Journal for the Education of the Gifted
Winter 1999, Volume 22, Number 2

My Convictions About the Nature of Abilities, Gifts, and Talents
Françoys Gagné

The author proposes a set of sequentially structured statements on the nature and origin of human abilities, gifts, and talents; and he invites professionals and academics in gifted education to analyze their own beliefs on the nature of giftedness and talent. What positions and principles will they readily accept, which are less easily shared within the field, and what is the source of these hesitations and oppositions? In the long term, the author hopes that this detailed analysis and discussion of micrograduated statements will give rise to a conceptual foundation, solidly based empirically, that will become endorsed by the quasi-totality of professionals in the field.

The Limits of Consilience:  A Reaction to Françoys Gagné’s "My Convictions About the Nature of Abilities, Gifts, and Talents"
James H. Borland

In this response to Professor Françoys Gagné’s challenging paper, I take issue with his distinction between natural abilities and systematically developed abilities—and thus his distinction between giftedness and talent—arguing that the distinction lacks meaningfulness and utility. I then question the practicability and the value of the larger enterprise of attempting to reach consensus on the meaning of these elusive concepts. I argue that not only is our lack of agreement as to the meanings of the terms giftedness and talent inevitable but that it is conceivably a good that in no way poses a practical limitation on our practice.

Toward a More Comprehensive Theory of Exceptional Abilities
Douglas K. Detterman & Joanne Ruthsatz

In our response to Professor Françoys Gagné, we suggest a more comprehensive theory of elite performance. This theory is composed of three components: general intelligence, domain-specific skills, and practice. Evidence is presented in support of this position. In addition, we take a harder line on a number of issues: (a) There is no doubt that 50% or more of cognitive ability is genetically determined; (b) domain-specific skills must be included to account for phenomena like savants; and (c) practice alone cannot account for expertise. Finally, we discuss the need for explicit definitions of gifted and talented. We conclude that if education were properly individualized, such definitions would not be necessary.

A Developmental, Evolutionary Perspective on Gifts and Talents
David Henry Feldman

Acknowledging that the terms gifts and talents are at the center of the field’s efforts to serve able children, an alternative to Professor Françoys Gagné’s psychometric, quantitative perspective is offered which sees gifts as broad, general analytic capabilities, and talents as specific, content-bound capabilities. This alternative perspective is evolutionary, developmental, and historical and assumes that both gifts and talents are natural, interact with each other over the life course, and represent two ways for human beings to survive and perhaps fulfill their potential.

Personal Convictions and Scientific Progress
Ernst A. Hany

Professor Françoys Gagné’s article entitled "My Convictions About the Nature of Abilities, Gifts and Talents" is discussed. Although the author accepts many of Gagné’s statements, a comprehensive rationale for the opinion presented is missing. In particular, explanation of developmental mechanisms, of learning processes, and of the dynamics of gene-environment interaction would have made Gagné’s convictions more acceptable and would make discussion easier. This author doubts that agreement among colleagues would be sufficient to define giftedness unless the main theoretical questions are answered.

Response to Françoys Gagné’s "My Convictions About the Nature of Abilities, Gifts, and Talents"
Nancy M. Robinson

Professor Françoys Gagné’s convictions are interesting and useful indeed, in a field characterized by long-term confusion. Within his powerful framework, I suggest that he incorporate modifications: (a) putting aside the terms gifted and talented as well as their accumulated, unwanted connotations, (b) creating a hierarchical or at least categorical list of abilities rather than a laundry list, (c) acknowledging that NAT and SYSDEV talents constitute a developmental trajectory and that their assessments are less different than they seem, and (d) downplaying the dichotomous conceptualization of Nature and Nurture. I challenge my colleagues to give Professor Gagné’s terminology a try.

Is There Any Light at the End of the Tunnel?
Françoys Gagné

In this rejoinder, the author reacts to five commentaries to his target article (Gagné, 1999) on the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents. He defends, first, the worthiness of his quest to achieve some consensus among professionals in the field of gifted education over the definition of the core concepts of giftedness and talent and second, the validity and usefulness of his distinction between high natural abilities (gifts) and high systematically developed ones (talents) in comparison to alternative proposals. He finally reiterates, in the light of the criticisms received, the basic arguments supporting his conviction that his own differentiation between giftedness and talent is the most appropriate and defensible solution to gifted education’s terminological conundrum.