SS

The benefits of being gifted, with poor executive function may include:

1- as a student, obtaining "2e" supports in school to help overcome executive function challenges and perform closer to your gifted potential

2- having the intellectual ability to independently research and learn more about executive function skills, different areas of the brain that specialize in certain processing skills, and that other areas of the brain can be trained to assist (such as after a brain injury)

3- being able to set realistic goals and rewards for yourself, to keep yourself motivated

4- learning and developing methods for compensating (such as breaking tasks down in to individual steps, to be addressed in sequential order)

One source to begin learning about executive function:
- Understood.Org
- link - https://www.understood.org/en/learning-t...function-skills

While I agree that the principal benefits of being gifted with poor EF skills are that you have more possible compensatory strategies, there are also some postulated intrinsic benefits. It has been observed that individuals with later-developing EF profiles such as those observed in ADHD retain a greater openness to divergent/creative thinking into adulthood. This has been compared to having the free-flowing creativity and imagination of childhood paired with the higher-level cognitive/abstract thinking skills of an adult. Compound that with GT level cognition, and this suggests a plausible mechanism for the observed overrepresentation of GT/ADHD individuals among entrepreneurs. Just below the 25th %ile for EF is likely close to the sweet spot for this, btw, since that is bordering on average EF, which would increase the likelihood that the EF relative weaknesses are not low enough to substantially interfere with everyday function.

SS

If I were you, I would think about it in the following way:

Having poor executive function is not beneficial in itself.

Indigo pointed out how being gifted, specifically, can be an advantage in overcoming the EF thing - points 1 and 2.
He then presented some strategies to overcome the EF thing (which: keep in mind! every non-gifted person with EF problems would also need to apply - think about schizophrenia, parkinson's disease...) - points 3 and 4.

aeh mentioned possible long-term benefits of having dealt with EF problems as a 2e - which might be, as you said, being able to present solutions which are considered (more) creative.

From my personal experience: if you want to get there (= to the long-term benefits), you will need to learn how to work focused and with strategy.

In that sense I would not agree with what you have written ("the inability to work focused and with strategy [...] leads to solutions which are considered creative").
You won't get the results without a sufficient amount of consistency and focus.

Getting there might be frustrating at times - what I have tried to find in those situations is the balance between self-compassion and discipline.

Discipline = I need to learn how to work focused and with strategy (if I want the results)
Self-compassion = it is okay if I don't know yet how to work focused and with strategy.

[That is, if you don't suffer from one of those additional disorders I mentioned before. In this case, I wouldn't be able to give the necessary advice.]

Thanks for the clarification of my post, raphael!

Obviously, if lower EF interferes with major life functions, then it is primarily a challenge and not an asset. My point would probably have been better expressed by reflecting that the underlying neurocognitive profile does not have to be viewed as fundamentally flawed; it has advantages as well, if developed appropriately--which, of course, includes acquiring a repertoire of sufficient EF skills to manage one's life.

And to add further to raphael's excellent suggestions: sometimes the self-compassion includes recognizing that it might not be practical for one to work focused for the length of time that seems desirable in some idealized plan. It is okay to take breaks. It is okay to reward oneself for incremental improvement. It is okay to set challenging but achievable goals--and not reach them on the first, second, or tenth try.

SS

@ aeh: Thanks back for expanding on strategies for self-compassion in daily routine!
This is really some very useful and also nice stuff to incorporate. (imo independently of giftedness).

@Klangedin:
I would see it that way: the more it interferes with some of your daily life functions, the more it becomes a disorder. Further comments from my side:

1. How old are you, if I may ask?

2. Seeing it too much as a disorder, or focusing too much on the fact that it's a negative, won't be helpful. (Been there, done that). What helped me is to focus more on the fact that, like everyone else, also non-gifted people, maybe some things are not working out, and I have to put some effort in to make them work. (Or as I like talking to myself in plain english: "it sucks, but it will get better").

3. Be careful to be specific in what you call the disorder, or the negative or whichever word you choose: it is not about the way you process information as a whole, even less about you as a person. It is simply about some little tweaks that you want to incorporate.

4. If you feel like sharing, go ahead and give some tangible examples of your day-to-day struggles.
I cannot guarantee, but some more specific advice could be of further help.

SS

Then please excuse previous posts. I started giving answers before having made clear I was answering the right question and assumed too fast that you were also asking about ways to basically tweak your EF profile.

I do not have much scientifcally based knowledge so I can only brainstorm.

Having low flexibility/high remaining EFs could be helpful in being persistent in pursuing an idea, "no matter what".

It is one my hobbies to make up "every day psychology" profiles of people, often scientists I have met or am a fan of. Those who appeared to me as being less cognitively flexible would also be the ones who would obsess over an idea, to the point of moving mountains to try and prove that this one idea was the right one.
More flexible ones would maybe change paths, get interested in something else... One of my intuitive theories is also that the less flexible ones often ended being in more "dominant" positions, e.g. through being naturally better at maintaining a point in a discussion, until they feel that it has been truly made & understood by others.

So being more "naturally persistent" might be one advantage but as I said, this is purely intuitive from my side.