As I said, I haven't read the article, so may be way off. But from what I'm reading here and my own initial take to what fitzi wrote, I have mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I like holistic approaches to people, and anything that acknowledges that GT kids aren't merely "walking brains" sounds good.
OTOH, my initial reaction was to have the same sorts of concerns you're expressing, Dottie. I don't believe that evaluation is an intrusion. I think evaluation is necessary for ID, and ID is necessary for service. If fitzi's summary of Roeper's approach is accurate, I don't really accept that "giftedness [is] an emotional phenomenon, rather than a cognitive one." I just don't think that's true.
Maybe *in addition to* a cognitive phenomenon *in some kids*, but certainly in 3 of the 4 members of our family, our GTness is primarily/exclusively intellectual, not emotional. We are not RE people by nature. (The 4th, DS4, may or may not be GT, but he IS RE, so we'll see there. As a result, I'm not talking about DS4 here, since if he is GT, an emotional approach may be a good one for him.)
In terms of GTness, I wouldn't want emotions to become/have become the primary focus for the three of us. That approach just wouldn't work for DS7, and it wouldn't have worked for DH or for me when we were GT kids. We're all very clear about what we feel and why, and we tend to express our feelings very intellectually and very directly. A lot of touchy-feely stuff would NOT appeal to us.
OTOH (3 hands?), I doubt very much that this approach *would* become dominant. So if it helps people, then I'm all for it. More tools in the old GT toolbox is better than fewer! But it does sound to me like it might be overbroad in the stance it's taking.
But I freely admit that I only know what I'm reading here and may be misunderstanding Roeper's whole point!
