But Bostonian, that might well still be true, if one parses out the fact that the incarcerated population is a low percentage of the whole population to begin with--
and that furthermore, the 2e population is a small percentage of gifted (and whether it mirrors the larger gifted distribution is not clear to the best of my knowledge-- it stands to reason that it should, I suppose, but that is speculative), and that even beyond that, gifted children of low SES are a subset of the larger gifted population as well--
It stands to reason that of course being gifted makes one less likely to wind up incarcerated.
But OF those already incarcerated, (and those people-- as a population, are disproportionately male, minority, and from low SES-- inarguably, I mean-- that is simply fact) they are precisely the demographic of gifted students that one would expect to be utterly failed by life circumstances in the first place, with very few of them escaping into elite educational opportunities which most would agree are appropriate for students of that sort of ability.
What happens to the subset of that population which has an additional strike against them in the form of a disability that may well be masked or unrecognized?
I can believe both things are true. That the population labeled "gifted" in The Bell Curve is far less likely than average to be incarcerated, on average, and that when one looks at the subset of gifted persons who are minority, low SES, and 2e, that the odds skyrocket well past the mean for the population as a whole.
