MyGiftedLife.org

"I'm not convinced by this. And I'm just being a troll here. This has been a lifelong interest of mine and I have a degree in Psychology and a Diploma in Professional Counseling."

I'm not totally convinced either way, but I'm leaning on the side that MILD and CHRONIC stress that is interpreted as "Trauma" by extrasensitive individuals may be responsible for the intensity which motivates finding solutions by people who have the genetic capacity to be gifted. Dabrowski would agree with me on this one. People who fit well into society don't change themselves. Without change, there's no work being done on oneself, and no learning. As a psychology professional you should know that people need to hit the bottom before they seriously look to change themselves. Gifted people, with all the mixed messages society gives them (we love you when we can make you work your butt off for us, but we hate you the rest of the time, and especially when you need us...) will hit "bottom" much more frequently than others. The lesson we refuse to learn is that no matter how much we work to try to fit in, we never will be appreciated the way we need to be - because the vast majority of people don't have the capacity to think in such non-concrete terms of rewards and sure-shelter friendships.

I have wondered if this wasn't a case of chicken and egg (which came first): is the perceived trauma bringing out work by the individual in order to fit in, or is trying to fit in, using the ethics of a mind flipped contrary to popular opinion, the cause of the trauma? Are we bullied because we're inherently different, or does the bullying cause us to react with intensity (perhaps because we hold it in out of social politeness and then blow when we reach capacity)? Am I odd because I truly am different the genetic Nature arguement), or am I odd because someone labelled me this way a very long time ago (the environmental Nurture arguement)? Or... both, as reflected in my hypothesis above.

I don't think there's one member in this community who hasn't had this as a lifelong interest (me included, and I'm old enough to retire, but finding that I can't because I'm at the height of my career). There are others here (myself included) who also have degrees in psychology and counselling credition. I don't wave my flag in here because credentials don't hold up to a community based on meritorious contributions rather than pieces of paper that say you're wealthy enough to get indoctrinated with the dogma of your day. There are polymaths in here that can kick our butts in our own fields for a short time, so I practice and advise caution. Any counsellor of the gifted should know this, as it's crucial for success. Save the credentials speech for those who have the ability to believe you will cure them.

"I used to drive my mother wild with our 'Why - Because it is' sessions."

And now you try your mother's reply on us and expect us to not question you? Barefootwriter would have kicked my arse if I tried that with her with no supporting proof, and she'd be right to do that, too. This thread, in fact, was created to answer her challenge. I haven't had the time to answer properly with evidence either way, but I didn't want to let the question slip away. I've read much over the years, but looking up the sources is another thing again - and most of the sources I would use (peer reviewed materials) are not available for free online (I have done some looking). BFW could get access, but I would want everyone else to read it too.

To barefootwriter I hazard this intuition: that those with the genetics to be gifted who do not have low-grade constant stressors in their early home environment, probably do end up as very talented, but not gifted, and I certainly wouldn't expect them to be polymathic. But how could it be proved ethically? It stands to reason that if one's road is clear and speedy, why would one hack through the jungle to find a path? Looking for other ways around a problem and needing sidetracks for distraction and enlightenment are distinctive characteristics of polymathy. An analogy: the celebrated talented person is like the nematode that climbs the lowest root to get to the tree trunk. There's little to leave to chance: just rise and follow the thickest root and success is guaranteed. Progress is seen and rewarded. The creative genius is more like the squirrel, whose task it is to get to the highest twig of this particular tree (that entwines with other trees). It's all best guess - no sure algorithm to get there by leaping, as there's no guarantee the last twig chosen is from this tree. Progress is never certain, but if the squirrel were to compete with the nematode, there's a decent probablility that the squirrel would win. However... the squirrel would have to retrace the path (which is likely lost to memory by now) to verify the connection to the trunk of this tree. The nematode wouldn't have to do this. If self-verification is required in order to "win," I'd be betting on the nematode. If others do the verifying, relieving the squirrel of the burden of proof, then I'm betting on the rodent.

I created this thread to find out the truth as far as we could look for it. I didn't create it for a collection of case studies - too small a sampling, too subjective, subject to correlation = causation fallacies. (My psych degrees are hard science btw.) I could have posted my own "traumatic" life experiences too, but how would that help? It doesn't. This is one reason I've temporarily avoided this thread. I'm not interested in hearing all these personal case studies, because I hear them on a regular basis every day. This isn't to say I'm not concerned or that I don't care. On the contrary, I do! To the degree that it bothers me to hear too many of them and to step over the heap to get to what might be the heart of the problem. But I'm not about to use my off-time to listen to more of the same old.

So if you want to contribute to the thread, please, please, give your refutable or provable facts and not your opinions. If you have a belief that can be put to an actual hypothesis that is related, by all means, post it as I have. By all means, attempt to disprove my hypothesis.

Any overwhelming experience is potentially a traumatic one. So, it's completely subjective.

Yes, and there are plenty of things in psychology that are, like relative deprivation.

I suspect, if this hypothesis has some weight to it, that we might find evidence in brain scans. I think we're just figuring out the basics of what we need to know -- what intelligence looks like in the brain, for instance. We live in exciting times.

I would imagine stress, no matter how "subjective," would neuroplastically alter the brain in specific ways, and we might be able to see these changes coincide with whatever changes we mark as "giftedness." But correlation is not causation.

There is some speculation and evidence that the same gene contributes to both schizophrenia and giftedness (highability.org/92/a-link-between-intell...g-and-schizophrenia/). What makes one go so wrong and the other go so right, I have no idea, but it might tie in somehow.

Trillian, I don't mean to be such a stickler. It's just that I ended up trading in half of my books because, while they contained interesting and appealing ideas, they were also complete fluff. I'm not a scientist in the strictest sense, but I find myself disappointed at the lack of academic scrutiny in much of the pop psychology out there. Fortunately, we seem to live in exciting times for this too.

Don't get me wrong; I like the idea that we're tempered like steel. It just doesn't fit scientifically for me yet.

I'd like to see that preferred academic scrutiny that you mentioned in a life time or maybe 20 life times. Too many variables to prove as they exponentially grow in a network. Everything is connected to everything. Since the mind and life has an infinite number of variables...this suggests that science may have an impossible challenge in covering the mind. A person may have to go with their intuition or feelings on this to see further. Since these functions will allow them to un-departmentalize science in allowing a greater picture.

Science's departmentalization has been very useful in organizing information, however... it's built on silos of information. Ironically, science is subjective since it's predisposed to certain perspectives. Even physics has a bias.

Not inferring that science is bad, but highly doubt science will explain the trauma correlation.

I mean if you look at how events can happen, Trillian definitely has a good explanation.

I'd like to see that preferred academic scrutiny that you mentioned in a life time or maybe 20 life times. Too many variables to prove as they exponentially grow in a network. Everything is connected to everything. Since the mind and life has an infinite number of variables...this suggests that science may have an impossible challenge in covering the mind. A person may have to go with their intuition or feelings on this to see further. Since these functions will allow them to un-departmentalize science in allowing a greater picture.

Science may not know what is going on in a particular individual’s mind at a particular time, but what it is good at is figuring out probabilities and patterns. That’s all we really need here. We’re not looking to predict what causes any particular individual to become gifted, but what in general contributes to developing gifted traits. That we are complex makes untangling the answers by using scientific methods more difficult, but not impossible.

Science's departmentalization has been very useful in organizing information, however... it's built on silos of information. Ironically, science is subjective since it's predisposed to certain perspectives. Even physics has a bias.

Intuition is subject to a lot more bias; you think it’s overwhelmingly right only because you forget all the times it’s been wrong. It’s a cognitive bias everyone has. I’ll go with science any day; it takes better notes.

Not inferring that science is bad, but highly doubt science will explain the trauma correlation.

I think you mean implying, not inferring. Considering that science already has some idea of how trauma impacts other areas of mental health (the diathesis-stress model I mentioned earlier), I think your doubts are unwarranted.

You look at things from (presumably) an artist’s perspective. I look at things from both. I appreciate the subjective nature of reality; after all, I’m in school to be a counsellor. I recognize how highly individual the mind is. I also have a strong background in science, so I appreciate its contributions.

Even if we could know what’s happening in an individual’s mind from moment to moment, I don’t think it’s prudent to go there. The mind is the last bastion of freedom. However, we can ethically use science to generalize about the mind, or about particular types of minds.

Not against science but thought it would be entertaining to point out science's shortcomings. I think some people may trust it too much. Some trust it as the new religion. Science can be great for the technical, but not great for the administrative or when variables become too complex.

To scientifically prove the correlation of trauma as a causation would be too complex for science to handle. You would have to define many variables, of which some are ineffable. For example, what is giftedness? Using IQ here would give a one-sided perspective. Also, the definition of creativity is hard to prove scientifically as well due to creativity being defined in an infinite number of characteristics.

When variables reach infinity, people begin to use the Jungian processes of intuition or feelings to process the sea of incoming information. For example, that's how people socialize with others. Their is an infinite number of processes working and one has to simplify those with the mentioned processes.