Our highly complex twenty-first-century environment is plagued by gigantic problems and ethical dilemmas (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2016a, b), so it demands more expansive thinking about the nature of giftedness and talent development. Combining this need for expansion of our vision with the complexities of giftedness, talent development, and creativity makes our field enigmatic. Exploring the conceptual terrain of diverse academic disciplines and professional fields, and borrowing promising constructs emerging in that terrain, can help us achieve some of this expansive thinking while clarifying the nature of some complex phenomena.

Upon reflection, I’ve been mulling over enigmas about giftedness for quite a while, since well before I began to study them in academia. For example, while working on a pipeline construction crew in the western plains to finance my college education, I encountered an exceptionally gifted individual who never would have qualified for a typical gifted program. The members of the crew were roughnecks who dropped out of school well before grade 12 and spent their time working long, grueling, somewhat dangerous shifts and then drinking, swearing, and fighting in the small number of off hours they enjoyed. But one crew member stood out. He was quiet, unassuming, and operated his massive earth mover like Rembrandt operated a paintbrush. When asked, he would quietly and artfully mentor new workers so they could get up to speed with the intricacies of the construction equipment and processes. He commanded the respect of all who met him because they could observe his immense talent and the way he guided his construction work with an exquisite sense of aesthetics.

I’ve also met the exact opposite—individuals with sterling credentials, from the best backgrounds, in lofty positions, who came across as superficially articulate and arrogantly superior, and couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag if they found themselves trapped inside one. Some of them went through gifted programs in their elite schools. This puzzling contrast between nongifted brilliance and gifted mediocrity is one of the primary motivators in my interdisciplinary explorations, which have spanned three decades.

The complexities of the mind cannot be sufficiently understood from within the borders of a single disciplinary silo. A prominent evolutionary biologist, Joseph Henrich (2016), described a compelling reason for establishing more interdisciplinary work in all fields contributing to knowledge about human thought and behavior:

To move forward in our quest to better understand human life, we need to embrace a new kind of evolutionary science, one that focuses on the rich interaction and co-evolution of psychology, culture, biology, history, and genes. This scientific road is largely untraveled. (p. 331)

Along these lines, interdisciplinary investigation is needed in gifted education because the phenomena of interest in the field stretch throughout various levels of analysis, each of which is addressed by different academic disciplines (Ambrose, 2005b, 2009, 2015, 2017, 2019a). For example, Table 1.1 illustrates levels of analysis from micro to macro along with examples of phenomena that fit into each level and questions relevant to gifted education that derive from these phenomena and levels.

The vast majority of empirical research projects in the field fit into the individual and immediate contextual levels, which are dominated by psychological and educational investigative paradigms and methods addressing cognitive processes and the workings of educational environments. Note that when we push our inquiries down into the micro levels inside the individual person to organic systems, cellular and molecular-atomic phenomena, and possibly even down into the subatomic, we need to borrow from fields such as neuroscience and cognitive science, molecular biology, and possibly theoretical physics. Conversely, when we stretch upward and outward beyond the individual and her/his immediate context in the education system we begin to borrow from disciplines such as political science, economics, sociology, cultural anthropology, ethical philosophy, history, and archaeology.

Both the micro and macro levels of analysis can produce rich insights that will help us understand the nature and nuances of giftedness and talent development. For example, a special issue of the Roeper Review addressed the organic systems and cellular levels through a project exploring the neuroscience of giftedness (Kalbfleisch, 2008). Another special issue went up into the broad contextual level, exploring socioeconomic contextual influences on gifted minds through a project on the impact of growing inequality on the gifted and talented (Cross & Borland, 2013).

Benefits also can arise when researchers synthesize insights from micro and macro levels. In one example, neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky (2018) synthesized research findings about neuroscientific phenomena and socioeconomic inequality to reveal the ways in which the operations of the human brain-mind system are stunted and warped by severe inequality. The discoveries included portrayals of the biological grind that arises from the chronic, long-term stress generated by severe inequality, and how this grind distorts brain function by causing chromosomal damage and inflammation. The effects on the workings of the mind include the heightening of fear and anxiety; weakening of learning, memory, planning, d...