Gay Gifted Adolescent Suicide and Suicidal Ideation Literature

Abstract

Little empirical research has been conducted regarding suicide and suicidal ideation about gay gifted adolescents, so most of what is presented in the literature is based on theories and assumptions. One key assumption was that the psychological challenges of gay gifted youth stemming from sexual identity and giftedness contribute to suicidal ideation and that educators need to become more aware of this issue. Specific challenges of gay gifted youth in the literature included hypersensitivity and perfectionism, as well as depression and isolation. Countering these challenges was the theme of resiliency, which gifted youth develop using abstract reasoning, while nongifted youth favor concrete reasoning. Difficulties in identifying this unique population reduce the ability of psychotherapists, researchers, and counselors to study suicide within this group. The limited amount of peer-reviewed literature and other published material regarding suicide and suicidal ideation for gay gifted youth underscores the need for further research on this topic.

Üstün Yetenekli Bireyler ve İntihar: Literatür İnceleme Çalışması

“…Bu çalışmada elde edilen en dikkat çekici sonuçlar ise nitel çalışmalar ve literatür inceleme çalışmaları bağlamında elde edilen çalışmaların derlenmesi ile oluşturulmuştur. Literatür inceleme çalışmalarına genel olarak bakıldığında üstün yeteneklilerin intihar eğilimlerinin akranları ile benzer oranda olduğu, daha riskli durumda olmadıkları ve cinsel yönelimlerinin onları intihar eğilimleri açısından daha tehlikeli konuma getirmedikleri görülmektedir (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996;Gust-Brey & Cross, 1999;Sedillo, 2015). Bunun yanı sıra elde edilen bulgular iki tema altında toplanmıştır.…”

“…(b) Üstün yetenekli ergenlerin normal gelişim gösteren akranlarına göre intihar eğilimleri açısından daha riskli olup olmadığına dair yeterli kanıt yoktur. (c) Üstün yetenekli eşcinsel bireylerin, üstün yetenekli olan ya da normal gelişim gösteren akranlarına göre intihar eğilimleri daha yüksektir demek için yeterli kanıt yoktur (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996;Gust-Brey & Cross, 1999;Sedillo, 2015). Bu bulguların yanı sıra üstün yeteneklilerin intiharına ilişkin yapılan nitel araştırma ve literatür inceleme sonuçları Şekil 3'teki gibi tablolaştırılmıştır.…”

“…(ii) There is not sufficient evidence as to whether the gifted adolescents are more at risk of suicidal tendencies than their typically developing peers (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996). (iii) There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that gifted homosexual individuals have more suicidal tendencies than their gifted or typically developing peers (Sedillo, 2015). In addition to these findings, qualitative and literature survey studies were examined in the context of 'Recognising warning signs of suicide of gifted students' and 'Strategies to prevent suicide of gifted students' themes.…”

Superdotación e identidad: líneas y métodos. Lectura internacional desde Colombia

“…También se encuentran estudios sobre población de género diverso, lesbianas, gais, bisexuales, transexuales, intersexuales y queer (LGBITQ) en relación con la superdotación. Por un lado está el reto de adolescentes superdotados gais para enfrentar la sociedad (Hutcheson & Tieso, 2014); en esta línea, se presenta el suicidio en estudiantes homosexuales con talento como una reflexión en torno a la literatura (Sedillo, 2015). Finalmente, se encuentra un estado del arte para presentar materiales a docentes (Treat & Whittenburg, 2004).…”

Paradigm Shifts in Gifted Education: An Examination Vis-à-Vis Its Historical Situatedness and Pedagogical Sensibilities

“…This conceptual wave encourages critical consciousness toward society and envisions new possibilities through empowering gifted individuals who are oppressed in our current society and considered disadvantaged due to structural injustice and historical misunderstanding ( Cohen et al, 2000 ; Lo, 2014b ). In light of this conceptual wave, many field scholars engaged in studying and provoking conversations on issues surrounding diversity and social justice in education, such as gender and sexual orientations (e.g., Hutcheson & Tieso, 2014 ; Maurer, 2011 ; Reis, 1987 , 1995 ; Sedillo, 2013 ); cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds (e.g., Ford, 2004 , 2005 ; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008 ; Omdal, Rude, Betts, & Toy, 2011 ; Worrell, 2014 ; Worrell & Dixson, 2016 ); demographics and geography (e.g., Floyd, McGinnis, & Grantham, 2011 ; Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 2003 ); poverty (e.g., Burney, & Beike, 2008 ; Kitano, 2003 ; R. G. Miller & Gentry, 2010 ; Peters & Gentry, 2010 ; Warwick & Matthews, 2008 ); and dual exceptionalities (e.g., Assouline & Whiteman, 2011 ; Callard-Szulgit, 2008 ; Dole, 2001 ; Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, & Stinson, 2012 ; Lo, 2014b ; McCallum et al, 2013 ; Nielsen, 2002 ). Currently, it is commonly believed that educators in gifted education should be mindful of existing and potential constraints posed by our society.…”