Some excellent points. Anytime we try to rate or rank our fellow human beings we are undermining our own chance for survival. As a community we are better off trying to figure out how everyone fits in.
This may mean tolerating a lot of trial and error, allowing others the opportunity to fail and try again. The goal should be training and retraining regardless of perceived potential. We cannot exist without the help of many others in our community. There should be a place for everyone.
Great and much needed post, SBK! Thanks for taking the time to provide such a full and thoughtful response to Arnold-Ratliff's flawed and deeply damaging article.
I heard someone say one time in the past, that “you never know, one of these kids might be a Hemingway!”. The comment illustrates one aspect of our fixation on giftedness. That intelligence, as with other aspects is a measure of worth. Other aspects would include attractiveness, social ability and fame, accomplishments, and wealth. What about the kid who isn’t a Hemingway? He sits in the second chair from the back, in the third row over, and much of the time he or she is invisible. How is his or her worth to be measured? I am not saying these attributes don’t have value. I am saying that all of these attributes hold value only in part. And what I’m saying is that all of these values which are only in part find their proper place ONLY when made subordinate to the singular immeasurable source, the immeasurable worth of “being”. Now you will probably say I’m saying something that does not need to be said, you might say it is obvious, and I would agree, it IS obvious, but also nearly always forgotten. And what I will always find thrilling about your own story is that within this early story of your youth, within the vulnerability of it, the immeasurable worth of your inward being emerges, and it I tend to laugh with joy. That is my 2 cents worth. And I tend to feel there are many shades to intelligence, but at the same time we, all of us, will always be only somewhere on the dial, never the smartest, always in part, but all the while, in every waking moment, we are sentient beings, how do you measure that?
Scott, I didn’t know you and I share CAPD. I was diagnosed later in life. I thought being left handed in the 80s was what saved me from the years of “you just dumb” or “why are you so stupid” to “you belong in special ed”. It was self- actualization during my childhood depression years and DRUGS that saved my life.
The hypersensitivity aspect is so very important, as well as its relationship to ADHD and to advanced pattern recognition.
I suspect intelligence is a mapping phenomenon in which the individual brain either has a bias (or is forced) to assimilate more within a unit of time. This can be parental pressure (John Stuart Mill, William James, the Hungarian "aliens") or an out-of-band attentional system.
The mind is forced to reconcile more information, thereby deriving more patterns. Always with a cost.
So, giftedness is something, but it is not an IQ gene.
And the huge confounding factors for IQ=achievement are obvious: self-motivation, narcissism, and anxiety. An athlete is someone who masters physical patterns quickly and has certain bodily traits, but a great athlete is often someone with a deeply unusual willingness to practice. We call it grit, but I suspect so much of it is situational.
There will never be a clear answer, because we can do what some asian countries do and adopt a societal and education paradigm of extraordinary pressure to achieve, and we will likely "catch" more gifted kids, as well as create some. We could do masterful assessments, though these will inevitably be tuned towards something instrumental.
Mostly, we should reduce the anxiety of families, increase safety and access to quality teaching and facilities, and push those kids who can be pushed.
Well Dr K, here's something from the Peanut Gallery. I appreciate the thoughtful and heartfelt piece, btw.
I think that everyone is given the same number of intelligence points. They are distributed across the different types of intelligence. I think of it as 15 points distributed across informational intelligence, relational/emotional intelligence, and physical/spatial intelligence. It gets back to the question of whether we are all gifted.
Great piece! I’ve got one of those kids for whom Iq testing can be tricky. But the answer isn’t to say “oh! That means IQ tests and standardized tests in general are bumpkiss.” You just need to be 1. Really good at administering them. 2. Really good at interpreting them. 3. Really aware of potential confounding variables and 4. Don’t use one single test administered on a young child as determinative of that child’s future. I wasted a lot of time worrying and/or hating IQ tests because one inexperienced person gave one to my child and just …. Didn’t do it right . I’ve learned that when used the correct way, testing can be so helpful at detecting patterns and growth, even when a single FSIQ may be hard to validate. We shouldn’t let misuse of testing by some ruin such an incredible tool.
I heard someone say one time in the past, that “you never know, one of these kids might be a Hemingway!”. The comment illustrates one aspect of our fixation on giftedness. That intelligence, as with other aspects is a measure of worth. Other aspects would include attractiveness, social ability and fame, accomplishments, and wealth. What about the kid who isn’t a Hemingway? He sits in the second chair from the back, in the third row over, and much of the time he or she is invisible. How is his or her worth to be measured? I am not saying these attributes don’t have value. I am saying that all of these attributes hold value only in part. And what I’m saying is that all of these values which are only in part find their proper place ONLY when made subordinate to the singular immeasurable source, the immeasurable worth of “being”. Now you will probably say I’m saying something that does not need to be said, you might say it is obvious, and I would agree, it IS obvious, but also nearly always forgotten. And what I will always find thrilling about your own story is that within this early story of your youth, within the vulnerability of it, the immeasurable worth of your inward being emerges, and it I tend to laugh with joy. That is my 2 cents worth. And I tend to feel there are many shades to intelligence, but at the same time we, all of us, will always be only somewhere on the dial, never the smartest, always in part, but all the while, in every waking moment, we are sentient beings, how do you measure that?
I really enjoyed your book Ungifted — it shaped my understanding of this topic.
An assessment can be literally true and still do damage. "Not everyone is good at math" is accurate as a description — and wrong as a diagnosis, because the label becomes an input: expectations shape treatment, treatment shapes outcomes, and the sort ends as a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the gap it claimed to merely measure.
That's why the fix isn't only better measurement — it's the shift from sorting (who has it?) to building (what's the next move from here?).
Fantastic piece, Dr. K.!!! It is so important (and refreshing) when I read something that puts the entire picture together. Thank you.
Thank you for writing this!
Some excellent points. Anytime we try to rate or rank our fellow human beings we are undermining our own chance for survival. As a community we are better off trying to figure out how everyone fits in.
This may mean tolerating a lot of trial and error, allowing others the opportunity to fail and try again. The goal should be training and retraining regardless of perceived potential. We cannot exist without the help of many others in our community. There should be a place for everyone.
Great and much needed post, SBK! Thanks for taking the time to provide such a full and thoughtful response to Arnold-Ratliff's flawed and deeply damaging article.
Awww thanks Rebecca, your comment means a lot.
I heard someone say one time in the past, that “you never know, one of these kids might be a Hemingway!”. The comment illustrates one aspect of our fixation on giftedness. That intelligence, as with other aspects is a measure of worth. Other aspects would include attractiveness, social ability and fame, accomplishments, and wealth. What about the kid who isn’t a Hemingway? He sits in the second chair from the back, in the third row over, and much of the time he or she is invisible. How is his or her worth to be measured? I am not saying these attributes don’t have value. I am saying that all of these attributes hold value only in part. And what I’m saying is that all of these values which are only in part find their proper place ONLY when made subordinate to the singular immeasurable source, the immeasurable worth of “being”. Now you will probably say I’m saying something that does not need to be said, you might say it is obvious, and I would agree, it IS obvious, but also nearly always forgotten. And what I will always find thrilling about your own story is that within this early story of your youth, within the vulnerability of it, the immeasurable worth of your inward being emerges, and it I tend to laugh with joy. That is my 2 cents worth. And I tend to feel there are many shades to intelligence, but at the same time we, all of us, will always be only somewhere on the dial, never the smartest, always in part, but all the while, in every waking moment, we are sentient beings, how do you measure that?
Scott, I didn’t know you and I share CAPD. I was diagnosed later in life. I thought being left handed in the 80s was what saved me from the years of “you just dumb” or “why are you so stupid” to “you belong in special ed”. It was self- actualization during my childhood depression years and DRUGS that saved my life.
I have always enjoyed your writing, Scott. But the past few weeks you have really been on fire. Your recent material has been fresh and exciting.
Thank you sir, means a lot.
The hypersensitivity aspect is so very important, as well as its relationship to ADHD and to advanced pattern recognition.
I suspect intelligence is a mapping phenomenon in which the individual brain either has a bias (or is forced) to assimilate more within a unit of time. This can be parental pressure (John Stuart Mill, William James, the Hungarian "aliens") or an out-of-band attentional system.
The mind is forced to reconcile more information, thereby deriving more patterns. Always with a cost.
So, giftedness is something, but it is not an IQ gene.
And the huge confounding factors for IQ=achievement are obvious: self-motivation, narcissism, and anxiety. An athlete is someone who masters physical patterns quickly and has certain bodily traits, but a great athlete is often someone with a deeply unusual willingness to practice. We call it grit, but I suspect so much of it is situational.
There will never be a clear answer, because we can do what some asian countries do and adopt a societal and education paradigm of extraordinary pressure to achieve, and we will likely "catch" more gifted kids, as well as create some. We could do masterful assessments, though these will inevitably be tuned towards something instrumental.
Mostly, we should reduce the anxiety of families, increase safety and access to quality teaching and facilities, and push those kids who can be pushed.
Well Dr K, here's something from the Peanut Gallery. I appreciate the thoughtful and heartfelt piece, btw.
I think that everyone is given the same number of intelligence points. They are distributed across the different types of intelligence. I think of it as 15 points distributed across informational intelligence, relational/emotional intelligence, and physical/spatial intelligence. It gets back to the question of whether we are all gifted.
Great piece! I’ve got one of those kids for whom Iq testing can be tricky. But the answer isn’t to say “oh! That means IQ tests and standardized tests in general are bumpkiss.” You just need to be 1. Really good at administering them. 2. Really good at interpreting them. 3. Really aware of potential confounding variables and 4. Don’t use one single test administered on a young child as determinative of that child’s future. I wasted a lot of time worrying and/or hating IQ tests because one inexperienced person gave one to my child and just …. Didn’t do it right . I’ve learned that when used the correct way, testing can be so helpful at detecting patterns and growth, even when a single FSIQ may be hard to validate. We shouldn’t let misuse of testing by some ruin such an incredible tool.
I experienced NYC’’s testing regime, see here https://substack.com/@light235675/note/p-202152292?r=bkpnr&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I critique our current approach
I heard someone say one time in the past, that “you never know, one of these kids might be a Hemingway!”. The comment illustrates one aspect of our fixation on giftedness. That intelligence, as with other aspects is a measure of worth. Other aspects would include attractiveness, social ability and fame, accomplishments, and wealth. What about the kid who isn’t a Hemingway? He sits in the second chair from the back, in the third row over, and much of the time he or she is invisible. How is his or her worth to be measured? I am not saying these attributes don’t have value. I am saying that all of these attributes hold value only in part. And what I’m saying is that all of these values which are only in part find their proper place ONLY when made subordinate to the singular immeasurable source, the immeasurable worth of “being”. Now you will probably say I’m saying something that does not need to be said, you might say it is obvious, and I would agree, it IS obvious, but also nearly always forgotten. And what I will always find thrilling about your own story is that within this early story of your youth, within the vulnerability of it, the immeasurable worth of your inward being emerges, and it I tend to laugh with joy. That is my 2 cents worth. And I tend to feel there are many shades to intelligence, but at the same time we, all of us, will always be only somewhere on the dial, never the smartest, always in part, but all the while, in every waking moment, we are sentient beings, how do you measure that?
I really enjoyed your book Ungifted — it shaped my understanding of this topic.
An assessment can be literally true and still do damage. "Not everyone is good at math" is accurate as a description — and wrong as a diagnosis, because the label becomes an input: expectations shape treatment, treatment shapes outcomes, and the sort ends as a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the gap it claimed to merely measure.
That's why the fix isn't only better measurement — it's the shift from sorting (who has it?) to building (what's the next move from here?).