I don't think we need to assume that all newbies are idiots though. Sometimes it sounds like that's what's happening on this topic, and I don't think we have to do that. Nothing will work for everyone. This works for some people. It's one tool among many. Anyone who blindly follows the first book they pick up on this topic is in trouble no matter which book they pick!
I didn't hear anyone suggest newbies are idiots. I haven't heard anything remotely like that. I sure don't think I'm an idiot, but I can very well remember what it feels like to be an overwhelmed parent of a complex 2E kid. It wasn't a matter of blindly following anything. Instead it was ab out being in a place of being worried, confused, terrified and reaching out for answers. I don't like to think of parents in that position being told for $45 they can get a report telling them how smart their child is. It is being presented as science and it is far from it.
I guess I feel like you're trying to persuade those of us who were helped by Ruf to renounce her work. Maybe that's not what's happening, but you're making some pretty harsh statements--fortune cookies? Wow...
I guess I don't understand why we can't simply make the points about what's problematic with her work--and those of us who were helped by her have granted many weaknesses!--and let it go at that, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Why attack one of the few tools that's out there to help parents get a handle on what's up with their gifted kids? I don't get that. Even if it didn't help you, is it so terrible if it did help some people? I think it's important to make the points about what's wrong with it, but I think it's equally important to hear that it *did* help some of us. Both perspectives are valid. I don't feel like you think the "helped by Ruf" perspective is valid. Am I wrong? (I'm happy to be wrong!)
I feel like you're expecting more than any book can give and expecting less from any parent than they will give. That's what I meant there. I think parents are smarter and more persistent than you're giving them credit for. Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part--though I did say that was what I was feeling, not that anyone said those words--but my point is clear, I hope. I meant no offense.
Oh, and again, I am not defending the website. Haven't used it, have my doubts about it. But I will defend Ruf's work, with caveats about the weaknesses in it.
