Advertisement

Capitalizing on Cognitive Diversity in Explorations of Ethical High Ability

  • Don Ambrose
Chapter

Abstract

The attempt made in this book to build cognitive bridges between the complex bodies of work on ethics and high ability requires a big-picture assessment. Cognitive diversity, a construct from recent investigations in complexity theory, serves as a framework for analysis of the breadth of scope needed in such a project. In addition, the architectural metaphor of desire lines assists in clarification of the processes and benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration in this project and in future, similar work. Large-scale patterns in the collective insights generated by the contributing authors also are developed. Themes derived from the patterns include panoramic visions enabling perception of creative intelligence and escape from dogma, the dynamics of identity formation, and bridge building across interdisciplinary and sociocultural chasms.

This has been a long, exciting journey with many interdisciplinary twists and turns. Our authors have shown us political and economic influences on bright, young minds; neurophysiological dynamics of those minds and some concomitant cognitive processes; the inner, emotional aspects of ethics; the nature and limitations of educational interventions aimed at strengthening moral imagination and values; and the dynamics of identity formation, among other phenomena. Where do we begin an assessment of the worthiness of such a broad-scope, collaborative endeavor? First, it is helpful to consider just how broadly we did scan the intellectual terrain for gems of insight. Employing a construct from complexity theory helps with that. Second, we draw some comparisons and interconnections among some of the discoveries our authors made. Third, we suggest some directions for future investigation of this intriguing topic.

Keywords

World View Cognitive Diversity Gifted Student Gifted Child Dynamic Tension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ambrose, D. (1996). Unifying theories of creativity: Metaphorical thought and the unification process. New Ideas in Psychology, 14, 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrose, D. (1998a). A model for clarification and expansion of conceptual foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrose, D. (1998b). Comprehensiveness of conceptual foundations for gifted education: A world-view analysis. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 452–470.Google Scholar
  4. Ambrose, D. (2000). World-view entrapment: Moral-ethical implications for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 159–186.Google Scholar
  5. Ambrose, D. (2003a). Barriers to aspiration development and self-fulfillment: Interdisciplinary insights for talent discovery. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambrose, D. (2003b). Theoretic scope, dynamic tensions, and dialectical processes: A model for discovery of creative intelligence. In D. Ambrose, L. M. Cohen & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative Intelligence: Toward Theoretic Integration (pp. 325–345). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ambrose, D. (2005). Interdisciplinary expansion of conceptual foundations: Insights from beyond our field. Roeper Review, 27, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ambrose, D. (in press). Expanding visions of creative intelligence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Ambrose, D. (in press). Expanding visions of creative intelligence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  9. Baumgartner, P., & Payr, S. (Eds.). (1995). Speaking minds: Interviews with twenty eminent cognitive scientists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Changeux, J. P., & Ricoeur, P. (2000). What makes us think? (M. B. DeBevoise, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41–56.Google Scholar
  12. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cross, T. L., Stewart, R. A., & Coleman, L. J. (2003). Phenomenology and its implications for gifted studies research: Investigating the lebenswelt of academically gifted students attending an elementary magnet school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 201–220.Google Scholar
  14. Descombes, V. (2001). The mind's provisions: A critique of cognitivism (S. A. Schwartz, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Garber, M. (2001). Academic instincts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gillespie, D. (1992). The mind's we: Contextualism in cognitive psychology. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Herrera, S. (2004). Echo chamber of secrets: How science policy is being made by politicized science. Acumen Journal of Life Sciences, 11, 118–123.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobson, M. (1997, September). For whom the gong tolls. Natural History, 106, 72–75.Google Scholar
  19. Kauffman, S. A. (2002). Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Morowitz, H. J. (2004). The emergence of everything: How the world became complex. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nicolescu, B. (1996). Levels of complexity and levels of reality: Nature as trans-nature. In B. Pullman (Ed.), The emergence of complexity in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology (pp. 393–417). Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  24. Overton, W. F. (1984). World views and their influence on psychological thoughts and research: Khun-Lakatos-Laudan. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 91–226). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Piirto, J. (1999). Implications of postmodern curriculum theory for the education of the talented. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 324–353.Google Scholar
  28. Presbey, G. M. (1997). Hannah Arendt on power. In L. D. Kaplan & L. F. Bove (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on power and domination (pp. 29–40). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  29. Schultz, R. A. (2002). Illuminating realities: A phenomenological view from two underachieving gifted learners. Roeper Review, 24, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A dialectical basis for understanding the study of cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 51–78). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56, 360–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang, H. (1995). On ‘computabilism’ and physicalism: Some subproblems. In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Nature's imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision (pp. 161–189). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. White, D. A. (2003). Philosophy and theory in the study of gifted children. Roeper Review, 26, 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yan, B., & Arlin, P. (1999). Dialectical thinking: Implications for creative thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 547–552). New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Editor, Roeper Review, Graduate DepartmentSchool of Education, College of Liberal Arts, Education, and Sciences, Rider UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations