Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions

likitisplit

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology

Most schools have PH.D programs in several branches of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, comparative and clinical. There are journals upon journals that publish peer reviewed empirical research in each of these areas.

MrTolerable

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology

-the women I'm dating primarily has a masters - and there are tons of subfields or 'focuses' in psychology you can even get a degree in. - and psychologist form theories through using empirical methods of research to find collaboration between different variables to form opinions.
Also - I think you are thinking of a psychologist as some guy in an office with a pen and paper listening to peoples problems and taking notes- no no no - they work for corporations, help in marketing through research, they do consulting, They may be good for sales if they studied behavioral psychology.

I mean it sounds like you have never sat through a class on psych 101.

rml_16

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

WHAT? On what planet? Not Earth.

likitisplit

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

WHAT? On what planet? Not Earth.

And we return to my MFP wormhole theory.

MrTolerable

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

WHAT? On what planet? Not Earth.

And we return to my MFP wormhole theory.

lol jumping into the wormhole 'head' first I guess we can't say it definitively - perhaps in the multiverse there is a 'earth' or 'earth-like' planet - perhaps even the original 'earth' where this is the case :bigsmile:

likitisplit

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

WHAT? On what planet? Not Earth.

And we return to my MFP wormhole theory.

lol jumping into the wormhole 'head' first I guess we can't say it definitively - perhaps in the multiverse there is a 'earth' or 'earth-like' planet - perhaps even the original 'earth' where this is the case :bigsmile:

Where calorie isn't a calorie and water isn't water.

do-do do-do doooo.

AglaeaC

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology

*facepalm* Do you actually know what you're talking about? Because it sure doesn't sound like it.

aurorareigns

and btw, psychology and philosophy is generally where college students end up when they can't hack it in a real major.

I should know lol

And that's exactly why those were 2 of my top major choices.

_Terrapin_

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology

-the women I'm dating primarily has a masters - and there are tons of subfields or 'focuses' in psychology you can even get a degree in. - and psychologist form theories through using empirical methods of research to find collaboration between different variables to form opinions.
Also - I think you are thinking of a psychologist as some guy in an office with a pen and paper listening to peoples problems and taking notes- no no no - they work for corporations, help in marketing through research, they do consulting, They may be good for sales if they studied behavioral psychology.

I mean it sounds like you have never sat through a class on psych 101.

Behavioral psychology is its own field. And most schools 'only award a BA'? You may want to check the facts. Stick to the Peanut Bar in Reading, it is more your speed.

kimberlyblindsey

I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.

There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.

I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.

I feel like you are looking at a very small subsegment of the population. Every valedictorian for the four years I attended my high school was also a successful and talented athlete and had wonderful social skills.

I know many people who tested as gifted, were in AP-level classes, were put in the gifted and talented programs at my schools who were athletes, musicians and had active and healthy social lives.

You're making a sweeping statement based on your experiences in the inner city, which are not ideal by any means and are informed by an awful lot of other issues, such as gang activity, poverty, parents who abuse drugs or simply don't care. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every one of your students, but it would be far more prevalent there than in other places.

Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.

MrTolerable

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology

-the women I'm dating primarily has a masters - and there are tons of subfields or 'focuses' in psychology you can even get a degree in. - and psychologist form theories through using empirical methods of research to find collaboration between different variables to form opinions.
Also - I think you are thinking of a psychologist as some guy in an office with a pen and paper listening to peoples problems and taking notes- no no no - they work for corporations, help in marketing through research, they do consulting, They may be good for sales if they studied behavioral psychology.

I mean it sounds like you have never sat through a class on psych 101.

Behavioral psychology is its own field. And most schools 'only award a BA'? You may want to check the facts. Stick to the Peanut Bar in Reading, it is more your speed.

What are you talking about? I said it could aid for sales? and I didn't say most schools 'only award a BA' - I made the case they didn't.

- may want to practice basic reading comprehension - so you can communicate like an adult.

MrTolerable

I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.

There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.

I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.

I feel like you are looking at a very small subsegment of the population. Every valedictorian for the four years I attended my high school was also a successful and talented athlete and had wonderful social skills.

I know many people who tested as gifted, were in AP-level classes, were put in the gifted and talented programs at my schools who were athletes, musicians and had active and healthy social lives.

You're making a sweeping statement based on your experiences in the inner city, which are not ideal by any means and are informed by an awful lot of other issues, such as gang activity, poverty, parents who abuse drugs or simply don't care. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every one of your students, but it would be far more prevalent there than in other places.

Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.

You are basing your 'worldview' on experiences working in Southern California?

^sounds like your identity is heavily influenced by your career - in actuality your worldview is a Christian worldview. - certainly nothing wrong with that! - certainly not ideal IMHO either.

rml_16

Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.

The problem isn't where you choose to live and work. The problem is you painting all "gifted" people with a broad brush based on where you live and work.

One of the major life lessons English majors should learn is critical thinking and you seem to be lacking in it. I don't think, taking away the variables, that highly intelligent people are less athletically-inclined (imagine the mental stamina needed for the highest levels of such things) or less socially skilled than less intelligent people.

Some are, some aren't. But you will find that in both populations.

likitisplit

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology

-the women I'm dating primarily has a masters - and there are tons of subfields or 'focuses' in psychology you can even get a degree in. - and psychologist form theories through using empirical methods of research to find collaboration between different variables to form opinions.
Also - I think you are thinking of a psychologist as some guy in an office with a pen and paper listening to peoples problems and taking notes- no no no - they work for corporations, help in marketing through research, they do consulting, They may be good for sales if they studied behavioral psychology.

I mean it sounds like you have never sat through a class on psych 101.

Behavioral psychology is its own field. And most schools 'only award a BA'? You may want to check the facts. Stick to the Peanut Bar in Reading, it is more your speed.

What are you talking about? I said it could aid for sales? and I didn't say most schools 'only award a BA' - I made the case they didn't.

- may want to practice basic reading comprehension - so you can communicate like an adult.

I think this was a comment to the person above you?

likitisplit

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

lol your understanding of this is respectfully so far off tilt that it honestly brought me to laughter.

'why it makes them special or gifted' - no one is special - no one is significant - nothing, not even the cosmos is special - it just is. The average person having a sense of self-awareness (not an identity) feels entitled towards a sense of purpose and that they are special - they are not - they just are, and they will die and will be forgotten.

My point largely with existentialism is that you can create purpose in a meaningless world by taking on the role of crafting yourself - creating your ideal. Then when your created virtues and ideal's line up with your actions you begin to feel inner peace and far less turmoil. You have to create the meaning for yourself. Carl Sagan was such a good example of this and said it very elegantly.

We are in a void. We are meaningless. However we have self-awareness - an overly evolved self-awareness. We are as insignificant as all other biological animals and we will die just like them, but we know we will die unlike them. To cope people develop elaborate junk to stuff their time with - such as Christianity, and in a sense even my ideas on existentialism and the importance of personality development.

Being gifted does not mean you are special - you are just gifted - still entirely meaningless we are just more aware of the void, and we are more aware of our 'self'. My point is largely that their is not a great deal to life, you can live it any way you want, morality, ethics - all constructs. However, finding peace and happiness to me seems worthwhile in the worthlessness - so to find that peace and happiness you need to create your ideal you and live up to your ideal.

How, in the natural world, can anything EVER be "overly" evolved? What other feature would you apply this to?

Also, and I've said this before, human morality appears to be as rooted in our genetic map as the structure of our teeth. And, if you are going to argue that our teeth are mere constructs, I'm going to get really, really bored very quickly.

W31RD0

Can I comment if my body fat is higher than 14%?

Bro, do you even Determinism?

MrTolerable

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

lol your understanding of this is respectfully so far off tilt that it honestly brought me to laughter.

'why it makes them special or gifted' - no one is special - no one is significant - nothing, not even the cosmos is special - it just is. The average person having a sense of self-awareness (not an identity) feels entitled towards a sense of purpose and that they are special - they are not - they just are, and they will die and will be forgotten.

My point largely with existentialism is that you can create purpose in a meaningless world by taking on the role of crafting yourself - creating your ideal. Then when your created virtues and ideal's line up with your actions you begin to feel inner peace and far less turmoil. You have to create the meaning for yourself. Carl Sagan was such a good example of this and said it very elegantly.

We are in a void. We are meaningless. However we have self-awareness - an overly evolved self-awareness. We are as insignificant as all other biological animals and we will die just like them, but we know we will die unlike them. To cope people develop elaborate junk to stuff their time with - such as Christianity, and in a sense even my ideas on existentialism and the importance of personality development.

Being gifted does not mean you are special - you are just gifted - still entirely meaningless we are just more aware of the void, and we are more aware of our 'self'. My point is largely that their is not a great deal to life, you can live it any way you want, morality, ethics - all constructs. However, finding peace and happiness to me seems worthwhile in the worthlessness - so to find that peace and happiness you need to create your ideal you and live up to your ideal.

How, in the natural world, can anything EVER be "overly" evolved? What other feature would you apply this to?

Also, and I've said this before, human morality appears to be as rooted in our genetic map as the structure of our teeth. And, if you are going to argue that our teeth are mere constructs, I'm going to get really, really bored very quickly.

'The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by overevolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment.

In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.' - Peter Wessel Zapffe in 'The Last Messiah'
-yeah I won't say our teeth are mere constructs - but do you have any proof that morality is 'rooted in our genetic map' - because it is not and no one could possibly believe that. Frankly it is a preposterous claim. Mainstream scientist say self-awareness/consciousness does not even occur in humans till about 2 years old - the idea that we could be BORN with morality and virtues would mean that there would be a foundation of ethics that apply to all, and of course there are not. We are biological puppets, many moving off of simply impulse, whim, and the selfish gene.

MrTolerable

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

lol your understanding of this is respectfully so far off tilt that it honestly brought me to laughter.

'why it makes them special or gifted' - no one is special - no one is significant - nothing, not even the cosmos is special - it just is. The average person having a sense of self-awareness (not an identity) feels entitled towards a sense of purpose and that they are special - they are not - they just are, and they will die and will be forgotten.

My point largely with existentialism is that you can create purpose in a meaningless world by taking on the role of crafting yourself - creating your ideal. Then when your created virtues and ideal's line up with your actions you begin to feel inner peace and far less turmoil. You have to create the meaning for yourself. Carl Sagan was such a good example of this and said it very elegantly.

We are in a void. We are meaningless. However we have self-awareness - an overly evolved self-awareness. We are as insignificant as all other biological animals and we will die just like them, but we know we will die unlike them. To cope people develop elaborate junk to stuff their time with - such as Christianity, and in a sense even my ideas on existentialism and the importance of personality development.

Being gifted does not mean you are special - you are just gifted - still entirely meaningless we are just more aware of the void, and we are more aware of our 'self'. My point is largely that their is not a great deal to life, you can live it any way you want, morality, ethics - all constructs. However, finding peace and happiness to me seems worthwhile in the worthlessness - so to find that peace and happiness you need to create your ideal you and live up to your ideal.

How, in the natural world, can anything EVER be "overly" evolved? What other feature would you apply this to?

Also, and I've said this before, human morality appears to be as rooted in our genetic map as the structure of our teeth. And, if you are going to argue that our teeth are mere constructs, I'm going to get really, really bored very quickly.

'The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by overevolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment.

In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.' - Peter Wessel Zapffe in 'The Last Messiah'
-yeah I won't say our teeth are mere constructs - but do you have any proof that morality is 'rooted in our genetic map' - because it is not and no one could possibly believe that. Frankly it is a preposterous claim. Mainstream scientist say self-awareness/consciousness does not even occur in humans till about 2 years old - the idea that we could be BORN with morality and virtues would mean that there would be a foundation of ethics that apply to all, and of course there are not. We are biological puppets, many moving off of simply impulse, whim, and the selfish gene.

Even compounding on this ^infants see through the eyes of others -

'The poet Arthur Rimbaud claimed that ‘‘I is some one Else’’ (‘‘Je est quelqu Õun dÕautre’’),suggesting that we conceive ourselves through the eyes of others. It appears indeed that by 2–3 years young children do start to have others in mind when they behave. The expression of embarrassment that children often begin to display in front of mirrors at around this age is the expression of such ‘‘self-consciousness.’’ They behave not unlike criminals hiding their face to the
cameras. Their behavior indicates a drive to vanish from the public eyes, as if they came to grip via
the experience of their own specular image of how they present themselves to the world. Not only
do they discover in the mirror that it is themselves, they also realize that it is themselves as
perceived by others. The malaise might come from the realization of a fundamental discrepancy
between how the child represents herself from within, and how he or she is actually perceived by
others as reflected in the mirror. Note that this interpretation is consistent with what visual an-
thropologist Edmund Carpenter reported in adults of an isolated Papua New Guinea tribe (the
Biami). The Biami presumably did not have any mirror experience and the river in the Papuan
plateau are typically too murky to provide clear reflections, unlike the rivers of ancient Greece
enjoyed by Narcissus. The anthropologist recorded their reactions when looking for the first at hemselves in a mirror, viewing themselves in video recordings or Polaroid photographs. Carpenter describes reactions of terror and anguish: ‘‘They were paralyzed: after their first startled
response—covering their mouths and ducking their heads—they stood transfixed, staring at their
images, only their stomach muscles betraying great tension’’ (Carpenter, 1975, pp. 452–453)

No_Finish_Line

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology

Most schools have PH.D programs in several branches of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, comparative and clinical. There are journals upon journals that publish peer reviewed empirical research in each of these areas.

yes. you can also get a Ph.D in art history.

its a science in that it employees the scientific method. but one could never really eliminate all the varibles for subject to subject in order to emperically prove theories the way one can in the natural sciences. therefore laws and facts outside of the branches of psychology that are closely intertwinded with biology are basically nonexistant.

the difference between a BA and a BS in psychology is the BS will require a lot of course work in the natural sciences

MrTolerable

^I think many people don't think in 'I' - they don't even realize what provides identity - your past, past actions, behavioral development, experience - this is what largely dictates the choices you make in the present - doesn't mean the present or future don't matter - they are simply not the player nor decision maker.

I think BTW many adults see themselves through the eyes of others as well.