Thanks for your take on this Chris. I know you're incredibly knowledgable about Dabrowski and appreciate you sharing the true meaning of his work.
I share with all my clients that OEs are not a gifted framework, they're a useful lens for some common neurodivergent experiences, but the data on correlation with giftedness is very mixed (and frankly hard to interpret) because of the myriad ways we define giftedness and the fact that we have too many tiny studies with insufficient sample sizes.
I appreciate you calling attention to how identifying gifted kids by OEs and asynchronous development props up a circular logic about the centrality of these things to the gifted experience. Very astute point.
From having known James Webb when he was still alive, I think his central goal was to de-pathologize giftedness and the gifted experience. He wanted more bright folks (and neurodivergent folks) to feel they belonged and weren't "problems" to be solved. Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnosis definitely needs updating. But I think his work, the Columbus group's definition, and others who focus on the phenomenological aspects of giftedness advanced the idea that giftedness is a unique way of being in the world that needs recognition and support without condemnation. I am indebted to them for this reason. Their ideas gave me compassion for myself, my students, and my clients—much like Dabrowski's theories have helped you.
I appreciate you sharing this and how Dabrowski's work aligns with our current understanding of neurodiversity. He was so ahead of his time and these ideas continue to resonate. Thank you!
Thank you, Emmaly. I appreciate the care in this response, and I can tell you've been thinking about these issues for a while.
I want to honor what you said about Webb. I believe his intentions were good, and the desire to de-pathologize was important. The problem is that de-pathologizing through giftedness created a new kind of harm by validating intensity for one group while leaving similar intensity in other populations subject to the same pathologization he was trying to fight. The framework protected some people by drawing a line that excluded others.
I'd gently push back on one thing. Dąbrowski's theory didn't help me in the way the Columbus Group's work helped you. It did something different. It gave me the tools to see that the framework I'd been given (by the gifted field) was incomplete. That's a harder gift to receive, and it took years to appreciate it.
Thank you for sharing this work with your clients the way you do. The fact that you're already telling them OEs aren't a gifted framework matters.
Thank you so much Chris for the thoughtful response. I really appreciate being able to discuss this in a safe way with someone so knowledgable.
I definitely see the issues you're calling out with Webb's views: intensity is good in one place, but not another. It's an ableist dichotomy. We've got to advance our understanding of giftedness, neurodivergence, and neurominorities to a place where there isn't an ableist hierarchy. Thank you for your work around this.
I'm so glad Dabrowski's framework has had such a positive impact for you. I thank you again for helping correct misunderstandings, as well as the space to push my thinking on this!
Elain Aron also noted that the highly sensitive child performed poorly under observation but did well alone .... we always seem to be coming up with new ways of explaining sensitivity and intensity ... the book "Highly Sensitive Person" started me exploring the possibility of my own neurodivergence .... the world wants to label good or bad, pathological or advanced, useful or harmful instead of listening and understanding... thank you for this
Thank you, Chris. The Aron connection is a good one. Dąbrowski was writing sixty years before Aron, and she was working independently, but they were looking at the same phenomenon. I have always found it so interesting to explore these connections.
I hear you on the labeling problem. One thing I’ve come to appreciate about Dąbrowski’s original approach is that he started with the experience of intensity itself and let the developmental implications follow from that. He wasn’t sorting people into categories. He was trying to understand what it means to live with a nervous system that takes in more than the environment is set up to handle. When we lead with listening instead of labeling, I think we end up much closer to what he was actually doing.
This really resonated. “intensities as developmental material rather than markers of superiority” feels important. It also reframes something I’ve long associated with the “gifted kid” label. Making mistakes feel heavier than they should. Appreciate this perspective.
Thank you, Natalia. That reframe is at the heart of what Dąbrowski was actually saying: intensity as raw material for growth, and available to anyone who experiences it. The gifted label has a way of turning that material into an identity, which is exactly where the weight comes from.
This, from my standpoint as not-a-researcher, is a brilliantly clear article Chris. I think I have a strong sense of the pressures around only-gifted ownership of both OEs and asymmetrical development. As Emmaly commented one such was for giftedness to be seen as non-pathological. Yet this, of course, leaves neurodivergence still in the area of being a problem rather than a difference. I feel illuminated on this. My understanding now is of OEs and asymmetrical development as part of some people's experience, and for some asca very significant part.
And some of these people can also be designated 'gifted' but not exclusively.
Thank you, Davina. You've put your finger on the core issue: de-pathologizing giftedness left neurodivergence still framed as the problem. That's the harm I'm trying to name.
And, yes, some of these people can also be designated gifted. The point is that the intensity came first, and it was never exclusive to that group.
I'm glad this was illuminating! That's exactly what I'm trying to do with these pieces.
Thanks for your take on this Chris. I know you're incredibly knowledgable about Dabrowski and appreciate you sharing the true meaning of his work.
I share with all my clients that OEs are not a gifted framework, they're a useful lens for some common neurodivergent experiences, but the data on correlation with giftedness is very mixed (and frankly hard to interpret) because of the myriad ways we define giftedness and the fact that we have too many tiny studies with insufficient sample sizes.
I appreciate you calling attention to how identifying gifted kids by OEs and asynchronous development props up a circular logic about the centrality of these things to the gifted experience. Very astute point.
From having known James Webb when he was still alive, I think his central goal was to de-pathologize giftedness and the gifted experience. He wanted more bright folks (and neurodivergent folks) to feel they belonged and weren't "problems" to be solved. Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnosis definitely needs updating. But I think his work, the Columbus group's definition, and others who focus on the phenomenological aspects of giftedness advanced the idea that giftedness is a unique way of being in the world that needs recognition and support without condemnation. I am indebted to them for this reason. Their ideas gave me compassion for myself, my students, and my clients—much like Dabrowski's theories have helped you.
I appreciate you sharing this and how Dabrowski's work aligns with our current understanding of neurodiversity. He was so ahead of his time and these ideas continue to resonate. Thank you!
Thank you, Emmaly. I appreciate the care in this response, and I can tell you've been thinking about these issues for a while.
I want to honor what you said about Webb. I believe his intentions were good, and the desire to de-pathologize was important. The problem is that de-pathologizing through giftedness created a new kind of harm by validating intensity for one group while leaving similar intensity in other populations subject to the same pathologization he was trying to fight. The framework protected some people by drawing a line that excluded others.
I'd gently push back on one thing. Dąbrowski's theory didn't help me in the way the Columbus Group's work helped you. It did something different. It gave me the tools to see that the framework I'd been given (by the gifted field) was incomplete. That's a harder gift to receive, and it took years to appreciate it.
Thank you for sharing this work with your clients the way you do. The fact that you're already telling them OEs aren't a gifted framework matters.
Thank you so much Chris for the thoughtful response. I really appreciate being able to discuss this in a safe way with someone so knowledgable.
I definitely see the issues you're calling out with Webb's views: intensity is good in one place, but not another. It's an ableist dichotomy. We've got to advance our understanding of giftedness, neurodivergence, and neurominorities to a place where there isn't an ableist hierarchy. Thank you for your work around this.
I'm so glad Dabrowski's framework has had such a positive impact for you. I thank you again for helping correct misunderstandings, as well as the space to push my thinking on this!
Elain Aron also noted that the highly sensitive child performed poorly under observation but did well alone .... we always seem to be coming up with new ways of explaining sensitivity and intensity ... the book "Highly Sensitive Person" started me exploring the possibility of my own neurodivergence .... the world wants to label good or bad, pathological or advanced, useful or harmful instead of listening and understanding... thank you for this
Thank you, Chris. The Aron connection is a good one. Dąbrowski was writing sixty years before Aron, and she was working independently, but they were looking at the same phenomenon. I have always found it so interesting to explore these connections.
I hear you on the labeling problem. One thing I’ve come to appreciate about Dąbrowski’s original approach is that he started with the experience of intensity itself and let the developmental implications follow from that. He wasn’t sorting people into categories. He was trying to understand what it means to live with a nervous system that takes in more than the environment is set up to handle. When we lead with listening instead of labeling, I think we end up much closer to what he was actually doing.
Beautiful article. Insightful, helpful, and wise.
Thank you, Richard! 🙏
This really resonated. “intensities as developmental material rather than markers of superiority” feels important. It also reframes something I’ve long associated with the “gifted kid” label. Making mistakes feel heavier than they should. Appreciate this perspective.
Thank you, Natalia. That reframe is at the heart of what Dąbrowski was actually saying: intensity as raw material for growth, and available to anyone who experiences it. The gifted label has a way of turning that material into an identity, which is exactly where the weight comes from.
This, from my standpoint as not-a-researcher, is a brilliantly clear article Chris. I think I have a strong sense of the pressures around only-gifted ownership of both OEs and asymmetrical development. As Emmaly commented one such was for giftedness to be seen as non-pathological. Yet this, of course, leaves neurodivergence still in the area of being a problem rather than a difference. I feel illuminated on this. My understanding now is of OEs and asymmetrical development as part of some people's experience, and for some asca very significant part.
And some of these people can also be designated 'gifted' but not exclusively.
I continue to read and learn.
Thank you, Davina. You've put your finger on the core issue: de-pathologizing giftedness left neurodivergence still framed as the problem. That's the harm I'm trying to name.
And, yes, some of these people can also be designated gifted. The point is that the intensity came first, and it was never exclusive to that group.
I'm glad this was illuminating! That's exactly what I'm trying to do with these pieces.