It's common though right? There worst thing you can do is tell a kid they are brilliant. They think they always have to be brilliant and escape hardship because it might mean they aren't brilliant.
> There worst thing you can do is tell a kid they are brilliant.
Other approaches also have their problems. I was raised in a very egalitarian spirit, and thinking of myself as somehow better than others was a taboo for me for a long time.
As a consequence, I had a few blind spots. For example, I noticed that in some situations certain kinds of people become hostile to me, for reasons I couldn't understand. I didn't know what I did wrong, and when I tried to be nicer or more open towards them it usually just made things worse.
Then one day a friend with good social skills explained to me: "They see that you are better than them, so they feel threatened, and they attack you to feel safer. And when you respond with kindness, that makes them feel even more threatened, because it seems their attack didn'd hurt you at all (although it actually did)." My mind was completely blown, because I didn't see myself as better, so I didn't realize others could see me that way. But the explanation matched the facts, for example that the hostility usually increased after I have succeeded at something (even something unrelated to them).
Also, the theory is that if you don't tell your kid they are brilliant, they will attribute their success to hard work, which will motivate them to work even harder. What happened instead was that people around me who didn't perceive me as brilliant, attributed my success to pure luck (because they saw I actually wasn't working that hard). So no matter how often I won the math olympiad, I was always told that I am not really good at math, that I merely got lucky, but soon the regression to the mean would teach me my place (and that if I actually understood math, I would know what "regression to the mean" means, and I wouldn't argue back). This was very frustrating, because it seemed that no matter what I do, people will find an excuse because I do not fit their stereotype; and that thought definitely didn't motivate me to work harder. (Actually, only now as I write this comment, it occurred to me that maybe I didn't fit their stereotype because perhaps I was smarter than the usual math-gifted kids they used to work with.)
I would recommend telling your kids the truth according to your best knowledge. Manipulation can backfire, even well-intentioned one.
I'm not arguing for manipulation, just the truth. But we have to realize that children are not small versions of adults. They have different cognitive abilities and processes than adults.
Yet so many parents want their children to be brilliant and push them by all means to be.
I like the Montessorie approach, "every child is a genius"
(does not at all mean, they are all the same, nor all have the potential to be rocket scientist. But it is a negation of the primitive evaluation approach of, this kid is very gifted, this kid is mediocre and this kid sucks. Societey needs lots of different talents, who can all be brilliant at what they do, but less likely if they got labeled as loosers from the start)
Yes, specialization is a good thing, and there are many dimensions on which you can measure talent. However, the correlation between some of these dimensions (mathematical ability, reading comprehension, recall, etc.) has been found to be about 0.4. That still leaves room for individual diversity of talent, but makes it clear that not everyone gets the same amount of points to invest into the skill tree.
Saying that everyone is a genius just devalues the word.
"Saying that everyone is a genius just devalues the word."
The saying is "every CHILD is a genius". (not every burned out adult). Childs have a incredibly potential, than can grow in many directions. And the saying is also more intended to the teachers, opposite to the weeding out approach. So no, it is not meant literal, it has to be understood in a context. But yes, the idea is, that the teacher treats every child, as if they have the potential to be a genious. (and I actually do believe, most do, and it is sad, that so few actually get the opportunity to develope their potential and rather learn to sit still and repeat and behave and repeat what is demanded)
" but makes it clear that not everyone gets the same amount of points to invest into the skill tree"
Probably not, but I think it is hard to measure. It is also a question what skills you consider to be relevant. Some extreme example, I heard from my sisters friend who have a mentaly handicapped child .. which clearly did not have many skills .. but a big smile the whole time, that made people happy who interacted with him. Could be considered a valuable skill for society, too.
(but I don't know, if the parents smile the time, as he is probably quite labour intensive)
Other approaches also have their problems. I was raised in a very egalitarian spirit, and thinking of myself as somehow better than others was a taboo for me for a long time.
As a consequence, I had a few blind spots. For example, I noticed that in some situations certain kinds of people become hostile to me, for reasons I couldn't understand. I didn't know what I did wrong, and when I tried to be nicer or more open towards them it usually just made things worse.
Then one day a friend with good social skills explained to me: "They see that you are better than them, so they feel threatened, and they attack you to feel safer. And when you respond with kindness, that makes them feel even more threatened, because it seems their attack didn'd hurt you at all (although it actually did)." My mind was completely blown, because I didn't see myself as better, so I didn't realize others could see me that way. But the explanation matched the facts, for example that the hostility usually increased after I have succeeded at something (even something unrelated to them).
Also, the theory is that if you don't tell your kid they are brilliant, they will attribute their success to hard work, which will motivate them to work even harder. What happened instead was that people around me who didn't perceive me as brilliant, attributed my success to pure luck (because they saw I actually wasn't working that hard). So no matter how often I won the math olympiad, I was always told that I am not really good at math, that I merely got lucky, but soon the regression to the mean would teach me my place (and that if I actually understood math, I would know what "regression to the mean" means, and I wouldn't argue back). This was very frustrating, because it seemed that no matter what I do, people will find an excuse because I do not fit their stereotype; and that thought definitely didn't motivate me to work harder. (Actually, only now as I write this comment, it occurred to me that maybe I didn't fit their stereotype because perhaps I was smarter than the usual math-gifted kids they used to work with.)
I would recommend telling your kids the truth according to your best knowledge. Manipulation can backfire, even well-intentioned one.