‘’Throughout the history of our species there have been only a handful of real human beings; for what are we, if not teachable beasts? Plant the seeds, and they will grow; but our minds could never have spontaneously generated them.’’ – Author Unknown, My Paraphrase

Methodology is trying to answer the most crucial issue of all in terms of education: what ought to be done if one wants to convey their knowledge onto their subjects? The question is of paramount importance, one cannot contend it. However, as it is typically solved in the course oh human cognitive development throughout the ages, the emphasis is placed on the mediocre aspects of our intelligence as a species. Individuals unfortunate enough to have been born with implicit genetic defects are often considered as well and taken into account when various methodological approaches are considered. A minority is willing to recognize the other ‘’extreme,’’ of the Bell Curve, to use the vernacular: the gifted. Even though one can observe different ways of nurturing the talented via the course of human history, like special peripatetic ‘’sessions’’ in ancient Greece where famous philosophers like Socrates or Plato engaged in discussions with those brilliant minds; or ancient China where the gifted were also recognized as bearers of enormous potential. It is not much of a conundrum to discern that most humans on this planet are within the ‘’mediocre’’ spectrum. This is not a flaw in any way, as some people have to be workers to sustain this civilization’s mundane operations. It can be said about the methodology as well: it adjusts to the modus vivendi present within the prevalent thought patterns of the population. Still, one could conject as well as contend, it is ironic: people that utilize today’s inventions are the same people that have been condemning its inventors for years. Perhaps a saying that ‘’the opponents of certain ways have to die out while the new generation is going to treat certain inventions/social trends as something embedded in their lives without giving much thought to it. If we move forward, we shall see that the latter is going to become the status quo which is going to be challenged by another hapless individual known as a genius. The perpetual cycle of despair continues. I think it is off the essence to present who the gifted are and how have they been treated in the contemporary era, i.e. the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty first century, as well as what can be done in order to improve the situation regarding the treatment of the gifted as well as the most pivotal issue of all: why does it simply pay to care for the gifted?

The Gifted – Who Are They?

Even among the gifted one can discern different layers of it. If one measures the level of giftedness by juxtaposing it with the ‘’average’’ population, then it becomes clear what constitutes a moderately gifted individual and what comprises an exceptionally gifted entity. One could content, quite understandably, that it is impossible to state with any certainty what the ‘’average’’ level is, and, therefore, what the ‘’gifted’’ level is. This argument is valid; however, each one of us can detect various differences as prevalent among various human ‘’archetypes’’ – even though the exceptionally gifted tend to be beyond archetypal malleability. According to the article entitled

‘’Exceptionally Gifted Children: Different Minds‘’

‘’There are few descriptions in the literature of the cognitive processes of exceptionally gifted children. This study, based on testing profiles, anecdotes collected from parents, and observations made during family and group therapy sessions with moderately and exceptionally gifted children delineates some of the characteristic modes of thinking that differentiate exceptionally gifted children from their more moderately gifted peers. “

In order to understand the differences, one should familiarize oneself with the following descriptions that present the differences between the moderately and the exceptionally gifted in a very conspicuous manner:

‘’Exceptionally gifted children often have difficulty dealing with material other gifted children find easy. The exceptionally gifted see so many possible answers that they are not sure how to respond because no one answer seems to be better than another. For example, Zachery, age 7, with an IQ over 200, was unable to answer the question. “What does a doctor do?” The moderately gifted children answered with any of several acceptable responses and did not find this a difficult question. Zachery, however, answered that there were so many different kinds of doctors, and they all did different things. Even when encouraged, he was unable to pick one kind of doctor and name something that doctor did. Zachery obviously knew the material but was unable to focus on a simple level. His response suggests a higher level of analysis and integration than the question required.‘’

One can easily infer from the above quotations that the difference between a moderately gifted child – that is a child said to be within the range of circa 150 IQ, and the exceptionally gifted one, that is a child with IQ circa 180 or higher – is akin to the difference between an average child and the moderately gifted one. The same principle applies to adults as well, but the concept of ‘’High IQ societies’’ is meant to rectify the situation. But the question inevitably arises : does it rectify anything at all? Alfred Binet devised the method of IQ tests in 1905 to as a means of ‘’detecting’’ genius children. Unfortunately, his attempt could/can be considered far from successful. How can one assume, based on the aforementioned statement, that the ‘’High IQ Societies’’ are any different ? Is it really possible to reach a consensus , as this is what the word ‘’society’’ stands for, when one is dealing with epitomes of individuality taken to the extreme level? Attempts at creating ‘’genius children’’ undertaken by Robert Graham ended as a total failure – even his own ‘’children’’ , among them Doron Blake, claim that playing the role of the Creator is a fallacious idea – at best – and should not be justified by someone’s higher notions.

It is noteworthy to bear in mind the following division of intellectual capacity as well:

• Bright: 115+, or one in six (84th percentile)
• Moderately gifted: 130+, or 1 in 50 (97.9th percentile)
• Highly gifted: 145+, or 1 in 1000 (99.9th percentile)
• Exceptionally gifted: 160+, or 1 in 30,000 (99.997th percentile)
• Profoundly gifted: 175+, or 1 in 3 million (99.99997th percentile)

An article entitled ‘’Outsiders’’ which can be found on the website of the ‘’Prometheus Society’’ states, among many other issues it covers, what are the problems encountered by the gifted when dealing with mainstream society :

‘’Children with IQs up to 150 get along in the ordinary course of school life quite well, achieving excellent marks without serious effort. But children above this mental status become almost intolerably bored with school work if kept in lockstep with unselected pupils of their own age. Children who rise above 170 IQ are liable to regard school with indifference or with positive dislike, for they find nothing in the work to absorb their interest. This condition of affairs, coupled with the supervision of unseeing and unsympathetic teachers, has sometimes led even to truancy on the part of gifted children. (3)’’

Where does the problem with perceiving the gifted come from? It seems to stem from the collective proclivity towards stereotyping – the very word stemming from the Greek stereos, meaning a solid body. The first and foremost issue is drawing a parallel between IQ and giftedness. This excerpt clarifies the misconception – and the latter’s origins :

‘’For many years, psychometricians and psychologists, following in the footsteps of Lewis Terman in 1916, equated giftedness with high IQ. This “legacy” survives to the present day, in that giftedness and high IQ continue to be equated in some conceptions of giftedness. Since that early time, however, other researchers (e.g. Cattell, Guilford, and Thurstone) have argued that intellect cannot be expressed in such a unitary manner, and have suggested more multifaceted approaches to intelligence. ’’

It is unfortunate, as well, that the collective social psyche tends to view the gifted as physically weak individuals, very often conjuring up a picture of Stephen Hawking, confined to a wheelchair, to support their consensual perspective. The fragment below explains, yet again, that the truth is often located within the gray area:

‘’There was a time when all precocious children were thought to burn out the same way that Sidis (An American child prodigy from Boston,  said to have had an IQ of 250-300, spoke circa forty languages and variations thereof fluently, corrected Harvard professors at the age of eleven; ended up as a counter clerk on his own volition to focus on his research more away from the people – My interjection) did. The man most responsible for changing this belief was Lewis M. Terman. Between 1900 and 1920 he was able to carry out a study of about a hundred gifted children, and his observations convinced him that many of the traditional beliefs about the gifted were little more than superstitions. To confirm these observations, he obtained a grant from the Commonwealth Fund in 1922, and used it to sift a population of more than a quarter of a million children, selecting out all those with IQs above 140 for further study. That group has been monitored continuously ever since. Many of the previously held beliefs about the gifted did indeed turn out to be false. The gifted are not weak or sickly, and although the incidence of myopia is greater among them, they are generally thought to be better looking than their contemporaries: They are not nerds. ( My Emphasis)’’

The gifted are often perceived as solitary individuals who tend to exhibit bizarre demeanor when faced with situations that ‘’normal’’ people take for granted. However, if one does not possess the capacity to comprehend what goes on within the gifted person’s mind, it is very easy to dismiss their behavior as a travesty of ‘’normal’’ human life. People need to remember that when dealing with a person who requires precision and sees many more facets of an issue than they do, it is essential not to judge based on superficial behavioral patterns – the very patterns that reflect a huge mental task which can bear an enormous strain on a gifted person’s mind. The article sums the problem of the gifted and their relations with environment in a very laconic – albeit appropriate – statement:

‘’But the point of this article is not that there’s some special hazard in having an exceptional IQ: There’s not. The point is that the danger lies in having an exceptional IQ in an environment completely lacking in intellectual peers. It’s the isolation that does the damage, not the IQ itself. (My Emphasis)’’

The last sentence says it all. People that tend to perceive much more than others are not loners because they are arrogant, as they are so often seen: they are forced into solitude because they cannot find enough ‘’common ground’’ with individuals around them – apart from casual superficial conversations where the gifted tend to mask their true views in favor of the more acceptable ones – or the ones that will be more easily understood by their milieu.

As Oscar Wilde is purported to have said: ‘’People forgive everything, except genius.’’

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/childhood-education-articles/the-gifted-a-different-world-1326518.html