Was I the only 'intelligent' child who never got bullied at school?
whatever 'intelligent' means (in this context, 'academically good')
Bullying in childhood seems to be a rite of passage for anyone who describes themselves as being intelligent (not going to harp on about it here, but I still have huge reservations about that word). Now, I'm not saying I'm a genius or anything, but throughout primary school - the place where differences seem to be most noticed - I was in the top sets for all my classes (can't exactly remember what that entails, but I remember being in lessons with people in the year above: some of these people also ended up going to the same grammar school I went to), read far too much far too quickly (I remember some random class where we each had to read a page of our assigned book aloud; I finished the book before it was my turn to read, subsequently didn't know what page we were on and then seem to remember just getting to read my own stuff by myself during that class. I also spent half my life in libraries and bookshops reading three or four books a visit: the latter certainly saved my mum a lot of money!) and had weird obsessions with Ancient Egypt and other random (mostly historical) stuff. To top it all, I was also overweight, physically uncoordinated (except for hitting the ball in rounders, for some reason, only I couldn't run fast so was still pretty rubbish) and had no social skills (I still can't keep a conversation going, make small talk or look at people's eyes without going twitchy or staring into their very souls unless they're really good friends, in which case they pretty much have to have made an effort to speak to me regularly: I can't even behave 'normally' online), preferring to play imaginary games instead.
I honestly have no idea how I never got bullied and actually had friends.
There are four possible conclusions we can draw from this:
1/ I am indeed a special snowflake.
2/ Academic high-performers who didn't get bullied at school don't have as much of a reason to relate their story as those who did (certainly plausible, but slightly odd given the number of related forum threads - you'd expect at least one person to chip in, even just for the sake of being different, and I've literally never seen anyone else in the same situation as me. That's obviously my personal experience, though.)
3/ I wasn't intelligent enough to draw any criticism. (Possible. I do remember pretty much everyone in my class writing 'SHE IS VERY CLEVER' on this weird compliment card thing we had to do, though, and I was definitely talented at writing for my age.)
4/ My true strengths at the time (English, art, music) didn't have as many negative connotations as things like science and maths. (Definitely possible.)
To conclude, stuff.
ADDENDUM: While I was writing this, the importance of hard work to success really hit me. I was good at writing - I never pursued it seriously. I was good at art - I never put the work in to learn anatomy, the effects of light, etc.. I was good at music - I hated practicing and, when forced to, wouldn't really think about what I was doing other than the fact that it was boring. In short, I relied on the fact that I had a 'talent' to pull me through instead of consciously trying to improve myself. I am now still 'good' at these things, but I could have been so very much better.
I should have realised what secondary school exams could have done for me. I still have a huge problem with what they actually examine, but the fact is that I am extremely fast to understand (and be able to apply in interesting ways) concepts while they're still in my head. Unfortunately, a lot of the speed of this understanding comes from things intuitively making sense - so, while the intuitive version of the concept still gets factored into my worldview, its details don't. I am not good at remembering pure information, especially if the information is essentially an algorithm for solving x type of question in an exam. I still don't care that I ended up with AABB at A2 (well, okay, maybe I do a little), but if I'd been able to see the common nature of all the reasons I wasn't improving as much as I thought I should be at the things I liked - reliance on the fact that I'd always had the potential to be good at them - I could have started remedying all of this a lot sooner.
At least I know now.
Watch out, world.
Bullying in childhood seems to be a rite of passage for anyone who describes themselves as being intelligent (not going to harp on about it here, but I still have huge reservations about that word). Now, I'm not saying I'm a genius or anything, but throughout primary school - the place where differences seem to be most noticed - I was in the top sets for all my classes (can't exactly remember what that entails, but I remember being in lessons with people in the year above: some of these people also ended up going to the same grammar school I went to), read far too much far too quickly (I remember some random class where we each had to read a page of our assigned book aloud; I finished the book before it was my turn to read, subsequently didn't know what page we were on and then seem to remember just getting to read my own stuff by myself during that class. I also spent half my life in libraries and bookshops reading three or four books a visit: the latter certainly saved my mum a lot of money!) and had weird obsessions with Ancient Egypt and other random (mostly historical) stuff. To top it all, I was also overweight, physically uncoordinated (except for hitting the ball in rounders, for some reason, only I couldn't run fast so was still pretty rubbish) and had no social skills (I still can't keep a conversation going, make small talk or look at people's eyes without going twitchy or staring into their very souls unless they're really good friends, in which case they pretty much have to have made an effort to speak to me regularly: I can't even behave 'normally' online), preferring to play imaginary games instead.
I honestly have no idea how I never got bullied and actually had friends.
There are four possible conclusions we can draw from this:
1/ I am indeed a special snowflake.
2/ Academic high-performers who didn't get bullied at school don't have as much of a reason to relate their story as those who did (certainly plausible, but slightly odd given the number of related forum threads - you'd expect at least one person to chip in, even just for the sake of being different, and I've literally never seen anyone else in the same situation as me. That's obviously my personal experience, though.)
3/ I wasn't intelligent enough to draw any criticism. (Possible. I do remember pretty much everyone in my class writing 'SHE IS VERY CLEVER' on this weird compliment card thing we had to do, though, and I was definitely talented at writing for my age.)
4/ My true strengths at the time (English, art, music) didn't have as many negative connotations as things like science and maths. (Definitely possible.)
To conclude, stuff.
ADDENDUM: While I was writing this, the importance of hard work to success really hit me. I was good at writing - I never pursued it seriously. I was good at art - I never put the work in to learn anatomy, the effects of light, etc.. I was good at music - I hated practicing and, when forced to, wouldn't really think about what I was doing other than the fact that it was boring. In short, I relied on the fact that I had a 'talent' to pull me through instead of consciously trying to improve myself. I am now still 'good' at these things, but I could have been so very much better.
I should have realised what secondary school exams could have done for me. I still have a huge problem with what they actually examine, but the fact is that I am extremely fast to understand (and be able to apply in interesting ways) concepts while they're still in my head. Unfortunately, a lot of the speed of this understanding comes from things intuitively making sense - so, while the intuitive version of the concept still gets factored into my worldview, its details don't. I am not good at remembering pure information, especially if the information is essentially an algorithm for solving x type of question in an exam. I still don't care that I ended up with AABB at A2 (well, okay, maybe I do a little), but if I'd been able to see the common nature of all the reasons I wasn't improving as much as I thought I should be at the things I liked - reliance on the fact that I'd always had the potential to be good at them - I could have started remedying all of this a lot sooner.
At least I know now.
Watch out, world.