Gordon: Hey everybody, welcome back. You have arrived at the existential tetherball court. I am here with Rachel Fell. My name is Gordon Smith, and we are a podcast slash conversation about exploring the worlds within words and the words within worlds. So if you like what Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: we're doing, go ahead and like it. If you really like it, go ahead and subscribe to it. If you have done those things and you want to do more, share it with friends, share it with other folks. We want this conversation and community to continue to grow. Rachel: Absolutely, Gordon. Thanks for getting us started. And I'm super excited for today's episode, which feels like it's been sort of a long time coming. you know, we kind of roll these things out organically. We text each other back and forth, hey, what sounds like a compelling tether for this week? Or when we have a guest, you know, to kind of do that same thing and ask them what a compelling tether might be given their work, their areas of interest. And this week we have decided to go with gifted and giftedness, which is yeah, it's a whole thing. Gordon: There's a whole thing, and we both work in these spaces that have these intersections with giftedness in our various work around intelligence and neurodivergence, counseling, coaching, etc. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and especially right now, as the field is wrestling with itself over how to approach what what it's supposed to be Knowing more about and learning more about. Rachel: zero. Gordon: And there are more voices than ever involved in that conversation. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: And so it feels like this rich, fertile ground to be adding to. Rachel: it definitely is a really fascinating space and time we find ourselves in right now when exploring giftedness. And you know, when we're talking about giftedness, this is inextricable from Conversations around human intelligence, which are also, you know, in their own version of this, you know, sort of composting, tilling, kind of like, you know, disintegrative reformation kind of space. which, you know, we could extrapolate even further out that we are in like a Copernican revolution right now, meaning we're unlearning as much as we're learning, that things are kind of falling apart, understandings are falling apart, systems, institutions. What? Gordon: Wait a minute. I ha I hadn't gone to Copernican yet. You're saying I'm not the center of the universe? Rachel: Okay. saying is we're in a grade on learning of sorts. and that Gordon: Ha ha ha. Rachel: like that is mirrored in so many different arenas, industries, systems, institutions, et cetera, et cetera. Right. So of course it's happening here too. Like why wouldn't it be? You know? Yeah. Gordon: Yes. That's right. And so yeah, so we're here to contribute to that ongoing n multivalent conversation that's happening. Rachel: Yes, yes. Gordon: and reckon we oughta just start with the what even is a gifted? Rachel: Yeah, I mean, Gordon: Yeah. Rachel: well, you know, we can't dive in without acknowledging the fact that the word itself carries a certain kind of charge. and we're gonna be exploring the reality today. But at the same time, you know, the the word and what comes with the word, I don't have a great reaction to that word. You know, there's like kind of a little bit of a visceral, right. I don't know about for yourself and your experience with your clients, but yeah. Mm-hmm. Gordon: no, the the the the cringe of it is real. and I like you have never encountered anyone who was really pleased with that word. Rachel: Right. Gordon: who really wanted to identify with it. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and folks have tried other terms to describe the same stuff and have it's never never never landed. so Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: I don't know what it what we'll be calling this stuff in the future. but for now, gifted is it. Rachel: Yeah. Yeah. And and you know, what is a gifted LOL? you know, this is inextricable from conversations ongoing about the nature of intelligence, about neurodiversity, about neurodivergence, and even about consciousness, although I won't poke that one with a stick specifically too much today, as much as I love to. and so what's really interesting about this sort of you know, turf wars, sort of discourse. There seems to be these camps emerging that are organizing around the central question of is giftedness a form of neurodivergence? Which I find Gordon: Mm-hmm. Rachel: fascinating because the question itself could open us up into inquiry that connects giftedness to neurodiversity and human intelligence and new and really like generative ways. Gordon: Mm-hmm. Rachel: but At the at present, it seems like it's sort of acting as this organizing principle to put people into camps or sort of this, you know, s an adversarial kind of versus me versus you, us versus them kind of position. Are you seeing the same thing? Are you feeling the same thing? Gordon: Yeah, and just seeing it as part of a system's evolution, I think that there were Rachel: Sure. Gordon: some monoliths in the past in education and psychology that Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: are not monolithic anymore. we're polylithic, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: paleolithic? and and so Rachel: Ha ha ha. Gordon: as there's more and more voices and more and more perspectives and Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: we're also coming to a deeper understanding of of the the actual neurodiversity that exists rather than Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: it being normal not normal that it's actually this garden and rainforest Rachel: Mm. Right. Gordon: the there's there's there's all kinds of different definitions around this word so before we get too far down the road Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: l let's talk about kind of what is Yeah, what are the like conventional wisdom definitions around this word? Rachel: Sure. if we're talking about human intelligence, we're talking about neurodiversity. Neurodiversity is this paradigm. It's a way of understanding and seeing biology in action, which says that no two organisms process or experience. reality the exact same way. That despite species same sort of corporeal design, that that biodiversity, neurodiversity is an extension of biodiversity, and that's true in all species. So that would ex that's humans as well. So that this paradigm actually really is important when we're talking about giftedness to really understand. Neurodiversity and neurodivergence are not the same thing. That is very important to That you know, this glossing over of the neurodiversity paradigm, it's like, well, there's eight billion different expressions of human intelligence, human processing in the world. And that that is a form of unseen diversity that just simply exists. So for me, this conversation very much exists inside of that much broader context and paradigm and understanding. so when we start to explore giftedness, just really looking at as this extension. of neurodiversity, which is an extension of biodiversity. And just because you can't see it, measure it, isolate it in a material reductionist sense doesn't mean that it's not real. Gordon: Yeah, we can stand on that foundation and go from there. Rachel: Thanks. Thanks. Gordon: There was a group of kind of leaders in this field who came together in the eighties, early eighties, and Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: formulated a definition. They called themselves the Columbus Group, and their definition revolves around asynchrony and cognition. Rachel: Mm. Gordon: so asynchronous development. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: becomes the organizing principle around that definition of giftedness. And Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: this asynchrony we're describing is the the word that word itself is about mm presenting as though one were at different periods of time or age. So I might Rachel: Mm. Gordon: sound like a 17-year-old, I might tie my shoes like a two-year-old I might have the emotional intelligence of an eight year old and these gaps and differences become one of the ways of defining this. Rachel: Yeah. Yeah. Asynchronous development is probably, from my understanding, the single most agreed upon core characteristic of giftedness. and then beyond that, it starts to fall apart a little bit. I would offer that all children are developing in an asynchronous fashion and that marked market. asynchrony and development could be a way of identifying neurodivergence in a developing child, and that you know, children's development is rapid. And, you know, birth to three, birth to seven, birth to seventeen are incredibly formative years in terms of nature, nurture, environment, their reciprocity. We're learning new things all of the time about you know, walking back back to that Copernican revolution piece. we used to have this genetic supremacy, this this sort of like immutable genetics kind of supposition and foundation that we would predicate our understanding upon. But now we understand that in these studies you can put identical twins in different environments and they have very different, you know, life outcomes, life developmental experiences by virtue of nurture, environment, support, socialization, these sorts of things. So when we're talking about asynchronous development and giftedness, we can't not Talk about the lifespan, or we can't not invoke, you know, the the childhood trajectory. and so we live in a time where the desire to assess and label, to to kind of find a way to understand a kiddo who's experiencing and expressing asynchronous development is really routed through that lens of neurodivergence, of assessment, of diagnostics, right? but if we stay at the asynchrony, the asynchrony itself is a tell. So, you know, you've got a kiddo who may be struggling to tie their shoes, you know, not doing, you know, having a super easy time of it socializing with peers, but might be reading at a fifth grade level in kindergarten. Gordon: Yeah, and that the those gaps or those distances between ability levels, like you're saying, they oftentimes flatten out over time. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and then we the a the asynchrony changes into Rachel: Yes. Gordon: a more nuanced understanding of where one's intensity, complexity, and sensitivities lie. Rachel: Yes, yes, absolutely. And so, you know, is giftedness a form of neurodivergence? That's the central, it's become the central organizing question of this particular sort of hullabaloo. but for me, there are other questions that are far more interesting. is it beneficial to socialize a diagnostic label with a child or even a family in really early developmental stages? You know, it's like, how do we know? When is support actually more, you know, functional than you know the the label, the assessment, the diagnosis? So that is like an interesting question. I just reread Eye of the Beholder by Anne Marie Roper, one of my favorites. she's like a pioneer and gifted ed and talks about you know the the care with which we need to offer reflection and assessment to families and to children. All that said, asynchronous development is definitely a part of whatever this gifted thing is. Gordon: as far as the asynchrony and Rachel: yeah. Gordon: this model in and of itself, is that this is a this is predicated on on a neuronormative basis. That Rachel: Yes. Gordon: that you know there's this mythical child that is completely even in their development that we've that we've Rachel: Yes, yes. Gordon: we've ginned up in our imaginations. Rachel: Ha ha Gordon: and and so The even even naming ages and ability becomes this cultural and societal and hierarchical exercise wherein folks you know get put in the the the vertical where where Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: they belong and one can miss the the forest for those trees. Rachel: Thanks, Gordon. Thanks for keeping me from jumping ahead and naming that. And as with so many things, as with like everything, it's a both and. Like developmental milestones are important. And how do we measure and what are those milestones? And what is our tolerance for, you know, that asynchrony when, you know, humans are just. really walking around where a complex manifold of waveforms. there's not an adult I know who isn't asynchronous in their being, regardless of neurodiversity, expression of neurodiversity, or, neurotypes. So, you know, you're naming something really important. the example I mentioned earlier, kiddo who's struggling to tie shoes. socialization is not coming easily and they're reading far past, you know, grade level or doing advanced math in third grade, you know, keeping up with high schoolers. Now we're in a the waveform here is is a little bit higher. It's a little bit the the distance is greater. the natural aptitude in a specific domain. so we can talk about aptitude we can talk about ease of learning. we can talk about the speed of learning in a specific domain as a characteristic of giftedness. So, you know, asynchronous kiddo, reading level, math. Let's talk about athletics or creativity. you might see a kiddo who is an incredible, you know, artist, does, you know, photorealism very early on, but maybe not doing so great in math. Gordon: Yeah, and maybe to h having lovely deep emotional conversations with siblings and parents, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and at the same time, having really intense sensory experiences that can shut them down. Rachel: Right, right, right, right, right. Yeah, and you're naming too that complexity of the subjective experience, the the inner experience, and then the observed experience, the expression, observation, judgment, reflection. So that's definitely a big, big piece of it. But that that that learning, that ease of learning, that drive, orientation in a specific domain, natural aptitude. that's definitely a part of it. A love of learning, just this this like real drive in a certain area or a number of areas, coupled with a sort of ease, something that comes naturally, you could say. Yeah. Gordon: And and to name it while we're on aptitude, there are some aptitudes that are valued more than other aptitudes because of where we are in our cultural development, societal development, and what is valued right now. Rachel: Uh-huh. Gordon: so there's some aptitudes that people may possess that simply don't get clocked, because they aren't they don't offer any stats. Rachel: Well, here's why the neurodiversity paradigm has to be a part of this conversation. you know, natural variations and expression of human intelligence, which is not a what, but a how. It is a process. You know, kiddos that maybe have an aptitude that is more towards that engineering side of things, kiddos that have an aptitude towards music or, you know, relational skills, that sort of like emotional attunement, right? These are all very valuable and it is very much connected, you know. Definitions of gifted are very connected to neuronormative conventions, to you know, patriarchal and capitalist conventions of what is more or less valuable in our society in terms of expressions of intelligence. So yeah. Yeah. Gordon: Yeah. Yeah, one hundred percent. And we it we we don't get to talk about gifted without talking about the bell curve. so we take your standard ass bell curve and you got your middle of it, which is that one hundred full scale IQ. And then you come out to 85 and 115, first standard deviation, s two-thirds of the population. You get out to this 70 to 130 in the second standard deviation, and now we're up to like 94% of the population. And so Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Gordon: giftedness resides in the third standard deviation and beyond, according to current current definitions. What we're talking about when we're talking about a neurodiversity paradigm is that Those folks who are that third standard deviation from the center are having a very different subjective experience of reality. Just Rachel: Yes. Gordon: as if you went to the other end of the bell curve and talked about somebody who ha who possessed a 60 or 65 full-scale IQ, folks Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: find it really easy to recognize: those folks are gonna require a different kind of approach and a different understanding. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: in order to support them in having great lives. so just I I just I wanted to stick this very mathy bell curve in here with with the footnote that the whole damn IQ thing was like unapologetically racist, sexist, ableist Rachel: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Gordon: and and and it's come a long way. Rachel: Yeah, yeah. Gordon: But it's it hasn't gotten to zero problems. Rachel: Right, right. Well, and and you know, maybe a little bit of like foreshadowing here. We're gonna talk about different frameworks, ways of exploring and understanding human intelligence in a little bit here. but that, you know, acknowledging that IQ tests have been traditionally very problematic have come a long way, we are talking about the reality that there are people who exist in that section of the bell curve. And that that's a real thing. And it is a very qualitatively different experience of being human. That to your point to what you say, I'm just like leaning in and like reinforcing this because this is so important that we we are able to understand that on one side of the bell curve and acknowledge that. But on the other side, that is all but sort of invisible. that is something that is very real. And so when people talk about giftedness and neurodiversity, even neurodivergence, that is divergent. That is a divergent way of being. And we're really looking at IQ, intellect, problem solving cognition, which cognition contains perception and sensing. So we'll talk about, you know, spoiler, full body, full body intelligence paradigm is inextricable from this conversation. But you know, if you've got this kind of like ease of cognition or this kind of high powered cognition, this ease of learning, this aptitude, this capacity, this neuroflexibility in cognition, yeah, it's a real thing. It's a real thing. Yeah. Gordon: Yeah, and and and y and you to to come in on the cognition part, the intellect part, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: it's something that I'd appreciate you backloading on that conversation because any sort of IQ testing, that's what we're doing. We're looking at intellect. Rachel: Yeah. Yes. Gordon: And it intellect has a lot of pieces and parts to it. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: But an IQ test doesn't measure emotional intelligence or physical intelligence or sensual sensitivities, or necessarily even creativity or imagination. Rachel: No, generally not. There are a few that look more at pattern recognition. There's some that are oriented to like visual spatial intelligence. Some are more oriented to, you know, more of like a language-based intelligence or a quantitative intelligence, mathematical. But yeah, we're talking expressly about cognition here. And I would say that most people, when they hear the word gifted, they're going to associate that with intellect and with cognition. Yes, you can be a gifted athlete, a gifted gymnast, a gifted artist. Like these are very, very real things that we see and recognize. And in a way, it's almost easier to to accept because there's a there's an associated output that isn't necessarily so doesn't provoke the collective human ego in the same way, let's say, right? Gordon: Mm-hmm. Rachel: The you mean there's people that are just born smarter than me. that gets edgy. And so now we're back in the the word a little bit and sort of the charge it carries where it has this, you know, of all of the language that we use to designate uncommon intelligence, gifted has this sort of like edge of superiority there's this one's chosen or something like that. You also shared something recently that I thought was a lovely spin on that, which was like, it's just a gift. it's just a thing, right? I I forget how you said it. Gordon: It's something it's something that you're given that you didn't even ask for, that is now yours, and you don't get to return it. There's no receipt included. Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: And and so it simply becomes i it's just yours. and Rachel: Yeah. Yeah. Gordon: it's not about how one thing over another it's not hierarchical in the least, it is ecological in that there is Rachel: Economy Gordon: a place in this ecosystem of humanity and beyond. for all of these different expressions. Rachel: Absolutely. Absolutely. And in our current paradigm, it is kind of hierarchical, right? Because there is this word that designates this sort of sort of aptitude and cognitive skills. you know, kid finishes their times table super quick in first grade, flips it over first, much to the, teacher's praise and then their peers sort of you know. Gordon: Hmm. Rachel: their their peers now have a common enemy. The the smart kid is now the common enemy, right? when we get into intellect and cognition, that there is some some edge here. There is some collective sort of unwillingness to just acknowledge it as an ecological reality because of education system and socialization, right? And how we hold intellect how we hold these things in terms of in terms of our current paradigms. Gordon: Yeah, that there's the the implicit within the current paradigms, within the conventions anyway, is is this internalized neuronormativity of of measuring oneself against this imagined normal and and so gifted the word, the way it's rolled out through psychology and academia, reinforces that hierarchy. and what what we're bringing into this conversation not not like we're the first two but what we're bringing in is this instead this ecological model Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: of an entire group coming together and learning to cooperate, collaborate, yeah. Rachel: Yeah. And that, you know, requiring a certain shift in our intelligen in our paradigm around intelligence. So I'm gonna take this that wonderful segue and take us on a little off ramp to a really cool gas station, proverbial gas station here, where we talk about full body intelligence. So competition, threat and Collaboration, cooperation as you know, nervous system states, our collective understanding of going beyond the brain. I talk Gordon: Mm. Rachel: a lot about brain supremacy, even in some really reputable institutions, and not to say that the brain isn't like amazing and fascinating and like, you know, this absolute juggernaut of processing power in our, you know, in our human makeup. That the brain is taxonomically part of the nervous system. And until we shift into a full body intelligence paradigm, will we be able to work with, you know, internalized fight or flight, internalized sort of triggers related to superiority, to to things that activate us about I'm more, I'm less, this person's more, this person's less, judgments, right? Even judgment and its connection to neurosception, how the body gauges safety. This is a fascinating space. that giftedness is really asking us to expand into and be able to explore. So back to, you know, this this inextricableness from neurodivergence, neurodiversity, and human intelligence, we can't have an ecology until we're all on the same team. Gordon: Mm-hmm. Rachel: And if we're not on the same team, you know, Competition is, in the sense that Gordon: It is Rachel: it just is. It's a natural part of, you know, ecological intelligence and intelligence writ large. We see it in nature. We also see cooperation in nature. So understanding, you know, this sort of educational norms, standards, conventions, meeting a more ecological approach. Approach to intelligence and nurturing neurodiversity in our, you know, the next generation's broad swath, that's the invitation for sure. Gordon: Yes. Natural selection has selected cooperative and collaborative traits as well as competitive traits, and that there is something about that dynamism that's very real. when we're in this conversation about gifted if we are all on the same team, then then we recognize that while we may have some competitive impulses that we are you we are working as a collective toward wherever we're headed here as far as a deeper, broader, richer understanding of intelligence and of the subjective. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. All right. It's getting a little complex. It's getting a little messy. That's all right. It has to. Coherence seeking as a as a core characteristic of giftedness, yeah. full body mind, sensing, perception, cognition. Gordon: Mm. Rachel: Sensing informs perception, informs cognition. Cognition informs perception, informs sensing. The vagus nerve runs 80% of its information bottom up, 20% top down. If we have a physiologic roadmap of intelligence that is not only brain based, you know, Stanford's Neurodiverg Neurodiversity Project talks about brain differences and like full yes. But we know that connective tissue density and connective tissue differences have huge correlations with neurodivergence and neurodiversity. We know that synaptic action and pruning is different in different populations. We know one's experience of bottom-up processing versus top-down processing, which is actually more of that pathway of the sense that the intensity of the experience of the sensing body. Right now we're talking about sensory intelligence, which all humans carry sensory intelligence. What's our relationship with our own sensory intelligence? Perception as that middle ground where recursion happens, where pattern recognition lives, or previous sort of this means this means this comes together to inform how we place that sensing material, that sensing warm data, and that then that perception moves into cognition and that that is this really interesting sort of continuous cycle that's going on top down, bottom up all the time. True for all people. So this Gordon: Mm-hmm. Rachel: blows this blows a bunch out of the water in terms of looking at cognition as static, looking at how we can like learn to learn, and how you know folks who are already have this sort of like natural aptitude for learning or this ease or this drive can continue to learn and and route, you know, a certain sort of orientation or interest in the world. learning is alive, right? And so, you know, we talk about cognition, we talk about the brain, we talk about intellect. It's like, well, it's inextricable from all these other things. I brought up coherence seeking because that's often time a sensing. That's a sensing imperative. That's something that sensing and perception and pattern matching, that's a full body experience of wanting something to sort of like fit and harmonize, right? I once heard somebody recently refer to giftedness as existential giantism, which I thought was fascinating. Gordon: That's fabulous. Yeah. Rachel: It's so good. I wish I could remember who said it. If you guys know, please let us know. Cause like I saw I forget where I saw it, but I was like, that's so good. But that question these questions of meaning and coherence and meaning often also come from feeling, feeling a a a dissonance. You know, you walk into a room and you can feel the dissonance, you can notice microexpressions of the group, you can see and feel the sort of disharmony of a situation. this is a full body thing. The intellect is not separate. Gordon: Yeah, and and and in everything that you're saying, what what you're proposing is that we decenter intellect and ensconce it in on a Rachel: Mm. Yes. Gordon: more on a on a flatter organizational table alongside all of these other sensibilities. Rachel: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, I mine I'm very nerdy, but like, yeah, full yes. It's like it's the the sort of hierarchy. It may exist at the literal top. And the brain is amazing and magical. And you know, neurosception and how we gauge safety and the reciprocity with the limbic system and then you the hemispheric and you know how left and right play and all of those fun experiments. How could giftedness not be rooted in full-body intelligence? So, this question of if is gifted a neurodivergence, I'm gonna go ahead and say that for me, I don't understand how it can't not be Gordon: Definition. Rachel: by definition. that's not to say that neurodivergence is more or less, it's outliership. It's just outliership. Gordon: Yeah. Yeah. Rachel: Now how do we measure Gordon: What's Rachel: outliership? Now that's that's a whole other thing. Yeah. Yeah. Gordon: Yes, and at what point do folks cross some sort of invisible line into gifted, is you Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: know, we don't know. we can't get inside everybody's skin and find out. what Rachel: Ray, Ray. Gordon: their intensity, complexity, and sensitivity is offering them, Rachel: Right. Gordon: what their existential giantism is offering them that Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: that feeling driven to to go beyond wherever one is. Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: that curiosity, that love of learning, the coherence seeking, it's all wrapped up in this system. the same the same thing that does math and science also does love and art. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Gordon: and it's all it's all this is one unit. This this this body mind, this is one thing, Rachel: Yeah, one yes. Gordon: in in one manner of speaking, and not to to cut gifted off at the neck. Rachel: Yes, yes, beautiful, beautiful. yeah, so when we look at these core characteristics, for me they would necessarily be self-referential to the full body nature of being. they wouldn't only be applied to intellect. So coherent seeking can be seen as, you know, I immediately time travel back to little Rachel in third grade asking like, You know, these questions of ontology and epistemology, like really early. It's like, well, how do we know what we know? You know, that's a form of coherence seeking for sure. Two also is that like coherence seeking my body mind is having a hard time tolerating being in a room where there's an argument going on. So that existential giantism that we talk about or that seeking meaning, I think that's often a characteristic of giftedness as well, especially when we're talking about more of that like intellect thinking based sort of cognitive definition of giftedness. Would you agree that there's like that orientation to meaning and contextualization of meaning is just to put a name name on existential giantism? Yeah. Gordon: Oftentimes, oftentimes, I only I occasionally come across folks for whom that isn't true, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: who are deriving plenty of meaning from conventional ways of deriving them, Rachel: Sure. Gordon: while also exhibiting you know asynchrony in other areas. Rachel: Yes. Gordon: but on the whole you know to the 94%, yeah. and alongside that existential sensibility and that coherence seeking within it, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: also oftentimes will come high conscientiousness, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and high autonomy needs. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Beautiful. Beautiful. Yeah, I see that a lot as well. a certain conscientiousness is a certain sort of awareness, a breadth and a depth of awareness. vigilance, you could even say. now we're back again in nervous system territory and I won't take us on the off ramp again. As well as that autonomy, right? And this gets into that edge of like, we'll see, I've seen it said that high achievement and high performance does not necessarily equal giftedness, although they can coexist. And I think that's a really interesting piece of all of this as well. this desire, this drive to go beyond convention. And that isn't something that I'm looking to necessarily like pin down in any sort of way, but I do think that is like a really interesting feature of this conversation around the shape and form that is giftedness. yeah. Gordon: Yeah, yeah, and a feeling that sometimes we bump up against a false limitation. Like, this isn't the this isn't the the the lanes that are being drawn, this is not actually what's possible. and Rachel: Mm, mm-hmm. Gordon: that what we see in neuronormative models is a reinforcement of the gifts that are most popular. Rachel: Yes. Gordon: and that there is within that something of a compliance model of can you demonstrate aptitudes in a way that will be recognized and lauded? Rachel: Yes. Gordon: And in order to do that, the lane gets narrower and narrower and there's a bunch of super talented people who can occupy that skinny little lane. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Gordon: But then there's a bunch of gifted folks who don't have the slightest interest in putting on a tie. Rachel: Right, right, exactly. Yes, so we have this like you know the presentation that exists and is able to adapt and leverage this way of being, this way of processing into Gordon: Mm-hmm. Rachel: a more neuronormative or dare I say even like you know capitalist patriarchal normative way of being. And then Gordon: Yes. Rachel: there's the people who kind of fall through the cracks. There's the, there's those who are unable or unwilling to do that for any number of reasons. And that so, you know, when we hear the word gifted, we often think of this sort of like achievement, eminence, this kind of thing. But that there are oftentimes presentations that are very much not in that very skinny, narrow Gordon: You just made me think of that that John Hughes movie, The Breakfast Club. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: that that all five of those characters, they're all gifted kids. All of Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Gordon: yeah. Rachel: Yep, that's so funny. That's so funny. Gordon: They're different gifted archetypes, if you will. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. And and and so high autonomy. You said we're talking about coherence seeking, we're talking about conscientiousness, autonomy, Gordon: Yep. Yep. Rachel: orientation to meaning, a certain sort of existential giantism or this sort of drive to learn. And I and I almost see it as like not everybody, but like a lot of my gifted clients who would fall into what our current frameworks might call like H plus gifted. I I call them the theory of everything people. they're they're working on a whole thing. They're working on a whole map of all of it, right? This connects to this, connects to this, connects to this, and it's this. There is this sort of like gestalt map that they're always kind of working with and from. so that really takes us into that sort of connectivity, which is a really nice segue, if you're cool, with us segueing into. frameworks, domains of intelligence, frameworks, ways we see and understand or organize intelligence. There's gifted in these domains and then in the Gestalt. Gordon: And and When we're talking about the gestalt, we've spent a good bit of this last 43 minutes describing all of these pieces and parts that work together in this dynamic way. And that the personhood is really difficult to define using different quantitative or decontextualized traits and characteristics. That Rachel: Yes. Gordon: once they are introduced reduced to one another and there is this dynamic interplay underway, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: that's the gestalt I hear you describe. Rachel: Yes. Yes. And that the complexity of that is far greater and more nuanced than we will have time for today, or even in a part two. And that my own map of everything, like maps, the map is not the terrain, the terrain is not the map, except for spoiler alert, the map lives inside of us. representational intelligence is embodied also. So we can't we're just using frameworks and models as a way to begin to understand the relationship between these domains and the gestalt. it's more than the sum of the parts, right? It's the reciprocity, it's the interplay, it's the modifiers, it's the, it's the charge, it's all of those aspects that, you know, they're not domains unto themselves. They're the can they're the literal connective tissue. They are the the sort of embodied memory, the all the things that add up to the whole of the person's experience and then how that expresses in the world. Gordon: Yes. Rachel: but that we do need slash Choose to use these frameworks as ways to begin to explore for me what is the shape and form of a gifted expression. Not a singular Gordon: Mm. Rachel: definition, okay, for me. It's more of there are various shapes and forms. Intelligence is a process first. We have to understand this. We have to slow down and explore here collectively. And that once we start to understand intelligence as a process. we can begin to layer on some of these frameworks or ways of exploring that reciprocity and interplay between domains to help us better understand the gestalt and where it's at at any given time. Gordon: Gosh, yeah, you couldn't draw a brighter line from a process orientation as that you just described to what the neuron neuronormative model would argue for, which is about outcomes, which is about achievement, which is about eminence, it's about arrival. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Gordon: and where we are and what We're experiencing and seeing is process. Rachel: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. For me, the physiology is the roadmap. It is common to our species. We could even start with a very basic reciprocity and interplay of sensing, perception, and cognition, cognition influencing perception, influencing sensing. That's anything but simple, but it's a pretty useful basic framework. Gordon: Well stack? Yeah. Rachel: Yeah, full stack. Living process, reciprocity, and play adds up to a gestalt of the inner experience. Gordon: How do Rachel: Ta-da. you and I both like to use this model that I feel also really honors physiology and intelligence, intelligence as physiologic process without being reductive, which is the sensitivity, intensity, complexity model. Yes. So for me, sensitivity as, you know, sensing body, sensitive connective tissue, sensitivity to information overload, to the bright lights overhead, to, you know, the teacher's micro expression, to, you know, feeling, you know, the the temperature in the room or whatever it might be, that that's part of you know, for me, giftedness, but I'll go ahead and neurodivergence in general, neurodiversity in its expression, sensitivity, intensity, that would couple with traditionally with like our idea of excitabilities, that would be like the energetic expression, that would be the intensity of one's inner experience, the intensity of one's experience with energy in their physical body mind, with how that energy moves through their physical body mind. How does that intensity maybe play with their emotional domain or their cognitive domain? So, and then complexity is sort of looking at that as like, okay, how does that all add up to, you know, maybe you have synaptic threads going on here? You have, you know, a lot of different thoughts going on at once. Can they come into a certain coherence? Can they meet? Or do they kind of go divergent and lose, lose each other and sort of you know? kind of peter out a little bit, let's say. So that complexity of thought, that complexity of inner experience, that complexity of, you know, what connects to what, that that's like a really useful model as well. even though it's simple, it's really rich in terms of exploration. Gordon: you mentioned earlier a possible part two, and I I think it's gonna be really important Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: for the purposes of this discussion to go ahead and and commit to a part two that Rachel: Okay. Yeah. Gordon: has more to do with the the lived experience and the embodied subjective of it. that this Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Gordon: is a really lovely introduction to Whoop what the hell we're talking about? Rachel: Like this whole episode's just the frame. The next one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Gordon: That's right, yeah. This is like the Hobbit before the Lord of the Rings. Yeah. Rachel: Well, we got frameworks on frameworks. We got positive disintegration. We've got overexcitabilities. We've got domains of intelligence which correlate with that model really nicely. Are those domains also centers? There are other frameworks on frameworks that we can explore for that like intelligence as process and ways to sort of orient in its like movement Gordon: Mm. Rachel: and its gestalt. So yeah, that'll be. That'll be a fun place to pick up maybe next time. Is that what I'm hearing? You yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Gordon: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, I think so. I think so. otherwise, I mean, that's you know, that'll that'll be at least another fifty minutes of of conversation. Rachel: Ha ha ha. Gordon: And I'm also not saying we gotta stop at part two. This can be a series Rachel: Sure. Gordon: that we return to again and again. I think it'd be really interesting, in fact, to have some folks in these different disciplines. show up and just have this conversation. Rachel: Yeah, I would love that because coming back around full circle, You and I both work in neurodiversity, in neurodivergence with gifted folks, our gifted ourselves, in giftedness. And and I just I really I don't want to say it breaks my heart, but there's like a there's a pain there, there's a tension there. It's like this is an opportunity for our collective expansion and to you know, really if there's one thing I would love for folks to take away from this conversation, is that we are in this moment of being able to explore the meaning, the sensitivity, the intensity, the complexity behind all this stuff, and to just honor that we are in this moment of expansion that's going from competition into collaboration. That's moving from hierarchical into to ecosystemic. And so to bring some of those voices in, to hear different perspectives, different ways people see, organize, relate with, different lived experiences, that would be great. And yeah, frameworks next time. Yeah, let's do it. Let's do it. Gordon: Yeah. Yeah. All right, well you've done it. You've come to the Rachel: Ha ha ha. Gordon: conclusion of another episode of Existential Tetherball. you know, like, subscribe, share, etc. and please share with us in the comments or however you want to reach out to us your experience and your perspective so that we might include it. We're not here to draw conclusions so much as we are to be curious Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: about about our own perspectives and and to to recognize that we don't know what we don't know and it's only Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Gordon: through the exploration that we get to learn. Rachel: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, collaborative shape and form and meaning, real you know, co-creativity. That's that's my why on this whole thing. really, you know, it's it's can shape and form, can meaning and definition that I carry in my body mind coexist and riff with Gordon's and with our guests and with yours. And that's really for me the way forward into a more ecosystemic and collaborative reality is that co creative meaning making together. So yep, that's what we're all about. And super glad to refund this with you, Gordon. Gordon: Yeah, yeah, it's really fun. Rachel: For sure. Thanks. Gordon: Okay. Bye. Rachel: Bye.