- Sonia Dabboussi
- Ontario
- Canada
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
If 'gifted' is a bad word, what term can we use to describe the highly intelligent and creative members of our societies?
The word 'gifted', technically meaning intellectual giftedness, has become a terribly misused term.
'GIfted' has been used to refer to anything from any kind of elitist, socially challenged group of people, to a type of characteristic of a person or object that varies even slightly from the norm.
Many intellectually gifted people refuse to attend gifted programs in their local schools because they don't want to be labeled with something so many people think to mean 'better than others'. Then they don't get the help or varied learning experiences they need to make the most of their abilities, and therefore in essence 'waste' their talents and skills that could so definitely be used by the world.
So what word can we use for the 'learning enabled' individuals so that they can feel confident in their strengths and abilities but still get the help they need? What kind of phrase can be used to refer to the gifted that everyone will find acceptable and satisfactory?
Dominique deSalle 30+
Designating children as being gifted has recently become problematic. A heavy dose of praise has lead to an increased level of narcissism and has resulted in a dependency upon constant praise and gratification. Commonly known as entitlement.
Dr. Twenge of San Diego State University studied more than 16,400 students who took the Narcissistic Personality Inventory between 1982 and 2006. In 1982, only a third of the students scored above average on the test. Today that number is over 65%.
Who would have thought that building self-esteem would have a downside. Grades have been inflated to match the inflated need for praise and stroking - for child and parent. Companies like Lands End and Bank of America have created "praise teams" to ensure their new employees receive the required daily dose of praise and congratulation. Without it, anxiety sets in.
The constant stream of praise has resulted in what psychologist Dr. Linda Sapadin calls "a runaway inflation of speech." No girl is pretty: she's drop dead gorgeous. That guy is a genius (not merely bright). Dr. Sapadin says the word "nice" is a put-down.
So now that everyone is gifted, is anyone gifted?
Sonia Dabboussi
Manal K
Bertil Hatt
You are assuming, explicitly, that there are “'learning enabled' individuals”; he disagrees, vigorously, with that assumption.
Sonia Dabboussi
Giftedness has also been correlated to physical brain differences, particularly those that relate to the frontal cortex. Here's a brief summary, but you'll be able to find other links a the bottom that provide more detail and give you a springboard for further investigation if you're interested: http://giftedforlife.com/1146/can-neuroscience-see-giftedness/
Sonia Dabboussi
Ellen Morehouse
All students have incredible potential, and all students, given the right teacher and materials, can grasp and attain understanding of curriculum. Some students progress through that curriculum more quickly, those students can be referred to accelerated.
M Kirkpatrick
rolade brizuela
Furthermore, as I stated in my book on intelligence and giftedness: "Intelligence has a universal appeal that has profound effects on people's perceptions, impressions and actions. It is interesting that, generally, we do not mind being compared to a friend, relative or acquaintance who is taller, smaller or fairer but we get offended when we are described as less intelligent than the person we know. We do not mind comparing our cars and computers with those of our friends but are not at ease with talking about the fact that some brains work faster and better than those of other people just like engines and microprocessors. Thus, you never are told “You're less intelligent than him/her” even if we know that intelligence manifests itself in some forms and expressions. We are more comfortable with expressions like “She has different talents." (Berthier, 2010).
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Anyone can develop good reasoning skills and logical thinking. Having an innate predisposition only means you will develop those skills a lot more quickly. The problem is that schools place competitive emphasis on kids who pick up these skills and give them a special place in a class for gifted kids. This serves a very convenient illusion that gifted class is a seperate space in the hierarchy of education where only limited amount of kids are accepted. When other kids witness that the class has limited seats they instantly realize that there isn't a place for everyone to be gifted. That doesn't give you much of an incentive to try if you are one of those kids who may be struggling
That's complete nonsense of course. I used to be one of those kids who was struggling and no one motivated me to try in fact my high school counselor told me to think about entering the work force after high school. That just annoyed, 10 years later here I am an honors student about to begin a PhD in biochemistry. And I did it all myself I started reading, I started writing I start showing an interest in education just to prove everyone else wrong.
Schools are based on a competitive ideology that is exemplified at every level of Western society, starting with our schools and ending with universities and the work place. There simply isn't a place for everyone to be "gifted" because gifted people don't clean bathrooms and flip burgers. Top universities, laws schools and medical schools work on these similar principles. They have absurd requirements for admission just to establish a cut off so certain students don't get accepted. My opinion is let the gifted be gifted, but show others that there is achance for them as well.
Corin Goodwin
Of course there are gifted people who clean bathrooms and flip burgers. There are people who are gifted... but are illiterate, or homeless, or have chosen to stay at home and raise their children. Giftedness is not about achievement or economic success, it is a neurological condition. Our education system has co-opted and redefined giftedness as something that is, essentially, a competition for seats based on unrelated criteria, but let's not let that blind us to what giftedness is and what it means to the children who are today where you were ten years ago. Should we deny their existence because you were not appropriately identified? You were hardly the only child to be misunderstood... now that we have better information, should we ignore it for our children simply out of the simmering resentment of our own unmet needs? Personally, I wold prefer to learn from it and do better for the next generation.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Corin Goodwin
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Anyway I am not the one confusing these terms I believe the schools are. The schools provide gifted students with better quality education and invest more resources into them. I hardly get to make those decisions. I am just sitting back and commenting on them.
The premise of this topic seems to be "if you are gifted, you deserve to be in the gifted class (better quality education)." I disgree with that. That's what I've been disagreeing with all along. I haven't been redefining the term, gifted. In fact in my first post I even said, let the gifted be gifted, but give everyone the education they deserve.
anson zearfoss
How does intelectually gifted fall into learning disabled?
Real Gifted
Cop out answer? Well, I don't feel that the word Gifted in it's current definition and lexicon will be evolving any time soon. I like "A Gifted" because it challenges those who will say it's grammatically incorrect, yet it still has the meaning and essence of defining Giftedness within it.
Why is this topic even an issue? Stigma. Basically, Everyone is Gifted! Some people open the package earlier than others! Yay! Ugh. But, is everyone A Gifted? A Gifted, meaning An Intellectually Gifted Individual? No. In fact, Gifteds share the same things with Gifteds whether they have been labelled Gifted or not. So labels are not the be all end all with the Gifted nature. But it does help when trying to affix a name to a common experience.
And just for clarification, Gifted Program, Gifted School, Gifted Label ≠ (necessarily) Gifted, Intellectually
Gifted. Kids fall through cracks, parenthood politics get in the way, adolescents want to forget about it, government, economy, any factor can factor in.
Then young adults grow up, and wonder what the fuck is wrong with them. Like this guy! What is underrated in the discussion of Gifted, is the mis-diagnosis of Gifted. Certain things can actually be attributed to Giftedness, yet is mis-diagnosed as something else. Which is why it's important to keep the term Gifted, because we need a term to revolve around, an umbrella to fall under.
It is what it is, and we have to deal with it...
Just to add a little context to what I am trying to get at,
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=gifted And that's only 4 days worth of thoughts!
More context: http://twitter.com/THE_REAL_GIFTED/favorites
Shameless self promo: http://twitter.com/THE_REAL_GIFTED/
Gisela McKay 30+
University of Alberta researcher questions whether genius might be a result of hormonal influences
"Mrazik, a professor in the Faculty of Education's educational psychology department, and a colleague from Rider University in the U.S., have published a paper in Roeper Review linking giftedness (having an IQ score of 130 or higher) to prenatal exposure of higher levels of testosterone. Mrazik hypothesizes that, in the same way that physical and cognitive deficiencies can be developed in utero, so, too, could similar exposure to this naturally occurring chemical result in giftedness."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-03/uoa-uoa031111.php
Laszlo Kereszturi 500+
I think that all children are somehow "gifted", so this "normal".
The problem is that in most cases parents do not have the time and education systems do not have the skills to discover the "gift" for each child.
I wish for a time when this debate will be useless :-)
Mark Meijer 100+
Josh Shaine
All children have height. Not all children are tall (or short). All children have weight. Not all children are heavy (or light).
All children have muscles. Not all children are strong (or weak).
And there are children who are average to short, average to small, and average to weak, all at the same time. Some of those children will also be average to poor at math, science, English, languages, history, interpersonal relations, acting, painting, leading, and every other field of human endeavor and activity.
All children have their areas of greatest strength - but that doesn't mean they are strong relative to other children in that area.
Corin Goodwin
Erika Ross
But unfortunately for the anti-label contingent, I can't call my kids BOB and expect them to receive the accommodation from the school board that they so desperately need.
I wonder if the queer community has a body of literature that could be mined for the development and embracing of terminology that serves a genetic minority population. In common parlance we've recently embraced 'geek' and 'nerd'. As profs, we call our bright kids 'keeners'. But obviously these won't work for an identification and placement committee.
On the other hand, perhaps we can embrace 'gifted' instead of running off to hide because it makes others feel bad. Advocate and educate the public that gifted = special needs, and that gifted kids are students who are at-risk without social interaction with like children and space to develop intellectually despite our frequently comorbid issues (ASD, emotional delays, depression, anxiety, ADHD, LD, and Tourette's to name a few that show up frequently.) The gay and lesbian population didn't run away from 'queer'. They educated and advocated, and they continue to do so quite effectively. It's a long road, and we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by abandoning it.
Gisela McKay 30+
Left to their own devices, kids know and they don't care. The problem doesn't start until the adults get involved and start making distinctions. Going to an enriched or even full out autonomous program isn't the issue. It's the behaviour of the adults and perceived favouritism that they feel the need to "balance out".
It's the adults who do not have the time and/or skills to recognize individual strengths and weaknesses that make the overlooked children jealous. Often, it's the adults' own jealousy that instigates and enables the problems between kids.
It's not the program or the label at fault. It's the idea that there is a mythical swath of "normal" and anyone outside that must be placed either above or below, rather than accepting that everyone is different and has strengths and weaknesses. There is no "normal". The education system manages to fail everyone in their own unique way.
Erika Ross
Gisela McKay 30+
Needless to say, I quit university before finishing (it was also the Great and Wonderful Tech Bubble where money rained down like cherry blossoms in spring).
I only meant to say that my experience with the bullying didn't start until the school system clued in to the "gifted" factor. Prior to that, I was just odd, not somehow threatening.
I was also lucky in that we moved often when I was small, so I learned to hide certain things - like not sticking your hand up too often.
Gisela McKay 30+
***
How shall we refer to them?
How about bored with the endless comparisons and the societal need to create hierarchies out of any and all differences found?
How about tired of the peculiar convention of having to pretend not to know that they are intelligent when they spend a lifetime listening to people "discover" their intelligence and declare them "brilliant" (on top of the day-to-day experience of just finding certain things easier than others), which would pretty much mean they'd actually have to be idiots not to know.
Or maybe we could call them: people who wish like hell other people had the same licence to pursue their goals and desires; to fail and be given a chance (i.e. the space and the faith of others) to work things out, and to be supported and accepted despite their quirks, if for the sole reason that we could then all understand that one person's capacity and self-confidence - or even arrogance - in no way diminishes others' capacity. In other words, were I to believe that I am awesome, it in no way would mean that I could not appreciate other people's awesomeness.
As for becoming arrogant adults: hardly. No one knows more that this is just the brain configuration or circumstances with which they walked into this in life.
(Also, our program was simply called the Autonomous Program. Then again, our school board did a really odd thing: they consulted the participants.)
***
You'd be surprised by what children know that adults don't give them credit for knowing. They can distinguish the truly different from the better-adapted. "Gifted" programs usually pick the latter rendering them meaningless and unappealing. Not so much the Autonomous Program.
Corin Goodwin
Gisela McKay 30+
Around the same time I took a fascination with reading about lives of "exceptional" people and often finding authors taking/imparting a sense of schadenfreude when they didn't "live up to their potential" or particularly, when they "went mad" in later life as though somehow it made up for this unfair advantage they had been given.
I contrasted that with my own experience of it. From early on, I remember feeling slightly uncomfortable with being praised for what would be the equivalent of brushing your teeth. It often seemed disproportionate to the effort expended. At the same time, one of my earliest memories involves a sense of satisfaction in baffling my dad. In that one case, I had actually worked for that achievement. The idea that I should be smote for that - whether cosmically or by peers - really upset me in my teen years and I went through a phase of hiding it (*cough*cheer-leading*cough*).
Fortunately (well, unfortunately for you and anyone else reading this), I am long past that point in my life and can rant about the experience with impunity ;-)
At this juncture I am more interested the peculiarities of living it - what it gives you and what it means in terms of interactions with others. I am currently fascinated by the label "genius" - in all its usage forms - technically meaningless (or at least argued over) and yet having actual repercussions.
Corin Goodwin
Gisela McKay 30+
I am glad to hear there have been changes. I think what surprised me is that during the testing and classification process that I went through, the people doing the processing didn't seem to have a clear grasp on the difference between emotional age and intelligence. On one hand, you are dealing with a child so there are definitely limits to how you can interact with them, but on the other hand, just because you think you are withholding information, doesn't mean we can't figure out what is happening.
In the same vein (emotional vs intellectual age), if there is one thing I would advise parents of gifted children against, it's letting them read a biography of William James Sidis too early. Just because you can read something, doesn't mean you have the emotional wherewithal to process it critically.
Wayne Busby 30+
Holli Carr
The words used to describe children with learning disabilities has changed frequently and regularly pretty much since school was instituted, because they exist, and must be dealt with, but after a short time of discussing them, the social stigma of using that word becomes too great, and we must move on to a fresh one to avoid hurting feelings. It's nearly the same thing with gifted kids, only the stigma is on the--by default--non-gifted. Any discussion of anyone who could even slightly be considered "better" in any way directly implies then that there must be those who are "worse", and that is just unacceptable, especially to the parents of the latter group.
I don't have a solution to this problem, but I'm not sure this is the correct problem to be addressing. What I've mentioned above is a general human condition issue. We are also currently in the midst of a wave of anti-intellectualism that glorifies ignorance and disdains intelligence and higher learning. I think it might be more apropos to address that problem.
Josh Shaine
I'm not sure that it is all that misused, to be honest. Intellectual giftedness is only one type, and while some people have kept it restricted to intellectual (or academic) applications, the term itself has been more broadly applied, whether in the report in the United States in 1972 from Marland or Thorndike's descriptions or a host of others.
I've seldom hear it used for something "that varies even slightly from the norm."
> Many intellectually gifted people refuse to attend gifted programs in their local schools because they don't want to be labeled with something so many people think to mean 'better than others'. Then they don't get the help or varied learning experiences they need to make the most of their abilities, and therefore in essence 'waste' their talents and skills that could so definitely be used by the world.
Most schools don't have a gifted program. Most gifted programs are barely worth the word "program." Seldom would a gifted kid actually get the help or varied learning experiences there, either. But it is unclear to me what exactly constitutes waste - if a person chooses not to go off to save the world, but instead to be, say, a classroom teacher, are they wasting their abilities?
> So what word can we use for the 'learning enabled' individuals so that they can feel confident in their strengths and abilities but still get the help they need? What kind of phrase can be used to refer to the gifted that everyone will find acceptable and satisfactory?
Not going to happen. As I noted above, kids - and adults - can tell sharp kids from not-so-sharp kids with or without a label. Separation happens. Resentment happens. Even adulation happens. All with or without the label.
Confidence in strengths and willingness to get support are different issues - but I can see that removing the stigma of advanced studies would help. Try full individualization.
Douglas Eby
http://highability.org/521/the-gift-of-being-uncommon/
Real Gifted
Sorry that was an X-Men joke, excuse the off the wall humour typical with Gifteds.
But actually, having a reference to the letter X seems cool / something that would help fight the Gifted Stigma.
Dominique deSalle 30+
Dave Gresham
"What will be the result of mere children carrying such a lofty title through their formative years? Arrogant adults is the answer. All of us can accept being different - for the very reason we all have talents and gifts. But no one will accept we're inferior. And this is precisely the problem, for calling impressionable little children by such a superior title will surely result in their believing they're better than others. The result of those childish conclusions? Lost friendships and lost opportunities are just two of the certainties. Ultimately, even happiness may be at stake."
....So the school board decided to have concerned parties vote. Every principle voted to keep Extended Curriculum Program and every coordinator voted for Talented & Gifted. The tie was decided by the Advisory Board (14 parents, all with kids in the program). Except for me and one other parent, all voted for the god-like description.
This all goes to a point: Give up on an easily identifiable label and make it non-descript in spite of some parent's objections - which will never go away. You wouldn't call football teams the "real" men or cheerleaders the "real" women. G & T labels are just as asinine and you can't be timid about calling them out for it. Keep fighting for the sake of the children's long term mental health and good luck with a new name for your company and the programs you administer.
On a side note, you stated: "Many... gifted people refuse to attend gifted programs... because they don't want to be labeled as "better than others" My experience was very different. Few were uncomfortable with the name and all attended. Mommy and Daddy wouldn't have it any other way, boasting to anyone they could corner, "Junior's in the Gifted and Talented program blah, blah, blah..." You need to admit to yourself how most of the parents really are.
Sonia Dabboussi
I have two points to discuss further here:
1. If you're suggesting to "Give up on an easily identifiable label and make it non-descript in spite of some parent's objections" then how would the needs of the gifted be addressed? If the name is watered down to mean nothing then I would guess that the assistance available to this group of people would eventually end up the same way as well. Perhaps not, but the possibility exists. So then what term is appropriate without being offensive? There must be one, or do we just have to work on the meaning we've associated with what we've already got?
2. My point about gifted people not attending gifted programs because of the attached stigmas was more in reference to those who make their own decisions, or at least influence them greatly, when it comes to schooling. Of course many parents want to show that their kids are smart, but what do the kids, particularly the high school aged ones, think? Maybe in your area of the world is different, but I know of a lot of turmoil around the issue over here.
Wayne Busby 30+
I believe that if we had a system with far greater resource, which was flexible enough to address the needs of a necessarily varied clientele which learn in different ways, we would not have children being left behind.
Corin Goodwin
Holli Carr
How do you explain those who are gifted but do not matriculate in the typical educational environment?
Wayne Busby 30+
To elaborate, what I am saying is in agreement with you both.
The system which is currently (and rightly so) under fire, was built to create cogs to fit the wheels of an industrialized machine. We were turning out 'perfect' copies of individuals "...based on achievement..." who are compliant and have specific skill sets, so as to bolster a system that we have come to know as pathologic.
'Gifted' individuals who fit these criteria could find a home of sorts in this system. This did not however guarantee job satisfaction or fulfillment.
Other individuals - those 'gifted' but for what ever reason resistant to inculcation, and the rest of us - became enigmas who "...do not matriculate in the typical educational environment.." or, in worse case scenarios ended up diagnosed with some NOS (not otherwise specified) mental illness.
This is why I believe that if we had a system with far greater resources, which was flexible enough to address the needs of a necessarily varied clientele which learn in different ways, we would not have children being left behind. In fact I we might unlock all our gifts.
Perhaps what is happening over the internet and its impact on our changing concept of education will help put all this right.
Corin Goodwin
Wayne Busby 30+
Corin Goodwin
Jim Moonan 30+
Jim Moonan 30+
Living that mindset every day makes a huge difference in what I say, what I plan, how I react, etc. in the wild, untamed world of young children. Our job as educators is to tame the child just enough to focus their unique set of talents in such a way so that they connect to the world that needs them, and they it.
Corin Goodwin
Erika Ross
Corin Goodwin
Gisela McKay 30+
(Hell, I was a gymnast and down played my intelligence in high school by being the cheer-leading captain.)
Corin Goodwin
Gisela McKay 30+
It's like sufficient and necessary conditions. One MAY have these associated conditions, but one doesn't HAVE to. I think I just want to ensure that others aren't psychosomatically undermining themselves, or physically limiting themselves because the expectation is that weaknesses in other areas come along with the condition.
Wayne Busby 30+
There may in fact be a range of specific ability, however Corin, if you dismiss Jim's statement as 'nice egalitarian ideology' you are missing a very important point.
We do not need children that are all the same. We need individuals who through constructive (albeit sometimes unconventional) nurturing and guidance are encouraged to excel at their gifts (particular genius) and become self-actualized and productive citizens of the world.
The best way I see of doing this is to use paradigms similar to what Jim mentioned. It is a much more therapeutic approach than labeling them 2e or expecting them to fail.
Corin Goodwin
Regarding egalitarian ideology, some members of our society believe that all children have the same potential no matter what, and all they need is a little encouragement and they can achieve the same things. That is just plain wrong. While it is true that all children *deserve* encouragement for whatever their abilities, it is silly to think that they all have the same potential. We're not all going to be Wayne Gretzky no matter how much we practice hockey, and we're not all going to be able to use other aspects of our brain in the same way as our most gifted members of society, either. That doesn't mean we should not reach for our potential; it simply recognizes reasonable (and reachable) goals.
Being 2e is in no way expecting someone to fail. Some of our most brilliant minds (and achievers) are 2e. Again, recognizing a difference in brain structure or capacity can *help* people find the ways that they learn best instead of setting them up to fail by insisting that, if they only try harder, they can be just like everyone else.
After all, who wants to be just like everyone else?
Wayne Busby 30+
"We do not need children that are all the same. We need individuals who through constructive (albeit sometimes unconventional) nurturing and guidance, are encouraged to excel at their gifts (particular genius) and become self-actualized and productive citizens of the world."
I never made any "'silly" comments about anyone having " the same potential" or using "other aspects of [their] brain in the same way" as anyone else. Yes, there will always be someone better at something than you are, however, I also believe that those who reach for mediocrity usually fall short. So I prefer to encourage individuals, especially children, to find whatever it is they are good at and excel at it.
What do you mean by "*deserve* encouragement"?
I also never said being 2e spells failure. I said : "The best way I see of doing this is to use paradigms similar to what Jim mentioned. It is a much more therapeutic approach than labeling them 2e "or" expecting them to fail.
Finally, redundance is relavent:
"I said 'The plural of anecdote is data' some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student's dismissal of a simple factual statement--by another student or me--as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder."
The original quote by Raymond Wolfinger.
Sanjay Sundraraj
Many education systems are currently are doing a very good job providing for both groups of kids.
I brought up the earlier point about feeling shortchanged because in my country the education system has been filtering and streaming students from elementary school up to pre-University. Being part of an Asian culture, we are genetically pre-disposed if i may say to take rankings, streaming and how we are academically compared very seriously. In many cases it is also a matter of family pride. Due to all this pressure to preform up to standards (high standards), many kids tend to feel as if they are not intellectually apt enough to compete with the so called gifted kids.
That is just one of the issues i had hoped to bring up with regards to my society.
Corin Goodwin
Giftedness is a neurological condition - asynchronous development - and it includes a whole lot more than achievement. "Intellectual giftedness" is actually kind of meaningless, because either your brain is constructed differently or it's not, and the brain is not divided up into neat sections including "intellect", "artistic", math, reading, etc etc. (Not picking on anyone in particular, that's just my pet peeve.)
Because giftedness is neurologically based, it is also closely linked with other nervous system asynchronies (allergies, asthma, sensory perception).
if other children feel shortchanged, then perhaps the adults should rephrase what they have said. All children are gifts and all children do have gifts -- but they are not all gifted (neither are they all developmentally challenged).
I think Debra has a lot of good points... and I apologize for the disjointedness of my comments. This is such a huge topic... It's difficult to draft any quick, simple reply. There are a lot of good articles addressing this issue at http://giftedhomeschoolers.org and at http://hoagiesgifted.org
Wayne Busby 30+
Josh Shaine
And there are many people who are, in fact, asynchronous, but not in the "older" direction. They are short or underweight or of lower intelligence or otherwise immature, while being apt for their age in the other realms.
Suggesting there is a neurological difference is hardly the same as suggesting that we call the gifted mutants.
However, we often treat them as if they are mutants - beings with no claim on services from our public schools and who should be punished for being who they are.
Josh Shaine
It depends on what you mean by gifts, I suppose.
If you mean "areas in which they are more capable than 95% of the population," then I would have to say "No, not all children have gifts." All children have relative strengths, but it is possible for a child's absolute best area to be no better than average, if even.
This is why they are not gifted.
Corin Goodwin
Laszlo Kereszturi 500+
I read also here http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/asynchronous.htm about "asynchronous development" and now I hope I understand better the "gifted" term used here.
So, if "giftedness is neurologically based", what about autistic children?
I watched Dr. Temple Grandin's TED talk and the movie about her life.
Was she also a "gifted" child?
Josh Shaine
Yes, I believe autism has a neurological basis - this is part of why the diagnosis is not supposed to be made without neurological data.
And Temple Grandin most certainly was a gifted child - as are many autistic children.
Corin Goodwin
Yes, of course autism spectrum disorders are neurologically based. The Dana Foundation can be a good source of autism research... they tend to public the latest on genetics, in particular.
A person who is both gifted AND has another diagnosis (including autism) is considered "twice exceptional" or 2e. It is not uncommon - it is actually badly underdiagnosed, to the detriment of the children who are 2e and the adults they grow up to be. See 2enewsletter.com for more resources.
Sonia Dabboussi
Being gifted isn't easy. The gifted spend their lives out of sync with most of the rest of the people around them, which can be a difficult thing especially when they're young. In some ways they may be ahead of their peers and in other ways they may be behind. At times it's tough for them to find balance in their lives.
This brief article, "GIftedness - It's All Starting to Make Sense" sheds a bit more light on the gifted and their diversity, and makes their situation a little easier for everyone to understand: http://giftedforlife.com/1064/giftedness-its-all-starting-to-make-sense/
M.A. Lucas-Green
Sanjay Sundraraj
Debra Smith 200+
Josh Shaine
Bullying takes place regardless of the label. Feelings of inadequacy, too. It's not the terminology.
Philip Crume
Nicholas Cristella
Debra Smith 200+