I will say that I don't believe that kids can be "made" gifted through hothousing. In that regard, I guess I think there is some upper limit. Athletics is a good analogy here: I could have run all day every day for my whole life, and I would never be a world-class sprinter.
I disagree that a child "hothoused" can't become GT because I don't think one is or is not GT, but rather than one scores there or not on various lousy measures at various points in time and relative rank changes often, especially in childhood. A hothoused child is more likely to reach such scores, particularly if the parents paid for a good educational consultant in NYC.
We do disagree there. You are defining giftedness solely by testing? Really? Were there no gifted people before there were IQ tests?
I think giftedness is *far* more than that, different than that. There's a creativity, a drive, a need that has zilch to do with testing. If there had never been an IQ test, giftedness would still be very evident in the world.
The young brain is a fluid and astonishingly active thing with many options for ultimate outcomes that are much, much more fixed in adulthood.
Again, I think you're not taking this in the spirit in which I intend--a common problem with this sort of conversation about brain development. Subtleties get lost.
I completely agree that Polgar's chess situation demonstrates that her brain has an incredible capacity for chess. The brain is amazing! It *is* fluid and develops over time. It grows, it changes. No argument from me. That's why I say I don't think intelligence is fixed.
But I also think there is some sort of ultimate top limit, if only because if there weren't, everyone would know everything. There would be no developmental delays. No brain damage. No left side of the Bell Curve. These things exist because for now, at least, there are limits.
I think the brain still has many, many secrets, and there may come a day when we know enough about it that there will be basically no limit, at least in a practical sense. But I think that will require artificial enhancements to achieve. Though you don't like the comparison to the athlete, I think it has to be acknowledged that the brain is a part of the body, and we come with some hardware and software preinstalled.
Of course, the best part of my argument is that as long as someone achieves something--regardless of what it is--I can just say that it was within the limits of what their brain could do. Basically I can't be proven wrong!
As I said, this really is more philosophy than anything useful. You were warned.
And seriously, I think we really agree almost across the board. (Except for the definition of giftedness, interestingly). I just don't believe that potential is 100% unlimited in one person. Really amazingly high--almost certainly higher than we can ever imagine. But not utterly unlimited.
