Talk:Twice exceptional

Proposed merger
I put "merge" templates on this article and Gifted-handicapped. Both titles are educational jargon, but I believe they both deal with the same underlying concept, so they should be merged. Alternative terms for this concept can be redirected to the title of the merged article. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the terminology gifted-handicapped was more encompassing than twice exceptional, including physical handicaps that are today not thought of as equally disabling when partaking in a standard classroom. I'm not saying that it's easy for kids who are blind, deaf or mobility impaired to participate in standard classrooms. But since the IDEA Act, these types of disabilities have been better dealt with than learning disabilities. When we think about the term twice exceptional today, I think we only have in mind June Maker's third category (gifted/LD). Under ideal circumstance, gifted-handicapped is a separate full-fledged article that outlines the history of how we have changed our perceptions towards giftedness and disabilities.Kallocain (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the two articles should be merged (duh -- that's why I proposed the merger), but I'm not sure that either title is ideal. The term "twice exceptional" (which seems to me to be a bit of trendy jargon) is defined in the article to refer primarily to the child who is "intellectually above average" (not the same as "gifted", although in some places the article suggests it is intended to mean "gifted") but has one or more disabilities. The definition and discussion lead me to think that the scope is essentially the same as the scope of "gifted-handicapped." On the other hand, "gifted-handicapped" clearly identifies giftedness as one of the exceptionalities, but I believe the word "handicapped" is now in severe disfavor in education circles in most or all English-speaking countries. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take this discussion in two parts:
 * (1) Should these be combined into one article or should there be two articles?
 * (2) If combined, what should the combined article be called?
 * The answer to the first question will determine whether the articles should be merged. The proper name for the merged article can be decided separately, if there is consensus to merge.
 * I definitely think that a merger is appropriate in this case and it seems that the more popular term is Twice Exceptional. I support a merge to that name with a redirect from this one as a possible alternate search term. Handschuh-talk to me 03:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A merger is appropriate. TiMike (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

question?
What about twice-exceptional adults? Clearly, something happens to these people when they grow up. Do they turn out just average? 96.255.150.208 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Related?
Why is min-maxing linked from this article? Min-maxing is a practice in role playing games that involves deliberately raising certain often-used stats deliberately higher than normal, while neglecting others that are not used, such as increasing intelligence at the expense of charisma if your character needs to use her intelligence stat but not her charisma stat. Being twice-exceptional is not a choice, nor is it a form of optimization; there was no deliberate sacrifice made in order to gain giftedness, and often, the disability and the intelligence conflict. There is one role playing system I know whose min-maxing practices have the potential to be specifically relevant to this topic, and that is GURPS. If min-maxing is relevant enough to include here, I'd recommend adding a comment to make its relevance clearer, because it will otherwise give gamers who view this page the wrong impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.120.22 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding information to the Support section
Assouline, S. G., & Whiteman, C. S. (2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post–IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 380–402. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2011.616576

Foley-Nicpon, M., & Assouline, S. G. (2015). Counseling considerations for the twice-exceptional client. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 202-211. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00196

Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Stinson, R. D. (2012). Cognitive and academic distinctions between gifted students with autism and Asperger syndrome. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 77–89. doi:10.1177/0016986211433199

Foley Nicpon, M., Doobay, A. F., & Assouline, S. G. (2010). Parent, teacher, and self perceptions of psychosocial functioning in intellectually gifted children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(8), 1028–1038. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0952-8

Schultz, S. M. (2012). Twice-exceptional students enrolled in advanced placement classes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 119-133. Doi:10.1177/0016986212444605

More deficits
The table only lists several deficits - I believe - from own experience - that others must be listed / researched as well : Handicaps of any kind. For example, bad hearing abilities / deafness, and the need to fullow what is said by the teacher. In my case, that's why I prefer the written word over the spoken word. There might be other body handicaps as well influencing the ability to learn. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace Mentions of Dysphemism "Special Needs"
The term "special needs" is a proven dysphemism, and widely considered offensive today by members of disabled communities. Please consider refraining from the use of this term, and instead use "disabled." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.4.143 (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅: I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on the term, but as it is deprecated not only by disability rights advocates, but also by a number of medical style guides (as per your ref), I have boldly changed this. It's worth noting that the Special needs article on Wikipedia has had comments mentioning its derogatory nature on the talk page since 2007(!); I have mentioned this in the lead of that article too. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Adults?
This article presents as if only children fall into this category. If there's no information on how this affects and relates to adults, then that needs to be mentioned in the article somewhere. 2600:6C4A:7B3F:7E28:4C15:16E7:3839:F16D (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Gifted At-Risk" link?
I'm not sure why the first instance of "gifted" links directly to Gifted At-Risk and not Intellectual giftedness. The former seems like it belongs on this page but maybe not there?

(They honestly seem like very similar topics and could maybe be the same page, but that is a bit tangential.) Andrewski (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)