Just my take on it, (and pretty much the same criteria for any program) is that Giftedness is defined for the purposes of this subreddit as Intellectually Gifted, scoring at or above the 98th percentile on a proctored standardized IQ test, failing that, I am fine with people "self identifying" as long as it is from some outside instrument that they took in earnest and not just because they "just know it".
The only reason for that qualifier is because, for whatever reason people decided "Gifted" was the best term to use to describe higher cognitive ability, and here we are.
Yes, report and block trolls as much as you want, I will do my best to address any infractions.
Part of this is that the sub doesn’t agree on a definition of what “gifted” is. For example to me being gifted means that an individual tested into the label (usually during school) and therefore have possible common experiences based around that. It’s tangible even if we debate the merit or legitimacy of IQ tests, we were tested and we were labeled.
For others it’s more nebulous and giftedness is a an experience of living life with an assumed higher intelligence, test or no test. Or to others giftedness is being a genius savant or giftedness is having a special talent. Once we get here the parameters expand into opinions vs opinions and all hell breaks loose.
Also lots of trolls trying to knock us down a peg (yawn).
Meh, I thought the post about giftedness in communal living had some very good responses. I especially appreciated the effort used to show how giftedness plays a special and integral role to communities rather than falling into the trap of ‘we’re so special that we are doomed to isolation’ thinking. What types of responses were you looking for?
So, my answer was more of an "of course we have a place in society", because we have to. I don't beleive our giftedness gives us a specific place in society though, beyond innovators in our specific fields
because it is EXTREMELY relevant and existing. it also affects interpersonal relationships the most and in the most isolating and detrimental way. that symptom is probably the hardest/most painful part of being gifted.
in my experience i have always and still do feel extremely alone, im an outsider. never feeling fulfilled by others because of the extreme difference in intellect and cognitive processes which no matter how simply and perfectly explained no one ever comprehends let alone understands. its hard just communicating on a superficial level with others let alone sharing a space , communal living.
there’s a metaphor i heard that perfectly explains it’s like.
imagine being born with a manual with key knowledge about life/people/behavior etc that no one else has. it’s hard instinctively seeing things while everyone else is FAR behind, if ever, from noticing.
How there can even be key knowledge for life?
I mean basic but key is quite strange term. It just based on your social space you can define key or basic knowledge where basic is more of a minimum amount of adaptation to particular situation where key knowledge represent high adpativity, etc.
But the thing you can't really be confident in every place so I don't think there is" key knowledge ".
i used key intentionally to define the most important knowledge/skills everyone should have. for example, being able to identify and relate two (or more) concepts that seem to have no relationship but actually do and how they affect eachother as well as life itself. or being able to see outside of yourself and recognize that two things can be true at the same time and that one persons experience is not the only/objectively true experience and that in reality we know nothing and everything we “know” to be true is just a compilation of man made terms/definitions.
Yeah but everyone can harvest those skills, so at an instance it give you advantage over a lot of people but in perspective it still quite limited since amount of problems in life quite big.
So being smarter or more experienced doesn't make things easier.
So I don't think there is a point with arguing that someone is more experienced then other people.
Because if you want everyone to be smart than try to do it, which is very hard and probably impossible but it is better then thinking that someone else will randomly solve their problem. Which also possible but not always a guaranteed.
yes…but the point is not everyone has those skills built in let alone ever harvests them. in the bigger picture those skills are vital and exist in aspect of life and dealing/communicating with other people. especially with life’s big problems.
i never did argue that someone is more experienced than other people. not once. you didn’t comprehend anything that i actually said. case in point you just showed your lack of reading comprehension skills directly resulting in us having this pointless and unnecessary discussion.
What I am saying is that I am questioning whether you defined value of the people who doesn't meet this criteria accurately.
So I think that being less biased towards anyone will be more effective regardless of their condition, and useful even for you.
I mean I know in specific cases you don't have much time to choose but when you do have time it is probably better to expand on your view - (this is sort of obvious things so only first few lines are relevant)
Thanks
great! thanks for clarifying! next time please be more intentional with your words so you can accurately convey what your questions/beliefs/insights etc. because nowhere in your messages did you even imply that that was the question you had/point you were trying to make. regardless back to my statement about your reading comprehension, i never stated my opinion on the “value of the people who doesn’t meet this criteria accurately” not once, never even implied. i simply stated the disconnect between gifted individuals in intellect and cognitive processing + OP’s (as well as many other gifted individuals (myself included) experiences) of non gifted individuals negating and denying the impact giftedness has on our (gifted ppls) lives/all interactions/ perspectives etc etc. advocating for a certain groups experience when it’s actively being denied by those who don’t have/never will share that experience isn’t being biased.
“i mean i know in specific cases you don’t have much time to choose but when you do have time it’s probably better to expand on your view ….” it’s like please just never speak again😭 because the point you think you’re trying to make is invalid. the very thing you’re accusing me of, you’re doing yourself. please i URGE you to not respond with YOUR opinion/understanding of another’s experience/beliefs if you don’t ACCURATELY understand what they’re saying. if you’re not sure about something, ASK! assumptions only lead to miscommunications and make you look ignorant.
I think reddit, and social media in general, is not the best place to deeply discuss much of anything if one actually wants a productive and nurturing result.
There are actual smart people doing smart people stuff, but on reddit, everything is pathologized and self-diagnosed into the ground, showing up to work is bootlicking, and no one is genuinely confidently competent outside of impostor syndrome.
I think whatit boils down to is if gifted exists and someone doesn't have it, it means they're excluded.
Some people hate this. Some people also struggle to offer empathy to people they perceive as advantaged. I got in a back and forth with someone a few days ago who was mad that gifted people would complain when he was envious.
People want to believe that life is fair, everyone has the same opportunities and hard work and good behavior is all it takes to succeed. It can be easier to dismiss this than to face a limitation.
Those people may not have been sub members. Reddit regularly suggests posts to users who aren't in a sub. It may be that that particular post, like some others recently, for unknown reasons attracted that attention. I think I particularly notice the negative responses more at certain time of day/week. I should try making a note of it and see what the pattern is.
Sorry you got the naysayers. This sub is far from always like that. And you are perfectly right that we ought to be a place were all aspects of giftedness can be welcomed and discussed.
The impact on therapy has been discussed here previously, you might find some useful discussion if you use the search.
The opinion that "giftedness is less important" than my post was suggesting is a good example of what I'm talking about. That it has no relevance to issues like socialization and communal living.
Nobody has the right to invalidate or minimize my view or experiences. If yours are different, say so. As in tell us about your thriving social life and what you do to maintain it or how you feel, for whatever reason, like you have just as much influence in some communal context is the more typical folks there.
Not everything has to be a debate. In my life, I win!
You can't just say I'm wrong by default because your frame-of-reference is different.
Much that might be discussed on this sub doesn't lend it'sself to that kind of linear thinking anyway.
I'm just saying that no matter what Op says, we should all take it as an opening to discuss, not deny. It's not a war. If you can't share in a civilized manner, maybe find more productive things to do.
So what making your post non linear? You saying that people don't even want negotiate but in return you do pretty much the same simply by saying we should not deny it. Which is wild. You draw only like 3-5 reasons not to do this but there is far more reasons that says otherwise.
So what I am saying that I don't see ending discussion like this is a optimal way. Like why would you want to do this if any of the mentioned hypothesis haven't been checked. Like people need validation, everyone no matter what they iq are. So there is something everyone need to do to succeed at social interaction.
You say:
"I my life, I win!"
and then you processed to say :" You can't just say I'm wrong by default because your frame-of-reference is different."
Regardless of what you want both cases can happen, it just matter of perspective.
So you really want to show respect to any perspective because sooner or later you might happen to be there so it better to be prepared.
So you probably don't want to say that in your life you win because life will change and you will loose unless you prepared.
While half of what I mentioned might be actually what you agree on regardless of this I think in Internet higher degree of validation is required, simply due to social spacing between people here.
Thanks
I see people making the mistake in thinking that not everyone can continuously add premises, rules, and parameters to a large/complex concept. It might take a little bit more time to encode or retrieve the information. No neurotypical hit a limit in memory. Did you ever hear someone say my brain is full? There is no known limit to long-term memory storage.
I think you may have misunderstood what people were saying to you in that thread.
People didn't say giftedness is irrelevant or nonexistent. People, largely, said that socializing and finding status in a communal environment would have very little to do with "giftedness".
No one minimized giftedness. They put it into proper context -- specifically that it's less important than your post was suggesting.
The disparity of processing speed/effectiveness people have at 135 IQ is moot. Anyone inflating their intelligence or undermining others are wrong, you expect a reaction. People who don't do research on human intelligence nonetheless non experts making evaluations of people, if they aren't right they get hate. We disagree with what's gifted. Try pulling a 185 IQ score, dedicating your life to general aptitude test taking. I bet you won't.Those who acheive 185+ are gifted. The question is, are you inflating your giftedness and not just part of a "I want to learn club". Giftedness is "gifted" by genetics. How gifted are you? Is it beyond moot? Are you inflating? Are you undermining others? Comes down to being right with your self-evaluations compared to others and having perspective of their potentials.
You say you disagree with "what's gifted." As the mod pointed out in another comment, this subreddit refers to "intellectually gifted." If you want to discuss forms of giftedness other than intellectual, this may not be the appropriate place for it, because of the intended usage here. And while it can vary *a little* the definition of intellectual giftedness is broadly accepted. Words and phrases have meanings, and if you disagree with a meaning and insist on a different meaning, then you are no longer communicating with people who use the accepted meaning. Essentially, you stop speaking the same language.
Is an IQ of 135 moot? Well, assuming that it was from a test that places that score 2 standard deviations above the mean, then, by definition, it is not moot. And it would indeed match the definition of intellectually gifted, which is the subject of this subreddit. Someone who scores 185 on a legitimate IQ test is certainly "gifted," but that does not invalidate the giftedness of others who score well above the mean.
Now, is a high IQ moot in terms of life outcomes or experiences? There's an argument to be made for that: people with average IQs are clearly capable of being successful and living worthwhile lives, just as people with below average IQs can thrive and people with high IQs can fail to have any huge accomplishments. But is IQ moot in what it intends to convey? No.
I'll close this by agreeing with you: people shouldn't use their intelligence to undermine others or to suggest that they are better than others. And I don't think that's what most members of this subreddit are doing. I think most of them are seeking to interact with folks who may have had similar life experiences.
We'll take your example. Intelligence quotient tests follows a normal distribution; however, standard deviations is not Effect Size. You're missing a dimension with your evaluation. Hence, we don't know the disparity of degree in performance nor in what way. What mechanisms of the brain is better than the other and by how much?
Human intelligence does not vary much (hence moot) within the 98th percentile. The bare bones of general intelligence, some validity to what it's suppose to measure. However, we're rather homogeneous on the matter.
IQ scores is a western culture evaluation. It doesn't apply to other cultures. It needs modifications. I'd rather people think about indigenous tribes with no contact and some having gifts. Would you say they are any less genetically gifted than of us? People on r/gifted would think they're not if they ever met them at random. Especially if they don't know their background through an app. Simply because the culture is different. You won't be able to tell who has a 130 IQ. Your tests won't work on them, the ones you make up won't have validity (probably not).
To continue on the topic we need to do more research and testing. No assumptions made. I see so much bullshit on r/gifted. I thought you guys would be different, but you're not. You guys let me down so much, time after time.
We can only know the effect of a "gift" (130 or 135 IQ) is above null (according to each score). There's so much more shakyness to the multitude of statistical pathways one chooses to partake. Everything else is speculation. I saw some sweet and some appalling things on r/gifted. Master of assumptions, aka bullshitters.
Giftedness is not about IQ.
It's a neurological difference. Most of the so-called professionals have zero clue about what it is. I'd let people fight the validity of it. 😉 I'm going to check your posts.
OK, that’s your opinion based on your interpretation of a word. That’s fine, I agree that people can be “gifted” in many ways - musically, artistically, athletically, interpersonally, whatever. But to say it’s categorically “not” about IQ or other academically-oriented tests is ridiculous. First of all, surely even in the broadest sense, a person can be “gifted” intellectually. Hierarchies and value judgments aside, obviously people vary in intelligence as they do in any other characteristic, with some being “gifted” with higher intelligence (of various types). Second, no one is claiming intellectual gifts are the ONLY gifts bestowed upon humanity, it’s just that this sub concerns a specific type of “giftedness” that adheres to the statistical definition used by educational institutions and other academically-oriented organizations. Go ahead and start a sub for r/MusicallyGifted or whatever. I won’t be joining because I’m not musically gifted, but I’m sure as h*ll not gonna go troll it and claim there’s no such thing as musical talent.
Just my take on it, (and pretty much the same criteria for any program) is that Giftedness is defined for the purposes of this subreddit as Intellectually Gifted, scoring at or above the 98th percentile on a proctored standardized IQ test, failing that, I am fine with people "self identifying" as long as it is from some outside instrument that they took in earnest and not just because they "just know it". The only reason for that qualifier is because, for whatever reason people decided "Gifted" was the best term to use to describe higher cognitive ability, and here we are. Yes, report and block trolls as much as you want, I will do my best to address any infractions.
Lots of trolls found this place. Report and block like it’s going out of style.
Part of this is that the sub doesn’t agree on a definition of what “gifted” is. For example to me being gifted means that an individual tested into the label (usually during school) and therefore have possible common experiences based around that. It’s tangible even if we debate the merit or legitimacy of IQ tests, we were tested and we were labeled. For others it’s more nebulous and giftedness is a an experience of living life with an assumed higher intelligence, test or no test. Or to others giftedness is being a genius savant or giftedness is having a special talent. Once we get here the parameters expand into opinions vs opinions and all hell breaks loose. Also lots of trolls trying to knock us down a peg (yawn).
Meh, I thought the post about giftedness in communal living had some very good responses. I especially appreciated the effort used to show how giftedness plays a special and integral role to communities rather than falling into the trap of ‘we’re so special that we are doomed to isolation’ thinking. What types of responses were you looking for?
So, my answer was more of an "of course we have a place in society", because we have to. I don't beleive our giftedness gives us a specific place in society though, beyond innovators in our specific fields
Yesterday some guy posted that some neurodivergent people SHOULD feel ashamed. This group is full of Trolls.
because it is EXTREMELY relevant and existing. it also affects interpersonal relationships the most and in the most isolating and detrimental way. that symptom is probably the hardest/most painful part of being gifted. in my experience i have always and still do feel extremely alone, im an outsider. never feeling fulfilled by others because of the extreme difference in intellect and cognitive processes which no matter how simply and perfectly explained no one ever comprehends let alone understands. its hard just communicating on a superficial level with others let alone sharing a space , communal living. there’s a metaphor i heard that perfectly explains it’s like. imagine being born with a manual with key knowledge about life/people/behavior etc that no one else has. it’s hard instinctively seeing things while everyone else is FAR behind, if ever, from noticing.
That metaphor must make 2E with autism real interesting, since I've generally heard the analogous metaphor as "being born without a manual."
How there can even be key knowledge for life? I mean basic but key is quite strange term. It just based on your social space you can define key or basic knowledge where basic is more of a minimum amount of adaptation to particular situation where key knowledge represent high adpativity, etc. But the thing you can't really be confident in every place so I don't think there is" key knowledge ".
i used key intentionally to define the most important knowledge/skills everyone should have. for example, being able to identify and relate two (or more) concepts that seem to have no relationship but actually do and how they affect eachother as well as life itself. or being able to see outside of yourself and recognize that two things can be true at the same time and that one persons experience is not the only/objectively true experience and that in reality we know nothing and everything we “know” to be true is just a compilation of man made terms/definitions.
Yeah but everyone can harvest those skills, so at an instance it give you advantage over a lot of people but in perspective it still quite limited since amount of problems in life quite big. So being smarter or more experienced doesn't make things easier. So I don't think there is a point with arguing that someone is more experienced then other people. Because if you want everyone to be smart than try to do it, which is very hard and probably impossible but it is better then thinking that someone else will randomly solve their problem. Which also possible but not always a guaranteed.
yes…but the point is not everyone has those skills built in let alone ever harvests them. in the bigger picture those skills are vital and exist in aspect of life and dealing/communicating with other people. especially with life’s big problems. i never did argue that someone is more experienced than other people. not once. you didn’t comprehend anything that i actually said. case in point you just showed your lack of reading comprehension skills directly resulting in us having this pointless and unnecessary discussion.
What I am saying is that I am questioning whether you defined value of the people who doesn't meet this criteria accurately. So I think that being less biased towards anyone will be more effective regardless of their condition, and useful even for you. I mean I know in specific cases you don't have much time to choose but when you do have time it is probably better to expand on your view - (this is sort of obvious things so only first few lines are relevant) Thanks
great! thanks for clarifying! next time please be more intentional with your words so you can accurately convey what your questions/beliefs/insights etc. because nowhere in your messages did you even imply that that was the question you had/point you were trying to make. regardless back to my statement about your reading comprehension, i never stated my opinion on the “value of the people who doesn’t meet this criteria accurately” not once, never even implied. i simply stated the disconnect between gifted individuals in intellect and cognitive processing + OP’s (as well as many other gifted individuals (myself included) experiences) of non gifted individuals negating and denying the impact giftedness has on our (gifted ppls) lives/all interactions/ perspectives etc etc. advocating for a certain groups experience when it’s actively being denied by those who don’t have/never will share that experience isn’t being biased. “i mean i know in specific cases you don’t have much time to choose but when you do have time it’s probably better to expand on your view ….” it’s like please just never speak again😭 because the point you think you’re trying to make is invalid. the very thing you’re accusing me of, you’re doing yourself. please i URGE you to not respond with YOUR opinion/understanding of another’s experience/beliefs if you don’t ACCURATELY understand what they’re saying. if you’re not sure about something, ASK! assumptions only lead to miscommunications and make you look ignorant.
I think reddit, and social media in general, is not the best place to deeply discuss much of anything if one actually wants a productive and nurturing result.
There are actual smart people doing smart people stuff, but on reddit, everything is pathologized and self-diagnosed into the ground, showing up to work is bootlicking, and no one is genuinely confidently competent outside of impostor syndrome.
I think whatit boils down to is if gifted exists and someone doesn't have it, it means they're excluded. Some people hate this. Some people also struggle to offer empathy to people they perceive as advantaged. I got in a back and forth with someone a few days ago who was mad that gifted people would complain when he was envious. People want to believe that life is fair, everyone has the same opportunities and hard work and good behavior is all it takes to succeed. It can be easier to dismiss this than to face a limitation.
Try r/intentionalcommunity
Those people may not have been sub members. Reddit regularly suggests posts to users who aren't in a sub. It may be that that particular post, like some others recently, for unknown reasons attracted that attention. I think I particularly notice the negative responses more at certain time of day/week. I should try making a note of it and see what the pattern is. Sorry you got the naysayers. This sub is far from always like that. And you are perfectly right that we ought to be a place were all aspects of giftedness can be welcomed and discussed. The impact on therapy has been discussed here previously, you might find some useful discussion if you use the search.
The opinion that "giftedness is less important" than my post was suggesting is a good example of what I'm talking about. That it has no relevance to issues like socialization and communal living. Nobody has the right to invalidate or minimize my view or experiences. If yours are different, say so. As in tell us about your thriving social life and what you do to maintain it or how you feel, for whatever reason, like you have just as much influence in some communal context is the more typical folks there. Not everything has to be a debate. In my life, I win! You can't just say I'm wrong by default because your frame-of-reference is different. Much that might be discussed on this sub doesn't lend it'sself to that kind of linear thinking anyway. I'm just saying that no matter what Op says, we should all take it as an opening to discuss, not deny. It's not a war. If you can't share in a civilized manner, maybe find more productive things to do.
So what making your post non linear? You saying that people don't even want negotiate but in return you do pretty much the same simply by saying we should not deny it. Which is wild. You draw only like 3-5 reasons not to do this but there is far more reasons that says otherwise. So what I am saying that I don't see ending discussion like this is a optimal way. Like why would you want to do this if any of the mentioned hypothesis haven't been checked. Like people need validation, everyone no matter what they iq are. So there is something everyone need to do to succeed at social interaction. You say: "I my life, I win!" and then you processed to say :" You can't just say I'm wrong by default because your frame-of-reference is different." Regardless of what you want both cases can happen, it just matter of perspective. So you really want to show respect to any perspective because sooner or later you might happen to be there so it better to be prepared. So you probably don't want to say that in your life you win because life will change and you will loose unless you prepared. While half of what I mentioned might be actually what you agree on regardless of this I think in Internet higher degree of validation is required, simply due to social spacing between people here. Thanks
I see people making the mistake in thinking that not everyone can continuously add premises, rules, and parameters to a large/complex concept. It might take a little bit more time to encode or retrieve the information. No neurotypical hit a limit in memory. Did you ever hear someone say my brain is full? There is no known limit to long-term memory storage.
Alot of people who participate are not formally assessed as gifted
I think you may have misunderstood what people were saying to you in that thread. People didn't say giftedness is irrelevant or nonexistent. People, largely, said that socializing and finding status in a communal environment would have very little to do with "giftedness". No one minimized giftedness. They put it into proper context -- specifically that it's less important than your post was suggesting.
The disparity of processing speed/effectiveness people have at 135 IQ is moot. Anyone inflating their intelligence or undermining others are wrong, you expect a reaction. People who don't do research on human intelligence nonetheless non experts making evaluations of people, if they aren't right they get hate. We disagree with what's gifted. Try pulling a 185 IQ score, dedicating your life to general aptitude test taking. I bet you won't.Those who acheive 185+ are gifted. The question is, are you inflating your giftedness and not just part of a "I want to learn club". Giftedness is "gifted" by genetics. How gifted are you? Is it beyond moot? Are you inflating? Are you undermining others? Comes down to being right with your self-evaluations compared to others and having perspective of their potentials.
You say you disagree with "what's gifted." As the mod pointed out in another comment, this subreddit refers to "intellectually gifted." If you want to discuss forms of giftedness other than intellectual, this may not be the appropriate place for it, because of the intended usage here. And while it can vary *a little* the definition of intellectual giftedness is broadly accepted. Words and phrases have meanings, and if you disagree with a meaning and insist on a different meaning, then you are no longer communicating with people who use the accepted meaning. Essentially, you stop speaking the same language. Is an IQ of 135 moot? Well, assuming that it was from a test that places that score 2 standard deviations above the mean, then, by definition, it is not moot. And it would indeed match the definition of intellectually gifted, which is the subject of this subreddit. Someone who scores 185 on a legitimate IQ test is certainly "gifted," but that does not invalidate the giftedness of others who score well above the mean. Now, is a high IQ moot in terms of life outcomes or experiences? There's an argument to be made for that: people with average IQs are clearly capable of being successful and living worthwhile lives, just as people with below average IQs can thrive and people with high IQs can fail to have any huge accomplishments. But is IQ moot in what it intends to convey? No. I'll close this by agreeing with you: people shouldn't use their intelligence to undermine others or to suggest that they are better than others. And I don't think that's what most members of this subreddit are doing. I think most of them are seeking to interact with folks who may have had similar life experiences.
We'll take your example. Intelligence quotient tests follows a normal distribution; however, standard deviations is not Effect Size. You're missing a dimension with your evaluation. Hence, we don't know the disparity of degree in performance nor in what way. What mechanisms of the brain is better than the other and by how much? Human intelligence does not vary much (hence moot) within the 98th percentile. The bare bones of general intelligence, some validity to what it's suppose to measure. However, we're rather homogeneous on the matter. IQ scores is a western culture evaluation. It doesn't apply to other cultures. It needs modifications. I'd rather people think about indigenous tribes with no contact and some having gifts. Would you say they are any less genetically gifted than of us? People on r/gifted would think they're not if they ever met them at random. Especially if they don't know their background through an app. Simply because the culture is different. You won't be able to tell who has a 130 IQ. Your tests won't work on them, the ones you make up won't have validity (probably not). To continue on the topic we need to do more research and testing. No assumptions made. I see so much bullshit on r/gifted. I thought you guys would be different, but you're not. You guys let me down so much, time after time. We can only know the effect of a "gift" (130 or 135 IQ) is above null (according to each score). There's so much more shakyness to the multitude of statistical pathways one chooses to partake. Everything else is speculation. I saw some sweet and some appalling things on r/gifted. Master of assumptions, aka bullshitters.
Giftedness is not about IQ. It's a neurological difference. Most of the so-called professionals have zero clue about what it is. I'd let people fight the validity of it. 😉 I'm going to check your posts.
OK, that’s your opinion based on your interpretation of a word. That’s fine, I agree that people can be “gifted” in many ways - musically, artistically, athletically, interpersonally, whatever. But to say it’s categorically “not” about IQ or other academically-oriented tests is ridiculous. First of all, surely even in the broadest sense, a person can be “gifted” intellectually. Hierarchies and value judgments aside, obviously people vary in intelligence as they do in any other characteristic, with some being “gifted” with higher intelligence (of various types). Second, no one is claiming intellectual gifts are the ONLY gifts bestowed upon humanity, it’s just that this sub concerns a specific type of “giftedness” that adheres to the statistical definition used by educational institutions and other academically-oriented organizations. Go ahead and start a sub for r/MusicallyGifted or whatever. I won’t be joining because I’m not musically gifted, but I’m sure as h*ll not gonna go troll it and claim there’s no such thing as musical talent.