This article discusses kinds of transformational giftedness, or giftedness that makes a positive, meaningful, and possibly enduring difference to the world. We extend previous work by suggesting that there are two kinds of transformation that matter: self-transformation and other-transformation. Combining these two kinds of transformation yields a 2 × 2 grid of four kinds of giftedness: non-transformational giftedness (no transformation), transformational giftedness (self- and other-transformation combined), self-realized giftedness (whereby one transforms oneself but not others), and other-realized giftedness (whereby one transforms others but not oneself). We open with a discussion of some of the history of conceptions of giftedness. Then we discuss transformational giftedness as it has been defined in the recent past. We then introduce our concepts of self- and other-transformation. We also describe two other kinds of giftedness—inert giftedness, which is giftedness in personal attributes that has not been realized in interactions with others and the world; and transactional giftedness, which is a give-and-take form of giftedness whereby one meets certain societal expectations in exchange for being identified as gifted. We finally conclude that the gifted movement needs to focus much more on developing transformational giftedness, or at least the potential for it, in our young people.

A deeper understanding of the processes leading to problem framing and behind finding solutions to problems should help explain variability in the quality of the solutions to those problems. Using Sternberg’s WICS model as the conceptual basis of problem solving, this article discusses the relations between creative, analytical, practical, and wisdom-based approaches as bases for solutions to problems. We use a construct of meta-intelligence to encompass understanding, control, and coordination between these constructs. We propose that constraints can act at each of three levels—individual, contextual, and interactive. Individual constraints include the metacomponents (executive processes) that underpin each of the four kinds of solutions. Contextual constraints direct which of the four approaches are preferred under what circumstances. Finally, interactive constraints involve individual and contextual constraints directly impacting each other’s actions. The model of meta-intelligence and its functioning helps to explain the variability in the ways that individuals frame problems and, as a consequence, in the solutions that are found. The model of meta-intelligence also helps explain why some solutions to problems are so much more comprehensive, and often better, than others.

The field of gifted education, historically and contemporarily, is not well-known for being equitable for underrepresented students, specifically, Black, Hispanic, Native American, among others. In this article, we present a short history of gifted education with attention to key historical figures who have significantly shaped the field; their influence continues to impact theories and measurement to this very day. We share our reservations, along with 10 assumptions that we believe need to be countered. Given the long history of tension in the field regarding issues of racism, ethnocentrism, and classism, we offer perspectives for moving forward proactively and equitably.

In this article, we reviewed how intelligence tests were developed and normed, with a careful eye to underserved groups. Based on state recommendations, five group-administered and five individually-administered tests were reviewed for demographics; invariance testing; validity and reliability reporting; and gifted identification suitability. We found only one test included Indigenous youth in their sample; only one test reported racial group means; only two provided internal consistency estimates for different subgroups; and only four reported group invariance testing. Therefore, we concluded that tests developed on samples that omit those to which results are applied, or tests that are developed without regard to how the test functions across different groups should not be used to make high stakes decisions about gifted identification.

We propose that wisdom should be considered in understanding, identifying, and developing skills of thought translated into action in gifted children and adults. First, we review some of the history of the gifted field and conclude that ideas about understanding, identification, and instruction are largely obsolete and based on assumptions that might have seemed valid in the early 20th century but that now are known not to be. Second, we discuss wisdom-what it is and how it is structured. Third, we discuss different kinds of wisdom and why they matter. We further discuss "4W's" of wisdom. Fourth, we discuss the role of wisdom in the identification of gifted individuals. Fifth and finally, we conclude that our emphasis in the understanding, identification, and development of gifted individuals needs to be expanded to include wisdom, and certainly not just IQ.