Signs of Giftedness in Adulthood

[discojoe]

fwiw, I am the same way, and I'm Delta. I agree w much of what you've said in this thread... I especially like/agree w this exchange:


I don't think inner restlessness and striving for huge goals are type- or quadra-related... if they are, there's no way I'm in that quadra.

It could be Enneagram-related... maybe an sx dom thing, a need to channel sexual energy into some kind of emotionally intense goal.

[Creepy-male]

It could be Enneagram-related... maybe an sx dom thing, a need to channel sexual energy into some kind of emotionally intense goal.

For me it's less about channeling it into achieving goals, but about finding a way of living a beautiful life, finding something transcendant I can unify with. I think it's to do with the way instinct and base type interact.

[tcaudilllg]

I think I discussed before the dichotomy of public vs private. Public people focus more on information aspects that are not necessarily related to them (maybe only indirectly related), while private people focus on aspects that are related directly to them.

Public people ask how they can best relate to the world. Private people ask how the world can best relate to them. Public people expect of themselves, private people expect of others. Most people are private, hence whichever party is in power in a recession, loses badly.

A lot of public people are scared silly of the collective power of private people, especially those who desire highly public visibility. As a group, private people are amenable to demagogues, unless they have sympathetic public leadership.

[silverchris9]

Yeah, generally, unless striving for such a goal is what makes you feel happy. I only feel happy when I am working toward some kind of personal, grandiose plan. The idea of settling into a rudimentary, commonplace existence of work/marry/mortgage/kids/soccer/minivan/college/retire/die makes me want to kill myself. What's the point? I'm not a Delta pod person; I need big and I need exciting.

I complain about Beta STs and their need for grandiose drama, but I have to confess it is rather endearing.

I think that lots of people want to impact the world, they just want it in different ways. Different Beta STs satisfy their need for drama in different ways. But they need drama almost universally (be it in goals, relationships, art, what-have-you). This excuses the existence of EIEs (and IEIs to an extent).

[Creepy-Snaps]

your gifts would be a tremendous contribution to the society at large.

Yeah, generally, unless striving for such a goal is what makes you feel happy.

I still /disagree. I checked the link, and "Elyse Killoran" is the original author. I do think they mean actively helping society, even if that means pushing yourself, and sacrificing your happiness for the sake of others.

I still respect your opinion and the argument that making yourself happy, could ultimately make society happier, if everyone is trying to be happier individually. But society would be better if people sacrificed more, to help others who can't help themselves. And I don't think just doing what you personally feel, to make you happy, has anything to do with developing your talents, like they mentioned.

So I believe your interpretation is wrong. And quite frankly, a little bit selfish. If you realize you're gifted, why say 'screw the world, i'm a 'drop in the ocean''. Of course, you can still argue that, the author meant developing a plan only, and not sacrificing anything. But I do interpret it as sacrifice and pushing yourself.

I think I discussed before the dichotomy of public vs private. Public people focus more on information aspects that are not necessarily related to them (maybe only indirectly related), while private people focus on aspects that are related directly to them.

Public people ask how they can best relate to the world. Private people ask how the world can best relate to them. Public people expect of themselves, private people expect of others. Most people are private, hence whichever party is in power in a recession, loses badly.

A lot of public people are scared silly of the collective power of private people, especially those who desire highly public visibility. As a group, private people are amenable to demagogues, unless they have sympathetic public leadership.

I'm a public person. At least the first 2 paragraphs, I'm not that scared of collective private people... at least I think I'm not scared. Any way public/private person is somehow type related?

I complain about Beta STs and their need for grandiose drama, but I have to confess it is rather endearing.

I think that lots of people want to impact the world, they just want it in different ways. Different Beta STs satisfy their need for drama in different ways. But they need drama almost universally (be it in goals, relationships, art, what-have-you). This excuses the existence of EIEs (and IEIs to an extent).

I LOVE DRAMA! I'd like to think Beta NFs have a purpose though, other than satisfying drama-needs or mediating any drama caused.

[FDG]

Mountain Dew, hai scassato le palle.

[ashlesha]

I still /disagree. I checked the link, and "Elyse Killoran" is the original author. I do think they mean actively helping society, even if that means pushing yourself, and sacrificing your happiness for the sake of others.

I still respect your opinion and the argument that making yourself happy, could ultimately make society happier, if everyone is trying to be happier individually. But society would be better if people sacrificed more, to help others who can't help themselves. And I don't think just doing what you personally feel, to make you happy, has anything to do with developing your talents, like they mentioned.

So I believe your interpretation is wrong. And quite frankly, a little bit selfish. If you realize you're gifted, why say 'screw the world, i'm a 'drop in the ocean''. Of course, you can still argue that, the author meant developing a plan only, and not sacrificing anything. But I do interpret it as sacrifice and pushing yourself.



I'm a public person. At least the first 2 paragraphs, I'm not that scared of collective private people... at least I think I'm not scared. Any way public/private person is somehow type related?

while i'm not entirely comfortable with how much i think you're projecting your value system onto others - some people who might seem "selfish" might genuinely be in a frame of mind/emotional space where they are unable to contribute like that - i do think your pov is admirable (and a little redeeming haha).

i'm also curious whether tcaud would say the public/private thing is type related. i'd be a private person lol.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I can see people having a few of those traits but not even most or all of them, really. In short: People are all special and gifted in their own way- but people also have enough 'dumb stupid common qualities' in people that kinda tie them to the base muckiness of humanity.

There's a risk of thinking that you are innately superior just because you are gifted in a few areas.

Also this seems to kinda be a way to 'feel better about yourself' for things that human males are typically bullied for: empathy for people, high intelligence, not following the herd, etc. When really, it was just unfortunate that you were picked on for something like that anyway.

[discojoe]

Society doesn't exist. The best thing you can do for others is improve your own individual conditions. Doing so indirectly helps other individuals improve theirs.

Yeah, but that's an abstract explanation, because he probably has no idea what the link between helping yourself and helping others is.

[ashlesha]

down with socialism

[Creepy-Snaps]

Yeah, but that's an abstract explanation, because he probably has no idea what the link between helping yourself and helping others is.

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory. Need I say more?

Mountain Dew, hai scassato le palle.

And while I understand what discojoe means, I don't even know what language this is lol, much less what it means.

while i'm not entirely comfortable with how much i think you're projecting your value system onto others - some people who might seem "selfish" might genuinely be in a frame of mind/emotional space where they are unable to contribute like that - i do think your pov is admirable (and a little redeeming haha).

Thanks... maybe this is ESTp-INFj conflict yet again lol (even though on several other threads you clearly disagree with my self-typing), but I really don't think I'm projecting my own value system... I'm not sure if I personally agree with the message. I was simply clarifying the original author's point of view. (Which again, is clearly Ti... )

[ashlesha]

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory. Need I say more?



And while I understand what discojoe means, I don't even know what language this is lol, much less what it means.



Thanks... maybe this is ESTp-INFj conflict yet again lol (even though on several other threads you clearly disagree with my self-typing), but I really don't think I'm projecting my own value system... I'm not sure if I personally agree with the message. I was simply clarifying the original author's point of view. (Which again, is clearly Ti... )

but...but...you said you thought dj's interpretation was "selfish?"

sigh. ok.

oh and i looked up what fdg said but i cant remember anymore. italian for something about balls, heh.

[Creepy-Snaps]

but...but...you said you thought dj's interpretation was "selfish?"

sigh. ok.

oh and i looked up what fdg said but i cant remember anymore. italian for something about balls, heh.

I do think his interpretation can be rather selfish. But what about my action? What if I personally agree with what he said, and follow it myself? That's not hypocrisy. I like how Subterranean explained it in the other thread:

You said that MD professes a belief that he doesn't hold because he told you your actions were inappropriate and that you should learn some manners...where does that show that he holds himself to the standard of acting appropriately? It could also be that he thinks that he himself needs to learn appropriate manners...which again, would not be a hypocritical stance...it would be in-line with the advice he gave you.

He criticised me for something he does himself, that's the definition of hypocrisy whether you can see that or not.

No, I think you are still confused.

A man for example might think that women should have children is not necessarily a hypocrite for being unable to have children himself...and Mountain Dew is not necessarily a hypocrite for hoping you learn to be more respectful one time, while another time perhaps not being respectful in his own eyes.

I was criticizing the point of view, not other people. Because I do it as well. I was simply arguing on the author's behalf, kind of like how an expert debater is able to argue both sides of an issue. Since it's not something I actually personally follow, I'm not condemning others, and therefore not hypocritical.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Actually let me give my own example, cause I feel my above post can be confusing.

Hypocrisy:
A man tells people they shouldn't smoke. He then smokes a cigarette, and explains that it's ok for him to smoke, but not other people.

In the example, the man argues that HE IS AN EXCEPTION!

In what I said on the other thread, and what I said here, I do not believe I am an exception. That is the major difference. I believe my advice is useful for not only other people, but myself as well.

The difference in the example (end result):

Hypocrisy: The man will continue smoking cigarettes, thinking he is the exception.
More in-line with what I'm saying: The man knows smoking is wrong, and just as he wants others to not smoke, he would try to stop smoking himself.

So, in a nutshell, to answer your original point again: I don't feel I am projecting my values on other people. Because if I personally value that it's ok for people to act a bit selfishly, and not use their gifts and talents sacrificially to help other people (ie. the point of this thread), then I am still simply arguing on the author of the article's behalf, and not my own.

............. But I guess you could say I was projecting other people's values on other people........ /facepalm

[ashlesha]

ok. i'm having a hard time following you and understanding this since i never said you were hypocritical and it seems like we are talking about different things. i can agree with you that there are communication differences between us even if i might not categorize it as socionics conflict. i dont see the "values" conversation going anywhere. so...ya. best wishes and stuff.

[golden]

Well, since we are back at the subject of hypocrisy ...

MD, you did send me messages correcting me for having an "immature" (because, I suppose, inappropriate or lewd) sig line recently, yes? You made yourself the judge of my low maturity level, but you have behaved immaturely yourself. It's easy enough to perceive this as hypocritical, especially if we do not hypothetically assume that this thread is the sole existing evidence of your own immaturity.

(Nota bene: I do not claim to be an exemplar of mature and nonhypocritical behavior.)

I have consulted that handy source Merriam-Webster to read the definition of hypocrisy, and it led me to a superior term, a synonym, piousness. Perhaps it is fair to say that the pious among us are often perceived as at least faintly hypocritical, because they tend to hold up high values that everyone, including themselves, cannot always reach. And they usually attempt to impose their values on others, on the assumption that their own beliefs are universally correct and superior, I suppose, drawing attention to any do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do phenomenon in play.

Some definitions of pious:

1b. marked by conspicuous religiosity <"a hypocrite--a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds." --Charles Reade>

4b. marked by self-conscious virtue

MD, you have spoken of your religious education and the regularity with which your behavior was corrected, and it wasn't clear to me whether this process sits well with you or not. I would like to say for myself that I don't enjoy being corrected by self-appointed moral policemen on Internet forums. And for your own sake I will say that if you take on that role, some people will be there, like Words, to express anger and call you a hypocrite when you fall short of your own standards, as you inevitably will, as anyone would.

That said, if you hold certain standards for your own behavior, knowing that sometimes you will fall short of them, without judging and correcting other people, you will be free of future accusations of hypocrisy. It might also be worth considering that all of us have ideas of what constitutes correct behavior, and that these ideas will not always match yours, and one mark of maturity is accepting that fact and respecting other people unless they have truly caused harm.

These considerations lead me to consider your urgency and frustration in trying to type yourself correctly. My opinion is that externally enforced systems of morality cloud self-knowledge and clear thought, both of which would be assets in gradually arriving at one's Socionics type with a sense of equanimity.

Best way to have some peace about a bunch of bullshit in an Internet forum probably is to learn to laugh about it. And since I know I need to work on that myself sometimes, I'll end this here.

[Creepy-Snaps]

ok. i'm having a hard time following you and understanding this since i never said you were hypocritical and it seems like we are talking about different things. i can agree with you that there are communication differences between us even if i might not categorize it as socionics conflict. i dont see the "values" conversation going anywhere. so...ya. best wishes and stuff.

Yeah. I think we're on completely different pages, but best wishes to you too!

Well, since we are back at the subject of hypocrisy ...

MD, you did send me messages correcting me for having an "immature" (because, I suppose, inappropriate or lewd) sig line recently, yes? You made yourself the judge of my low maturity level, but you have behaved immaturely yourself. It's easy enough to perceive this as hypocritical, especially if we do not hypothetically assume that this thread is the sole existing evidence of your own immaturity.

(Nota bene: I do not claim to be an exemplar of mature and nonhypocritical behavior.)

I have consulted that handy source Merriam-Webster to read the definition of hypocrisy, and it led me to a superior term, a synonym, piousness. Perhaps it is fair to say that the pious among us are often perceived as at least faintly hypocritical, because they tend to hold up high values that everyone, including themselves, cannot always reach. And they usually attempt to impose their values on others, on the assumption that their own beliefs are universally correct and superior, I suppose, drawing attention to any do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do phenomenon in play.

Some definitions of pious:

1b. marked by conspicuous religiosity <"a hypocrite--a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds." --Charles Reade>

4b. marked by self-conscious virtue

MD, you have spoken of your religious education and the regularity with which your behavior was corrected, and it wasn't clear to me whether this process sits well with you or not. I would like to say for myself that I don't enjoy being corrected by self-appointed moral policemen on Internet forums. And for your own sake I will say that if you take on that role, some people will be there, like Words, to express anger and call you a hypocrite when you fall short of your own standards, as you inevitably will, as anyone would.

That said, if you hold certain standards for your own behavior, knowing that sometimes you will fall short of them, without judging and correcting other people, you will be free of future accusations of hypocrisy. It might also be worth considering that all of us have ideas of what constitutes correct behavior, and that these ideas will not always match yours, and one mark of maturity is accepting that fact and respecting other people unless they have truly caused harm.

These considerations lead me to consider your urgency and frustration in trying to type yourself correctly. My opinion is that externally enforced systems of morality cloud self-knowledge and clear thought, both of which would be assets in gradually arriving at one's Socionics type with a sense of equanimity.

Best way to have some peace about a bunch of bullshit in an Internet forum probably is to learn to laugh about it. And since I know I need to work on that myself sometimes, I'll end this here.

Lol. I actually was laughing at everything you wrote, cause I saw this coming, was expecting this when I noticed on 16types index that you replied here, and was wondering what you had to say. It is very ironic that you're criticizing my behavior on the internet of criticizing others' behavior.

But I do agree with you, I know I have been immature before. I'm just really impulsive. Patience has always been tough for me. But yes, I know that perhaps my behavior needs to change, but I can't guarantee to always be the best in the future!

And I do not make myself out to be a moral policeman, by any standard. I just get really annoyed when people are getting picked on. Especially when the 'bully' has no right to, or they are clearly wrong about something.

And on another note... I apologized several times for the message I sent you. Although I'm well aware simply saying 'sorry' doesn't fix everything, I thought you had forgiven me and that we were ok.

[golden]

Lol. I actually was laughing at everything you wrote, cause I saw this coming, was expecting this when I noticed on 16types index that you replied here, and was wondering what you had to say. It is very ironic that you're criticizing my behavior on the internet of criticizing others' behavior.

Although I'm aware of the potential for irony, I don't know if I'm criticizing your behavior. I'm sort of trying to make sense of your behavior. I find you confusing and unclear.

And I do not make myself out to be a moral policeman, by any standard. I just get really annoyed when people are getting picked on. Especially when the 'bully' has no right to, or they are clearly wrong about something.

And on another note... I apologized several times for the message I sent you. Although I'm well aware simply saying 'sorry' doesn't fix everything, I thought you had forgiven me and that we were ok.

I didn't initially pick on you, did I? And I'm not usually a bully, imo. Also, what you view as "clearly wrong" is not going to be clearly wrong to absolutely everyone else--just something to keep in mind. You overstepped my boundaries with moralizing judgments and implied that my behavior was under discussion among more than one person on this forum as immature. To me, it was you who was being something of a bully, if a highly ineffective one. And you have done this to at least one other person here.

You don't need my forgiveness. (I never offered it, btw.) That's not really how things work with me, anyway. Because now, in future, unless I see some radical shift I will know that Mountain Dew is ever on the alert to take exception to bad words like "vaginal" and "gay" and to monitor my maturity level and send me badgering PMs casting aspersions on me.

All of this bothers me on principle as this thread unfolds. It's not so much about my little feelings or whatever. Why do you totally deny that you could be guilty of hypocrisy? At best, you're in a gray zone there. Everyone is a hypocrite at some point, probably; I have been and will be. Same goes for you. So what?

[Creepy-Snaps]

I didn't initially pick on you, did I? And I'm not usually a bully, imo. Also, what you view as "clearly wrong" is not going to be clearly wrong to absolutely everyone else--just something to keep in mind.

I didn't mean to imply that you were a bully. I was talking generally, in real life, and if I'd have to point at specific events on this forum, my argument with Aleksei recently and my argument with Words before. I don't think you're a bully at all, and I generally respect your posts.

Although I'm aware of the potential for irony, I don't know if I'm criticizing your behavior. I'm sort of trying to make sense of your behavior. I find you confusing and unclear.

I'm not really sure how to respond to everything else you wrote, at this present time. Just thought I'd quote this, because it's ok if you don't understand me.

I do, however, think I understand you, that you obviously feel annoyed about the message I sent you. I won't send you a "badgering" message like that again. It was a question, but I do see how it can be immature. I'm sorry that I stepped on your creative freedom a bit, and you don't have to feel like you can't play around or have any fun without somebody getting annoyed.

I know you never formally forgave me. I meant, I thought you had forgiven me in your heart. Seems like you hold onto things too long though. I do that as well... been trying to get better lately.

Why do you totally deny that you could be guilty of hypocrisy?

Because I'm not guilty in this case. Why plead guilty when you're innocent?

Perhaps in another case I could be, and would be, but not this particular one.

At best, you're in a gray zone there.

Not everything is gray. Some things are black and white. You must not have understood my hypocrisy explanation.

Everyone is a hypocrite at some point, probably;

I like that you include the word "probably", because you're aware that some people are capable of never acting as hypocrites in their entire lives. It's improbable but possible, and I'm sure some do not. Even though you contradict yourself in your next line:

I have been and will be. Same goes for you.

Making assumptions again. If you're aware that some people aren't hypocrites at all, ever, how can you say that I clearly have been and clearly will be?

And that's great that you have been before, and will be in the future. But generalizations or truths about yourself don't always apply to everyone. (edit: just like you mentioned that what I view as "right" or "wrong", not everyone will agree with.)

So what?

So what? Lol. Because I don't like people making generalizations about me which are untrue. Just like you didn't like that you inferred I called you a "bully". But apparently we defend ourselves in different ways:

1) You immediately concede that you *could* be a bully sometimes, but not usually.
2) I say that, in this case, I clearly wasn't a hypocrite, and gave my reasoning.

I'm more absolute. Call it reasoning. Call it logic. Call it being black and white, as opposed to your gray.

If you really think I could be a hypocrite in the future, and assume I probably might be, that's fine. But don't assume I *will*. Because that's not definite. That's wrong. And like I told you in the other thread, I take right and wrong very seriously.

And for the last time, I apologize about the private message. I'm not policing you, not trolling you, and you don't have to worry about having fun on the internet, however you want. It's up to you though whether or not to forgive that and find peace in your heart.

[tcaudilllg]

I don't think public/private is type related. It's not a matter of what your priorities are, but of feeling responsibility for things that don't directly concern you. The two kinds diverge on the matter of what they can control: private people try to master their personal lives, while public people want to influence the general social sphere itself. Private people tell me that they don't feel they have control over the world at large, or the sphere of events -- they feel that powerful forces beyond their control shape the general course of their lives, over which they can shape only the tiniest details and specifics. A public person, for example, might take issue over market wages for a occupation as unfair: they might collaborate with other public people of similar mind to change the definition of an acceptable wage for that occupation in their culture. A private person, in contrast, would absent the cry of these public people be content to get by with what their culture decided... unless they faced losing their livelihoods, in which case they would take a different approach and band together. Still they would fight amongst themselves for control unless a public person stepped in and did the work of properly organizing them, placating them emotionally and emphasizing cooperation. In my experience, public people tend to see themselves as not having a lot of ability to shape the details of their private lives -- culture shapes the ways in which we can define ourselves without being "weird". So public people are always fighting for control of the culture so that they can define themselves on their own terms. A public person's private life is very different from a private person's life because public people feel defined by the relationships they have with others, where private people tend to feel defined by the choices they have made. "Them and their" vs "I and my". Public people tend to be controlled by their relationships, where private people try to control who they relate with and how.

[The Exception]

I know I'm highly intelligent but I think calling myself gifted is a bit of stretch.

I do relate to most of the OP's list though.

[DividedsGhost]

@MD

I think FDG is saying you have balls. It would make sense, but I'm not sure.

[Exodus]

That link is full of shit btw. High intelligence is actually correlated with arrogance and lessened empathy.

Yes. Giftedness is just a euphemism for high intelligence.

[EyeSeeCold]

Yes. Giftedness is just a euphemism for high intelligence.

And highly intelligent is just another word for ILI.

[Exodus]

And highly intelligent is just another word for ILI.

This would be funnier if less people actually believed it...

[Creepy-Korpsey]

This would be funnier if less people actually believed it...

Fewer people, friend, not less.

[Creepy-male]

As a gifted individual, it is important that you recognize your precious creativity and acknowledge that the full expression of your gifts would be a tremendous contribution to the society at large. It is essential that you develop a plan to channel and focus your abundance of physical, sensual, intellectual and emotional energy.

Lol for some reason its hard to take this seriously....

Everyone, no matter what they're born with and given, must develop their talents to the best of their abilities.

Yes women please report to me if your interested in developing your sexual talents. Everyone must do there part.

The goal shouldn't be to contribute to society, it should be to do whatever happens to be the thing that makes you happy.

Yea I can take this seriously.

I think ideally there needs to be a merging of both sides. People want to do what they enjoy and what makes them happy... but they want to do it socially. Like me, I'm fine just spending time on my own doing projects, but its a lot better when I can share that experience with other people, and enjoy projects other people do.

Oh another thing, I always find it funny people say "happy" its odd because I really don't want to be sitting around smiling and laughing and feeling jovial all the time.... I have ideals/fantasys/goals but I don't picture myself reaching the pinnacle of my life and it consisting of being "happy" like sitting around smiling a bunch and doing nothing lol. I find it odd how everyone always talks about "being happy".

Yeah, generally, unless striving for such a goal is what makes you feel happy. I only feel happy when I am working toward some kind of personal, grandiose plan. The idea of settling into a rudimentary, commonplace existence of work/marry/mortgage/kids/soccer/minivan/college/retire/die makes me want to kill myself.

Yea this is pretty much infinitely common... I think it all goes back to the 1950's modern era, of course the chain goes even further back but its all connected, but specifically the work/marry/mortgage/kids/soccer/minivan/college/retire/die thing... that's fairly typical of the 1950's utopia.

Society doesn't exist. The best thing you can do for others is improve your own individual conditions. Doing so indirectly helps other individuals improve theirs.

Well the next big innovation that's going to improve conditions is going to come from an individual and not "society". Society is a creation of people, people aren't a creation of society.

[Exodus]

Fewer people, friend, not less.

I reject this antiquated grammatical distinction.

[suedehead]

From here. Anyone else relate to this pretty much 100%?





The vast majority of adults who were labeled *gifted* in childhood are unaware that their advanced development would continue to have an impact throughout their lives. Contrary to popular belief, giftedness is not characterized by high intelligence alone. Rather, gifted individuals experience early & exceptional psychological, spiritual, and intellectual development. As a result, gifted adults exhibit common personality traits and face similar challenges on the road to self-actualization.

Gifted adults demonstrate:

1. Qualitative differences in information processing -- characterized by: unique perception and awareness; a sense of humor and creativity outside the norm; questioning, searching for truth, intuitiveness; insightfulness; comfort with both divergent thinking (breaking things into components) and synergistic thinking (putting things together to form something new and different); relentless curiosity and heightened creative drive; more process-oriented than product-oriented; hold divergent values compared to mainstream culture.
2. High sensitivity -- characterized by: sensitivity to others often combined with a sense of personal alienation and loneliness; acute awareness of complexities and consequences; heightened responsivity to expectations of others.
3. Intensity -- characterized by: high excitability; high energy level; emotional reactivity; high arousal of central nervous system.
4. Multipotentiality -- characterized by: having capabilities in many areas and domains of talent; can move fluidly from one pursuit or interest to the next; have the ability to juggle many things at once.
5. Idealism -- characterized by: striving for moral integrity; interest in social reform & service; extraordinarily high standards; low tolerance for mediocrity and frustration.
6. Perfectionism -- characterized by: self-criticism; labeling themselves as "scattered"; having a lowered sense of entitlement to make mistakes; identifying easily with failure; thinking they are more likely to blame than others; difficulty taking credit for achievement and abilities ("imposter" phenomena).
7. Internal locus of control -- characterized by feelings of: being out of step and on a separate path; being "Other"; not fitting in; striving for Inner Authenticity may experience deep conflicts between needs for self-actualization and maintaining traditional relationships.
8. Strong entelechy (from Greek for "having a goal") -- characterized by: the need for self-determination, for self-actualization; leadership qualities; achievement-oriented; interested in non-traditional careers and professions.
9. Intense moral commitment -- characterized by: seeing injustice and doing something about it; willingness to stand up for one's beliefs; outrage at moral breaches that the rest of the world seems to take for granted.
10. Global view -- characterized by respect for all human beings; a greater capacity for empathy; concern for others--especially children; sensitivity and warmth.

As a gifted individual, it is important that you recognize your precious creativity and acknowledge that the full expression of your gifts would be a tremendous contribution to the society at large. It is essential that you develop a plan to channel and focus your abundance of physical, sensual, intellectual and emotional energy.

[Jeremy8419]

Suede, I can link you to a matrix if you're really interested, but it will take up 30 minutes of my time.

[suedehead]

I take IQ tests daily so the result wouldn't be indicative of much.

[Jeremy8419]

I take IQ tests daily so the result wouldn't be indicative of much.

You can google Guilford's Structure of Intellect. Lots of pics too.