I think this article says pretty much nothing meaningful about how to nurture the gifted, though I do agree with the secondary premise that deeper math talent in the general population wouldn't be a bad thing. The author seems to rail against filling GT children's heads with pie-in-the-sky dreams without inoculating them with persistence and direction. No news there.
I agree with 22B's point about the author's obfuscation of his underlying argument. Ironically, the author's argument actually implicitly places heightened demands on the GT, because he's arguing their relative multiplier is insufficient to merit supporting their development of their talents, which is exactly what he's railing against. He can't have it both ways.
Frankly, the author sounds like he's whining for not feeling being more personally impressive. Sour grapes, cognitive dissonance, etc.
In case my distaste for the article isn't apparent enough, I'll say that people like him set the case of GT students back. He'll be perceived by the general public as an authority on GT, and his negative portrayal of offering resources to the GT (nature and extent undefined) will probably cause some people to advocate against an appropriate education for the gifted. I shake my fist in his general direction.
