I think the answer to Island's question is that giftedness has little to do with the acceptance or recognition of social norms/social cues.
I think too often giftedness is the excuse not to play by social norms.
And I think that real giftedness is the ability to communicate with college professors and fit in with the beer crowd. Because the beer crowd can have some interesting things to say. They do talk about other things beside football. And helping a child fit into any situation can be a seriously needed talent in the job. Doesn't have to be, but generally helps long term success.
And you are a much better engineer if you get down to the assembly floor and talk the talk and walk the walk with those people doing the job.
Hmm...I don't really agree. Gifted people (especially HG+ people) think differently from almost everyone else, which makes it harder to fit it in and harder to recognize social cues. Depending on personal traits, it's also harder to accept the way that things are.
For example, giftedness is often associated with a passion for wanting to do something in the best way possible, and/or a strong sense that things should be fair (one phrase that really irks me is "No one ever said life was fair," as if that smug expression excuses odious behavior). I don't know about anyone else here, but it's very hard for me when I see that something at work can be improved, see how to improve it, make a suggestion...and get in trouble because the boss had a personal connection to the thing I want to improve and my suggestions made him feel bad for one reason or another.
Wren is right that listening to the people on the assembly floor or otherwise in the trenches is critical, but when the managers get angry with you for doing that, you get nowhere. Just ask the engineers and technicians at NASA how well they did when they were trying to make a point about cold O rings or failing heat shields.
So, passions can be at odds with sociology in an organization. I understand that lots of non-gifted people are passionate and have these problems too, so don't think I'm leaving them out. But gifties are a special subgroup in that group.
Many people with what are called "good social skills" will avoid rocking the boat in order to keep the peace. WHen your passions are at odds with keeping the peace, you can get into trouble. For example, when many gifties see a problem, the natural response is to recognize that it exists, define it, and find a way to fix it. As I noted above, sometimes the higher-ups don't like that (for all kinds of reasons). There are also bosses who don't like to see their reports being able to do something better than they can (it's threatening).
For a great discussion of these ideas, see the last section of
The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin or a paper entitled
[i]Why are modern scientists so dull?[/i] You can read the abstract at that link; if you want a copy of the whole paper, PM me and I'll send a PDF.
University faculty and admissions are increasingly being dominated by people with good social skills who crank through and get lots of publications and grants. They do this by avoiding risks. These people have been called "craftsmen" or "master craftsmen." They are critically important to scientific progress, but they aren't the only ones who are important. Seers, or people who prefer to work on foundational questions, do risky research that may not pay off with a publication for five years or more. In today's environment, these people can't get a job and can't get funding. Yet they are as important as the craftsmen, because they make the breathtaking discoveries that the craftsmen then refine and perfect. Craftsmen don't make these kinds of discoveries. Seers can be seen as unproductive and slow, plus the independence of thought that allows them to challenge dogma also makes it hard for them to not rock the boat. Universities today are relatively intolerant of these kinds of people and this is...well, not a good thing.
