Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The G word - an upcoming documentary

What do these books have in common?
1) Bright, Talented, and Black by Joy Lawson Davis, Ed.D. (2010) Great Potential Press
2) Far From the Tree by Andrew Solomon (2013)
3) Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined by Scott Barry Kaufman (2013)
4) Wired to Create: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Creative Mind by Scott Barry Kaufman (2015)
The work-in-progress website from a year ago states: "THE G WORD explores what giftedness and learning look like through a mosaic of personal, intimate stories of children, adults, and elders. The film’s narrative arc is an examination of the gifted through all stages of life, from childhood through old age, documenting their search for acceptance, connection, and authentic success, which belie popular misconceptions about what it means to be “gifted.” Interwoven with historical context and expert insight into the challenges related to high intelligence, THE G WORD sheds light on this largely hidden but emerging special-needs population."

Based on the above description and accompanying 6-minute vimeo video (titled "1st Promo"), which I first posted notice of in Dec 2016, I was really looking forward to seeing the project reach fruition.

In a promotional e-mail update (recently forwarded by a friend), I was disappointed to find the project's subject line and link titled "Who Gets to Be Gifted in America and Why?" IMO, this approach promotes myths and stereotypes about giftedness as a brass ring, and is quite different than the description on the work-in-progress website from last year. Possibly this project has changed its focus? The recent e-mail update describes: contemplating "issues of race, gender, class and sexual identity, especially in relationship to gifted education, the IQ and 21st century ideas around what constitutes intelligence." The accompanying 12-minute vimeo video (titled "Meet the Experts | Who Gets to Be Gifted in America and Why?") takes an approach which appears to divide the gifted population, rather than uniting it.

This viewpoint was posted on GHF January 18, 2017:

Actually, the apparent change in direction is not all that surprising, since the basis of Scott Barry Kaufman's status in research on giftedness is deemphasizing giftedness as a trait (i.e., high native cognitive or other ability), and conceptualizing it more as a state (i.e., conditional, and developed primarily through interaction with environmental forces and what one might call character qualities, such as growth mindset).

The other two authors are notable for writing about underrepresented populations (ethnic minority GT, and marginalized populations in general).

My opinion may not be any better informed than anyone else's, but having spoken with Marc Smolowitz, I would say that I don't think the intention is to imply that anyone can be gifted. (Nor do I think this most recent segment says this.)

It is my understanding that one intention of the documentary is to broaden understanding of those that are twice or thrice exceptional or otherwise don't appear to be "typically gifted" insomuch as is usually recognized by teachers and the general population. In fact, Mr. Smolowitz has a specific interest in the gifted prison population and exploring their experiences with the education system as children. This doesn't seem divisive to me- but I have a 2e child who most teachers don't "get," so I can see how all these things could be related.

The scope of the documentary does seem large. I am interested in the final outcome. It has a lot of potential to open discussion in areas that haven't been well explored.

Would you describe what you mean by "'typically gifted'... as is usually recognized by teachers and the general population"?
What is your concept of 'typically gifted'?

Indigo, I think that many teachers, especially those without specific training in gifted education (and this seems to be the majority of teachers we've experienced), presume that gifted children will typically be the high achievers, the compliant and easy to teach types. I think the voting public often assumes that gifted children will naturally "rise to the top" in our education system as it is now.

Many of us here probably realize that these are myths, but I don't believe that thos of us on this forum are highly representative of the general population.

Agreed.

Follow-up question: Do you believe that the following are the best and/or most representative examples for 'typical gifted', which would help disabuse the voting public and general population of their belief in myths regarding recognizing 'typical gifted' children:
- "...gifted prison population..." (excerpted from your post upthread)?
- "...race, gender, class and sexual identity..." (excerpted from recent "G word" promo, discussed upthread)?

Personally I believe that documentaries such as these, and the SENG youtube video The Misdiagnosis of Gifted Children provide more meaningful outreach.

Haha. I don't really know but now I am a bit intrigued. It would be interesting to interview them. I guess he feels the same way. I actually don't think there really is such a thing as a typically gifted person, although I do believe a large portion of the public thinks there is.

Everyone will have their favorites, but there is definitely room for this discussion.

Sufferers of Allodoxaphobia, beware!

With promo materials making statements such as "Who Gets to Be Gifted in America and Why?", it appears that the makers of this documentary hold a view that there is a 'typically gifted person.'

On gifted forums and IRL, there is frequent comparison between athletics and intellect/academics, and also frequent reference to varsity teams and/or Olympians as analogies to gifted (each being at the top of their respective discipline or talent area). Therefore I will follow that precedent and flow between the gifted context and the sports context in this post.

Would you find it enlightening to have a documentary ostensibly about the pinnacle of sports... which changed its focus to featuring/emphasizing:
- prison population?
- race, gender, class and sexual identity?

Some might say that naming such a documentary about sports would be gratuitous... misleading... a weak tie-in... simply used to market the documentary. Additionally, this may be seen as a disservice to the sports/athletic community by focusing on a niche... giving a distorted, unproportional, unrepresentative, or divided view of the sports/athletic community.

In looking at the most recent promo materials provided by "The G word", it is possible that the focus on giftedness has become tangential at best... that a title referencing gifted may be gratuitous... a marketing strategy.

Ironically, in changing its focus, "The G word" may, in essence, be marginalizing the gifted... or, as it may say... "those who get to be gifted."

I think that "obviously gifted" might be a better term here than "typically gifted." Some people are obviously very bright from very early infancy. They meet milestones way ahead of schedule (even one/two-month milestones). They talk early and have vocabularies well ahead of what's expected for their ages. They read early. They count early and may not need instruction for certain basic skills like adding. Etc.

All this can translate into doing well at school, especially in the lowest grades when a five-year-old with very high cognitive ability may be ready for second-grade material. Obviously, as students get older, the grey area increases. Some HG+ kids continue to get high grades with low effort, especially if homework scores are worth less and test scores are worth more. Some don't, especially if homework is worth more and test scored less.

Personally, I don't like the idea that giftedness is a "state" over a "trait" as implied here. That said, I haven't read the whole of Kaufman's Ungifted and can't comment properly on it. So far, it seems to be a mix of navel gazing (which makes me less likely to trust the author) and a literature review with references (which makes me more likely to trust the author).

Hmm Indigo, that's an interesting concern about the marginalization of "those who get to be gifted." We are all really just speculating at this point I think since they are still in production. I mean, I get it- this is an important and sensitive area for many of us and we want them to get it right. But I don't think that the identification and exposure of the under recognized and underrepresented necessarily has to marginalize or take anything away from another group. I'm still optimistic, but we will have to wait and see.