in a fairly similar place socially as regular kids. The ones who turn their intelligence into introspection mature much more quickly than normal kids, but it seems that only a particular subset of smart kids are prone to do that.

Generally speaking, I would say that in +2σ programs like you get for gifted programs in primary ed the kids are still just kids. Already you get into the problem that few adults know how to deal with someone who's smarter than them, let alone how to teach them. People are very intimidated by intelligence and so it sets off all the triggers for social combat. But the biggest problem for +2σ kids is simply teaching them. They abhor rote exercise, know when they're being condescended to, know just how far they can push the system and still get an A, can get by without studying or paying attention in class, etc. While their social development may still be childish, their intelligence gives them an insight into how the system works and they'll use that to the greatest extent they can. Here is where I think a lot of the negative experience kirby was referring to comes in.

The real problems come in with the +3σ kids. Even against the metric of +2σ programs they're as bored as +2σ kids in regular classes. And by this point most teachers have entirely given up on being able to teach them something they don't already know, and many teachers may even fear/hate them because they'll constantly upstage the teacher (in part unintentionally, and in part out of malicious boredom). Given their statistical dispersion, there isn't really an easy way to set up a schooling program for them, so any help they get will be extracurricular.

There seem to be two kinds of +3σ kids: the hyperfocused, and the panspective. The hyperfocused kids are the ones you can set loose in a laboratory environment and they'll just tinker away, oblivious to the social goings on. They tend to be the ones in the smart-bordering-on-autistic realm. For them, good programs are things like Physics Olympics or Math Camp where they can pit their mind against other schools' brightest in open-ended competitions. You can't really teach them facts, but you can still teach them method, and these programs are good for that since you don't need brilliance to have and teach good methods. For hyperfocused kids who aren't into math/physics/computers, there doesn't seem to be very many analogous programs.

The panspective kids are the ones who will try their hand at a bit of everything, the ones who'll experiment just to test the boundaries of what they can do. The constant problem here is having enough to keep them entertained. They're the ones more likely to give over to introspection or turn their intelligence to social engineering, more because it's an available venue to experiment in than because of any high-minded nature per se. Given the breadth of their intelligence they're the ones most disenfranchised by the focus on specialization in our academic system, and unless they can discern a more robust self-esteem they'll find themselves upstaged by the hyperfocused (in the HF's field of expertise) which can lead to "not smart enough" syndrome. I think these kids are the hardest to make programs for, though there are some summer programs like CTY which provide enough of academe with not only extreme depth but also variety of disciplines and children to interact with.

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

That article does really resonate. A part of me, the part that has grown suspicious/cynical of smart people patting themselves on the back (in general, and especially for their limitations), really wishes there were more references cited though. That is, I'd rather see it as an academic article than as an op-ed because it really does highlight a core feature of gifted youth, and a feature that is rampantly ignored by institutional programs which are paid to deal with kids who fall -3σ to -2σ while they erroneously assume the +2σ to +3σ kids can just fend for themselves and make the best of things.

The two paragraphs/sentences that particularly stuck out for me were the third one you cited (When gifted children try to share these concerns with others, they are usually met with reactions ranging from puzzlement to hostility.). And also the third to last para (A particular way of breaking through the sense of isolation is through touch.) in light of some of my recent pondering on the nature and origins of my polyamory. That second one stood out particularly because my only haven in early teenage years was a group of friends over the summer at CTY, and one of our most common modes while hanging out was cuddle piles. Which in turn is an activity I oft cite in trying to explain poly to people, most recently to the love of my life (who's also quite bright, though she thinks she isn't because she never had much opportunity to express it as a kid and isn't the geek variety of smart).