I would have been a geek deeply into street magic and Star Trek without computers. I suspect that would have gone precisely nowhere.

Pre-computers, the other kids already couldn't handle my vocabulary and my tendency to question the logic of their decisions. The effect I had on adults and authority figures was even worse and they reacted by constantly putting me into the slow classes in the hope that this would make me conform.

#$%@ that! There was not going to be a normal childhood for me. I wasn't "normal."

Computers gave me purpose. I spent all that time in the slow classes designing games and coming up with lists of likely user IDs and passwords. And much later in life when my dead-end doctoral career came crashing down around me, they tripled my salary in a day.

I say give the kid some toys, make sure he learns the importance of exercise and diet as he matures, and he'll be fine. Who needs normal?

"Normal" means working a low-wage service sector job until the robots replace you. The last thing I want for my kid is normal.

Being a geek is only isolating if you can't find a strong community of other geeks (of all ages) and you're thrown into the typical prison-factory-like school system. Around here we have plenty of geek families, and they're disproportionately likely to go to unconventional schools or build their own educations piecemeal.

It will be wonderful when we can bring this kind of education to everyone and make it "normal". But I'm not about to wait around for that.

Highly dependent on your definition of normal social life.

At least in the US, it involves an orchestrated pre-arranged "play date" with parents A, B, and C driving to parent D's house in order to have a planned playing experience with D's kids' toys for 2 hours and 30 minutes, while parents themselves are trying to maintain conversation flow that's centered around discussion topics that all present individuals (hopefully) share.

Maybe if adults like yourself would stop trying to push conformity on their children, young prodigies wouldn't have such a hard time.

I was pretty sharp with computers and math when I was that age, or a bit older. I wasn't passing certification tests (there probably weren't any Microsoft ones at the time) but I was programming in BASIC and modifying games that we played in the classroom and jumping ahead on my math. My peers were supportive. At around the age of 12 I changed schools and suddenly being smart was bad just because it was a different group of children with different attitudes.

Kids shouldn't be pushed too much but they also shouldn't be held back just because you think it will make them an outcast. That attitude is far more damaging.

Obviously i wasn't advocating the opposite extreme of telling a kid to do thing just to 'fit in', kids should be encouraged to have a healthy curiosity towards their interests.

My point was that parents should have in mind that when they send their kids off to college at the age of 12, or in this case let them take tests that are suited for 22 years olds they are likely doing more harm then good. Often parents get excited by the fuzzy feel of my kid is a genius, but forget what damage they are really doing.

College at the age of 12 I can see. Suddenly they're put in an environment where everyone is substantially older and more mature, and with nobody their own age around. That's a huge leap.

But taking a test? That's not even remotely similar. In that case, the damage comes not from a strange environment or lack of peers, but simply from a conformist attitude that comes from people saying this stuff shouldn't be done. It's self-fulfilling.

Taking that kind of test is far worse imho. (Been there, done that...) It gives the parent a warm fuzzy "our kid is a genius" feeling as they encourage their child to do so, and the feeling oozes back onto the kid as an "I am a genius" anti-social attitude. Peer rejection won't be far behind, and there's absolutely no way anyone can argue this is good for the child with a straight face.

That attitude doesn't require the test, nor does the test require the attitude.

The real problem is that "I am a genius" is seen as being automatically anti-social. "Smarter" is seen as "better" and that separates them. Ultimately it comes back to the conformist attitude I'm arguing against. That is the problem. Get rid of that, make it acceptable to be different, and passing a test won't matter.

A test makes that attitude materially more likely.

Encouraging kids to be smart and do smart things? Go for it.

Labeling them as smart? Sure, as long as you don't forget to teach them a healthy dose of humility.

Constantly labeling them as smarter? Uh oh... did I mention humility yet?

Making them pass tests to validate that they're smart? Kids don't need or want that; the parents do. It's a recipe to set their kid's life ablaze until young adulthood -- or later.

You're still assuming that "smarter" means "better" and that "better" means "separate".

What if we held the attitude that "smarter" was just another aspect of the genetic lottery, like your height or the color of your skin? What if we taught our children that it doesn't matter what you are, it matters what you do?

Why should telling a child that they're "smart" be any worse than telling them that they're "tall"?

The problem isn't labeling them as smart, the problem is the pervasive attitude that smart can be a substitute for other things like hard work or kindness, and the attitude that a child who's too smart is somehow no longer compatible with his peers.

Why shouldn't a child genius both pursue extreme mental enrichment and participate in life as a peer with other children of his own age? There's nothing that inherently separates prodigies from their peers. We make it happen.