Exploring the theme of giftedness through the lens of gender reveals a complex web of societal expectations, scientific research, and evolving cultural norms. The traditional dichotomy between male and female giftedness, long debated in academic circles, but which does not hold up considering the state of scientific research, takes on another dimension when considering the issue of gender fluidity and non-binary identities, which is becoming increasingly complex in the LGBTQ+ era. Let us then explore a more philosophical dimension of giftedness, challenging conventional dichotomies and examining the implications of a more inclusive understanding of cognitive exceptionality.

The Historical Context of Giftedness and Gender

Historically, the discourse on giftedness has been heavily influenced by gender stereotypes. Research has revealed minor differences in verbal and mathematical abilities between boys and girls, often attributed more to socialization and educational context than to innate differences. However, the persistence of these gender stereotypes has shaped the identification and support of gifted individuals.

Studies have documented the unique social and emotional experiences of gifted girls, highlighting aspects such as perfectionism, anxiety, and the pressure to conform to traditional gender roles. These findings have underscored the need to recognize and address the specific needs of gifted girls to foster their holistic development.

The Issue of Non-Binary Categorization

The emergence of LGBTQ+ perspectives challenges the traditionally applied binary framework to giftedness and gender. As society increasingly recognizes gender fluidity, it becomes imperative to reconsider how we understand and support gifted individuals across the entire gender spectrum. Or rather, more intelligently, to understand that gender should not dictate a type of approach or support where holistic accompaniment appears to be the only logical, sensible, and personalized solution that every individual needs.

In the context of the LGBTQ+ era, the rigid categories of male and female giftedness may not capture the full range of cognitive and emotional experiences. This is particularly relevant given the recognition that gender identity is not limited to binary constructs but exists along a spectrum. Research has shown that the impact of cultural and educational contexts on academic performance suggests that fostering an inclusive environment is crucial for all gifted individuals, regardless of their gender identity.

Giftedness and Gender

From a philosophical standpoint, the concept of giftedness raises fundamental questions about identity and sex in relation to intelligence, specificities, and societal values. Giftedness is often perceived as a set of exceptional cognitive abilities, along with other associated traits, but this perception can be limited by traditional notions of gender.

The recognition of gender fluidity in the LGBTQ+ era invites a redefinition of giftedness that transcends sexual categories. This implies understanding that talents and abilities are not intrinsically linked to biological sex or conventional gender identities. For example, studies show that girls' performances in mathematics and science can equal or surpass those of boys in educational environments that promote gender equality.

Furthermore, research indicates that the emotional and psychological difficulties faced by gifted girls are often similar to those of boys but are amplified by specific societal expectations. This underscores the importance of an individualized and inclusive approach to supporting gifted individuals, taking into account the specific needs of each person, regardless of their gender.

Toward a Greater Perception of Unity in Giftedness

In the LGBTQ+ era, it is essential to rethink our understanding of giftedness to include a diversity of experiences and perspectives. This involves not only recognizing the biases and gender stereotypes that have historically influenced this field but also engaging in a broader reflection on societal values and priorities.

Such reconsideration could lead to more inclusive educational and social environments, where the talents of each individual are recognized and supported without prejudice. Research shows that the emotional and psychological needs of gifted individuals must be at the center of support strategies, an approach that benefits all gifted individuals, regardless of their specificities.

In conclusion, giftedness in the LGBTQ+ era pushes us to move beyond traditional distinctions and embrace a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of cognitive exceptionality. By recognizing gender fluidity and adapting our approaches to meet the needs of all gifted individuals, we can create a more equitable and understanding society, where every talent is valued, and each individual has the opportunity to fully flourish. The distinction between gifted women and gifted men, which was already tenuous, has now conceptually collapsed.

In a previous article, we conducted a thorough review of current scientific research on giftedness to determine what might be specific to females. While this research was not exhaustive, it allowed us to observe that these scientific studies provide clear perspectives on the distinction and unique experiences that gifted girls face, particularly related to contextual factors.

Their results often contrast with the simplified representations found in specialized and popular literature or in popular works, which often offer distorted representations of gifted girls, influencing public perception of their experiences and successes. Some authors and supporters emphasize the importance of defining their specific needs for an audience of gifted individuals who, regardless of gender, sometimes suffer from image or recognition issues. Indeed, creating a need is the best way to develop a niche market, but I will explore this in a future article.

These theories and representations are also based on the experience and observations of their authors, leading to questions about sampling biases and confirmation biases, and how these and other variables have been "controlled." This does not mean they do not raise relevant points to consider, but it is necessary to compare them with the other article on what current science says about the distinction between male and female giftedness.

I now present a range of works by recognized authors, without questioning their experience, legitimacy, or the origin of their statements.

Silverman (1993) In "The Gifted Girl: A Study of the Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Girls," Silverman examines in depth the emotional and social experiences of gifted girls. She documents aspects such as perfectionism, anxiety, and social isolation, which can be exacerbated by high societal expectations. Silverman notes that these emotional aspects are often minimized due to the high academic performance of girls, leading to insufficient recognition of their difficulties (Silverman, 1993, pp. 138-142). By exploring these dimensions, Silverman shows how societal expectations influence the perception and management of the abilities of gifted girls. She emphasizes the importance of recognizing their specific emotional needs for balanced development, highlighting that academic success should not mask underlying emotional problems. Silverman advocates for a better understanding and more appropriate support for gifted girls to promote their overall well-being.

Neihart (1999) In "The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children," Neihart deconstructs the myth that gifted girls are inherently more emotionally balanced than boys. She emphasizes that gifted girls face significant emotional experiences similar to those of boys, often amplified by societal expectations specific to girls, such as perfectionism and the pressure to conform to traditional gender roles (Neihart, 1999, pp. 72-80). Neihart highlights the importance of creating supportive environments that consider these specific experiences. She proposes strategies for parents and educators to better meet the emotional needs of gifted girls, emphasizing the need for adequate emotional and psychological support. Neihart concludes that recognizing and understanding the emotional challenges faced by gifted girls are essential for their full development.

Siaud-Facchin (2011) In "Trop intelligent pour être heureux?" Siaud-Facchin explores the experiences encountered by gifted individuals, particularly girls. She describes how societal pressures specific to girls can exacerbate aspects such as anxiety, perfectionism, and social integration difficulties. Siaud-Facchin explains that these experiences are often ignored due to biased perceptions that gifted girls should naturally be happier and better adapted due to their exceptional skills (Siaud-Facchin, 2011, pp. 85-95). She examines the psychological impacts of female giftedness and proposes approaches to better support them. She emphasizes the importance of a holistic approach, considering emotional and social aspects to improve the quality of life for gifted girls. Siaud-Facchin calls for more nuanced recognition and tailored interventions to meet their specific needs.

Judy Galbraith (2000) In "The Gifted Kids Survival Guide: A Teen Handbook," Galbraith presents the experiences of gifted children, including girls, in an accessible manner. She provides practical advice for managing high expectations. However, the book can reinforce stereotypes by presenting gifted girls as more suited to the arts than to sciences, which can limit the recognition and support of their skills in scientific fields (Galbraith, 2000, pp. 45-60). Galbraith proposes strategies to help gifted children navigate their school and social environments. She addresses themes such as stress management, setting realistic goals, and developing social skills. Although the book is a valuable resource for children and their parents, it sometimes lacks nuance regarding the diversity of talents and interests of gifted girls.

Roald Dahl (1988) In "Matilda," Dahl depicts a young gifted girl who excels academically but suffers from social isolation. Although this book is popular and well-liked, it raises questions because it reinforces the idea that gifted girls are solitary figures, neglecting the diversity of social and emotional experiences they actually encounter. The character of Matilda, often portrayed as isolated and misunderstood, can lead to a stereotyped view of the experiences of gifted girls (Dahl, 1988, pp. 12-25). Dahl uses Matilda's character to explore themes of resilience, intelligence, and injustice. While Matilda eventually finds support and understanding from Miss Honey, the book highlights the difficulties that gifted children may face in unsupportive environments. Matilda is an emblematic figure of the struggle for recognition and support for exceptional talents, but her story can inadvertently reinforce simplistic ideas about the experiences of gifted girls, failing to show the full range of social and emotional realities and reinforcing the notion of a distinction that is not substantiated.

Kerry Cohen (2008) In "Smart Girls: A Guide to Being a Strong, Confident, and Happy Girl," Cohen addresses the experiences that intelligent girls are supposed to face. While the book provides useful advice for addressing societal expectations, it can also reinforce the idea that the problems of gifted girls are mainly related to societal expectations rather than specific intrinsic or emotional difficulties (Cohen, 2008, pp. 30-50). Cohen offers strategies to help girls develop self-confidence, manage social pressures, and assert themselves. She emphasizes the importance of empowerment and self-acceptance. However, by focusing primarily on societal expectations, the book risks neglecting the internal and emotional complexities that gifted girls may experience. Cohen encourages girls to be proud of their talents and pursue their passions despite obstacles, but it is crucial to also recognize the specific emotional needs that can accompany giftedness. But above all, one wonders why boys would not also have the same needs depending on individual contexts.

Adda (2012) In "Les enfants exceptionnels : comprendre et accompagner les enfants surdoués," Adda explores the specific experiences of gifted children in France, including girls. Adda highlights how societal expectations can limit the recognition of girls' skills in non-traditional fields like science and mathematics, and how these expectations influence their development and social integration (Adda, 2012, pp. 60-80). Adda also discusses educational policies and pedagogical approaches to support gifted children. She addresses the challenges related to identifying and supporting gifted children in the French educational system, emphasizing the importance of individualized teaching. Adda offers recommendations for parents and educators to better meet the needs of gifted girls, considering social pressures and gender stereotypes that can hinder their development. Her book is a valuable and relevant resource for understanding the complex dynamics of giftedness and promoting a more inclusive and equitable education.

Julie K. Smith (2009) In "The Gifted Child: Parenting and Educational Strategies," Smith offers advice for parents and educators of gifted children. She discusses how cultural perceptions influence expectations of gifted girls and how these perceptions can shape their development and aspirations (Smith, 2009, pp. 20-40). Smith examines educational practices and parenting strategies that can support their development. She emphasizes the importance of recognizing and valuing the skills of gifted girls in all fields, including those traditionally dominated by men. Smith proposes approaches to encourage self-confidence, autonomy, and resilience in gifted girls, while raising awareness among parents and educators about gender stereotypes that can limit girls' aspirations. She highlights the need for differentiated education and appropriate emotional support to enable gifted girls to fully flourish.

Nancy L. Kline (2010) In "The Smart Girls' Guide to Getting What You Want," Kline explores the experiences and opportunities for intelligent girls. She highlights how gender stereotypes can influence girls' aspirations and proposes strategies to overcome these obstacles (Kline, 2010, pp. 50-70). Kline offers practical advice to help girls identify and achieve their personal and professional goals. She addresses themes such as decision-making, managing interpersonal relationships, and developing leadership skills. By examining specific obstacles related to gender stereotypes, Kline encourages girls to defy traditional expectations and pursue their passions without compromise. She also provides exercises and activities to boost self-confidence and self-esteem. The book is designed as a practical and motivating guide for gifted girls, helping them navigate societal challenges and realize their full potential.

David G. Hargreaves (2001) In "Educating the Gifted: A European Perspective," Hargreaves examines how variations in educational policies influence the recognition and support of gifted girls in different European cultural contexts (Hargreaves, 2001, pp. 85-105). Hargreaves analyzes the pedagogical approaches and policy frameworks adopted by various European countries to support gifted children. He highlights best practices and common challenges in implementing educational programs. By comparing educational systems, Hargreaves identifies factors that contribute to better recognition and more effective support of the skills of gifted girls. His book offers an interesting comparative perspective on approaches and actions.

Barbara A. Kerr (2006) In "Gifted Children in Europe: A Cross-National Comparison," Kerr analyzes variations in the perceptions and treatment of gifted children in Europe. She highlights how European cultural contexts influence educational approaches and expectations of gifted girls, revealing significant differences in the support and recognition of their skills (Kerr, 2006, pp. 115-130). Kerr explores the cultural, social, and political factors that shape perceptions and experiences of gifted children in Europe. She examines the educational systems of several European countries, identifying policies and practices that promote or hinder the development of gifted girls. Kerr offers recommendations for improving the recognition and support of gifted girls, emphasizing the importance of inclusive and equitable educational contexts. Her comparative analysis provides valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and parents, aiming to promote better understanding and adequate support for talents.

Marylou Kelly Streznewski (1999) In "The Gifted Child: A Guide for Parents and Teachers," Streznewski also explores the perceptions of gifted children in a European context. She examines cultural variations in supporting gifted girls and how these variations influence their development and social integration (Streznewski, 1999, pp. 70-85). Streznewski addresses the specific challenges faced by parents and teachers in identifying and supporting gifted children. She emphasizes the importance of understanding cultural contexts and social dynamics that influence the experiences of gifted girls. By providing case studies and practical examples, Streznewski proposes strategies for creating educational and family environments that foster the optimal development of gifted girls' skills. Her book is an essential resource for parents and professionals, offering practical advice and perspectives for supporting gifted children in various cultural contexts.

As we have seen, the authors share ideological consensus and broadly address the same subject in the same way. This is also the case with general literature on gifted individuals, which, admittedly, renews very little, except for Carlos Tinoco's approach, which cannot be integrated into the subject of this article. Unless I have omitted or missed some research, I do not think he makes such a distinction.

For readers who have not previously read the blog article on what science says about the question of male/female distinction, I will offer a summary below to provide an opportunity for a quick and enlightening comparison from a different perspective.

Persistent Myths and Their Origin

Myths Surrounding Academic Differences

Persistent myths regarding academic differences between genders are often based on stereotypes and unfounded generalizations.

Stoet and Geary (2018) In "The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education," Stoet and Geary reveal that performance differences between genders in academic fields are strongly influenced by cultural context and educational support. Their study analyzes data from over 80 countries and shows that girls' performance in mathematics can equal that of boys when educational environments promote gender equality. They conclude that educational policies and practices must be adjusted to encourage gender equality and support girls' academic performance in STEM (Stoet & Geary, 2018, pp. 850-860). Their work shows that in countries where gender equality is more valued and where girls benefit from equal educational resources, gender performance differences in STEM tend to disappear. Stoet and Geary stress the need to rethink educational structures and policies to encourage equitable participation of girls in scientific and technological fields.

Wai et al. (2010) In "Sex Differences in Mathematics and Science Achievement: A Meta-Analysis," Wai and colleagues show that performance differences in mathematics and science between genders are more related to social and cultural factors than innate abilities. The meta-analysis, covering several decades of research, indicates that girls are underrepresented in mathematics and science competitions due to a lack of encouragement and training rather than intrinsic differences in their abilities (Wai et al., 2010, pp. 642-657). They emphasize that educational environments and gender stereotypes play a crucial role in how girls perceive their abilities in mathematics and science. Wai et al. recommend specific educational interventions to encourage and support girls in these fields, including female role models, mentoring programs, and educational policies aimed at reducing gender bias.

Myths About Emotional Stability

Stereotypes about the emotional stability of gifted girls are often simplistic and do not reflect the complex realities experienced by these girls.

Neihart (1999) In "The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children," Neihart demonstrates that gifted girls are often perceived as emotionally stable, but this perception is incorrect. The study reveals that gifted girls, like their male counterparts, can suffer from significant emotional problems, such as anxiety and perfectionism, often amplified by specific societal expectations and pressures to conform to traditional gender roles (Neihart, 1999, pp. 70-90). Neihart highlights that high societal expectations of gifted girls can push them to mask their emotional difficulties, complicating the recognition and treatment of these problems. She proposes strategies for parents and educators to better support gifted girls, notably by creating open and understanding environments where they can freely express their emotions and receive the necessary support.

Stereotypes of Lesser Ambition

Stereotypes that gifted girls are less ambitious are often unfounded.

Reis and Callahan (1989) In "The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Girls," Reis and Callahan reveal that the ambitions of gifted girls are not inferior to those of boys. However, these ambitions may be directed differently due to factors such as socialization and cultural expectations. The study shows that girls' career aspirations can be influenced by specific family and societal expectations rather than intrinsic limitations (Reis & Callahan, 1989, pp. 105-115). They discuss how gifted girls are often encouraged to pursue careers perceived as more "appropriate" for their gender, which can limit their choices and aspirations. Reis and Callahan advocate for greater recognition and support of the varied ambitions of gifted girls, emphasizing the importance of providing them with equal opportunities in all professional fields.

Eccles (2009) In "Gender Roles and the Development of Motivation and Achievement," Eccles studies how girls' career aspirations are shaped mainly by cultural and educational influences. The study examines how cultural expectations influence girls' ambitions and career paths, emphasizing that these influences are more determinant than innate limitations (Eccles, 2009, pp. 165-175). Eccles analyzes gender roles and their impact on the development of motivation and achievements of gifted girls. She shows that gender stereotypes can limit girls' aspirations from an early age, influencing their interests and confidence in their abilities. Eccles recommends educational and social interventions to encourage girls to explore a wide range of careers and pursue their ambitions without being limited by gender expectations.

Specific Psychological Challenges

The perception that gifted girls do not face specific psychological challenges is often incorrect.

Silverman (1993) In "The Gifted Girl: A Study of the Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Girls," Silverman contradicts the idea that gifted girls are exempt from psychological difficulties. The study reveals that these girls can experience high levels of anxiety, perfectionism, and social isolation, difficulties often ignored or minimized due to their high academic performance. These problems are exacerbated by societal expectations and pressures to maintain high standards (Silverman, 1993, pp. 138-145). Silverman emphasizes that the emotional needs of gifted girls are often neglected, which can worsen their psychological difficulties. She offers recommendations for parents and educators to better understand and support gifted girls, stressing the importance of creating educational and social environments that recognize and meet their emotional needs.

Conclusion

The literature reveals a significant gap between the observations and theories of authors or specialists in these matters and the scientific realities of female and male giftedness. The nature of the results shows that such a distinction cannot be supported. Persistent myths regarding academic and emotional differences between genders, as well as stereotypes about the ambitions and psychological challenges of gifted girls, are often based on generalizations and gender stereotypes. Studies show that the differences between female and male giftedness are minimal and largely influenced by socio-cultural factors.

It is crucial to continue research and challenge erroneous perceptions to promote a more nuanced understanding and adequate support for gifted individuals, regardless of their gender. It would also be interesting to put all this into perspective in the LGBTQ+ era. By recognizing the specific experiences faced by all gifted individuals and addressing the myths surrounding them, it is possible to foster a more relevant and inclusive educational and social approach.

References

• Adda, J. (2012). Les enfants exceptionnels: comprendre et accompagner les enfants surdoués. Editions Robert Laffont.
• Cohen, K. (2008). Smart Girls: A Guide to Being a Strong, Confident, and Happy Girl. American Girl Publishing.
• Dahl, R. (1988). Matilda. Jonathan Cape.
• Eccles, J. S. (2009). Gender Roles and the Development of Motivation and Achievement. In Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 165-175). Routledge.
• Galbraith, J. (2000). The Gifted Kids Survival Guide: A Teen Handbook. Free Spirit Publishing.
• Hargreaves, D. G. (2001). Educating the Gifted: A European Perspective. Routledge.
• Kerr, B. A. (2006). Gifted Children in Europe: A Cross-National Comparison. Routledge.
• Kline, N. L. (2010). The Smart Girls' Guide to Getting What You Want. Smart Girls Publications.
• Neihart, M. (1999). The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children. In The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children (pp. 70-90). Routledge.
• Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1989). The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Girls. In Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 105-115). Allyn & Bacon.
• Silverman, L. K. (1993). The Gifted Girl: A Study of the Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 138-145.
• Smith, J. K. (2009). The Gifted Child: Parenting and Educational Strategies. Academic Press.
• Siaud-Facchin, M. (2011). Trop intelligent pour être heureux ?. Odile Jacob.
• Streznewski, M. K. (1999). The Gifted Child: A Guide for Parents and Teachers. Prentice Hall.
• Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Psychological Science, 29(3), 850-860.
• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Sex Differences in Mathematics and Science Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 642-657.

Giftedness, defined as exceptional cognitive abilities and a set of other specific skills assumed to be above average, though it also encompasses other elements too extensive to cover in this introduction, has been studied through various lenses, including, and particularly relevant here, gender differences. However, debates persist about whether these differences are real, significant, or simply the result of cultural and methodological biases. The idea of this article is not to conduct a meta-analysis but rather to review the different scientific research on this subject, distinguishing solid empirical results from unfounded speculations.

Part 1: Differences Identified by Science and Those from Observation

A. Cognitive and Neurobiological Differences: Studies and Empirical Results

1. Verbal and Mathematical Abilities:

Study by Hyde and Linn (1988):

• Methodology: This meta-analysis compiled results from 165 studies on gender differences in verbal abilities, including a wide range of samples from preschool children to adults.
• Results: Girls showed a slight advantage in verbal skills with a Cohen’s d (effect size) of 0.11, considered a small effect size. Conversely, boys showed a slight advantage in mathematical abilities, particularly in geometry and problem-solving, with a Cohen’s d ranging from 0.20 to 0.30.
• Conclusion and Implications: The gender differences in these domains are minimal and often influenced by environmental factors such as parental encouragement and quality of education. The study concludes that biological differences are small and suggests future research should focus on the impact of educational and social contexts that can exacerbate or reduce these differences.

2. Cognitive Variability:

Study by Arden et al. (2010):

• Methodology: This study used IQ tests on a large sample of over 80,000 individuals, analyzing the variability of scores by gender.
• Results: Men showed greater variability in IQ scores than women, meaning they are overrepresented both in the very low and very high IQ categories. However, the average IQ between genders was similar.
• Conclusion and Implications: This greater variability could explain why men are more often identified as having exceptional talents or, conversely, learning disabilities. The study suggests that further research is needed to understand the environmental and genetic factors that might influence this variability.

3. Neurobiology of Giftedness:

Study by Haier et al. (2005):

• Methodology: Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), this study compared the brain structures of 48 men and 48 women with similar levels of intelligence.
• Results: Men showed greater activation in brain regions associated with spatial reasoning and motor skills, while women had greater activation in regions related to emotional processing and verbal skills. However, these differences in brain organization do not translate into significant differences in overall cognitive performance.
• Conclusion and Implications: The differences in brain structure between genders do not suggest cognitive superiority of one gender over the other but rather variations in strategies used to solve similar problems. Future research should explore how these neurobiological differences interact with the environment to influence cognitive abilities.

B. Clinical Observations and Sampling Bias

1. Over-Identification of Boys:

Study by Silverman (2013):

• Methodology: Silverman analyzed data from several gifted research centers, comparing the identification rates of gifted boys and girls.
• Results: Boys are more often identified as gifted, particularly in mathematical and scientific domains. This is partially due to identification criteria favoring more visible behaviors, often associated with boys, such as assertiveness and independence.
• Conclusion and Implications: The current criteria for identifying giftedness may be biased against girls, who may express their potential in less visible ways. The study recommends revising identification criteria to include more varied measures that recognize the less visible talents of girls.

2. Masculinization of Gifted Traits:

Study by Terman and Oden (1959):

• Methodology: This longitudinal study followed more than 1,500 gifted children over several decades, examining how gender stereotypes influenced their development.
• Results: Traits traditionally associated with giftedness, such as intellectual curiosity and independence, were more often valued and encouraged in boys. Gifted girls were less likely to be recognized or supported if they did not exhibit these traits as prominently.
• Conclusion and Implications: The results highlight the importance of recognizing and valuing different types of behaviors that may indicate giftedness, regardless of gender stereotypes. The study calls for greater awareness of cultural biases in the processes of identifying talent.

3. Detection Bias:

Study by Ramus (2013):

• Methodology: Ramus examined the methods for evaluating gifted children in various European countries, analyzing potential biases in detection processes.
• Results: The study found that girls were often underrepresented in clinical samples because evaluation criteria favored more externalized traits, such as competitiveness and self-confidence, more common in boys.
• Conclusion and Implications: The methods for evaluating giftedness need to be revised to reduce detection biases. Ramus recommends including more nuanced assessments that account for gender differences in the expression of abilities.

C. What Science Has Invalidated

1. Alleged IQ Differences Between Men and Women:

Study by Feingold (1992):

• Methodology: Feingold conducted a meta-analysis of IQ studies conducted in different cultural contexts, including over 200,000 participants.
• Results: The differences in IQ between genders were negligible, with a slight tendency for men to have slightly higher scores in spatial reasoning and women to have better scores in verbal skills. However, these differences were minimal and often insignificant.
• Conclusion and Implications: The idea that men have a superior IQ to women is largely unfounded. The observed differences are more related to selection biases and environmental factors. Feingold calls for a re-evaluation of IQ tests to ensure they are free of cultural and gender biases.

2. Stereotypes About Girls Being Less Gifted in STEM:

Study by Ceci and Williams (2010):

• Methodology: This study examined the performance of boys and girls in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) over several decades, considering educational contexts and gender equality policies.
• Results: The performance differences between genders in STEM are strongly correlated with educational policies and cultural stereotypes. In countries where gender equality is more advanced, girls perform as well as, or better than, boys in these fields.
• Conclusion and Implications: Stereotypes that girls are naturally less gifted in mathematics and science are unfounded. The study suggests that educational policies and culture play a crucial role in shaping these perceived differences, and encouraging girls in these fields can reduce or eliminate these disparities.

Part 2: Myths Not Validated by Science or Observations

A. Myths Surrounding Academic Differences

1. Girls Are Supposedly Better in Literacy but Not in Numeracy

Study by Stoet and Geary (2018):

• Methodology: This study used data from the PISA assessment for over 300,000 15-year-old students across 65 countries, examining performance in literacy and mathematics in relation to educational policies.
• Results: Girls generally performed better in literacy than boys. However, the differences in mathematics varied significantly by country. In contexts where gender equality was promoted, girls' performance in mathematics was often comparable to that of boys.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: The differences in academic performance between genders are strongly influenced by cultural context and educational policies. Educational environments that promote gender equality tend to reduce or eliminate performance gaps in mathematics, suggesting that these differences are not biologically determined but rather the result of social and educational factors.

Study by Wai et al. (2010):

• Methodology: The study analyzed the participation rates of girls in mathematics and science competitions compared to boys, examining family and educational influences.
• Results: The underrepresentation of girls in STEM competitions is related to differences in encouragement and support received rather than innate differences in abilities. Girls receive less support to pursue careers in STEM, which influences their participation.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: Gender biases and lack of educational support are crucial factors explaining the underrepresentation of girls in STEM fields. Strengthening educational policies and support programs is recommended to encourage more balanced participation.

2. Gifted Girls Are Supposedly More Emotionally Stable

Study by Neihart (1999):

• Methodology: Neihart reviewed the literature on emotional differences between gifted girls and boys, examining case studies and clinical research.
• Results: The study shows that the idea that gifted girls are more emotionally stable is unfounded. Emotional differences are more related to personality and environmental factors than gender differences. Gifted girls can also face emotional challenges such as anxiety and perfectionism.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: Generalizations about the emotional stability of gifted girls are not supported by data. Interventions should be tailored to individual needs rather than based on gender stereotypes.

B. Stereotypes and Biases Not Supported by Science

1. Gifted Girls Are Supposedly Less Ambitious

Study by Reis and Callahan (1989):

• Methodology: This study examined the career aspirations of gifted girls compared to gifted boys, considering social and family influences.
• Results: The ambitions of gifted girls are not inherently lower than those of boys, but they can be influenced by socialization and family and school expectations. Girls may develop ambitions in different fields due to social norms.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: The ambitions of gifted girls should be supported and encouraged without being limited by gender stereotypes. Educational programs should promote a more inclusive view of career aspirations for both girls and boys.

Study by Eccles (2009):

• Methodology: Eccles explored the cultural and educational influences on the career aspirations of young people, examining gender differences and their impact.
• Results: Differences in career aspirations are primarily influenced by cultural and educational norms rather than intrinsic gender differences. Gender stereotypes affect career choices and aspirations of girls.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: To reduce the career aspiration gap between genders, it is essential to change cultural and educational perceptions. Educational policies should encourage diverse careers for both girls and boys.

2. Gifted Girls Supposedly Do Not Face Particular Psychological Challenges

Study by Silverman (1993):

• Methodology: Silverman studied the psychological challenges faced by gifted girls compared to gifted boys, using clinical data and case studies.
• Results: The study shows that gifted girls can suffer from psychological problems similar to those of boys, such as anxiety, perfectionism, and social isolation. However, these problems are often minimized or ignored because of the perception that gifted girls are less vulnerable due to their academic performance.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: The psychological challenges of gifted girls must be recognized and addressed with specific interventions. Professionals should be aware of the mental health issues that can affect gifted girls and provide appropriate support.

Conclusion

The myths surrounding female and male giftedness are often based on cultural generalizations and stereotypes rather than solid scientific evidence. A thorough review of scientific research on female and male giftedness reveals that preconceived notions about fundamental differences between the two sexes are often unfounded or exaggerated. Empirical data show that the distinctions observed between girls' and boys' academic abilities, particularly in literacy and numeracy, are largely influenced by contextual and cultural factors rather than intrinsic biological differences.

Studies by Stoet and Geary (2018) and Wai et al. (2010) clearly demonstrate that performance gaps in mathematics between genders are not manifestations of innate differences but rather repercussions of educational environment and social encouragement. Furthermore, data from Neihart (1999) and Silverman (1993) refute the myth that gifted girls are more emotionally stable than their male counterparts, showing that the emotional challenges faced by gifted girls are comparable to those faced by boys.

Erroneous beliefs about the ambitions and psychological challenges of gifted girls are also highlighted by the works of Reis and Callahan (1989) and Eccles (2009). These studies show that girls' ambitions are not inferior but may be directed differently due to the influence of cultural norms and educational expectations and that the psychological challenges faced are often poorly recognized due to gender.

In conclusion, current science does not support the idea that giftedness manifests differently between sexes in a significant way or that fundamental distinctions exist between female and male giftedness. It is crucial to base educational policies and support approaches on solid scientific data and to deconstruct gender stereotypes that still influence perceptions and practices regarding giftedness. To advance towards true equality of opportunities, it is essential to promote a nuanced understanding of giftedness that transcends clichés and generalizations, emphasizing individual needs.

A question remains: why is such a distinction propagated to the general public and to what end? This will be the subject of another article.

References

• Arden, R., Gottfredson, L. S., Miller, G., & Pierce, A. (2010). Intelligence and variability: Does the greater male variability hypothesis hold in the United States? Intelligence, 38(5), 501-510.
• Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 275-279.
• Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 61-84.
• Haier, R. J., Jung, R. E., Yeo, R. A., Head, K., & Alkire, M. T. (2005). The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: Sex matters. NeuroImage, 25(1), 320-327.
• Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269(5220), 41-45.
• Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 53-69.
• Ramus, F. (2013). The neurodevelopment of giftedness and talent. In The Oxford Handbook of Gifted Children. Oxford University Press.
• Silverman, L. K. (2013). Giftedness 101. Springer Publishing Company.
• Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in STEM education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593.
• Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five years' follow-up of the superior child. Stanford University Press.
• Eccles, J. S. (2009). Gendered educational and occupational aspirations: The role of parents and teachers. In The role of gender in educational and occupational aspirations. Springer.
• Neihart, M. (1999). The social and emotional development of gifted children. In Handbook of Gifted Education. Allyn & Bacon.
• Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1989). The underachievement of gifted girls: A review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(2), 83-94.
• Silverman, L. K. (1993). The “gifted” girl: A study of the social and emotional development of gifted girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 138-142.
• Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in STEM education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593.
• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 629-644.

This topic is explored through the lens of giftedness because research has been conducted on this population, but it is evident that these principles can benefit all children. To ensure that artistic talents are fully developed, it is crucial to provide children with a supportive and appropriate environment. Research conducted in both Europe and North America offers perspectives and strategies to support these young individuals in nurturing their creativity. This article reviews studies and findings on the subject.

Providing Opportunities for Exploration

Exploring various artistic fields is a key component of developing high-potential children. The European Council for High Ability (ECHA) highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary exposure, which allows children to discover and cultivate their specific interests (ECHA, 2015). In the United States, the Journal for the Education of the Gifted also emphasizes the benefits of artistic exploration for gifted children, encouraging the discovery of new passions and stimulating their creativity (Renzulli, 2005).

The goal is to offer children a variety of materials and artistic activities, as well as opportunities to participate in specialized workshops or enrichment programs. Initiatives such as art schools for gifted children in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as intensive summer programs in the United States, practically illustrate this approach.

Valuing Personal Expression

Valuing personal expression is essential for creative children. A study commissioned by the European Commission in 2013 emphasizes the importance of creating an environment where young talents can express themselves without fear of judgment (European Commission, 2013). Research published in Gifted Child Quarterly underscores that validating creative expression strengthens self-confidence and autonomy, which are crucial elements for artistic development (Siegle & McCoach, 2005).

It is motivating for children to share their creations freely while receiving constructive feedback. The European approach often emphasizes the importance of encouragement without criticism to foster a harmonious development of artistic abilities. Organizations that specifically support artistic exploration can provide a more enriching and secure environment than traditional schools.

Encouraging Perseverance

Perseverance is a determining factor in individual development, not only in creativity but in all areas, especially for gifted children who may be prone to perfectionism. The organization Eurotalent has identified the importance of teaching children that failure is part of the creative process and that each mistake is a learning opportunity (Eurotalent, 2017). This concept is also supported by positive psychology, popularized by Martin Seligman in the United States, which emphasizes the role of resilience in personal well-being and success (Seligman, 2011). Failure is to be seen in parallel with the creative process, which involves multiple phases and attempts to achieve the final work. Learning patience is therefore also a major aspect of the creative process that extends to daily life.

Educators can encourage this perseverance by helping children view art as an ongoing process rather than a finished product. Finnish educational models, in particular, value patience and long-term development.

Facilitating Encounters with Mentors

Mentorship is a key aspect of developing artistic talents and learning in general. Mentorship is strongly recommended by institutions such as ECHA and Eurotalent, which see it as a means of providing personalized guidance and inspiring role models (Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). Similarly, in the USA, mentors are considered essential in all fields, offering professional perspectives and helping navigate the challenges of their artistic discipline (Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005).

Meetings with professional artists, visits to studios, or formal mentoring programs are effective ways to connect gifted young people with influential figures who can inspire and guide them in their creative journey.

References

• Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness: A Developmental Model for Promoting Creative Productivity. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 3-23.
• Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2005). Encouraging Talent Development in Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 210-221.
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. Free Press.
• Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond Talent: Creating a Culture of Creativity in Gifted Education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 292-304.
• Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. Academic Press.
• ECHA (2015). European Council for High Ability: Educational Strategies for Gifted Students. Retrieved from [ECHA Website].
• European Commission (2013). Research-based Education for Gifted Students in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 61-76.
• Eurotalent (2017). The Role of Persistence and Failure in the Development of Giftedness. Eurotalent Journal, 22(4), 45-53.

Educational and career guidance is a critical step in shaping the future professional and educational paths of students. With the rise of digital technologies, this field has undergone significant transformations. Today, tools such as online tests, automated coaching, and video-based learning pathways have become ubiquitous. Simultaneously, artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to integrate into these processes, aiming to offer solutions that appear personalized but are largely automated. While these technological innovations bring new possibilities, they also raise important questions about their effectiveness, relevance, and impact on students' choices.

1. The Evolution of Educational and Career Guidance in the Digital Era

1.1 Online Tests: Accessibility vs. Depth

Online career guidance tests have become widespread across various fields due to their accessibility and ease of use, including in the realm of educational and career planning. They sometimes provide students with an initial approach to better understand their interests, aptitudes, and offer career suggestions that might suit them. However, these tests also present significant limitations. The standardized nature of many online tests often leads to superficial recommendations, lacking the depth necessary to capture the complexity of individual aspirations. Worse, they tend to influence the user, and if this statement surprises you, I invite you to read my book on career guidance methods, which delves into these intricacies.

One of the major issues is the validity of the results obtained through these tests. According to a study published in the Journal of Career Assessment, online tests lack reliability because they fail to consider the individual contexts and psychological nuances of students (Gati & Saka, 2020). Furthermore, the tendency to reduce career guidance to simple algorithms can result in outcomes that do not accurately reflect the diversity of students' interests and talents, at the very least, and cannot account for personal motivation, which is a major driver of fulfillment and success. The accessibility of online tests prevents students from engaging in personal reflection on the subject and from undertaking a more in-depth and nuanced analysis of what drives them.

1.2 Automated Coaching: Efficiency and Limitations

Automated coaching, which uses algorithms to provide guidance and recommendations in the field of career planning, is another technological innovation that has gained traction. The objective is to offer low-cost solutions to the issues highlighted by tests and their inefficiency. These systems promise to provide personalized support on a large scale by addressing the specific needs of each student. However, this automation raises questions about the personalization, which is obviously nonexistent, and the actual effectiveness of such coaching.

Automated coaching relies on career databases and psychometric evaluations to suggest career paths, and often, certain tests are presented beforehand. This approach resembles a variant of traditional career assessments, essentially presenting standardized pathways, as seen in projects like Sokanu's "Career Explorer," which I thoroughly tested and reviewed in an article found in this section of the blog. While these systems may be effective in offering quick, data-driven recommendations, they often lack the human element that is essential in career guidance. As highlighted by a study published in Educational Technology Research and Development, the absence of human interaction in the coaching process can limit students' ability to critically explore their own choices and develop personal reflection on their aspirations (Brown et al., 2019). Moreover, these systems sometimes rely on biased or incomplete data, leading to advice that may not be well-suited to the specific circumstances of individual students.

2. The Impact of Standardized Video Pathways

2.1 Advantages and Risks of Standardized Pathways

Standardized video pathways have become a popular tool for presenting various career options to students. These videos, often designed to be engaging and informative, offer an overview of professions and educational pathways, making information more accessible and engaging for young people. However, they can also have unintended effects on the decision-making process.

One advantage of videos is their ability to make information vivid and tangible. They allow students to visualize different careers, which can be particularly useful for those who struggle to envision themselves in a future job. However, the narrative and often simplified nature of these videos can sometimes present an overly positive or negative image of certain professions, disproportionately influencing students' perceptions.

According to a study conducted by Stanford University, orientation videos can reinforce gender and class stereotypes by presenting idealized images of certain professions while omitting the more complex and less glamorous aspects of work (Smith & White, 2020). Although these tools are popular among students and help to better engage the target audience, they also risk oversimplifying career choices, pushing young people to make decisions based on superficial perceptions rather than a deep understanding of professional realities. These are informative videos that do little to provoke personal reflection and critical thinking.

2.2 The Importance of Guidance

The use of videos in career guidance should not occur in isolation. It is crucial that students are guided in analyzing and reflecting on the content they view. Career guidance professionals play a key role in this process by helping students interpret the information they receive and contextualize it in relation to their own interests and abilities.

A study published in the British Journal of Guidance & Counselling indicates that students benefit more from multimedia resources when they are integrated into a structured guidance program, where they can discuss the content with trusted adults and critically explore the different options presented (Hooley et al., 2017). This type of guidance helps reduce the risks of excessive simplification and ensures that students make more thoughtful decisions.

3. The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence in Educational and Career Guidance

3.1 AI and the Personalization of Advice

The introduction of artificial intelligence in educational and career guidance represents a new phase in the automation and personalization of guidance services. AI is capable of processing vast amounts of data and providing personalized recommendations based on students' abilities, interests, and past performances. In theory, this could allow for an unprecedented level of personalization, tailored to the specific needs of each student. However, the way information is processed and presented by AI still heavily depends on how it is inputted. This is evident in the emergence of experts who now offer training on effective "prompting" methods. This represents a significant flaw in the system as of 2024.

Despite the potential benefits mentioned, the use of AI in career guidance raises additional concerns. One major challenge is the issue of transparency and the ethics of the algorithms used. As demonstrated by a study from the University of Cambridge, AI systems can sometimes replicate or even amplify existing biases in the data they are trained on, and the inherent thought systems they acquire for processing and generating information, which can lead to problematic or inappropriate recommendations (Binns et al., 2018). For example, an algorithm might disproportionately steer students toward certain careers based on their social background or gender, thereby perpetuating stereotypes rather than challenging them.

3.2 Automation vs. Human Interaction

Another critical aspect of using AI in career guidance is balancing automation with human interaction. While AI can provide quick and personalized advice, it cannot replace the value of empathy, active listening, and personalized support that human coaches can offer. Although technological tools can enhance certain aspects of the guidance process, it is crucial not to overlook the importance of human interactions. As explained by a study published by Harvard University, institutional support and personalized interactions remain essential for student success, highlighting that technology should not replace these fundamental elements (Rosenbaum et al., 2019). We hope that further studies will deeply explore how AI can be framed to provide genuinely relevant decision-making tools.

Therefore, it is vital that AI is used as a complement rather than a substitute for career counselors. The most effective approach seems to be a hybrid integration, where AI provides basic information and recommendations, but the reflection, contextualization, and final decisions are guided and validated by qualified professionals.

Conclusion

The impact of technology on career guidance is complex and multifaceted. While digital tools, online tests, automated coaching, explanatory videos, and AI offer new opportunities to make guidance more accessible and personalized, they also present significant challenges. The trend toward automation and standardization can lead to overly general advice, which is best avoided in career guidance, lacking depth and personalization, while the emergence of AI raises important ethical questions.

It is essential to recognize that technology cannot completely replace human interaction in this field. Personalized support, exploration of personal desires and values, active listening, and critical thinking are key elements of career guidance that cannot be fully automated. Ultimately, the best approach is to use technology as a complementary tool that supports and enriches students' research, while ensuring they receive quality guidance based on a deep understanding of their aspirations to make informed decisions.

References:

• Binns, R., Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Shadbolt, N. (2018). ‘It’s Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage’: Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
• Brown, C., Kirschner, P. A., & Jansen, E. (2019). Providing support to students in online learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development.
• Gati, I., & Saka, N. (2020). High school students’ career-related decision-making difficulties. Journal of Career Assessment.
• Hooley, T., Marriott, J., Watts, A. G., & Andrews, D. (2017). Careers Education in Schools: Research and Practice in England. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling.
• Rosenbaum, J. E., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. E. (2019). After Admission: From College Access to College Success. Harvard University Press.
• Smith, E., & White, P. (2020). Where do all the STEM graduates go? Higher education, the labour market and career routes in the UK. Journal of Education and Work.

Staying focused, interested, and engaged in class is the number one challenge for all students. However, by adopting a few simple strategies, you can transform passivity and disinterest into rich and dynamic learning experiences. After all, you can’t rely on your teacher to radically change their teaching style. Here are two essential strategies to enhance your learning, considering that listening in class accounts for about 50% of the memorization process.

1. Ask Yourself What’s Interesting About Today’s Topic

One of the best ways to stay engaged in class is to find a personal angle of interest in what’s being presented, or to consider its real-life application, either now or in the future. Regardless of the subject or topic, there’s always a way to identify something that sparks your curiosity or could impact your life or future plans.

Tip for Students: Ask yourself, "What’s interesting about this topic for me?" or "How does this help me understand the world or society better?" or "How can I apply this to my interests or goals?" Finding a personal connection with the content helps you stay attentive, makes learning easier, and fosters interest and motivation.

2. Adopt an Active Learning Approach

Rather than remaining a passive observer, becoming an active participant in your learning is crucial for staying focused. This can mean taking notes proactively, asking questions, joining in discussions, or sharing your ideas, or trying to connect new concepts with your existing knowledge. This method directly engages you with the course material and enhances memorization. Active participation not only helps you stay focused but also improves your understanding and retention of the content.

Tip for Students: Instead of just listening, try to rephrase the information in your own words, summarize the key points, or even imagine explaining the concept to someone else. This active approach not only boosts comprehension but also makes the learning process more interactive and stimulating. The more you participate, the more engaged you’ll be, and the more the content will become relevant and memorable for you.

Knowing how to make a decision is one thing; knowing how to make the right decision is even better ;)

Making decisions is a crucial skill that your child will need and develop throughout their life. As a parent, you can play a key role in nurturing this skill by creating opportunities for your child to make their own choices and learn from their mistakes. Here are some ideas to help your child refine their decision-making skills effectively—and, most importantly, in a fun way. Of course, the ultimate goal is to help with their future career choices!

1. Encourage Daily Small Decisions

Decisions aren’t just about major life choices like selecting a career. They start from a young age with everyday choices. Let your child pick their clothes, sometimes decide on dinner, or choose the book to read at night. All these small decisions build their confidence in their decision-making abilities. However, be mindful that they might enjoy this newfound power, so setting clear limits is important to avoid overwhelm.

2. Discuss Consequences

Every decision has consequences, and it’s important for your child to understand this connection. After a decision is made, talk with them about the results and outcomes of their choice. For example, if your child decided not to do their homework, discuss the possible repercussions, like a poor grade. Approach this constructively: “What do you think will happen if you don’t finish your homework?” This helps them understand the impact of their decisions and learn to assess outcomes before making choices. It also ties into building their independence.

3. Teach Them to Weigh Pros and Cons

A good way to help your child make more thoughtful decisions is to teach them to evaluate the pros and cons. For a significant decision, encourage them to make a list of advantages and disadvantages. For instance, if they are torn between joining a sports club or taking a music class, help them list the pros and cons of each option. This process helps them see things more clearly and make informed decisions, structuring their thinking and positioning decision-making as a strategic system.

4. Encourage Reflection After the Action

Once a decision is made, it’s crucial to discuss the outcomes, whether they are positive or negative. This post-decision reflection allows your child to understand what worked well or what didn’t compared to their expectations. Ask questions like: “How do you feel about the decision you made?” or “What would you do differently next time?” This fosters a self-evaluation process and helps your child question their choices and reasoning.

5. Lead by Example

Children learn a lot by observation. Show them how you make decisions in your daily life. Explain your thought process when making choices, whether it’s buying a car, planning a vacation, or solving a problem at work. For example, explain how you weigh different options, the importance of each factor, potential consequences, and how you arrive at a final decision.

In summary, developing decision-making skills in your child is an ongoing process that requires patience and support. By creating an environment where they can make decisions, reflect on their choices, and learn from their mistakes, you prepare them to navigate life's challenges with confidence and skill.