Real ability? The fact that you so openly discriminate leads me to believe that you have a low opinion of "Indigo children" like they are bad or not intelligent.
i never said that. i could have been considered one myself, except there was no such concept back then in the soviet union. this is exactly why i have an issue with this. to cut a long and boring story short, i was considered “strange†as a child (i have my own suspicions as to why, but i am unsure that i would want to find out for certain) and this was made into an enormous issue. i was “specialâ€, school was not for me, so i was to be educated at home and graduate from high school in half the time necesary for others. i am going to omit the extremes, but, f i were to define my role in this, it would be “instrument for fulfilling others’ ambitionsâ€. i was “not supposed†to have severe headaches due to the strain. i was “not supposed†to be depressed. the fact that i still was changed nothing. everything that did not fit into the image of me as some larger-than-human genius (which i never was) was conveniently ignored. i was not supposed to have faults, and i think the same would be true for whatever desires or feelings of my own. none of it was about me.
THIS is what i am against. again, it doesn’t happen frequently. but it does happen.
i suppose this is a matter of perspective, really.
if you believe that indigo children are an actual, separate phenomenon, then so be it. to me, on the other hand, “indigo children†seem to be a diverse group, consisting of individuals with vastly different personalities, talents, needs and issues (adhd and autism spectrum disorders being some of the possible diagnoses), whom someone decided to gather under the same umbrella category simply because they might be considered “strange†or “not normal†and stand out in mainstream society. as such, it can be a resort for those who are unable to appreciate their child without a shiny “badge†attached and/or those who want to idealize him or her for their own psychological benefit.
but, as i have already said: perspective is all it takes.
and the fact is, the definition of what constitutes an indigo child is excedingly broad. it includes traits that can be found in most children, such as an overactive imagination, the tendency to be bored with homework or routine, repetitive activities, natural creativity, curiosity, the ability to absorb new information like a sponge, potential for developing intense interests which might include spiritual topics (if one’s parents are interested in this, or if one hears about similar topics in the mass media all the time, it would be all too predictable). or the combination of acceleration in some areas (one gets bombarded with information these days, so children learn about social issues, sexuality and other topics traditionally considered “adult†at a far earlier age) with difficulties in others (one might be very developed intellectually and informed about theoretical issues, but it takes a longer time to mature socially and emotionally, as this requires practice). if one wishes to, one could apply this label to, well, anyone. granted, one might have to stretch it here and crop it somewhat there, but eventually, it is going to fit.
(the mathematical talent, on the other hand, is obvious, tangible and clearly defined. it couldn’t be confused with something else, e.g. a gift for drawing. similarly, it would be difficult to claim that it is there when it is not. for example, if a student has trouble solving an elementary arithmetical task, i doubt they would be called a mathematical genius. of course, one can always pretend, and some parents actually do, but this borders on being delusional).
I don't understand why you think these gifts are imagined, just because you do not like or understand something does not make it unreal.
there is at least one aspect of this that i (un)fortunately do understand: being “unusual†in some sense and having others glorify this without my consent, so they could feed on this, emotionally, and feel good about themselves by extension. this is the sort of behavior i have an issue with. and exceedingly broad labels like “indigo child†can easily serve as an enabling factor (and i have a feeling that they do, in some cases).
i might not understand the other aspects, of course.
The thing is that everything you are saying can be applied when flipped to many other gifted children, ones that you consider "really gifted".
For example the exceptional maths pupil who has social difficulties...shall we take them to social classes because it is a fault or negative trait of theirs?
i’m not sure what you mean here. i was talking about parents who idealize their children (i.e. see them not as actual human beings who possess both flaws and strengths, as we all do, but as near-infallible), then feel devastated when they discover that the reality is different from this ideal, as my parents did. you are talking about constructing a child’s strength as a possible flaw. what is the connection?
I'm not sure i believe in ordinary, people may have ordinary traits in some areas but will always have some that are not too. You can only isolate certain aspects that are ordinary and not lump the whole as ordinary.
i don’t believe in ordinary either. i am not even sure what it means. but the people i was talking about do (this is why i placed the word in inverted commas – “ordinary†in their terms, not mine). they think in dichotomies; either their child is the outright genius they want to see him/her as, or supernaturally endowed, for example, or (s)he is a nobody. there is no middle ground. if the child is not the former, they are going to jump to the conclusion that (s)he must be the latter. i have a feeling my parents are still struggling with the realization that i’m not what they supposed i was, which, to them, means i am a failure. the fact that i am not a failure by my own standards and do not see myself as such is of no consequence. my mother seems to be closest to accepting me for who i am, and to admitting that this is not necessarily negative, but it has taken us almost thirty years to arrive there.
Yes, but doesn't that idea - a very good one, IMHO - apply to pretty much all children? The "indigo" thing seems kind of... superfluous in that regard.
seconded. you must have been reading my mind.
If you can't take top grades, which means you fail to adopt to the curriculum given. Which is a failure of intelligence.
