Thanks for posting this! Going through the posts, I recognize several recurring themes -- themes which haven't played out exactly the same way in my life, obviously, but which are, regardless all too familiar. I was not that genius who went to the International Math Olympiad without coaching, for example, but I did hold my own in math, even in math competitions, just not at that high level. But I always questioned after that whether I really had talent, because until that point I was basically dominating it without trying. It's a tough psychological barrier to overcome.
Levels of giftedness is a common theme, and one which I would like to see more discussion about (if there are any really good threads already, do feel free to link those somewhere). What I observed is that you grow up knowing, either consciously or subconsciously that you're gifted. You have achievements to back that up, and you maybe make your way into elite universities. Then, you see people who are much better than you and find it hard to reconcile that reality. You realize that you may be very gifted, but there are people out there who are scary talents, and that you will never beat them at their game. Not the healthiest way to think, perhaps, but it is natural and a reality we all have to face. Being at the 98th percentile still puts you among millions of people similar to you in intelligence, and simple arithmetic says that if only 0.01% of people get into a highly selective profession, then simply being at the 98th percentile will do you no favors. Alternatively, you are indeed so smart that you are in the top 1% at your college without trying hard, but then lose interest, and are left perplexed.
I feel like many posts here talk about early advocacy. While that is indeed justified, I would like to see more discussion regarding gifted adults, because I think that's where it's at. All of those kids who go to 'gifted' classes then grow up and wonder why they never 'amounted' to anything. And so, in a certain roundabout way, it's also very relevant for gifted children in order to answer the somewhat philosophical question of what we prioritize when we think of those programs in the first place. Is it simply providing an education where gifted kids aren't bored out of their minds, or one in which they are challenged to their utmost potential? The latter would entail some hardship, and then the entire narrative needs to be shaped around that -- and kids then probably can't be opted in by default if it's going to be a tough grind.
