Extracurricular activities play a key role in guiding students' future careers. Their impact goes beyond just filling up free time. You know those science clubs, art classes, sports teams, or theater groups where it sometimes feels like the afternoon is just slipping away, and we, as parents, end up running around on Wednesdays and weekends? Well, they actually allow students to discover and explore areas of interest. It's important not to be too rigid and to let children or teenagers try out a variety of activities each year. This can be just as enriching as focusing on a single activity or passion!

The goal is to shed light on their career choices and give them a range of experiences. Being exposed to different activities can uncover hidden talents or skills that students didn't even know they had, opening up unexpected opportunities for their future. These activities also help develop non-academic skills like leadership, time management, teamwork, conflict resolution, and many more. These so-called "soft skills" are increasingly valued in the professional world and can significantly influence career decisions.

Moreover, all extracurricular activities contribute to the personal identity formation of young people. They provide a space for them to express their individuality, build self-confidence, and understand their values. This identity-building is a crucial element of career guidance, as it helps young people make choices that align with their deep aspirations, values, desires, and worldview, while also better defining what they truly enjoy.

Online influence remains confined to well-known processes; the digital age has fundamentally changed nothing—it has simply amplified the phenomenon of word-of-mouth and associations. Testimonials and reviews, essentially user-generated content, play a crucial role in building lasting authority. These elements provide social validation that can significantly enhance the credibility of a content creator or brand. While digital platforms offer numerous opportunities for dissemination, it is often the voices of the users themselves that resonate most strongly in the minds of others.

The Leverage of Testimonials and User-Generated Content

Authentic testimonials and user-generated content (UGC) are powerful tools for strengthening the authority of an opinion leader. Testimonials act as a form of social proof—a concept where people tend to follow the actions or opinions of others, especially when they are unsure of what to do or think. This social proof is even more effective when it comes from peers or people with similar experiences (Cialdini, 2006).

When a content creator or brand receives positive testimonials from users, these responses can be used to illustrate the impact and value of what they offer. For example, an online instructor might share testimonials from former students who successfully applied their advice. These testimonials not only help attract new clients but also reinforce the perception that the instructor is a competent, recognized, and effective professional in their field.

User-generated content goes even further. It can include videos, articles, social media posts that often build on existing content by adding another layer of analysis or opinion, or any other content created and shared publicly by users. This type of content is particularly valuable because it is perceived as more authentic and unbiased. For example, cosmetic brands often encourage their customers to share photos or videos of themselves using their products. These shares then become implicit endorsements that influence other users' purchasing decisions. However, this enters the realm of "influencers," where they are directly asked, through a sponsorship system, to showcase a particular product.

The Strategy Behind User-Generated Content

To maximize the impact of user-generated content, it is important to implement strategies that encourage and facilitate its creation. Contests, dedicated hashtags, requests for feedback on content, or calls for testimonials are effective ways to incentivize users to share their experiences. Once this content is available, it can be highlighted on the creator's or brand's platforms, thereby helping to strengthen perceived authority.

Integrating this content into official communication reinforces the idea that the creator's expertise is validated by their community. This creates a virtuous circle where new users are more likely to trust the creator, increasing their engagement and loyalty. Most importantly, it becomes an inexhaustible source of content for the creator, who then finds a way to retain their target audience. The primary objective is to offer users what they are looking for, without worrying about anything else.

Ethical Considerations

The use of testimonials and user-generated content raises its share of questions. It is crucial to ensure that this content is authentic and not perceived as artificially manipulated or orchestrated. Any attempt to falsify or manipulate testimonials can seriously damage a creator's credibility, and yet it is a very easy practice to engage in—often outsourced to countries like India, where such labor is inexpensive and allows for the rapid creation of a base of fake "followers," which will attract real ones.

It is also important to respect users' rights by obtaining their consent before sharing or using their content, which is very rarely the case. Respecting privacy and maintaining transparency should remain essential for the well-being of everyone and with the goal of maintaining a healthy digital ecosystem. At this stage, is it still possible? In 2024, the idea of a new Internet is emerging to address the many abuses that have been observed.

In the fantastical digital world, where every creator fights for a slice of the collective attention pie, a particularly intriguing strategy has emerged: VIP content. Yes, these "Very Important Person" contents, designed for privileged members of an online community, have become the secret weapon of influencers because the desire to be a privileged person is a rather common psychological drive, after all.

First, let’s break down the term VIP. Historically reserved for the aristocracy, celebrities, and the wealthy, the VIP status conferred exclusive access to restricted and coveted circles that ordinary people could not enter. And that was the goal: not to mix. In the collective unconscious, it evokes prestige, rarity, and belonging to a superior class. So naturally, when this term is applied to online content, it wraps these offerings in an aura of sophistication and exclusivity that flatters the subscribers' egos. After all, who doesn’t want to be a VIP, even if it’s only in a Facebook group dedicated to mindfulness meditation or the art of choosing a yoga mat?

The irony here is that the notion of VIP has been subtly adapted to work in an ecosystem where everyone, literally everyone, can become a VIP—for a small price, of course. Thus, these content creators, who have become ingenious marketers copying each other, are not only selling knowledge or skills; they are selling an experience, a sense of belonging, or even an illusion of elitism. VIP content is often touted as being deeper, more relevant, and most importantly, more precise than the generalities offered to the rest of the public. Yet, what’s fascinating is that often, this content is hardly more substantial than the free offerings. It is simply better packaged, served with a hint of mystery and a promise of intimacy with the creator, as if entering this exclusive circle guaranteed more authentic knowledge or a more meaningful personal connection.

The promise of VIP content creates a powerful psychological effect. By using this term, creators exploit a deeply rooted desire for recognition and distinction. Subscribers are thus not only encouraged to spend more to access these contents but are also transformed into zealous ambassadors. Having invested in their VIP status, they are more likely to value and defend this experience, even if, in the end, they have not paid for something more meaningful.

But what does this obsession with VIP content tell us about our society? It reveals a fascinating paradox: in a digital world that claims to democratize information and connect the masses, we see a resurgence of hierarchy, where the illusion of exclusivity is skillfully monetized. These online “closed circles” merely reproduce the old dynamics of power, representation, and influence, disguised under the concepts of digital marketing.

It’s been studied and confirmed: in today’s digital landscape, where information sources are overwhelming and user habits are constantly evolving, a potential client’s or user’s attention scatters like confetti in the wind. One of the unfortunate side effects of this is that standing out as an authority no longer comes down to publishing brilliant content alone. No, the real recipe for success now lies in the creation and management of online communities. Bringing together a group of like-minded individuals is akin to becoming the leader of a small digital village, where one can easily proclaim themselves an undeniable expert. Legitimacy is built not on the depth of ideas but on the strength of numbers.

Cementing Authority

Social networks and other community platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, Discord, and LinkedIn have become essential tools for building these small online kingdoms. Here, content creators can directly interact with their audience, answer their questions, and most importantly, orchestrate discussions that are supposedly "enriching." However, the real game lies in offering "VIP" content—though that’s a topic for another article. In reality, these are spaces where the audience transitions from mere content consumers to members of a dedicated community, all united around the creator. They actively participate in the group’s life and contribute to the co-construction of shared thoughts and knowledge. Sometimes, this creator, in their fantasy of omnipotence, orchestrates their appearances in the group, ultimately resembling more of a guru than a mere community leader.

These communities play a crucial role in solidifying a thought leader's authority. By becoming the master of ceremonies in these discussion spaces, the creator turns into an unquestioned point of reference. This dynamic of "digital tribalization," as Seth Godin (2008) calls it, allows the leader to forge almost emotional ties with their audience, who eventually see them as a figure of absolute trust. For example, a personal development consultant running a Facebook group on stress management does more than just share advice; they create a space where their disciples support each other, thereby strengthening their attachment to the community—and especially to its illustrious leader.

The Community Effect: Turning Followers into Ambassadors

Active members of a community are not just content consumers but fervent ambassadors of the creator’s personal brand. When they share positive experiences or recommend the creator to their networks, they do more than just boost the creator's visibility; they exponentially amplify their influence, far beyond the initial circle of followers. This digital word-of-mouth, built on peer-to-peer trust, becomes a fundamental element of social influence.

Moreover, online communities offer a golden opportunity to gather direct feedback from the audience. By listening to the needs, concerns, and suggestions of their followers, a creator can refine their offerings, improve their content, and better meet their audience's expectations. This continuous interaction transforms the creator into an increasingly indispensable figure, solidifying their authority with each click.

Creating and managing online communities are powerful levers for enhancing one’s authority and leaving a lasting mark on the digital world. By transforming followers into active members—even fervent apostles—a content creator can solidify their influence and position themselves as an essential reference in their field.

And more often than not, critical thinking is the missing guest in this theater.

Resources

• Godin, S. (2008). Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us. Portfolio.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business.

In the bustling digital world, influence is no longer just about producing viral content or amassing thousands of followers. To stand out and build genuine authority, savvy content creators are turning to tools like eBooks and free courses. These resources, far more than mere bait, have become essential levers for positioning oneself as a leader in a given field. This trend was sparked by various authors and entrepreneurs who sought to empower individuals to become self-sufficient and their own bosses, tapping into the concept of escaping the “rat race” and the desire to make money with minimal effort, a notion popularized by Tim Ferris in his book The 4-Hour Work Week.

The New Pillars of Authority

Today, eBooks and free courses are central strategies for establishing and reinforcing online authority. These tools allow creators to share their knowledge, often without immediate compensation, while shaping the perception of their expertise. This approach is rooted in the well-known principle of reciprocity introduced by Cialdini: offering something valuable naturally makes people feel indebted and more inclined to view the creator as a reliable source of information .

Take, for instance, a digital marketing specialist offering an eBook on the best SEO practices, or a personal development expert releasing a video series on stress management. In these scenarios, the creator is positioned not only as a benevolent educator but also as a key figure in their field. These resources, beyond the actual evaluation of their informative value and content relevance, become reference points, enhancing public perception that the creator is a trustworthy authority. Here, form often overshadows substance.

But the strategy doesn’t end there. These free tools are often gateways to paid offerings: more advanced courses, private consultations, or exclusive subscriptions. This "freemium" model combines initial engagement with the opportunity to monetize the audience more effectively. Consequently, eBooks and free courses play a central role in an ecosystem where influence and monetization mutually reinforce each other, creating a virtuous cycle for the creator.

For the public, however, this poses a complex problem they might not even realize. How can one discern between credible sources? Is it even possible? Even Siaud Facchin followed this system through her book, and neither the publisher nor the type of publication guarantees its quality. How can we truly evaluate an individual, their education, experience, and ideas? On what criteria?

The only logic left is adherence, a concept well-explained by Seth Godin and Carlos Tinoco from two different angles—one from a marketing perspective, the other from a psychological and anthropological one. People gather behind a community that thinks alike or in a similar manner. The desire to promote one’s ideas is deeply ingrained in the human spirit.

Long-Term Impact

Offering these resources, unlike the ephemeral content of social media, ensures that an eBook or an online course remains a durable, consultable, and shareable asset over time. This strengthens the creator’s reputation and cements their authority well beyond the immediate buzz around a micro-topic, trend, or fad. A well-crafted eBook can be recommended and reused for years, continually reinforcing the author’s influence and credibility.

Conclusion

eBooks and free courses are much more than simple marketing tools; they are the foundations upon which lasting influence is built. By offering content—where the question of quality is not the focus here—that meets the needs of their audience, creators position themselves as respected and listened-to thought leaders. This strategy, though requiring an initial investment of time and resources, pays off in the long run, solidifying the credibility and authority of creators in a digital world where perception is as valuable as reality.

In a world saturated with information, where countless voices vie for attention, the notion of authority has evolved. Today, becoming an authority figure is no longer solely dependent on mastering specific knowledge or receiving institutional recognition. The digital era has transformed the dynamics of legitimacy and influence, redefining the criteria by which one can establish themselves as an authority. This shift has significant implications for the public, as every voice now appears expert, raising legitimate concerns about whether influence is based more on the number of followers or comments than on content quality.

This phenomenon can be explained by the conformity bias, which occurs when individuals adjust their beliefs or behaviors to align with those of a group, often driven by a desire for belonging, fear of exclusion, or social pressure. Additionally, the social proof bias—a related concept—suggests that people assume an action is correct or acceptable simply because others are doing it. These two biases are closely linked and can reinforce the tendency to follow the crowd without exercising critical judgment.

The influence of the system cannot be ignored, but let's delve deeper into the mechanisms that allow one to become an authority figure, rally individual opinion, and transform a reader or viewer into a follower or client.

Authority Through Repetition and Amplification

One of the key dynamics of contemporary influence is the repetition of ideas already present in public discourse. Research in communication has shown that repetition enhances perceived credibility, a phenomenon attributable to the familiarity bias (Cialdini, 2006). On social media, this repetition is amplified by algorithms that favor popular content, creating a feedback loop where already accepted ideas gain further legitimacy.

The example of "divergent thinking" in the context of giftedness illustrates this phenomenon well. According to a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, concepts based on questionable scientific foundations can become entrenched in the public mind as established truths through their repetition by seemingly authoritative figures (Sternberg, 2013).

Bandwagon Effect and Authority by Association

The bandwagon effect, where individuals mimic the behaviors or opinions of those they perceive as influential, plays a crucial role in constructing authority. Authority by association is often visible in influencer circles, where strategic collaborations and partnerships can be enough to bolster an image of expertise (Smith, 2016).

In a world where perception is often as important as reality, authority becomes a product of aligning with the right people and ideas. This dynamic is reinforced by the nature of digital platforms, where followers and interactions are often seen as indicators of legitimacy.

Creating a Niche and Authority Through Specialization

Specializing in a particular niche can be another pathway to becoming an authority figure. In a saturated landscape, focusing on a highly specific topic allows one to stand out and become a go-to reference in that field. Communication scholars like Gladwell (2000) have shown that those who master a niche can wield disproportionate influence relative to their size or audience.

This strategy is particularly effective in areas where knowledge is specialized, and the public seeks experts who can provide precise, in-depth information. Specialization allows for the construction of solid authority, even on relatively obscure subjects, by targeting a specific audience. This is exactly the kind of drift seen in topics like giftedness, for example.

Performative Authority and Influence Through Image

In the digital realm, authority is also a matter of perception. The way one presents themselves—their image, tone, and ability to project confidence—can be just as important as their skills or knowledge. Authority thus becomes performative: it is the art of convincing the audience that one holds the truth or competence. And when the discourse is structured to be highly repetitive, we arrive at phenomena like that of Simon Sinek, whose theory is more than shaky but is nonetheless followed and listened to by millions of fans. Kahneman (2011) explains how cognitive biases, such as the confirmation bias, can reinforce this perceived authority.

Social media platforms are spaces where the appearance of authority can be strategically constructed. A well-curated profile, visible collaborations with other recognized figures, and effective communication can be enough to establish perceived authority, even if it is not always backed by real expertise.

Contrarian Authority and Influence Through Opposition

Finally, it is also possible to become an authority figure by positioning oneself in opposition to dominant narratives. By criticizing established ideas or questioning already recognized figures, one can attract an audience that feels marginalized or critical of the consensus. This contrarian approach is well-documented in the work of sociologists like Bourdieu (1984), who explored the dynamics of the cultural field and the mechanisms of distinction.

Contrarian authority often appeals to those seeking alternative or critical perspectives on traditional sources of information. By taking bold or controversial stances, one can position themselves as an independent and credible voice within circles where dissent is valued.

Conclusion

Becoming an authority figure today is a complex process where subject mastery, public perception, and social dynamics intertwine, arising primarily from construction rather than genuine knowledge or acquired competence. Authority is built as much through the repetition and amplification of existing ideas as through specialization, image performance, or contrarianism. In a world where influence has become a valuable currency, understanding these mechanisms is essential to decode reality.

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). La Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business.
• Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown and Company.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Smith, R. (2016). The Influencer Economy: How to Launch Your Idea, Share it with the World, and Thrive in the Digital Age. Perigee Books.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2013). "The Theory of Successful Intelligence: Retrospect and Prospect." Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 284-297.

In the era of social media and YouTube channels, how do the majority of content creators manage to become perceived as experts and create the illusion that their words and advice are trustworthy, ultimately gaining a large following? Surprisingly, it doesn't take much. YouTube, much like television, is often consumed passively, with few viewers critically analyzing the content or questioning the assertions being made. Many simply consume the content in awe, much like children watching a cartoon.

But beyond the lack of critical thinking, being captivated by content is not the only criterion for gaining followers. There are other, more insidious mechanisms at play. We won't delve into the effects of social media on the human brain here, as it's not necessary to make the point.

Key 1: Repetition of Existing Ideas

Rest assured! To become a pseudo-specialist or to merely appear knowledgeable, it’s no longer necessary to have original ideas. You simply need to repeat what recognized specialists or others who are trying to position themselves in a similar market segment are saying—those who already have a semblance of authority or at least claim to be "experts" on a given topic.

There’s no need to use these ideas to contribute original reflections or a personal vision. Once again, it’s enough to simply echo what others are saying. Knowledge does not necessarily increase—at least, not significantly—because only a handful of individuals actually contribute new insights.

Let’s take an example. When you search on YouTube for keywords like "gifted" and "emotionality" or "highly sensitive," you find that these are characteristics that have entered the collective consciousness, even though there is no scientific data to support the idea that gifted individuals are more emotionally sensitive than others. Yet, you’ll find seduction coaches, psychologists, personal development advisors, and others whose exact status is often unclear but who will certainly have a course to offer you or will invite you to join a community—an especially trendy concept.

In the realm of giftedness, a number of beliefs are propagated, with only shaky clinical observations as their theoretical foundation. These concepts, such as "divergent thinking," have been widely disseminated and are echoed by a whole audience of coaches, bloggers, and YouTubers without questioning the origins or foundations of these ideas. These concepts then become beliefs that are accepted through authority bias. It goes even further: adhering to and spreading these ideas signals to the audience that they belong to the group of knowledgeable individuals. Consciously or unconsciously, the internal dialogue for the person spreading these ideas might be something like, "If I repeat a theory from Siaud-Facchin that others are also repeating, I am part of the 'experts' on the subject, and on this or any other topic, people will listen to me, and I will succeed." This dynamic of influence has two major negative effects: it adds nothing new and leads the public to trust someone who lacks original thought, thereby reinforcing unfounded beliefs.

Key 2: Presenting “User Cases”

The other interesting aspect is the absolute necessity of presenting "user cases." This type of rhetoric is aimed at validating one’s legitimacy to speak, much like a psychologist who writes a new book. This leads to typical phrases like "I see it in all the emails I receive," "I observe it with many of my coaching clients," or "It’s present in all the comments." And there’s no need to elaborate or present these cases in detail—no, simply mentioning a phrase like this is enough to assert your legitimacy.

What’s most subtle is that, because you don’t have access to the specifics of these "user cases," you can’t even verify if they are relevant to the discourse or if they validate the points being made, and if so, how?

As you can see, it’s very simple: the process unfolds in two steps. First, repeat notions you’ve heard here and there during your research to define content that will appeal to a new niche or group—but don’t waste your precious time verifying them, as that’s not necessary for your objective. Then, make sure to emphasize—but without delving deeply into—the idea that you have a community that trusts you, believes in you, and in the ideas you generally promote, by suggesting that these ideas are based on "user cases."

Giftedness is often described using a combination of specific concepts and characteristics that are supposed to define the particularities of gifted individuals. Among these concepts, some are very popular, notably "tree-like thinking," which has been widely disseminated. These ideas are echoed by an audience of psychologists, coaches, bloggers, and YouTubers without questioning their origin or foundations. They then become beliefs that are accepted through authority bias, but it goes even further, as it is evident that adhering to and conveying these ideas reflects, for the public, a sense of belonging to the group of experts. Consciously or unconsciously, the internal discourse for the person spreading these ideas might go something like this: "If I repeat a theory by Siaud Facchin, which others also repeat, I belong to the group of 'experts' on the subject, and on this matter or another, people will finally listen to me, and I will be successful." There are elements of influence here driven by the desire to become an authority figure, which I will develop further in the appropriate section of the blog. However, these concepts, while intuitively appealing, are not based on any solid scientific foundation. What is the validity, or rather the lack of scientific validity, of these concepts, and what are the implications of adopting such ideas in the understanding of giftedness?

Origins and Definitions of Unvalidated Concepts

"Tree-like thinking" is a term used to describe a supposed mode of thinking characteristic of gifted individuals. It is said to manifest as the ability to generate multiple ideas from a central idea, quickly and associatively, somewhat like branches of a tree extending from a common trunk. According to this conception, tree-like thinking is non-linear, complex, and intuitive, compared to a more "linear" way of thinking attributed to the majority of people. However, no rigorous scientific study has validated the existence of this specific and unique mode of thinking among the gifted.

Other supposed characteristics of gifted individuals can also be questioned.

Mental Overefficiency, popularized by mainstream books, claims that gifted individuals have a "hyperactive" brain, always functioning at a higher level than normal. This term implies that high-potential individuals are continuously engaged in intense cognitive processes, leading to mental fatigue and difficulty relaxing. Again, no empirical evidence supports this idea, which seems to be based more on unfounded generalizations and stereotypes.

Emotional Hypersensitivity is another widely held notion suggesting that gifted individuals are particularly sensitive on an emotional level, to the point of experiencing emotions more intensely than the average person. While hypersensitivity can indeed exist in some individuals, the idea that it is an intrinsic and generalized characteristic of gifted individuals is not supported by scientific research. Studies show that gifted individuals present a wide variety of emotional profiles, without any specific hypersensitivity systematically present.

Lack of Scientific Validity of Popular Concepts

Scientific studies on the cognition of high-potential individuals do not validate the idea that these individuals think in a fundamentally different way or follow a tree-like model, or that they have specific emotional characteristics that could be described by terms like mental overefficiency or emotional hypersensitivity. This is a typical example of what could be called psychological myths.

To cite just one example regarding the supposed hypersensitivity or hyperemotivity of the gifted, compared to an imaginary norm of what an appropriate emotional response should be in a given context, as Carlos Tinoco explains very well: how is this norm established and by what standards? Then, the question can also be approached from a purely logical perspective. In the case of an individual who is more lucid, more aware of their environment or events, more capable of considering many more factors in their representation of the world, and thus creates a more elaborate and refined understanding than others, isn't it logical to think that this could give rise to more emotions based on these elements? This is just a theory I have just formulated, which, without delving into the debate, clearly does not suffice to explain clinical observations of the emotionality of the gifted, but it seems quite clear that the answer should not be sought in a single parameter or representation framework for the question.

Moreover, the concept of tree-like thinking rests on a simplistic dichotomy between a so-called "linear" thought process and a "complex" one, which does not reflect the reality of human cognitive processes. Human thinking, regardless of individuality or intellectual level, is multifaceted and can shift from a linear mode to a more associative one depending on the context, tasks, or goals.

The persistence of these concepts in public discourse can be attributed to their simplicity and their ability to intuitively explain perceived differences between gifted individuals and the average population. However, this simplification is misleading and risks distorting the understanding of giftedness.

The Risks of Adopting Unvalidated Concepts

The acceptance and dissemination of these unvalidated concepts carry several risks. First, this can contribute to the creation of stereotypes about giftedness, confining gifted individuals to a reductive view of their abilities and mental functioning, while also skewing the popular representation of their cognitive styles or typical characteristics.

Moreover, this can lead to misjudgments in educational or psychological assessment and support. If one mistakenly believes that a child thinks in a tree-like manner, is mentally overefficient, or is emotionally hypersensitive, there is a risk of overlooking the real causes of their behaviors or academic performance. For example, a child could be misunderstood and poorly supported if their difficulties are attributed to unvalidated characteristics rather than concrete and measurable factors that simple common sense would allow one to identify.

Ultimately, the emphasis on scientifically unvalidated characteristics can also lead to a kind of psychological folklore, where appealing but unfounded ideas take precedence over an evidence-based and scientifically rigorous understanding. This is particularly problematic in the field of educational psychology, where poorly founded approaches can have a direct impact on the lives of children and families.

Towards a Scientific Approach to Giftedness

For a more rigorous understanding of giftedness, it is essential to rely on solid empirical research and to be cautious of concepts that, although popular, lack scientific validation. Be critical! The characteristics of gifted individuals are multiple and varied, but they must be studied through rigorous methodologies rather than being defined by preconceived ideas.

Current research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience offers tools and models to better understand the mechanisms underlying giftedness. For instance, the concept of "processing speed" or "cognitive flexibility" are aspects that are scientifically studied and can provide valuable insights into the particularities of high-potential individuals. Similarly, the study of the relationships between intelligence and creativity, or between intelligence and socio-emotional skills, opens up richer and more nuanced perspectives for understanding giftedness.

References :

1. Gagné, F. (2013). The DMGT: Changes within, beneath, and beyond. Talent Development & Excellence, 5(1), 5-19.
2. Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. Elsevier.
3. Sternberg, R. J. (2017). The nature of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
4. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted Children: Myths and Realities. Basic Books.
5. Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) “general intelligence, objectively determined and measured”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 96-111.