Gifts can be individually, dyadically, or collectively chosen and oriented. Society, in its identification of the gifted, has chosen to focus on individual and sometimes dyadic goods. This practice represents a culture of individualism, but it has become solipsistic. We argue that identification instead should focus on those most likely to help to achieve a collective common good—who will bestow on others, gifts that are broadly beneficial especially to those most in need of help.
DearyI. J.WhalleyL. J., & StarrJ. M. (2009). A lifetime of intelligence: Follow-up studies of the Scottish mental surveys of 1932 and 1947. American Psychological Association.
2.
HerrnsteinR. J., & MurrayC. (1994). The bell curve. Free Press.
3.
LubinskiD., & BenbowC. P. (2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447.
4.
SackettP. R.ShewachO. R.,DahlkeJ. A. (2020). The predictive value of general intelligence. In RJSternberg (Ed), Human intelligence: An introduction (pp. 381–414). Cambridge University Press.
SternbergR. J.DesmetO. A.FordD.GentryM. L.GranthamT.,KaramiS.(in press). The legacy: Coming to terms with the origins and development of the gifted-child movement. Roeper Review.
9.
TermanL. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale. Houghton Mifflin.
10.
TermanL. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
