That article was similar to a lot of pseudoscience I've reviewed:
- She's probably taught a few hundred students at most in ten years and doesn't seem to be aware of the rare ones with very high ability (let alone the very rare ones).
- She didn't say anything about testing her ideas objectively. So there's a high chance that her conclusions are subject to confirmation bias (accept the information supporting my idea, ignore anything else). This is the worst thing about these types. They have no clue about how to actually test an idea, and most or all of the ones I've met have no desire to do so.
- The analogy to tooth development was completely goofy.
- By ignoring the nuances she bleats about, she makes things even harder for gifted students.
There's nothing quite like the arrogance of ignorance.
