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.