Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott
Speaker 1: and Barry Kaufman, where we give you insights into the mind, brain, behavior,
Speaker 1: and creativity. Each episode will feature a new guest who
Speaker 1: will stimulate your mind and give you a greater understanding
Speaker 1: of yourself, others, and the world we live in. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening and enjoy the podcast. It's my great pleasure
Speaker 1: to have Don and Matthews on the show today, co
Speaker 1: author with Joanne Foster of Beyond Intelligence Secrets for Raising
Speaker 1: Happily Productive Kids. Don, I just want to say thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being on my show today. You've
Speaker 1: been a huge influence on my work for many years. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you. I'm delighted to be here. I wanted to
Speaker 1: ask you, Donna, what is a happily productive kid. It's
Speaker 1: somebody who's engaged in doing something that he or she
Speaker 1: thinks is valuable and is moving in the in the
Speaker 1: close space what Mahi would to call it the close space.
Speaker 1: So somebody who's learning and growing and extending and extending
Speaker 1: their areas of competence. Oh, that's really interesting. So you
Speaker 1: really do tie this this idea of flow, which has
Speaker 1: to do with this sort of optimal zone of challenge, right,
Speaker 1: So you're very well matched to the task at hand
Speaker 1: with being a happily productive kid. Well, that's that's wonderful.
Speaker 1: That's certainly not our predominant culture in schools, is it,
Speaker 1: or what we value? Yeah, for sure, I think that
Speaker 1: is changing. You know. My personal observation is that schools
Speaker 1: are increasingly aware of the importance of engaging kids in
Speaker 1: the learning process. Yeah. And do you think that schools
Speaker 1: really are of engaging the kids in a way that
Speaker 1: is optimally challenging to them? Well, no, I mean you no,
Speaker 1: I mean some schools are obviously mostly not, but I
Speaker 1: think increasingly educators and parents are aware of these concepts.
Speaker 1: So I'm optimistic that sort of with growing awareness, you know,
Speaker 1: there is increasing pressure on parents and on schools to
Speaker 1: make sure that kids are enjoying their learning and engaged
Speaker 1: in it and challenged by it, so they're learning in
Speaker 1: ways that the kids themselves find valuable. So the title
Speaker 1: of your book is called Beyond Intelligence, And in order
Speaker 1: to go beyond that, I thought we would start with
Speaker 1: what is intelligence? Okay, And as you know, there are
Speaker 1: a million definitions of what intelligence is, and I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of interesting work that's been done on this.
Speaker 1: It's very contentious. The sort of functional definition that Joanne
Speaker 1: Foster and I are using is that intelligence is the
Speaker 1: ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt objectively to the environment,
Speaker 1: to overcome obstacles, engage meaningly in various forms of briefly,
Speaker 1: and to learn from experience. They we talk about how
Speaker 1: it developed incrementally and varies across time and situations and domains. Wow,
Speaker 1: that is a really it seems like a comprehensive definition
Speaker 1: of intelligence that that gives people a lot of opportunities
Speaker 1: to display this thing that we call intelligence. It sounds
Speaker 1: like you're not tying it necessarily to the kinds of
Speaker 1: skills measured by Q tests. Is that right for sure?
Speaker 1: I mean, in fact, that's certainly. One of my big
Speaker 1: motivators is that I see the IQ test as so limited.
Speaker 1: It provides interesting information for people when they're case you
Speaker 1: are having problems learning, but it's so limited. What we're
Speaker 1: working on is something a lot more inclusive, with the
Speaker 1: notion that all children can develop their intelligence. Intelligence is
Speaker 1: something that does develop over time with opportunities to learn,
Speaker 1: and it's accessible to everybody, So people are a lot
Speaker 1: less limited than they usually believe they are. Okay, So
Speaker 1: at any given moment in time, would you say that
Speaker 1: there are people who differ in their intelligence levels, even
Speaker 1: if everyone's capable of developing their intelligence, Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1: I mean people vary in the extent to which they're
Speaker 1: able to reason, for example, or demonstrate mastery of a
Speaker 1: certain domain. Now, I think that we have a lot
Speaker 1: more capacity to develop those abilities than we usually are aware.
Speaker 1: So there are fewer limitations on that than people often think.
Speaker 1: It's not a fixed thing. However, at any given point
Speaker 1: in time, one person will have develop their musical intelligence,
Speaker 1: say farther than somebody else. Okay, so you definitely uh view.
Speaker 1: It sounds like you're putting various things in the label
Speaker 1: of intelligence. So do you would you include like musical
Speaker 1: competency as a form of intelligence, Well, that would be
Speaker 1: a foundation. You need a certain level of competence in
Speaker 1: the domain, you know, I like Howard Gardner's perspective the
Speaker 1: multiple intelligence. So you need some kind of competence in
Speaker 1: the area, but then you need to do something with it.
Speaker 1: So there is the sort of the understanding the complexity
Speaker 1: of ideas, so pulling ideas together, so you start with
Speaker 1: the competence that then there's what you do with that competence.
Speaker 1: How do you adapt to challenges as they come along?
Speaker 1: What do you do about obstacles? I think that's all
Speaker 1: part of what intelligence is. Wow, that's so that's such
Speaker 1: a I think it's going to give a be very
Speaker 1: refreshing to a lot of people, a lot of parents,
Speaker 1: you know, and to hear that that that broadened definition
Speaker 1: of the intelligence. So if a student score is high
Speaker 1: on an IQ test, you you do think that's an
Speaker 1: indicator of high intelligence. It is an indication of sofiing
Speaker 1: a high intelligence at least in the capacities that the
Speaker 1: IQ test tests. So, yes, an IQ test absolutely measures,
Speaker 1: for example, I think it measures linguistic reasoning pretty well.
Speaker 1: So how you know it's a vocabulary is assessed. That's
Speaker 1: a really important dimension of the ability to reason in
Speaker 1: the language domain. So a high IQ score tells you
Speaker 1: that a person has developed that particular capacity or intelligence
Speaker 1: pretty well. Right. But you're saying that there are many
Speaker 1: many ways that if someone scores well on an IQ
Speaker 1: test that they could still be develop their intelligence even
Speaker 1: if that IQ score doesn't budge. Is that what you're
Speaker 1: saying absolutely absolutely. I think so. As you said a
Speaker 1: minute ago, a high IQ does indicate a high level
Speaker 1: of intelligence of a certain kind of intelligence. However, a
Speaker 1: less than high IQ score could mean a child who
Speaker 1: doesn't test well for one reason or another, some anxiety
Speaker 1: in or test situation, some lack of opportunity to have
Speaker 1: learned certain dimensions of test taking skills. It could be
Speaker 1: an illness on a certain day. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: whole lot of reasons not to do well on an
Speaker 1: IQ test. The only way you can do well unless
Speaker 1: you're you're cheating, you know, unless you've been prepped for it,
Speaker 1: and that does happen. But if that hasn't happened, Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, what it does mean is that you're highly
Speaker 1: capable in those capacities that the IQ test tests, right,
Speaker 1: So that's it's a really uh yeah, I really like
Speaker 1: this perspective that you have. And in this book you
Speaker 1: go through lots of myths of intelligence and even talk
Speaker 1: about some dangerous ideas. There's one idea you said you
Speaker 1: referred to in the book is the most dangerous idea?
Speaker 1: Do you could you? Uh, do you remember what that was? Uh?
Speaker 1: It's probably about potential limiting potential like the no something else. No,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right, that's exactly year. Remember your book, Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: that some kids are destined for success because there are
Speaker 1: high IQ will others have limited potential. This idea, you know,
Speaker 1: this notion of potential is something that I'm fascinated with
Speaker 1: as well. And I tried to think through what the
Speaker 1: word potential really means and if we ever can identify that,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on potential and why do you
Speaker 1: think it's a dangerous idea? Yeah, I really think that
Speaker 1: and a seamness in practice. So often where teachers and
Speaker 1: parents think, and it works on the high end as
Speaker 1: well as the low end to limit kids' ability and
Speaker 1: to push them away from higher level achievement. So when
Speaker 1: people say to a kid, oh, you know, you could
Speaker 1: do a lot better than that. Your potential is to greatness,
Speaker 1: there's some terrible pressure on that kid and they are
Speaker 1: pushed into what Carold Wett calls the fixed mindset. So
Speaker 1: to talk about kids as having high potential is interestingly
Speaker 1: and somewhat counterintuitively very limiting. So it moves them towards
Speaker 1: the fixed mindset, where they're less likely to do risky
Speaker 1: intellectual things to take on high level challenges. And then
Speaker 1: on the other side of it, it's a bit more
Speaker 1: obvious or intuitive, where the challenge kid they don't have
Speaker 1: the potential, then they typically live down to your estimation,
Speaker 1: and that obviously is very sad and limiting too. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, some kids take that as a challenge and
Speaker 1: do very well with it, as I think your story
Speaker 1: illustrates where the tolg to have limited potential leads you
Speaker 1: to work really hard to develop. So, but that's rare,
Speaker 1: that is less common. I've seen it a lot lot
Speaker 1: more damaging to children than useful. Right, right, right, right,
Speaker 1: h You've worked a lot in the in the field
Speaker 1: of talent development, and you've edited some books on this
Speaker 1: topic which have very much influenced me. I'm just trying
Speaker 1: to think through you know, why is it called Why
Speaker 1: do you guys call it talent development? Suppose it's just
Speaker 1: like human development, like you know, yeah, I mean I
Speaker 1: think where this comes from, the concept of talent development
Speaker 1: comes so one of his friends. At any rate is
Speaker 1: a push back against use of the word gifted, an
Speaker 1: attempt to move away from something that is innate and fixed,
Speaker 1: like we tend to think of somebody who's gifted as
Speaker 1: they were given some gift at birth of a higher
Speaker 1: level of potential to succeed, and so there's some innate
Speaker 1: and fixed quality with whereas talent development that the concept,
Speaker 1: the words are all the empathus on the development of
Speaker 1: human abilities. So it is much more that the doing
Speaker 1: than the being. Yeah, and that is a big debate
Speaker 1: in the in the field of gifted education, is giftness
Speaker 1: and talent what you do or who you are exactly
Speaker 1: and you do? You do tend to focus on the
Speaker 1: what you do aspect more and you're that's that's reflected
Speaker 1: very much in your theory of intelligence and as very
Speaker 1: much something that's operating out there in the real world
Speaker 1: in an effective, adaptive manner, not just necessarily the essence
Speaker 1: of your being. That's you know, captured by an IQ test.
Speaker 1: That's very evident in your book. And yeah, I can
Speaker 1: I can see I can see why you would uh
Speaker 1: you know, refer to this talent development and talk about
Speaker 1: and uh you know, and and you'd also admit though
Speaker 1: that there are things that we can develop even if
Speaker 1: we're not talented in those things. That's that's the thing
Speaker 1: that I that I want to try to understand as well,
Speaker 1: because you know, you have a talent development model, but
Speaker 1: what if you're a kid who just has a passion
Speaker 1: for something and not the talent for it. Would you
Speaker 1: want to cut them out of the talent development program? Yeah? No,
Speaker 1: And you see, I would take it the opposite direction
Speaker 1: that I see talent as something that develops. I don't
Speaker 1: see it as innate. I don't. Yeah, And it's interesting
Speaker 1: because it's obviously very contentious. And in the book that
Speaker 1: I did with readA sebotni from Francis Horowitz, The Development
Speaker 1: of Talent and Gifted this. I love that book, by
Speaker 1: the way, Oh thank you, thank you. I'm really proud
Speaker 1: of that book. But you know, we we had a
Speaker 1: lot of discussions among ourselves about about, you know, how
Speaker 1: much is any talent innate? Are some people just born
Speaker 1: more musical for example? And you know, in the end
Speaker 1: we agreed to disagree on that. And I certainly I
Speaker 1: have enormous respect for both of my co authors on
Speaker 1: that book. You know, they're both amazing human beings with
Speaker 1: huge crudentials in this area. Francis and I were more
Speaker 1: of sport I think on this, and Riada had a
Speaker 1: lot more experience in the musical talent area and feels that,
Speaker 1: or felt at that time as we were working on
Speaker 1: that book, that there are some important musicality dimensions. It
Speaker 1: shouldn't maybe right, you know, this is something that I'm
Speaker 1: not sure about, but certainly for sure, and all three
Speaker 1: of us working on this book feel very strongly about this.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of diffmensions that do develop that
Speaker 1: aren't in AIG at all, but that require opportunities to
Speaker 1: learn combined with the passionate interest. And he's talked about
Speaker 1: the passion for something. I don't think any of us
Speaker 1: Princess Horowitz readings, Avaki for lot, would disagree that somebody
Speaker 1: with a great passion for something is liable to go
Speaker 1: farther than somebody who shows up with more early level
Speaker 1: ability but less passion or engagement. So the engagement factor
Speaker 1: is huge, and of course one of the big interesting
Speaker 1: questions is where that comes from and how much of
Speaker 1: that might be innate. And I think there are temperaments
Speaker 1: different for the class kids, and I'm certainly willing to
Speaker 1: concede that temperament factors can be innate. We have some
Speaker 1: pretty solid evidence about that, you know, in my book
Speaker 1: and gifted. I define talent as having a passion and
Speaker 1: proclivity to massure the rules of a domean and I
Speaker 1: kind of see passion as a fundamental aspect of intelligence
Speaker 1: and talent. You know. I like that. I like that
Speaker 1: perspective a lot. Yeah, so you, I thought we could
Speaker 1: for the rest of this area. Can we go through
Speaker 1: some of these myths that a lot of people have
Speaker 1: and maybe can you can help to spell them for
Speaker 1: me or for listeners. I'm just going to read various
Speaker 1: statements to you and can you tell me if they're
Speaker 1: true or false? Sure? Okay, by the time a child
Speaker 1: is three years old, his intelligence level is set for life. No,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. All this work is being done on neuroplasticity,
Speaker 1: the way the brain develops. We know for sure that
Speaker 1: the brain can keep on developing across the lifespan. Even
Speaker 1: I like brain age, I'm old, Even I can continue
Speaker 1: to develop my intelligence if I keep on thinking and
Speaker 1: working and challenging myself. Sure, and Ray, and you already
Speaker 1: addressed a lot of that in some earlier comments you
Speaker 1: said in this interview about how you really do think
Speaker 1: anyone can develop their intelligence to a substantial degree. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I mean, the three years old is you know,
Speaker 1: we chose that in this myth because of course those
Speaker 1: first three years of life from zero to three are
Speaker 1: hugely important in building the brain. So I'm not going
Speaker 1: to dispute the value of the importance of the zero
Speaker 1: to three. However, at the age of three, a child
Speaker 1: is still developing his intelligence, and there's lots more room
Speaker 1: for growth across the lifespan. Absolutely, and that, of course
Speaker 1: give gives hope to lots of people. I think I
Speaker 1: wish that you know, I knew you when I was
Speaker 1: a kid. H I wish I read your book me too,
Speaker 1: you know, because I am an advocate for kids like
Speaker 1: you who you know, like you were, as I know
Speaker 1: you through your book I'm Gifted and to other works
Speaker 1: that a child whose abilities didn't show up initially in
Speaker 1: an I protest, but he clearly had all kinds of
Speaker 1: strengths that needed to be affirmed and supportive. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: really do like a various strengths based approach to talent
Speaker 1: development as opposed to just, you know, focusing on what
Speaker 1: we lack or needs. Yes, so here's another one, true
Speaker 1: or false. The more you praise a child for his intelligence,
Speaker 1: the more confident he'll be right. I mean, and again,
Speaker 1: this is false. This is one of those myths that
Speaker 1: you know, a commonly health misconception is that it's good
Speaker 1: to say to somebody, oh, you're so smart, you're a genius,
Speaker 1: you're brilliant, stuff like that, when in fact, I mean
Speaker 1: and again, I'm reading heavily on the work that Perilgraph
Speaker 1: and others in the positive psychology and mindset areas have
Speaker 1: done demonstrating to my mind pretty conclusively that it's actually
Speaker 1: damaging to praise someone for their intelligence, which people tend
Speaker 1: to think of as innate and fixed, and instead what
Speaker 1: we ought to be doing is praising people for their
Speaker 1: for their achievements and for their process. So to comment
Speaker 1: on a picture that a child is drawing, for example,
Speaker 1: and say, oh, my goodness, you're so talented there such
Speaker 1: an artist is actually harmful to their artistic ability. But
Speaker 1: a better thing to say of a kid is, wow,
Speaker 1: you work really hard on that. I love what you
Speaker 1: did with the colors. That combination of the red and
Speaker 1: the blue and the yellow really makes sense in this picture.
Speaker 1: And what do you think you're going to do with
Speaker 1: the next one? So that you're focusing on the products
Speaker 1: and on the process, but not on some kind of
Speaker 1: innate quality of the person that's doing. It's understand, it's
Speaker 1: about the doing, not about the I was just going
Speaker 1: to say that that's very consistent with that doing perspective. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of what I write about
Speaker 1: is really there's a real strong connection between Carol Grex's
Speaker 1: work and my own, Like I really like what she
Speaker 1: talks about and how she talks about it and the
Speaker 1: research findings that she's bought in this in these areas. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's very clear. That's very clear when you read your writings. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's something. So here's another one. Some people are creative
Speaker 1: and some aren't. Yeah, and again this is this is
Speaker 1: like these are sort of like really obvious kinds of
Speaker 1: out there kinds of statements when you you know, in
Speaker 1: our fields, but it is it remains to be a
Speaker 1: commonly health misconception. Some people are creative and some are
Speaker 1: and absolutely full anybody can learn to be creative. And
Speaker 1: I love Bob Sternberg's you know, ten Decisions for Creativity,
Speaker 1: Ten ways you can decide for creativity, And so he's
Speaker 1: really emphasizing very strongly the doing rather than the being
Speaker 1: of creativity as well as intelligence. Absolutely, Yeah, he really
Speaker 1: does refer to it as kind of a creative spirit
Speaker 1: or attitude. Yeah. Yeah, creativity is a choice, right exactly. Okay,
Speaker 1: how do you know, how do you define creativity? Donna? Like,
Speaker 1: how do you do you distinguish intelligence from creativity? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean I think they're really connected. Obviously. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you know Dan Keating's work, but I love
Speaker 1: what he's done in creativity. He wrote a paper in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty that I don't think anybody's written anything that
Speaker 1: superseded at fourth clarity, and he talked about it's called
Speaker 1: the fourth Bases of Creativity and I think it was
Speaker 1: Get a Child Quarterly that it was in or something.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure that's where it looks. But what he
Speaker 1: talks about there, his fourth faces of creativity are content mastery,
Speaker 1: so you've got to know the stuff, you have to
Speaker 1: have knowledge with which to be creative. And then divergent thinking.
Speaker 1: You know, a lot of people think of creativity as
Speaker 1: divergent thinking, so thinking outside the box. It's sort of
Speaker 1: novel novelty to a lot of people. Novelty isqu of creativity. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: the diversion thinking affect is an important it's it's necessary,
Speaker 1: but really very much not sufficient to creativity. So another
Speaker 1: dimension that Heating talks about that a lot of people
Speaker 1: miss in creativity is the critical thinking component. So you
Speaker 1: have to you know, have lots of diversion ideas, but
Speaker 1: then you have to decide which one to follow. And
Speaker 1: that's where the critical thinking comes in because you can't
Speaker 1: follow all your ideas, so critical thinking about which ideas
Speaker 1: are most practical. And then is the communication skills where
Speaker 1: you translate so that content mastery, the diversion thinking, the
Speaker 1: critical thinking, you translate that into something useful for people.
Speaker 1: So if it's in the world of music, you are
Speaker 1: able to perform or write something that is musically valuable
Speaker 1: to other people. Sure that sounds like a really good
Speaker 1: perspective and a very consistent with a lot of modern
Speaker 1: day theories of creativity is both novelty and usefulness. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I'm going to put that article in our show notes. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you could send it to me. That great, Okay, I
Speaker 1: will highly intelligent people or children have more social and
Speaker 1: emotional problems than other kids, right, And I know, I
Speaker 1: mean it's interesting. I mean there are so many duances
Speaker 1: and complexity to this, and you've done a lot of
Speaker 1: writing in this area, so you know, this is something
Speaker 1: that I'd enjoy a conversation with you about, but certainly
Speaker 1: from from my staff point looking at all the research
Speaker 1: on because my work has been in the area of
Speaker 1: gifted development, so I've predominantly worked with exceptionally capable of kids,
Speaker 1: and you know, both in private practice and academic or
Speaker 1: research areas. It's it seems to me that the research
Speaker 1: is and my my experience is that at a certain point,
Speaker 1: and maybe once you get to three standard deviations above
Speaker 1: the meme I got an IW of one plus something
Speaker 1: like that. Once you get to that level, I think
Speaker 1: it does get harder for kids to relate to others.
Speaker 1: They are more different than the thinking processes than others,
Speaker 1: harder for them sort of categorically, now you know people
Speaker 1: who have that level of you know, i Q tests
Speaker 1: for very so tremendously there way more unlike each other
Speaker 1: than they are like each other. So I'm talking generalities here,
Speaker 1: but it's only once you get to that real extreme
Speaker 1: that you get you know, so below that a higher
Speaker 1: i Q is actually a plus factor. Socially, typically I mean,
Speaker 1: it depends a whole lot on what else is going
Speaker 1: on in the person's life. Depends a whole lot more
Speaker 1: on temperament than it does on IQ. It depends on like,
Speaker 1: your social intelligence and your your intellectual quotient are really
Speaker 1: different variables. They're they're very different, so that we've all
Speaker 1: known people who are socially extremely competent but would not
Speaker 1: score very well on an I protest and vice versa.
Speaker 1: It's neither a high IQ. It's neither an asset nor
Speaker 1: a detriment in terms of social ability. So much of
Speaker 1: it seems to be contextual. You know, if you're if
Speaker 1: you're putting in an environment where you're you're you're with
Speaker 1: classmates and individuals who are operating at the same speed
Speaker 1: as you, it seems like you could be more socially
Speaker 1: adept than you know, you could feel more awkward if
Speaker 1: you're in a situation where you feel out of place.
Speaker 1: So some of that might be environmental effects, not trait
Speaker 1: traite effects. I mean, that's true. I think, I think
Speaker 1: there's truth to that, but I would caution against, I mean,
Speaker 1: because that seems to argue for pulling high IQ. Kids
Speaker 1: being together with each other and it seems to me
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of costs to doing that too,
Speaker 1: So yeah, there can be some advantages, but well, you know,
Speaker 1: if you just take IQ out out of the equation,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know why why the center of
Speaker 1: the universe is i Q for so many people. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's so many traits that people will vary on, so
Speaker 1: many characteristics. Yeah, I think there is something to be
Speaker 1: said for allowing people to kind of find their own
Speaker 1: you know, uh group, whatever it is. If it's interests,
Speaker 1: you know, based on interest, based on inclinations, whatever it is.
Speaker 1: You know, we really can move just beyond the i
Speaker 1: Q thing. I don't know why these kinds of discussions,
Speaker 1: Why why i q's tread is the sacred you know
Speaker 1: thing that is, like, you know, there's just one trait, right,
Speaker 1: It's just one. Why you do you know why? Of course,
Speaker 1: because it's it's the thing that we have a test for.
Speaker 1: So we have that's true. I think we have a
Speaker 1: number on We think we know about it, like we've
Speaker 1: got this measurement and it seems to mean something, you know,
Speaker 1: we treat it like it means something. And so whereas
Speaker 1: if we look at interest based groupings for example, like, wow,
Speaker 1: there's no numbers there. Yeah, we really do like the
Speaker 1: we we reify these things absolutely absolutely, Yeah that's true. Okay,
Speaker 1: here's another one. How about the faster a child completes
Speaker 1: tests and assignments, the smarter the child. Okay, and again,
Speaker 1: you know, it's funny going through this. It seems so
Speaker 1: obvious to me. It's sort of almost laughable in its simplicity,
Speaker 1: and it's I know. But the reason each of one
Speaker 1: of these, including that one, is in there, is that
Speaker 1: that we've encountered so many circumstances where people really believe
Speaker 1: these things that a child who goes through his work
Speaker 1: slowly isn't as smart as the child who whips through it.
Speaker 1: And you know, again, in my work with kids, what
Speaker 1: I see is some of the most deep, amazing, thoughtful kids,
Speaker 1: like they're really really smart. Kids are really very slow.
Speaker 1: And then you get other kids who do go through
Speaker 1: stuff very quickly, but it's only on a very superficial level.
Speaker 1: So so again I think there's a much bigger temperament
Speaker 1: faster see than there is anything else. Although that being said,
Speaker 1: of course, when you know something really well, you're likely
Speaker 1: to be a lot faster at it. So there's some
Speaker 1: connection there between speed and intelligence, but it's sure not
Speaker 1: the one to one corresponds that a lot of parents
Speaker 1: and teachers think it is right. It does sound like
Speaker 1: you're including knowledge as part of intelligence, like expertise in
Speaker 1: specifics means absolutely, I do as well, I do. I
Speaker 1: agree intelligent children don't have learning problems. Well, my goodness,
Speaker 1: you know there's a book I'm going to recommend, un
Speaker 1: Gifted by Scott Kind. Do think, Yeah, you know, it's
Speaker 1: really very false and your book beautifully makes that point,
Speaker 1: like in a way I don't think it's ever been
Speaker 1: made before that. Well, it's true that, yes, absolutely, there's
Speaker 1: we all have a variable profile of intelligencers. We all
Speaker 1: have strength, we all have weaknesses, and even the very
Speaker 1: smartest person in one domain is going to have weaknesses
Speaker 1: and other domains. So so smart kids definitely have learning problems.
Speaker 1: Not all smart kids have or smartts. Not all kids
Speaker 1: who show up as smart at school have an academic
Speaker 1: learning problem. A lot of them do, a lot of
Speaker 1: them don't. So they're they're they're not mutually exclusive, but
Speaker 1: nor are they Nor is it a one to one
Speaker 1: parsondent having a learning problem does not mean you are
Speaker 1: not smart. Right, there's you know, there's a whole community
Speaker 1: called twice exceptionality, and I wanted to get your thoughts
Speaker 1: on that community. What do you think of that of
Speaker 1: that phrase? Mm hmm, Well, I mean it's interesting. I
Speaker 1: like with any category, I have some initial resistance. I
Speaker 1: have some problems with categorizing kids gifted, learning disabled, attention
Speaker 1: deficit disorders, any of the categories tend to pigeon hole
Speaker 1: people and limit them. And I include twice exceptionality in that.
Speaker 1: In that is because it's a way of categorizing humans. Right,
Speaker 1: Twice exceptionality, I should say, is when you're simultaneously gifted
Speaker 1: and learning disabled. To use two big loaded words exactly exactly,
Speaker 1: So you have to meet the criteria for both of
Speaker 1: those categories to get the twice exceptional label. And I
Speaker 1: mean it's a tough call because certainly I have worked
Speaker 1: with children who require that kind of label in order
Speaker 1: to get the services that they needed. So I have
Speaker 1: a lot of respect for figuring out what's going right
Speaker 1: and what's going wrong, making sure it's labeled if that
Speaker 1: labeling is necessary to get the appropriate programming. At the
Speaker 1: same time, I'm always concerned when I see people identifying
Speaker 1: with the label, because a labeled by definition is going
Speaker 1: to be limiting people are. I mean, one intent, one
Speaker 1: way that I find useful to think about this stuff
Speaker 1: is to remember that people within any given category are
Speaker 1: way more different from each other within the category than
Speaker 1: they are from others outside the category. So there are
Speaker 1: way more intro group differences than there are inter group differences. Right,
Speaker 1: that's a really good point. And you see that as
Speaker 1: well with discussions of sex differences and absolutely differences all
Speaker 1: that stuff. Pi. That's right. Yeah, it's a great, really
Speaker 1: great point. You really you want to smash the crystal ball?
Speaker 1: Am I right? Absolutely, let's imagine it. Let's do it
Speaker 1: right now. It's one of my things, absolutely, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the potential thing, the prediction thing. Yes, I've just
Speaker 1: seen it so damaging to so many, so many people,
Speaker 1: adults as well as children. Yes, yes, So do you
Speaker 1: think you can spoil a baby by being too available
Speaker 1: and responsive? No? No? I mean I would like to
Speaker 1: just end here this interview with a couple tips that
Speaker 1: we could give parents on how to develop a happily
Speaker 1: productive child, because and I really like that Freez that
Speaker 1: you use, because I think that that is really what
Speaker 1: parents really want to develop in their child. That's what
Speaker 1: they want to see. They want to see a happily
Speaker 1: productive kid. Right. If you presented to a parent an
Speaker 1: option of your child's going to be the highest standardized
Speaker 1: test taker in your class or is going to be
Speaker 1: a happily productive human being the rest of their life,
Speaker 1: I think I think most parents would choose the latter.
Speaker 1: What do you think? Yes, absolutely, they do choose the ladder,
Speaker 1: And sadly, I think what happens way too often is
Speaker 1: that they focus way too hard on the former, forgetting
Speaker 1: that the ladder is there. You know that the happy
Speaker 1: productivity is their real objective. So one of the things
Speaker 1: I'm trying to say in my work these days, and
Speaker 1: the reason I call this book Beyond Intelligence, is yes,
Speaker 1: intelligence is terrific, but there are a whole lot of
Speaker 1: other compotencies and abilities and ways of being that go
Speaker 1: into living a happily productive life. So keep your eye
Speaker 1: and say, the parents on that ball, the ball of
Speaker 1: happy productivity, rather than on the ball of intelligence. So
Speaker 1: so to finish off, you know, in terms of my advice,
Speaker 1: you know, the hopes that I would have for parents
Speaker 1: to the things I would like them to take from
Speaker 1: my work is the need for balance in their kids' lives,
Speaker 1: the need for unstructured playtime, outdoor playtime, free time, day
Speaker 1: dreaming time, opportunities to figure out who they are in
Speaker 1: order to find out what they really want to develop. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's great. You a couple quotes. Do you mind if
Speaker 1: I read back to you some quotes from your book
Speaker 1: that I loved. I would like that if I'm misquoting
Speaker 1: you at all. Parents can help children build their intelligence
Speaker 1: by remembering and reminding them that it develops over time
Speaker 1: with opportunities to learn, and that there are many different
Speaker 1: ways of being intelligent. Do you you know just telling
Speaker 1: your child these things and get increasing their awareness of this,
Speaker 1: you think it can help that child help make their
Speaker 1: own decisions in life in a productive, happy way. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And it helps some value their own developing abilities too,
Speaker 1: in a more well rounded way than can happen sometimes.
Speaker 1: And here's another quote I really like. The best way
Speaker 1: to raise children is to live the promise of possibility.
Speaker 1: By the way, I love the word possibility. I prefer
Speaker 1: possibility over potential. Yeah too, Yeah, By seeing ourselves and
Speaker 1: our places within society as works in progress, by appreciating
Speaker 1: the myriad prospects that can result from change, by embracing
Speaker 1: opportunities to learn, and perhaps most importantly, by teaching our
Speaker 1: children to do the scene. Oh that's good. I think
Speaker 1: that's your quote right like you and joy Anne Foster.
Speaker 1: It's it's I wish. I just absolutely love it. There's
Speaker 1: so many you know, this is such an important book
Speaker 1: that you guys have written. You talk, There's so much
Speaker 1: more I do reco I I do recommend that my
Speaker 1: listener is by your book and read it, because you
Speaker 1: listen lots of different specific things for parents, the parents
Speaker 1: can do to help raise happily productive children. And I
Speaker 1: think were there any sort of last last thoughts who
Speaker 1: wanted to uh to say for our listeners many who
Speaker 1: are who are parents you know and are hungry for
Speaker 1: this information. No, thank you. I think you've you've looked
Speaker 1: at the important things and said the helped me say
Speaker 1: what I wanted to say. Thank you great, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Don for being on the show. Okay my pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thank you thanks for listening to the Psychology Podcast with
Speaker 1: doctor Scott Barry Kaufman. Hope you found up that just
Speaker 1: a foremante Falkward look I did. If you don't as
Speaker 1: to read the show notes for this episode or here
Speaker 1: past episodes. If you go to the Psychology Podcast dot
Speaker 1: com