Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Fuzzy Conception of Giftedness

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent

Abstract

The Fuzzy Conception of Giftedness (FCG) posits that most conceptions and practices concerning giftedness (e.g., propositions and identification practices) are vague. The Fuzzy Conception of Giftedness itself is vague as well. The two editions of the landmark book Conceptions of Giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson, Conceptions of giftedness (Advance uncorrected proofs). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1986; Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005) cover over 20 different conceptions of giftedness. Each conception has its own unique vagueness. In this chapter, first, I discuss the vagueness of the concept “giftedness,” with an emphasis on problems related to vagueness in conceptions of giftedness. Then, I propose the Fuzzy Conception of Giftedness and suggest identification and education practices based on this conception. The FCG is composed of personal dispositions, stimulus conditions, and stimulus conditions. The manifestation of giftedness is situated in the interaction. Therefore, the identification of and education for gifted students are strictly based on interactional models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrams, P. A. (1983). Arguments in favor of higher-order interactions. American Naturalist, 121(6), 887–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 453–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, K. S., & Mee Bell, S. (2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C., & Cahen, L. S. (1973). Trait-treatment interaction and learning. Review of Research in Education, 1, 58–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105–124). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borland, J. H. (2009). Myth 2: The gifted constitute 3% to 5% of the population. Moreover, giftedness equals high IQ, which is a stable measure of aptitude: Spinal tap psychometrics in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 236–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R., & Swartz, N. (1988). Possible worlds. 4th print. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. R. (1998). The unified theory of evolution and selection processes. In G. van de Vijver, S. N. Salthe, & M. Delpos (Eds.), Evolutionary systems: Biological and epistemological perspectives on selection and self-organization (pp. 113–128). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J., Barnett, S. M., & Kanaya, T. (2003). Developing childhood proclivities into adult competencies: The overlooked multiplier effect. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 70–92). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. (2008). Dispositional properties and counterfactual conditionals. Mind, 117(468), 795–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, S. J. (1981). What is giftedness? A multidimensional approach. In A. H. Kramer (Ed.), Gifted children: Challenging their potential (pp. 33–45). New York, NY: Trillium Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Marron, M. A. (2013). Evidence trumps beliefs: Academic acceleration is an effective intervention for high-ability students. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 176–187). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish genes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1982). Replicators and vehicles. In King’s College Sociobiology Group, 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Harwell, K. W. (2019). Deliberate practice and proposed limits on the effects of practice on the acquisition of expert performance: Why the original definition matters and recommendations for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, F. (2009). Debating giftedness: Pronat vs antinat. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 155–198). London, UK: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19(3), 132–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1960). The concept of the stimulus in psychology. American Psychologist, 15, 694–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, K. A., & Schofield, N. J. (2008). Identification and nurturing the gifted from an international perspective. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 93–114). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11, 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, J. S. (1955). Guest editorial: Evolution, cultural and biological. Yearbook of Anthropology, 2–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, C. O., & Porath, M. (2017). Paradigm shifts in gifted education: An examination vis-à-vis its historical situatedness and pedagogical sensibilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohman, D., & Nicpon, M. F. (2012). Ability testing and talent identification. In S. L. Hunsaker (Ed.), Identification: The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 287–336). Mansfield Center, CA: Creative Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, J. L. (1980). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBee, M. T., & Makel, M. C. (2019). The quantitative implications of definitions of giftedness. AERA Open, 5(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mckitrick, J. (2005). Are dispositions causally relevant? Synthese, 144, 357–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184, 261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century. Exceptionality, 10(2), 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimm, S. (2008). Underachievement syndrome: A psychological defensive pattern. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and practices (pp. 139–160). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robson, J. M., & Stillinger, J. (1980). Collected works of John Stuart Mill (Vol. I). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, K. B. (2019). Meta-analysis of 26 forms of academic acceleration: Options for elementary (primary) and secondary learners with gifts and talents. In B. Wallace, D. A. Sisk, & J. Senior (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gifted and talented education (pp. 309–320). London, UK: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (2005). Creative giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 295–311). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sak, U. (2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types of gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sak, U. (2007). Giftedness and the Turkish culture. In S. N. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 283–310). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sak, U. (2011a). An overview of the social validity of the Education Programs for Talented Students Model (EPTS). Education and Science, 36, 213–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sak, U. (2011b). Prevalence of misconceptions, dogmas, and popular views about giftedness and intelligence: A case from Turkey. High Ability Studies, 22(2), 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sak, U. (2013). Education Programs for Talented Students Model (EPTS) and its effectiveness on gifted students’ mathematical creativity. Education and Science, 38(169), 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarr, S. (1997). Behavior-genetic and socialization theories of intelligence: Truce and reconciliation. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity and environment (pp. 3–41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (2005). The role of intention in self-regulation: Toward intentional systemic mindfulness. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 253–273). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2005). Genetics of giftedness: The implications of an emergenic-epigenetic model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 312–326). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, E. E. (1994). A person-situation interaction theory of intelligence in outline. In A. Demetriou & A. Efklides (Eds.), Intelligence, mind and reasoning: Structure and development (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1986). The triarchich theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (Advance uncorrected proofs) (pp. 223–243). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: A triarchic analysis. Roeper Review, 22(4), 231–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59(5), 325–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The WISC model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness (Advance uncorrected proofs). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L. F. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 88–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, N. (2001). Beyond experience: Metaphysical theories and philosophical constraints (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/beyond_experience

  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetter, B. (2013). Multi-track dispositions. The Philosophical Quarterly, 63(251), 330–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–437). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), The international handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 1–21). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey

    Ugur Sak

Authors
  1. Ugur Sak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugur Sak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Robert J. Sternberg

  2. Department of Graduate Education, Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA

    Don Ambrose

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sak, U. (2021). The Fuzzy Conception of Giftedness. In: Sternberg, R.J., Ambrose, D. (eds) Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation