That seems reasonable, but it takes a somewhat narrow view of the nature of a human being. It doesn't consider for example characteristics such as determination and drive, which can operate outside the scope of such things as IQ tests or educational achievements. There are other characteristics too, humans are complex, attempting to measure them is somewhat of a slippery task, perhaps one which raises deeper questions such as individual values, as opposed to standardised expectations.
I was going to bring in the concept of reincarnation too. This is also a slippery one. Although one might expect progress to take place along an upward path, each life building upon something achieved or endured in a preceding life, but again the same question of individual values arises. What would we consider progress? What is an upward path? I've read a great many personal accounts from real people such as you and me, and often past-life achievements count for relatively little. Some people may have a natural facility in picking up languages previously spoken, but that isn't a given. Same with other skills - we might draw upon previous skills, as part of re-learning during this present life. But if our goals and aims are now different, those skills may be somewhat of an irrelevance as we focus on something else.
Perhaps as I'm looking at my own life so far, I'm asking what is it that should be valued, in ourselves and in others. The concept of 'giftedness' as expressed in the article may be a relatively minor consideration.
I think this was well demonstrated by the Suzuki method many years back, however I would argue the scale for what we consider 'gifted' would merely shift rather than being inadmissable as a category. There are very clearly children with rare abilities in the fields of counting things, memorizing things and so on which fall under the Savant umbrella, and do not see how one could consider these abilities un-'gift' like.
(2020-01-31, 09:34 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps as I'm looking at my own life so far, I'm asking what is it that should be valued, in ourselves and in others. The concept of 'giftedness' as expressed in the article may be a relatively minor consideration.
Yeah I think the better stance might be that children have the potential to excel in a variety of areas that might not readily seem likely given their score on a particular test like - in the US - the SAT.
One joke among us math majors is there are two types - the ones who can do arithmetic and the ones who cannot. This distinction between proofs and calculation would be an example where someone who is really good at the one might balk at the other...in fact it's known that even people who aced math in high school might abandon it when proofs end up on assignments/tests. A friend of mine lamented that math education was a kind of gauntlet, as he felt some of those who actually had the hardest time understanding proofs initially might be more inclined to later make advances b/c they weren't swallowing everything as given.
[Forgot to mention I was almost held back in 2nd grade b/c my math scores were so low, so I am definitely in favor of not writing off a kid who stumbles out of the starting blocks...]
But even then there is something interesting going with the realization of proofs, these Universal/Eternal Truths, so much so it inspired the mystic beliefs of Plato and Pythagoras.
All that doesn't even get into the question of Psi effects continually going on in our lives...
I accidentally voted on this thread because of browser weirdness so please ignore that.
I want to suggest that we should distinguish between those who have a natural disposition and those who might develop competencies later on. I guess this is getting into the nature v nurture argument. But let me elaborate.
I was rated by my teachers as 'gifted' thought that term was not used back in the 1960s. I was simply expected to do way better than I did. I was crap at exams. Less 'gifted' kids did way better because they had better support and discipline. I had a lengthy and revealing with a former teacher who had become my flatmate's lover. Teachers couldn't figure out why I remained in the top stream but never distinguished myself. They didn't ask me, or my parents - not that they knew in any case. But neither did I. Now I can look back and see I was traumatised by psi events.
Raw IQ is nothing without something to support it. Is the 'gift' the IQ or the temperament? Is it the environment? Is high IQ worth a damn without self-awareness and insight. These days a 'gifted child' is a status attainment for parents who don't give a shit whether their child is a decent person.
The fact is that a high IQ is not a 'gift' any more than a loving nature or a diligent character is a gift. The ideal is a balance of strong attributes. A high IQ unsupported is not a gift.
There are people who are naturally smart and who are nice and well rounded folk. But is 'gifted' the right word to describe them?
Let me also suggest that if you bring a skillset into a given life it's hardly a 'gift'. It may be something earned.
In any case if we use the term 'gift' we are obliged to consider the giver. What is their nature? How do we know what we are perceiving is given?