Gordon: Welcome. We are existential tetherball, and you are finding yourself on the Tetherball court. we are a couple of intense, complex, sensitive humans making inquiries about the nature of things. you too Rachel: Yes. Gordon: are likely intense and complex and sensitive people who are here to explore with us. Rachel: Mm. Gordon: so you're Know that you're welcome as we do this exploration of the embodied subjective and words within worlds and worlds within words. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: If you like this show, go ahead and like it, subscribe to it, share it, please. It really helps other folks who might want to be a part of this to find us. Today we part two. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: We don't know how many parts we're gonna have. I don't wanna limit our parts. you know, like internal Rachel: Ha ha ha. Gordon: family systems. There's no telling who we're gonna find in here. Rachel: Right, right. Who, what, where, how, how they dance, how they move, connective tissue. Gifted part two today, Gordon Smith. Are you ready? Gordon: Gifted part two Rachel: Are you ready? Yeah. Gordon: Yeah, it feels like feels like we just did part one. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And for those of you who didn't get a chance to listen and who are interested in this discourse, in this exploration around what is giftedness, how it relates with human intelligence, neurodiversity, neurodivergence, this, you know, sort of uncommon cognition, this uncommon way of being. We encourage you to go back and check part one out. It's really got some foundational elements there. and and we'll revisit some of those foundational elements to get started, some of those core characteristics and just some of the the frame. but yeah, go back and check out part one if you haven't already. Gordon: Right, yeah, you're not gonna get a full recap here. If you want a recap then just pause and go to episode twelve and check it Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: out, and then you'll have an extended tetherball session. Rachel: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And I'm excited to dive back in. And I have been with this all week since our last recording. really just kind of running in the ambient background, curiosities, questions, shapes and forms. They sort of submerge and then they lose their shape or form or new ideas will emerge. But I just want to like name the complexity and the sort of intricacies. in this exploration, right? Because it is inextricable from conversations about human intelligence, neuronormativity, convention, intention, the educational system, self-concept, identity, how we're reflected, how we experience ourselves, neurodiversity, neurodivergence. So it's just such a big playground, or I think we were using a meadow metaphor earlier, right? I just want to start out by naming that. This is a really rich and vast and complex space that we're diving into. And Gifted has this way of kind of kind of provoking questions, answers, the known, the unknown, through all of it. Yeah. Gordon: Yeah, yeah. And we're gonna dive into those core characteristics here as part of a recap in just a moment. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: but prior to that, I just wanna name that giftedness came out of an early twentieth century assessment around cognitive development Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and was upon its creation this inherently racist, sexist Colonialist idea that was by nature hierarchical, that Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Gordon: folded into a lot of different movements, a lot of them really unsavory and and and painful. Rachel: Yes. Gordon: So from that day, fast forward a hundred and nine years or so, we're in a place where we collectively have in some ways superseded. that original hegemonic notion and are now in this place of seeking to really see what's in this meadow, rather Rachel: Yes. Gordon: than finding one thing and saying that's everything. Rachel: Yes, yes, yes, that desire to name and to know with an unassailable confidence and a in my view, lack of intellectual humil humility in the face of the complexity of this conversation. place exists, you know, diversity is real. And so to explore this understanding that hierarchy can shift into a more geometric. ecological way of exploring. I think that's really what we're going for today. A full both and, a full acknowledging what has been, what may be and what's evolving right now because this is a really a live space. and it's really exciting to be to be playing around in it. So yes. Gordon: Yeah, yeah. It's an alive space showing up i in another alive space that is existential tether ball. Rachel: Yep, absolutely. Gordon: Yeah. Rachel: so gifted, you you nodded to the IQ tests, to the uncommon cognition. I think about Lita Hollingworth right away, or like Anne-Marie Roper, obviously IQ tests inherently problematic on a lot of levels, but also real. you know, when you start to get into the measurement of the upper end, their reliability starts to fall apart. But we know that there are these outliers of uncommon cognition and that that's a real thing, regardless of what we do with that information or how we hold that in terms of a value system or a convention, right? And so I love that you brought that back as a starting point. Gordon: Yeah, and and from that recognition, like there's been, you know, now we've had however many generations of people looking at this and thinking about it. And whether it's a conversation around how do we identify people or something as simple as what is it? that that definition and that understanding is amidst a period of great growth. There's this current undercurrent of some discord within the community around Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: some of these fundamental notions of what is giftedness. And so we're wading into those waters knowing that this is all a process that's moving us toward the next understanding. Rachel: Absolutely. I'm reminded of a funny story that a friend of mine shared once about Gordon: Hm. Rachel: him and his friends going to fly kites. And they had decided to indulge in some let's call it psychedelic activity in relation to the kite flying. At least one of the friends did. And they they get their kites out and there's this like big knot and they're pulling on the knot, they're pulling on the knot, and they you pull the knot and it tightens here and it loosens here and pulling on the big complex knot doesn't do anything. And the friend that had decided to you know, get my cilial with it was like, why don't we just throw it up in the air and let it land on the ground a couple times? And I think in a lot of ways that's what we're doing here. there isn't, you know, to not have a shape and a form, you know, we're not looking to go fully divergent and blow it all up and leave everything on the ground. But we're also not looking to cut the knot into pieces, but I'm also not interested in pulling on one specific section or needing to come away from this exploration with with a certainty that isn't really merited. Gordon: Yeah, yeah, that that idea of of increasing the tension only tightens the knot and it doesn't get Rachel: Right. Right. Gordon: us any closer to flying kites while we're high on mushrooms. Rachel: Right. No. Gordon: Yeah. Rachel: No. And wise. The mushrooms made him wise in that moment. so yeah, let's Gordon: Ha Rachel: let's agitate the knot a little bit. Let's you know, we've named that the discourse is in a certain sort of agitation of its own. we're here to create some spaciousness and to offer a bunch of different ideas and perspectives. from our lived Gordon: That's it. Rachel: experience, from our professional experience, etc. So Gordon Smith. Core characteristics of giftedness. Gordon: I'll take core characteristics for six hundred. Rachel: Six hundred, all right, all right. Let's go. Gordon: so when we're talking about core characteristics of what is current what is known as giftedness, some of these things include the capacity for meta consciousness or metacognition. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: metacognition is a thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking, which is one subset of this metaconsciousness which draws in other pieces as well. And so it's Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yep. Gordon: working in multiple layers and systems simultaneously. Rachel: Yes, this capacity to observe one's thinking, one's emotions, one's behavior. and and you know, without jumping too far ahead, that's a really fascinating aspect of human intelligence that, you know, all of us may possess, but some people just have you know, more of that. Let's call it meta consciousness, meta awareness. So yeah, that capacity for metacognition is one. what else you got for six hundred? Gordon: I'm gonna go with what is current known in the field currently as spiky profile. A spiky Rachel: All right. Gordon: profile means there's some areas in which I am conspicuously gifted and other areas in which I am c I'm conspicuously under equipped. And and Rachel: All right. Gordon: and and and the the gap between those places can be an indicator. Rachel: Yes. And that's our return to that Columbus Group asynchronous development definition, which is foundational. Canon agreed upon a starting point, but not enough in my view, right? Asynchronous development, as we spoke about in part one. All kiddos move through asynchronous development, all adults move through asynchronous development, but it is this markedly a s market asynchrony that we're talking about. And you can also call that a spiky profile for sure. Absolutely. Gordon: Yeah, yeah. You you you go. Take the next one. Rachel: okay. I'm gonna go with capacity for abstraction as number three. So what does that mean? we talk a lot about pattern recognition and neurodiversity and neurodivergence, pattern recognition and recursion. That's definitely a feature, but so too is this capacity for abstraction. And they kind of can work together, but as a standalone thing, to be able to understand something that has a little bit less shape and form to it. to see a theme that's woven through a piece of literature, to see a similar theme show up, you know, in art, music, to see a theme recurring in current events, right? So this capacity for abstraction being very real. It doesn't have as defined of edges. It's not quite as literal. It's not quite as isolated. But there is this like seeing that abstraction as a very relevant and real thing. Anything to add on that one? Gordon: I think you I think you did real good. I don't want to get us too bogged down in the recap here. Rachel: Ha ha ha Gordon: that that capacity for abstraction is also like leading with metaconsciousness it might have been better served at the end. because so much of what we're talking about is nested within it. Rachel: Sure, absolutely. Absolutely. Gordon: another piece is existential sensibility. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: That is thoughts about meaning and purpose and values and seeking alignment of those things that also can show up as a high conscientiousness, as justice seeking and coherence seeking as far as having Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: the world be more of what it purports to be. Rachel: Yeah. And for me that connects to that meta consciousness, that self referential inquiry around meaning and then this desire to place meaning appropriately into this larger schema of understanding, which is about coherence, which is about that love of learning, that drive to learn, that ease of learning. and that like, yeah, what does this all add up to? That sort of contextual bent, or I think we I I heard it referred to recently as existential giantism. But yeah, this concern with meaning. and that high conscientiousness also, just to piggyback on what you're saying there, absolutely in like an existential sense around morality, justice, the collective, but also just in general of like this awareness, high awareness, vigilance, this kind of very wide aperture that picks up on things. That's this heightened awareness. and that trans trans Gordon: Yeah, heightened awareness where we're gathering voluminous data all the time. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yes. Yes. And that takes us back into, the speculative but very solidly speculative notion that this is all rooted in physiology. You know, there's so much we don't know. And, you know, is giftedness a form of neurodivergence? big, you know, yellow light, yellow flashing light. but and you know, increased network connectivity. gray matter in certain areas of the brain. we know that cognition is a physiologic process. So if we're talking about uncommon connection cognition and these characteristics, we can assume that there is also physiologic basis for this processing difference in and through the physical body mind. Just like there would be Gordon: Right. That the body isn't just a brain carrying device. Yeah. Yeah. Rachel: Exactly, right? We know the vagus nerve runs 80% of its information bottom up. We know that, the sensing body is goes beyond the brain, that our skin is a sensing organ, that interoception is sending signals all of the time, that we're swimming in a sea of information, and that our body-minds are living processors, living, living filters that carry memory, the past, meaning, association. And so that that increased connectivity. Things like pattern recognition, things like conscientiousness, these are absolutely connected to and rooted in the physical body for sure. Gordon: Yes, and in an extension of that, the sensory sensitivities that are really typical among the atypical, and those being more of those data points that aren't about reading a book. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: they are about gathering information in real time, the warm data from one's environment. Rachel: Mm. Gordon: the the physical giftedness, another extension of that, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and these two aren't necessarily seen as strong indicators of what is broadly known as giftedness right now, even Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: though we will refer to people as gifted athletes or having a rarefied sensibility in their in their sensual experience. Rachel: Right, right. And that's where we do get into this sort of tangle that is the meadow that is gifted, and then the gifted that is, let's say evident in, you know, a kiddo's educational development and trajectory in their test scores, in that uncommon cognition, yes, fully acknowledging the conventions and the trappings of academia and the education system and all of these things. But that, yeah, a gifted athlete, a gifted artist, to be particularly sensitive. And this is where we get into, I think, a real interesting conversation about identification in kiddos and through development and you know, the use of the word, our own understanding, you know, what why are we having this conversation at this juncture as a field? and and I'm gonna offer you that question to see what flows because we wouldn't be having this conversation if we didn't need to have it, I think. And so when we think about the lifespan, it starts with kids, it starts with identification, it starts with assessment. Gordon: Yes. And having quantitative assessment is at the basis of the IQ testing machine. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Gordon: and having a more qualitative assessment is really relies on folks tuning their own awareness to all of these various dimensions or expressions of intelligence. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: So when just i i if anybody's like, what's the hullabaloo? What's the conversation? I don't know anything about that. I'm not from there. Rachel: Ha ha. Gordon: that that there's a conversation around whether giftedness ought to be termed a neurodivergence. and the reasoning for that I'll leave you to your own Googling. but the the the other side of the tension that's pulling the knot. is is is around saying, well, of course it fucking is. of course it's neurodivergence by definition, because it diverges from the norm far enough as to be Rachel: Mm-hmm. Right. Gordon: noticed. Rachel: Right. Right. And Gordon: So I d I just wanna to name that the the the the conversation that we're even referencing. Rachel: Yes, thank you, Gordon. That's helpful. Gordon: and then from there we get to decide whether we're gonna get stuck in a in a cultural battle or whether we're going to instead like figure out how we're gonna get out from under this neurotypical hegemony of Hey, there's this hierarchy and where are you on it and who's better at it and Rachel: Yeah Gordon: who's good and who can really produce and all that stuff that is less relevant Rachel: Yes. Gordon: to our interests. Rachel: Yes. I think we're looking at a more ecological understanding for the individual and for the collective at the level of intelligence and at the level of gifted. And so, you know, a lot of this has to do with the conventions, the paradigms, and the value systems that underpin our institutions. And we go into that quite in depth in part one. So I don't feel like we need to really go super deep into that. Here again. but if we're talking about the use of the word gifted with a kiddo or with a family, that desire for uncommonness, that desire for exceptionality, the actual exceptionality, the difference, how we assess, how we measure, see, understand, and then how we offer that back. To a developing kiddo who's coming into their own sense of self, their own identity, self-worth, and a family. yeah, are we clear and specific enough? Could we adjust how we do this? the best we have right now is standardized testing for the most part and IQ tests. And again, those are both problematic and they're helpful at once. Both things are true. because the Actual experience of a person who's, in that 130 and above range, that 2% of the population, and and as you move out, you get outlier of outlier, that is a very real experience. if a kiddo is experiencing themselves qualitatively differently in that regard, we're gonna want to support them differently. Gordon: Yes. And and so here we are with the individual and Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Gordon: trying to tune our awareness to see what's actually there. because Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: that same kid who's getting praised for how quick they got through the times tables is being told that there's something wrong with them when they have big feelings. Rachel: Right. Gordon: that that emotional intensity, unwelcome intellectual intensity, Show me some more of that. Rachel: Yeah. Mm-hmm. Gordon: and and so being able to recognize that if when we're talking about a whole person, not Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: just the parts that serve whatever institution is is gauging, Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: then it brings us to a much much more much muddier place Rachel: Yes. Gordon: in regard to identification. Rachel: That's why I love well, you and I both work with adults. You work with young adults and adults, adolescents and adults, Gordon: I work with adolescents and adults. Mm-hmm. Rachel: and whereas I work with adults, gifted, high plus gifted, multi-exceptional, outliers of outliers types, generally speaking. we both use this model of sensitive, intense, and complex as a way for somebody to inventory and connect with their own experience, full body, psychic, emotional, and then also in terms of how they're perceived and received in the world. And I just want to introduce, frameworks. And I think this is a really, really beautiful one. And then it has a lot of potential to proliferate and actually become useful in all sorts of contexts. But that sense, that sensitivity for me as the basis of the model, that intensity Which speaks to overexcitabilities, which speaks to the nervous system, which speaks to that experience of one's own energy in motion or emotions as they hit that language interface and that meaning. And then that complexity, that sort of experience of A connects to B, connects to D, connects to F1, and et cetera, and et cetera, right? And so I just really like this model for its both simplicity, but also for its ability to acknowledge the physiologic. For its ability to acknowledge various domains or types of intelligences and both the inner and the outer experience. and so yeah, I just wanted to introduce that at this juncture because it does really speak to that sensing body, which is connected to perception, which is connected to cognition. And we cannot cut cognition off at the neck up. It is a full body process, it is a nested process in reciprocity and interplay with perception and sensing. so that sensitivity as base to acknowledge it. yeah, I don't know if you have any thoughts there, but I feel like that's a really useful framework. Gordon: No, no, I feel like you just mic dropped this thing, we might be done. that was amazing. could you repeat that? and Rachel: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Gordon: so w as we're talking about giftedness then, you are ushering us into an invitation for everyone to Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: examine their own subjective experience, their own sensitivities. And the intensities that that bloom from those and the complexities Rachel: Yes. Gordon: that they inhabit. and so yeah, d to everyone who's paying attention to this, I I wanna be able to say, I see your sensitivity Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and I value that sensitivity, and I want you to be able to inhabit your own experience without overwhelm. And Rachel: Yes. Gordon: And for a lot of gifted folks, this might actually be a core characteristic, honestly, is is the overwhelm. Rachel: I right. And so I'll pull in and layer on here. I'll, my my intellectual is strong and I'm trying not to go dog dog after squirrel overexcitability style. but you know, when Jabrowski talks about psychomotor psychomotor overexcitability or we talk about physical intelligence, I do wonder about that, you know, really containing. The corpus, the physiology, the nervous system. and that, you know, to invite, especially folks who have this, you know, uncommon cognition, this desire for meaning making, to connect the dots, to learn this network connectivity, this capacity for abstraction and meta consciousness. It's like, all right, what are some frames that are minimum viable but allow for new understandings of self and to be created? While we bypass some of these identity and egoic, superior, more than, less than interfaces that sometimes neurodivergent labels can pull pull out of us, right? It's like gifted is the only diagnosis or assessment label that carries this sort of like more than signature, if we're being honest, you know, uncommonly more than, uncommonly exceptional in these ways that are lauded, wanted, better, right? So when we explore outside of that. neurodivergence and label language diagnosis paradigm, we can start to connect with what's actually going on in our processing and in our experience. And I do wonder about sensitivity, psychomotor, physical, as basis for everything else, energy and motion. So that's why I like it to go first. I think a lot about connective tissue density. I think a lot about the sensing body and the differences in synaptic action and pruning and all this stuff. Which leads us to that sensual overexcitability, that sensual intelligence almost I almost imagine it is like stacking on top of, right? That there's this psychomotor reality that we all inhabit. And then on top of that, there is this sensual intelligence that we all carry. And that to explore sensitivity is to really honor that without needing to put it in like a DSM box too soon. Gordon: Yeah, and to get curious about what the individual's sensual experience is or physical experience is, Rachel: Mm. Gordon: and to help provide language for folks so they can describe these things. Cause they're hard it's not like people are just walking around describing their sensual experiences all the time. They might be like, That's stinky or that tastes delicious. But that's about as far as it goes. versus Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yeah, right. Gordon: some of the sensory sensitivities we're describing, which can lead to excessive delight and excessive disgust. Rachel: Mm-hmm. That spiky profile you were talking about, or now we're kind of taking the bridge, we're taking the ferry right over. We're like not a ferry, maybe it's more of like a drawbridge or a hanging bridge over to intensity, which for me, you know, in this sensitive, intense, and complex model is like a minimum viable, kind of very basic self-referential model becomes so useful because all the other models that we play with can work with it. And when we're talking about intensity, we're talking about energy. We're talking about energy moving through and around the corporeal form, how our consciousness, how our thoughts, emotions are informed by sensory sensitivity, intensity, hypo, hyper. and so yeah, that intensity connection to overexcitability, I think is really fascinating. For me, then I like to grab another framework. That then I can say, how does the energy move through me? It's like when I get excited about something intellectual, I get real, I go real on, so for me, that's a sensitivity and intensity that we could call an overexcitability. But the way that I work is like that intellectual domain, an existential domain, is very it lights me up. And if I know that as a kiddo, that's helpful. If my teachers, if my parents know that as a kiddo, that's super helpful, right? So that's a great example of okay, maybe we have this opportunity to look at assessment and identification in kids with a little more granularity and specificity. Just a thought. Gordon: And and that there's a piece that we haven't really named, which is the creative or the imaginational, which it was referenced with with capacity for abstraction and referenced Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: in these sensual and physical conversations as well as intellectual and emotional. it's part of this metaconsciousness, this capacity for imagining. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: And The sensual experience informs that so greatly. this whole thing is all one unit, don't don't get me wrong. Rachel: Yes, yes. Gordon: Or we're br I'm breaking it into all these pieces like we're like I'm a brick wall or something. But it's that this unified consciousness that I inhabit is sensitivity into intensity into this imaginative complexity that includes uncognition and deep feeling and existential sensibility. Rachel: Yeah, for sure. I wish I kind of wish I had like slides or drawings, because the inten sensitive, intense, and complex model for me is foundational. Then the model on top of that would be like the we could use Dabrowski there, adapt over excitabilities to become domains of intelligence or intelligence centers. So I understand myself, and I this it's been reflected back to me. I'm just using me as an example. That I'm a sensitive, intense, and complex person. Where do I where and how do I experience my sensitivity? No, yeah, not at all. Gordon: I hadn't noticed that about you. Mm-mm. Rachel: where and how do I experience my intensity? Where and how do I experience my complexity? What's reflected back to me by others? On top of that model, separate but connected, I would introduce the psychomotor, sensual, imaginational, I would say relational as opposed to emotional. That's a little bit of a difference I have there and how I structure it. intellectual and existential model. And that is that model that we see more commonly held as like, yes, they're overexcitabilities, they're centers of intelligence, they're types of intelligence or domains. So I may be sensitive relationally, I may be complex emotionally. I might be hypo, I might be not that intense psycho in a psychomotor sense, you know. So I think these two frameworks, I just want to clarify, Gordon, that for me I like to stack them on top of each other and use that first foundational layer as a way to explore the second layer. But you're right, it is this like gestalt, it's all playing together. Right. Gordon: Well and that's the thing. N now we're into the subjective experience of it, that that stacking Rachel: Yes. Gordon: is something that helps you find the coherence in it. Whereas Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: for me it's just putting it all in a stew pot and seeing how it tastes. and so Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Gordon: it's we're talking about the same stuff in very different ways. Rachel: Yeah, absolutely. And that's a perfect example of we look at folks will show up and they'll have an basket full of labels and language and assessments and diagnoses and do I fit this? Do I fit this? And inevitably as part of that process, depending upon where they're at, I'll pull up our our friend and colleague Katie Higgins Lee's, you know, ADHD autism giftedness. And what I love about that is it shifts away from the the big, you know, sandbox that is autism, which is very complex, or the big sandbox, the big meadow that is giftedness, and look at specific subjective experiences. that understanding oneself and how we do that is really the goal. You know, it's like what it what is my intention as a practitioner? What is my intention as a coach? I'm not interested in telling you what you are. I am interested in helping you develop a relationship with your own unique uncommon intelligence, which oftentimes does fall into that, you know, sort of like very that uncommon cognition, that, you know, that sort of capacity for abstraction, seeing connections very quickly, all that kind of thing, right? So yeah, a qu a stew versus like stacking, you know, like. cre ge geometric whatever, right? It's like whatever works for each person. but it is in the service of that, unique expression of. Yeah. Gordon: Your framework prevents us from getting abstracted into infinity where all words lose meaning, rather than gaining them. So thank you. Rachel: Yes, yes, yes. Yeah. I mean reciprocity and interplay with the body and then how we understand intelligence. We don't have a lot of lexicon. We don't have a lot of self-referential frameworks, right? People be like, we've disproven Gardner's types of intelligence. We're always looking for ways to sort of slice and dice and understand the inner world. Look at Freud, look at IFS, look at I mean, we could go on and on and on. About the number of frameworks that have been created in the psychological domain to really give shape and form to this stew that you're referencing. and so minimum viable for me, like I need them. I need good good scaffolding. and I find often that clients benefit from good scaffolding, but hopefully it's like, yeah, just to play around and crawl around on, you know. Gordon: Monkey bars. Rachel: Yeah, like monkey bars, like a playground. Yeah. Gordon: That sounds fun. Rachel: Yeah. And yeah, there are the you know, both of us use this model that you're referencing this, you know, psychomotor, sensual, imaginational, you know, which I would also say is the creative sometimes referred to as emotional, intellectual, existential, as ways to just sort of like explore one's own experience of themselves. Gordon: Yeah. And through that exploration you quickly notice that there's there's no discrete pieces. They're all connected and part of the one thing. It does Rachel: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Yeah. Gordon: lead to this sense of like, well, what the hell is giftedness then? You know, like Rachel: Right. Gordon: it i here we are. We've we've we've taken things out of their boxes Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: and stated nobody owns this term or one particular way of talking about it. we're amidst this evolution of understanding and redefinition of what this even is. and and I don't want to pretend we've arrived that you know the minimum viable container that you were just describing, that framework, that scaffolding, those monkey bars, is is is a vehicle. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: to the broader understanding. Rachel: Yeah. Yeah. And for me, there there's walking with somebody in the service of their understanding and seeing themselves. That's one intention. There's looking at collective understanding. And this is rooted in a both and, right? I'll come back to our, you know, our very fraught friend, the IQ test, various types of IQ tests. I was ripping with myself before we got on our call and I was like some of the stuff rolling through my brain. It's like when you know, what are we quantifying here? The limits of qu what can be quantified, what are we measuring, spatial visual, spatial kinesthetic? What happens when you get into territory that there are multiple right answers? Are you talking about people who can twist the prism over and over and over and you're looking for a quantitative, definitive, correct answer? It's like the stuff does start to break down logically at a certain point, and It's also a helpful tool that helps us to identify those outliers. And so both things can be true. if I don't score nobody can score a 180 on an IQ test reliably, that doesn't happen. That's logically not like, there's limitations to that, you know, to to hold how we hold that, right? And so will we ever be able to measure this in a way that material reductionism and science suggests that we might be able to? And I would assert probably not, and maybe we shouldn't, like, you know. Gordon: Well well no, that's that's where that where it where it falls apart, material reductionism, Rachel: Right. Gordon: whereas what we're talking about is abstracted complexity. And so Rachel: Exactly. Exactly. Gordon: if we were trying to boil something down into something simple enough that we can hold it in our hands, we will have lost something. Rachel: Right, right. So now we're in the neurodiversity meadow paradigm and you know looking at okay, outliers of outliers and uncommon intelligence in that sort of uncommon cognition. We know there's gifted athletes, gifted artists, but if we're talking about uncommon cognition specifically, not divorced from the body mind, including sensing and perception. Looking at the reciprocity and interplay in the whole person, identification of that uncommon cognition becomes important, fraught, a little dangerous. What do you do with these folks? how do you nurture Gordon: Yeah. Rachel: these kiddos when you know maybe you don't even know what the hell they're saying? Like you can't follow where they're going, like, you know. Gordon: Yeah, I'm I'm reminded right now I'm reminded right now of our episode with Karen Aglinton around synchronicities and the hallmarks of giftedness that she possesses, having so much to do with with a type of perception that is uncommon. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yes. Yeah. And, you know, perception, questions of how perception works in and through the physical body mind, seed of pattern recognition, potentially, closer to that sort of neurosception and limbic system centers of belonging. but also if we kind of can get down into those perceptual layers, less thinking, less representational intelligence. building the complexity up and out and coming down and in to explore one's own physical experience of that perceptual domain. what will we find? And how will that influence our own intelligence? And this gets into, you know, every every generation, you know, the IQ increases a couple points, right? R up until recently. This, this now we're in the the first experience of that that has not increased. and there's all sorts of probably reasons for that. But really that nested that perception as this sort of in-between place between sensing and cognition, you know, w what might we look like collectively if we focused more on the development of perception in the educational system, for example? And you know, that that gets to be a really squishy question. yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Gordon: Where does that leave us right now, Rachel? Rachel: It's good question. Uncommon cognition. On common perception. Is there such a thing as common perception? In the neurodiversity paradigm, no, it's it's unique to each person. Can cognition, perception, sensing, or relationship with our metaconsciousness be cultivated? Absolutely. Is it cultivated by convention and culture and outside influence, including conventions of what is and what isn't? Yes. can we learn to cultivate those things ourselves? Also, yes. So where does it land us? I think it lands us in the like truth of the neurodiversity paradigm. And then it is this question of like uncommon cognition. How do we support that in a way that both honors the fact that we live in a capitalist paradigm, but also this justice sensitivity, this awareness that so many folks of uncommon perception and sensitivity have that it's like, hey, how we're living ain't doing it. Gordon: No, and there were gifted people before there was a capitalistic society, and there will be gifted people of whatever happens next. and and Rachel: Exactly. Yes. Yes. Gordon: that the what is valued by the culture will continue to change. I Rachel: Yes. Gordon: like you like talking about like cultivation and culture, and it definitely made me like consider like a cult of of giftedness. And Rachel: Mm. Gordon: you know, this and that's that's more of a like a hierarchical notion of like, okay, well, no, we're we're special. Whereas Rachel: Yeah. Gordon: what what you just described is that, well, sure. And and so and so so everyone's special. Everyone's unique. we get to be how do you put it? the same no different Rachel: Same diff same, different, and distinct all at once. Gordon: So we get to be the same and we get to be different and we get to be distinct all at once. And so when we recognize that we are ensconced in this vast ecosystem of neurotypes, then suddenly i the hierarchies go out the window. It's just Rachel: Mm. Gordon: i it's it's more about our own experience of living out outside of some of the systems of control. Rachel: Right. And now we're talking about neuroflexibility and cognitive sovereignty. And this is the stuff I these are this is this is this is what I'm this is what I'm out here doing, like walking with guiding, trying to always cultivate in myself, maybe starting to educate or speak on a little bit more. but that, you know, this ecological collective of human intelligence will shape, you know, how we move into the future. Absolutely. And to honor and recognize that different types of perception, different types of cognition are all necessary and required, and to learn the relational skills that are required to actually co-create, that's why we started this podcast, you know, to model some of that. to bring people of different sensitive, intense, and complex experiences on to share their thoughts and ideas. But co-creating futures essentially. and so for me, when I think about the collective intention here, it's like, yeah, a co-created future for the people, by the people. That's not, you know, systems of domination and control and violence and power over. We do have place in ecology. We do have role or function. the lion and the bee are not the same. and that gets confusing for us as very visual, materially oriented creatures. because we all look we're like humans, same species, same, same, same, same, same, same. It's like, not exactly, right? And that doesn't have to be charged. It doesn't have to be good or bad, like it just is, you know. So a lot of what we're also talking about that hasn't be explicit been explicitly stated yet. And I don't think, you know, this is probably a different episode, consciousness. How we understand self, frameworks and and and ways that we can explore the evolving relationship we have with self, which is also place, which is like, what am I? Who am I? That core question animates so many inquiries around neurodivergence, giftedness, life transitions, you know, sort of these psychic transformations that people go through. I call it the invisible journey of becoming elder, but this question of who am I? And that's a really interesting question that connects with identity, ego, cond deeper layers of conditioning, specialness, more than, less than, good enough, not good enough, etc. Gordon: Yeah, I think you just laid out really three future episodes, sovereignty, Rachel: Ha ha ha ha. Gordon: consciousness, and then like self slash ego. Rachel: Yeah, cool. Well, we got a roadmap now. That's that's cool. Yeah. You gotta Gordon: Dang. Yeah. Rachel: get somebody else in here. It's been us for a little while. We gotta we gotta get back to getting guests on. We're just it's just you and I. There's so many people that we are friends and colleagues, you know, connected to that work and, you know, live in this space as well. And and this gifted thing really is, inextricable, like I've said four thousand times now. Neurodiversity, human intelligence. what does the future of gifted look like? And for me, I just I I wish for kiddos and families and for adults, because all space-time might be happening at once. I wish for like an understanding and acceptance that then leads to an ability to move in the world with like just more flow, more ease, you know? It's like I'm very spatial kinesthetic. Like there's a whole, you know. Words are just one language for me. And like I say that to most people and they look at me like I have two heads. but to to some people, they really get it. Gordon: Yeah, and understanding is great when you can find it. but that second piece around acceptance and which Rachel: Mm-hmm mm. Yeah. Gordon: includes curiosity, allows for me to arrive at understandings of others without Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: w with the knowledge that I I won't be able to fully grasp their experience. I won't. but Rachel: Right. Right. You can't, yeah. Gordon: I can accept their sovereignty. Rachel: Yes. I I remember stumbling upon that in like a very like embodied, you know, that sort of self-directed learning way. I'm like, the bottom of the ocean floor is existential distinction. my gosh, it's like so that's such a thing. Everybody's struggling with that. I'm struggling with it. Fast forward a couple months, I'm like, Heidegger said this, damn it. And I was like, also awesome. Like, you know, great. But that is that sort of honoring that richness the embodied subjective. which, embodied, that's another fourth episode and maybe our own map too. but yeah, to s to accept, to accept oneself for others to accept, to honor that these variations are natural, normal, and like a positive thing all the way around. Yeah. Gordon: Yeah. And so anyone who's listening who is feeling really lit up by this, especially if intelligence, human intelligence, giftedness is an area of particular interest for you, know that we that you're invited. we would love for you to come be a part of this. you'll find that we don't have a script, we barely have an outline. that we Rachel: Ha ha ha. Gordon: are actually trusting a co-creative process to get from one end to the other. And Rachel: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Gordon: so and within that notion is an invitation for folks to be a part of. Rachel: Absolutely. Absolutely. And to be continued and I've got NAGC in my hometown here this week coming up. Gordon: What does that stand for? Rachel: that's the National Association of Gifted Children. right? The yeah, gifted children. Four, four, Gordon: Or gifted children. Rachel: of four, yeah, it's probably four of them. It's not of them. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah, that's good. Real gifted. let the children they we I mean, honestly, maybe we should yeah, and so the these conversations happening just right in my backyard. That should be interesting. but really, yeah, it's like the future of gifted, I think is a really important, fascinating, rich space. And so yeah, we welcome your comments, your thoughts. and we hope to, yeah, just continue to. Add to, make space for, gentle provocation and opening up of the kite, the kite knot, the kite knot story. Yeah, that thing. Yeah. Mm-hmm. All that stuff. Gordon: Yes. Yeah, but provocation, arousal, whatever however you want to put it. Yeah. Rachel: Beautiful. Any parting words, Gordon? Gordon: you've done it. You've gotten to the end of another episode of Existential Tetherball. we are here every now and again. Rachel: Mm-hmm. Gordon: this is actually our 13th episode, so if this is your first time tuning in, just know that there's a wealth of other stuff in the rearview mirror. And Rachel: Yes, our first episode is actually all neurodiversity and neurodivergence, just as a little bit of a Yeah. Gordon: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. and you're invited to like this if you like it, subscribe to it if you want to do that, and share it with folks. please leave comments, share your thoughts. We really want to continue to grow a community. Rachel: Absolutely. Thanks for the jam, Gordon. Thanks everyone for joining us. Gordon: Yeah, you're the best, Rachel. See you next time. Rachel: Yeah.