Precocious

March 29, 2006 6:08 AM

Help me settle an argument: I say that the word "precocious" always has a connotation that's derogatory (if applied to an adult) or patronizing (if applied to a child). She says that it can be used as a legitimate compliment. What say you?
posted by Saucy Intruder to writing & language (46 comments total)

Sure, "A precocious talent".
posted by oh pollo! at 6:11 AM on March 29, 2006

(Inspired by Simon's criticism of Paris last night. Yes, I watch American Idol.)
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:11 AM on March 29, 2006

Always? Nah. The word itself isn't derogatory at all, but I have heard it used in a slightly derogatory way, to imply that there's something a bit off about a child acting so adult-like and all.
posted by mediareport at 6:12 AM on March 29, 2006

If someone were to describe my (theoretical) children as precocious, I would choose to take it in a positive way. I would be wary of using it as a compliment because it has acquired a kind of negative connotation.
posted by teleskiving at 6:13 AM on March 29, 2006

I've never considered it derogatory. That's not to say that it can't be used in a patronizing context. But the same context can make any compliment sound patronizing, e.g. "My, you have such a big vocabulary!"

Still, an argument could be made that the word 'precocious' contains that context all by itself. It suggests that the person being spoken about is in some way more 'advanced' than might be expected, and if that expectation is unfair, then the use of 'precocious' becomes a backhanded compliment.

So, it all depends on whether or not you believe that it is possible, objectively speaking, to be precocious, or whether you believe that the word implies a spectrum of qualtitative comparisons that you are not willing to endorse in any context.
posted by bingo at 6:26 AM on March 29, 2006

I don't think of it as necessarily a negative word, though I do agree that Simon was not being positive. I guess, like everything, it depends on context.
posted by sugarfish at 6:30 AM on March 29, 2006

As others said, the word itself is not negative, but its often used in a derogatory manner.
posted by Atreides at 6:34 AM on March 29, 2006

In a culture where intelligence is often viewed as an undesirable trait, and has been for some time, precociousness is likewise viewed as undesirable, and therefore carries a pejorative connotation.
posted by ewkpates at 6:35 AM on March 29, 2006

"If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious?" Not always negative to me.
posted by Lockeownzj00 at 6:35 AM on March 29, 2006

Huh? I've never even heard used in a derogatory at all. If it would only be an ironic use (like "oh, isn't she just precious" when actually they're annoying).

none of these defintions contain any negative denotation. And like I've said I've never heard any negative connotation.

Maybe it's a regional thing?
posted by delmoi at 6:37 AM on March 29, 2006

an argument could be made that the word 'precocious' contains that context all by itself

I don't get that. "Unusually advanced" by itself contains "patronizing"? Makes no sense.
posted by mediareport at 6:38 AM on March 29, 2006

I haven't heard it applied to adults, but I guess it would be derogatory then. For children? Not so much.

Theoretical children are pretty much all precocious.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:39 AM on March 29, 2006

delmoi - the word is precocious, not precious.

more generally, given the flexibility and variation inherent in language, the person who says always is going to lose the argument.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:39 AM on March 29, 2006

heh. although, given the blah blah, i guess always need not mean what i think it does [disappears up quine's ass]
posted by andrew cooke at 6:40 AM on March 29, 2006

You might be thinking of "precious". As in, "Well, aren't you just precious."

I don't think I've ever heard precocious being used that way. I think you'd have to use quite a bit of sarcasm to have it come out that way. But then I don't watch American Idol, so maybe I miss out on such wonderful cultural gems.

(the point being - Anything *can* have connotation that's derogatory, but precocious is a stretch)
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:44 AM on March 29, 2006

It's usually a compliment when referring to a child. If you refer to an adult that way, you can be implying that they're in some way performing better than you expected them to, or they are childlike, which can have negative connotations.
posted by jessamyn at 6:45 AM on March 29, 2006

I don't think I've ever heard it used for an adult, and for a child, it's always a compliment, though as has been said above, depending on tone of voice you can make it patronizing, like any other compliment. There is a slight whiff of negativity to it, though, like you might use it instead of "annoying" when trying to be polite about someone else's kid.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:51 AM on March 29, 2006

delmoi - the word is precocious, not precious.

Which is why I linked to "define: precocious" on google. I honestly have no idea why the word would be considered derogatory, but I could imagine it being derogatory in a similar way to the word precious is used in a derogatory way i.e. sarcastically.
posted by delmoi at 6:57 AM on March 29, 2006

ewkpates nails it. Americans dislike smart people, especially people who are smart when they ought to be cute.
posted by mkultra at 6:58 AM on March 29, 2006

Precious, on the other hand, is often a derogation.
posted by mkultra at 6:59 AM on March 29, 2006

Which is why I linked to "define: precocious" on google.

I was similarly confused as the word's derogatory meaning (i.e., preening, showing off) comes to mind first for me and you only used "precious" in your response.
posted by yerfatma at 7:02 AM on March 29, 2006

I've heard Simon use the word in a derogatory way another time on AI. He told Paula that she was like a precocious child. I take the derogatory meaning to be that the object behaves in the manner of one who is intelligent but lacking wisdom. A precocious child's ignorance of the difference would lead him or her to be outspoken and impatient with others.
posted by landtuna at 7:16 AM on March 29, 2006

ah, sorry, didn't check the link. thought you'd msiread.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:18 AM on March 29, 2006

Lots have agreed that it's a compliment when said about a child, but most seem to be missing that you didn't claim otherwise; you said it was patronizing when said about a child. I think that's right.
posted by cribcage at 7:36 AM on March 29, 2006

Yeah, re-reading my comment I could see why people would read it as if I had the words mixed up, since they are so similar, if I had used "adorable" no one would have thought I had the words mixed up, but I never hear adorable used as a derogatory

cribcage: I suppose you're right, but I don't think it's unusually patronizing for children. It seems like the kind of complement you pay to the child's parents, rather then the child herself.
posted by delmoi at 7:51 AM on March 29, 2006

are you possibly thinking of "pretentious"? Precocious has no negative connotations for me. (But I don't watch american idol).
posted by mdn at 7:59 AM on March 29, 2006

(I mean sort of subconsciously mixing in connotations, rather than outrightly confusing the two words)
posted by mdn at 8:02 AM on March 29, 2006

I concede the argument to my wife, the use of always did indeed doom my case. (Bad lawyer! Bad!)

I was a smart kid who was never really comfortable with the whole childhood thing, so "precocious" always rubbed me the wrong way. It had the insinuation of "know your place." I thought I was overreacting to the word until Simon said it last night. To me the precocious/precious/pretentious distinction is less of a typo than a general universe of put-down.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:05 AM on March 29, 2006

I think if self-applied in retrospect ("I was a precocious child") or in conversation ("He's a very precocious kid") it's likely a compliment. If it's stated directly ("Aren't you precocious!") it's more likely to be seen as sarcasm as it's used as a descriptive term than a compliment. It's like saying "Wow, you're tall!" to someone who is, in fact, tall.

The word has a lot of negative connotations to me due to the unfortunate circumstances that are likely to befall a precocious child -- unable to relate to peers, seems like a show-off due to showing off more ability than others. I think in a literary sense it's often used to convey a sense of alienation or detachment from peers. It's a positive term that carries a lot of baggage.
posted by mikeh at 8:06 AM on March 29, 2006

I want to add that, while the comments regarding an American enthusiasm for stupidity are ridiculous, there are certainly working-class enclaves in which parents' highest hopes for their children is that they join the military or get an honest job doing some sort of manual labor. There is a notion of 'getting above yourself' etc. In such an environment, one might not want one's child to be called 'precocious,' as it might be taken to mean, 'Your child is going to grow up and become a lawyer or manager and exploit us honest folks.'
posted by bingo at 8:19 AM on March 29, 2006

If it's stated directly ("Aren't you precocious!") it's more likely to be seen as sarcasm as it's used as a descriptive term than a compliment.

I agree, but put any other adjective in that sentence ("Aren't you smart!" "Aren't you cute!" "Aren't you American!") and it sounds patronizing. It's the construction of the sentence, not the word at the end of it.

But it's interesting that it's the construction most of us think of when we hear the word "precocious" (including me).

So I might say it's often used in a way meant to be patronizing, but that the word itself isn't, if that makes any sense.
posted by occhiblu at 8:51 AM on March 29, 2006

while the comments regarding an American enthusiasm for stupidity are ridiculous

Care to elaborate on this? The U.S. has a fine, long-standing tradition of anti-intellectualism. Look no further than our current president. Or FOX. Don't be fooled by NYC.
posted by mkultra at 8:53 AM on March 29, 2006

Precocious has no negative connotations for me, either; I don't think I've ever heard it used ina derrogatory manner.
posted by youarenothere at 8:54 AM on March 29, 2006

Saucy -- looking at the etymology of the word in the OED, I would add that, from its inception into the English in the late 17th century language to the early 19th, evidence is that the connotation was negative. The connotation seemed to shift somewhat in the early to mid 19th century from a sense of the sardonic, to mere irony. I would agree with the crowd about modern usage.
posted by mrmojoflying at 9:12 AM on March 29, 2006

I agree with ewkpates and mikeh. For me, the connotation is something like sharp + earnest + naive; i might use it to describe someone who's a quick learner but lacking in experience, and possibly a bit immodest. Calling someone precocious might suggest that the speaker feels a bit threatened by the precocious one's intelligence, as well, regardless of whether flattery is intended.

Also: Precocious = snarky?
posted by xanthippe at 9:59 AM on March 29, 2006

I learned the word, as I'm sure many people did, from Mary Poppins, and when my precocious young mind tried to infer the meaning from the context, I decided it was pretty much the same as pretentious. I always thought it was negative until someone corrected me as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people had the same experience. I don't think I'd ever heard the word used in any other context, and the word may have just dropped from usage if not for that damn song. So, I'd say she's right that it is "officially" a compliment, but there's surely a large group of people such as yourself that use it with a negative connotation.
posted by team lowkey at 10:00 AM on March 29, 2006

I wonder if there's a cultural cross-Atlantic difference at work. I'm from the UK (as, obviously, is Simon Cowell), and much of the time when I hear it there does appear to be a negative subtext - it implies that the child is unusually talented, but that there's a certain amount of prima donna behaviour that comes as baggage with it.
posted by reynir at 10:01 AM on March 29, 2006

Precocious is definitely patronizing when applied to children.

I've never heard it applied to an adult.
posted by tkolar at 10:03 AM on March 29, 2006

I think the word itself is fairly neutral, If given as a statement of fact.

I've used the word for people I love dearly, and I was not being sarcastic. It never occurred to me that some people might think that word is always a put down.

But damn near any word or phrase can be used in a derogatory manner, just by using the correct tone of voice. That doesn't make those words used inherently derogatory, I don't think.
posted by teece at 10:04 AM on March 29, 2006

Hmm. The first two cites in the OED do seem to be used in a somewhat negative context. But interestingly, none of the quotes provided by the OED are used describe a child.
posted by teece at 10:19 AM on March 29, 2006

I don't think the term always means intellectually advanced. But can mean dressing or behaving in a sexually provocative manner that would be inappropriate for a child or young person.

I did watch American Idol last night, and I think that's what Simon was getting at.
posted by marsha56 at 10:26 AM on March 29, 2006

While I don't personally think of it as having a negative connotation, I think Simon meant it in an undesirable way last night. His point was that, by dressing her age and performing a song looking like the 17 years old she is, Paris was being precocious, which apparently is not what Simon thinks America wants from an American Idol.
posted by saladpants at 10:32 AM on March 29, 2006

I don't think the term always means intellectually advanced. But can mean dressing or behaving in a sexually provocative manner that would be inappropriate for a child or young person.

None of the citations in the OED are referring to intellectual capacity, so you're right there. One of them is specifically referring to sexual capacity.

In other words, it was a posh way of saying "slut," I bet.

The word itself is a figurative application of botanical term for an early flowering plant, which I think is interesting.
posted by teece at 10:41 AM on March 29, 2006

UK english person here and yes, it sounds a bit negative to me.

It may result from a more old-fashioned feeling along the lines of "children should be seen and not heard" perhaps?

If you're one of those pushy middle-class mothers who teaches their kid to read at two years old, then precocious is good, surely? If the kid starts discussing foreign policy at the age of three and has a picture of Noam Chomsky on their bedroom wall, they'd be pleased as punch.

But if you're more the "children should not speak until spoken to and respect their elders", then precocious is bad. Little children should behave like little children and not get ideas above their station.

Americans dislike smart people, especially people who are smart when they ought to be cute.

Funnily enough, didn't "cute" start out as "acute" which meant "smart"?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 2:18 PM on March 29, 2006

while the comments regarding an American enthusiasm for stupidity are ridiculous

Well, I don't concur but I am also an apparently anomalous data point here - I cannot think of any circumstance where I have heard it used in a NON derogatory manner, including children. While the definition may simply be one of operating above the average level, every circumstance I can think of hearing it in is one describing an impertinent behavior, such as using adults' real names rather than Mr or Ms/Mom or Dad, or being a "know-it-all."
posted by phearlez at 3:31 PM on March 29, 2006

And she'll tease you
She'll unease you
All the better just to please you
She's precocious and she knows just
What it takes to make a pro blush
She got Greta Garbo stand off sighs
She's got Bette Davis eyes

only place I ever remember hearing the word...

It's like a lot of words, that need context in order to determine whether it's being used as an insult or not.
posted by inthe80s at 9:29 AM on March 30, 2006