hm.
Well, I think he's wrong to call giftedness a mere construct (er-- or "cognitive ability/potential" anyway-- "gifted" clearly IS a construct, but what is MEANT by it isn't).
He's taking a growth mindset (good and correct) starting point and adding in touches of plasticity (also fine) and the notion that any particular evaluation of IQ is merely a snapshot anyway...
and getting "gifted doesn't mean anything anyway because we can ALL be gifted!!" That's where I think he's going wrong with this. It's not that I disagree that the boundary between gifted and bright needs to be fuzzier and softer-- that, I agree with. It's not that I think that IQ is the be-all, end-all of ability and dictates performance, because I don't think that either...
but I do think that this is RIPE for abuse by administrators/teachers who want to say that a child who is DYS level at 6yo "doesn't need anything special" if underperforming at 8yo.
Who's to say that differences in individual IQ "snapshots" don't reflect testing artifacts, anyway?
