Summer 2022 - Mensa Research Journal

MRJ Mensa Research Journal

Published by the Mensa Foundation

Giftedness Across the Lifespan 2022 Mensa Foundation Colloquium Speakers Explore: » Research on Gifted Adults » Gifted Students With Attention Deficit Disorder » Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

Volume 53 No. 2 • MensaFoundation.org

Staff: Editor-In-Chief • Jeff Papa MRJeditor@mensafoundation.org Editor Emeritus • Phyllis Miller, phyllis.miller@gmail.com Circulation Manager • Jill Beckham jillb@mensafoundation.org, (817) 607-0060, ext. 5509 Production Manager • Hilary Moore artdirector@americanmensa.org, (817) 607-0060, ext. 5544

Mensa Research Journal Editorial Advisory Board Ryan Donlan, Ed.D. • Chair Erin L. Albert, Pharm.D. James H. Dobbins, Ph.D. Keri M. Guilbault, Ed.D. Mary Jacobsen, Psy.D. Frank Lawlis, Ph.D. Ken Martin, Ph.D. Martha Merrill, Ed.D.

Mensa Foundation Board of Trustees Charlie Steinhice • President Deb Stone • Vice President Vicki Herd • Treasurer Jenny Wise • Secretary Nguyen Pham Michelle Rakshys Björn Liljeqvist • Chair, Mensa International — Ex-Officio Timmy King • Chair, American Mensa — Ex-Officio

The Mensa Foundation

Mensa, the high-IQ society, provides a meeting of the minds for people who score in the top 2 percent on standardized IQ tests. As an international organization with thousands of members worldwide, Mensa seeks to identify and foster human intelligence; encourage research in the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence; and provide a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members.

The first two of these purposes are largely carried out by the Mensa Foundation. The Foundation is a philanthropic, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization funded primarily by gifts from Mensa members and others. The Foundation awards scholarships and research awards, publishes the Mensa Research Journal, and funds other projects consistent with its mission.

For more information about the Foundation, visit mensafoundation.org. For information about joining Mensa, call (817) 607-0060 or visit americanmensa.org. If you reside outside the United States, visit the Mensa International, Ltd., website at mensa.org.

To renew your subscription or subscribe to the Mensa Research Journal, call (817) 607-0060, ext. 5532, and pay with a major credit card. You can also subscribe online at mensafoundation.org/mrjsubscribe.

Please refer to your mailing label to determine how many issues of the MRJ you will receive before your subscription expires.

The Journal is published at least three times a year. Subscribers will receive all issues for which they have paid, even if frequency of publication varies. Membership in Mensa is not required. To order back issues or report address changes, write to Mensa Research Journal, 1315 Brookside Drive, Hurst, Texas 76053, or email JillB@mensafoundation.org

The Editorial Board of the Mensa Research Journal selects articles to show most sides of an issue. Publication of a research article in the Mensa Research Journal does not indicate agreement on the part of the Editorial Board of the Mensa Research Journal or the Mensa Foundation with the contents of any particular article or any conclusions stated therein. Articles that have been previously published are reprints from selected journals and are printed as is. The MRJ has made no style or grammar corrections, though we do make minor formatting changes to fit our pages and layout.

The Mensa and Mensa Foundation logos are trademarks and service marks of American Mensa, Ltd., used by the Mensa Foundation under license. Mensa is a registered trademark of American Mensa, Ltd. Each article reprinted in MRJ is reprinted with permission of the copyright holder.

Cover image © iStock.com

Mensa Research Journal (ISSN 0025-9551) is published at least three times per year by the Mensa Education & Research Foundation, 1315 Brookside Drive, Hurst, Texas 76053. © 2022 Mensa Foundation

MRJ Mensa Research Journal

Summer 2022 Volume 53 Issue 2

Editorial

From the Editor-In-Chief Jeff Papa, Ph.D. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 5

Featured Articles

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

Maggie Brown and Elizabeth Peterson �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������6

Gifted Adults at Work: The Netherlands Experience

Rianne van de Ven ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������19

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

Ellen D. Fiedler, Ph.D. �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������22

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

Tracy L. Cross, Jennifer Riedl Cross, Nataliya Dudnytska, Mihyeon Kim, and Colin T. Vaughn �������������������������36

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

David Yun Dai, Ph.D. ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������54

A Book Review of Dr. Stephon Alexander’s Fear of a Black Universe: An Outsider’s Guide to the Future of Physics

Jeff Papa, Ph.D. �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������62

Random Samples and Standard Deviations

Jeff Papa, Ph.D., and Ryan Donlan, Ed.D. ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������64

Our Plan to Unleash Intelligence

Charlie Steinhice. �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69

F O U N D AT I O N

Cover: Efforts in the U.S. and globally to understand and support giftedness tend to focus on gifted education. Going beyond that, the Mensa Foundation’s Colloquium 2022 will explore and follow giftedness across the lifespan for a more complete picture.

This issue of the MRJ features papers from all of the speakers at this year’s event to investigate the impact and evolving nature of giftedness over time.

2022 Colloquium Presented by the Mensa Foundation IN PERSON & LIVESTREAMING

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Giftedness Across the Lifespan: A More Complete Picture

The one-day program offers opportunities for participants to explore new and emerging ideas about intelligence and related concepts, accounting for the different contexts that matter to people throughout their lives.

Speaker presentations will include the following topics: • the social and emotional lives of gifted children and teens • a new paradigm for gifted education • the careers and work environments of gifted adults • mental health and well-being in adulthood • aging and supporting gifted elders

Register now at mensafoundation.org/colloquium

July 5, 2022 | Sparks, Nev.

F O U N D AT I O N

MRJ

From the Editor-in-Chief Welcome to the Summer 2022 issue of the Mensa Research Journal! While this issue presents valuable content and stands on its own merits, it also serves as a companion issue to the 2022 Mensa Foundation Colloquium in Sparks, Nevada, on July 5, 2022.

If you are reading this and were unaware of the Colloquium, it may not be too late to attend in person or to take advantage of the livestream option; visit colloquium.us.mensa.org for more information on this interesting event. As you likely know, the Colloquium is held in conjunction with American Mensa’s Annual Gathering (July 6-10, 2022), but either event may be attended independently.

The 2022 Mensa Foundation Colloquium and this issue of the MRJ focus on the theme of Giftedness Across the Lifespan: A More Complete Picture. As described by the Mensa Foundation, this “one-day program offers opportunities for participants to explore new and emerging ideas about intelligence and related concepts, accounting for the different contexts that matter to people throughout their lives.” A wonderful array of researchers, educators, and clinicians will present their work at the event, and we have gathered research from each of them here in this issue to provide greater insight into the topics they will explore.

Research and insight from the Colloquium presenters found in this issue of the MRJ include an article from Dr. Tracy Cross on “A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder,” an examination of “Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults” from Drs. Maggie Brown and Elizabeth Peterson, Dr. David Dai’s thoughts on “Engaging the World and Making the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development,” Dr. Ellen Fiedler on “Charting a Course Across the Lifespan” for gifted adults, and Rianne van de Ven’s exploration of the late discovery

of gifted potential in her research titled “Gifted Adults at Work: The Netherlands Experience.”

Also included in this issue is a review of Dr. Stephon Alexander’s 2021 book Fear of a Black Universe: An Outsider’s Guide to the Future of Physics. While the title might seem to indicate the book does not deal directly with the subject of intelligence, this review explains how this fantastic work is indeed related to our mission to discuss all aspects of intelligence.

In keeping with our theme for this issue, the Random Samples and Standard Deviations column also takes a (somewhat random) look at intelligence across the lifespan. You will also find in this issue the latest news from the Mensa Foundation, as well as additional information about the Colloquium. Keep an eye on your mailboxes later this year for the Fall issue of the MRJ, which is currently slated to delve into the topic of creativity and intelligence.

As always, please feel free to reach out to me with suggestions, potential articles, critiques, and general comments by email at MRJEditor@mensafoundation.org. You can learn more about the Mensa Foundation, or donate to the 501(c)(3) Foundation, by visiting mensafoundation.org/about-themensa-foundation.

Thank you for subscribing to the Mensa Research Journal.

Your support is greatly appreciated and allows the MRJ to continue to gather and disseminate research related to all aspects of intelligence.

Jeff Papa, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief MRJEditor@mensafoundation.org

Articles in this publication which have been reprinted from peer-reviewed journals and other copyrighted publications are included without modification to the text.

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 5

MRJ

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown Maggie Brown and Elizabeth Peterson

Abstract

The topic of gifted adults is underexamined and little is known about what issues are important to those interested in the topic, and the ideas influencing their work. This online questionnaire study, part of a larger project investigating the current status of research with gifted adults, examines what 76 international experts are interested in, the different approaches they use, and what shapes their perspectives. Results showed that the participants, all currently researching or working with gifted adults, are interested in real-life issues for gifted adults, with pockets of interest in specific subpopulations. Different disciplinary and theoretical influences were identified. The study highlights some problems with current research on the topic including potential blind spots. The results are described as signs of an emerging field, and as reflecting problems inherited from other gifted-related fields. Implications for future research are discussed.

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY is part of a larger project that examines what is happening in the broad area of research with gifted adults. Unusually, this project steps back from questions directly related to gifted adults and, instead, explores the views and interests of researchers, clinicians, and others who are currently interested in the topic. The project includes a Delphi Study (Brown et al., 2020), a Focus Group Study (Brown & Peterson, 2020), and the questionnaire study reported here. Overall, this first-of its-kind project is aimed at understanding what those working in the broad area of gifted adults are interested in, the kinds of questions being asked, and the types of knowledge that are currently possible.

It is generally agreed that research with adults who are gifted is an undeveloped and complex field (Brown et al., 2020; Rinn & Bishop, 2015). As such, we believe it is important early on to shine a light on potential differences in conceptual and operational definitions, methodological approaches, and the assumptions that lie behind them.

This helps those already researching gifted adults, and new and emerging researchers, to either avoid or respond to the different approaches, assumptions, and critiques. It can also help stimulate a lively and constructive dialogue that encourages transparency rather than defensiveness and fragmentation, and values differences while remaining conscious of a common interest: advancing the field to better serve the gifted adult community.

This study seeks to shine such a light, by building on the findings of the recent Delphi study (Brown et al., 2020), which identified what a panel of 76 international experts working with gifted adults thought were priorities for study, potential obstacles, and paths forward. In that

6 • Mensa Research Journal

study, the panel broadly supported six key recommendations for future research, including the recommendation to accept the plurality of different interests and opinions expressed by panel members. While the recommendations from the Delphi panel are a step forward, there was also a range of difference in interests and priorities amongst the contributors that are important to acknowledge and explore. Many panel members pointed out possible risks of proceeding with a spread of views and approaches to the field with potentially little in common. Others raised concerns about ignoring the problematic legacies from various related fields.

One way to start to address such concerns and avoid problems is to make researchers’ aims, approaches, and disciplinary influences more salient and available for reflection. The current study revisits data collected in the first round of the Delphi study (Brown et al., 2020) to investigate in more detail the range of views offered by the experts, and the implications of this diversity for future research in the field.

The analysis of data from the Delphi study (Brown et al., 2020) was intentionally at a semantic level. That is, we were interested in participants’ explicit responses to questions about research priorities and related obstacles, and the panel of experts’ views on how to move forward. We did not seek to explore implicit meanings in the data, nor did we attempt to understand differences in participants’ Maggie Brown & Elizabeth Peterson (2022) Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown, Roeper Review, 44:1, 6-18, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2021.2005207

some, stagnation of the field (Ambrose et al., 2010; Dai, 2018).

Similar work in related fields

other perspectives to the study. The roles the experts identified with when asked to name their interest in gifted adults included writer, researcher, teacher, clinical

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

underlying perspectives, assumptions.

In the Similar investigations ofideologies, differencesoramongst scholars in current study we engage more deeply with the individurelated fields provided some direction for our analysis. al responses of those 76onexperts in gifted adults, to highResearchers reflecting the fields of gifted education light the spread of approaches taken by those experts and (Ambrose, 2017; Dai, 2017; Lo & Porath, 2017; Persson, identify the implicit ideological, theoretical, disciplin2018) and talent development (Preckel and et al., 2020; ary influences the approaches they2012), take. for To do so, we Subotnik et al.,on2018; Ziegler et al., example, conduct a secondary latent-level of thedifferences data from have recently explicated historic analysis and current the questionnaire used in round one of the study, in perspective and usefully discussed the Delphi applicability where the expertsofwere asked to reflect on their and limitations the specifically various investigative paradigms, own work. In this study, weand reexamine that data with two philosophical approaches, disciplinary emphases. questions in mind: Creativity researchers also recently took stock of the various approaches 1. What issues in aretheir currently being explored andetwhy? area of study (Glăveanu al., 2020). attention to the multidimensionality of 2. They Whatdrew different approaches are being used?

The latent-level analysis conducted here explores both explicit and implicit meanings in the experts’ responses.

The focus moves beyond the semantic or explicit content of the questionnaire data and “starts to identify or examine the underlying ideas, assumptions, conceptualizations— and ideologies—that are theorized as shaping or informing the semantic content of the data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 84). The aim is to make the different perspectives more explicit, transparent, and available for reflection by others.

Our analysis also highlights some unresolved problems, blind spots, and methodological flaws within the field. The intention is not to resolve debates or aim for consensus, but rather to map out key differences and, where possible, to identify useful themes.

In taking this approach we are hoping to underline the importance of experts taking a reflexive stance so that researchers interested in gifted adults can avoid some of the problems plaguing, for example, the related field of gifted education studies where philosophical and methodological differences have now been debated for decades and led to fragmentation and, according to some, stagnation of the field (Ambrose et al., 2010; Dai, 2018).

Similar Work in Related Fields Similar investigations of differences amongst scholars in related fields provided some direction for our analysis.

Researchers reflecting on the fields of gifted education (Ambrose, 2017; Dai, 2017; Lo & Porath, 2017; Persson, 2018) and talent development (Preckel et al., 2020; Subotnik et al., 2018; Ziegler et al., 2012), for example, have recently explicated historic and current differences in perspective and usefully discussed the applicability and limitations of the various investigative paradigms, philosophical approaches, and disciplinary emphases.

Creativity researchers also recently took stock of the various approaches in their area of study (Glăveanu et al., 2020). They drew attention to the multidimensionality of the phenomenon and the importance of understanding and addressing various and sometimes oppositional perspectives. As a result, they developed a manifesto consisting of several beliefs, aims, and propositions in what

Table 1. Participant criteria.

Participant Criterion (1) Participants have an established (5+ years) interest in gifted adults. This may be a specific adult focus or a lifespan approach with a particular interest in contexts relevant to ages 18 +.

(2) Participants have an established (5+ years) interest in giftedness, and/or in a construct that they believe to be directly related to giftedness. Lack of conceptual clarity in this area means that participants may differ in the words & constructs they use. We invite this diversity.

(3) Participants demonstrate an ability to understand and critically analyze research related to gifted adults. Some participants will be experienced researchers. Others working outside of a research environment demonstrate their ability by, for example, using current clinical research, presenting at meetings, attending conferences, writing, or teaching. This diversity is welcome.

(4) Participants will be interested in engaging in this exploratory study.

has been described as an attempt to invigorate the field of creativity studies (Ambrose, 2017).

In the current study, we draw on insights from this recent critical and self-reflexive work in gifted education, talent development, and creativity studies for guidance, and orient our analysis and interpretation toward how 76 experts working with gifted adults talked about their research aims and priorities, the theories, concepts, and definitions they use, and their preferred methods. We also consider how the experts’ respective backgrounds, including discipline-driven ideological assumptions and research traditions, may shape their views, to make any differences and commonalities salient.

Method

Participants Current expertise with gifted adults is spread geographically, and across a range of academic and professional specializations. Our participant selection criteria, shown in Table 1, were created with that heterogeneity in mind (Paraskevas et al., 2012).

The recruitment resulted in a total of 76 experts from 14 countries: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Although the recruitment focus was on expertise and interest in research, the experts also brought a variety of other perspectives to the study. The roles the experts identified with when asked to name their interest in gifted adults included writer, researcher, teacher, clinical practitioner, business consultant, and health consultant. Many of the experts self-identified as having multiple roles in relation to their interest in the topic.

Procedure A questionnaire was designed to solicit comments and opinions from experts in gifted adults regarding their own work in the field. An initial draft of items was peer-reviewed by three independent experts in qualitative research design Volume 53, Issue 2 • 7

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

and giftedness research. We refined the questionnaire until consensus was reached. All survey delivery and data collection processes were piloted in advance.

Participants were purposively recruited using a combination of expert and snowball sampling. Potential participants, identified from an extensive review of the literature, received an invitation email and were invited to share the details of the study with prospective participants. The study website was also posted on relevant social media sites.

Each participant received a personal link to the online survey site to agree to participate and to start the questionnaire. The questionnaire and all correspondence were in English but the website had a translation tool. Panel members were invited to submit responses in any language and translation was offered using Google Translate. Four participants responded in languages other than English and used the translation service.

Participants were informed that the aim of the questionnaire was to solicit the views and opinions of experts interested in gifted adults, and that all responses would be anonymous. Confidentiality and anonymity of responses were maintained by using software-generated codes (pseudonyms). A research assistant removed personal identifiers from the survey site data prior to analysis and the two other researchers were blind to participants’ identities.

Participants were also specifically asked to think about their current work with gifted adults when answering nine open-ended questions about their interests, aims and research priorities, the definitions they use, and their preferred methods (questions are shown in Appendix 1).

They were able to skip questions they did not want to answer. The introduction to the questionnaire also included multiple choice items about participants’ geographic location, their disciplinary or professional background(s), and the type of work they do.

The questionnaire took between 40 to 60 min for most respondents to complete but some took considerably longer. Participants were able to save their responses and return to their questionnaires over a period of 5 weeks, and a reminder email was generated a week prior to the closing date. On completion, each participant automatically received a copy of the questions and their responses via email. An online system was set up to ensure only one response per IP address was allowed.

Analysis We used qualitative data analytic software NVivo 12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) to support the data analysis and we also worked with the data manually at times.

Data were analyzed and interpreted following the Braun and Clarke (2006) six-phase process of thematic analysis. We used an inductive approach with our research questions in mind, working from the data to eventually identify patterns of meaning beyond the words.

8 • Mensa Research Journal

In the familiarization phase, two researchers read the entire data set (responses from all participants to the nine openended questions) several times. This generated some initial ideas, which were noted and shared. In the coding phase, the main researcher reengaged with the data, paying particular attention to how the participants talked about their research aims and priorities, the theories and concepts they use, and their preferred methods. This resulted in a set of initial semantic-level codes. Relevant extracts were then collated and the two researchers worked together to look more deeply into that data, identifying patterns, inconsistencies, and discursive tendencies to further refine the codes and to begin looking beyond the explicit meaning of the data.

In the linked theme search, review and defining phases, the main researcher engaged deeply and iteratively with all of the data to clarify underlying patterns and overlaps, revise candidate themes and, ultimately, to map the data set according to a final set of themes and subthemes. During this analysis, patterns within individual responses also began to tell subtle but important stories. We therefore repeated the five phases, this time reading across each participants’ responses to all of the questions, staying vigilant for patterns, inconsistencies, and subtle meanings.

Throughout the process, the analysis moved purposefully from the semantic or explicit content to implicit meaning (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2021). In practice, the focus often shifted back and forth from the semantic to the latent level, as we identified and then verified deeper meanings of patterns in the data and named them as themes and subthemes. In the final readings, the main researcher looked across the entire data set and within individual response sets to ensure the interpretation accurately represents the heterogeneity of the data.

At the start of the writing phase both researchers revisited large data extracts to refine and agree on themes and subthemes, and to select examples of each for the final report.

This final phase also helped to ensure the thematic analysis provides “a coherent and compelling interpretation of the data, grounded in the data” (Braun et al., 2019, p. 848), and the research is trustworthy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results

Question one: What issues are currently being explored and why?

While our findings show that most of the experts are currently interested in solving substantive real-life issues for gifted adults, we found differences in (a) their populations of interest and by implication their research definition of gifted adults, (b) the specific issues or questions people are focusing on, and (c) the aims of their work.

Populations of interest Across the sample there was interest in the general population of gifted adults, despite acknowledged differences in

10

M. BROWN AND E. PETERSON

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

Table 2. Specific models or definitions used by the experts.

Model or Definition Dutch Delphi Model of Giftedness

Key Reference(s) Cited Kooijman-Van Thiel, 2008; Van Thiel et al., 2019

Columbus Group Definition

Silverman, 1997

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/ Position%20Statement/Definition%20of% 20Giftedness%20%282019%29.pdf

Roeper Definition

Roeper, 1982; Roeper, 1991

IQ score Talent Development Model

(Gagné, 2004; Subotnik et al., 2011)

Heylighen Characteristics

Heylighen, 2006

Extra Intelligence (Xi)

Kuipers, 2010

what amake general of gifted adults mightinlook that population assumption more explicit, as shown theselike or howtwo it excerpts: might be“I operationalized.

There were, however, am particularly interested in the neurobases of some giftedness, for example, heritabila few biological exceptions with preferring to useitsterms other ity, neurotransmitters, proteins . . . and altered BOLD than gifted—either gifted and talented adults (where a few and and “Densely experts[blood-oxygen-level-dependent] distinguished between earlylevels,” potential actual wired brains enabling more and quicker connections.” accomplishment) or high ability and similar non-English Where lists were provided, we looked across each partiterms cipant’s such asresponses Haut potential (French)and and Hohes potential to all questions, frequently found (German). strong discursive tendencies to move beyond description toward categorization or classification and, at times, even

Conceptual andasoperational definitions prediction illustrated in these excerpts from one expert (presented in the sequence found the data): When asked about the definition ofingifted adult (or similar) they use Iinusually theirdefine research, some of the experts it as a combination of unusualprovided intelli- an operational definition and others to ato particular gence, creativity, sensitivity and areferred strong drive learn and explore .. Thedefinitions intelligence, specifically creativity and named deep model. The models. .and in curiosity are pretty clear, well-established characteristics the data of aregiftedness, shown above in Table 2, along with key referand therefore provide a solid basis for a definition . . . giftedand people are descriptions. different from others ences cited by the experts brief and need an appropriate kind of environment.

The findings show most experts understood gifted adults to be Definitions a multidimensional construct.

Of theof46 experts such as this raise the possibility inadvertent circularity, whereby a concept gifted adult comes who named a specific definition or of model, for example, be use defined by the criteria indicators, no of theoretical nearlyto half either Dutch Delphiwith model giftedness nor guiding framework. It also raises questions about (Kooijman-Van Thiel, 2008)—a descriptive model specific predictive power (discussed next). to gifted adults, or the Columbus group definition (Silverman, 1997), which was initially developed to describe gifted children.

In contrast, nine experts define adult giftedness as unidimensional. For example, six people understand the concept as high intelligence measured by scores on psychometric tests, such as this example: “Gifted adults are adults who score in the top two percent of a standardized intelligence test.” Three people specifically referred to talent develop-

Number of Experts Brief Description 12 A quick and clever thinker, able to deal with complex matters.

Autonomous, curious, and passionate. A sensitive and emotionally rich individual, living intensely. He or she enjoys being creative.

10 Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity.

5 Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains.

6 A greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and to transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experiences.

6 Two standard deviations above the mean.

3 Giftedness is the manifestation of performance or production that is clearly at the upper end of the distribution in a talent domain even relative to that of other high-functioning individuals in that more domains.

2 Giftedness, the potential for exceptional achievement, is characterized by high intelligence and creativity. Gifted people exhibit a complex of cognitive, perceptual, emotional, motivational, and social traits.

2 Extra intelligence (Xi) indicates a subjectively verified, uncommonly high level of one or more kinds of intelligence, in the Gardner multiple intelligences sense . . . . People who recognize themselves in essence in at least three of the five following traits: Intellectually able, incurably inquisitive, needing autonomy, excessive zeal in the pursuit of interests, contrast or imbalance between emotional and intellectual self-confidence.

ment (e.g., Gagné, 2004; Subotnik While models the experts all offered some form et of al., 2011) when responding to questions about definition, a definition or operationalization, most also acknowl-and underedged thegiftedness current conceptual diversity and stand to be potential for muddiness exceptional perforsurrounding definitions, and believed this problemance, as shown in this example: “Itwas is all related to high matic, as shown in this excerpt: performance. Someone who has a ‘special’ (innate or developed) outstanding performance.”

This is ability complex,and and reaches my definition, or how I sense that someone is giftedand or definitions talented might basedadults on offered by The models of be gifted a combination of theory, my intuition, and, frankly, the experts only show part of the pattern.

A deeper analywhen it comes to operationalizing, or selecting subjects, sis of the data all using questions showed that, even when convenience.

I’macross used to the Gagné’s (2004) model [differentiated modelwas of gifted andmost experts aDMGT specific model or definition named, talented], and I also see value in the asynchronies from combine or in some way cluster various characteristics, the Columbus Group definition. Lately the concept of standardized test scores, behaviors,theory, and achievements as OE’s [overexcitabilities] from Dąbrowski’s and actually theabout processgifted of positive disintegration from that they talk adults.

For some, this mixture seems theory seem useful. So, maybe the question of definition conceptually consistent with anthere overall isn’t the right one.

I don’t think we’re yet. understanding of giftedness as a multidimensional concept such as when the Dutch Delphi descriptive model (Kooijman-Van Thiel, 2008) is used.

Subgroups The majority the experts were primarily interested in is where, A moreofcommon pattern in the data, however, knowing more about a subgroup of gifted adults, and when talking about gifted adults, experts appear to combine some were interested in more than one subgroup. or blend conceptually distinct phenomena without referSubpopulations explicitly named in the data are shown in ence Tableto3.an integrating theory or model. For example, nearly half of the experts described gifted adults using aggregates or lists similar to these quotes from two participants: Scoring higher than 130 on the WAIS [Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale], possessing a higher potential of selfactualization than the majority of the population, being skilled across several areas, and achieving results above average in a variety of disciplines. Soft/life skills are also paramount and (gifted) implies superior cognitive abilities in terms of understanding, memory, depth, and mul-

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 9

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

Table 3. Subgroups of gifted adults of interest to the experts.

Named Subgroup of Interest Employees Elders Women University students Executives/managers Gifted parents Highly/profoundly gifted Adults of color Twice-exceptional adults

Number of Experts Interested 9 9 9 6 6 6 5 5 4

Some of these subgroups, such as university students, tidimensional thinking. It also demonstrates an unparalhave obvious or well-defined boundaries. However, leled sense of adaptation to each new context. a deeper look into the data raises important questions about conceptually distinctions My preferred term ismeaningful high ability which for me,within means some the following: An of at leastthe 130five withexperts characteristic traitsin subgroups.

ForIQexample, interested such as: highor intensity (perception, processing, reaction), exceptionally profoundly gifted adults did not explicitly heightened sensitivity, increased/pronounced drive. name the boundaries of the subgroup, and their descriptions (including distinctions) varied.

For As can be seenany in categorical the examples, such lists combine example, one wrote: “Exceptionally and profoundly gifted performance on normed tests, some measure of outcome children and adults orarerecognition, the outliersand of an outliers oncharthe such as achievement array of standard curve of intelligence and aptitude, representing acteristics including fixed, emergent, and malleable traits, less than 1% the population.”

And another provided this cognitive andofnoncognitive processes, subjective intrapexplanation: ersonal experiences, interpersonal skills, and behaviors.

Some the lists also included items that infer neurologiTheof Exceptionally and Profoundly Gifted (EPG) ... have uncommon andothers extraordinary cal underpinnings while make thatintelligence assumptionand more talent,asinshown many in domains.

Theexcerpts: terms highly, explicit, these two “I amexceptionparticularly ally or profoundly gifted are not exact; the degree of interested in the neurobiological bases of giftedness, for giftedness they designate cannot be absolutely and preexample, its heritability, cisely defined.

Overall, neurotransmitters, they refer to a narrowproteins range of. . . and exceptional altered BOLD [blood-oxygen-level-dependent] levels,” human ability. and “Densely wired brains enabling more and quicker Generally, we found those interested in the broad popuconnections.” lation of gifted adults tended to acknowledge problems Where lists were provided, we looked across each particwith unclear and imprecise definitions whereas those ipant’s responses to all questions, and frequently found interested in subgroups of gifted adults usually did not. strong discursive tendencies to move beyond description This is important because we therefore can’t be certain toward categorization or classification and, at times, even any two researchers who name a subpopulation are prediction as illustrated in these excerpts from one expert actually interested in the same group of people, as the (presented in the sequence found in the data): two excerpts above demonstrate.

I usually define it as a combination of unusual intelligence, creativity, sensitivity and a strong drive to learn and Specific issues and questions of interest explore . . .. The intelligence, creativity and deep curiosity Almost all of the experts participating in this study are pretty clear, well-established characteristics of giftedexplore issues and provide questions thatbasis relate to .how ness, and therefore a solid for adirectly definition .. gifted adults function in their day to day lives.

Named gifted people are different from others and need an approareas interest and exemplars are shown in Table 4 priateofkind of environment.

(some experts named multiple areas of interest).

Definitions this raise theinterested possibilityinofexploring inadverNearly halfsuch of theasexperts were tent circularity, whereby a concept of gifted adult comes to more than one issue or context, and most of those be defined by criteria indicators, with no theoretical nor explicitly indicated interest in broad and complex issues guiding It alsothe raises questions about predicsuch as:framework. “understanding factors that prevent gifted tive power (discussed next). adults from reaching their goals and living satisfying While the“How expertscan all we offered form of a find definition lives” and helpsome gifted adults their orway operationalization, most also acknowledged the to living truly satisfying and meaningful current lives?” conceptual diversity and muddiness surrounding definitions, and believed this was problematic, as shown in this excerpt:

10 • Mensa Research Journal

ROEPER REVIEW

11

This suggests is complex, and my definition, howsearching I sense thatfor This many of the expertsor are someone is gifted or talented might be based on a com-to answers to complex questions, and for solutions bination of theory, my intuition, and, frankly, when it broad problems, which may not yet be well understood, comes to operationalizing, or selecting subjects, conveas shown in this example:

nience. I’m used to using the Gagné’s (2004) DMGT model [differentiated model of gifted and talented], and I am very interested in what the discovery of giftedness I also see value in the asynchronies from the Columbus does with the self-image over the life-span and what Group definition. the concept [overexcitinfluence this hasLately on various aspectsofofOE’s psychological abilities] from Dąbrowski’s theory, and actually prowell-being. Another aspect that I find to be ofthegreat cess of positive disintegration from cognitive that theory seem usebalance between brainpower importance is the ful. maybe the question of definition isn’t theseems right andSo, emotional sensitivity/intensity.

This balance difficult tothink be found some one.

I don’t we’refor there yet.gifted individuals Also, little is known about gifted individuals who seek help for their mental health problems yet. Although initial Subgroups research suggests that gifted individuals often need Thehelp, majority of the were primarily interested it seems to beexperts very difficult for them to find the in right help, is too little knowledge knowing morebecause about athere subgroup of gifted adults,amongst and some As athan result, gifted individuals are faced werepsychiatrists, interested inetc. more one subgroup.

Subpopulations with incomprehension, (incorrect) diagnoses, explicitly named in the data are shown in Tableand 3. ineffective help.

Some of these subgroups, such as university students, have or well-defined boundaries. However, a deeper We obvious also found many methodological mismatches look into the data raises important questions about between concepts, research questions, aims, andconcepmethtually meaningful distinctions within used sometools subgroups. ods used, particularly where people outsideFor of example, the five experts interested in exceptionally or their original intended use.

For example, most of these profoundly gifted adults did not explicitly name the boundexperts are interested in identifying and then supporting aries of adults the subgroup, andcontexts their descriptions (including any gifted in complex such as employment or categorical distinctions) varied.

For example, personal relationships. Of those, nearly a one thirdwrote: use “Exceptionally andapproaches profoundly developed gifted children and adults instruments and for other purare the outliers outliers onorthesupporting standard curve intelliposes such as ofidentifying giftedof school gence and who aptitude, representing lessteaching than 1%and of the popuchildren require specialized learning lation.”

And another provided this this explanation: environments.

Notably, where is the case these

experts tend to and be Profoundly aware of Gifted the mismatches The Exceptionally (EPG) . . . and acknowledge themand as being problematic, as shown have uncommon extraordinary intelligence and here: tal-

ent, in many domains. The terms highly, exceptionallyI’m or interested profoundly gifted are not the exact; the of giftin understanding types of degree environments and skills adultscannot need tobethrive in their lives—and edness theygifted designate absolutely and precisely that means relationships, careers, aging, etc.

So far, there defined.

Overall, they refer to a narrow range of excepis very little information available apart from what we can tional human ability. find in gifted education. Even career counselling informaGenerally, we found thosestudents. interested in the broad population is mainly for gifted When I apply some of modelsadults and theories giftedness to problems adults, they tionthe of gifted tendedabout to acknowledge with eitherand don’t apply or are too broad.whereas They might apply to unclear imprecise definitions those interesteducation and even some learning environments in adulted in subgroups of gifted adults usually did not. This is hood, but it’s frustrating that we feel we need to use them, important because we therefore be Same certain any or cite them, in our work withcan’t adults. with thetwo researchers whonot name subpopulation are actually interesttesting—I’m surea the scores tell us much about adulthood, wegroup need some sort of as identifier. ed in the but same of people, the two excerpts above

demonstrate.

Specific issues questions of interest Question two:and What different approaches are being used? all of the experts participating in this study explore Almost issues and questions that relate directly to how gifted adults Few of the experts explicitly named or described function in their day to day lives. Named areas of interest a specific approach. We therefore focused on how the and exemplars are shown in Table 4 (some experts named experts talked about (a) disciplinary, (b) theoretical, and multiple areas of interest). (c) cultural influences.

Nearly half of the experts were interested in exploring more than one issue or context, and most of those explicitly indicated interest in broad and complex issues such

12

M. BROWN AND E. PETERSON

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

Table 4. Areas of interest to the experts.

Area of Interest Mental health or related service provision Self-awareness or “gifted” identity Relationships Occupation/work contexts

Awareness

Domain-related achievement

Age-related issues

Neurological factors

Number of Experts Interested Examples of Stated Interests 36 Problems remain invisible and unidentified and are often misdiagnosed.

We do not have enough information or evidence about the services or modalities that “work” for gifted adults.

30 What did it mean to be identified as a gifted child?

How did this identification affect your development and choices as an adult?

Helping gifted adults and women in particular to understand, appreciate, and constructively express their giftedness.

25 Issues about relationships with others, living as a single or as a couple . . . integrating in a team of nongifted colleagues.

25 Mentorship, niche picking in a profession, overcome plateau, peak performance, or productivity.

Our organizations are not designed for gifted adults to thrive. I am working to integrate different fields of work, e.g., adult development theory, and make them practically available to gifted adults in workplaces.

23 My number one goal is to spread knowledge. The general public, gifted adults themselves, and the medical or health professions only know the stereotypes.

Too many gifted adults either don’t recognize their giftedness (even though they know they’re smart) and don’t understand how it does—and doesn’t—affect their daily lives and personal interactions, happiness, and careers.

17 I am interested in the predictive behaviors within domains of achievement, for visual arts, architecture, creative writing, science, mathematics, entrepreneurship, invention, acting, dancing, athletics, teaching, and spiritual leadership.

The lack of scientific attention to ensuring that gifted adults achieve well in educational settings (such as universities).

16 Examine the intersection of domain characteristics and developmental challenges for specific age periods.

Dealing with high levels of frustration in intellectually gifted elders as practical things like mobility and fine motor skills become impacted by issues like arthritis and heart disease.

9 It would be particularly helpful to see more brain imaging research designed to explain Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns at the neurological level.

Understanding the unique neural networks related to giftedness—behavior, sensory processing, and emotions—is critical.

as: “understanding the factors that prevent gifted adults Disciplinary influences from reaching their goals and living satisfying lives” and Expertise and interest in gifted adults are currently spread “How can we help giftedand adults find their toalso living across many disciplines professions and way this is truly satisfying and meaningful lives?”

This suggests many the case within this group of experts, as described earlier. of the experts are searching for answers to complex quesA deeper look at the experts’ backgrounds, discursive tions, and for solutions to and broad which may patterns within the data, theproblems, tools and methods theynot some recurrent patterns of overlap and conyetuse be revealed well understood, as shown in this example: vergence, which led us to identify and distinguish four I am very interested in what the discovery of giftedness strong disciplinary and/or professional influences on does with the self-image over the life-span and what influresearchers working on the field of gifted adults: Mental ence this has on various aspects of psychological wellHealth and Wellness, Gifted Studies (children), Talent being. Another aspect that I find to be of great imporDevelopment (adults or lifespan), and Occupational tance is the balance between cognitive brainpower and Studies (see Table 5). Most experts were primarily workemotional This balance seems diffiing within sensitivity/intensity. one of these categories. cult to be found for some gifted individuals Also, little is known about gifted individuals who seek help for their Table 5.health Disciplinary and professional influences the mental problems yet. Although initialapparent researchin sugdata. gests that gifted individuals often need help, it seems to Number of beInfluential very difficult to find the right help, because Disciplinesfor and them Professions Experts there is too little knowledge amongst psychiatrists, Mental Health and Wellness: Includes Psychology, 24etc. As Counseling, and Coaching. a result, gifted individuals are faced with incomprehenGifted Studies: Includes Gifted Education, Gifted Children, 22 sion, and ineffective help. and(incorrect) child-orienteddiagnoses, Talent Development and Intelligence Studies.

We Talent also found many methodological mismatches Development: Includes High Ability studies, and 14between adult or lifespan-oriented Talent Development and concepts, research questions, aims, and methods used, Intelligence Studies.

Occupationalwhere Studies: people Includes Occupational Health, 13 origiparticularly used tools outside of their Human Resource Management, Organizational nal intended use.

For example, Development and Career Development most of these experts are interested in identifying and then supporting gifted adults in complex contexts such as employment or personal relationships. Of those, nearly a third use instruments and approaches developed for other purposes such as identifying or supporting gifted school children who require specialized teaching and learning environments. Notably, where this is the case these experts tend to be aware of the

mismatches and acknowledge them as being problematic, Three outliers whose work does not appear to be as shown here: by any of these four disciplinary strongly influenced

groupings were also found. Two ofthe those experts had I’m interested in understanding types of environments backgrounds to adult (not within and skillsspecific gifted adults neededucation to thrive in their lives—and a gifted paradigm), and one was a sociologist. thateducation means relationships, careers, aging, etc. So far, there is very little information available apart from what we can find in gifted education. Even career counselling informaTheoretical influences is mainly for or gifted students.

WheninI the apply some of Manytion different theories models were named data. the cases, models and theories giftedness to adults, In some specific theories about or models were referred to they either don’tofapply or area definition too broad.orThey might apply to mainly in terms providing description of education and even some learning environments in adultgifted adult as shown earlier in Table 2. Other theories hood,tobut it’s frustrating we feel we need to use them, appeared underpin experts’that approaches more broadly. or cite them, in our work with Same with the testFor example, 14 experts referred toadults.

Dąbrowski’s (1964) ing—I’m not Disintegration sure the scores tell us Theory of Positive (TPD) andmuch wroteabout about adulthood, but we need some sort of identifier. related concepts such as overexcitabilities in their responses to questions about their work with gifted adults. A smaller number of experts referred to models of talent developQuestion two: What different approaches are being ment reasonably consistently within their responses. More used? often, however, experts wrote about theories and models Few the experts named described they hadofpreviously usedexplicitly in work with giftedorchildren, sucha specific We therefore focused on how the experts as approach.

Gagné’s (2004) differentiated model of gifted and talked talented which they(b) nowtheoretical, consider worth explorabout(DMGT), (a) disciplinary, and (c) cultural inginfluences. in their research with gifted adults.

On the surface, the theoretical distinctions might suggest well-definedinfluences differences in perspective within the Disciplinary group, but theand picture is not in quite so clear.

When looked spread Expertise interest gifted adults arewe currently

across many disciplines and professions and this is also the case within this group of experts, as described earlier. A deeper look at the experts’ backgrounds, discursive patterns within the data, and the tools and methods they use revealed some recurrent patterns of overlap and convergence, which led us to identify and distinguish four strong disciplinary and/or professional influences on researchers

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 11

Development (adults or lifespan), and Occupational appeared to underpin experts’ approaches more broadly.

Studies (see Table 5). Most experts were primarily workFor example, 14 experts referred to Dąbrowski’s (1964) ing within one of these categories. of Positive Disintegration (TPD) and wrote about Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known andTheory Unknown Table 5. Disciplinary and professional influences apparent in the data.

Influential Disciplines and Professions Mental Health and Wellness: Includes Psychology, Counseling, and Coaching.

Gifted Studies: Includes Gifted Education, Gifted Children, and child-oriented Talent Development and Intelligence Studies.

Talent Development: Includes High Ability studies, and adult or lifespan-oriented Talent Development and Intelligence Studies.

Occupational Studies: Includes Occupational Health, Human Resource Management, Organizational Development and Career Development

Number of Experts 24 22 14 13

working on the field of gifted adults: Mental Health and Wellness, Gifted Studies (children), Talent Development (adults or lifespan), and Occupational Studies (see Table 5).

Most experts were primarily working within one of these categories.

Three outliers whose work does not appear to be strongly influenced by any of these four disciplinary groupings were also found. Two of those experts had backgrounds specific to adult education (not within a gifted education paradigm), and one was a sociologist.

Theoretical influences Many different theories or models were named in the data.

In some cases, specific theories or models were referred to mainly in terms of providing a definition or description of gifted adult as shown earlier in Table 2. Other theories appeared to underpin experts’ approaches more broadly.

For example, 14 experts referred to Dąbrowski’s (1964) Theory of Positive Disintegration (TPD) and wrote about related concepts such as overexcitabilities in their responses to questions about their work with gifted adults. A smaller number of experts referred to models of talent development reasonably consistently within their responses. More often, however, experts wrote theories and models they had previously used in work with gifted children, such as Gagné’s (2004) differentiated model of gifted and talented (DMGT), which they now consider worth exploring in their research with gifted adults.

On the surface, the theoretical distinctions might suggest well-defined differences in perspective within the group, but the picture is not quite so clear. When we looked across the data at how individual participants talked about definitions, theories, models, aims and methods, we often found incongruences, making it difficult to infer a strong theoretical foundation even when theories or models were explicitly named. For example, while most of the experts view giftedness as a complex multidimensional construct, only 20 people describe their work using a specific theoretical framework. Of those, 8 people appear to collapse the assumed complexity into a single factor by reporting they use unidimensional measures or 12 • Mensa Research Journal

related concepts such as overexcitabilities in their responses to questions about their with gifted adults. Atosmaller narrow criteria such as work IQ scores (or similar) either number of experts referred to models of developselect participants, operationally define talent giftedness, or ment as reasonably within their responses. More both, shown inconsistently this excerpt: often, however, experts wrote about theories and models Our participants were nominated by teachers for gifted they had previously used in work with gifted children, such programming at school or achieved in the top 10% on astheir Gagné’s (2004) differentiated model of gifted and SAT exams . . . so in my research I select them on talented (DMGT), theyearly nowasconsider worth explorthe basis of being which identified high achievers.

That ing in their research with gifted adults. is how I find them. But I’ve learned that there is more to On the surface, theoretical sugit—emotional andthe other qualities distinctions are also part might of (being gest well-defined differences in isperspective within gifted), and Dąbrowski’s theory useful for that . . . the I group, the picture is not quite clear.actually When we looked think but of how many gifted adultssowe’re missing when we just look at the achievers. It’s something I’m working on now—trying to find ways to identify those who have most of the qualities but fall outside of the usual definitions.

For some experts, while they may state they see gifted adults as a multidimensional construct, the pressure of time and the need for convenience seems to drive them to make research choices that align with a unidimensional view of gifted adults, as shown in this excerpt: Mensa1 provides adequate testing of the intelligence part.

We can’t do all of the testing needed to find a large sample otherwise. I know this is only one part of the model but it’s a place to start. The time and funding aren’t there.

But when it comes to finding subjects to research, I think I revert to intelligence testing because it’s all we have for now. Unless you view gifted or talented only as high intelligence (and I don’t), then there is a problem. Obviously, I’m not alone in this one.

Cultural influences The data show that most of the approaches used by the experts reflect the ideas, values, and experiences of people living in predominantly White, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) countries, and the dominant cultures within. There appeared to be little consideration amongst these experts of cultural pluralism or difference. Of the 18 experts who mentioned the need for cultural sensitivity to research with gifted adults, only nine described actually using an approach that could be considered culturally sensitive and, of those, six are interested in racial and ethnic diversity in the United States, as exemplified in this excerpt: “It is well known that Black or other diverse and underserved gifted adults face societal barriers here that many from the dominant/majority group do not face.” Only three participants used multicultural approaches that specifically acknowledged non-Western cultural understanding of gifted adults. As one said: When it comes to research, the most important question for me is to get a clearer picture of how the culture influences what giftedness is, how it is viewed and how people 1

Membership in the international organization Mensa is based on having scored at or above the 98th percentile on a validated intelligence test.

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

experience being gifted. We know very little about this, and it is important because it can tell us how much of the present research that can be generalized and how much is local. A large majority of results are from the U.S., and how much of it is actually valid abroad? We don’t know.

Discussion

This research has explored the plurality of interests and approaches to the study of gifted adults among 76 experts working in the field, with a view to trying to inform future research on the topic. In this discussion we present two ways to understand the current range and diversity of interests and approaches to research with gifted adults, each with important implications.

Some of the results reported here appear typical of an emerging field of research, where terms are not yet clearly defined and where existing areas of study are transforming in response to new questions. Others may be the legacy of unresolved problems from other related disciplines. Here we discuss these two ideas and their respective implications separately.

An emerging field Most of the participants were interested in problems related exclusively to adult contexts that are rarely addressed in other gifted-related disciplines. Therefore, some of our results can be understood as reflecting the early development of a new field of study—a phase where emerging interests and priorities are responses to problems and ideas that fall well outside of the purview of established disciplines (Kuhn, 1996).

The patterns of disciplinary influence found here appear typical of a very early stage of research where previous disciplinary traditions or paradigms continue to shape scholars’ assumptions, the questions they study, and the methods they use (Morgan, 2007). For example, we found that many of the experts used theories and investigative tools developed in other fields including gifted education and intelligence studies. While these preexisting concepts and methods are not designed to address the specific population of gifted adults and may not be appropriate for the complex issues of interest to these 76 experts (e.g., supporting gifted parents or understanding factors that influence health and performance), new methods and approaches designed specifically for this population have not yet been developed. As one expert said: “We’re at a stage where we know that the methods and the tests we use are borrowed from research with children, but there isn’t a concentrated effort to develop our own . . . suitable for the adults we are studying.”

When new problems and questions emerge, as is the case with most research within an emerging field such as gifted adults, concepts and methods should eventually co-evolve with researchers’ changing interests (Morgan,

2007). Booth (2008) argues it may take time for scholars to realize that old concepts are not adequate for solving new problems and to evolve ways of thinking and practices that are more fit for purpose. Our results appear to reflect the very start of that change, in that 58 experts view their current concepts and definitions to be in some way inadequate. One expert said: “The terms and ideas of this (gifted adult) field are difficult to match with those used in gifted education. Experts of the two fields do not speak the same language.”

The pervasiveness of traditional disciplinary influences found within the data suggests that a distinct framework for understanding the particular problems and issues related to gifted adults may still be a long way off. Consequently, in the early phase of its development, the study of gifted adults may continue to feel fragmented, with multiple and even conflicting views, practices, and priorities. Through the lens of an emerging field, many of the differences reported here, compatible or otherwise, help avoid premature reduction and can be seen to be useful and necessary rather than problematic, as long as they continue to be salient, reflected on, and addressed. Minikin (2018) described this as an active process of pluralism, based on the willingness and intention to seek understanding across differences.

Another implication is that those working with gifted adults can expect to see continued challenges to the status quo. Such challenges may not be comfortable but eventually old assumptions, methods, and research aims may either disappear or need to transform. In the end, the relative value of new and existing approaches will be determined by their ability to address the specific issues and problems related to gifted adults. It will therefore be important to be as clear as possible about what those issues and problems are, so that new tools and approaches can be developed and the field can move forward.

Legacies of unresolved problems from other disciplines Some of the differences found in our data may be better explained as reflecting unresolved problems inherited from related fields of study. Such legacies are expected, given the disciplinary influences found in this study and the intransigent problems reported in many of those fields (e.g., Ambrose et al., 2012; Borland, 2012; Dai, 2018).

Two notable legacies, from other disciplines are (a) unintentional reduction and (b) conceptual muddiness, as explained below.

Unintentional reduction As discussed earlier, the data included many examples of the tension between capturing complexity and the practical constraints of different research methods including available tools. One notable pattern was the mismatch between multidimensional constructs of giftedness and the use of Volume 53, Issue 2 • 13

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

unidimensional and/or domain-specific measures. There are a number of potential problematic consequences of applying unidimensional or otherwise narrow ideas to a complex phenomenon. Problems include the inadvertent reduction of assumed within-group heterogeneity (e.g., by using a single method for identification or sampling, such as membership in Mensa), conflation (e.g., where measurement tools such as SAT scores are used for convenience, outside of their intended purpose), and the collapse of conceptual complexity (e.g., in the use of single-domain psychometric measures such as IQ scores).

Conceptual muddiness Additionally, the lack of consensus and disagreements about key terms and their definitions found here has been a longstanding issue in all gifted-related disciplines. Our results suggest this is not (only) a question of preferred vernacular or a classification exercise, but often a problem of imprecision. As explained, we found many examples of conflation and inconsistency in the data.

This not to say that the experts are unaware of historic and current arguments about terms and definitions. Most seem to be. As shown, some explicitly acknowledged that current words and definitions related to gifted adults do not necessarily reflect useful conceptual differences. What may be less apparent is the tendency to drift to using descriptions as proxies for conceptual definitions, thereby creating a taxonomy, which is not (yet) evidence based, and when used in research to operationally define gifted adult, raises questions about circularity (Booth, 2008).

Here is an example from the data of potential drift to circularity, similar to confirmation bias: “I prefer to use the Columbus group definition, and Silverman’s Gifted Adult scale [sic]. These give me a much broader group of people than, say, using just an IQ score, which would miss so many.”

Given the range and complexities of the phenomena of interest to these experts and their various backgrounds, it seems likely that differences will continue as this field develops. Consensus around concepts and definitions may not be a realistic or immediately useful aim.

Therefore, it seems particularly important to continue to highlight and observe relevant distinctions, and to use descriptive models carefully for their intended purposes.

Precision and transparency will minimize misunderstandings, enable integration across disciplines, and ultimately impact the consistency with which we identify and pursue specific gaps in knowledge (Booth, 2008; Uher, 2018).

Potential blind spots Most of the experts in this study acknowledged problematic legacies from other fields. However, we also found two problems that seemed less apparent to the experts: (a) cultural bias and (b) a methodological flaw. Next, we discuss each as a potential blind spot.

14 • Mensa Research Journal

Cultural bias The first potential blind spot relates to the paucity of culturally relevant and inclusive approaches to gifted adult research. This result is both predictable and troubling given well-documented concerns about cultural bias and potential for harm in related fields (see Persson, 2012 for a comprehensive discussion about the lack of cultural variation in gifted research and implications for giftedrelated studies). Criticism has been directed at many of the commonly used constructs, measures and methods in intelligence studies and gifted education in relation to a strongly Western orientation, and these criticisms are well known across all gifted-related fields (e.g., Ballam & Moltzen, 2017; Bonner, 2001; Cross, 2013; Persson, 2012; Webber et al., 2020).

While most of the experts in our study acknowledge the problems of a solely Western perspective, only a handful appear to design their current research with potential biases in mind. It seems that, despite shifts in thinking, cultural inclusivity is not yet well addressed in relation to research with gifted adults. The obvious implication is that more needs to be done to raise awareness in the field, and to overcome cultural bias. Perhaps less obvious is the opportunity available to those working in this emerging area of study to effect change by critically examining the cultural validity of historic and current theories, models, and practices related to giftedness in light of adult populations and contemporary sociopolitical contexts. We suggest it may well be easier to critique, dismantle, and replace outdated ideas from outside of the disciplines where they originated.

A methodological flaw A second blind spot has to do with a methodological flaw where models and concepts are applied outside of their intended purpose. This is most apparent in the data when descriptive models (models derived from a process of gathering and summarizing real-life data) are apparently used to identify gifted adults for gifted-related interventions such as counseling. We found many examples of where descriptive models or concepts such as the Dutch Delphi Model (Kooijman-Van Thiel, 2008), the Columbus Group definition (Silverman, 1997), and the concept of overexcitability (Dąbrowski, 1964) appear to form the basis of what are diagnostic and prescriptive decisions, including acceptance into treatment. Specifically, many clinicians report using the models and concepts mentioned here to diagnose (identify) patients as gifted adults, and to accept them into their clinical programs, and some appear to frame their treatment or services around the model or concept. Notably, the aforementioned models or concepts were not designed for this purpose.

While these and other constructs identified and used by many of the experts in this study were developed and

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

are useful for description and discovery, their prescriptive or predictive accuracy in clinical settings has not (yet) been tested, and evidence that this is effective clinical practice is lacking. In addition, in terms of research methodology, descriptive models are not designed to distinguish between people who do and do not have certain characteristics. Hence, they lack the construct validity needed to categorize for any purpose, applied or otherwise.

The practice of using descriptive models as categorization and selection tools for entry into programs is familiar in many practice-related disciplines including gifted education and psychology. In those fields, predictive or prescriptive accuracy are often mistakenly assumed and left unexamined and unchallenged, which can lead to inaccurate scientific and practical conclusions (Shmueli, 2010). This highlights an important gap that needs to be acknowledged and eventually filled, namely the need for valid tools and strategies to support both practicebased research and research-based practice. Meanwhile it is important to maintain the distinctions among description, prescription, and prediction, and to highlight where there are gaps.

Conclusion

The main aim of the present study was to examine the plurality of interests, perspectives, and approaches used by 76 experts currently working with gifted adults. A second and related aim was to make any differences more transparent and available for reflection for those currently working in areas related to gifted adults, and for those who may be interested in the topic in the future.

This study found that 76 experts in the field are interested in exploring and solving real-life issues that impact gifted adults across a wide variety of social, relational, educational, and vocational contexts, and at different stages of adulthood. There also is strong interest in understanding more about (and having impact on) the well-being of gifted adults generally. The study also found some specific interest in subgroups including profoundly gifted and twice-exceptional adults (although specific descriptions of these subgroups differed), age groups such as elders, and contexts such as employment. Culturally, with a few exceptions, this group of experts follow a traditional Western approach, and this is discussed as a potential blind spot.

Our findings revealed differences in how the experts conceptualize gifted adults and, related to that, a general muddiness and lack of precision in how they use the term.

While most understand the concept of giftedness to be multidimensional, there are exceptions who focus exclusively on intelligence.

The study has also revealed diversity and some lack of clarity in how experts approach their work. Related to that, we identified a number of strong disciplin-

ary influences including theories and concepts, and some long-standing methodological flaws in those disciplines that have important implications for research with gifted adults.

Together the findings suggest that research with gifted adults is a new and emerging field, with current interest spread across many disciplines, each contributing useful perspectives but also bringing in some problematic legacies. As such, it does not yet have conceptual or research frameworks that are distinctly fit for purpose. Overall, our results suggest that these 76 experts are generally aware of the current lack of clarity and the diversity of approaches, but we also found and reported on some bias and methodological shortcomings that appear to be less well acknowledged.

The main weakness of this study was the paucity of information from experts from non-Western cultures.

There are several reasons for this. First, invitations to participate were in English and some recipients may have chosen not to read them. Second, the concept of giftedness is prevalent in scholarly literature published in WEIRD countries and our sampling methods may not have reached experts who are unpublished or unknown in the predominantly Western academic and professional circles. More research is needed to include the interests and views of those experts not represented here. Furthermore, some cultures may not recognize or feel comfortable with the term gifted adult and/or may not have a similar concept. While somewhat outside of the scope of the present study, culturally sensitive exploratory research about any absence of the concept would provide useful insights and prevent overgeneralizing.

This study also has several strengths. To our knowledge this is the first study to thoroughly examine and report on the different research interests of experts currently working with gifted adults, and the approaches they use. In doing so, we draw attention to issues that are relevant to the study of adults, as distinct from child-oriented gifted studies, a distinction not always clear in gifted-related fields. Another strength is that our findings include international perspectives from experts from a variety of disciplines. Finally, open-ended questions yielded rich data for an in-depth latent level analysis. These methods allowed us to obtain detailed information and examples that capture important but nuanced complexities in the data.

In this study, we also asked questions not previously raised about current research with gifted adults. We believe this study fills an important gap by bringing to light different views and perspectives of international experts currently interested in gifted adults, their influences, approaches, and research aims. Before this study, the 76 participants said they were largely unaware of the work being done outside of their own small teams, and many worked in isolation (Brown et al., 2020). The

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 15

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

commonalities and differences identified here will likely prove useful for establishing future research agendas.

These results add to the value of the Delphi study (Brown et al., 2020) where, as a panel, these experts recommended that different views be accommodated, but raised important questions about how to move forward in the face of differences. Results of the current study provide more details about what those differences are and the reasons they exist. Importantly, the results also shed new light on where some perceived differences might actually reflect a lack of clarity or precision, blind spots, or methodological issues that need further development, and show where critical reflection and clarification are needed to avoid well-known pitfalls in related fields.

These findings highlight that research with gifted adults is an emerging field of study, still in its infancy and strongly influenced by other disciplines. Framing the field in this way should help researchers and others interested in gifted adults to clarify and debate priorities and approaches, without expecting consensus or requiring agreement.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this study opens an important conversation early in this emerging field, providing both a baseline from which to monitor progress and trends, and an opportunity for those interested in gifted adults to reflect on priorities.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Maggie Brown http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5345-5680 Elizabeth Peterson http://orcid.rg/0000-0002-2702-6986

References

Ambrose, D. (2017). Interdisciplinary exploration supports Sternberg’s expansion of giftedness. Roeper Review, 39(3), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.20 17.1318660 Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R. J., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2012).

Confronting dogmatism in gifted education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809327 Ambrose, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 453–478. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/016235321003300402 Ballam, N., & Moltzen, R. (Eds.). (2017). Giftedness and talent: Australasian perspectives. Springer Verlag. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-10-6701-3 Bonner, F. A. (2001). Gifted African American male college students: A phenomenological study. (Research Monograph No. 01148). The National Research Center on the Gifted and

16 • Mensa Research Journal

Talented. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED459558.pdf Booth, D. (2008). A research design fit for purpose (ODI Discussion Paper No. 3). Africa Power and Politics Programme. https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/media/57a08babed915d3cfd000e7c/APPP-Discpaper3.pdf Borland, J. H. (2012). Problematizing gifted education.

In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 64–79). Taylor & Francis. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315639987-7 Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2). 328–352. https://doi.org /10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103 Brown, M., & Peterson, E. R. (2020). “We are not that!”: A focus group study with gifted adults. Advanced Development, 18, 107–127.

Brown, M., Peterson, E. R., & Rawlinson, C. (2020).

Research with gifted adults: What international experts think needs to happen to move the field forward. Roeper Review, 42(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/027831 93.2020.1728797 Cross, J. R. (2013). Gifted education as a vehicle for enhancing social equality. Roeper Review, 35(2), 115–123. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.766962 Dąbrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Little, Brown.

Dai, D. Y. (2017). Envisioning a new foundation for gifted education: Evolving complexity theory (ECT) of talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701837 Dai, D. Y. (2018). A history of giftedness: A century of quest for identity. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. E. Shaunessy-Dedric, & M. E. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 231–245). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-015 Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119– 147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682 Glăveanu, V. P., Hanchett Hanson, M., Baer, J., Barbot, B., Clapp, E. P., Corazza, G. E., Hennessey, B., Kaufman, J. V., Lebuda, I., Lubart, T., Montouri, A., Ness, I. J., Plucker, J., Reiter-Palmon, R., Sierra, Z., Simonton, D. K., NevesPereira, M. S., & Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Advancing creativity theory and research: A socio-cultural manifesto.

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 741–745. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jocb.395 Heylighen, F. (2006). Characteristics and problems of the gifted: Neural propagation depth and flow motivation as a model of intelligence and creativity. ECCO Working Papers. https:// researchportal.vub.be/en/publications/characteristics-andproblems-of-the-gifted-neural-propagation-dep Kooijman-Van Thiel, M. B. G. M. (2008). Hoogbegaafd.

Dat zie jezo! Over zelfbeeld en imago van hoogbegaafden.

(Highly gifted. Obvious? On identity and image of gifted persons). OYA. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago University Press.

Kuipers, W. (2010). Enjoying the gift of being uncommon: Extra intelligent, intense and effective. CreateSpace.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Lo, C. O., & Porath, M. (2017). Paradigm shifts in gifted education: An examination vis-à-vis its historical situatedness and pedagogical sensibilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722840 Minikin, K. (2018). Radical relational psychiatry: Toward a femocracy of mind and people. Transactional Analysis Journal, 48(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.

2018.1429287 Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462 Paraskevas, A., Saunders, M. N. K., & Sharma, A. (2012).

Beyond consensus: An alternative use of Delphi enquiry in hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(6), 907–924. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/09596111211247236 Persson, R. S. (2012). Cultural variation and dominance in a globalised knowledge-economy: Towards a culturesensitive research paradigm in the science of giftedness.

Gifted and Talented International, 27(1), 158. https://doi. org/10.1080/15332276.2012.11673603 Persson, R. S. (2018). Evolved human giftedness. Reclaiming science from ideology, dogmatism, and self-serving bias.

International Centre for Innovation in Education.

Preckel, F., Golle, J., Grabner, R., Jarvin, L., Kozbelt, A., Müllensiefen, D., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Schneider, W., Subotnik, R., Vock, M., & Worrell, F. C. (2020). Talent development in achievement domains: A psychological framework for within- and cross-domain research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 691–722. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745691619895030 Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795 Roeper, A. (1982). How the gifted cope with their emotions.

Roeper Review, 5(2), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02783198209552672 Roeper, A. (1991). Gifted adults: Their characteristics and emotions. Advanced Development, 3, 85–98.

Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-sts330 Silverman, L. K. (1997). The construct of asynchronous development. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 36–58. https:// doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7203&4_3 Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056 Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2018). Talent development as the most promising focus of giftedness and gifted education. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. E. Shaunessy-Dedric, & M. E. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 231–245).

American Psychological Association. https://doi. org/10.1037/0000038-015 Uher, J. (2018). The transdisciplinary philosophy-of-science paradigm for research on individuals: Foundations for the science of personality and individual differences. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality and individual differences (pp. 84–109).

Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526451163 Van Thiel, M. B. G. M., Nauta, N., & Dirksen, J. (2019).

An experiential model of giftedness: Giftedness from an internal point of view made explicit by means of the Delphi method. Advanced Development, 17, 79–99.

Webber, M., Riley, T., Sylva, K., & Scobie-Jennings, E. (2020). The Ruamano project: Raising expectations, realising community aspirations and recognising gifted potential in Māori boys. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 49(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/ jie.2018.16 Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., & Vialle, W. (2012). Giftedness and gifted education: The need for a paradigm change.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 194–197. https://doi. org/10.1177/0016986212456070

Appendix 1. Items included in the questionnaire

(1) How did you first become interested in gifted adults?

(2) In your work related to gifted adults, what are the priority issues? For example, these might be questions you most want to answer, problems you most want to solve, or what you feel most inspired to change.

(3) The Gifted Adult field is not without its challenges.

In your work, what are currently the biggest hurdles?

(4) How do these hurdles impact your work?

(5) What do you think is well known, or well established, about adult giftedness in your area of interest?

(6) The debate about defining “gifted” is not new. How do YOU currently define “gifted”? (note: If you

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 17

Current Approaches to Research With Gifted Adults: Differences Known and Unknown

currently use a term other than “gifted” please say what it is, and provide your definition) (7) Based on the definition you provided above, are there any pros and cons to using this definition?

(8) In your work, how do you currently identify gifted adults? Please provide as much detail as possible. For researchers: How do you currently identify and select gifted adults for your studies?

(9) The issue of how to identify and measure giftedness in adults is complex. How and why did you choose the methods you currently use?

Notes on contributors

Maggie Brown, PhD, is a research fellow in the School of Psychology at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and works as a counselor and psychotherapist in private practice.

She has a particular interest in work-

ing with gifted and creative adults. Her research is focused on understanding how to improve knowledge about this under-researched group. Maggie also is a teaching fellow in the Faculty of Science, where she teaches and mentors exceptional young scholars. Email: maggie.brown@auckland.ac.nz Elizabeth Peterson, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Most of her research is focused on trying to understand the factors, processes, and pathways that optimize human learning and development and that promote happy, healthy, well rounded, and resilient young people. She is particularly interested in how people’s self-beliefs and expectations affect their wellbeing, learning and educational outcomes. Elizabeth is a lead researcher on Growing Up in New Zealand, a multidisciplinary longitudinal study following approximately 7,000 New Zealand children.

Email: e.peterson@auckland.ac.nz

GET CASH FOR COLLEGE

The Mensa Education & Research Foundation is offering scholarships for students of all ages. Members of Mensa as well as nonmembers can apply.

Visit mensafoundation.org for details.

18 • Mensa Research Journal

MRJ

Gifted Adults at Work: The Netherlands Experience Rianne van de Ven IN THE NETHERLANDS prior to 2000, no educational programs were available for gifted children. Even today no certainty exists that children will be identified as being gifted at an early age or provided with the specialized educational support they require. However, interest in gifted children is growing in the Netherlands, and because of this new attention, many adults are beginning to recognize their own gifted characteristics. Ellen Fiedler calls these types of gifted adults “The Invisible Ones” (Fiedler, 2015): gifted adults who were not identified as being gifted in childhood and may come to understand their potential later in life.

Results of research to date show that most previously unidentified gifted adults have experienced themselves as being “different” their whole lives. They report not being mirrored by peers, and they experienced and perceived the world differently than others of similar ages. Gifted adults report that, as they grew up, they did not understand their peers, and they did not feel understood (Brown, M., Peterson, E. R., & Rawlinson, C. 2020). Without an understanding of their giftedness, many of their experiences remain unexplained, or misinterpreted (Webb et al.

2016). As a result, the unidentified children (now adults) seem to develop an unrealistic or incongruent self-image.

Potential and Gifted Adults

cy for gifted adults, a movement that is separate from gifted education and ideas about gifted children. This is why the Gifted Adults Foundation (www.ihbv.nl) was founded. As a result, a growing body of research exists in the Netherlands, seeking answers to questions about gifted adults, as well as their experiences and needs, as noted in references at the end of this article.

Gifted Adults and Work

The potential and drive inherent in gifted adults, along with their high intelligence, and frequently, heightened sensitivities (van de Ven 2016), show up in the workplace.

For example, gifted adults report seeing solutions to problems faster than their (not gifted) colleagues. They have innovative ideas for new products or services, and they quickly see patterns and deviations in processes and organizational culture. These abilities, along with a strong sense of fairness and justice, often make them problem-identifiers, and perhaps, whistle-blowers. Their persistence and determination also mean they do not “let go” easily.

I find the Delphi Model of giftedness—named for the Delphi research method used to gather data—to be helpful as I conceptualize how gifted adults often experience work contexts. In 2007, a team of researchers (Van Thiel et al. 2008) conducted a unique project aimed at developing a new descriptive and experiential model of adult giftedness. The Delphi Model (see Figure 1 below) was devel-

As we know, potential does not rely on identification. The potential remains, even with little understanding of giftedness. Late (adult) dElPhi MOdEl OF GiFTEdnEss© identification as “giftsOciETY ed” often leads to feelsparkling quick original ings of mourning for GiFTEd PErsOn what might have been, but also invigorates a (thinking) highly intelligent passion for personal (wanting) growth. (acting) passionate, curious creation-directed The late discovery of (being) giftedness often leads autonomous to strong feelings of (perceiving) wanting to fulfill previhighly sensitive ously unacknowledged (feeling) multifaceted potential. In the Netherlands, the strength of this passion for achieving potential in adultinTErPlAY intense complex hood has resulted in awareness and advocaFrom: M.B.G.M. Kooijman - van Thiel (ed.). Highly Gifted. Obvious? On Identity and Image of Gifted Persons. Ede: OYA Productions, 2008

Figure 1: Delphi Model of Giftedness

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 19

Gifted Adults at Work: The Netherlands Experience

Figure 2: Diagram Giftedness in Practice

oped in consultation with gifted adults. Its main purpose is to provide a framework for previously unidentified gifted adults to understand themselves and to integrate a more complete and accurate self-identity.

Taking these tendencies and characteristics into consideration, it is not hard to imagine that gifted adults often experience problems in the workplace. However, despite the obvious potential for disappointment and conflict at work, very little attention has been paid to the experiences and specific needs of gifted adults in work settings.

A Process for Supporting Gifted Adults at Work

I identified my own gifted potential at the age of 33 and continue to develop my potential. In my coaching practice (www.riannevdven.nl) I have been guiding gifted adults since 2007. At this moment, at age 50, I am a successful social entrepreneur. I have developed many supporting services including a company that consults with employers and employees in the Netherlands to build workplaces that support gifted adults to reach their potential.

Reflecting on my work with gifted adults, I see that my thinking and practice generally follow a particular pattern and process (Figure 2). I briefly explain that process below, and in detail in my recent book: Giftedness in practice: Strengthening personal leadership in gifted adults (available in English in mid-2022, giftednessinpractice.com).

The first stage—Recognizing—is about identifying and recognizing one’s giftedness. Together, we consider if the problems and challenges a person experiences in life and

20 • Mensa Research Journal

work might be explained by giftedness. We look at descriptive characteristics such as those identified in the Delphi Model, and may also consider formal (psychometric) testing.

In the next stage we normalize gifted behavior. That is, a gifted adult comes to understand that, despite being “out-of-the-norm,” many of their experiences are common among other gifted adults. In terms of self-identity, this work allows gifted adults to accept their giftedness and have a new way to understand “being different.”

The explanation offers assurance, and boosts self-esteem.

They are truly getting to know and appreciate themselves.

Then the processing starts, often beginning with mourning—acknowledging and feeling the grief and loss of “what might have been.” For some, there was serious trauma or disturbance in their development. Adjunct psychotherapy is useful to work with past trauma, and for this I refer to licensed therapists with whom I work closely. Most therapists I work with are gifted themselves and have specialized knowledge and skills to work with gifted adults.

The next stage—Growing—is about working on new competencies and skills that were not yet developed strongly. For many, these skills relate to certain cognitive executive functions. Often, gifted adults need to gain skills in areas related to communication and relating to others, particularly non-gifted colleagues, friends, and family members. During this stage of growth, common themes include fear of failure, being frozen in the face of uncertainty, and an over-reliance on top-down thinking, with little experience learning from the bottom up.

Gifted Adults at Work: The Netherlands Experience

In the next stage—Using—clients start to use their newly learned skills. They approach life and work with a more realistic self-image and stronger confidence. Some make big changes in their careers; others start new study, such as getting that university degree at last! Many gifted adults decide to leave employment and, for example, start their own businesses.

The gifted adult is starting to thrive and blossom, and a steep learning curve appears during this stage.

The role of the environment is also important in this work. Relationships may be re-evaluated, and giftedness frequently becomes apparent as a theme in the lives of other family members. Work environments are important in adulthood. When practicable, I work with both gifted adults and their direct managers. Obviously, that is not always possible. In any event, we consider what circumstances are needed for the gifted employee to gain more work satisfaction, and thereby improve results. In some instances, gifted adults can identify where they are able to modify circumstances themselves. At other times the work is focused on communicating and negotiating with employers and colleagues. A common theme at this stage is the pursuit of a meaningful life.

During the final stage of the work, the focus is on maintaining and continuing the process of personal growth, without my involvement. At this point, giftedness is well understood as being part of the person’s identity. Of course, I always help my clients understand that they are more than just gifted. They have other important aspects of their identities, and the goal is to integrate new understandings of their giftedness within a full and evolving sense of selves.

I look forward to presenting at the Mensa Foundation Colloquium in July 2022, when I will go into more detail about gifted adults in work contexts, and the various models, practices, and processes being developed. I also look forward to sharing the English version of my book, Giftedness in practice. Strengthening personal leadership in gifted adults.

She founded the company Hoogbegaafd in Bedrijf (meaning Giftedness in Operation) where she and her colleagues help gifted adults with career coaching and re-integrating to work after a period of sickness commissioned by either their (former) employer or by the Dutch government.

References

Brown, M., Peterson, E. R., & Rawlinson, C. (2020). Research With Gifted Adults: What International Experts Think Needs to Happen to Move the Field Forward. Roeper Review, 42(2), 95–108. van Casteren, P. A. J., Meerman, J., Brouwers, E. P. M., van Dam, A., & van der Klink, J. J. L. (2021). How can wellbeing at work and sustainable employability of gifted workers be enhanced? A qualitative study from a capability approach perspective. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 392.

Fiedler, Ellen D. (2015) Bright Adults. Uniqueness and Belonging across the Lifespan. Great Potential Press. van Thiel, M., Nauta, M and Derksen, J. (2019). An Experiential Model of Giftedness: Giftedness from an Internal Point of View Made Explicit by Means of the Delphi Method.

Advanced Development Journal, Vol. 17, 79. van de Ven, R., van Weerdenburg, M., & van Hoof, E. (2016).

Working with intensity; The relationship between giftedness and sensitivity in working adults in Flanders and the Netherlands. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from riannevdven.nl/publicaties/working-with-intensity/ Vreys, C., Venderickx, K., & Kieboom, T. (2016). The Strengths, Needs and Vulnerabilities of Gifted Employees.

International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 4(1), 12.

Webb, J. T., Amend, E.R. Beljan, P. (2016). Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults: ADHD, Bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, Depression, and Other Disorders (2nd Edition), Great Potential Press.

About the author

Rianne van de Ven has worked as a professional coach for gifted adults for more than 15 years. She is an author, speaker, trainer, teacher, and researcher on the subject of gifted adults and was the chair of the Gifted Adults Foundation in the Netherlands from 2013 to 2020.

Rianne was not identified as a gifted child and did not receive special guidance in her education. She dropped out of university without a degree, going on to have a successful career in corporate environments (telecoms, ICT, banking).

After the discovery of her high intelligence (99th percentile) at the age of 33, Rianne dedicated her energy to improving the quality of life of gifted adults.

Mensa Members save on office supplies fast and easy. Visit us.mensa.org/benefits for details

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 21

MRJ

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan Ellen D. Fiedler, Ph.D.

Abstract

Bright, talented, and gifted adults often feel that they are out of sync with others and need perspective. They may feel different, unusual, and perhaps even a bit peculiar as compared with other people, and yet they do not understand how their experiences might be related to their intelligence and creativity. The focus of this article is on the life journeys of gifted adults and the issues and needs that arise at each age and stage of their lives. It is compiled and adapted from excerpts from an extensive source: my book Bright Adults: Uniqueness and Belonging Across the Lifespan along with some segments of my chapter “You Don’t Outgrow It! Giftedness Across the Lifespan” included in Off the Charts: Asynchrony and the Gifted Child. The impact on gifted adults of today’s turbulent issues related to the pandemic and other political, environmental, economic, and societal issues is briefly addressed. A sailing metaphor is used throughout, helping provide compass headings for past, present, and future destinations for gifted adults’ journey across their lifespan.

Introduction

Have you ever wished that you could look at your life from a distance? If we could, perhaps we would learn to find our way with greater perspective on the past and the future. Maybe then, we’d be more able to make decisions that would work well for us now and feel more comfortable with life choices that we have already made or are considering.

Bright, talented, and gifted adults often find themselves in uncharted waters, feeling that they are out of sync with others. Or they may have others in their lives who are very likely to need perspective. Some may feel different, unusual, and perhaps even a bit peculiar as compared with other people and yet they do not understand how their experiences might be related to their giftedness. They often have a vague feeling that they are different, and they yearn to understand themselves and to find other people who think, feel, joke, and act in a similarly intense and maybe quirky fashion.

Bright, talented, and gifted adults often search for answers about how to live their lives and how to set their course and choose the next directions they should go.

People like this are usually intense, idealistic, complex, multifaceted, strong-willed, and impatient. In their lifelong journey, they seek to discover if they are “there” yet—that indefinable place where they can find meaning in their life.

Their search is often different from so many other people, and they wonder whether they might ever reach a destination that is right for them.

Many bright adults feel this way, especially when they don’t want to follow a course that most people take. They feel like they are making it up as they go along, with numerous stops, starts, and midcourse corrections along the way.

22 • Mensa Research Journal

Some uncomfortably head in directions laid out for them by others, perhaps finding that they are living “lives of quiet desperation” (Thoreau, 1854; Thoreau, 2004). Others drift along with the prevailing winds and tides without awareness that there might be alternate routes that would give them the courage to select new directions and help them find more meaning and satisfaction in their lives.

Charting a Course through Life

In some ways, life is a journey with fairly predictable stages, events, and destinations. Cultural anthropologist Mary Catherine Bateson (2010) wrote about how we remember our lives in terms of periods with beginnings and endings and think in terms of watersheds and transitions, turning points, and critical moments. Childhood, middle school, high school, college, first job, marriage, travel, and career are some of those time periods, turning points, and critical moments, and each has expectations, issues, and options, and they are different for people who are brighter than average. Being aware of these stages and related aspects can help bright, talented, and gifted people navigate—maybe even keep them from running aground along the way.

Regardless of our talents, intelligence, or ability, most of us focus on our own time frame—the 20s, 30s, 40s, or 50s—without thinking much about what lies ahead in the next decades or even what lies behind in the years gone by.

Frankly, too, some of us would rather not spend much, if any, time looking back at the past, let alone focusing on the unknown future and what it might hold. However, it can be useful to have a broader view of the entire lifespan, Exerpt from Bright Adults: Uniqueness and Belonging Across the Lifespan published by Gifted Unlimited

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

and to compare our lives to journeys and paths mapped out by earlier travelers, particularly those whose passages were different from the norm. This article offers a long-range look at the life stages and issues for bright adults—including exciting times, stormy seas, and times of change.

Regardless of their individuality, gifted adults have a lot in common with each other no matter how old they are.

Some issues they grapple with span all ages and stages of their lives. They typically experience complex emotions as they seek out acceptance, yearn for kindred spirits in their lives, and learn how to live with their intensity. Gifted adults are more likely than others to hunger for significant challenges, to need access to advanced resources, to seek universal principles, to question traditions, and to seek meaning for their lives beyond the superficial.

Other issues—from understanding the implications of their abilities and uniqueness and the attitudes of other people to dealing with feelings of “differentness”—may not be the same in each stage of life. Of course, some experiences are simply shared by all people of similar age, regardless of how bright they are. However, life stages for gifted adults are not necessarily the same as life stages for the typical adult. In the same way that gifted children often hit their life stages earlier and more intensely than other children, so do gifted adults (Webb, 2013, p. 118).

Stages of Development—My Model

If we look at what life is generally like for gifted adults, we can gain better perspectives about the journey and typical waypoints along their route. From my years of work with gifted and talented children and adults and building on the work of others, I’ve created a model that describes typical issues and experiences for bright, talented, and gifted adults at various ages and stages of life. It’s adapted from the well-known work of Eric Erikson (Erikson, 1951).

We will start our journey across the lifespan by looking at differing points of view regarding giftedness and common issues and concerns, regardless of age, before we narrow our focus and consider the experiences of bright individuals just as they enter adulthood—the “Seekers” ages 18 to 25. We’ll follow them into their journey as “Voyagers” through the years from ages 25 to 35. Then we’ll head on through two segments of the middle years— “Explorers” from ages 35 to 50, and “Navigators” from the ages of 50 to 65. Next, we’ll consider two separate groups of bright adults during the later years—the “Actualizers” from ages 65 to 80, and the “Cruisers” from age 80 and beyond. We’ll finish with thoughts about those I’ve labeled the “Invisible Ones”—those whose gifts are lost or hidden or those who have run aground.

Young Adulthood: Seekers—Usually ages 18-25: On a quest to find their place in the world.

Voyagers—Usually ages 25-35: Purposely journeying through life to establish themselves.

Middle Adulthood: Explorers—Usually ages 35-50: Matching their lives to their identities and priorities.

Navigators— Usually ages 50-65: Using prior knowledge, including self-knowledge, to fulfill their goals.

Late Adulthood: Actualizers—Usually ages 65-80: On a path of self-actualization as well as helping others actualize their goals and dreams.

Cruisers—Usually age 80 and beyond: Using minds that remain intensely active regardless of physical changes; knowing who they are and what they want their remaining years to be like.

The Invisible Ones—adults whose giftedness is no longer recognized or recognizable can be found within any of the other fundamental six ages and stages of life.

The time frames that I’ve suggested for each life stage are generalizations. The designated time periods and issues aren’t carved in stone. They simply describe what most gifted adults have in common at these approximate ages and stages of life. Some people encounter these issues earlier, some later, and some cycle back to revisit one or more of the earlier stages again depending on the circumstances of their lives, their unique experiences, and their individual viewpoints.

What Does “Gifted” Mean?— A Brief Explanation

When I talk about people who are bright, talented, and gifted, the first question I’m asked is, “What do you mean ‘gifted?’” Sometimes people mistakenly assume that “gifted” is equivalent to “genius.” In their minds “bright” and “talented” blend into “gifted” or they simply do not see anything about gifted individuals that distinguishes these individuals from the rest of the population.

Newer definitions of giftedness are significantly different from the perspective that focuses primarily on achievement and performance, a viewpoint still held by many people in the world, including quite a few educators and legislators.

But the abilities and talents of many adults aren’t necessarily always apparent to others around them or even to themselves, especially if they don’t have opportunities that call particular attention to what they are like and what they can do. As Willem Kuipers, a counselor for gifted adults, said, “If those adults do not produce as expected or become unable to do so, they may get rated as not gifted, after all” (Kuipers, 2010, p. 4.

Giftedness needs to focus on the person rather than their performance. This lens helps us get a better perspective

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 23

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

on our own experiences and how they relate to our life and the lives of other people we know. It takes more time and consideration to comprehend the inner awareness and understanding of bright adults, including those who deliberately hide their deepest thoughts and feelings such as the “Invisible Ones” whose giftedness is no longer recognizable.

You may wonder if much of the information in this article simply isn’t true for everyone in the world. The reality is that our personal frame of reference for the way we view ourselves primarily originates from other people like us— friends, family, people we know or have read about or heard about in the media who share our background, experience, interests, goals, and values. We grow up seeing the world through our own eyes, and we assume that our experiences, behaviors, and ways of thinking are essentially the same as that of others. This excludes a vast number of people who aren’t much like us and aren’t in our lives or on our minds at all. This is as true for people in general as it is for highly gifted people.

Each stage of life for bright adults has its own issues, satisfactions, and challenges. For some bright adults, life seems to be a voyage on calm waters. They fully enjoy the opportunities available to them, and regardless of ordinary ups and downs their lives are marked by smooth sailing. Others strive against inner storms from time to time or outer turbulence that seems to assault them from all sides (Fiedler, 2009). However, even the lives of those who battle stormy seas aren’t always problematic. Bright adults in general are likely to have good lives—but lives that are characterized by more intensity and complexity than those of others. Nonetheless, as psychologist Nancy Alvarado said, “An overemphasis on the positive aspects of being gifted does a disservice to the many gifted adults who are experiencing difficulties. It discounts their personal experience and places another expectation upon them: to be gifted, they must have better than average mental health, greater stability, and better coping skills” (1989, p. 77).

This can create a burden that’s very hard to bear.

Gifted children grow up to be gifted adults, whether they or anyone else recognizes that or not. The experiences of bright adults at each stage of their lives are worth considering. This article is designed to make navigating life easier and to assist in thoughtfully contemplating life decisions and grappling with issues that commonly arise for gifted adults. It’s intended to 1) help shed new light on what life’s journey is all about for bright, talented, and gifted adults, 2) provide greater clarity about life and its challenges for them, and 3) help them gain new insights so that they can better chart their course across the lifespan.

Bright, Talented, Gifted? Who Me?

Giftedness seems like something that we should know about ourselves, especially when others around us don’t have any doubt about our abundant abilities, gifts, and talents. Even bright adults who were identified for gifted edu-

24 • Mensa Research Journal

cation programs during their school years are often oblivious to their own gifts and talents.

Some bright adults acknowledge that they were gifted as young children but assert that they outgrew whatever abilities they once had. They say, “I used to be gifted,” as if giftedness were something you can leave behind (Silverman, 2010, p. ix). Or they might say that they simply worked harder than others and make statements like, “Anyone could do what I do if they just put a little more effort into it.” Some think that they were incorrectly identified as gifted years ago, or they see themselves as imposters who fooled the system, their friends, and their family. One profoundly gifted young man rationalized his intelligence by saying that he only seemed to be smarter than others simply because he’d learned to read earlier. Even into adulthood, he didn’t see himself as gifted, even though his measured IQ put him in the one out of a million category. Still other gifted adults harbor a belief that no one is gifted unless they have superior abilities in all academic or professional areas, rather than just one or two.

As the years go by, their denial often becomes more entrenched, as if acknowledging their capabilities would be a blemish or some kind of an error that they should conceal. After all, many of them of them have been told repeatedly that they shouldn’t get a “big head” over their abilities. They have been criticized for being too intense, for thinking too much, for being too creative, for not fitting in, or even for being too sensitive. For some of them, giftedness is loaded with too many implications, and they worry that other people in their lives might expect more of them than they could deliver. For many, “…their resistance can be attributed to fear of failure to live up to the label” (Kottmeyer, 2007, p. 129).

Why else do so many bright adults deny the very possibility that they might have unique abilities? At first glance it simply seems like it could be modesty—a quality often appreciated and admired. However, this kind of modesty actually has a downside—hiding our true selves and keeping others from knowing who we really are, as well as preventing full use of our talents and abilities. Modesty can interfere with your ability to know yourself if you think, “I’m not really that good at this; they’re just being nice,” or “I was just lucky.” When it comes to the modesty of bright adults, a judicious “grain of salt” really is called for so that they don’t lose sight of being authentic with themselves and others.

Bright adults often have an underlying reluctance to admit to their giftedness because they’re afraid of being seen as arrogant. They think that acknowledging their abilities might lead other people to scoff at them. The emotional intensity and sensitivity of bright individuals contributes to their reservations about even considering the possibility of being gifted. They are deeply concerned about the reactions of others. One highly talented and intelligent blues musician described it as like not having any skin; he felt so

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

easily wounded by what other people thought of him. It was terribly distressing for him; he continually felt stung by the real or imagined disapproval of others—people whose opinions mattered so much to him. Although they admired what he could do, he was painfully aware of what he could not do.

Some bright individuals, unbeknownst to them, alienate others with their intensity; they seem to overwhelm other people with their energy, their idealistic sensitivity, and how deeply they care about so many things. As a result, these individuals can become isolated or depressed or antagonistic, or they may assert themselves in ways that often puzzle themselves as well as others.

Other gifted adults apologize for being who they are, and they keep other people at arm’s length. Some simply become chameleons, masking their true selves from almost everyone other than those few rare people who accept them and don’t criticize them for being who they are. One gifted adult described it this way, “I know too much. I remember too much. I learn too quickly. I make people uncomfortable. And it is hard to hide these things. I try. But it is also hard to spend your life hiding” (Kottmeyer, 2007, p. 129).

Intensity, Overexcitabilities, and other Characteristics

The intensity of so many bright people underlies the accusations heaped on their heads of being “too much.” So many of them seem to exhibit the overexcitabilities described by Kasimierz Dabrowski, a Polish psychologist and psychiatrist. The five overexcitabilities—intellectual, imaginational, emotional, sensual, and psychomotor—each have an upside and a downside (Daniels & Pechowski, 2008).

The various overexcitabilities can be thought of as different areas of intensity, and they show up in different ways throughout a bright person’s life. For instance, someone with intellectual overexcitability typically has an insatiable thirst for truth and knowledge and is constantly in search of new information, but she may also be seen as argumentative, annoying, and hypercritical. A person who has imaginational overexcitability may delight in imagery and metaphor and be very creative with a rich fantasy life but also may have a lot of difficulty tolerating boredom and daydream a lot. Those with psychomotor overexcitability seem to be constantly in motion, are highly energetic and active, but their restless energy level can disrupt or overwhelm others. People with emotional overexcitability have great capacity for experiencing deep feelings. Their times of joy are greater, but so are their times of sadness which can drag them down into a deep hole of sorrow (Webb, 2013, pp. 49-50). The overexcitabilities create a paradox; if you live life to the hilt, each strength has an associated disadvantage that can be very confusing for everyone concerned.

Emotional intensity, metacognition, and heightened sensitivity, along with enthusiasm, excitability, and expres-

siveness, are all typical of bright, talented, gifted adults.

Consider the following checklist of gifted characteristics and see if they apply to you or someone you know: • Makes keen observations • Very perceptive and insightful • Enjoys problem-solving; prefers original, creative solutions • Easily connects seemingly unrelated ideas • Learns unusually quickly; has an excellent memory • Thoroughly enjoys discussing ideas • Is an independent thinker • Concerned about justice; lacks tolerance for unfairness • Self-critical; sets high standards for self and others • Has a somewhat quirky sense of humor • Exhibits a playful attitude or childlike excitement over simple things • Has a lifelong sense of wonder • Has a longing to find deeper meaning • Seeks excellence; sometimes seen as perfectionistic or judgmental • Has often felt misunderstood, different, or out of sync (Jacobsen, 1999).

Even though not all of these descriptions fit every bright adult, they describe what life is generally like for gifted individuals. Notice that very few of these words or phrases relate directly to achievement, academics, test scores, or even eminence—the more frequently-used yardsticks for measuring giftedness.

Broader Perspectives on Giftedness

It is important to know that within the framework of giftedness there is a continuum—or at least different levels (Gross, 2000). A person can be mildly gifted, moderately gifted, highly gifted, exceptionally gifted, or profoundly gifted. The more highly gifted a person is, the more likely it is that she will seem “different” to other people, and the more likely she is to have difficulty “fitting in,” sometimes even within her own family. Moderately gifted people may unjustly compare themselves to those who are profoundly gifted. For instance, one young man with a measured IQ of 145 thought that he was just average because he was not as sharp as his father, an eminent physician with an estimated IQ of about 180. These bright adults don’t recognize that their abilities still go far beyond those of most other people. Furthermore, IQ is only one way of defining giftedness and doesn’t tell the complete story.

Asynchrony and Giftedness

Equating giftedness with performance, especially achievement, is easily acknowledged and lauded by society.

Although some in the field of gifted education still define giftedness as indicated by achievement, the Columbus Group described another way of looking at being gifted that has now become widely recognized and accepted. This

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 25

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

definition specifies that giftedness is more of an internal state of being, rather than a matter of external accomplishments that are validated by others. In other words, giftedness is about who you are rather than what you do. This definition describes giftedness as “asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm” (Silverman, 1993, p. 3). In other words, it describes ways in which gifted individuals differ from others.

Another inside view of giftedness comes from the eminent educator, Annemarie Roeper, who co-founded one of the first schools for gifted children and established the Roeper Review, an important journal dealing with gifted education. She believed that “Giftedness is a greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experiences” (Roeper, 1982, p. 21).

These definitions that focus on the inner world of a gifted person are quite different from a performancebased view of giftedness that relies on “evidence of high achievement capacity” (U.S. Department of Education, 2001, p. 544). Prior to the Columbus Group discussion of asynchronous development and Annemarie’s thoughts about giftedness, most people thought of giftedness as the ability to achieve at a high level in some field of endeavor.

Some still do.

More specifically asynchrony can be understood as being out of sync, especially internally (Silverman, 1997).

This has to do with uneven development—meaning that someone who is gifted is developmentally advanced in one or more areas but may be just average or even behind in other areas. For instance, Ingrid was a candidate for graduate school who scored in the 95th percentile on the verbal portion of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), but only in the 30th percentile on the math portion. The program that she applied for was only concerned with her verbal score, so she had no problem with being admitted, and she successfully completed her graduate degree several years later. You’ve probably known people who are highly capable in some aspects of their lives but struggle in others, including folks who are brilliant and highly capable in many ways but just don’t seem to have any common sense.

Asynchronous development includes variations in ability, but also variations in how people experience life—the inner experiences and awareness that make it difficult for bright people to understand why others don’t see the world the way they do. They think and feel deeply, far more so than is typically true for most people. The result is often feeling out of sync with those around them—another aspect of asynchrony.

As a result, bright individuals often feel like strangers in a strange land—sometimes even like an alien from a different planet—with little or no idea of what sets them apart from others. They don’t understand why others “don’t get it,” and

26 • Mensa Research Journal

their attempts to use themselves as a yardstick to measure others generally fail miserably. They keep trying to make sense of the world and other people’s reactions and behaviors based on how they themselves would react or behave, but it just doesn’t work. The hours of bewilderment and rumination can go on and on, far beyond what anyone else might ever contemplate. Other people’s underlying motivation is often simply unfathomable to bright individuals. This is especially true when these bright adults find themselves surrounded by people who don’t share the same in-depth awareness and passionate idealism.

Since so many of the people around them don’t understand them, bright people often are criticized for being “too much”—too sensitive, too intense, too curious, too worried about the state of the world. And it can cause them to feel inadequate or think “Something must be wrong with me.”

Because of their intensity, sensitivity, idealism, and concerns about fairness, bright people are much more likely to notice how tradition-bound, inconsistent, and absurd other people’s behaviors often are. They tend to see the “big picture,” how complex most issues are, and what the ramifications might be.

To top this off, bright people are often seen as actually having some sort of mental or psychological disorder, when in fact they may just be quirky—either a little or a lot. Many behaviors actually related to their giftedness are often misdiagnosed as some kind of disorder—ADHD, bipolar, OCD, being on the autism spectrum, depression, or others. An incorrect diagnosis can lead to someone being responded to in highly inappropriate ways and/or medicated. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that many professionals and clinicians—teachers, school nurses, pediatricians, psychologists, and psychiatrists—have no training in giftedness, and therefore are not equipped to avoid these inaccurate diagnoses (Webb, et al., 2005).

The process of understanding ourselves usually takes many years. It is a life-long journey, typically with many joys and sorrows, highs and lows along the way. Most of us need time and experience to grow an awareness of our own abilities and what that means for living a satisfying, meaningful life.

Stages for Bright Adults

My model starts out with Seekers—bright adults roughly between the ages of 18 and 25. They have finished high school, are now in college or graduate school, or they have started pursuing their first careers. They may be involved in romantic relationships, on their own, or in some cases even living at home with their parents. They are trying out different lifestyles, social settings, interests, and activities, and typically are searching for their place in the world and for others who are on their wavelength—kindred spirits who can connect with them in meaningful ways, share their interests, their ideals, and perhaps even “get” them and their quirky sense of humor.

My second group of bright adults are the Voyagers— approximately ages 25-35. Some are in graduate school,

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

and some are already moving ahead on the career path that they zeroed in on when they were Seekers, although they may be on their second or third job along that path. They value job security, but they won’t stay at a job they don’t like. Even though Voyagers have clearer ideas about what they want and don’t want in their lives, including in their romantic relationships, they may still be continuing to search for a soulmate. Others may be in committed relationships or married—some with children and characteristically busy family lives—often struggling with the challenges of balancing a career with their family commitments and other personal interests.

The third group of bright adults in my model are approximately ages 35 to 50—the Explorers. By this point in life they have a pretty good sense of who they are and have clearer ideas about what they do and do not want, based on things they learned earlier. During this time of their lives, they are very much aware that what they want is not a question with one right answer. Some of them have started off in one direction and then decided that it wasn’t quite right for them, even if it was appropriate for them at one time. Many Explorers are caught up in making significant midcourse changes that move them toward new goals. Some are exploring how to resolve the keen sense of dissatisfaction they feel even though simultaneously finding themselves incredibly busy with their careers, family activities, and responsibilities. Although many Explorers seldom take time to reflect on their lives and how to make things better, others totally stop short, drop anchor for a while, and subsequently decide to alter the course of their lives drastically during this stage.

The next group is the Navigators, approximately ages 50-65. By this time in life these bright adults have pretty much developed their goals and values. They have a clear course in mind for where they want their life’s journey to take them during these years. They are more likely to be settled into their chosen careers—though sometimes it is their second, third, or even fourth career. They know their capabilities and how to put them to use. Most often they have moved beyond the point where their children take up significant amounts of their time, so they can set their sights on what they want for themselves now. With the clarity about their identity and the things they care deeply about, they can focus on what they would like to accomplish while there’s still time. A sense of urgency often accompanies this stage of life, of wanting to do something significant while they can.

The fifth stage for bright adults is the Actualizers— approximately ages 65-80. Their focus is likely to be on self-actualization, along the lines that Abraham Maslow described—finding meaningful ways to put their gifts and talents to use (Maslow, 1970). A common component of their lives is also helping others actualize their own lifelong goals and dreams—much like what Erik Erikson meant when he coined the term “generativity” to suggest

an emphasis on nurturing and guiding younger people at this time of life (Erikson, 1951).

The last stage in my model is for the Cruisers. These gifted people, ages 80 and beyond, travel through life at a more leisurely pace appropriate for their current situation and interests. Although they may occasionally feel some of the urgency that the Actualizers do, the Cruisers are not in a rush; they have developed greater perspective and patience.

Although they are not particularly concerned with setting a course, exploring alternatives, choosing a designated route, or with paying much specific attention to actualizing their potential, they often are still interested in guiding the next generation. For some, this time of their lives continues to be filled with vitality and involvement. For others, physical challenges may interfere with their being as active as they might like to be, and other constraints may limit what they can do and may weigh them down with despair as they contemplate how little time they have left. Cruisers primarily want to enjoy the rest of their life journey to the best of their abilities.

I include one more category in my model, and I call this last group the Invisible Ones. These are people who are bright, creative, and insightful, but who are overlooked by others who don’t see them as gifted because they didn’t fulfill others’ expectations of outwardly recognizable achievement.

They didn’t live up to their “full potential.”

Often the Invisible Ones camouflage, deny, or downplay their abilities, perhaps sabotaging themselves or dropping out of traditional society. Some are so hurt and angry that their abilities emerge in antisocial and rebellious ways; others feel ground down by depression. Their giftedness may be barely visible even to someone who knows them well. Some of them firmly believe that they never were gifted. Others deliberately hide their abilities, conflicts, and loneliness, and they will only reveal themselves to one or two close friends. If their abilities and curiosity are unappreciated by their spouses or children, they may dumb themselves down just to get along at home or in the workplace.

We need to look at the lives of these Invisible Ones, at what may have happened to them, at why their true selves are hidden, and how they may be coping. It is unlikely that they simply lost their abilities; it is more likely that a “Dark Side” of giftedness has taken over at least for a time (Streznewski, 1999). Becoming invisible may be a temporary state of being for gifted adults related to their life situations. Some of them have become disheartened or disillusioned by life circumstances or because of roles they feel they must play—e.g., at work or among others who either aren’t like them or who do not accept them for who they are.

True for Everyone vs. True for the Gifted

Whenever I give presentations about gifted adults describing what’s going on for them at different times in their lives, someone usually asks me, “How is all this different

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 27

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

from what goes on in everyone’s life?” They want to know how the experiences of bright adults are different.

Certainly, everyone faces many of the same issues as we go through life. We all want acceptance and to find kindred spirits; we want challenge, stimulation, and opportunities.

And we all seek meaning in life. However, how these issues play out in a person’s life is different for a gifted adult than it is for most people. Their heightened intensity, sensitivity, in-depth thinking, questioning attitudes, asynchronous development, and idealism affect every aspect of their lives.

As a result, complications and challenges crop up at every stage of life for gifted adults.

Traveling Circuitous Routes

The routes traveled by bright, gifted, and intense adults throughout their lifespan are often circuitous. One of my favorite books, First You Have to Row a Little Boat: Reflections on Life and Living by Richard Bode, has a chapter titled, “The Shortest Distance between Two Points Is a Zigzag Line.” (Bode, 1993). This aptly describes the indirect routes that many bright adults take as they journey through life, much like sailors tacking back and forth through the water to get to a destination upwind.

As mentioned before, some issues that bright adults encounter are distinctive for certain stages—categorized into the Seekers, Voyagers, Explorers, Navigators, Actualizers, or Cruisers. The Invisible Ones, not surprisingly, face a variety of specific concerns throughout their lives unless something or someone breaks the cycle so that the Invisible Ones no longer hide their gifts.

Issues Throughout the Lifespan

Many challenges transcend all ages and stages of life for gifted adults. Issues arise repeatedly for them as direct outgrowths of the differences between them and other people. Reflecting on the concepts here can help bright adults at any age chart their course and make changes to reach the goals they want. The following issues are important for bright adults regardless of their age and stage of life.

• Acceptance—meeting their needs for acceptance and belonging, a real challenge for gifted adults because of the ways they’re different from others.

•

Meaningful connections—finding kindred spirits, other people who are like them, who are on their wavelength, and who can connect with them in meaningful ways.

•

Living with intensity—accepting and coping with the higher levels of intensity that they experience throughout their lives (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009).

•

Relevant challenges—having opportunities to use their minds to satisfy their thirst for knowledge,

28 • Mensa Research Journal

hunger for understanding, and quest for stimulating learning experiences.

•

Access to resources—finding people, places, and things that let them pursue their passions, the things they care most deeply about.

•

Meaning—seeking and finding meaning in life; recognizing that their lives count for something and that their very existence has relevance in the world.

I think of these as compass headings because they help bright adults find direction in their lives if they are feeling lost or feel that their life is lacking. Let’s look more closely at each of these, considering how some bright adults have worked out their own solutions for handing these challenges.

Acceptance Gifted people often have difficulty finding acceptance from others. Sometimes bright adults assume that they can’t find acceptance because they never adequately developed their social skills. That may be true for some people, particularly the types of bright adults who are often referred to as nerds, dorks, or geeks, those who are very introverted, or those who fall somewhere on the autism spectrum. They may assume that something is wrong with them, especially if they grew up with no one else like them or anyone who really accepted them, quirkiness and all.

Most often, though, problems with acceptance arise from a mismatch between the person and the situation; they simply haven’t yet found any kindred spirits or intellectual peers. Sometimes other people really are reluctant to accept gifted adults as they are. Perhaps others don’t understand the advanced vocabulary that bright adults use or they have trouble following their complex thinking processes or they don’t appreciate their ironic or absurd sense of humor. People may dismiss them as being “too much”— too intense, too emotional, too different, or too weird.

Sometimes these people feel threatened by gifted adults, as if being around someone with more knowledge or more sophisticated ideas diminishes their own worth as a person or undermines their chances of success and recognition.

If they have enough of these experiences, gifted adults may jump to the conclusion that others don’t and won’t accept them. The result then is that they protect themselves by withdrawing, rather than finding ways to move along and gain acceptance. However, it does not always have to be that way.

Meaningful Connections Gifted adults are often independent and self-sufficient.

This is a strength, but one that can sometimes make it difficult for them to fulfill their social needs, especially if they have little in common with the other people that are around them. Unless bright adults can make meaningful

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

connections with others, they can slip into the depths of loneliness and despair, feeling like they sailed into a foreign port where they have no concept of the language or the culture. They don’t need many kindred spirits; just having a few in their lives can make all the difference. Even having one good friend may be plenty. Many gifted adults, particularly those who are introverts, have difficulty finding others they feel close to—something that is easier for most of the people in the general population.

Living With Intensity—A Closer Look Bright adults regularly face criticism throughout their lives about how intense they are, “never quite understanding why others don’t understand who they are, how they think, and how they feel” (Streznewski, 1999, p. 134). Intensity affects everything for them, sometimes giving them a chance to live fuller, richer lives than others could imagine, but at other times causing them to feel isolated, alone, and rejected, often because people don’t seem to be able to handle being around them for very long. This intensity relates back to Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities—a concept that was introduced earlier.

For some, the intensity is intellectual—always wanting to know the why of things, pursuing ideas, and chasing interesting concepts. For others, it’s psychomotor intensity—always needing to be on the move, talking fast, walking fast, even constantly jiggling their legs or feet while they are otherwise sitting still. For still others, it’s sensual intensity—being highly aware of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touch, having to cut the tags out of their clothes, and avoiding places with annoying levels of sound or lighting.

For others, it’s imaginational intensity—always wondering about everything, imagining endless solutions to problems, being aware of potentially disastrous possibilities and worrying about them, or having richly playful and entertaining fantasy lives. And for some, it’s emotional intensity—feeling everything deeply and experiencing extreme highs and lows in response to life. It is important to realize that for some gifted folks, it’s all of the above; they may experience all of these intensities or at least several of them at any given time.

High levels of intensity seem to prompt many to just go on living “under full sail,” flying along even in heavy winds, and enjoying all that they experience because of their intensity. Others find they need to “shorten sail,” taking precautions not to have their intense experiences affect them as much as they might if they simply barreled ahead. They head for safe harbors or quiet anchorages, seeking places of concealment and not letting anyone see the depth and breadth of their intensity.

Access to Resources Bright adults often find themselves frustrated when they lack resources, including time, money, teachers and men-

tors, training, skills, and sometimes the devices, tools, or equipment needed for them to pursue their passions. They need access to resources to match the often-complex vision of their goals. Sometimes they know what they need to move forward, but they run into too many obstacles along their route and being patient is not easy for them. Other times, even though they can envision their goal, they may not know what resources could be useful to them, let alone how or where to get access to them. They need information and open doors so that they can see their way to finding what they need.

Relevant Challenges Bright adults need day-to-day stimulation that provides challenge and newness. They need opportunities to communicate with others about their ideas and to move on to find new things to learn once they’ve exhausted the current ones (Nauta & Ronner, 2013). These important opportunities extend far beyond what others need, whether those challenges are at work, at home, in their communities, or during their leisure time.

Work typically takes up so much of daily life. Because it is typically so highly structured, narrowly focused, regimented, and repetitive, the workplace is frequently problematic for gifted adults and often lacks opportunities for relevant challenges. This is also true of the mundane aspects of family life—with different effects depending on the specific family structure that the gifted adults are in at any given time in their lives as well as on other circumstances such as financial constraints. In other words someone with limited financial resources is much less likely to be able to get outside help dealing with life’s day-to-day tasks that don’t fill their needs for relevant challenges.

Finding Meaning Stephanie Tolan often ends her writings and her public talks with the following quote from Osho, a Zen master, “You are not accidental. Existence needs you. Without you, something will be missing in existence, and no one can replace it.” Tolan emphasized the importance of creating our own stories about our lives and our world in order to find meaning in life (Tolan, 2009, p. 235). James Webb, in his book, Searching for Meaning, suggested the following questions for those confronting their search for a meaningful life: • What is the purpose of my life?

• What is important?

• What is worth living and working for?

• Who am I? • What is the most worthwhile way for me to spend my life in the short time that I will be on this earth?

(Webb, 213, p. 88) Many bright, talented, and gifted adults typically find themselves confronted with so many options that are attrac-

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 29

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

tive to them that they can get stymied. Because they have an abundance of abilities and interests, they don’t necessarily know which way to go.

In one of my graduate courses, the instructor had us each write our own epitaph. This exercise can be a good way for bright adults to start reflecting on their life’s journey. A similar but much more detailed activity to help you clarify your purpose in life and better understand its value is to write your own obituary. A brief search on the Internet quickly reveals many websites that can guide you in doing just that. Rather than being depressing, this strategy can lead to insights about what is most important to you and what you want the meaning of your life to be, and it can have a significant effect on the compass headings you chose for your life at whatever age and stage you are.

The Seekers (ages 18-25)— Heading Out on the Journey

Having often felt misplaced and misunderstood throughout their school years, gifted young adults eagerly turn a new page in their lives once they put high school behind them.

The following seven issues can be considered specific waypoints for Seekers as they set off on the first stage of their journey through adult life: 1) Gaining greater clarity about who they are— establishing their own identity, questioning why they seem different from others at the same age and stage of life, and choosing directions that might work best for them.

7)

Dealing with newfound freedom—learning how to cope with greater opportunities for making independent decisions (e.g., facing adult options about living arrangements, managing their time for leisure and various commitments, and handling their finances).

Seekers are continually confronted with paradoxes: lives filled with joy of launching themselves into the novelty of new jobs, college, or fresh relationships while running into a host of challenges as they find their way, establishing their own authentic identity, and making myriad decisions that can have huge implications for the rest of their lives.

The Voyagers (ages 25-35)— On With the Journey

Gifted adults on this stage of life’s journey head out with more purpose than they had as Seekers, even though they are not necessarily tied to specific destinations. Like sailors who take long-distance voyages, they have general ideas of where they want to go but are willing to modify their plans based on new information, including unfavorable conditions or appealing destinations that they learn about along the way.

The following six issues can be considered specific waypoints for Voyagers as they navigate the second stage of their journey through adult life: 1) The complexity of identity—their sensitivities, intensities, and the multiple roles they play in life at this stage lead to their seeking answers to questions about who they are.

2)

Overcoming isolation—finding acceptance and meaningful relationships; searching for kindred spirits who share common ground with them—a crew to sail along with them as they shove off on their journey.

2)

Career decisions and career moves—gifted adults’ yearning to find meaningful challenges and a sense of belonging during their workday often leads them to agonize about their career paths and to consider heading in new directions.

3)

Identifying relevant things to do and think about—hungering for worthwhile learning experiences and intellectual challenges.

3)

Advanced training—considering either the next logical step on their well-established career path or moving in new directions for their careers.

4)

Making college and career choices—figuring out where they might best belong, selecting circumstances where their abilities will be valued, and finding a niche where they are likely to flourish.

4)

Mentors—seeking, selecting, and interacting with mentors who understand their intensity and complexity and then finding ways to make the mentorship as mutually beneficial as possible.

5)

Coping with entry-level courses and jobs—dealing with all-too-common situations in college or the workplace that focus either on material they already know or move at a pace too slow for them (much like being out in sailboat when the wind dies and you are caught in the doldrums).

5)

Relationships—connecting socially and romantically while coping with complications resulting from the characteristics and needs that distinguish gifted Voyagers from others and make them a minority in the general population.

6)

Parenting—dealing with questions related to having children and questions about dealing with children if and when they do have them.

6)

Finding like-minded mentors and colleagues— discovering a good mentor and healthy relationships with friends and colleagues based on mutual respect and trust.

30 • Mensa Research Journal

This stage of life for gifted adults is one that includes a wide range of differences in everyday circumstances and

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

life paths. Most of them have busy lives—at work and at play—dating in search of soulmates or within committed romantic relationships or marriages. Those with children are caught up in a plethora of family activities while juggling everything else in their lives. Other Voyagers do not follow traditional routes or live up to anyone’s expectations of what a bright adult should be doing. Their intensity and depth of thinking and feeling continue to affect how they react to the challenges they face and the decisions they make about their complex, multifaceted lives.

The Explorers (ages 35-50)—Setting a Course

Explorers are on a journey of self-discovery—an exploration to develop lives that are congruent with the identities and priorities they discovered during their years as Seekers and Voyagers. Gifted adults at this stage have a better idea of who they are and are becoming and are clearer about what they want out of life. Their search is more focused and directed than previously, and they are likely to be involved in making corrections to courses that they set out on when they were younger and have begun to feel a sense of urgency about how to make their current lives match the lives they really want to be living.

Six key issues can be thought of as relevant waypoints for Explorers as they consider the third stage of their journey through adult life: 1) Coping with hectic lives—doing all they can while sustaining careers, marriages, and parenting growing children.

2)

Dealing with higher standards than others—sorting through conflicts with others when expecting the same high standards from them that they demand of themselves.

3)

Questioning everything about their lives— contemplating whether they want to continue in the same direction or set off on a new heading, exploring various possibilities personally and professionally and envisioning new horizons and new alternatives before it’s too late.

4)

5)

6)

Reevaluating patterns of thinking, behaving, and responding to others—finding ways to match their lives to the identities and the primary concerns they discovered earlier; pursuing goals and passions that began crystallizing for them during early adulthood.

Developing lives that fit their emerging worldviews—making choices about taking action on an ever-growing understanding of the interdependence of all people in the world.

Dealing with major life events— finding ways to reevaluate, reassess, and think through what their intent was earlier when faced with cataclysmic

events in their lives (e.g., divorce, a death in the family, job loss, an accident or serious illness, or even a date that has special significance).

In the midst of their journeys, this phase of life for Explorers might be aptly described as being like a kaleidoscope. The brightly colored fragments of their lives swirl into place and recombine into new patterns. Previous thoughts, experiences, and interests from earlier times intermingle with bits and pieces of what is going on for them now, including new insights that get added to the mix virtually every day.

The Navigators (ages 50-65)— Smooth Sailing or Stormy Seas

Whether or not their journeys take them on a direct route, gifted adults between the ages of 50 and 65 usually have increased clarity about who they are and what they want out of life. Their personal goals, values, and abilities guide them during this stage much like those who use their skills in navigation to find their way on land or sea or in the air.

The following six waypoints are ones that are likely to mark the journey of Navigators and represent issues that gifted adults usually deal with during this time in their lives: 1) Coping with conflicting feelings and asynchronous development—becoming increasingly introspective to get their bearings and see where true north is for them.

2)

Using prior knowledge, including self-knowledge—using all that they have learned so far, drawing upon the wealth of diverse life experiences that they have had up until this stage of life.

3)

Responding to an urgency to accomplish something worthwhile—getting as fully involved as possible, immersing themselves intensely into careers, community service, and relationships.

4)

Dealing with dissatisfaction—coping with disillusionment and disappointment, reconsidering the course they have taken in their lives wondering whether they should keep heading in the same direction or make radical changes to recapture their enthusiasm.

5)

Balancing everything in their lives—finding multiple outlets for their abilities while feeling as if they want to go six directions at once, wanting to incorporate more of their interests in their lives now and put more of their gifts and talents to use.

6)

Setting a new course in life—needing to reconfigure their lives and set new headings for the next part of their journey, the next anchorage, or the next port of call, regardless of whatever the catalyst is for moving on.

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 31

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

Many Navigators find that the joy is in the journey, although some of them see that only in retrospect. For those who have had smooth sailing, their enthusiasm about their life experiences comes easily. Though they may have hit rough waters in the past, these gifted adults have happily found their niche in activities that provide them with continual challenges along with people on their wavelength to connect with. Others continue to live in turmoil at this stage and try one alternative after another to ease their discomfort. Sometimes this provides temporary relief, and sometimes they have to continue searching for a while before they find a way to chart a new course that is more satisfying and meaningful.

The Actualizers (ages 65-80)— Making a Difference

Gifted adults between the ages of 65 and 80 are seldom like the images we once held of “senior citizens”—Granny and Gramps sitting in their rocking chairs steeped in nostalgia and contemplating the final days of their lives.

These days we see active older gifted adults working tirelessly to use their knowledge, skills, gifts, and talents in significant ways to make meaningful contributions to the world. More likely we will find them running a homebased business, taking art classes, going back to school for fun or for another degree, volunteering with a favorite organization, becoming active in politics, and traveling to places they have always wanted to go, or simply continuing in their chosen professions, either full time or part time.

I call gifted adults at this stage of life “Actualizers” for two reasons. First, many of them function in ways that fit with Abraham Maslow’s description of self-actualization as an ongoing process (Maslow, 1970). Second, so many of them play an active role as catalysts for other people to actualize their own goals and dreams, much the way a lighthouse shines a beacon to help sailors find their way.

I’ve identified five significant issues as waypoints that are likely to mark the journey of gifted Actualizers: 1) Reflection—taking stock of their lives in ways they haven’t experienced before so that they can set as satisfying a course for the rest of their lives as possible.

2)

3)

Enjoying greater clarity about their identities— utilizing their deeper understanding of themselves, being more willing than ever to be authentic, speaking out about whatever is on their minds and avoiding earlier habits of self-censorship.

Seeking ongoing opportunities to expand their knowledge—using their often-insatiable curiosity and responding to an ongoing urge to learn and do new things.

32 • Mensa Research Journal

4)

Connecting with others—finding kindred spirits regardless of challenges posed by changing circumstances (e.g., retirement, new jobs, new living situations perhaps in new locations, or the increasing numbers of confidants who are no longer present in their lives).

5)

Generativity—looking well beyond themselves and looking outward with an eye toward how to be a resource for others as well as for their own self-fulfillment, with a desire to contribute and leave a legacy for the next generation.

Whether Actualizers take their interests and insights into the world to become involved in a wide range of activities or limit their involvements to quieter ways of finding inner peace, this stage of life has great potential to generate life satisfaction beyond what they might have envisioned during earlier times of their lives.

The Cruisers (ages 80 and beyond)— Sailing On

Gifted adults from ages 80 and beyond are in a stage of life that tends to be slower paced but is typically a still vibrant journey for them, much like being on a cruise ship or doing a leisurely cross-country trip. Rather than just coasting, Cruisers are likely to move ahead at a speed that best reflects who they are now. Their values and interests provide them direction and serve as well-established ports of call for them.

Even in the face of changes that affect what they are physically able to do, they fundamentally know who they are and what they want their remaining years to be like and do what they can to make that vision a reality.

The following eight waypoints represent common issues for Cruisers: 1) Decisions about how to spend their time and energy—designating what is and isn’t important to them, guided by their clarity about their personal identities and a need to become more selective about how to spend their time.

2)

Desire to continue to live vibrant, interesting lives—seeking and finding ongoing opportunities to pursue their interests and be involved in a variety of activities; responding appropriately to ageism and staying busy with things that interest them.

3)

Coping with physical changes and challenges— paying focused attention to their health and wellness and using their excellent minds and intellectual intensity to find ways to live as healthy a life as possible.

4)

Ongoing drive to exercise their minds—seeking and using new ideas and information and ways to

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

put it all together in meaningful ways while overcoming obstacles to mental stimulation.

5)

Meaningful relationships with others—overcoming the loss of lifelong friends and companions and family members who are gone; making connections with like-minded people who share their intensity and sensitivity and have interests, values, and goals that are in sync with theirs.

6)

Independence—finding ways to handle everyday tasks regardless of limitations that result in a need to rely on others and become increasingly dependent; maintaining self-sufficiency in as many ways as possible for as long as possible.

7)

Generativity—contemplating what their legacy might be in terms of their core values; applying their abilities in ways that are significant for future generations, being a catalyst for improvements in the world.

8)

Being “ageless”—staying youthful throughout their lifetime, tuning out people who expect you to “act your age” or laugh at them, ignoring agebased expectations.

Cruisers should be accepted and recognized for all that they are and have always been—bright, talented, and gifted adults who still have much to offer. Whether through their active involvement or merely by their presence, their giftedness needs to be valued, not only by others but by these gifted adults themselves, most of whom are unaware of how their giftedness has been an important part of them throughout their lifespan.

The Invisible Ones—Under the Radar or Running Aground

For some bright adults, their gifts and talents seem to disappear. For some of them, their true nature—their giftedness was never recognized, encouraged, or nurtured, and their potential talent was not developed to begin with. For others, despite being launched into a future filled with promise, their abilities somehow disappeared from sight.

The Invisible Ones need help if they are ever going to be able to come out of the fog that shrouds them and eventually sail into new days filled with sunshine and satisfaction.

Periods of being invisible are not rare. Most bright adults hit a snag, run aground, or get lost in the fog at times in their lives. They need the tools and desire to get themselves off the sandbar or to find the courage to trust their compass and stay the course when they’re caught in a fogbank.

Many gifted individuals may be achieving externally but shrouded in dense fog internally. Though they are doing well with accomplishments, they’re battling internal storms and having personal difficulties that are invisible to others.

The intensity and sensitivity that goes along with being

gifted is regularly a challenge to manage, particularly if the person feels alone and misunderstood. For others, life has ground them down or they have been damaged and scarred by previous traumas.

Some Invisible Ones are really only partly invisible— sort of a “now you see me, now you don’t” way of being.

At times they function well and openly, are recognized by others, and accept their own abilities. But then they slip back into the fog, lost in self-criticism and believing their own negative self-talk. Sometimes they even sabotage themselves as a way of proving to themselves (and others) that they really aren’t gifted after all.

Complex Causes Gifted adults become invisible for complex reasons as diverse as they themselves are. Many had families who did not understand and support the social and emotional aspects of giftedness. Some parents expected and even demanded high achievement in whatever talent area they themselves particularly valued. Some gifted individuals were criticized repeatedly for behaviors that accompanied their giftedness, including their asynchrony, creativity, or inclination to challenge traditions and question the motives of others. Some continue to suffer from the residual effects of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse, made more acute by their sensitivity and intensity.

Some bright individuals “lose” their giftedness long before adulthood, particularly if they also have a learning disability, ADD or ADHD, or other conditions that hinder their capacity to achieve in school. A course toward invisibility often starts with underachievement in school—usually because the student’s educational, social, and emotional needs were not addressed, whether or not their abilities were recognized. They drift through unchallenging classrooms, fly under the radar, become the class clown, or engage in open rebellion and power struggles. Many had few opportunities in or out of school to find anyone else like them. Lacking a peer group with kindred spirits who share their advanced thoughts and intense feelings, they settle for whatever peers they can find. Others grew up in poverty and had few opportunities for putting their gifts and talents to use in socially acceptable and meaningful ways. Other Invisible Ones, particularly if they are handicapped by unhealthy perfectionism, become frozen in the face of too many options, being painfully aware that any path they might take could result in leaving other alternatives behind forever.

Very bright women sometimes lose themselves in gender-prescribed roles, with the result being that their gifts and talents become invisible. Giftedness in adult men can become invisible for similar reasons—attempts to conform to socially prescribed behavior, preconceived ideas about bright people, and unwanted indoctrination.

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 33

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

Many gifted individuals experience their own variation of what is known as imposter syndrome (Clance, 1986).

They feel like charlatans who do not deserve the success they have achieved and often don a cloak of invisibility—at least to themselves—because they themselves do not recognize their own gifts and talents.

Mental illness claims some bright adults, and some are institutionalized. Some get appropriate treatment; others do not. Although biological factors may have contributed to their vulnerability to mental illness, some bright adults found their mental health threatened by living in a world where an overwhelming number of people around them seemed focused only on materialistic goals and superficial ideals promulgated by mass media and popular culture. A small minority of gifted adults recognize how much better they are at some things than others and become arrogant, narcissistic, and full of themselves. These individuals frequently have significant interpersonal problems with co-workers or family and may end up running aground by getting fired, while blaming their employers for being too stupid to recognize their skills, knowledge, and abilities. A few bright people can be extremely manipulative, antisocial, and even psychopathic.

Some of the Invisible Ones run aground by turning to crime and may end up in prison. Others have used their abilities so adeptly that they escape detection or incarceration.

The worst-case scenario for Invisible Ones is suicide.

Statistics that correlate high ability with suicide are difficult to find largely because the capabilities of those who attempt or complete suicide have, in general, already become invisible. Bright individuals who attempt or complete suicide may well be responding to specific issues they faced during one or more earlier stages of their lives—issues that are magnified by their intensity, sensitivity, and depth of thinking.

All of this notwithstanding, some gifted adults merely make the choice to be invisible, at least some of the time.

One group of the Invisible Ones, usually those who choose invisibility, quietly pursue their individual passions, regardless of whether the fruits of their labors may ever be seen.

Setting a Course in Turbulent Times

Characteristics associated with giftedness have huge implications for each of the stages of life while gifted adults contemplate how they’re going to navigate the difficult challenges they grapple with these days. Tough decisions for gifted adults are now significantly affected by intense concerns about Covid and other life-threatening illnesses, along with a whole range of political, environmental, economic, and societal issues and their implications. Gifted adults’ complex thinking abilities and their inclination to be analytical have significant effects on them. Gifted adults are likely to consider every aspect and ramification of decisions they choose about each of the situations they are cur-

34 • Mensa Research Journal

rently facing in today’s troubled and troubling times. The compass headings they select for their current leg of life’s voyage are impacted by their ability to see all the possible ramifications of each and every decision in light of conflicting information presented to them from every side and from an incredible range of sources—some trustworthy and others more questionable. Gifted adults, more than others, are very likely to suffer from decision fatigue and Covid anxiety as well as the conflicts that they encounter with people whose views differ significantly from theirs.

Gifted adults need to consider factors related to their stage of life along with how to develop greater understanding and select alternative coping strategies to use as they sail life’s currently stormy seas. Suggested options for course corrections need to be adapted and modified for today’s world in order for gifted adults to chart an optimal course for themselves these days.

For instance, concerns about health and safely related to potential exposure to Covid and its variants, imply finding alternative routes for connecting with others and finding meaningful learning experiences that are challenging and relevant to them. Some suggested alternative approaches that can be useful include: • Technology—e.g., text, email, FaceTime, Zoom, Skype, social media, e-cards, etc. (a problem for those who aren’t tech-savvy or don’t have access to the devices they need) • Telephone calls—keeping lists of people to stay in touch with and calling them periodically • Snail mail—including “old-school”; letters (handwritten and/or typed, composed on a computer, smartphone, or tablet and printed out and mailed), greeting cards, and/or postcards • Participating in meetings and events via Zoom, Skype, or other platforms. Create a book club for remote involvement.

Looking Astern and Looking Ahead

Seasoned sailors rely on navigational aids to guide them through rough conditions that they encounter on their voyages. In much the same way, gifted adults benefit from knowing about typical issues for people like them at each of life’s stages and then consider suggested strategies for coping. Finding out about issues that gifted adults commonly experience on each leg of life’s journey are like those navigational aids; they provide guidance for moving forward throughout the lifespan toward smoother sailing.

Some of the experiences of bright adults are like home ports for sailors—places that they return to throughout the lifespan. For instance, all bright adults want acceptance and kindred spirits in their lives. They grapple with discovering how to live with their intensity while facing important challenges. They need to have consistent access to appropriate resources. And they yearn to find meaning in life.

Gifted Adults: Charting a Course Across the Lifespan

Sailors embarking on long voyages need to know what factors may affect their course. They need to know how to calibrate their compasses and recalibrate them when necessary to correct for deviation. Likewise, gifted adults need to be aware of issues for people like them that might send them off course. By implementing strategies that were useful for others, they can better steer in whatever directions work best for them.

Through greater understanding of experiences commonly shared by others like them at various ages and stages of life, gifted adults are more likely to rest easy in being themselves. Then, they can be better able to accept that an essential aspect of who they are and who they always have been is directly related to their being gifted.

References

Alvarado, N. (1989). Adjustment of gifted adults. Advanced Development, 1, 77-86.

Bateson, M. C. (2010). Composing a further life: The age of active wisdom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Bode, R. (1993). First you have to row a little boat: Reflections on life and living. New York: Warner Books.

Daniels, S. and Piechowski, M. M. (Eds.). (2009). Living with intensity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Erikson, E. (1951). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton.

Fiedler, E. D. (2015). Bright adults: Uniqueness and belonging across the lifespan. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press, Inc. Fiedler, E. D. (2009). Advantages and challenges of lifespan intensity. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living with intensity, pp. 167-184. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Fiedler, E. D. (2013). You don’t outgrow it! Giftedness across the lifespan. In C. S. Neville, M. M. Piechowski, & S. S. Tolan (Eds.), Off the charts: Asynchrony and the gifted child, pp. 183-210. Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks Press.

(Originally published in Advanced Development: Fiedler, E. D. (2012). You don’t outgrow it! Giftedness across the lifespan. Advanced Development, 13, 19-37.

Gross, M. U. M. (2000). In International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (2nd edition) by K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.). Retrieved from: www.curriculumsupport.education. nsw.gov.au/policies/gats/assets/pdf/llplk12gtlvls.pdf.

Jacobsen, M. E. (1999). Liberating everyday genius. New York: Ballantine.

Kottmeyer, C. (2007). Optimum intelligence: My experience as a too-gifted adult. Advanced Development, 11, 125-129.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row. Nauta, N. & Ronner, S. (2013). Gifted workers. St. Maartenslaan, The Netherlands: Shaker Media.

Roeper, A. (1982). How the gifted cope with their emotions. Roeper Review, 5(2), 21-24.

Silverman, L. K. (2010). Forward. In Kuipers, W. Enjoying the gift of being uncommon: Extra intelligent, intense, and effective. Zetermeer, the Netherlands: CreateSpace.

Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.). Counseling the gifted and talented, pp. 3-28.

Denver, CO: Love.

About the Author Dr. Ellen Fiedler, Professor Emerita at Northeastern Illinois University, wrote Bright Adults: Uniqueness and Belonging Across the Lifespan and chapters on gifted adults in Off the Charts: Asynchrony and the Gifted Child and in Living With Intensity. She regularly presents at national and international conferences and keynoted the first international symposium on adult giftedness.

What is life’s journey like for gifted adults, including elders? What stormy seas do they often encounter, and what winds sweep their lives in unexpected directions? In her Colloquium presentation, “Stormy Seas or Smooth Sailing? Being Gifted During Life’s Later Years,” Dr. Fiedler will offer insights into the complex world of gifted adults, with a particular focus on ages 50 and beyond.

Using real-life examples, she will describe the issues and challenges bright adults face at different ages and stages of life, and how they can weather life’s turbulent times.

Mensa members get 15% off the regular rate at more than 4,000 participating hotels.

Visit us.mensa.org/benefits for details.

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 35

MRJ

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder Tracy L. Cross, Jennifer Riedl Cross, Nataliya Dudnytska, Mihyeon Kim, and Colin T. Vaughn

Abstract

A psychological autopsy of an 18-year-old male with dual exceptionalities contributes to our understanding of suicide among students with gifts and talents. Using four theories and models of suicide and research on the lived experience of students with gifts and talents, a comprehensive analysis of this adolescent’s life offers implications for future suicide prevention among these students. Schools that are unprepared for exceptional students (gifted and/or 2e) may contribute to students’ distress. Professional development and adequate resources focused on the unique needs of exceptional students will promote a responsive environment for students’ positive psychosocial development. Parents, educators, and counselors need information and strategies for responding to community members in distress. Such knowledge can foster the necessary positive attitudes toward evidence-based treatment for conditions that affect well-being. The importance of limiting access to lethal means among persons in distress cannot be overstated.

A STUDENT STRUGGLING with suicidal ideation described the effects of suicide on society as like a large, intricate spider’s web that becomes torn and damages the web’s entire fabric. Suicide weakens the entire cultural fabric in obvious and less obvious ways. In 2017, nearly 45,000 people in the United States died by their own hand (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018a). Since 1999, suicide rates have increased by 28% (National Institute of Mental Health, 2018). Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States and the second leading cause of death among the 15 to 24-yearold age group in the country (CDC, 2016). It is estimated that suicides cost the United States $70 billion per year in combined medical and work loss costs (CDC, 2018a).

Most worrisome is the significant emotional upset, fear, worry, and anxiety that suicides create among families and significant others. It is incomprehensible when trying to estimate the aggregate cost of losing the gifts, talents, and potentials of tens of thousands of people per year in the United States. There are losses of possible accomplishments in art, music, medicine, research, sports, ad infinitum that will never be realized.

Some have hypothesized that students with gifts and talents (SWGT)1 may be at greater risk for suicide (e.g., Delisle, 1986) and may also engage in suicidal ideation differently than their nongifted peers, which presents important implications for understanding these students’ needs and exploring preventative interventions (Cross & Cross, 2018). What do we know about suicidal behavior in the United States, and how does it manifest among our school-aged populations? More specifically, what does

36 • Mensa Research Journal

research have to offer us in understanding the nature of suicidal behavior among our SWGT? This manuscript explores the life and death by suicide of an 18-year-old boy, identified gifted in elementary school, in an effort to contribute to the knowledge base about suicide among the gifted population.

One common metric used to consider suicidal behavior is prevalence rates, which are calculated as the number of completed suicides per 100,000 people within a defined group. Prevalence rates of completed suicide vary by sex and age group. In 2016, the prevalence rate for females age 15–24 was 5.4, for males 20.5 (CDC, 2018b). The highest prevalence rate among females was for the 45–64 age group: 9.9 per 100,000. For males, the highest prevalence rate in 2016 was in the 75+ age group: 39.2 per 100,000.

The United States maintains updated statistics about suicide, but within the numbers, many questions are left unanswered. Although such demographic variables as sex, ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status are considered, giftedness is not one of the variables about which statistics are collected, making it impossible to know the prevalence rate in this population.

Suicidal behavior clearly exists among SWGT (Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996; Cross, Gust-Brey, & Ball, 2002; Hyatt, 2010, 2011; Lester, 1991). The cases of suicides of Tracy L. Cross, Jennifer Riedl Cross, Nataliya Dudnytska, Mihyeon Kim & Colin T. Vaughn (2020) A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder, Roeper Review, 42:1, 6-24, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2019.1690081

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

numerous SWGT documented in multiple highly competitive academic settings at the university and K–12 levels are alarming (Cross & Cross, 2017, 2018). The lack of a substantial baseline of statistics on the suicides of SWGT creates a need for creative approaches to building a database that sheds light on the suicidal behavior of SWGT. Over the past 25 years, the first author has tried to describe the ideations and suicidal behaviors (i.e., thinking about suicide, attempts, and completions) of SWGT because of the suspected prevalence of completed suicides among this population. In the ensuing years, several studies have been completed to address suicide among SWGT. The research has reflected ideation patterns, which differ between gifted and nongifted samples (e.g., Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006). Other studies employed factor analysis to compare the patterns of ideation among SWGT and the general population (e.g., Cassady & Cross, 2006). The most labor-intensive work has been to conduct an ongoing series of psychological autopsies, or a form of in-depth case study (Yin, 2009), of SWGT who died by suicide (Cross et al., 1996, 2002; Hyatt, 2010). The present article reports on our latest effort to depict the life and death of an 18-year-old SWGT who died by suicide. Each of these cases contributes to our understanding of suicide within the gifted population.

Suicide of adolescents and young adults

Suicide is a serious concern across all age groups, especially for adolescents and young adults. CDC data show that, while the overall suicide rate has increased since 1950 from 11.4 to 13.6 completed suicides per 100,000, the youth suicide rates (those of ages 15–24) have more than doubled, from 4.5 to 12.5 (Cross & Cross, 2018). Gender and age differences exist within the groups: males are more likely to complete suicide than females, and high school students are more likely to complete suicide than college students (Cross & Cross, 2018). Gender differences also exist related to means of suicide: firearms, suffocation, and poisoning (including drug overdose) are the most common methods of suicide, where males are more likely to use firearms and females more likely to use poison (CDC, 2018c).

Risk factors Specific risk factors related to adolescent suicide have been identified. A review of research on adolescent suicide identified ten significant factors: (a) psychiatric disorders, (b) substance use, (c) cognitive and personality factors, such as hopelessness or neuroticism, (d) aggressive-impulsive behavior, (e) sexual orientation, relationships with someone engaging in suicidal behavior, (g) parental psychopathology, (h) stressful life circumstances, (i) glamorization of suicide in media coverage, and (j) access to lethal methods (Gould, Greenberg, Velting, & Shaffer, 2003). These risk factors span intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal,

and practical concerns that are relevant to all adolescents, including gifted youth. Gifted students may be especially prone to certain personality factors (e.g., perfectionism and overexcitabilities), stressful life circumstances (e.g., failure in school or rejection by peers) or other broader contexts (e.g., anti-intellectualism; Cross & Cross, 2018).

A certain sub-group of SWGT, those who also have identified disabilities, may be vulnerable to specific risk factors. Historically, the definition for students with dual exceptionalities has focused on students who have a specific learning disability and are identified as gifted, but more recent definitions have pushed to include mental illness, physical disabilities, and developmental or cognitive impairments (Ronksley-Pavia, 2015). These students may have difficulties, such as frustration in the school setting, low self-concept, and issues related to social skills and peer relations (King, 2005).

Models of suicidal behavior

Previous psychological autopsies of SWGT have utilized various models and theories in their examination of the data (e.g., Cross et al., 1996, 2002). In the intervening years, Cross (2013, 2018) has identified several of these that have particular utility for research on the suicide of individuals with gifts and talents. These prominent models of suicidal behavior were used to craft a framework for analyzing the data of this study. The theories and models used included the Suicide Trajectory Model (STM; Stillion & McDowell, 1996), White’s (2016) summary of risk and protective factors, psychache (Shneidman, 1993), and Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior (IPTSB; Joiner, 2005). Each of these theories and models provides structure for understanding suicidal behavior.

Based on correlational research, the STM considers four categories of risk factors: biological (e.g., gender or genetic bases), psychological (e.g., self-esteem or hopelessness), cognitive (e.g., inflexible thinking or negative self-talk), and environmental (e.g., family dysfunction or social isolation). The weight of these risk factors combines and eventually reaches a point when they outweigh an individual’s ability to cope, resulting in suicidal ideation (Stillion & McDowell, 1996). Based on a synthesis of the extensive clinical suicide risk assessment literature, White (2016) summarized factors at each contextual level—individual, family, peers, school, community, and sociopolitical—that have been identified empirically as predisposing an individual to suicidal behavior (e.g., previous suicide attempt, social isolation), contributing to suicidal behavior (e.g., poor coping skills, unprepared school staff), precipitating events (e.g., victimization, school failure), and protecting one from suicide (e.g., good physical and mental health, socially competent peers).

Psychache presents a more internal perspective, asserting that suicide attempts are the result of a person trying

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 37

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

to escape psychological pain (Shneidman, 1993). Under the psychache model, suicide develops through heightened hostility toward oneself, increased perturbation or mental distress, constriction of focus, and a determination that ending one’s life will end the pain (cessation).

Joiner’s (2005) IPTSB offers a newer model that builds on preceding theories and adds a new facet. Suicidal ideation is a result of thwarted basic needs to belong and contribute, “I am hopelessly alienated;” and perceived burdensomeness, “My death will be worth more than my life to others” (Joiner & Silva, 2012, p. 326). The final aspect of this theory—the role of learned fearlessness of physical pain, injury, or death—became the missing link as to why so many people engage in suicide ideation, but the vast majority never make an attempt (Joiner & Silva, 2012).

The combination of the STM, White’s factors, psychache, IPTSB, with findings from research on the psychology and lived experiences of students with gifts and talents (Coleman, Micko, & Cross, 2015; Cross & Cross, 2018) provides external and internal perspectives and potential explanations of completed suicides.

Suicide of adolescents and young adults with gifts and talents

Specific information regarding suicide and SWGT is unavailable, due to differing definitions of giftedness and collected demographic data that excludes identification of giftedness (Cross & Cross, 2018). Cross and Cross (2017) conducted a review of the relatively small research base on suicidal behavior among SWGT. The research is inconclusive regarding actual differences between SWGT and the general population. Dixon and Scheckel (1996) summarized factors related to giftedness and suicide in the literature, including perfectionism, isolation, and the five categories of overexcitabilities of Dąbrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration (TPD; i.e., psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional). The TPD identifies the potential to progress across developmental levels from egocentric to altruistic personalities related to several factors, including overexcitabilities, which are enhanced ways of being in the world (Dąbrowski, 1964; Piechowski, 1999).

Commonalities in psychological autopsies The literature base on suicide among SWGT includes psychological autopsies of four adolescents (three male, Cross et al., 1996; one female, Hyatt, 2010) and one young adult male (age 21; Cross et al., 2002). Among the male SWGT, the following similarities were found: (1) All four subjects exhibited overexcitabilities. Their overexcitabilities were expressed in ways or levels beyond the norm even among their peer SWGT. The four subjects had minimal prosocial outlets.

All four subjects experienced difficulty separating 38 • Mensa Research Journal

fact from fiction, especially overidentification with negative, asocial, or aggressive characters or themes in books and movies. They experienced intense emotions, felt conflicted, pained, and confused.

All four subjects devalued emotional experience and wanted to rid themselves of emotions.

(2) Each of the young men expressed polarized, hierarchical, and egocentric value systems.

(3) They each engaged in group discussions of suicide as a viable and honorable solution.

(4) Additionally, all four subjects expressed behaviors consistent with Level I (unilevel disintegration), or Level III (Spontaneous Multilevel Disintegration) Positive Disintegration. (Cross et al., 2002, p. 252) Amber, the female SWGT subject of Hyatt’s (2010) psychological autopsy, exhibited intense emotions and pain; had egocentric perfectionistic ideals; and talked with peers, but not adults, about suicide. These shared characteristics can be mapped onto existing models of adolescent suicide to offer possible explanations that are unique to SWGT.

Lived experience of SWGT

Every individual experiences life uniquely. Their interpretations of events are colored by their prior experiences, personal characteristics, and contexts. To learn what experiences, characteristics, and contexts may be common among SWGT, Coleman et al. (2015) set out to summarize 25 years of research gathered qualitatively from the perspective of the students themselves. The themes that emerged from this research are utilized as a lens through which to analyze the experiences of the subject of this study.

The essence of being gifted, according to Coleman et al.’s (2015) review of students’ own words, is being different.

Not only are these students actually different in their abilities, they perceive differences from peers. Their exceptional abilities often allow them to learn faster than their peers.

This rate of learning becomes more visible to others when the topics are more difficult or esoteric, further enhancing the differentness from peers. SWGT describe being more engaged in their learning and often exhibit deeper understanding than peers. Small differences at early ages can develop into big differences over time. Differences in motivation also create distance from peers. Many SWGT have an urge to learn and understand all they can in a domain, when their peers may show only a passing interest. Their passion for learning not only manifests in an intense interest, but also a heightened focus on the topic. It is exemplified by sustained involvement, which, under the right conditions, will lead to exceptional development of talent in the domain.

Despite differences in ability and motivation, many SWGT say they do not feel different from peers (Cole-

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

man et al., 2015). From their perspective, when it comes to learning, they are just more interested and more serious than peers. In interviews, these students indicated a strong desire to be treated as “normal,” without attention to their exceptional abilities. To escape the negative effects of the stigma of giftedness (Coleman, 1985; Coleman & Cross, 1988), these students recognized they could not always be themselves. The desire to be treated as normal, avoiding the stigma, sometimes led to coping behaviors, from hiding their interests and accomplishments to actually underachieving.

The characteristics of exceptional ability and increased motivation for learning are not always a good fit with the typical school setting. Describing this phenomenon of “ready child, unprepared school,” Coleman et al. (2015) explained, “This clash of gifted students’ traits and typical schooling results in the lived experience being described as having components of waiting for others, not being challenged, academic resistance, and sometimes being bullied” (p. 366). The experience of students in a school that is prepared for their desire for immersive learning at an appropriate pace, is radically different, offering exciting opportunities to learn and build positive relationships with peers and teachers.

Method

Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to capture and depict the life and death of Daniel2, an 18-year-old SWGT who died by his own hand. To that end, a psychological autopsy (PA) methodology was chosen. PA has utility in a variety of situations, including “Assisting medical examiners with ‘equivocal’ deaths, research on suicide, insurance claims, and criminal cases” (Knoll, 2008, p. 304), for example.

More specifically, in this study, the purpose was to provide research on suicide, help with efforts to prevent suicide, and promote understanding and adaptive grieving among the surviving family members and friends.

Psychological autopsy According to Knoll (2008), the goals of the PA include obtaining an in-depth understanding of the decedent’s personality, behavior patterns, and possible motives for suicide. The investigator strives to obtain an objective analysis of factors that increased and decreased the decedent’s risk of suicide. (p. 394)

PA was used as the primary means of exploring the life and death of Daniel. PA is an in-depth case study approach researching how and why something happened within its real-world context (Yin, 2009). It was originally created to assist insurers, law enforcement, or others in clarifying equivocal deaths (Shneidman & Farberow, 1961). PA includes studying evidence of the life of the deceased by collecting archival records (e.g., health, school), interview-

ing family members along with significant other relationships (e.g., romantic, family, friends, teachers, physicians), personal communications (e.g., emails and texts), diaries or journals, records of preferred music and books read, and other germane information (Ebert, 1987). Risk factors and any comorbid mental disorders are also often considered as part of the analysis (Knoll, 2008). The challenge of the PA approach is the need to carefully synthesize all collected data in an effort to depict the life and death of the deceased.

Procedures The PA for the present study began after the first author was contacted by the deceased student’s mother, who had been referred to his research by a friend. This mother described the situation of her son’s death and referred him to the website she had created about her son’s life and death. She requested that he conduct a PA of her son. The first author invited a research team to participate in this PA and began the process.

To conduct a PA, it is invaluable to have a champion who can be instrumental in helping obtain the archival records needed. The champion also can help identify the original round of interviewees by assisting in the development of a list of significant others. Daniel’s mother served in this role of champion and was very effective in enabling the study. She also participated as an interviewee and encouraged family members and friends of the deceased to participate in the study.

Eleven individuals (3 friends, 3 family members, 3 teachers, and 2 counselors) were interviewed. Most of the interviews went smoothly and were held immediately upon request. All interviews were conducted by phone or Skype (an online video and audio telecommunications application). Some of the interviews were completed early in the process and led to a broadening of the original list to be interviewed. By the completion of the data gathering process, four of those indicated as potential interviewees chose not to participate. In addition, one participant was interviewed twice, because of the extensive amount of information this participant shared and because the information shared in the initial round led to additional questions.

All interviews were recorded with permission and used to help generate additional research questions and hypotheses. Recorded interviews were stored in a secure space only accessed by the researchers. The interviews were conducted over a 1-year period of time by one member of the research committee. Unlike previous psychological autopsies completed by the first author, in this case, it was determined that the person who began the interviews had developed trust and a positive rapport with the early group of participants being interviewed, so the one researcher conducted all remaining interviews. A second and very important reason for this decision was that her Volume 53, Issue 2 • 39

tional response to the breakup with his first girlfriend executive function. A project like that at home he was and falling out with his close friend, he was diagnosed very successful with, because he had the intelligence to with “adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of think through what that project meant. But she would A Psychological of an Gifted Student Deficit Disorder help him aAutopsy lot with theIntellectually organization of the tasksWith thatAttentionemotion and conduct.” He did see a psychologist for Table 1. Evidence of suicide trajectory model factors.

Biological

Psychological

Cognitive

Environmental

Caucasian Male Adolescent ADHD Depression Moody Introvert

Frequent Ideation “Dark Places” Frustration with “The System” Quiet, “Mellow,” “Laid-back” Depression Apathy Introvert Intense Imagination Disinterest in School “Fearless” Satisfaction with Self-image Intense Relationships

High IQ/Gifted Identification Attention Deficit Poor Coping Strategies Poor Organizational Skills/Executive Function Decisive Impulsive Difficulty with Changes/Transitions Poor Anger Management

Intact Family Parental Support Parental Autonomy Negative Attitude toward ADHD Medication (Parents, Self) Negative Attitude toward Psychotherapy (Self) Western US Guns Gun Safety Attitude Mountains Cars Drugs/Alcohol/Smoking Violent Video Games Basement Bedroom/Isolation Best Friend Close Friends Parental Neglect among Friends Immature and Non-Academic Friends/Girlfriend Special Education Support for ADHD (Grades 6–8) No Special Education Support for ADHD (Grades 1–5, 9–12) Mountain Outdoor Lab Unsupportive School (Grades 4–5, 9–12) Supportive Gifted School (Grades 6–8)

insight across the interviews, relative to the depth and veracity of information collected, added to the fidelity of the data-gathering process. For example, by virtue of her hearing nuanced inconsistencies across interviews, followup interviews were deemed necessary. The interview recordings were reviewed by the other research team members.

Discussions were held to analyze the data, check for consistency, and consider future interview questions. The need for follow-up interviews was also determined by the team.

The school and health records were considered by a single research team member first, with presentations made to the research group about the materials. All team members were given access to all school and record materials, and each data source was analyzed by the larger group.

As the interviews were completed, a timeline of significant events and life experiences of the student was created and modified (Yin & Davis, 2007; see Appendix A). The final pieces of data were a transcription of an hours-long online chat between Daniel and his girlfriend, and his handwritten last will and testament, both from the night of his death.

These were the only words directly from Daniel. He left no suicide note.

As a quality control check, at the end of the study an outside licensed psychologist, who works with suicidal youth, served as a consultant. The consultant was asked to review the analysis and provide feedback on the subsequent report and discussion.

Data analysis

To begin the data analysis process, the researchers used a pattern-matching technique to compare our empirically based patterns with existing patterns (Bradshaw, 1999) using the STM, White’s (2016) Suicide Risk and Protective Factors, the IPTSB, and psychache. In addition, the researchers employed gifted education and twice-exceptional lenses. The twice-exceptional lens was added due to early evidence in the subject’s educational and medi-

40 • Mensa Research Journal

cal histories indicating the subject was identified with two exceptionalities, specifically giftedness and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). In addition, a timeseries analysis, or creating a chronology, was incorporated in the study as a descriptive pattern that could help identify specific risk factors that affected Daniel in childhood and adolescence (Yin & Davis, 2007). Combining these data analysis methods and lenses allowed us to make analytic generalizations using the above-mentioned theoretical frameworks (Cross & Cross, 2018; Joiner, 2005; Shneidman, 1993; Stillion & McDowell, 1996; White, 2016; Yin, 2009).

Results

Appendix A includes a Timeline of Significant Life Events of the subject. The timeline extends for the 18 years of the subject’s life, shedding light on specific experiences, themes, and important facts that had potential to be pertinent to the suicide. It is time now for the reader to turn to Appendix B, which contains a narrative summary of Daniel’s life. Important information related to the data analysis is in the appendices. Reading them first will clarify the findings described in the next section.

Suicide Trajectory Model factors Relevant biological, psychological, cognitive, and environmental factors of the STM are listed in Table 1. Daniel had a number of factors in each category that have been correlated with suicide risk. Caucasian males (biological factor) have higher rates of death by suicide than other groups (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention [AFSP], 2019). Daniel was diagnosed with ADHD in the first grade. This disorder is associated with an elevated risk of suicide (Impey & Heun, 2012), particularly among young males with comorbid conditions of conduct disorder and depression (James, Lai, & Dahl, 2004).

Daniel’s ADHD, which appeared to be predominantly

Community

School

Peers

Family

Individual

Key Content

Contributing Factors

● Reluctance/uncertainty about how to help

● History of negative school experience ● Lack of meaningful connection to school ● Anti-intellectualism

● ● ● ●

Multiple suicides Community marginalization Socioeconomic deprivation Anti-intellectualism

○ Lack of understanding ○ No intellectual peers ● Anti-intellectualism

Precipitating Factors

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

Failure Expulsion Disciplinary crisis School-based harassment Misunderstood by school personnel

Interpersonal loss or conflict Peer victimization Rejection Peer death by suicide

gatekeepers

● Inaccessible community resources

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

ROEPER REVIEW

(Continued )

Opportunities for youth participation Availability of resources Community ownership Control over services Culturally safe healing practices Opportunities to connect to land and nature

Success at school Interpersonal connectedness/belonging Supportive school climate School engagement Anti-harassment policies and practices Appropriate academic challenge Opportunity to be with intellectual peers

● Social competence ● Healthy peer modeling ● Peer friendship, acceptance, and support

● Connection to ancestors

family and elders

○ Advanced cognitive abilities ○ Social information management skills ● Long-term academic success

● ● ● ●

problem-solving skills Willingness to seek help Good physical and mental health Experience/feelings of success Strong cultural identity and spiritual health ● Living in balance and harmony

Protective Factors

● Individual coping, self-soothing, and

● Loss of significant family member ● Family cohesion and warmth ● Death of family members, espe- ● Positive parent-child connection ● Positive role models cially by suicide ● Recent conflict ● Active parental supervision ● High and realistic expectations ● Support and involvement of extended

○ Crisis with authority

○ Academic failure ● Victim of cruelty, humiliation, violence ● Individual trauma ● Health crisis

● Loss ● Personal Failure

● Sensational media portrayal of suicide ● High profile/celebrity death, ● Access to firearms or other lethal methods especially by suicide ● Uncertainty about how to help among key ● Conflict with law/incarceration

○ Mixed messages

among school staff ● Lack of concern among school staff

● Negative attitudes toward help seeking ● Limited/conflicted peer relationships ● Suicidal behaviors among peers

● Social isolation and alienation

Asperger’s/autism)

● Early childhood loss/separation or deprivation ● Family history of perfectionism

Family discord Punitive parenting Impaired parent-child relationships Invalidating interpersonal environment Multigenerational trauma and losses Mixed messages

● ● ● ● ● ●

○ Desire for authenticity ○ Hiding oneself for long periods of time ○ Learning to code-switch ○ Overexcitabilities ○ Introversion ○ Perfectionism (self-, socially prescribed esp.) ○ Persistent academic stress/pressure ● Long-term academic success

● ● ● ● ●

abilities) Limited distress tolerance skills Substance misuse Impulsivity Aggression Hypersensitivity/anxiety

● Rigid cognitive style ● Poor coping skills (hiding and denial of

● Family history of suicidal behavior/suicide ● Family history of mental disorder (maternal side –

● ● ● ●

other mental health problems Hopelessness Persistent and enduring suicidal thoughts History of childhood neglect, sexual or physical abuse Lack of trust in others

● Previous suicide attempt ● Depression, substance abuse, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or

Predisposing Factors

Table 2. Risk and protective factors at the time of Daniel’s death.*

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder 13

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 41

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

Note. Italicized items apply specifically to students with gifts and talents. *Gray highlighting indicates factors evident from interviews and other data.

Source. Cross and Cross (2018). Modified with permission from Preventing Youth Suicide: A Guide for Practitioners by White (2016), Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Precipitating Factors

Key Content Sociopolitical

● ● ● ●

Predisposing Factors Colonialism Historical trauma Cultural stress Interlocking oppressions

● ● ● ● ● ●

Contributing Factors Racism Sexism Classism Ableism Heterosexism Anti-intellectualism

● Social exclusion ● Social injustice

● ● ● ●

Social Social Social Social

Protective Factors capital justice safety net determinants of health

T. L. CROSS ET AL.

Table 2. (Continued).

14

42 • Mensa Research Journal

inattention without hyperactivity (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), was controlled by medication in elementary and middle school.

Tablenot 3. Interpersonal-psychological factors.

He did receive special education theory support for his ADHD from his Factor Evidence school district and had no Individualized Education Plan (IEP) in his Alienation Few friends by choice; increased isolation in elementary or highbasement; school. stopped His mother was, however, very involved in attending community college classes; support rejected teacher in auto class as unmotivating; his school and provided on school tasks.

She advocated for his ran away from home two days before. special needs, particularly for his giftedness, Burdensomeness Anxiety about girlfriend’s possible making pregnancy;the Finaldifficult decichat withmultiple girlfriend says, “If you decidethe to keep it [the sion to change his schools times to find appropriate setting. baby], it will be better off without me.”

The private middle school he attended emphasized small class sizes and Fearlessness Father description of him “He wasn’t afraid of anything.”with Best friend said,on “Hein-depth, had more conviction an integrated curriculum a focus open-ended learnany other human being I’ve ever met.” Final chat ing, characteristics than associated with positive academic outcomes for stuwith girlfriend, about killing himself, “It’s easy.” dents with ADHD (Loe & Feldman, 2007). One middle school teacher remembered,

motivation was supported intensifiedhim bysohis inability to master I think his mother much with that executive funcmathematics, a requirement for the occupation he because tion. A project like that at home he was very successful with, would like.

His basement room, locks hethought had the he intelligence to think through what that with project meant. But onwould the door, provided Daniel with privacy and seclushe help him a lot with the organization of the tasks that needed

adding further with better his parents and tosion, be done … .toShe knewdisconnect Daniel I think than anyone.

She younger siblings.

He was no longer in school with knew what he needed for scaffolding, she knew how his to support younger friends, not see them on a regular basis. him with these kindsoofdid open-ended projects.

He had been trying to break up with his girlfriend, but Daniel’s high school did not offer opportunities for the kind of openthis process was not going well. Her claims about being ended projects he did in middle school, nor any support for his ADHD. pregnant with his child caused him anxiety for the Depression (biological and psychological factor) may have been presfuture. His parents offered support, but his response ent earlier, but symptoms became evident from interviews describing was to run away. He expressed his feelings of being Daniel’s high school years, when his environment was less supportive a burden to others in his final online chat with his of his ADHD, “If with large class to sizes, highly structured no girlfriend: you decide keep it [the baby], itcurriculum, will special education support, and no ADHD medication.

Described by be better off without me.” friends,Evidence family and teachers as having a quiet, laid-back personality, a of Daniel’s fearlessness—his willingness to highdo school counselor saw something more concerning: himself physical harm—comes from his father, who There were times wheninner Daniel had a flat affect, you know. And to me described Daniel’s strength: the scariest thing in the high school age is the teenager’s apathy. Take I don’tfine, thinkwehecan liked conflict any more than other anyone depression, work with that, you know, emotions are else. But he wasn’t as bothered by it as other people. fine, but … when I sense apathy, man, that’s the one that scares the hell And if people wanted to be confrontational with out ofhim, me. he was ok with it. I don’t think he got into

more than a couple fights. I by think when interest people in activities His guidance counselor wasofreassured Daniel’s pushed against him they looked in his eyes and that happened outside school, however, and did not recommend his thought “I’m not going to mess with him.” Because parentshe seek additional The afraid strongest was this littlepsychological skinny thing.support.

He wasn’t of evidence for Daniel’sanything. depression came from his friends, who reported seeing it firsthand. His parents were unaware of his previous expressions of suicidal Daniel’s friends describe his strength of conviction, ideation and were “blindsided” by his death. After Daniel’s emotional which his father suggested might have been viewed as response to the breakup with his first girlfriend and falling out with his stubbornness. One friend said, “I definitely knew that close friend, he was diagnosed with “adjustment disorder with mixed he had the disposition … to have the conviction to be disturbance of emotion and conduct.” He did see a psychologist for able do it.” In the end, Daniel told his girlfriend that seven or eight sessions of psychotherapy, but he refused to continue, killing himself would be “easy.” jumping out of his mother’s parked car and running away from the appointment.

Daniel’s attention deficit (cognitive factor) manifested in poor orgaEvidence of Daniel’s psychache nizational skills and coping strategies. He had difficulty controlling his It becomes increasingly difficult to intervene in an indivianger and behaved impulsively.

Despite his intellectual ability, withdescent into suicidal developinpsyout dual’s academic supports, he was intention unable toasbethey successful school, leadchache, the intolerable psychological feelavailable they ing him to focus his attentions elsewhere. pain Withthey readily drugs, must Through his (environmental research with suicidal patients guns, cars,escape. and video games factors), areas where he Shneidman (1985,along 1993)) identified patterns disinterested of could be successful, with a groupcommon of academically

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

Table 3. Interpersonal-psychological theory factors.

Factor

Evidence

Alienation

Few friends by choice; increased isolation in basement; stopped attending community college classes; rejected teacher in auto class as unmotivating; ran away from home two days before.

Burdensomeness Anxiety about girlfriend’s possible pregnancy; Final chat with girlfriend says, “If you decide to keep it [the baby], it will be better off without me.”

Fearlessness Father description of him “He wasn’t afraid of anything.” Best friend said, “He had more conviction than any other human being I’ve ever met.” Final chat with girlfriend, about killing himself, “It’s easy.”

friends with whom to enjoy these activities, attention to motivationbecame was intensified by his inability to tomaster schoolwork less important or meaningful him. mathematics, a requirement for the he His desire to cease his ADHD medication occupation was acceptable thought he would like.

His basement room, with locks to his parents, coming after his success in middle school. “I on the door,wants provided Danieltheir withkid,” privacy andmother. seclumean nobody to medicate said his sion, adding to further disconnect with his parents and Believing that he had outgrown his ADHD, that it had younger siblings.

He was no longertoinavoid school with his “run its course,” it seemed appropriate unnecessary younger friends, so did not see them on a regular basis. medication. Without the special education and parental He had been trying to break up with his girlfriend, but support for his task management in his high school classthis process was not going well.

Her claims about being es, however, academic success was unattainable. Daniel pregnanttowith child caused for the appeared have ahis generally negativehim view anxiety of treatment for future.

His parents offered support, but his response his unique conditions. As indicators of depression emerged, wasparents to runaccepted away. He expressed feelings ofinbeing his Daniel’s refusalhis of treatment, part a burden to others in his final online chat his because there were signs of improvement, but alsowith because girlfriend: “If you decide to keep it [the baby], it will of his forceful rejection of psychotherapy. His attention be better off without me.” deficit and his depression were environmental factors in Evidence of Daniel’s fearlessness—his willingness to his risk for suicide. do himself physical harm—comes from his father, who described Daniel’s factors inner strength: Risk and protective At the individual Tableany 2), more Daniel’s I don’t think helevel liked(see conflict thandepression, anyone hopelessness, ideation, trust in else. But hesuicidal wasn’t as botheredand by his it aslack otherofpeople.

And if have peoplepredisposed wanted to be toconfrontational with adults may him suicide risk. The selfhim, hechallenges was ok with it. I don’t he got characinto regulation of ADHD and think the internal more than a couple of fights. I think when people teristics of passion for those things he was interested in pushed against him they looked in his eyes and (e.g.,thought his imaginational overexcitability; Appendix “I’m not going to mess withsee him.”

BecauseB), paired with persistent academic pressure, could have of conhe was this little skinny thing. He wasn’t afraid anything. tributed to his suicide risk. The breakup with his girlfriend, academic failure and the decision to drop out of college Daniel’s friends describe his strength of conviction, were precipitating risk factors in his decision to kill himself. which his father suggested might have been viewed as Despite his advanced cognitive abilities and prior academstubbornness. One friend said, “I definitely knew that ic success, without other skills or supports, Daniel did not he had the disposition … to have the conviction to be appear to have the individual level protective factors that able do it.” In the end, Daniel told his girlfriend that could savedwould him from psychache. killinghave himself be “easy.”

Daniel came from an intact family, with economic resources (protective). His father was very accepting and relaxed in their relationship.

Daniel’s relationship with his Evidence of Daniel’s psychache mother was described as “a good one” by friends and family.

It becomes difficult intervene in andiscord. indiviEven so, she increasingly had expectations thattoled to frequent dual’s suicidal intention theyconflict developwith psyOn thedescent day of into his death, Daniel was as facing chache,his themother, intolerable pain they feel they school, and psychological his girlfriend (precipitating).

His must escape. his research with suicidal patients mother’s activeThrough supervision was likely a protective factor 1993))but identified patterns of inShneidman his earlier(1985, schooling, may notcommon have been in later years. Although he had developed a small social circle that

should have been protective, in his high school years Daniel surrounded himself with younger, academically disengaged friends, leading to alienation (predisposing) from more academically oriented peers who might identify with his giftedness. He experienced rejection when he was unable to reach his closest friends on the night of his suicide, a possible precipitating factor in his suicide risk.

Daniel’s school and community offered little in the way of protective factors. Although each of his school transitions was deliberate and thoughtfully considered to find the right setting for his unique needs, the failure that began with his transition to high school escalated, turning him off from academics (predisposing), with a lack of concern among the school staff to help him through these challenging times (contributing). The multiple suicides in his community— this region has one of the highest suicide rates in the United States (Cross & Cross, 2017)—and the ready availability of guns were predisposing and contributing factors to Daniel’s suicide risk. One friend had been hospitalized for suicidal ideation, but it is unclear whether Daniel had talked about suicide with that friend. Daniel was a member of the dominant social group in the United States, but his rejection of “the system” of academic success, which would lead to a “cookie-cutter” occupation (as his best friend described their future opportunities), led to his social exclusion at the sociopolitical level, perhaps precipitating his decision to take his life.

Interpersonal-psychological factors Daniel’s gravitation toward a new social group and increased substance use coincided with increased alienation from his family. He was no longer interested in pursuing the hobbies he and his father and mother shared (history and photography) purely for the intrinsic reward.

He refused to participate in family vacations or events (i.e., family funeral), preferring to stay alone in the house for weeks and spending time with his friends and girlfriend rather than with his family.

Ever an introvert, Daniel experienced increasing alienation in the weeks before his death (see Table 3). He had reconnected with his closest friend in community college, but, where his friend was finding academic success, Daniel was experiencing failure. His lack of motivation was intensified by his inability to master mathematics, a requirement for the occupation he thought he would like. His basement room, with locks on the door, provided Daniel with privacy and seclusion, adding to further disconnect with his parents and younger siblings. He was no longer in school with his younger friends, so did not see them on a regular basis. He had been trying to break up with his girlfriend, but this process was not going well. Her claims about being pregnant with his child caused him anxiety for the future. His parents offered support, but his response was to run away.

He expressed his feelings of being a burden to others in his

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 43

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

final online chat with his girlfriend: “If you decide to keep it [the baby], it will be better off without me.” thinking. This pattern was evident in Daniel’s case (see Evidence of Daniel’s fearlessness—his willingness to Table 4). He exhibited heightened inimicality when he do himself physical harm—comes from his father, who made multiple previous suicide threats. His best friend described Daniel’s inner strength: was saddened, but not surprised, when he learned of I don’t think likedhad conflict anyDaniel’s more than anyonetoward else.

Daniel’s death.he He heard hostility But he wasn’t as bothered by it as other people.

And the self previously, as had his girlfriend, who referredif to wanted to be he was hispeople earlier threats to confrontational kill himself in with theirhim, online chat. ok with it. I don’t think he got into more than a couple Daniel’s parents noted his exacerbation of perturbation of fights. I think when people pushed against him they (“how shook up, ill at ease, or mentally upset the person looked in his eyes and thought “I’m not going to mess is,” Shneidman, 1993, p. 223) in the days before his death. with him.” Because he was this little skinny thing. He He had afraid comeoftoanything. them for support concerning his girlwasn’t friend’s claim of pregnancy and told them that he had Daniel’s friends describe his and strength of conviction, missed his midterm exams was going to drop which out of his father suggested might have been viewed as stubborncollege. Only days before he died, he had fought with his ness.

Oneand friend knewwhere that he the mother run said, away“Itodefinitely a local park, hehad stayed, disposition … to have the conviction to be able to do alone, for hours before contacting his father, asking toit.” be In the end, Daniel told hismentally girlfriend thatduring killingthis himself picked up. He was clearly upset time. would be “easy.”

Evidence for Daniel’s increased constriction of intellectual focus (the suicidal person’s dichotomous thinking Evidence of Daniel’s psychache and unwillingness to consider the effects of suicide on It becomes increasingly difficult to intervene in an individothers) is found on the night of his death. During his final ual’s descent into suicidal intention as they develop psychonline chat with his girlfriend, Daniel decided he must ache, the intolerable psychological pain they feel they must make a will. He learned about how to do it online and escape. Through his research with suicidal patients Shneicreated an official last will and testament that outlined his dman identified common patterns of thinkwishes(1985, for his1993) belongings after his death.

He looked up ing.

This pattern was evident in Daniel’s case (see Table 4). how to kill himself and followed the instructions, using He heightened whenfrom he made multioneexhibited of his several guns. inimicality A conversation the online ple previous suicide threats.

His best friend was saddened, chat with his girlfriend on the night of his death reveals but surprised, when he of Daniel’s death. the not depth of his despair, hislearned psychache (see Table 4). He had heard Daniel’s hostility toward the self previously, as had his girlfriend, who referred to his earlier threats to kill Application of SWGT experience research himself in their online lived chat. Daniel’s parents noted his exacerbation of perturbation (“how shook up,lived ill at ease, or It is impossible to fully understand Daniel’s experimentally upset the person is,” Shneidman, 1993, p.

223) ence without being able to talk with him. With no Table 4. Psychache evidence.

Factor Heightened inimicality (hostility/ unfriendliness toward the self) Excessive perturbation (being shook up, ill at ease, mentally upset)

Evidence

Multiple suicide threats; increased isolation/alienation Mentally upset over breakup with girlfriend, possible pregnancy; did not want to pursue further education; tried to reach out to friends without success; did not have understanding and trusting relationships with his family (ran away from home two days before); obvious psychache: when asked in final chat with girlfriend why he had not killed himself after previous threats, “I had hope” “Why don’t you now?” “Because nothing good is going to happen.”

Increased constriction of Tells girlfriend “goodbye”; internet intellectual focus (dichotomous search of methods for gun use; thinking and unwillingness to unable to access others who would consider the effects of suicide dissuade him; basement room on others) isolation Cessation Ready access to guns; dies by gunshot

44 • Mensa Research Journal

ROEPER REVIEW

15

in the days before his death. He had come to them for support concerning his girlfriend’s claim of pregnancy and journals and very few of his own written words, our told them that he had missed his midterm exams and was evidence must be inferred from interviews and others’ going to drop out of college. Only days before he died, observations. Coleman et al. (2015) reviewed the he had fought with his mother and run away to a local research on the lived experience of SWGT over the park, where he stayed, alone, for hours before contacting previous 25 years. They found general trends in this his father, asking to be picked up. He was clearly mentally research base: the essence of being gifted is differentness upset during this time. in ability and motivation; differentness and the gifted Evidence for Daniel’s increased constriction intelleclabel produce challenges to identity; and theofpreparedtual focus (the suicidal person’s dichotomous thinking and ness of the school setting has a major influence. unwillingness to consider the effects of suicide on others) isDifferentness found on the night of his death. During his final online chat withmembers, his girlfriend, decided he must make a Family friends,Daniel teachers, and counselors all comwill.

He learned about how to do it online and created an mented on Daniel’s introversion. He tended to be quiet and official last willonly andatestament that outlined his wishes for liked to have few friends around.

SWGT often have his belongings after his death.

He looked up how to kill difficulty in finding actual peers (Coleman et al., 2015). himself therelationship instructions,with using one ofwho his sevDanieland builtfollowed the closest a friend was eral guns.

A conversation from the online chat with his much like him, verbally gifted, with a similar intense intergirlfriend on the night of his death reveals the depth of his est in fantasy worlds. Daniel was different from his classdespair, hiskindergarten psychache (see Table3rd 4). grade. Not only was he mates in through

an unidentified SWGT for most of that time, his ADHD Application of SWGT lived experience research was noticeable enough that he was tested for it in the first Itgrade. is impossible fullyaunderstand Daniel’s lived experiStudentstowith disability are frequently socially ence without being able to talk with him.

With no jour-& marginalized (Chen, Hamm, Farmer, Lambert, nals and very fewOnce of hishis own written words, evidence Mehtaji, 2015).

ADHD was underour control, his must be inferred from interviews and others’ observations. giftedness would have continued to make him different Coleman et al. While (2015) atreviewed the research the lived from peers. the private middleonschool for experience of SWGT over the previous 25 years.

They SWGT, Daniel may have found intellectual peers, but his found general in this research base: the essence ADHD couldtrends have contributed to continued feelings of of being gifted is differentness abilityteacher and motivation; differentness.

One middle inschool describeddifthe ferentness andself-regulation the gifted label produce idenvery strong skills amongchallenges several oftothe stutity; andinthe preparedness of the which school contrasted setting has with a major dents Daniel’s small class, his influence. executive function difficulties: “In those classes there were some kids who were teacher pleasers who could balance Differentness everything all at once. I don’t know what it did to him Family friends, teachers, counselorstoallbecominside,members, but I imagine it was reallyand intimidating with mented on Daniel’s introversion.

He tended to be quiet and those kids.” likedThe to have only a few friends around.

SWGT ofteninhave experience of differentness is often salient the difficulty in finding actual peers (Coleman et al., motivation or passion for learning among 2015).

SWGT Daniel builtet the closestInrelationship withDaniel a friend who (Coleman al., 2015). the third grade, designed was like him, with a similar intense an much elaborate plan verbally to buildgifted, an underground recreation interest fantasy Daniel was different from his center in under his worlds. school playground.

He and his friend classmates in kindergarten grade.

Not video only shared a love of imaginary through worlds in3rd books, movies, was he anand unidentified SWGT for most ofschoolwork that time, that his games, fantasy play.

He embraced ADHD was noticeable enough that he was tested for it allowed him to freely explore a topic, such as a biology inexperiment the first grade.

Students with a disability are frequenton plants or an in-depth exploration of paper lyairplanes. socially marginalized Hamm, Lambert, Daniel was (Chen, passionate aboutFarmer, U.S. history, an &interest Mehtaji, 2015). with Oncehishis ADHD under control, he shared father.

His was interest in guns was his giftedness have continued to make him different in-depth andwould he passionately pursued the details of this from peers. While at theAlthough private middle school were for SWGT, nonacademic subject. his friends someDaniel may have found intellectual peers,about but his ADHD what interested, they saw him as “crazy gun maincould have…contributed continued of differenttenance, crazy abouttogun safety” feelings (high school friend). ness.

Oneschool, middle his school teacher described the very strong In high passions focused on music and cars, self-regulation among several thesustain students in Dantwo areas in skills which he was ableofto interest in

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

iel’s small class, which contrasted with his executive function difficulties: “In those classes there were some kids who were teacher pleasers who could balance everything all at once. I don’t know what it did to him inside, but I imagine it was really intimidating to be with those kids.”

The experience of differentness is often salient in the motivation or passion for learning among SWGT (Coleman et al., 2015). In the third grade, Daniel designed an elaborate plan to build an underground recreation center under his school playground. He and his friend shared a love of imaginary worlds in books, movies, video games, and fantasy play. He embraced schoolwork that allowed him to freely explore a topic, such as a biology experiment on plants or an in-depth exploration of paper airplanes.

Daniel was passionate about U.S. history, an interest he shared with his father. His interest in guns was in-depth and he passionately pursued the details of this nonacademic subject. Although his friends were somewhat interested, they saw him as “crazy about gun maintenance, … crazy about gun safety” (high school friend). In high school, his passions focused on music and cars, two areas in which he was able to sustain interest in school. Having found these passions relatively late in his short life, we do not know if Daniel would have been willing to make sacrifices in pursuit of developing his talent in these areas.

Identity Much research has found that SWGT prefer to be seen as “normal” (Coleman et al., 2015) and Daniel, too, did not wish to be seen as different. His friends and family described him as comfortable with himself: “He was just always content to be alone or with close friends” (Mother). Even so, Daniel’s mother said, “He didn’t like being singled out [in the elementary gifted program]. He didn’t like feeling different.” His underachievement in high school may have been, at least in part, an effort to disidentify as a SWGT, so that he fit in with a different social group (Cross, Coleman, & Terhaar-Yonkers, 1991). No longer a part of the gifted crowd in the IB program, he may have wanted to be better accepted by his new, academically disengaged friends. It was during high school that his mother encouraged him to advocate for himself and his gifted abilities. His response was “It’s not a gift.

It’s a curse.” Coleman et al. (2015) described several studies of SWGT similarly rejecting the label, because of the unwanted attention from peers and the expectations it elicits from both peers and adults.

Ready child, unprepared school Daniel had the potential to be a highly successful student, as his 99th percentile CogAT (third grade) and 92nd percentile on both the WISC-III (fifth grade) and the Stanford Achievement Test (seventh grade) scores attest. At kindergarten, he entered a school system with “chrono-

logically based expectations for behavior [that was] not organized for advanced learning” (Coleman et al., 2015, p. 366). Almost immediately, he faced problems with his kindergarten teacher, who, according to Daniel’s mother, did not connect with Daniel and reported his inattentiveness with “every day either a happy or sad face posted on his backpack.” His first grade teacher was a better fit and recommended testing for the inattentiveness.

He received no school support for his ADHD. Daniel’s elementary school was not prepared for his ADHD or his giftedness. When his CogAT scores came back, his third grade teacher said, “Not our Daniel.” Only through his mother’s strong advocacy was Daniel placed in a district gifted magnet school in the fourth grade. This, too, was a woefully unprepared school setting, with class sizes of more than 30 students and a teacher who had not been trained in working with gifted students. His mother said, “It wasn’t a good fit, but he tried, she tried, I tried.”

After 2 years in the same ineffective school setting, Daniel’s parents applied for a private academy that was actually prepared for both his giftedness and his ADHD. He thrived for 3 years, but high school was another example of an unprepared school.

An IB program was not necessarily a good fit for SWGT coming from a private middle school that offered a highly individualized, flexible program emphasizing exploration and creativity. In addition, Daniel, who had struggled with math concepts in middle school, was placed in an honors math class. With these placement issues and no support for his ADHD, the school failed Daniel. When he changed schools, yet again, in his senior year, he had difficulty with inflexible teachers. As Daniel’s mother describes, one teacher demanded, “‘Show up on time and ready to participate or don’t bother’ and Daniel never darkened his door again.” Only one teacher, in an automotive customization class for high school students at the local community college, was able to engage Daniel and maintain his interest. An unprepared school in Daniel’s case likely contributed to his depression.

As his friend described, “You just feel like the odds are stacked against you every single day, no one gives a sh ; … nobody cares about whether or not you’re successful.” The lack of care for Daniel’s well-being manifested in a deep-seated anger toward school. His friend describes the result of this inattention to his needs: “I don’t think anybody truly asked why he was pissed off about school.

Why he was not excited about impressing the people you are supposed to impress. I know why—it was because he didn’t respect them.”

Discussion

An examination of risk factors may encourage readers to focus on one or two as “the cause” of Daniel’s death. It must be kept in mind, however, that Stillion and McDow-

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 45

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

ell’s (1996) model proposes that it is the accumulation of biological, psychological, cognitive, and environmental factors that leads to suicidal behavior. The interaction of factors is complex and the effects highly individualistic (White, 2016). The identification of each risk factor offers an opportunity for intervention. Where one predisposing, contributing, precipitating, or protective factor may be obvious to those in proximity to the individual at risk, the combination of all of these is less likely to be apparent. A retrospective analysis advantages the reader, but a study such as this one does not seek to provide a single, definitive answer to the question “Why did Daniel kill himself?” The four theories used in this analysis offer a framework for understanding inputs (STM and White’s risk and protective factors) and outputs (IPTSB and psychache). Giftedness, too, plays an important role in this PA. The combination of these various perspectives has explanatory power for the ultimate outcome (Daniel’s suicide).

In evaluating the chronology of significant events in Daniel’s life, his transition from middle school to high school stands out as a turning point (see Appendices A & B). It was at this time that his academic failures began in earnest. Having stopped his ADHD medication and in a new school, where he did not receive special education support, knew few students, and was enrolled in a highly structured academic program that was virtually the opposite of his open-ended, highly individualized middle school experience, his grades immediately began dropping. Molina and Pelham (2003) found that severe inattention among adolescents diagnosed with childhood ADHD was associated with increased substance abuse.

They proposed that this relationship may be mediated by academic failure, which can cause students to “gravitat[e] away from conventional group values and behaviors that include academic success, and gravitat[e] toward nonconformist peer groups where substance use is tolerated and modeled” (p. 504). This pattern was evident in Daniel’s case, as his new friends in high school were not academically oriented and were involved in substance use, a potential contributing factor to his suicide risk.

Daniel’s substance use may also have been an attempt at self-medication for his depression (Sarvet et al., 2018).

He exhibited signs of major depressive disorder during his junior year of high school, following his breakup with his first girlfriend: unwilling to get out of bed and failing all his academic classes. Although treatment for depression was sought, it was not given a chance to be effective when Daniel refused to continue therapy with a psychologist. With numerous evidenced-based treatment possibilities, such therapy could have helped Daniel overcome his depression. A majority of people who died by suicide suffered from depression (Cukrowicz & Poindexter, 2014).

46 • Mensa Research Journal

Challenges of dual exceptionalities Daniel’s giftedness was identified more than a year after his ADHD diagnosis (see Appendix A). Successful treatment through medication and special education supports may have allowed his exceptional academic ability to become apparent. This sequence of events may have had an impact on Daniel’s parents’ response to his educational situation.

His mother felt guilty about his need for medication and worried about their depressing effect on his appetite, but once she realized how much they helped his ability to be successful in school, she accepted them as a necessity. Early on, the seed of doubt over the accuracy of his ADHD diagnosis grew when she learned about giftedness. “From the very beginning I remember not knowing anything about this. I remember looking at characteristics of gifted kids, and characteristics of kids with attention deficit and seeing they were the same ones.” Researchers at the time were alerting parents to the possibility of misdiagnosis (e.g., Lind, 2000) and an Internet search would have fertilized doubts. Giftedness can manifest in some settings as problematic, as when a child is referred for assessment because of an “attention problem; seem[ing] to be ‘in their own world,’” when a possible explanation related to giftedness could be an “unchallenging or under-challenging curriculum” (Amend & Peters, 2012, p. 592). The zeitgeist in the mid-2000’s encouraged an emphasis on giftedness over ADHD. With Daniel’s exceptionally high test scores, it was a reasonable assumption at the time that his inadequate academic environment played a major role in his attention problems.

The sequence of Daniel’s dual diagnoses may have been, in fact, fortuitous. Had his gifted identification occurred first, it would have been tempting for his parents and teachers to interpret his attentional problems as a lack of motivation or willpower. Brown, Reichel, and Quinlan (2009) found that “individuals with high IQ who have ADHD may be at increased risk of having recognition and treatment of their ADHD symptoms delayed until relatively late in their educational careers because teachers and parents tend to blame the student’s disappointing academic performance on boredom or laziness, especially as they notice the situational variability of their ADHD symptoms” (p.

166). Discovering early that Daniel had an attention deficit allowed his parents to find effective treatments and recognize their positive effects.

The obvious positive impact of an appropriate curriculum at his private, gifted middle school may have been a consideration when making the decision to discontinue medication. His ability to focus his attention on activities he enjoyed was another indication that he no longer needed the supports he once did. Citing more recent research, Brown (2009, 2014)) pointed out the ability of most people with ADHD to focus very effectively on activities they find intrinsically motivating. The variability of

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

the brain’s dysfunctional regulation of neurotransmitters in ADHD may frustrate parents and teachers, who see the ability to attend in one setting, when the neurotransmitter regulation is appropriate, but not in another. The correct medication can be very effective in supporting this regulation (Brown, 2009).

Ronksley-Pavia, Grootenboer, and Pendergast (2019) found the participants with dual exceptionalities in their qualitative study felt that being pulled out of the regular classroom for either disability or gifted services increased the threatening nature of their school environments. Selfesteem and motivation were severely impacted by their inability to develop a social identity as gifted and the desire to avoid stigmatization as disabled. Unprepared schools, with untrained teachers, had a negative effect on these students with dual exceptionalities. Daniel may have suffered from a similar challenge to his identity.

Honor in underachievement Daniel and his best friend had frequent conversations about the futility and perniciousness of “the system” they felt forced to be a part of. In their views, their education was a benefit to others, not to them. The “piece of paper at the end” was little reward for the hours of boredom and frustration they experienced. ADHD may have played a role in Daniel’s attitude, as those with attention deficits tend to experience “delay aversion”—a preference for immediate over long-term rewards—at a greater rate than others. Their reduced working memory capacity can make it more difficult to deal with situations provoking negative emotions, as they may not be able “to keep in mind other facts and feelings that might help to attenuate their current emotional state” (Brown, 2014, p. 211). These facts do not absolve an education system that is, in reality, unprepared for its SWGT, twice exceptional or not.

Kanevsky and Keighley (2003) interviewed SWGT who had dropped out of high school, attempting to learn how their schools could have kept them engaged. The themes evident in the students’ expressed desires were (a) control over their educational options, (b) challenging curriculum, (c) the ability to act on their own choices, (d) complexity in their learning experiences, and (e) caring teachers.

With the exception of his automotive customization class, Daniel was missing all of these in high school. Kanevsky and Keighley’s dropouts believed their schools disrespected them by not providing an appropriate learning environment and an honorable response was to stop producing.

Daniel clearly believed similarly.

Commonalities among SWGT who died by suicide As mentioned previously, five cases of SWGT have been conducted (Cross et al., 1996, 2002; Hyatt, 2010). In a review of these studies, several commonalities with Daniel’s case related to giftedness surface. He exhibited imagi-

national overexcitabilities, with a level of interest in fantasy worlds beyond the norm. His small social circle and selfimposed isolation from his family manifested in minimal prosocial outlets. Daniel expressed anger, frustration, and confusion about his future. His value system was egocentric, rejecting a hierarchical society built on achievements that he did not find meaningful. Daniel had spoken with friends about suicide, but like all five SWGT of psychological autopsies, did not consult adults who would have been “capable of disconfirming his irrational logic” (Cross et al., 2002, p. 252). Reed Ball, the subject of Cross et al.’s (2002) psychological autopsy, was also twice exceptional, with undiagnosed bipolar disorder, which was never effectively treated, in addition to being highly gifted.

Limitations

PA is an inherently limited methodology, as it relies on external evidence to evaluate internal motivations. This study was limited by Daniel’s few available writings. A journal or diary might have indicated more of the thinking that was inferred here from others’ observations and interpretations. There was significant consistency in the multiple interviews and other records. Little information provided came from only one source. This was helpful in addressing another possible limitation, the use of Daniel’s family and friends as informants. Each of them would have been affected by his death. It is possible that grief or guilt may have led to some uncandid or incomplete responses by the participants. In the time since Daniel’s death, a narrative had been developed among most participants.

The delay in time may have affected memories, particularly among those less close to Daniel, such as his teachers or counselors.

Implications

Schools that are unprepared for their SWGT, especially those with dual exceptionalities, may contribute to their frustration and distress. Knowledge about the unique needs of students with dual exceptionalities is critical for schools and parents. Attention to their strengths is necessary for their well-being, but the same is true for their disability. Not all school professionals are aware of the unique needs of SWGT with a coexisting disability (Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, & Colangelo, 2013). Education for parents and school personnel on both exceptionalities, including their characteristics, development, and interactions, can help in appropriate decision making. Students with dual exceptionalities, themselves, could benefit from more knowledge about both exceptionalities. Learning to advocate for themselves from an enlightened perspective would be helpful in developing their sense of agency. The involvement of knowledgeable professionals should continue throughout secondary schooling, to ensure the needed supports are in place.

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 47

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

The value of this PA is in its potential to help future persons with gifts and talents who may be considering suicide. Parents, counselors, teachers, anyone in proximity to a distressed person, can take action when they are aware of the distress. As Cross et al. (1996) exhorted readers: “WHEN IN DOUBT, DO SOMETHING!” (p. 409, emphasis in original). Daniel’s case, however, reminds us that some individuals are adept at hiding their emotional pain. The mask of anger can divert attention, making it difficult to recognize distress. In her PA of Amber, the 18year-old female who died by suicide and told friends, but not adults, about her suicide ideation, Hyatt (2010) quoted Willard (2006), who stated that children often do not confide in adults because they perceive that “adults, teachers, or parents will not understand” and that “adults might overreact” (p. 529). Maintaining trust between adults and students will help keep lines of communication open.

As in the previous PAs (Cross et al., 1996, 2002; Hyatt, 2010), other young people were aware of Daniel’s suicidal ideation, but lacked the confidence or desire or ability to alert adults who might have helped him through his crisis. It is imperative that peers be educated in what to do for a friend who expresses ideation, how to recognize when an adult’s intervention is required, and which adult is “the right one” (Cross & Cross, 2018, p. 97). Creating a caring community, one in which all members can thrive, is a critical activity for society, requiring commitment and participation from everyone. Suicide prevention programs for school personnel, parents, and the students themselves, can educate participants in how to recognize distress among members of their community (Cross & Cross, 2018). Everyone, but students in particular, needs practice in listening and responding to a distressed peer. All community members should know where to find resources and how to guide distressed individuals to the appropriate professional who can provide the psychological support needed. Equally important is the attitude in the community toward treatment for mental illness. Motivation enhancement therapy strategies can be effective in encouraging adolescents to engage in treatment plans (Babowitch & Antshel, 2016) and may be necessary for those who, like Daniel, resist such support.

No counterfactual thinking can undo Daniel’s end. In retrospect, we can speculate on points when intervention may have been helpful, but these are not so easily identifiable in the moment. Alternate explanations, resistance to support, environmental conditions—all these factors and more can obfuscate the accumulation of risk factors.

In the end, the downward spiral toward psychache in this case was completed with access to lethal means. Despite Daniel’s abiding respect for gun safety, their availability when he was in deep depression meant that a suicide attempt would most likely be successful. A new movement in suicide prevention emphasizes “lethal means counsel-

48 • Mensa Research Journal

ing” (Barber & Miller, 2014) in culturally respectful ways (Marino, Wolsko, Keys, & Wilcox, 2017). Much like the designated driver campaign to reduce drunk driving, asking a gun owner in crisis to give up his or her gun to be held by a trusted friend only temporarily, until better times, may be an acceptable approach to limiting access to lethal means.

Conclusion

It is a great loss to society when a life ends too early. Our goal in examining Daniel’s life was to develop a more indepth understanding of the suicide of SWGT, that we may help others avoid future tragedies like this one. Adding knowledge about 2e to the literature base is an important contribution. With each PA, our understanding of this phenomenon is enriched. With each study, we are reminded that all SWGT need a protective environment that supports their development of resilience and coping skills.

Notes 1.

2.

This acronym allows the authors to use preferred people-first language, avoiding the entity framing of the term “gifted student.”

Pseudonym.

ORCID

Tracy L. Cross orcid.org/0000-0001-5026-0626 Jennifer Riedl Cross orcid.org/0000-0002-7133-8792

References

Amend, E. R., & Peters, D. B. (2012). Misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis of gifted children: The importance of accurate assessment. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents (pp. 585–596). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. (2019).

Suicide statistics. Retrieved from https://afsp.org/ about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

Babowitch, J. D., & Antshel, K. M. (2016). Adolescent treatment outcomes for comorbid depression and substance misuse: A systematic review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Affective Disorders, 201, 25–33. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.04.018 Barber, C. W., & Miller, M. J. (2014). Reducing a suicidal person’s access to lethal means of suicide: A research agenda. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 47 (3S2), 264–272. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.028 Bradshaw, T. K. (1999). Communities not fazed: Why military base closures may not be catastrophic. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 193–206. doi:10.1080/ 01944369908976047

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

Brown, T. E. (2009). Developmental complexities of attention disorders. In T. E. Brown (Ed.), ADHD comorbidities: Handbook for ADHD complications in children and adults (pp. 3–22). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Brown, T. E. (2014). Smart but stuck: Emotion in teens and adults with ADHD. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, T. E., Reichel, P. C., & Quinlan, D. M. (2009).

Executive function impairments in high IQ adults with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13, 161–167. doi:10.1177/1087054708326113 Cassady, J. C., & Cross, T. L. (2006). A factorial representation of suicidal ideation among academically gifted adolescents.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 290–304. doi:10.1177/016235320602900303 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). 10 Leading causes of death by age group, United States—2016. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/ leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2016-508.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018a). Suicide: Consequences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved from https://www. cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/consequences.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018b). Suicide mortality in the United States, 1999–2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db330.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018c). Suicide rising across the US. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved from https://www. cdc.gov/vitalsigns/suicide/infographic.html#graphic1 Chen, C. C., Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Lambert, K., & Mehtaji, M. (2015). Exceptionality and peer victimization involvement in late childhood: Subtypes, stability, and social marginalization. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 312–324. doi:10.1177/0741932515579242 Coleman, L. J. (1985). Schooling the gifted. New York, NY: Addison Wesley.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41–56. doi:10.1177/016235328801100406 Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twentyfive years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 358–376. doi:10.1177/ 0162353215607322 Cross, T. L. (2013). Suicide among gifted children and adolescents: Understanding the suicidal mind. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., & Miller, K. (2006). Suicidal ideation and psychological type in gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 46–48. doi:10.1177/107621759601900114 Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991).

The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 44–55. doi:10.1177/ 016235329101500106 Cross, T. L., Cook, R. S., & Dixon, D. N. (1996). Psychological autopsies of three academically talented adolescents who committed suicide. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 403–409. doi:10.1177/1932202X 9600700305 Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2017). Suicide among students with gifts and talents. In S. Pfeiffer, M. Foley-Nicpon, & E. Shaunessy-Dedrick (Eds.), American Psychological Association handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 601–614).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2018). Suicide among gifted children and adolescents (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Cross, T. L., Gust-Brey, K., & Ball, P. B. (2002). A psychological autopsy of the suicide of an academically gifted student: Researchers’ and parents’ perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 247–264. doi:10.1177/001698620204600402 Cukrowicz, K. C., & Poindexter, E. K. (2014). Suicide. In C. S. Richards & M. W. O’Hara (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of depression and comorbidity (pp. 254–267). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Dąbrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Delisle, J. (1986). Death with honor: Suicide among gifted adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 558–560. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tb01202.x Dixon, D. N., & Scheckel, J. R. (1996). Gifted adolescent suicide: The empirical base. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 3, 386–392. doi:10.1177/1932202X9600700303 Ebert, B. W. (1987). Guide to conducting a psychological autopsy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 52–56. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.18.1.52 Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Colangelo, N. (2013). Twice-exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 169–180. doi:10.1177/0016986213490021 Gould, M. A., Greenberg, T., Velting, D. M., & Shaffer, D. (2003). Youth suicide risk and preventive interventions: A review of the past 10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 386–405. doi:10.1097/01.CHI.0000046821.95464.CF Hyatt, L. (2010). A case study of the suicide of a gifted female adolescent: Implications for prediction and prevention.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 514–535. doi:10.1177/016235321003300404 Hyatt, L. (2011). Silent decision: Awareness out of tragedy.

Alpharetta, GA: BookLogix.

Impey, M., & Heun, R. (2012). Completed suicide, ideation and attempt in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 125, 93–102. doi:10.1111/ j.1600-0447.2011.01798.x James, A., Lai, F. H., & Dahl, C. (2004). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and suicide: A review of possible

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 49

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

associations. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 110, 408–415. doi:10.1111/acp.2004.110.issue-6 Joiner, T. E. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Joiner, T. E., & Silva, C. (2012). Why people die by suicide: Further development and tests of the interpersonalpsychological theory of suicidal behavior. In P. R. Shaver & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), Meaning, mortality, and choice: The social psychology of existential concerns (pp. 325–336).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13748-000 Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20–28. doi:10.1080/02783190309554235 King, E. W. (2005). Addressing the social and emotional needs of twice-exceptional students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 16–20. doi:10.1177/004005990503800103 Knoll, J. L. (2008). The psychological autopsy (Part I): Applications and methods. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 14, 393–397. doi:10.1097/01.pra.0000341894.35877.1b Lester, D. (1991). Completed suicide in the gifted: A late comment on “suicide among gifted women”.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 604–606. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.604 Lind, S. (2000). Before referring a gifted child for ADD/ ADHD evaluation. The Communicator: California Association for the Gifted, 31(4), 20. Retrieved from https://www.

22 davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entry/A10226 T. L. CROSS ET AL. Loe, I., & Feldman, H. (2007). Academic and educational outcomes of children with ADHD. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32, 643–654. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsl054 Marino, E., Wolsko, C., Keys, S.,& Wilcox, H. (2017).

Addressing the cultural challenges of firearm restriction in

suicide prevention: A test of public health messaging to protect those at risk. Archives of Suicide Research, 27, 1–11.

Molina, B. S. G., & Pelham, W. E., Jr. (2003). Childhood predictors of adolescent substance use in a longitudinal study of children with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 497–507. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.3.497 National Institute of Mental Health. (2018). Suicide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/ suicide.shtml Piechowski, M. (1999). Overexcitabilities. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 2, pp.

325–334). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ronksley-Pavia, M. L. (2015). A model of twice-exceptionality: Explaining and defining the apparent paradoxical combination of disability and giftedness in childhood. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 318–340. doi:10.1177/ 0162353215592499 Ronksley-Pavia, M. L., Grootenboer, P., & Pendergast, D. (2019). Privileging the voices of twice-exceptional children: An exploration of lived experiences and stigma narratives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42, 4–34. doi:10.1177/0162353218816384 Sarvet, A. L., Wall, M. M., Keyes, K. M., Olfson, M., Cerdáe, M., & Hasina, D. S. (2018). Self-medication of mood and anxiety disorders with marijuana: Higher in states with medical marijuana laws. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 186, 10–15. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.01.009 Shneidman, E. S. (1985). Definition of suicide. New York, NY: Wiley.

Shneidman, E. S. (1993). Suicide as psychache: A clinical approach to self-destructive behavior. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Appendix A. Timeline of significant life events

Appendix A. Timeline of significant life events Tested Gifted 99% CogAT District Gifted Center Stanford 92% 9/2001 1/2001

ADHD Diagnosis 9/1998

6/1992

Fails English

9/2009

5/2010

Fails to Graduate New Friends/ Girlfriend #2

7/2008

5/2005

Meets Best Friend Asperger-like Behavior New HS1 Friends 9/1998 Born

High School #2 Outdoor Lab School Job

9/2000

Best Friend Pulls Away

10/2006

Runs Away Community College 3/14/2011 Drops 2 9/2010 Auto Classes Decides to Sports Car 10/2010 Drop Out

More drugs

9/2007

Private Gifted School Move to Basement 9/2003

5/2010

9/2009

Guitar

Girlfriend #1

9/2007

7/2008

9/2009

9/2010

3/15/2011

10/2006

1992

1992 1994

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 P-K K-Gr 1 Gr 2-3 Gr 5 Gr 7

2008 Gr 11

2006 Gr 9

9/1995 3/2001 Math Difficulty China Adoption 3/1999

9/2006

Academic Improvement

Drops IB

Skips Family Funeral

F in Math

High School #1

3/01/2011

Counseling/Depression

Pregnancy?

3/2009

Breakup #1 7/2007

9/2006

Suicide

4/2009

12/2007

9/2006

3/16/2011

11/2010

Fails Classes

5/2007

Low Grades

6/2002

WISC-III 92%

2011

5/2009

9/2004

Kindergarten

2010 Freshman

Family Trip UK & France

6/2010

1/9/2011

Guns in House

Breakup #2

Driving Ear Infections

6/1992 - 6/1994

ADD Ritalin Medication Adderall Concerta

6/2010

High School #1

3/1999 - 9/2001

18th Birthday

8/2006 - 5/2009 1/2002 - 3/2002

HS 2 + Technical + Online

3/2002 - 7/2003

8/2009 - 5/2010

Off ADD Medication for Summer Strattera Trial

7/2003 - 8/2003

Community College 8/2003 - 2/2004 8/2010 - 3/2011

Strattera + Concerta

2/2004 - 5/2006

Off ADD Medication

Appendix B. Narrative summary of Daniel’s life 50 • Mensa Research Journal Daniel was the first child in his family, born in 1992.

A younger brother was born four years later and a sister

5/2006 - 3/2011

and personality, teaching a class of more than 30 students, nearly 90% boys. He had the same teacher in the fifth grade.

It did not help that a change in his ADHD medicine resulted in unpleasant behavioral symptoms, such as tics and an

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

Shneidman, E. S., & Farberow, N. L. (1961). Sample investigations of equivocal deaths. In N. L. Farberow & E. S. Schneidman (Eds.), The cry for help (pp. 118–129). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Stillion, J. M., & McDowell, E. E. (1996). Suicide across the lifespan (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

White, J. (2016). Preventing youth suicide: A guide for practitioners. Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Children and Family Development. Retrieved from http://www2. gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/managing-your-health/mentalhealth-substance-use/child-teen-mentalhealth/preventing_youth_suicide_practitioners_guide.pdf Willard, N. E. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social cruelty, threats, and distress.

Champagne, IL: Research Press.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K., & Davis, D. (2007). Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of evaluating comprehensive reforms. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 75–93. doi:10.1002/ev.216

Appendix B. Narrative summary of Daniel’s life Daniel was the first child in his family, born in 1992. A younger brother was born four years later and a sister was adopted from China when Daniel was nine and a half years old. He lived his entire life in a Western state, in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. His parents were educated, both holding master’s degrees, with a father in an IT field and a mother who was a distance education entrepreneur. He was always small, in about the 25th percentile in height and weight for most of his childhood, approaching the 40th percentile by age 15. Identification for gifted education came in the third grade, when he scored in the 99th percentile on his composite score of the CogAT. Daniel was twice exceptional (2e), having been diagnosed with ADHD for inattention (not hyperactivity) in the first grade. He began medication in the spring of his first grade year, but did not receive other school services for his ADHD. It was also in the first grade that he met his best friend for life, who was a constant in Daniel’s life, even when they were not in the same school. Both boys were highly gifted, with intense imaginations. Their childhood play was creative and intellectual, engaging in fantasy worlds through books, video games, and role play. Even as they grew older, the two boys spent considerable time in imaginative activities: “Reading and fantasy war and sci-fi war and all of those things. We just considered ourselves kings of that world and part of that world. Nothing else really mattered.”

Daniel began receiving gifted services at a magnet school in the public school system in the fourth grade, but with an untrained teacher who was a poor fit with Daniel’s abilities and personality, teaching a class of more than 30

students, nearly 90% boys. He had the same teacher in the fifth grade. It did not help that a change in his ADHD medicine resulted in unpleasant behavioral symptoms, such as tics and an inability to attend. The highlight of his fourth and fifth grade years was an annual 4-day field trip to an outdoor lab in the Rocky Mountains. His 5th grade WISC-III intelligence test scores indicated high ability, with an IQ of 121, placing him in the 92nd percentile.

Despite his consistently low grades in math, particularly in computation, his WISC-III scores placed him at the 84th percentile in Performance ability. In the sixth grade, Daniel’s parents moved him to a private PK-8 school that had small classes and specialized in gifted and 2e students.

While at this academy, he thrived academically, flourishing in an environment with a curriculum that valued depth over breadth and was fully integrated across subjects. His 7th-grade teacher described him as very capable, but lacking in self-regulation, particularly in terms of project planning and time management. His mother was a critical asset in this regard and Daniel did especially well on projects he worked on at home. Daniel’s report card during middle school reflects this difficulty with “self-management” and indicated problems with communication, but these grades improved over the academic year. His 7th grade Stanford Achievement Test scores offer an above average, but uneven profile, with reading scores in the 99th percentile, mathematics in the 72nd percentile and the language mechanics subscale score in the 58th percentile. The decision to take him off of his ADHD medication came at a time when he was doing particularly well at the academy.

His mother expressed feelings of guilt over having him on the medication in the first place and believed “it had run its course and he’d be ok without it.”

When it was time for high school, Daniel’s mother believed he would continue to thrive in the school where many of his academy peers were going, rather than his neighborhood school. The gifted service provided in this school was an International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum, an intensive, rigorous, and highly structured program.

Always resistant to tasks for which he lacked interest, Daniel bucked the demands of his IB classes, dropping out of the IB program soon after he began at the new high school. From this point, Daniel’s engagement with school declined. He skipped classes, which he considered meaningless, and his grades fell precipitously. His social circle was still quite small, with no friends from his academy days and one new close friend, who introduced him to Hunter S. Thompson. It was while reading all his books that Daniel adopted his hallmark “camo jacket,” which he wore nearly all the time. In his freshman year, Daniel moved into the basement of his family’s home, turning it into a “cave” with a couch and a TV for video game play.

Daniel’s parents tried to support him through this transition. His mother, in particular, made repeated efforts to

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 51

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

encourage him to apply himself. In high school, Daniel did not want to be seen as “gifted.” He rejected the label, calling it “a curse” and disidentifying from the academic crowd. With less time focused on developing his academic abilities, Daniel began to socialize more, developing a group of friends who were younger and less academically inclined. Sophomore through junior years were characterized by “hanging out,” smoking, drinking beer, engaging in marijuana use and other drug activity, increased interest in guns and shooting (although not hunting), and many hours of video game play. These activities were, unfortunately, accompanied by academic failure and discord with his mother, who believed he could be successful, with the proper motivation, as she had seen at the academy. In the spring of his junior year, after an emotional breakup with his girlfriend and close friend, Daniel met with a psychologist for symptoms of depression. He did not get along with the psychologist, however, and after seven or eight sessions dropped out of therapy. Daniel’s rejection of academics was described by his best friend as a rejection of the society that was built around “a numbers game that people just push you through and you get a piece of paper in the end.”

The lack of choice and emphasis on behaviors that Daniel saw as meaningless led to his becoming “jaded.”

While Daniel’s mother struggled to get him back on the path to academic success, his father understood his disillusion and admired his willingness to challenge authority. He echoed Daniel’s dissatisfaction with the need to comply with trivial pursuits. He simultaneously supported his wife’s efforts to help Daniel and Daniel’s rejection of a system he did not value. “If it was obviously stupid, he pointed that out. Which I liked about him,” he said of Daniel. Daniel’s parents clearly cared deeply for their son. Friends and both parents described a loving family that sometimes erupted in conflict. Daniel’s relationship with his mother was particularly strained, with frequent arguments, often over his lack of academic motivation or disruptive behavior, such as playing unacceptably loud music in his room. After moving into his basement room, Daniel became increasingly isolated from his family. He did not accompany them on family vacations, instead staying home, supervised by family friends or neighbors. Despite his increased withdrawal from daily family activities, Daniel did turn to his parents for advice when faced with relational difficulties. His father rescued him from deep distress in more than one such situation, driving long distances to collect him or searching for him when he had run away. Daniel’s autonomy was a high priority for both parents, who respected him as a capable individual who could manage himself. For example, they supported his choice to stop his ADHD medication and to withdraw from treatment for depression, his preference not to accompany them on vacations, and his

52 • Mensa Research Journal

choice of a flashy sports car with the money they allotted for his vehicle.

Daniel had two significant girlfriends in his short life, one for nine months in his sophomore year of high school and the other for a year and a half during and after his senior year. His relationships with both girls were intense.

Following the breakup with his first girlfriend, Daniel appeared to completely give up on academics, with a GPA for the term of 0.50. Without close friends at his first high school, he made the change to his neighborhood high school for his senior year. At this school, he began to make friends with several younger students who had little interest in academics, but shared Daniel’s interests in substance use, guns, video games and “ditching” school to hang out and engage in these activities. It was here that he took a technical course in automotive customization, with a teacher who recognized his exceptional ability and worked hard to challenge him. Despite his newfound passion for this field, Daniel was unable to rally in his other courses and did not graduate on time. He was able to sign up for similar courses at a local community college that fall, but without the motivating teacher and dogged by difficulties he had always had with math, he decided to drop out only days before his suicide.

Daniel’s friends considered him to be extremely intelligent, describing him as “very, very, very intelligent” or, among his less academic friends, “scary wicked smart.” He was known to be emotional throughout his life, a “cryer” as a child, but angry as a teenager. Although teachers and counselors describe him as quiet, at home he was prone to punching holes in the wall or to running away when frustrated. His best friend describes Daniel as suffering from frequent bouts of depression, fueled by his intellect and relative isolation. These two gifted boys had a mutually supportive relationship in good times and bad. Although deeply saddened, because of “the many times I’ve had to talk him out of [his dark] places and the many times he’s had to talk me out of those places,” his best friend was not surprised by Daniel’s suicide. Implying he had previously threatened to kill himself, his best friend said, “there had been multiple times when I had talked him out of certain situations that were similar … . Everybody was blindsided, except for me.” Instant messages with his girlfriend indicate that Daniel had indeed made frequent prior threats to kill himself, leading her to dismiss his claim that he would do so on the night he died.

In the weeks before his death, Daniel was experiencing relationship problems. After making efforts to break up with his girlfriend, she claimed to be pregnant with his child. His parents were supportive of him when he was worried about the possible pregnancy. On the day before he died, he announced he was dropping out of community college, a decision they did not support. The night of his death, Daniel repeated his threats to kill himself in

A Psychological Autopsy of an Intellectually Gifted Student With Attention Deficit Disorder

an online chat with his girlfriend and attempted to reach out to his best friend, his previous girlfriend, and others, in late-night text messages and phone calls. His efforts to reach anyone who might discourage him from taking his life were unsuccessful. Alone in his basement bedroom, with easy access to the guns he had begun collecting after his 18th birthday and the knowledge of how to position the gun from an “informational” website, Daniel fatally shot himself at 4:00 am.

Notes on contributors

Tracy L. Cross, PhD, holds an endowed chair, Jody and Layton Smith Professor of Psychology and Gifted Education, and is the Executive Director of the Center for Gifted Education and the Institute for Research on the Suicide of Gifted Students at William & Mary. His research focuses on the psychology of students with gifts and talents. Email: tlcross@wm.edu

expanded services to international students. She is interested in the development of effective enrichment programs and career development of gifted students. In addition, she is staunchly committed to providing educational opportunities to disadvantaged students and to offering enrichment programs. She offers a variety of precollegiate programs for various student populations, including Saturday, summer, and residential programs. Email: mxkim3@wm.edu Colin T. Vaughn, MEd, is a Doctoral Candidate in Counselor Education at William & Mary. His research focuses on adolescent aggression in families, parental identity, and developmental contexts in counselor education.

Email: ctvaughn@email.wm.edu

Jennifer Riedl Cross, PhD, is the Director of Research at the William & Mary Center for Gifted Education where her research focuses on the social aspects of gifted education.

She has published numerous articles and book chapters on the topic and is the co-editor, with Tracy L. Cross, of the Handbook for Counselors Serving Students with Gifts and Talents. Email: jrcross@wm.edu Nataliya Dudnytska, PhD, received her first graduate degree in Linguistics and Methodology in her home country, Ukraine, and taught at the Chernivtsi National University before moving to the United States for a doctoral program. She obtained her PhD in Educational Policy, Planning & Leadership, Gifted Education at William & Mary, where she enjoyed working at the Center for Gifted Education during her time there. Her professional interests are gifted education, international education, talent mobility, and adult learning. Email: nataliedn@gmail.com Mihyeon Kim, PhD, EdD, is the Director of Precollegiate Learner Programs at the Center for Gifted Education, William & Mary. She is responsible for designing and implementing academic enrichment services for precollegiate students and has

Mensa members can post résumés and apply for jobs at no charge.

Visit us.mensa.org/benefits for details.

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 53

MRJ

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development David Yun Dai, Ph.D.

What Motivated ECT

Human accomplishments in the past 500 years (roughly since High Renaissance) surpass what had been accomplished in human history prior to that period. What accounts for such a rapid augmentation in creativity, innovation, and superior performance?

There are two levels of explanation. One is at the individual level, in terms of an accelerated rate of talent development; the human accomplishments can be largely credited to individuals and individual development. The other is at the social-historical level, in terms of rapid social transformations in education, technology, and opportunity structure that facilitated human development, as well as cultural values inherent in social practice. For real talent phenomena, these two explanations are so intertwined that it is only appropriate to make the argument that all talents and talent development (TD) are situated in their social-historical contexts and can only be understood as such. However, this does not prevent us from discussing a TD theory of some generality despite the heterogeneity of phenomena it attempts to explain. Evolving Complexity Theory is such an attempt.

There are two competing or contrasting approaches to theory building: one is deductive and nomothetic, starting with a set of universal assumptions and parameters, and then deriving and fleshing out more details and particulars of talent development from top down. Tannenbaum’s (1983) socio-psychological theory or Simonton’s (1999) emergenicepigenetic model are such examples. The other approach is more idiographic and phenomenological, studying instances of talent and talent development as a basis for identifying developmental patterns and building theoretical arguments from bottom up. A case study of child prodigies by Feldman (1986) or a large-scale interview study led by Bloom (1985) is an example. Of course, there can be a third approach that integrates the above two through many rounds of datatheory coordination, what Miller (1993) called “functional approach,” akin to bootstrapping a theoretical model in a bottom-up as well as top-down fashion. As an example, part of my work builds on Feldman and Bloom’s tradition. As a matter of fact, ECT was initially inspired by my empirical research program on an early college entrance program in China (see Dai et al., 2015; Dai et al., 2016). Part of my work on ECT, however, is a follow-up on Simonton’s (1999) approach by mapping out a bio-ecological foundation that

54 • Mensa Research Journal

harks back to formative years of human civilization (e.g., the hunter-gatherer society). Simonton postulated basic genetically based components of talent to be the source of talent in various domains. However, he did not specify what constitutes the basic forms of talent. In ECT, five forms of human effectivity are identified as basic manifestations and constituents of talent that can be observed when our ancestors still lived in caves. Each represents a distinct way we engage the world, model how things work, and act upon those situation models to build an ever more complex personal repertoire of skills and dispositions in culturally created and even institutionalized domains, leading to high human accomplishments as we know today. The notion of “evolving complexity” refers to this prolonged process, which often involves a lifespan endeavor, for sure, but can be several generations in the making as well. In this sense, great creators, be it Newton or Einstein, Da Vinci or Picasso, never started from scratch but always built on a rich legacy of what has been accomplished in early generations.

How Humans vs. Ants Engage and Act Upon the World We can develop different visions of how we build and act upon the world. One views “evolving complexity” as fundamentally experience-based. For example, Herbert Simon, a Nobel laureate, saw ants and humans are alike in navigating and building up complex models of their world: “An ant [or a human], viewed as a behaving system, is quite simple.

The apparent complexity of its behavior over time is largely a reflection of the complexity of the environment in which it finds itself ” (Simon, 1969; p. 52). By implication, ants and humans both develop their mental models that mimic the complexity of the world. For example, with experience, ants would build a cognitive map of a terrain on which ants navigate to find food, just like humans, who with experience and knowledge of the world, envision a bridge that would allow them to cross a river. I don’t take issue with the elegance of the analogy, except that “evolving complexity” for ants is fundamentally limited, presumably by its genetics (e.g., its brain size or muscle mass). In contrast, humans’ “evolving complexity” in building a bridge involves not just an image of the overpass but the knowledge of material, spatial, and physical constraints for such a device. There is a fundamental creative aspect of bridge building that is not present in any animal behavior (let alone building a super collider that can fathom

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

ever smaller particles that make up the physical universe).

The intersection of the biological and cultural responsible for human agency and resultant evolving complexity is completely ignored by Simon’s analogy.

It can be further argued that behaviors of ants or most animals (how they go about living their lives, even where they live) are largely pre-ordained or fixed by their genetics.

The same cannot be said of humans; even two identical twins can live different lives, say, one becoming an artist, and the other an engineer. Humans are born with uncertainties with respect to what they will do and become. Framed more positively, humans are free to choose what they do and what they want to be. They gain this freedom mainly by their cognitive representation capability, or their ability to construct the world and the self. Thus, the analogy between ants and humans breaks down when we consider human individuals as more capable of actively and selective choosing their environments rather than being passively shaped either by their genes or by their environments. Let’s assume that humans are capable of actively seeking ways to maximize their potential gains; this is a property of active adaptation that distinguishes humans from ants or other animals. However, I am also compelled to argue this human potential is not unconstrained. One’s “natural” capacities and dispositions on the one side and environmental opportunities, experiences and support on the other jointly shape one’s developmental trajectories. In the following sections, I will use three metaphors to present the gist of ECT: I will use the octopus metaphor to illustrate what develops, the onion metaphor to illustrate how talent develops, and the marathon metaphor to illustrate when and for how long talent development takes place.

Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) as “One Long Argument”

A talent development theory has to satisfy three basic criteria of explanation. First, it can describe structural properties and structural changes responsible for talent emergence and evolution. Second, it can explain how related developmental processes take place, and what drive and regulate these processes. And third, it can predict temporal changes and transitions that mark major events of the evolving complexity of talent development stipulated by the above theoretical arguments and postulations. Just as the complex evolution of species delineated by Darwin as “one long argument,” human talent development in all its various forms and ways must be equally complex. Thus the exposition of its structure and process entails a set of interrelated arguments at several levels of analysis.

1. The Octopus Metaphor: Five Basic Forms of Human Engagement and Effectivity To answer the first question about the structural properties of talent, including how it unfolds, I was thinking of an octopus with its multiple “arms” (tentacles) reaching

out to interact with its environment. Human senses and sensibilities might work just like those of an octopus (it is not trivial to mention that about two thirds of an octopus’s neurons are located in the nerve cords of its arms!), with many aims (presumably serving differential functions), each functioning as a distinct way of building its effectivity in response to certain affordances, to use the terminology of ecological psychology (Gibson, 1977). Those tentacles constantly scan the surroundings to catch something of significance, sometimes visually pleasurable and other times intellectually exciting. ECT specifies five basic forms of human engagement, cognitive modeling, and effectivity vis-à-vis their corresponding affordances: a) psychomotor, b) technical, c) social, d) expressive, and e) intellectual, all of which were manifested when “human modernity” was solidly established roughly fifty thousand years ago.

The most common form of human engagement, modeling, and effectivity is probably social and co-operative in nature, enabled by empathy and sympathetic understanding, significantly enhanced by the invention of language (spoken and written). Psychomotor engagement, modeling, and effectivity, probably the most ancient, can be seen in hunting and handcrafts as well as most modern sports, and can even be traced to brain anatomy (e.g., cerebellum for motor control). Technical engagement, modeling, and effectivity can be observed in tool making and innovated procedures in ancient and modern times. Apparently some symbolic representation and manipulation (e.g., some means-ends causal schemas) is involved even in chimps’ insight as to how to reach a dangling banana with a wooden box in Kohler’s experiment. Human effectivity in artistic expressiveness can be witnessed in cave paintings, ancient ritualistic dances, and many other instances. Fundamentals of expressiveness never change despite increasingly sophisticated forms and styles of expression. Lastly, intellectual engagement, modeling, and effectivity can be observed in early human history as myths and religions and in modern ages as natural science and disciplinary understandings of human nature and the human past. What drives intellectual engagement is a desire for deep understanding of the world, physical, social, artificial, as well as human.

Some clarifications should be made up-front. First, the five forms of engagement can be intertwined in real-life functioning rather than mutually exclusive. For instance, team sports are by nature psychomotor and social; music and dance are expressive in nature but both involve high levels of technicality. Second, some forms of engagement were initially intended for practical or symbolic functions (e.g., dance for the ritual of burial) and later gained “functional autonomy” as an independent domain of practice (e.g., dance becoming a major art form refined for its own sake). Third, highly developed forms of human activity and talent in terms of more formal, institutional strivings (theology, crafts, and arts) are cultural creations that

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 55

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

occurred much later in history, likely due to the wealth, leisure, and education, to be sure, related to the rise of middle class, as in the case of Renaissance.

Whenever we discuss talent, we should be aware of the distinction between more “natural” talent and significantly “cultured” or nurtured talent; the former can be observed in more natural, informal settings and the latter systematically developed, often involving institutional training and support (Dai, 2020). Simonton (1999) defined talent along a continuity of simplicity and complexity. According to ECT, the complexity of talent is determined by how many forms of effectivity are involved. A talent can be considered “simple” in the sense it only involves the execution of simple performance components, for example, perfect pitch. Writing a play for theater is more complex than writing a poem simply because poetry only involves crafting expressive languages and images, whereas writing a play goes beyond expressiveness to involve intellectual modeling to build a web of fictional characters and relationships that logically and temporally unfold over time. Being a lawyer involves exercising social, expressive, technical, and intellectual forms of effectivity, whereas being a golfer mainly involve psychomotor and technical ones.

This complexity of talent and talent development have implications for developmental timing. For example, poets appear at much younger ages than playwrights, because developmentally more components need to develop and get self-organized for creative productivity (Simonton, 1999).

Regardless of complexity, all culturally created talent as we know is not innate (i.e., genetically pre-programmed) but a new machine made of old parts, that is, the ancient parts of bio-ecological effectivity that can be traced all the way to our ancestry or even our neural and physical anatomy.

All new inventions of talent domains, F-1 car race, video game competition, E-business, or all works of Elon Musk involve various forms of human activity in the service of crafting a more powerful way to deal with new challenges and stretch our limits to a new height.

2. The Onion Metaphor: Unfolding Layers and Processes of Talent Development The octopus metaphor is meant to demonstrate some structural properties of talent and talent development that are situated in human functional contexts and deeply rooted in human evolution in terms of “natural” human capabilities that set us apart from the rest of life forms, hence bio-ecological in nature (Gould, 1991). However, in terms of the genesis of talent, namely, the question of how, we still encounter the problem of locus of human agency; that is, the identification of five forms of engagement, modeling, and effectivity in the preceding section clearly implies that agency is localized in terms of specific dispositions and sensibilities. Indeed, many of our spontaneous responses and acts are driven by situa-

56 • Mensa Research Journal

tional affordances that evoke our responses; at this level, individual differences emerge as a significant factor to be reckoned with.

However, every time we respond to a situation, there is a subjective sensation of some sort that informs us of the significance of this encounter in terms of valence (i.e., positive or negative affect) and meaning (significant relationships) at the reflective conscious and personal level, which is retained in memory as such. This indicates an organismic principle: human beings function as a whole when dealing with their environments; thus the five forms of effectivity are not modular in terms of impenetrable to central control (cf. multiple intelligences; Gardner, 1983). To push the octopus metaphor further, the “arms” (tactile) of an octopus should coordinate with one another in achieving a personal goal. In this sense we might say that selective attention may be spontaneous and local but, selective action is fundamentally deliberate and reflects a centralized decision. Here we are getting close to the heart of the matter: individuals are increasingly capable of selfdirection and their behaviors become more purposive.

Consequently, ECT makes three assumptions: 1) individuals selectively attend to and engage certain aspects of the world given a wide range of exposure and experience; this selective attention and engagement is adaptive in terms of long-term gains as an effective individual; 2) individual development follows a trajectory of being increasingly integrative (effectivities and personal goals more coordinated and coupled) and purposive (from playful engagement to serious work); 3) the process of individual development is mediated by cultural values, resources, and tools available to enhance chances of success. These assumptions lead to two central concepts regarding the underlying regulatory forces that propel talent development: characteristic and maximal adaptations.

Characteristic adaptation (CA). An engagement reflects CA when it indicates a dynamic fit that enhances one’s chance of surviving and thriving, and when it shows distinct individuality in specific contexts (McAdams & Pal, 2006). To use a colloquial term, a variety of niche-picking behaviors reflect CA, for instance, the kind of books one is eager to read, the kind of persons one emulates, the kind of activities one is interested in. Niche-picking behaviors may be initially spontaneous and sporadic but getting more purposive and systematic by which all five forms of effectivity are harnessed, developed, and integrated. When we marvel at a manifestation of talent in children and adolescents, what we did not directly observe are many instances of niche-picking behaviors in environments (often socially facilitated or supported), leading to a transformation of the person: someone seen as talented in chess or art, someone who is tuned into a domain of science, or someone who is aspiring to be an astronaut.

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

We might consider Renzulli’s (1986) three-ring theory of giftedness as featuring CA prominently. While aboveaverage abilities are manifested in a variety of performance settings as CA, task commitment and creative potential are by nature contextually and temporally emergent (e.g., through a project), showing a distinct, characteristic way in which one engages and represents the world motivationally as well as cognitively. Here we witness the process of self-organization of components necessary for an effective act in response to opportunities and challenges presented by the impinging environment. Any talent we observe in children or adolescents is indicative of such characteristic adaptations that integrate one’s intelligence and personality, cognitive and affective-motivational characteristics in achieving an instrumental feat. Presented more formally, CA has two properties: strengths and directions.

Strengths of CA are mainly indicated in (a) the ease of learning in specific contexts, and distinct representations of the world, (b) some affective-conative characteristics manifested in situ, such as levels of interest, achievement motivation (e.g., “the rage to master” in arts; Winner, 1996), and selective affinity toward a particular class of activities, and (c) some favorable social conditions such as opportunity structure that facilitate self-exploration, and comparative advantages demonstrated among peer groups. Directions of CA are indicated by distinct talent trajectories manifested in childhood and adolescence, and by the exploration and expansion of one’s contextually bound Personal Action Space (skill set, personal projects, life themes, aspirations, etc.).

To carry out the metaphor of an octopus further, to understand how an octopus grows to be talented, I use another metaphor to characterize the unfolding of the evolving complexity over time through development, the onion model.

For the purpose of exposition, consider the case of intellectual engagement and effectivity. We can think of (a) intellectual aptitudes as consisting of cognitive characteristics such as memory, reasoning, and intellectual insight, (b) intellectual dispositions as consisting of more affectiveconative characteristics such as curiosity, independence, and persistence, (c) intellectual directions as preferences for natural vs. social phenomena, and (d) intellectual media or modes of processing in terms of using mathematical, verbal, spatial manipulations, or using logic and analytic means vs. narrative, experiential means.

As children and adolescents engage the world extensively, aptitudes and dispositions toward the five forms of engagement will manifest themselves, and eventually show distinct self-organization through differentiation and integration, which is CA for excellence. With further development, the issue of the self and future will come to sight, in terms of what kind of person one wants to be, and what is worth

dedicated work and striving, leading to a more purposive talent pathway. Thus the talent development truly resembles that of an onion, with many layers of agency developing over time in forming a distinct trajectory and pathway.

Social-cultural mediation of Maximal Adaptation (MA). Maximal adaptation implies dedicated effort and devoted strivings. The very notion of deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2006) or maximal performance (Ackerman & Kanfer, 2004) suggests MA or maximal grip (Dai & Renzulli, 2008). While CA is characterizing an individual trajectory of harnessing one’s strengths and directions for effectivity, MA highlights the force of social-cultural mediation that cultivates and strengthens one’s talent in the service of the common good (i.e., what is deemed as enhancing social vitality and cultural identity). Specific to talent development, MA is manifested in a variety of ways institutions (guilds, academies, universities, incubators, social networks) are established, and tools and technologies (symbol systems, equipment, training regiments) are invented, and resources (museums and libraries, field trips, science labs, makerspaces) are developed to sharpen the mind and develop expertise in many valued areas of human activity. Without these social-cultural provisions, even “highly talented” individuals cannot go very far. Thus MA with the social-cultural support is the only way of perfecting one’s trade and surpassing oneself.

According to ECT, the transition from CA to MA involves several psychosocial conditions that can engender and sustain MA in a challenging condition; they include a) increasingly challenging task demands (cognitive, sometimes social, such as high professional standards); b) the commitment to a line of talent development, which always involves identity development; and c) institutional recognitions (recognition of achievements, admissions to graduate schools, etc.). In addition, for some, CA incorporates MA (Dai & Li, 2020), and when one operates in the mode of MA, there are still distinct individual characteristics.

For example, niche-picking continues at a higher level of professional endeavor: finding one’s voice and niche for contributions (Dai. 2015; Dai & Li, 2020).

3. The Marathon Metaphor: Talent Achievements, Milestones, and Turning Points If the octopus metaphor reveals the structural properties of talent and talent development (addressing the question of what develops), and the onion metaphor reveals the developmental processes involved (CA and MA, addressing the question of how it develops), the marathon metaphor introduces a temporal dimension (addressing the question of when and how long): it not only stresses the importance of timing of talent development, but also reveals the prolonged nature of talent development (it is more like a marathon run, rather than a 100-meter sprint).

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 57

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

Like other talent development models (e.g., Simonton, 1999; Subotnik et al., 2011), ECT postulates that timing of talent development varies as a function of domains involved and maturity (or precocity). Talent development is fundamentally constrained by biology and life cycle; physical, cognitive, emotional, and social maturity (or for that matter precocity) are likely to determine the proper timing of exposures and specific experiences and related developmental payoff. For example, for certain sports such as gymnastics, early onset is very important as the peak performance is also highly constrained by body development.

However, for other sports, such as soccer, it is not the case that the earlier the onset, the better off one’s later development, presumably because some features important for soccer only manifest themselves during adolescence. As I mentioned earlier, the timing issues can also be determined by the complexity of the domain in question; it takes more time to bootstrap a system capable of handling the challenges presented in a complex domain. Domains also differ in terms of specific kind of essential mental processes involved. The spurt of creativity in a hypothetical-deductive manner seems more important in math and physics, wherein peak productivity tends to be achieved at a quite young age (e.g., making a Nobel-caliber discovery in one’s 20s). In comparison, accumulation of facts, concepts, and insights from bottom up (inductively) seems more important for biology and sociology, and more seasoned scholars seem to have a distinct advantage.

Regardless of variations discussed above, what ECT postulates still holds in terms of a developmental sequence from CA to MA. In this regard, three principles for timely interventions can still be formulated. The first principle is timely exposure to enriched environments (Renzulli & Reis, 1997), typically in preschool and early school years for playful engagement of self-initiated or adult-structured activities that involve a combination of the five domains of effectivity stipulated by ECT. The second principle is the timely offerings of serious learning activities (e.g., projectbased learning, makerspaces) that engender deep experience (Barron, 2006; Dai et al., 2015). These activities can be designed and provided, typically during adolescence; only deep experiences, not the kind produced in the conventional classroom, can provide positive affective experiences as well as insight into the nature of a particular human endeavor. The third principle is the timely transition from CA and MA (Bloom, 1985), which can be accelerated for talented adolescents (Dai et al., 2015). My research shows that an early onset of maximal adaptation contributes to a much earlier onset of creative career in STEM domains (Dai & Li, 2020, in preparation).

If talent development is like a marathon, what kind of milestone events, transition points, make-or-break moments should we pay attention to? We should note that, except for child prodigies or for some sports and arts

58 • Mensa Research Journal

domains, children in formative years are still exploring their world; that is, their development agendas are not yet set, and their developmental trajectories have yet to unfold over time. In this sense, running a marathon may not be the best metaphor (any metaphor is imperfect after all). We can think of early explorations as a phase of navigation to find one’s niche. At least the following talent milestone events or achievements can be used to track one’s talent development: • Early playful activities and interests (e.g., readings, gadgets) in formative years • Early achievement (e.g., performing, carrying out projects, presenting a report) • Recognized talent (in any of the five forms of effectivity) in childhood and adolescence • Recognized achievement by parents and teachers in middle or high school • High aspirations revealed as teenagers • Recognized talent in arts, sports, and academics in and outside of school • Recognized talent in professional or leisure endeavors (game playing, cooking, etc.)

These milestone events and transition points serve as important landmarks that guide interventions and education agendas. From a research point of view, these events can serve as predictors as to how likely one will move further to a higher level or how far one can go in a proverbial marathon.

Sum-Up The above delineation of talent development in terms of “what, how, and when” with the help of three metaphors provide an overview of ECT in a nutshell. I hope I have made the case that ECT presents a vision of evolving complexity that is closer than Simon’s (1969) version to the realities of how humans develop their talent to handle complexities as compared to how ants manage to do it.

Although how ants manage to develop their tricks apparently reveals more preordained genetic certainties than humans, that does not mean that human biology, including human biological diversity, is trivial. On the contrary, precisely because of the complexities of interaction of the biological and environmental factors, high human accomplishments are made possible.

Back to the topic of this essay, when I say “engaging the world,” I am for the most part focusing on how a unique individual perspective, a distinct skill set, and a powerful modus operandi are developed along the way, which accounts for what we view as talent or talent development.

It might leave an impression that I forget the other part, “making the self,” which may be more interesting to some readers. I hope I have already alluded to the point that engaging the world and making the self are just two sides of

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

the same coin. Everything we do eventually leaves a personal mark on the person and becomes part of one’s life. In the following section and the last part of this article, I will make this point clearer.

Engaging the World and Making the Self: The Personal Side of Talent Development According to ECT

Talent development is sometimes viewed as merely a technical issue of digging deeper in a domain or developing high-level problem solving skills. In the expertise research, it is acknowledged that deliberate practice involves a special kind of temperament, a disposition to work hard and endure difficulties and setbacks (Ericsson, 2006). Other than that, no special attention seems warranted to the issue of personal connections one makes with the work one invested in, and domains one has worked in for decades, or for that matter, how one comes to appreciate the value of their work and contributions, how one derives intrinsic enjoyment from their work. I would venture to argue that although several researchers pointed out the importance of this personal side of talent development many decades ago (Bloom, 1985, Gruber, 1986), it is still a neglected aspect of talent development.

There are two ways in which we can think of such personal connections or affective significance of talent development. First, all forms of human engagement and effectivity I delineated carry adaptive value, allowing us to gain control over the world and ourselves in some way, which in itself is a meaningful personal endeavor. Thus, we develop a sense of accomplishment whenever we overcome a seemingly insurmountable hurdle. Second, our individual work on talent development has socially shared significance, which in turn makes our effort worthwhile. Thus, a musician is not just enjoying music for herself, but affirming the value and significance of emotions conveyed and aesthetic beauty in music with a human audience. Edelman (1995), a neuroscientist, the 1972 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine, argued that a unique characteristic of human beings is their ability to model the past and the future. He particularly stressed the role of emergence of selfhood: “By selfhood, I mean not just the individuality that emerges from genetics or immunology, but the personal individuality that emerges from developmental and social interactions.” (Edelman, 1995, p. 201)

How does talent development help build such selfhood, or perhaps more pertinent, how does talent development emanate from evolving individuality? In my early exposition, I highlight characteristic adaptation as revealing an early emergence of individuality. The very notion of selective affinity points to the nature of talent development as affective and personal in nature. One tends to gravitate toward things that bring one positive self-affect. Long-term developmental

patterns often reveal such a self-organizing principle (Fischer & Connell, 2003). However, this does not reveal a dynamic emergent process of how it works. My argument is that building and harnessing one’s talent for important work is always an active learning and productive process, which is, with few exceptions, more rewarding than a passive, do-nothing life style. In the following, I will discuss three phases of talent development and their ramifications in terms of positive selfaffect and personal happiness.

Play and work as characteristic adaptation. According to ECT, a play activity can be turned work with some guidance from parents and teachers. For example, an interest in Legos can be easily converted into a design project with some levels of challenge appropriate to the age of a child. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) advocated building talent in early years starting with the work of some challenge to children. When sufficient effort is invested in such a goaldirected activity, children are more likely to experience “flow” and enjoyment. Although no instant gratification can be gained, children will learn to appreciate the payoff of their effort and the accomplishment they made (No pain no gain!). Talent development in the spirit of ECT is an adaptative effort of some sort, therefore involving “doing” rather than merely “being.” In early exploratory years, the productive experiences that help build confidence, interest, perseverance, and resilience are always more important than a particular skill itself. The process can produce positive self-affect that makes a difference in children’s shortterm engagement and long-term development.

Self-identity as a pivotal point. As adolescence kicks in, individuals will be increasingly aware of their selves and future. This is what ECT calls “construction of self and future.” Developing a sense of purpose becomes a central task no matter what kind of talent one demonstrates. Earlier I mentioned the importance of deep experiences. The reason is that deep experiences are more likely to induce “crystalizing experiences” (Walter & Gardner, 1986), those important moments of life that are transformational in nature and can be life-changing. Only when one engages the world with certain depth can one truly appreciate what the world means to them and what they can do as a person to make a positive difference. Maximal adaptation in talent development entails a level of commitment enabled by a strong sense of identity, something sufficiently important and worth the dedicated effort. It is in this sense that we might argue that talent development, instead of being treated as a technical matter of skill improvement, is fundamentally part of positive psychology, promoting self-direction and self-actualization.

Why talent accomplishments matter. Although there is some truism about hard-earned success leading to a deep sense of accomplishment and personal satisfaction, a

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 59

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

potential counter-argument is that we might feel happier by enjoying the moment rather than striving for longterm success or fame. In other words, a lifestyle that does not involve arduous talent development may serve us just as well or better. For that argument I don’t have objection. Indeed, Sternberg (personal communication) recently argued that it boils down to a personal decision as to how one uses or not uses one’s talent, or whether a life ambition serves one well or not. My only reservation is that arduous but purposive work can bring personal satisfaction, even when eminence may not be the goal of one’s endeavor. Selfactualization has a component not often recognized by the admirers of Maslow: a desire for surpassing oneself (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993), or a sheer desire for creating something new either to benefit others or to satisfy one’s own deep curiosity can be sufficient reason for commitment to a line of work. John Goodenough received his Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2019 when he was 97, and he was still antsy about going back to his lab to continue his work.

Why? He is unlikely to be motivated by the prospects of getting another Nobel Prize. The more likely reason is that he enjoys his work. He is a textbook example of how talent development does not have to been seen as motivated by fame and money but more likely driven by enjoyment and flow induced by his insatiable desire for satisfying his need for discovery and making a difference.

Conclusion

Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of talent development was initially developed for practical purposes of guiding gifted and talented education as an alternative to “Gifted Child Paradigm” (Dai, 2017). It is more of a process rather than component or trait theory. As I have argued for many years now, a more contextual, dynamic, developmental view of talent is a better alternative to a decontextualized, static, trait view, simply because of “evolving complexity” or individuality, which cannot be reduced to simple traits, or even genetics. My hope is that this introduction to ECT not only provokes new ideas about how we engage the world, but also helps us appreciate how we make the self.

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (2004). Cognitive, affective, and conative aspects of adult intellect within a typical and maximal performance framework. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp.

119-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective.

Human Development, 49(4), 193–224.

60 • Mensa Research Journal

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row. Dai, D. Y. (2017). Envisioning a new foundation for gifted education: Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 172-182.

Dai, D. Y. (2020a). Evolving Complexity Theory of talent development: A developmental systems approach. In T. L. Cross, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development (pp. 1-27).

Prufrock Academic Press.

Dai, D. Y. (2020b). Rethinking human potential from a talent development perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43, 19-37.

Dai, D. Y. (2021). Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of talent development: A new vision for gifted and talented education. In R. J. Sternberg, & D. Ambrose (Eds.). Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 99-121). New York: Palgrave.

Dai, D, Y., & Li, X. (2020). Behind an accelerated scientific research career: Dynamic interplay of endogenous and exogenous forces in talent development. Education Sciences 10.220.

Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114-130.

Dai, D. Y., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Yang, Y. (2016). Gifted education in China: How it serves a national interest and where it falls short. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 51-75). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Dai, D. Y., Steenbergen-Hu, S., Zhou, Y. (2015). Cope and Grow: A grounded theory approach to early college entrants’ lived experiences and changes in a STEM program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 75-90.

Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2021). Scientific inquiry into human potential: Historical and contemporary perspectives across disciplines. New York: Routledge.

Edelman, G. M. (1995). Memory and the individual soul: Against silly reductionism. In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Nature’s imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision (pp. 200-206).

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). A conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J.F. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 112-127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engaging the World and Building the Self: A Primer on Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of Talent Development

Fischer, K. W., & Connell, M. W. (2003). Two motivational systems that shape development: Epistemic and self-organizing. BJEP Monograph Series II 2: Development and Motivation, 103–123. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp.

67-82). New York: Wiley.

Gould, S. J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool or an evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 43-65.

Gruber, H. E. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 247-263). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of developmental psychology. W. H. Freeman and Company.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge. England: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). Schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Originally published in 1969.)

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 3, 435-457.

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Sci-

ence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1986). The crystallizing experience: Discovering an intellectual gift. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 306-331).

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Author Bio

David Yun Dai, PhD (Purdue University), is Professor of Educational Psychology and Methodology at University at Albany, State University of New York. Dr. Dai joined the UAlbany faculty in 2001. He is internationally known for his work on gifted education, talent development, and creativity. He has published 11 authored and edited books, and over 130 journal articles, book chapters, encyclopedic entries. Dr. Dai was a Fulbright scholar twice: to China during 20082009 and to Germany during 2015-2016. He was the recipient of the Distinguished Scholar Award conferred by the National Association for Gifted Children in 2017. His recent publications include a lead chapter on the intellectual history of giftedness and talent in the APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (edited by Pfeiffer, 2018), Scientific Inquiry into Human Potential (co-edited by Dai & Sternberg, 2021; Routledge), and Talent Development through the Lens of Developmental Science (solely authored book in Chinese, upcoming; Shanghai Education Publishing).

Register now at mensafoundation.org/colloquium Volume 53, Issue 2 • 61

MRJ

A Book Review of Dr. Stephon Alexander’s Fear of a Black Universe: An Outsider’s Guide to the Future of Physics Jeff Papa, Ph.D. STEPHON ALEXANDER’S Fear of a Black Universe: An Outsider’s Guide to the Future of Physics is a fantastic read on many levels. While one does not need to be a physicist to follow the concepts in the book, Dr. Alexander, a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and musician, weaves in complex physics throughout the text, published in August 2021. He explains that great breakthroughs often come from “outsiders”: those not steeped in the rigid and formal traditions and trainings of a given field or profession.

His perspective stems from the idea that when we are conditioned to look at problems and systems in the way they’ve always been studied, it becomes exceedingly difficult to conceptualize creative new approaches from different perspectives. This situation is often exacerbated when people who do suggest creative or unorthodox ideas are labeled as incompetent or unserious – identifiers that can certainly limit career and/or academic prospects for anyone.

The outsider concept exists in many fields and contains many substrata that can make one a member. Dr. Alexander recalls that as a young Black man, he felt dismissed by his white peers and the more established physicists around him, resulting in his need to take different paths and to approach both learning and problem-solving from the perspective of an outsider. He couples this observation with a key incident in which an advisor suggested his lack of progress could best be addressed by following his dreams rather than by reading more physics books.

Throughout the book, Dr. Alexander relates instances where he – by himself or with other outsider scientists – created new and innovative solutions to problems or at least uniquely plausible answers. For example, he has some interesting thoughts on whether the creation of conscious life was necessary for the universe to observe itself and therefore create the “mechanism to collapse the universe’s wave function to its current and future state of existence.”

For the interested layperson or the expert physicist, Dr. Alexander covers a wide range of fascinating topics with understandable descriptions of the basics and the problem; he then follows each of these problem presentations with suggestions of possible solutions. Among the topics he covers are dark matter and dark energy, Einstein’s theories, space/time, superposition, quantum

62 • Mensa Research Journal

fields and galaxies, coincidences, alien life, supercomputers, the Delayed Choice Experiment, and whether consciousness creates the physical universe.

For anyone seeking innovation or progress in thought, science, commerce, society, and/or myriad other fields, Dr. Alexander’s thoughts on the potential power of alternative or nontraditional approaches could be quite powerful. He so aptly describes, “as humans we are limited by our social and psychological conditioning.” He adds, the science world’s “expectation of conformity stifles innovation and progress. Some scientists are reluctant to explore ideas outside the respected paradigm because they will be punished if they do so, which means that paradigm-shattering theories can be inhibited from emerging.” This powerful insight can be applied to most fields or occupations and teaches a valuable lesson about the need to distinguish between rules and traditions that exist from necessity and those that simply derive from “the way we have always done it.”

To that end, Dr. Alexander notes we “need to distinguish clearly between the values and norms that regulate scientific activity and those that demand conformity to a particular body of theory, a particular paradigm….” He encourages us to “… never be afraid of even the most absurd ideas, and to even embrace them.” In this work, Dr. Alexander provides numerous illustrative examples of his motto: “‘Let the nature of the problem dictate the tools you should resort to,’ even if it mean[s] borrowing from the outsiders or risk becoming one yourself.”

While Fear of a Black Universe: An Outsider’s Guide to the Future of Physics deals with the subject matter of physics, it is a very insightful and instructive work on creative ways to employ (or inhibit) intelligence, and thus, it is a fascinating read no matter your preexisting level of scientific knowledge.

Dr. Alexander’s book is available from Basic Books, a Member of the Perseus Books Group, New York. According to the accompanying biography, Dr. Alexander is a Professor of Physics at Brown University and served as the 2020 President of the National Society of Black Physicists.

He is also a jazz musician and authored an earlier book, The Jazz of Physics: The Secret Link Between Music and the Structure of the Universe, also by Basic Books.

THE MENSA FOUNDATION RECOGNIZES EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH NOW ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS! Awards for Excellence in Research celebrate groundbreaking investigations into intelligence, intellectual giftedness, and related fields. Submit your paper by Dec. 31.

MensaFoundation.org/ExcellenceInResearch

F O U N D AT I O N

MRJ

Random Samples and Standard Deviations Jeff Papa, Ph.D., and Ryan Donlan, Ed.D.

Standard Deviations

Intelligence Across the Lifespan: A Look Forward and Back Again In envisioning how to appropriately ponder intelligence across a lifespan, we have met with newfound humility in realizing that some would consider us about midway through that span — “mid-afternoon,” as the sundial might indicate. As such, we wonder if there is a unifying standard or well-rooted framework upon which our intelligence has manifested itself at different ages thus far, as well as where we might be going with the years we have left.

The Freman Prophecy from Dune makes it sound simple to discern, noting, “He shall know your ways as though born to them.” Yet, for most of us, is it really that simple?

64 • Mensa Research Journal

Seems more that a lifespan’s journey through the development and application of one’s own intelligence — as is the case with most other trips worth taking — would benefit from ample signposting.

It is just that — signposting — that we hope to provide this month.

In a search for what intelligence across the lifespan might resemble and entail — through references, readings, resources, and of course the commiseration of colleagues Zoomed — nothing universal stood out. Darn the luck.

We did, however, find some helpful road markers along the way.

First, we found an affirmation that our mid-afternoon position in life’s journey isn’t so bad. Isaac Asimov provided

Random Samples and Standard Deviations

some optimism in this regard when he stated, “I’m fortynine, not fifteen, and I’ve made peace with myself. Had I been handsome and stupid when I was fifteen, or twentyone, as, at that time in life, I wished I had been, I would undoubtedly now no longer be handsome — but I’d still be stupid. So, in the long run, I’ve won out.”

If we can’t find peace with that, we’re not sure where we’re going to find it.

Let’s consider singer-songwriter Jimmy Buffett. Buffett’s take on things often has a way of educating through storytelling; for our purposes here, he chronicled the life of a musician and veteran in his song “He Went to Paris.” Here’s a brief soundbite from that: “Summers and winters/Scattered like splinters/And four or five years slipped away.”

Admittedly, the song was not designed necessarily as a primer on intelligence, yet for us it makes inroads. We’ll mention Buffett and his lyrics from time to time here.

Thus, in keeping with this issue’s theme, we believe we have uncovered some overarching themes regarding intelligence in all stages of life, around which our standard deviations and random samples orbit. We’ll move headlong through life’s stages, starting with the wonder years and looking backward, eventually.

EARLY LIFE An Intelligence of Wonder Early life intelligence is like a puppy rushing from its crate, lapping, yapping, and wagging for all it’s worth — biting your nose, not realizing the hypodermic nature of young teeth. Unassuming wonder and exploratory zeal fuels early life intelligence. Consider the words J.M. Barrie has Peter Pan exclaim: “I am youth. I am joy. I am freedom!” Just look into a child’s eyes to find it. Nothing is off limits with eager curiosity. All within reach looks appealing, or at least tactile and, thus, inviting a tasting.

Author/teacher/blogger Seth Godin made an important distinction between the notions of being childlike and childish, noting there’s a huge difference between the two: “When we embrace joy and look at the world with fresh eyes, we’re being childlike. When we demand instant gratification and a guarantee that everything will be ok, we’re only being childish.” Good points. Development of early life intelligence probably doesn’t just come from one of these places or the other; however, we might pose that wonder probably comes with a relative combination of both.

Let’s not discount the “fire/ready/aim” that is ever-cute about the formation of intelligence in these years. If personification were to take hold, intelligence would say, “I’m all IN. Isn’t this amazing?!?” Sometimes we’re “all in” during

this stage of life simply because we’re trying to find meaning, a connection, and, in due time, some of the answers waiting to be found.

Buffett shared through song the wonderment of intelligent pursuit, singing, “He went to Paris/Looking for answers/To questions that bothered him so.” He wasn’t referring here to a child, of course, but rather to a young adult with, one might say, a more advanced stage of similar wonder. Sometimes we find a change of scenery can keep childlike dreams alive. Nothing’s childish about that.

Immortal Talks author Shunya reminds us, “What if you could change the scenes happening around you just by moving your legs in a certain way? You can. It’s called ‘walking.’ Human beings have ruined all the wonders of life by giving them names.”

Wonder might just well be the beginning of wisdom.

At least Socrates thought so.

YOUNG ADULTHOOD An Intelligence of Worldly Conquest As noted DC Comics superhero Green Lantern often said, “In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil’s might, beware my power, Green Lantern’s light.” Something close to that same light of empowerment transcends Green Lantern’s panels of fiction, it seems. Each day as well, guided by their own light, myriad young adults pursue their own versions of worldly conquest through their resulting development of intelligence, magic ring or no. Impervious we are, when young, if not invincible — headstrong in our perceptions of capacity, headlong in our trajectory, some might say well out over our skis.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry might have exemplified this whole headstrong thing when he had his Little Prince say, “I have lived a great deal among grown-ups. I have seen them intimately, close at hand. And that hasn’t much improved my opinion of them.” Others more seasoned might retort, as did Edgar Watson Howe, “Youth is about the only thing worth having, and that is about the only thing youth has.”

And if not headstrong, worldly conquest might well include the tendency of young adults to be affixed on those things shiny at a glance. How many shiny penny people do we know? Note Petrarch’s observation: “The aged love what is practical while impetuous youth longs only for what’s dazzling.”

Young adults, it seems, muster their intelligence toward agency, or rather in pursuit of domination over our environment, over our present, and metaphorical savings accounts be damned along the way. Intelligence of worldly conquest saves little for tomorrow. After all, why spend on tomorrow

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 65

Random Samples and Standard Deviations

what one can lavish today? Filmmaker Carey Williams extends the thought, saying, “Youth is that period when a young boy knows everything but how to make a living.”

Possibly, saving too little and lavishing too much is a bit too harsh a comment. Might we say instead “capitalize-on”? After all, who needs deliberation when the moment will do? French author and moralist Francois de La Rochefoucauld noted, “Youth is a continual intoxication; it is the fever of reason.”

The point is that in terms of worldly conquest, young adulthood allows us to grow our own intelligence organically as we take risks, stretch capabilities, and learn from our own experiences rather than safely discern such lessons vicariously from others at safer distance. “Best practices are useful reference points, but they must come with a warning label: The more you rely on external intelligence, the less you will value an internal idea,” observes leadership strategist Gyan Nagpal. True conquest, we might say, comes with embracing our own intellectual development while valuing what is inside of us, a combination capable of both growth and combustion, if we let it.

Buffett’s lyrics again seem relevant to young adulthood and intelligence development:“He was impressive/Young and aggressive/Saving the world on his own,” yet in doing so, “. . . four or five years slipped away.” Seems for those in young adulthood, the smart (or intelligent) move is often in the moment. Our next move might be our last. Let’s spend it wisely, even if we don’t realize a clock is ticking.

This clock notion becomes even more important in our next stage of discussion.

MID-ADULTHOOD An Intelligence Moving Quick, and Slow as Well While off the blocks quickly in young adulthood, there now becomes a pace in the race — a time in which we settle-in and, for lack of a better term, just . . . settle. This is where those of a keener mind (they believe) know that the wiser move — the intelligent play — is to keep doing what we’re doing because there seems to be a cadence comfortable with the pace of life.

Some of us who are more values-driven have found little favor with notions of homeostasis over the ages.

Note Benjamin Franklin, who said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” OK . . . Ben. Spoken like a true Founding Father. But let’s dial it back to our favorite Parrothead, Jimmy. Where does he land on this mid-adulthood pause-button thing? In terms of his protagonist who spent time in Paris but then later left to spend even more time in the U.K., Buffett shares this about life’s pace: “He went to England/Played the piano/

66 • Mensa Research Journal

And married an actress named Kim/They had a fine life/ She was a good wife/And bore him a young son named Jim.” Noting life and family caused a setting aside of questions he once wished answered, the song continues: “He liked the quiet/Clean country living.” Guess Paris couldn’t keep him when homeostasis came calling.

Doesn’t seem all that bad, this “pause for a while” thing. After all, Maya Angelou, in All God’s Children Need Traveling Shoes, observed, “The ache for home lives in all of us. The safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.” Yes, we can see where that would be nice, for a while. Nothing seems squandered there; rather, savored.

What would squandering look like, especially with respect to intelligence development? Intelligence might be squandered if thoughts such as Don’t rock the boat . . . Don’t bite off more than you can chew . . . Just ensure you stay the course, in reason and in life are perennially in our minds like dashboard warning lights. Along these lines, philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti said, “Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.”

Some may say that at this stage of adulthood intelligence is not used as often as is muscle memory. Routines, regimen, and return to the next day’s alarm clock are more the norm, while true intellectual stretch is the far exception. We wonder if there’s any intelligent utility in predictability — in seemingly moving quickly while sitting still.

Nevertheless, while intelligence may be in its prime at this stage of life, we can be distracted with life’s business, or life’s comforts, or life’s job descriptions unless we are outliers sacrificing aspects of the expected norm –- the 9 to 5 — running hither and yon doing what we do because that’s who we are, yet at some point wondering “Why?” but not saying it aloud.

Intelligence at this age is caution . . . conserving energy because we might someday need more of it. As Buffett cautions us via his song’s titular hero, last observed living in England: “And twenty more years slipped away.”

If intelligence is making an investment in those who come after us because they may be closer to our legacy than we, is intelligence really squandered, or is it just moved somewhere further from us for a time? The next stage of life allows us to ponder just such things.

SEASONED ADULTHOOD An Intelligence of Life Lived We discover that through the treadwear of life (with Buffett’s character, as example, losing a child and significant other), we have existential acuity — the ability to look at things in deeper perspective, to appreciate

Random Samples and Standard Deviations

through a wider pan and a higher-powered lens, the vistas beyond, as well as a willingness to look more deeply within.

This is our intelligence of a life lived — a wisdom of appreciation, of knowing, as the saying goes, that we should appreciate all the little things in life because at some point (and that is now), they will become the big things. This is an intelligence of understanding the human condition, borne of humility, shaped by adversity, honed by intentionality, and deepened by uncertainty.

It might even be said that one’s true depth of intelligence is exemplified by being OK with not being OK, necessarily — or by being OK with having to pick up and move on. It happened to Buffett’s world traveler, who we next find dealing with sorrow after war ravages both his home and family: “While the tears were a’ fallin’/He was recallin’/The answers he never found/So he hopped on a freighter/Skidded the ocean/And left England without a sound.” Might he have been falling forward?

Self-help author Napoleon Hill once wrote, “Opportunity often comes disguised in the form of misfortune, or temporary defeat.” Echoing that sentiment, educator Laurence J. Peter said, “Fortune knocks but once, but misfortune has much more patience.” Seems that the tough road can provide guidance to the questions we ask if we’re willing to travel it to see what opportunities might lie ahead.

It’s in that quest for answers that hopefully life provides us the intelligence to circle back, recalibrate, and engage in purposeful agency toward something meaningful with whatever time we have left. Jason Versey, in A Walk with Prudence, notes, “The best education we can ever receive is from the University of Adversity. It’s the only institute of learning that rewards us when we fail.” Zimbabwean-born philosopher Matshona Dhliwayo says it more succinctly: “Bitter wisdom is better than sweet folly.”

So what about this life lived and its relationship with intelligence? Is there anything besides the treadwear stuff?

We say, definitely. We also can’t help but think of an Irish saying that goes, “You’re not as young as you used to be.

But you’re not as old as you’re going to be.”

Get the point?

Sometimes we simply need to start anew, with a positive outlook. Running for president in 1984, Ronald Reagan was asked if he thought his age would be a factor in the upcoming election. He wryly redirected the question in terms of his Democratic rival, saying, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Clarity on life’s meaning is thus personified through a lived moment, which by its very nature is savored for its presence; in other words, it’s living in and appreciating the present instead of being caught up in the past or worrying about the future. Indiana Jones put it still

another way when he told Marion, “It’s not the years, honey. It’s the mileage.”

ELDER-ADULTHOOD An Intelligence Full Circle Seeing their reflection in the looking glass, elders see not only lines borne of personal investment but also the shadows that went into their creation. With intelligent pursuit of what’s left of the good life, and what might lie beyond, those in the twilight of their years hopefully are more at peace with what they have accomplished, as well as with what remains incomplete.

We are all, after all, incomplete — works in progress.

Intelligence in an elder’s looking glass exists in duality.

One might use a quantum mechanics metaphor to ascribe it: Like matter that is both particle and wave, an elder’s intelligence is localized at times and at others dispersed . . . variable and unpredictable — the former, guidance aptly provided through wise eyes and experience; the latter, guidance disparately recalled and reflected, possibly long thereafter.

Duality also has to do with what looking-glass intelligence is and what it does not reflect.

Author Lyman Bryson notes, “The error of youth is to believe that intelligence is a substitute for experience, while the error of age is to believe experience is a substitute for intelligence.” In short, from the vantage point of an elder, we understand much better the dualities that confront us, even ones that formerly confused us.

Yet, nothing is a given, we know as well. “Here’s what else I’ve learned: Age doesn’t guarantee wisdom, any more than age guarantees intelligence,” notes author Nicholas Sparks.

Wisdom is built upon intelligent choices, bearing cumulative relationships to positive outcomes over time.

Woody Allen once said, “You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.” Intelligent choices, possibly, Woody? Yep, we would say.

Regarding our choices across the lifespan and how others perceive them, Ann Landers, as usual, helped put things in perspective: “At age 20, we worry about what others think of us. At age 40, we don’t care what they think of us. At age 60, we discover they haven’t been thinking of us at all.”

So what is important in all of this — what does our looking glass say? Once again, we turn to Mr. Buffett, who seems to put things in perspective by having his song’s hero intelligently and reflectively conclude, “‘Some of it’s magic,/And some of it’s tragic,/But I had a good life all the way.’”

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 67

Random Samples and Standard Deviations

Emily Dickinson might have had the optimal perspective on the finality of it all when she wrote, “Because I could not stop for death — he kindly stopped for me.”

An Intelligence Standard? Arguably a Deviation So, we’re back to where we started.

Is there a standard or framework for matriculating through intelligence across a lifespan? Does intelligence progress smartly from one stage of our lives to the next, evolving along the way, acquiring new characteristics, setting aside old, and representing differently, or is each stage actually a deviation from what once worked prior?

A different tool, for a different time, with a different form and function, to leverage what’s living, and to leave a different footprint in life’s path — that’s what intelligence seems to us, over a lifespan, however you might define “footprint.”

One thing’s fairly certain, as American physician, philosopher, and author Debasish Mridha, M.D., notes, “Youth is to wander! Adult is to act! Age is to assimilate the beauty of thoughts.” That’s intelligent stuff.

■ The recently established Nordic Mensa Fund is described as “a result of the long-standing, close collaboration between the national Mensa associations of Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark. It was established in 2020 as a common project aiming to realize one of the key missions of Mensa, which is to encourage intelligence research.” You can learn more about this project by visiting nordicmensafund.org/about-the-fund/about-nordicmensa-fund. The fund’s 2021 call for papers ended with awarding Article of the Year to “Education and Cognitive Functioning Across the Life Span,” which can be accessed in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2020). This same volume also contains the article “How Do Cognitively Stimulating Activities Affect Cognition and the Brain Throughout Life?”

■ In “Prediction-based Neural Mechanisms for Shielding the Self from Existential Threat” (available

68 • Mensa Research Journal

at sciencedirect.com), Yair Dor-Ziderman, et al., explore the human brain’s tendency to decouple thoughts of death from one’s self. They explain that the human brain tends to think of death as a thing that happens to other humans but not to ourselves. Another wide-ranging article covering various aspects of the clinical (and beyond) transition from life to death, by Daniel Kondziella, M.D., Ph.D., can be found at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

■ “The Empty Brain,” an interesting article by Robert Epstein, Ph.D., which can be found at aeon.co, argues that comparisons between the human brain and computers are not only misguided but a wasteful pursuit. Dr. Epstein contends human brains are not information processors, manipulating data according to preset algorithms, and cannot be interpreted or understood in a manner similar to computing. He points out that humans are born, rather, with reflexes, senses, and the ability to learn, in order to change and adapt to the environment.

■ In “Stop Calling Everything AI, Machine-Learning Pioneer Says,” which can be found at spectrum.ieee.org, Michael I. Jordan, Ph.D., discusses how current computer capabilities are largely not artificial intelligence. He notes that while computers are getting quite good at “low-level pattern recognition skills,” they are not (yet) capable of applying abstract reasoning to practical problem-solving.

■ Neuroscientist Gisella Vetere, Ph.D., et al., describe in “Memory Formation in the Absence of Experience” (available at nature.com) their creation of artificial memories in mice. The premise for this research was that because memories are “coded by patterns of neural activity in distinct circuits,” reverse engineering artificial memories should be possible via creating patterns of neural activity without the actual external stimulus.

■ Image data scientist Conrad Foo, Ph.D., et al., reported in a recent article (available at cell.com) that mice experience spontaneous bursts of dopamine about once per minute and are capable of willful manipulation of these pulses in exchange for reward.

■ Finally, in “Retinal Waves Prime Visual Motion Detection by Simulating Future Optic Flow” (available at science.org), Xinxin Ge, et al., describe how retinal waves interact with the brain of mice — before ever opening their eyes — in a manner similar to transmission of actual data once a mouse has opened its eyes.

The authors believe this is how newborn mice understand how to process visual data and maneuver in their environment right away after opening their eyes for the very first time.

MRJ

Our Plan to Unleash Intelligence

By Charlie Steinhice, Mensa Foundation President | President@MensaFoundation.org.

I am honored to present the Mensa Foundation’s new Strategic Plan, approved by the Board of Trustees on Feb. 23. This might not be evident from the relative brevity of the document, but believe it or not, this plan was four years in the making and took a lot of soul-searching.

Shortly before I became a Trustee in 2016, the Board made a strategic decision to invest in our development and seek greater funding — not only from Mensa members but also from nonmembers who would share an interest in our goals and the programs designed to achieve them. As newly hired Philanthropy Director John Thompson made initial contacts, he quickly found that most people didn’t know about the Mensa Foundation, and those who did weren’t entirely clear on its nature or intended purpose. And even some of our best supporters were familiar only with our Scholarship Program and maybe the Mensa Research Journal, not knowing about the free resources we offer on the Mensa for Kids website or other Foundation programs such as our gifted education fellowships and mini-grants.

At the Board’s first biennial retreat in 2018, we decided we needed to develop a new Strategic Plan that would appeal to both the Mensa community and those in the general public who place value on education and research in support of intelligence. To promote the Foundation to potential donors and partners, we first needed to define it better for ourselves. After studying the elements of strategic planning, we began with our vision, mission, and core values. We had working drafts by the next retreat in February 2020. Of course, that was just a month before a pandemic changed the world and led us to rethink everything.

Unable to meet face to face, we switched to more frequent videoconferences. These included special strategic planning sessions spearheaded by Foundation Vice President Deb Stone as well as brainstorming sessions that generated lots of ideas for creating new programs or enhancing existing ones. (Let me thank AMC member Jon Gruebele for volunteering to facilitate some of those sessions.) Also, in late 2020, the Board added two energetic new Trustees, Nguyen Pham and Michelle Rakshys. We put them to work immediately on a thorough review of existing Foundation programs.

Meanwhile, we did some important housekeeping. Our Organizational Governance Committee undertook a full review of actions still in effect (ASIEs) so we could update or sunset those that had become obsolete. And former Foundation President Marie Mayer led the search for a new Mensa Research Journal editor. She found a gem in Dr. Jeff Papa, who has already brought new ideas and energy to the MRJ. In 2021, another key theme emerged in external scholarly literature: A greater awareness of the need to support intelligence and giftedness throughout the lifespan. This resonated with us as a way to identify gaps within our existing programs and opportunities for the Foundation to take the lead in filling them.

But even with all this, the most elusive element was a clearly defined identity for the Foundation. So, we sought an outside perspective from The Cause Agency, a market research firm specializing in nonprofit organizations. Their analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, reinforced our awareness that people conflated the Mensa Foundation with American Mensa. This led us to add a Statement of Scope, defining the Foundation as a distinct but complementary organization that helps address two of the three stated purposes of all Mensa organizations. One of the biggest differences between the Mensa Foundation and American Mensa (or Mensa International) is that almost all our programs and resources are available to bright people among the general public, regardless of Mensa qualification or membership status. This also puts the Foundation in a position to be a welcoming gateway into the Mensa community.

All the elements described have helped us distill an ocean of details into a clearer picture of who we are and what we want to accomplish. You can see in our Strategic Priorities (on page 70) that we want to develop and/or enhance positive, impactful programs to help intelligent and gifted individuals and celebrate their intelligence with resources and recognition. To make that happen, we need to make more people aware of what the Mensa Foundation is and develop the partnerships and funding it will take to make a greater difference.

So, you might ask, what happens next? Here is what we have in the works for the next year: • Reevaluate existing programs, combining information from the program review described above with findings from The Cause Agency and additional details from Foundation staff.

To ensure that all our programs are truly impactful, determine whether each one should be expanded, maintained, redesigned, or sunsetted.

• Identify more clearly the gaps in our programs where certain age groups or aspects of intelligence are not currently served and the most promising ways to address them.

• Further refine our identity in preparation for a branding campaign and marketing/communication plan.

• Deepen our understanding of what development is, beyond simply fundraising, to make all this possible.

• Determine what our volunteer structure and staffing model/needs should look like going forward to achieve these more ambitious objectives. *** While we keep working on the strategic pieces, our dedicated and hardworking staff — Foundation Director Jill Beckham, the aforementioned Philanthropy Director John “JT” Thompson, and Executive Director Trevor Mitchell — get to figure out the operational details as we go forward.

My fellow Trustees and I are genuinely excited about the Foundation’s future. We welcome you to be part of the process — as volunteers, donors, or general advocates for the Mensa Foundation.

Volume 53, Issue 2 • 69

Mensa Foundation Strategy

Mensa Foundation Strategy

Approved by the Mensa Foundation Board of Trustees Feb. 23

4.

5.

Action and Innovation – We aspire to purposeful action and to innovation in ourselves and others in our broader community.

Excellence – We strive to excel in every aspect of our commitment toward, and support for, the mission of the Mensa Foundation.

Guiding Concepts

Vision The Mensa Foundation is where bright ideas, people, and resources converge to create solutions for a better world.

Mission Unleashing intelligence for the benefit of humanity

1.

Intelligence and Giftedness are two concepts that are related, but their distinction and understanding are not always clear. We seek to build conceptual clarity and to provide support and empowerment to intellectually gifted people across the lifespan.

2.

Diversity fosters innovation and problem‐solving by challenging everyone to look at things from a different perspective.

3.

Neurodiversity – Each mind is unique, and everyone should be able to unleash their intelligence.

4.

Humanity – Do good; be good.

Strategic Priorities •

Mensa Foundation story – Clearly and effectively tell the story of the Mensa Foundation on why we exist, what communities we serve, where we’ve been, and where we’re going.

•

Celebrating intelligence – Serve as a resource, catalyst, and support for those who unleash their intelligence to make contributions that benefit humanity.

•

Positive, impactful programs – Develop or enhance programs to address the opportunities and challenges that intelligent and gifted individuals encounter throughout life.

•

Development – Ensure appropriate funding to increase the reach and impact of the Foundation through its current and future programs as well as general operations.

Statement of Scope The Mensa Foundation is a charitable organization focused on intelligence and giftedness in the community at large, and (with few exceptions) our programs and resources are not restricted to current Mensa members. Our mission supports two of the three stated purposes shared by all Mensa organizations: •

To identify and foster intelligence for the benefit of humanity

•

To encourage research into the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence

We pursue these goals, in partnership with American Mensa and/or Mensa International where appropriate, with resources donated by Mensans and non-Mensans alike. We aspire to use the intelligence of Mensans and non-Mensans to make the world a better place.

Strategic Goals/Objectives •

Review existing Foundation programs and take action to align them with the mission and priorities of the Mensa Foundation.

Core Values 1.

Community – We nurture a diverse global community that values the advancement of human intelligence and giftedness.

•

Scan internal and external resources to identify gaps in support for intelligent and gifted individuals.

2.

Respect – We respect everyone’s ideas, contributions, and hard work to facilitate an inclusive environment in which all stakeholders can take pride.

•

Develop programs and provide resources to fill those gaps, and to enable individuals to unleash their intelligence to the fullest extent.

3.

Integrity – We, individually and collectively, commit to integrity in our actions and decisions.

•

Establish a solid, long-term development plan to advance the efforts of the Mensa Foundation.

70 • Mensa Research Journal

Lunch Bag | $15

Auto-Botic Toy | $20

s

kid

mensastore.com The New

Tik Tok Sensatio

n!

Rainbow Spring Toy | $6

Hoot Owl | $24

Travel Fidget Popper | $12

Kanoodle Game | $15

1315 Brookside Drive Hurst, TX 76053

PRSRT STD U. S. Postage PAID Hanover, PA Permit No. 4

Unleash intelligence Gifted Youth | Scholarships | Awards

Your generous support empowers gifted youth, bolsters scholarships and awards, expands educational opportunities, and fosters the use of individual and collective intelligence.

Help unleash intelligence by making a gift today.

mensafoundation.org/donate

F O U N D AT I O N