> I'm not going to comment on the quality of the article or whether 'giftedness' is a meaningful construct
Just that it is made aware, instead of leveling a counter-argument, you are only appealing to authority.
Everyone, all the way back to Freud or Jung, would be fair game to criticize for such a young field as psychology, because new paradigms and data do surface often. I don't care if they made this their life's work, the author does not once talk about the personality traits especially regarding neuroticism, which is either independent of IQ or inversely correlated, which falls counter to their hypothesis. Empirically speaking big five has much more backing data than their conjecture based on a single 1950's psychologist. Doesn't make it automatically more true, but it would need to be accounted for.
> Just that it is made aware, instead of leveling a counter-argument, you are only appealing to authority.
The original poster attacked the author's credibility. I pointed out that, when you help establish a concept, you're qualified to write about it to non-experts in a public venue.
I am the original poster. There is no attack to the credibility of the author, there is questioning the lack of a consideration on the confounds and a sufficient explication of the term gifted. Disappointingly a crowd of people emerged demanding reverence to their PhD, career and the verbosity of their essay without being able address my original critique. I am not saying I am necessarily correct, or they necessarily haven't thought it out etc, but it is a pretty damn valid question to ask.
It is almost as if people are personally offended because they are inclined to consider themselves gifted and explain away feeling depressed with that.
Just that it is made aware, instead of leveling a counter-argument, you are only appealing to authority.
Everyone, all the way back to Freud or Jung, would be fair game to criticize for such a young field as psychology, because new paradigms and data do surface often. I don't care if they made this their life's work, the author does not once talk about the personality traits especially regarding neuroticism, which is either independent of IQ or inversely correlated, which falls counter to their hypothesis. Empirically speaking big five has much more backing data than their conjecture based on a single 1950's psychologist. Doesn't make it automatically more true, but it would need to be accounted for.