I have an academically administered IQ test score of 140. On balance, as I look back over my life, it's a disability in our restrictively normative, jealously competitive culture where everyone is supposed to be politically correctly oh-so-equal.

My public/state school experience was abysmal. My teachers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. At best, the whole process was one of 'shut up, don't ask questions, write this down'. Why shouldn't a bright 10yo want to know exactly how the atom is split? Or how the stock market works? Or why actors act?

My teachers made me feel like a pain in the backside, unwanted and someone to be ignored or suppressed. Other children were wary of 'cleverness'. Cleverness is to be feared and is certainly something to be jealous of in the popular mind.

I ended up a very withdrawn and solitary child, bored stupid at school, absolutely switched off; I left early without any qualifications yet had been setting myself my own rigorous academic research projects in secret throughout. (Of course, under my own steam, I went on to university for nigh on 8yrs...) Left to educators, I would have ended up waiting tables, completely wasting my innate talents.

Gifted children have special needs. They have quite different ways of looking at the world and very different information needs. Educators have been talking about 'nurturing and developing' gifted children for decades. It's a fond self-conceit they have: that they'll 'discover' the next Einstein and get the credit. What they forget is that gifted children are demanding and sometimes awkward, and probably exhausting. Einstein dropped out too and did it his way.

Nothing has ever been done for gifted children on anything more than a sporadic, experimental, isolated basis. Nothing will be done. It's not possible within a school system which is focused on producing cubicle fodder. Our societies need the thinking and visionary skills that intellectually gifted people can offer. But no, egos, fear and jealously conspire very effectively to norm and impede anyone who is 'better', 'smarter'.

One of the very best ways to provide education for gifted kids is to get out of their way! Once the ability has been established, such children should be allowed to drop out of mainstream schooling and, with the funding that would otherwise have been given to the school, let them and their parents get on with it, choosing their own way. Only a crazy system dictates that all children must learn the same things at the same rate and be taught by the same, mostly mediocre, teachers.

IQ measures your potensial. You cant be called gifted until you use that potensial to excel at something. And to be good at something you must be highly motivated. So I would say a gifted person is not just a person with a high IQ but someone that is also highly motivated and determined to succeed at something.

You can't define gifted without specifying what type of gifted you're talking about. If we are talking about intellectually gifted, Johnny's obviously the more gifted of the two. Yet Davy is possibly the more gifted overall of the two, because he has many different gifts.

Intellectual giftedness isn't always as useful as other types of giftedness. It depends on the environment. But I would say that IQ is more versatile than, for example, skill at sports. Someone with a high IQ could succeed at many different jobs, while being good at sports would only make someone a good athlete.

Both are intellectually gifted. Johnny needs a more stimulating life experience to elucidate his talent and potential. Davy may possibly equal Johnny's high IQ with fewer distractions. Subjectively, environmental factors have determined their personality styles, while their IQs have yet to manifest their full capacity for achievement. Giftedness is arguably about more than a high IQ, which both boys present. What IQ can measure, however, is mental ability. Consider how an improved system of teaching could further their respective abilities, and one may discover that giftedness is a team effort. High IQ could be seen as the something of a "try-out" for the team. From there, good coaching improves stamina, determination, and access to opportunitites to succeed. Do we throw away either Johnny or Davy on the basis of what each may lack? No, certainly not. But I do believe that the proper team may benefit from a therapist, fluid teachers, challenging assignments, and yes, appropriate funding. Are we ready to provide those things in America? And at what point do we consider that even less than gifted students could improve with a proper team in place? This goes back to being politically correct, and while our capitalist worldview makes for competition, our democratic outlook shimmies the best back into the herd where majority rules. At this point, gifted individuals are still minorities, and suffer for not having the numbers to alter how learning happens in America.

It is a commonly held belief that those who are both intelligent and socially adaptable have the best shot at success. After all, this world generally requires both. I think it is important to look at those with learning defecits when considering those with learning gifts. Laws now assert that LD and EI kids have the right to be in the least restictive setting, and that works out to be a regular classroom. If you really look at it, however, a regular classroom is in many ways highly restrictive. Everyone is taught in basically the same manner and so learning differences are magnified and yet still overlooked. The teacher cannot possibly cater to each individual child and so LD students typically have to have para-pros and outside tutoring. So whats the benefit of being in the regular class? I think it's socialization opportunities and the development of adaptation skills ( fitting in). A gifted child may need outside support and opportunities for special skill development the same as a learning disabled child, however, the gifted can also benefit from being in a regular classroom. Social skills aquired in a "regular" school experience are invaluable. Imagine the benefits of having extraordinary ability in a specific area and a developed ordinary ability to get along with a majority of people, work within social norms, and adjust to situations in which you may have to find your own motivation.

Johnny is more gifted, purely because he has the IQ of 140, and all that that entails. This, however, does not matter because Johnny does not use his giftedness. What use is talking about gifted people if those people do not effect change?

I think a lot of the difficulties for these "gifted" children are finding appropriate outlets for their intellectual curiosity and creative drives. A lot of this has to do with the development of a healthy self-esteem, and healthy ways of expressing themselves. I agree with Becky about the benefits of participating in a regular classroom. Except, the difficulties that arise when these children become bored. When the work is not challenging or stimulating enough, these children are likely to learn negative habits of disengaging themselves that could negatively effect other areas of their lives.

Just because someone isn't outgoing and is bored in school doesn't mean they're not gifted. The gifted often shut down when forced to conform to age-normalized standards. These kids are so often not allowed to work to their full potential to cultivate their gifts, while the less talented but more conforming kids are considered wonderful and great.

I think the problem is not understanding how being highly gifted or above can make it so difficult for kids to function in a "normal setting". They're punished for their intelligence.

So much categorizing people as gifted children or adults emphasizes having achieved significantly, having some distinction - high IQ or SAT scores, having a bestseller book or movie or being a sport superstar.

And with perfectionism and high levels of self criticism, many gifted and talented people feel they don’t make it. Or maybe that they have "lost" their advanced potential as an adult.

Cheryl M. Ackerman, PhD notes in her article Gifted Adults, “It is important to remember that just because a person was not identified as gifted when they were in school, doesn’t mean she isn’t a gifted individual."

If your not happy your not gifted. Einstein suffered from depression.He was married twice,his sons from his first marriage never spoke to him.he had a mental breakdown and was nursed back to heath by his first cousin he then married and latter in life cheated on.He took poor care of himself ,neglected his appearence and was socially withdrawn.Who would change lives with this person most would consider a loser in life,not me.-If you have a high IQ and are happy i think that's most important.-sincerely,David Petropoulos

The difference, in my opinion, between the two involves motivation and effort. Davy shows effort and is motivated. Johnny merely gets by. To say that schools do not challenge gifted children may be true, but unless you're unfamiliar with a library, you're bound to find answers to questions there. If you're unable to understand how the atom is split from reading a book, you probably won't get it when a teacher elaborates on it. Very little children are incredibly inquisitive, their 'whys' are infinite. Does that mean they have a high IQ?

I also think it is important for gifted kids to be in a normal classroom. Take Magnus Carlsen, the wonderkid chessmaster. He goes to a regular class even though he is probably the best chessplayer in the world. He doesnt learn anything useful there when it comes to chess, and you would think he was bored out of his mind, but he really enjoys the layed back social atmosphere there. Magnus knew he wanted to be a GM at a very young age, and it seems almost like he was destined to be a great chessplayer. Kids need a motivation from inside to excel, if that is missing no matter how gifted you are you will amount to nothing in the end.