NY Magazine Article Proves There’s Nothing The Left Hates More Than Talent

There is little more obvious and more maligned than talent.

This is especially true as it regards intelligence, which might be simply defined as one’s capacity for problem-solving. It is difficult to deny that intelligence varies considerably between human beings. For instance, I would put forth that Richard Feynman was probably smarter than Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Quarrel with that claim if you will. 

Many — usually on the left — persist in raging against the concept of quantifiable intelligence. Charles Murray was branded a detestable racist for, in essence, summarizing research on the mean intelligence quotient of different races. 

Enter: “The Mirage of the Gifted Child,” by Katie Arnold-Ratliff for New York Magazine’s Intelligencer. Arnold-Ratliff questions the existence of “giftedness” itself. (RELATED: Writer For New York Mag Complains About Demographic Replacement) 

Giftedness is the notion that smart children turn into smart adults. I’d be fine with throwing out the euphemistic language and just calling them “the smart ones,” but that would probably get some blowback from parents.

Arnold-Ratliff argues that most “gifted” children “lead, at best, ordinary lives of modest accomplishment.”

Note that this is not an argument against the notion of superior intellect; this is an argument against investing in children with superior intellects.

Arnold-Ratliff continues: “A 35-year study of 677 gifted children found that by age 50, only 12.3 percent had reached a level of ’eminence,’ defined as ‘full professors … Fortune 500 executives … judges and lawyers, leaders in biomedicine, award-winning journalists and writers.’ This means 88 percent never did.”

This is embarassing for @NYMag — these “gifted” children were about 30X more likely to acheive eminence than their peers. By any standard that is not a “mirage”, but the embodiment of whatever metric identified them as gifted.

It’s one thing if their writers don’t understand… https://t.co/4GV0CLBpP1

— Jay Van Bavel, PhD (@jayvanbavel) June 12, 2026

Well, 12.3% is a lot. It’s nearly one out of eight. What is the rate of “eminence” in the general population?

It would be illuminating to examine the “eminent” population. Among “leaders in biomedicine,” for instance, how many were recognized as “gifted” as children? 

Consult the opinion of the authors of the study which Arnold-Ratliff references. They write: “By the time children are 13 years old, we can predict who is likely to become eminent and the ways in which their eminence is likely to be expressed in modern economies fueled by innovative products and ideas.”

Arnold-Ratliff has accidentally made a strong argument for the predictive power of “giftedness.” 

This is a very crazy thing to believe and definitely shuldn’t be the basis of ed policy decisionshttps://t.co/MrktI2Psrr pic.twitter.com/4ehHyRos9L

— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) June 11, 2026

Arnold-Ratliff’s most egregious assertion is: “Other psychologists reject the notion of a genetic or biological component of intelligence altogether and believe there is no such thing as innate talent or aptitude, that we can all learn anything with the right teacher.” (RELATED: Why Is The Left Waging A War On ‘Gifted’ Children?) 

This is akin to writing an article about radiometric dating and noting that “other scientists reject the notion of a 4.54 billion-year-old Earth, positing our planet was the result of an alien construction project completed about 4,500 years ago.” 

It’s absurd. As is Arnold-Ratliff’s entire piece, which whirls between arguing “giftedness doesn’t exist” and “recognizing giftedness is harmful” and “programs for gifted students are poorly designed and maybe racist.” Arnold-Ratliff’s article would serve as a fine prelude to “Harrison Bergeron.”