I came across an NYT article a couple weeks ago about sensitive children. I know it’s just a random term, but I loved the floral metaphor that they used to categorize children with different sensitivity levels.

&gt;*People fall roughly into three groups: highly sensitive, whom he calls “orchids,” which are beautiful flowers that need very particular environments to thrive; hardy “dandelions,” which can grow virtually anywhere; and a middle group — the largest — “tulips,” which fall somewhere between the two extremes of the sensitivity scale.*

&gt; *”The idea is not that one is better and one is worse,” Dr. Pluess explained, “but that these are different personalities, each with their own unique strengths and weaknesses.” ... “It is important to communicate consistently to the child that their sensitivity isn’t a problem, that it’s a strength so that they can develop a healthy sense of what they can do well.”*

No one looks an orchid for needing certain things to thrive, no one solely blames the orchid for not living up to its potential. If it starts to lose flowers and turn limp, we accept that it’s probably the environment and that it may need more attention/care from its caregiver. 

I wish this kind of thinking was around when I was a kid, that not every child needs/can assimilate to the same style of teaching, feedback, socialization etc, and that being sensitive is neither a negative or positive.