> a situation where our area of greatest need was social-emotional development, not intellectual development

Not an educator, but it seems like "supporting gifted kids" is one of those phrases where everyone acts as if its meaning were clearly defined and agreed-upon, while avoiding looking too hard at how it is neither.

What should the goal be for institutions or parents? For example, to accelerate these kids to the end of the curriculum ASAP? To quickly get them into the workforce? To whisk them through a carousel of possible specializations in the hopes of matching genius to a tough problem?

The above options intend to direct their strengths, rather than support their weaknesses and trusting that the rest will follow.

For me, the more troubling thing about those sorts of goals are that they treat the fact that a kid is good at academics as an excuse to lose track of the fact that they're still just a kid in one's haste to project adults' ideas around economic success onto them.