In 1979, when my chapter on extreme giftedness appeared in the Seventy-Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Passow, 1978), there was little research on extreme giftedness to report. As some may recall, the title of that chapter was "The mysterious case of extreme giftedness," mysterious in the sense that, with all the work on IQ giftedness and divergent thinking giftedness, virtually nothing was done with extreme populations. It seemed odd that such compelling and potentially revealing sources of insight into the nature of giftedness as prodigies, high IQ subjects, and savants were being so systematically ignored; odd but true. In the decade and more since that chapter was published, activity has greatly increased, a change that is significant in itself and also significant in what it says about the broader field of research on giftedness. The position taken here is that the study of extreme giftedness has helped catalyze what seems to be an ongoing "paradigm shift" in the field (Feldman, 1991; Kuhn, 1962; Treffinger, 1991).

I will try to summarize the case for studying extreme giftedness through a review of some of the findings that have accrued during the past several years and some of the implications of these findings for the scholarly field. My primary purpose is to convey how fundamentally the scholarly field has begun to shift in two directions: first, toward more differentiated notions of giftedness, and second, toward more developmentally oriented frameworks for understanding giftedness and creativity.

Research Traditions
Perhaps the premier research tradition in the study of extreme giftedness, and one which predates my own involvement in the area by several years, is the study of exceptional mathematical talent. For more than twenty years Julian Stanley and his students and colleagues have investigated extreme mathematical talent, mostly as reflected in very high SAT scores. Since that work has been reported extensively in the literature, and elsewhere at the current meeting, I will not attempt to do so here, but I did want to acknowledge the important place that this work has had in the field. At times controversial, as for example in the finding that many more males than females scored above 700 on the SAT-M examination, the work done on extreme mathematical talent has been highly influential (Benbow, 1991; Stanley, Keating & Fox, 1974).

There have also, of course, been studies of extremely high IQ, such as Hollingworth's (1942) work, but not many. My follow-up study of 27 subjects from Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius (Feldman, 1984) who scored above 180 on the Stanford-Binet when they were about ten was the first such effort in many years (but, I am happy to say, not the last). There is also a small but venerable tradition of studying "eminence," work which goes back to Francis Galton (1869) and continued through Catherine Cox (1926), the Goertzels (1962, 1978), and contemporary investigator Robert Albert (1990). Relatedly, Howard Gruber (1981) has pioneered the study of extreme cases of creative accomplishment, most notably his remarkable study of the development of Charles Darwin's thinking as he approached and then constructed his theory of evolution based on natural selection. Benjamin Bloom and associates (1985) have studied world class performers in fields such as mathematics, piano performance, neurology, sculpture and swimming. Dean Simonton (1984) has almost single handedly revived research in the study of genius, and has extended his reach to creativity and leadership as well. Most recently, Howard Gardner has gotten into the act by looking into the life histories of eminent individuals to determine if they experienced "crystallizing experiences" along the way toward eminence (cf. Walters & Gardner, 1986; see also Gallagher, 1991).

In the clinical literature, there have been numerous studies of extremely talented individuals, particularly artists and writers, which have enriched our appreciation for the difficulties, dangers, and vicissitudes, as well as the joys, of creative achievement (Gedo, 1983). Erikson's work on Gandhi (1963) and Freud's study of Leonardo (1910) are classic cases in point. Works such as these have enriched and informed us enormously, but have primarily focused on the realm of motivation, of why a given individual would have been moved (through family conflict, early experience or the like) to pursue a particular life course that led to great creative accomplishments.

It is therefore true in the area of extreme giftedness, as it is in most research areas, that important work has been going on for a long time. The amount of work, however, has been minuscule in recent decades.

We know a good deal more about the benefits and limitations of a high (but not extremely high) IQ definition of giftedness than we did fifty years ago. It has now become quite clear that there are many facets of giftedness not well captured by research focused on what we might call the mid-range of IQ (Gagne, 1991; Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1988). In the remainder of this discussion, some of the newer fines of investigation that target extreme giftedness will be highlighted, with particular emphasis on the kinds of insights and understandings that seem to arise uniquely from the study of extremes.

Insights From the Study of Extreme Giftedness
Some of the insights to come from the study of extreme giftedness are empirical, some conceptual, and some theoretical. There is more now known about extreme giftedness itself, indeed more known about giftedness in general. Theoretical advances that could encompass the entire field have come from studying extreme giftedness. Let us begin with conceptual advances.

Conceptual advances
One of the most valuable things to have come about as a consequence of renewed interest in extreme giftedness is an increased appreciation for the variety that can be found even at extreme levels. Although the existence of several distinct types of extreme giftedness was known, they were not well differentiated, were loosely defined, and did not have conceptual clarity. In a recent review, Martha Morelock and I divided the field into three broad categories of extreme precocity: high IQ, prodigies, and savants. We might also have included specific-subject precocity such as in mathematics or reading, a topic related to but not the same as prodigies (Morelock & Feldman, 199 1).

Based on current and previously available literatures, Morelock and I have begun to put together a taxonomy of types of extreme precocity, as illustrated in a table borrowed from our recent chapter in Colangelo and Davis's Handbook of Gifted Education (1991). In this table we list four types of extreme cases: high IQ/omnibus prodigy; prodigy; extraordinarily high IQ child; and prodigious savant.

Note: These classifications reflect the types of extreme precocity found in the research literature to date. Certain groups, such as mental calculators and mnemonists, are anomalous in that they display anywhere from minimal to extraordinarily high generalized abstract reasoning ability along with their islands of advanced skill. When minimal generalized abstract reasoning capability exists, such persons are classified as prodigious savants. According to the definition here, however, they cannot be classified as prodigies--even at higher levels of abstract reasoning ability--since standards for adult professional level performance do not exist in their areas of achievement.

As hinted at in our chapter, these four types may in fact be too few. For example, it is not clear that the extremely high IQ child and the "omnibus prodigy" are the same in terms of intellectual capabilities and talents. The one case we have studied in depth displayed both an exceptionally high IQ (over 200) as well as amazing mastery of specific bodies of knowledge (such as languages, geometry, music, and several other fields). Yet we have learned from other cases that high levels of general academic talent and high levels of ability for specific fields are not the same thing. Our omnibus prodigy may be someone who is blessed with several specific capabilities in addition to having a high IQ, making it appear that he can do almost anything at a very high level. Our high IQ case may have such broad abilities, with such flexibility and suppleness of application, that, even though he or she has only a modest amount of specific field talent, the general power of mind applied to various specific fields is sufficient to provide the impression of multiple talents.

Research to distinguish between high IQ cases and omnibus prodigy cases could clarify the possibility that we are dealing with two distinct manifestations of extreme giftedness, which occasionally turn up in the same person. If it turns out that we are (as I suspect will be the case), it may be that the high IQ subject shows subtle differences in both how mastery is achieved and in the thinking processes used to achieve it from the omnibus prodigy. I would expect that the extremely high IQ child would draw more on general experience, and knowledge in other fields to achieve mastery in the chosen field. The omnibus prodigy might perform in each area in a more isolated way, demonstrating a greater "purity" of expression, but one which might lack the "richness" and It complexity" that comes from wide ranging intellectual curiosity and great access to stored knowledge across many fields.

Similarly, we might want to add a category of extreme Went in a specific field that does not lead to mastery of the field at an adult level. For example, as a guest on a TV show, I recently sat next to a remarkable 13 year old Indian boy who is completing his senior year at NYU, and who will be entering medical school in the Fall; a real life Doogie Howser. Better, because he is a dark skinned Indian.

This young man is not the same as a prodigy (he has not even begun training as a doctor), yet he has advanced through a demanding curriculum at an extremely rapid rate. His track has been more narrow than straight liberal arts (he is especially talented in the areas of mathematics and biology), but less narrow than the extreme prodigy child who has embraced the life of the musician, the writer, the dancer, the artist. For prodigies, by the way, it is less common that a crystallizing experience occurs, this because the course is set so early. There was a similar case to the young pre-med a few years back on a boy who passed the Bar Examination in his home state of Florida at 18. Perhaps we need a new term for such cases, who are neither prodigies in the sense that I have defined them, nor straight high IQ students who achieve mastery in the standard curriculum easily and rapidly. A term like "radical professional acceleration" might capture this type of extreme giftedness.

Such a case is also not quite like those studied by the SMPY group, whose subjects tend to be radically accelerated within a specific subject matter field (usually mathematics), but who are not set on a particular professional goal. There have of course been individuals whose precocious mathematical abilities have led quite directly to professional roles, although rarely before the early twenties (still remarkable, of course, but not quite mathematical Doogies).

What has become clear from the research done during the past decade is that there is great differentiation to be reckoned with at the extremes of capability. To give each its due, it has been necessary, and no doubt will continue to be, necessary, to create new categories and labels to describe what we have begun to observe in the upper reaches of human potential.

Empirical advances
As already mentioned, the large and detailed studies of exceptional mathematical talent as measured by the SAT stand quite in a class by themselves. Studies of extremely high IQ samples are also once again on the rise, as reflected in the special issue of the Roeper Review (1990) devoted to the legacy of Leta Hollingworth, who pioneered research on extreme cases of high IQ.

Although not ordinarily thought of as part of the field of giftedness, savant syndrome research is highly relevant to our work. This is particularly true as we move toward an understanding of brain localization and its relation to giftedness, a line of thought inspired and furthered by the late Norman Geschwind (Geschwind & Galaburda, 1987) and brought to the attention of our field by Howard Gardner (1983). Essentially, Geschwind argued that giftedness in specific areas is a function of hormone imbalances during prenatal development that result in hyperdevelopment of certain brain regions. Studies of savants, as well as others such as hyperlexics (those who write compulsively but who have little to say), hypergraphics (those who compulsively draw), have helped establish some of the pieces of the puzzle of brain organization. A book by Darold Treffert (1989) about savants reviews the research literature, including the pioneering work of Geschwind and Galaburda cited above, and it presents a compelling if preliminary portrait of brain localization and development, particularly when results from studies of professional musicians as compared with nonmusicians are included in the analysis. Treffert writes:

[Geschwind and Galaburda]...have provided extremely important insights and information applicable to Savant Syndrome. Within their work...are clues not only to why savants have the type of skills they have....Their work also provides clues as to the type, and site, of central nervous system defect and dysfunction that produce this condition. (Treffeirt, 1989, p. 195).

The most important finding is that as a function of variations in hormone production, particularly testosterone, a " 'pathology of superiority' is created where compensatory growth occurs in some portions of the brain (right brain) as a result of poorer development of or actual injury to other brain areas (left brain)" (Treffert, 1989, p.196). The same forces that produce superiority in certain specific areas also produce greater vulnerability in others, including some immune system problems often associated with savant syndrome. Treffert summarizes:

... applying this information to the savant, the scenario develops this way: Fetal brain asymmetry favors the left hemisphere, and its particular functions, in all humans. However, in the fetus the right hemisphere develops completely before the left hemisphere does. Because of its later development the left hemisphere is more vulnerable for a longer period of time to a number of prenatal influences. One such influence can be actual injury to the brain from a variety of prenatal causes. In such a case there is an interference with normal cortical architecture on the left and a neuronal migration to and assembly in the right hemisphere. This, of course, can occur in either males or females. Another such influence, even in the absence of injury, is a male-related factor, probably circulating testosterone, which can also slow cortical growth on the left and produce the same neuronal migration to the right with actual enlargement of the right hemisphere, and a shift of dominance to the right side. In either event, right-side skills, of the type seen in the savant, predominate. (ibid., p. 197)

What makes the work with savant syndrome samples so impressive is that systematic research has been going on for more than one hundred years. There is a sufficient mass of data to build a reasonable explanation for both the what and why of the savant phenomenon.

Of special interest in the present context is the small subset of savants whom Treffert labels "prodigious savants." These individuals exhibit talents and skills that would be remarkable in even a normal subject, but are in fact found in severely handicapped people. There have been about 100 known cases in the world research literature, and perhaps 12 to 15 currently alive now. The syndrome is, then, extremely rare. Treffert argues that different explanations are needed for merely talented savants, i.e., those whose capabilities are exceptional only in relation to their generally low level of performance, vs. prodigious savants. And the source of the explanation is likely to be biological, according to Treffert (pp. 214-223). What is perhaps most exciting about the work on savant syndrome is not what it says about the savants themselves, but what it might say about related instances of extreme giftedness, especially the child prodigy.

Research on prodigies
Unfortunately, research on child prodigies has been rare. Since 1930, there was not a single large scale empirical study of child prodigies until my own work began in the mid 1970s and was reported a decade later (cf. Feldman, 1986b). Other than this work, I know of no other study of the child prodigy in the past fifty years. Recently, a book has appeared by John Radford (1990), a British psychologist, which summarizes and reviews what is known about extreme giftedness. Although valuable, no new data were gathered and no new studies are reported in Radford's book.

The entire world literature on child prodigies is fewer than twenty cases, and many of these cases are not extensively documented (cf. Baumgarten, 1930; Feldman, 1986, 1991; Radford, 1990). Except for the musical prodigy Erwin Nyiregyhazi, who was the subject of a monograph-length study (cf. Revesz, 1925), the amount of information about any case studied while alive is minimal. There have of course been many biographies and autobiographies of remarkable prodigies (e.g., Menuhin, 1977; Wiener, 1953, 1956), but the empirical study of prodigies is truly in its infancy. In the Geschwind and Galaburda (1987) volume on brain asymmetry, for example, there is not a single mention of prodigies.

Yet in Howard Gardner's (1983) important work on multiple intelligences, the fact that there exist savants and prodigies in a particular domain is taken to be a critical criterion for the existence of an intelligence. When prodigies and savants are found, the likelihood of brain localization and localization of function is increased. It is assumed that both prodigies and savants exhibit unusual brain and central nervous system developments. With savants, there is some evidence to support this claim (cf. Treffert, 1989); with prodigies, although the same argument is plausible, there is no actual evidence on which to base the claim. Clearly, comparative studies of brain development, hormone levels, and prenatal conditions in prodigies and savants should be a very high priority.

Although comparative studies have not been done with prodigies or savants, such studies have been done on individuals with varying degrees of training and experience in music. Using the recently developed PET (positive emission tomography) Scan technique developed at Children's Hospital in Boston,"...it was found that hemispheric dominance varied depending on whether the listener was an analytic, musically sophisticated subject or a nonanalytic, musically naive subject....Thus, the same musical stimulus--in this case, tonal sequence--is processed differently by the brain,in terms of hemispheric dominance, depending on whether an analytic or nonanalytic strategy is used and on whether the listener is musically naive or musically sophisticated" (Treffert, 1989, p. 232).

By studying patterns of performance among different types of extremely gifted individuals in music using techniques such as the PET Scan, it should be possible to detect patterns of similarities and differences that will ultimately reveal which brain areas are underdeveloped, which underdeveloped, and in what combinations--among musically talented savants, prodigies, musically trained and musically naive subjects. In other words, the technology is at hand to approach answers to age-old questions about relationships between differential growth in specific regions of the brain and observed behavioral patterns of development in music. As exciting as these possibilities for research may be, they are well into the future. Although not as sensational, there has been a modest increase in empirical knowledge about the child prodigy, knowledge which will help establish the behavioral and psychological expressions of whatever brain and central nervous system mechanisms are found to be involved in prodigiousness.

One of the findings that is emerging from the empirical study of prodigies is that different specific fields have different ages of onset, different trajectories of achievement, and different criteria for prodigious behavior, a finding on the micro level that Dean Simonton has confirmed in his more macro studies (Simonton, 1984). Chess and music are the fields in which engagement and early indications of great talent occur earliest. The pianist Lorin Hollander, for example, at age forty-five, still recalls vividly his earliest encounter with music:

When I was 3 1/2, I went with my father to a rehearsal and heard them play a Haydn quartet. I was profoundly moved by the music. When I came home I wanted somehow to put down what I had heard. I found some drawing paper and began to draw spirals. My father asked me what I was doing, and I began to sing him back the piece, which I remembered perfectly, and told him I was trying to write it down. My father said, "No, you silly boy, we already have a way of writing music," and he brought out the score to show me. I fell into the music; that's the only way to describe it. Within four minutes I knew the notes, the clefs, everything. A car horn sounded outside and, just for fun, my father asked me what note it was. I immediately answered, "F sharp." He took a spoon and clinked a glass. "B flat," I told him. Then he and my mother realized they had a prodigy on their hands and they started to run around to people to find out what to do(Winn, 1979).

In mathematics, onset seems to be later, at least as far as involvement in the more formal aspects of the field. 'Mere is a long history of arithmetic prodigies (calculators, actually) and this capability may appear as early as three or four (Smith, 1983). But as far as the more abstract and complex aspects of mathematics, they do not seem accessible to children until age nine or ten at the earliest. Even the legendary Gauss was not constructing proofs until age nine or ten (Feldman, 1986b). And the two--calculation versus abstract mathematical reasoning--are not necessarily present in the same individual (although they were in Gauss). We find remarkable calculators among savants, but there has never been a savant with access to higher mathematics.

There may also emerge important gender differences among prodigies. There are, for example, extremely few cases of early prodigious behavior in the visual arts, but when they do occur, they tend to be girls. Although Picasso, Klee, and other artists have been called prodigies, their work before the ages of twelve or thirteen or fourteen was not spectacular (Pariser, 1987). Scores of other children drew as well as Picasso at nine or ten. The two best documented cases of child prodigies in the visual arts are both girls: the autistic child Nadia whose line drawings were those of an exceptional artist at age five, and Yani, the mainland Chinese child who showed uncanny mastery of traditional watercolor techniques by age four (Goldsmith, 1987; Goldsmith & Feldman, 1989; Selfe, 1977).

In chess and mathematics, there are many more boys than girls who perform at the highest reaches of these domains. Recently, however, a single Hungarian family, the Polgars, has produced three girl chess prodigies, all playing at the master level (Goldsmith, 1987). What seems clear, then, is that there are complex relationships among biological and cultural influences that have tended to select and favor one gender or the other within a particular field or domain. Knowing the relative numbers of boy and girl prodigies would provide a baseline from which to detect the impact of changing social and cultural practices on the appearance of prodigies in various fields.

Although the base of knowledge about prodigies is minuscule, there are patterns that have begun to appear as cases accumulate and are compared with other extremes of intellectual development. Although at a very broad level, theory has also begun to encompass extremes of giftedness. It is with this last topic that we close the present discussion.

Advances in Theory.
There have been advances in theory as a consequence of increased attention to the extremes of ability in at least four areas. Theories of intelligence have quite fundamentally shifted from emphasizing single to emphasizing multiple forms of intelligence (cf. Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1988). Theories of giftedness have begun to reflect the qualitative variety among types of gifts that exist, as well as being more responsive to the contexts within which each form of giftedness occurs (cf. Feldhusen, 1986; Tannenbaum, 1983, 1986, 1991). Theories of creativity have shifted from an emphasis on divergent thinking to a focus on the processes of actual creative accomplishment (cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Gruber & Davis, 1988). And theories of development have shifted from an exclusive emphasis on universals to including nonuniversals within their scope (cf. Feldman, 1980, 1986a, 1988, in press).

Each of these areas of theory construction merits thorough analysis, but can only be touched upon here. In the remainder of this discussion, I will briefly elaborate on the one area of theory that is least well understood within the gifted education community. It is also the area in which I have been the most involved. I hope the relationship is correlational and not causal. In any case, the importance of developmental theory to the study of giftedness has become increasingly recognized as vital to the future vitality of the field (cf. Horowitz & O'Brien, 1985).

Historically, developmental theory was seen as peripheral to the field of gifted education because its traditional focus has been on common milestones that all children achieve. More recently, major figures in the field have recognized that even extremely talented children are developing in some ways similarly to other children, and that how they are treated should take such broad developmental issues into consideration (cf. Birely & Genshaft, 1991; Renzulli, 1986). In other words, if an eight year old girl is capable of carrying an academic load more typical of a child ten years older, she is still eight years old and will have some emotional and physical qualities in common with other children her age.

This is of course true, and taking what is known about typical developmental qualities of children of various ages should lead to more sensitive and appropriate programs, particularly where students display specific learning problems, emotional problems, or other qualities generally not consistent with traditional high IQ giftedness. But this universal sort of developmental knowledge does not really challenge the traditional high IQ or general ability notion of giftedness itself. Recent shifts in developmental theory have pointed to the possibility of much more fundamental changes in how giftedness and creativity might be conceived, identified, and encouraged.

The key change in developmental theory has been to incorporate aspects of growth and change that are not of the universal sort found in theories like those of Freud, Erikson, Piaget and many others. Nonuniversal development deals with realms of change that encompass the numerous fields in which people become involved and pursue ever greater expertise (Feldman, 1980, 1982, 1986a). It is argued that many of the same principles of change that apply to universal domains such as cognition, problem solving, emotional development, social development, etc. also apply to nonuniversal domains like art, science, mathematics, poetry, and many many others.

The distinction between universal and nonuniversal developmental domains leads to reconsideration of virtually all of the concepts used in the study of exceptional abilities: giftedness, talent, intelligence, creativity, even (and especially) genius have different meanings when defined within a framework embracing nonuniversal development (cf. Feldman, 1982, 1986a). Instead of giftedness being thought of as a general quality or set of traits of an individual, it is defined as performance at an advanced level within a challenging domain of knowledge and skill. It does not mean that general ability such as high IQ is immaterial, only that it shifts from figure to ground, from foreground to background, from the central factor to one of several factors.

Frameworks such as the Renzulli three-ring model and revolving door have some features consistent with the kinds of shifts in the field that would occur if nonuniversal developmental change processes were to become more central to the field (Renzulli, 1986; Renzulli & Reis, 1991). But the sorts of changes that would follow from placing nonuniversal development as central would be much more fundamental; for example, we would find that the field would shift its focus from identifying potential giftedness through tests to learning how individuals with various domain-related capabilities engage and sustain their commitment to master a specific domain.

The study of extreme cases helps specify what the talents, personal qualities, contextual factors, and instructional requirements are in domains as diverse as gymnastics, brain surgery, chess, and teaching (cf. Benjamin, 1989). What has become clear is that little is known even about development in the domains that are most important to society, such as natural science, mathematics, teaching, parenting, entrepreneurial leadership, or the professions. Were the field to move toward a focus on research of this sort, the study of development in various domains would become the backbone of research on giftedness and creativity.

Why some individuals seem to have a natural gift for chess or music or leadership or negotiation, why some fields seem to engender commitment to excellence while others do not, why there are breakthroughs in knowledge in one field and not another, or in a certain field at one point in time but not another, why a highly evolved pedagogy, a set of explicit criteria for excellence, a series of well marked levels of mastery--why these exist in some fields but not in others, why social and cultural contexts play such crucial roles in providing for the availability of opportunities in certain fields, these and many other questions would need to be answered. Perhaps most intriguing, we would ask what are,the conditions, circumstances, processes and events that lead to fundamental reorganization in a highly organized, stable, and complex domain. Again, the study of extreme cases should prove very revealing, particularly in attacking issues such as this last one.

Conclusion
In this discussion I have tried to show how the study of extreme giftedness has enriched the field; indeed, extreme giftedness may have provided a critical catalyst for the field to transform from a relatively narrow focus on general high IQ type giftedness to a much wider concern with giftedness in its many forms, how these diverse forms of giftedness are expressed through the many domains that human beings aspire to master, and how social and cultural contextual issues impact on the possibilities for excellence in various groups.

Through advances in empirical research, conceptual understanding, and theory construction, work on extreme cases has contributed to what may be the first major reorganization of the field since, the study of giftedness began almost a century ago. These are portentous times indeed.

¹The generalized abstract reasoning capability referred to in this table is logical, verbal-conceptual facility.

References

Albert, R. (1990). Identity, experiences, and career choice among the exceptionally gifted and eminent. In M. Runco & R. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Baumgarten, F. (1930). Wunderkinder Psychologische Unterschungren. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.

Benbow, C. (1991). Mathematically talented children: Can acceleration meet their educational needs? In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.),Handbook of Gifted Education(pp. 154-165). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Benjamin, A. (1989). Levels of expertise in early childhood teaching: An initial field test of a diagnostic instrument. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tufts University.

Birely, M. & Genshaft, J. (1991). Understanding the gifted adolescent. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bloom, B. (Ed.) (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.

Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. (Eds.) (1991). Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Volume H of Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Erikson, E. (1963). Gandhi's truth: On the origins of militant nonviolence. New York: Norton.

Feldhusen, J. (1986). A conception of giftedness. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 112-127). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Feldman, D. H. (Ed.) (1982). Developmental approaches to creativity and tiredness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Feldman, D. H. (1984). A follow-up study of subjects scoring above 180 IQ in Tennan's "Genetic Studies of Genius." Exceptional Children, 50, 518-523.

Feldman, D. H. (1986). Giftedness as a developmentalist sees it. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 285-305). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feldman, D. H. (1991). Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Teachers College Press (originally published by Basic Books in 1986).

Feldman, D. H. (1988). Creativity: Dreams, insights, and transformations. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feldman, D. H. (1991). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education? Presented at the Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, The University of Iowa, May 1991.

Freud, S. (1910). Leonardo da Vinci and a memory of his childhood. Standard Edition. 11, 59-138. London: Hogarth Press, 1957.

Gagne', F. Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gallagher, J. (1991). Issues in the education of gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (14-23). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its causes and consequences. London: Macmillan, 1892.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gedo, J. (1983). Portraits of the, artist: Psychoanalysis of creativity and its vicissitudes. New York: The Guilford Press.

Geschwind, N. & Galaburda, A. (1987). Cerebral lateralizations Biological mechanisms, associations and pathology . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goertzel, V. & Goertmi, M. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown.

Goertzel, M., Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, T. (1978). 300 Eminent Personalities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goldsmith, L. T. (1987). Girl prodigies: Some evidence and some speculations. Roeper Review 10, 74-81.

Goldsmith, L. T. & Feldman, D. H. (1989). Wang Yani: Gifts well give. In W. C. Ho (Ed.), Yani: The brush of innocence (pp. 50-62). New York: Hudson Hills Press.

Gruber, H. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (originally published in 1974).

Gruber, H. & Davis, S. (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving systems approach to creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 243-270). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet, Origins and development. New York-Arno Press, 1975.

Horowitz, F. & O'Brien, M. (Eds.) (1985). The gifted and the talented: Developmental perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Menuhin, Y. (1977). Unfinished journey. New York: Knopf.

Morelock, M. & Feldman, D. H. (1991). Extreme precocity. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), The handbook of gifted education (pp. 347-364). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Morelock, M. & Feldman, D. H. (in press). The assessment of giftedness in preschool children. In E. Vazquez Nuttal, I. Romero, & J. Kalesnik (Eds.), Assessing and screening preschoolers: Psychological, social and educational dimensions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pariser, D. (1987). The juvenile drawings of Klee, Toulouse-Lautrec, and Picasso. Visual Arts Research. 13, 53-67.

Passow, H. (Ed.) (1978). The gifted and-the talented: The Seventy-eighth yearbook of the NSSE (pp. 335-351). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Radford, J. (1990). Child prodigies and exceptional early achievers. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Renzulli, J. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Fds.), Concotions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York.-Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. & Reis, S. (1991). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for the development of creative productivity. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), 'The handbook of gifted education (pp. 439-449). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Revesz, G. (1925). The psychology of a musical prodigy. New York: Harcourt Brace (Reprinted by Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, New York, 1970).

Roeper Review (1990). Special issue on Leta Hollingworth. L. Silverman, Ed., Vol. 12.

Selfe, L. (1977).Nadia.New York: Academic Press.

Simonton, D. (1984). Genius, creativity and leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Smith, S. (1983). The great mental calculators The psychology, methods, and lives of calculating prodigies. New York. Columbia University Press.

Stanley, J., Keating, D. & Fox, L. (Fds.) (1974). Mathematical talent. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic. New York: Penguin Books.

Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children. New York: Macmillan.

Tannenbaum, A. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.). Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21-52). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tannenbaum, A. (1991). The social psychology of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.). The handbook of gifted education (pp. 27-44). Boston. Allyn & Bacon.

Treffert, D. (1989). Extraordinary people: Understanding 'idiot savants'. New York: Harper & Row.

Treffinger, D. (1991). Future goals and directions. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), The handbook a gifted education (pp. 439-449). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Walters, J. & Gardner, H. (1986). The crystallizing experience: Discovering an intellectual gift. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 306-331). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wiener, N. (1953). Ex-prodigy: My childhood and youth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wiener, N. (1956). I am a mathematician: The later life of a prodigy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Winn, M. (1979, December 23). The pleasures and perils of being a child prodigy. New York Times Magazine 12-17; 38-45.

Permission Statement

Permission to reprint this article was granted in 2002 to the Davidson Institute for Talent Development by the author, David Henry Feldman.

This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted young people 18 and under. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.