And that there are also adults who were identified at an early age as gifted, based on a high IQ score (which is really nothing more than a very good but not infallible predictor of later gifted development), but who never later blossomed into extraordinary achievers or performers.
Ah. So if we don't "blossom," we aren't smart anymore?
When do we make this determination, exactly? What if I'm 40- something (let's SAY) and haven't finished my novel yet (speaking HYPOTHETICALLY?)
Research in my lab, following a cohort of students from kindergarten through the sixth grade, found that although IQ scores and scores on the teacher-rated Gifted Rating Scales (GRS; Pfeiffer and Jarosewich, 2003) were, in general, fairly stable over time, a number of students’ scores in our sample shifted significantly during the six-year period. Not just one or two students! In some instances, the scores shifted by 10 and even 14 points!
Er, whoop de doo? I feel like we see this kind of lability all the time here. 10 points isn't a ton. I don't think WE take it as "Oh, now gifted!/ now not gifted" as much as we sensibly see that tests are imperfect and we need to look at the whole child and complete performance and other indicators. Why not think of it this way, instead of getting into this big thing about "Did you KNOW you can become UNGIFTED?? Huh, huh?" Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see his POV as being about developing the whole child, seeing potential, etc as much as I see someone trying to find a hook to sell a book with.
