* Rough Transcript *

Gifted Rainbow

Introduction and Personal Journey

when I was in college, actually, I was not willing to study psychology. I didn’t want to take any psychology courses because I just sort of got this impression that there was a way in which the field was often not really particularly skilled at engaging with the impact of the social and political environment and forces on the individual psyche.

Welcome to Embracing Intensity

Welcome to the Embracing Intensity podcast. I’ll be sharing interviews and tips for gifted, creative, twice exceptional, and outside the box thinkers who use their fire in a positive way. My name is Aurora Remember Holtzman. After years of feeling too much, I finally realized that intensity is the source of my greatest power.

Now, instead of beating myself up about not measuring up to my own self imposed standards. I’m on a mission to help people embrace their own intensity and befriend their brains so they can share their gifts with the world through the Embracing Intensity community, coaching, educational assessment, and other tools to help you use your fire without getting burned.

You can join us at embracingintensity. com.

Hello.

Guest Speaker Introduction: Caitlin Smith

This episode I get to share the talk with Caitlin Smith on Tasting the Gifted Rainbow,

If you enjoy this conversation, you’ll definitely wanna check out the full video in our embracing Intensity guest call library. In the extended discussion, we dive deeper into how trauma and neurodivergence intertwine, what it means to reclaim psychological language, and how we can create more supportive spaces for gifted and twice exceptional bipoc individuals.

Caitlin also shares powerful insights on embodiment, grief, and radical curiosity as tools for both healing and liberation. Be sure to catch our final guest call of the year on Saturday, November 1st on executive functioning, unlocking your Brain’s Potential with Fizzah Zaidi. And as I’m planning for next year’s guest speakers, feel free to reach out if you have a specific topic or speaker that you’d like to see join us. Enjoy.

Awesome. Welcome everyone. So glad to see so many faces joining us and really excited about this topic. We planned this like a year ago, so I’m really glad to have Kaitlin here.

Introduction

Thank you guys all for coming and I’m gonna go ahead and let Kaitlin introduce herself and we’re gonna dive right in. During the first part if you guys have thoughts or comments, I’d like to keep it in the chat. Somewhere about halfway through or when Kaitlin’s ready, we will open up the discussion for you guys to share with your voices as well.

Uh, Welcome Kaitlin.

Thank you so much, Aurora, and I’m so excited to be here. And as you said, since we planned this conversation quite a while ago, it’s surreal and wonderful to finally have this chance to connect with you all.

Would it be all right if I share my screen?

Absolutely.

Okay, great.

Caitlin’s Background and Research

So, I will give you a quick overview of where I’m going to go in my remarks today.

So I’ll share a little bit about myself and some of the backstory surrounding the work that I’ve done in the gifted support field. And then I’ll share a little bit about research that I’m now doing as a scholar in the field of history of science and science studies. And I’ll offer a very brief snapshot of how insights from those fields can be useful as gifted and otherwise intense people, and enrich our understanding of giftedness and intensity through some very short case studies.

And then I’ll conclude by sharing some places where you can go to take a deeper dive into any of these topics if you’d like to.

Okay. So, to start I am Kaitlin Smith and I’m currently a PhD candidate in the history of science at Harvard. And my secondary field is African American studies. And prior to beginning my doctoral studies many years ago, I completed a master’s in clinical social work and training in psychodynamic psychotherapy.

And that ended up being an incredibly formative experience that really set me on my present course. But I’ll touch upon that in just a moment. And the research that I’m currently doing as a doctoral candidate in history of science is focused on the history of psychology.

And though it isn’t focused on the history of conceptions of giftedness in psychology. I’m focused currently on the history of the field of black psychology and as I’ll share later in my presentation there was a fascinating point of intersection between conceptions of giftedness and intelligence testing and the emergence of this field of black psychology and some really vital interventions that black psychologists began to make in the late 1960s.

I previously ran a business called Our Wild Minds from 2023 to 2025. And in the context of this business, I offered an online community. And prior to that, an online course in which I served. Black adults who identify as gifted, highly creative, intense.

And I really enjoyed doing that work for this period of time. Ultimately I have decided to transition out of the particular role I was playing within that community. But I am really excited to continue serving people.

And I will share at the end of my presentation what that work has looked like. But I just sort of wanted to situate myself within this landscape of support for gifted people.

Challenges and Experiences in Psychology

So to give a little bit of a backstory on how this work that I did with our wild minds and that I’m now pursuing in my research came to be in the course of my psychotherapy training and clinical social work training a little over 10 years ago, I completed various clinical practica out in the field.

And a number of themes emerged during that period of time. And some of them were really, really challenging. Some of the key themes that I found myself reflecting upon really deeply at that time were racism, sexism, and also neuronormativity. And in the interest of time, I won’t go into all of the details of what surfaced then, but one short story that I’ll share was that, when I was in college, actually, I was not willing to study psychology. I didn’t want to take any psychology courses because I just sort of got this impression that there was a way in which the field was often not really particularly skilled at engaging with the impact of the social and political environment and forces on the individual psyche.

And I was much more interested in studying sociology and anthropology and fields that I thought were perhaps a little more capable of describing or shedding light on the interior worlds. Many different groups of people and individuals within those groups. But at some point I decided that I wanted to become a psychotherapist because I thought that it might be a way to bring some of my more meta insights and the kinds of questions I liked to explore related to our social world, down to earth and into the realm of people’s actual lives and emotional worlds.

And so I embarked upon psychotherapy training. But I didn’t really anticipate the ways in which I would become an object of inquiry and scrutiny in the course of that process. And one of the ways that happened was that I had a field advisor who was working with me in the context of my first clinical field placement which was set in San Francisco.

And that person I learned really struggled to reconcile the way that I showed up in my manner of speech and my intelligence. She struggled to reconcile that with the fact that I was a black woman and came to the conclusion and told me that not only did she feel that I was too intellectual to be a psychotherapist, she also concluded that there was something intrinsically pathological about.

The way that I express myself and the way that I am as a black woman, and this is a white woman faculty member. And she apparently believed that, if I were being truly authentic as a black woman, clearly I would show up in a really different way, and specifically in her estimation, that would’ve meant more angry louder and just generally in ways that she wasn’t anticipating apparently.

So that was very complicated and I even encountered the threat of being kicked out of the program unless I could somehow align the way I was showing up for other people with this reductive understanding of what an authentic black woman does. And so that was a really, really challenging experience.

And it’s a much longer story than what I’ve just said. But the point is that experience really set me on a path of thinking about. What’s going on here, first of all, and what would it mean to disrupt this? Because it’s not just that this person is clinging to a reductive, racist understanding of what a black woman is and can be, but there’s also a way in which the authority of psychological science is being mobilized by this person and others, including, these larger institutions to kind of define the normal and the abnormal and to enforce ways of professionalizing mental health providers in such a way that they can’t deviate from these ideas.

Even though. They’re incredibly myopic and oppressive and don’t actually describe reality sufficiently.So that was one of the experiences that really set me on the present course that I’ve taken within the field of history of science and has had an impact on the research that I’m now pursuing.

Science and Technology Studies

So what is science and technology studies? I mentioned that I’m in a department of history of science that is merely one bucket you could say, or one approach to science studies or science and technology studies. There are a number of different ones out there. These include anthropology of science, sociology of science, and even philosophy of science.

And I think for people who are maybe unfamiliar with the differences between these different approaches to probing the emergence of scientific knowledge. And their implications is that each of these fields has different research methodologies that they use to take a deeper dive into.

How do we come to believe the things that we believe and also who is within that we, who lies outside of it? The ideas that we have about what it is to be normal. What constitutes natural behavior, for example and what is the ideal toward which we are striving as individuals and as society?

These are among the questions that scholars attempt to answer, or at least. Explore through these various corners under the umbrella of science studies. And so that’s something that I’ve been attempting to do in my own research which I’ll comment upon briefly at the end of my remarks.

So I wanna just sort of set the stage before I get into the short case studies that I wanna share with you today. I wanna share some key insights from a landmark article in my field. I don’t know if folks who can see the presentation are familiar with this woman who’s pictured.

Her name is Donna Haraway. She’s a towering figure in the field of science and technology studies as well as feminist theory and various other fields because her work is incredibly capacious. Definitely an intense gifted person in academia if I have ever been made aware of one.

So she wrote this article titled Situated Knowledges, the Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. And this is a really important paper. It came out in 1988 and in it she called into question the notion that scientific knowledge. Is universal and untainted by the particular vision of the knower.

And so she suggested that she was calling into question the notion of objectivity ultimately, which people are probably familiar, is really central to ongoing debates about scientific knowledge. And so something that’s important to note about her article was that she was making this nuanced argument in a time in the late eighties when a lot of feminist theorists and others including black scholars were trying to dispel the accusation that their knowledge claims.

Were marked by a kind of bias or particularity that compromised their legitimacy. And so here away, pictured here made the counterintuitive assertion that the possibility of objective inquiry actually rests on the ability to cultivate and articulate partial perspectives that is perspectives in which one clearly claims, you know, the position from which one is speaking.

So she argued that knowledges that are not so situated that are unlocatable are a reflection of what she termed the God trick by which knowers purport to see everything from nowhere with unrestricted vision.

She called for a new science or a new approaches to science in which we understand the scientific enterprise, not as one that’s about producing definitive universal knowledge, but instead is one that demands positioning. And that to her, that meant accountability and responsibility to a vast network of actors seen only from various particular vantage points rather than some sort of singular vantage point that is sort of like operating from on high and trying to index the world from a bird’s eye view.

So, one other thing that I’ll say is that her vision of what she referred to as feminist objectivity was all about also making room for the omnipresence of paradox surprise, and also this larger project of giving up mastery. But continuing to search for fidelity at the same time and the way that she says it is knowing all the while that we will be hoodwinked.

I continue to appreciate the complexity of her article and the challenge that she was making to both her colleagues in science studies, but also to people in the sciences who were continuing to make these definitive claims about the world, about particular groups of people, about their intelligence, for example.

But were doing so without much humility or the readiness to sort of position themselves in place and. Work on indexing some of their blind spots, if you will. So I wanted to offer this as an invitation to us as a community today to think about how would we situate our own knowledge?

What situated knowledge might we have to share in various spheres of influence, including the gifted world and the world of intense people. Something else I should note that’s really, really important is that Haraway also had a number of interlocutors during this period of time.

Thought partners to her outside of the field of science studies. And these include towering figures in the field of black studies, including Patricia Hill Collins, who’s pictured here in her book, black Feminist Thought, and also Bell Hooks in her book on feminist theory. So those are also really important text to consider.

So with that I’ll dive into a very quick, group of case studies, just to sort of give you a sense of what history of science and science studies can kind of offer us as we try to think about how did we get to this place where in the present where people’s intelligence or the expectations surrounding, how particular individuals should express their intelligence and the constraints on that. How did we get here? And what are some of the implications of it?

Historical Case Studies

So, one article that I’d like to highlight was written by Charles Rosenberg, who is a famous historian of medicine and this other historian of science, Carol Smith Rosenberg.

And they co-wrote this article called The Female Animal, medical and Biological Views of Women and Her Role in 19th Century America. I would strongly recommend checking this article out for anyone who’s interested. I can help you connect with it if you have difficulty getting a copy, it can be tricky to, get copies of academic literature from scholarly journals.

But I think that this is a great piece of scholarship that really helps to capture the intersection of. Gender related roles and expectations in American history and notions of intelligence, curiosity, and education. So, something that emerges in this particular article is that the Rosenbergs talk about the way in which, and I should make clear that in this article they were primarily talking about white women living in 19th century America.

And that’s an important detail. But nevertheless, in the article they were talking about all of these expectations that were placed on women during this time and that there was all of this concern that, women’s energy was a limited resource. So if too much mental energy or too much energy period went toward, thinking too much, reading too much, too much education, that somehow this would just ruin everything, at the level of the individual woman and within society at large.

So there was this notion that if too much energy was going into the head and, into abstract reflection that this would somehow deprive the reproductive organs, the endocrine system within the woman of the vital energy that it required, and that it would lead to the production of children who were pathological in some way had some sort of significant congenital deficiencies. And these were actually some of the arguments that were used to suggest that women should not be able to access higher education in this country. And something that I think is striking is that though these claims may seem, like they’re completely in our rear view mirror, I personally can’t help but think about.

Precisely this moment in time. Sometimes when I turn on the news and at other moments where it’s stunning to me. And of course I don’t know what people’s perspectives may be on this call today, but I’ll just say for myself that I’m simply struck by the endurance of some of these kinds of ideas and sometimes they don’t always crop up in a way that’s quite as explicit as this.

But I think that you can even sort of see this to a certain extent in some of the soft life discourse that exists today. Which I think is shaped by other forces as well including women’s and and girls’ desire to maybe call certain aspects of capitalism into question. But nevertheless, I think that this notion that you know, if women exert themselves too much mentally or otherwise, that somehow we won’t be able to play our true roles as incubators of the next generation as though that’s the only role a woman could play and would want to play is fascinating.

And so that was an argument that was made during this time, that ultimately the roles that women are here to play are to, you know, birth children and be confined to the domestic sphere. And really if they’re permitted to attend to really anything else and to the life of the mind, that it would somehow not just harm them and their children and their communities, but that it also had larger implications for the society.

Because also at this time, as the article discusses. There was a eugenic project underway that was focused on promoting marital happiness within white couples, within white families as a means of increasing the size of the white race. Because various concerns about various shifts that were happening, including, the eradication of slavery and the reshaping of communities and urban centers around the us led to the emergence of new levels of anxiety about, what was on the horizon.

And part of the response that emerged in that moment was, structured by eugenics. And so it was, as the authors talk about, there was this focus placed on women needing to stay in line, white women in particular needing to stay in line in these particular ways. And so I think that of course today when we think about the unique challenges that gifted women face, I think that we would have a lot more to say than just what’s contained in this particular historical case.

But. I guess I would just invite you all to consider are there ways in which these ideas continue to take shape in your life? Have you found yourself in situations where people have intimated directly or indirectly that somehow the way that you are is not natural? That it’s not natural to be as curious as you are in the ways that you are as someone of your gender?

So though these historical cases may not offer neat answers or you know, immediate solutions, I think that they can help us see ourselves as part of this longer trajectory of struggle and people striving to have their full selves be seen and heard by the medical establishment.

Something I’ll end with related to this case study is this final paragraph of the essay. So something that the authors talk about is the way in which various shifts that occurred during this period of time, including the increased availability of contraception and just women’s general increasing levels of autonomy from the domestic expectations placed on them and their increasing ability to define their own goals within that realm.

Really challenge some of the people around them. And so they conclude saying it was inevitable. That many men faced with a rapidly changing society would seek in domestic peace and constancy a sense of the continuity and security so difficult to find elsewhere in their society. They would at the very least expect their wives, their daughters, and their family relationships generally to remain unaltered when their female dependents seemed ill disposed to do so.

Such men responded with a harshness sanctioned increasingly by the new gods of science. So, I find this closing sentiment helpful because it just sort of reminds us of just the way in which scientific knowledge continues to be mobilized as a seemingly neutral unquestioningly objective repository of truths that can’t really be questioned by claiming that women are naturally like this.

So that’s just something to remember and here are ways framework that I shared earlier, I think reinforces this tension.

Another case study that I’d like to highlight involves this. Small child named Oscar Moore. And I should be clear that this case study is contained in this book called like Children, black Prodigy and the Measure of the Human in America.

And this was written by Dr. Camille Owens. She’s a professor I believe at McGill University, currently in Canada. But this is an incredible work of interdisciplinary scholarship that stretches into the realm of science studies and beyond it. There are many really striking stories contained in this book.

So I encourage everyone to check it out if you’re so inclined. But one that I’ll highlight here concerns a child named Oscar Moore, who’s pictured on the cover of this book. Oscar Moore was a child who lived in the 19th century and he was, you could say, farmed out essentially to this individual named William Tyson. And this was as part of an apprenticeship program that was widespread in the 19th century United States where there were these legal mechanisms that basically allowed children who were without other carers or whose parents were deemed incapable of caring for them legitimately or illegitimately.

They could somehow come under the quote care of white individuals and be their apprentices. And scholars have pointed to the ways in which this basically constituted a form of continued enslavement, so that’s part of Oscar Moore’s backstory. But he ended up being apprenticed to these people.

And from the time that he was, I think two years old to about 14, he was toured around as basically like a freak act. And part of this was that Oscar Moore was blind. He wasn’t able to, or he had low vision. He wasn’t able to see to the extent that you know, the average able-bodied person could.

And he also exhibited remarkable abilities that were fascinating to white audiences. There was this effort to have to have him tour around and sort of put him in front of white audiences, like as a freak show and as an amusement and as something to I don’t know fascinate people. And part of what Dr. Owen’s highlights in her book is that all of this was taking place in a time period in which child study was emerging as something that was being done within the realm of psychological science.

And so, rather than kind of. You know, taking Oscar Moore and exploring what can we learn about childhood, about children? How can we, use this child to help us expand our understanding of black intelligence and black capability. Instead of going in that direction, there was instead a move to make more instead like an object of medical inquiry.

Like, who is this person? How could this person exist? And like, this is crazy. And he would do things like, they would have these shows in which the person running the show would invite audience members to basically try him. And what that meant was that they would ask him a question and he would just.

Like, give the answer. And it’s not entirely clear how he learned all of that material like what the training process entailed. But the fascination with him and the discourse that emerged surrounding him raised a lot of questions for Dr. Owens that she pursues in the book that I think are really important.

And one of the insights that she captures is that there was this notion that Oscar Moore’s mind had to be empty except for whatever information that the individuals who owned him essentially and were touring him around, were inscribing upon it, upon his mind.

And that they were only posing questions to him that were like trivia questions that he had been trained to answer. And there was this unwillingness to consider that perhaps his mind. Could reach, these immense proportions. And instead there was just this need to understand what he was doing as like a mechanical maneuver that was fundamentally deceitful in some way.

And it was also one other thing that Dr. Owen’s comments on in the book that I thought was really striking was, there was a comment that she included about Helen Keller. So in the same year that Moore began touring as a quote, wonderful blind negro boy, a young deaf and blind white girl also from the South, began to receive nationwide attention for her own extraordinary feats of learning.

Helen Keller, born less than five years before more became a figure of endearment and radical challenge to dominant conceptions of disabled children and their imagined futures. That more remains in assimilable to the history of expanding access and disabled coming of age. That Keller Economized points back to the act estrangement that Tyson Gammel, Clevenger Hall, and others maintained between more and emergent discourses of white children’s care and futurity.

It also reminds us that the cultural ground, that Keller One was not wide at the same time that her early life became a popular cause for wonder. White Americans were weaponizing eugenics to dispense with other disabled children’s futures. With this in mind, to imagine more in Keller as kindreds. And to interrogate the uneasiness of this pairing is to make visible the internal violence of modern childhood’s reformulation crossed by both race and ableism.

So there’s a lot to unpack there. And her Dr. Owens’s book covers an incredible amount of ground, so I won’t be able to touch upon all of it here. But I thought I would just share a snapshot of the story of Oscar Moore that she describes in her book. Because I think it helps to paint a bit of a picture of how people’s conceptions of the natural, like the presumption that black people are innately less intelligent than white people.

Ended up shaping the way that this child was presented and toured around. This story I think also gives us a sense of the immense hurdles and, wide array of presumptions that black figures in the United States and beyond have had to overcome just to be, seen on any kind of equal footing in this society.

So to that final point, I’ll conclude with this final case, which is the Larry p versus Ryles case, which was a court case that happened in the 1970s, I believe. But this is an important case because this happened when a number of, black families discovered that their children were being pipelined into special education due to the bias design of IQ tests that were being used at the time. And so they argued that tests that were being used were structured in such a manner that they misrepresented the intelligence of black children.

And that actually this had immense negative implications for the larger black community and that their children were being tracked into these classes for children who were thought to be uneducable and that this needed to be disrupted. And it was around this time that the Association for Black Psychologists formed, in 1968.

And as I mentioned earlier, that’s the subject of my dissertation, the history of that field and its development. This group of black psychologists really came up against the American Psychological Association in the late sixties because they were, naming a number of concerns, including this problem with the IQ tests and their colleagues were not.

Willing to hear them. Their their colleagues were, insisting upon the objectivity, the impartiality of the instruments. And there wasn’t a willingness to consider, where is this information coming from? Where might our blind spots lie? How is this knowledge situated to use hair aways term from earlier?

There were real difficulties really contending with the concerns and the claims that the black psychologists were naming. However, the black psychologists ended up forming their own organization and staging all kinds of powerful interventions into the way that education was delivered to black children and also the ways in which, psychological services, mental health services were delivered to black children and communities. So I think I will leave my discussion of the case studies at that. And just in closing, I’ll just highlight very quickly that I think some of the key themes that emerged here are how do we understand what’s natural?

Have you had experiences where someone has said like, oh, you talk too much, or You’re, you’re thinking way too much, or, why do you feel so deeply about that? That’s not natural. It’s, or it’s not natural for someone like you to do that. I think that chewing on some of these stories that I have shared can offer an opportunity to sort of see yourself as part of this longer trajectory of people struggling against illegitimate constraints on consciousness and expectations surrounding who should.

Show up in what ways and why. And I also think that these stories can be really helpful for pointing out areas where we can maybe grow in our capacity to show up as allies for other people who may be grappling with you know. Being configured differently within these, you know, systems of knowledge.

And then that can then point to opportunities for solidarity that are fresh and potentially unexplored. And then finally, one other thing I’d like to invite you to think about is what is your situated knowledge? Do you have, unique knowledge that arises from your own lived experience that can be helpful, that maybe you’re not sharing right now that other people might benefit from, related to your experience of intensity or any number of other things.

How can that contribute to our collective understanding of these phenomena and how we can move forward with greater justice and um, meaningful insight?

Closing Thoughts and Resources

So, I think I will pause here.

Awesome. There was a lot of great conversation going on in the chat as well.

Oh goodness.

Yeah. But I’m gonna go ahead and open up to those of you who have thoughts or questions that you’d like to share.

Looking

Conclusion

 at our time. We have about five minutes left, so I would love to have you wrap up, Kaitlin, with your thoughts, observations, after our discussion.

Okay, great.

I so enjoy chatting with you all today. I wanted to make you aware of where you can find more of my resources and stay connected to me. So hopefully if you go to Kaitlin smith.net/gifted you can access all of the gifted related resources that I created some of which are highlighted here and. I’d also like to invite you to check out my substack if you’re so inclined.

I actually recently published an essay in which I described a trip that I went on a research trip to support my dissertation, in which I ended up having a conversation with an Uber driver, about my research. And the driver, this is like a white guy. And he determined that, oh, you know, those black psychologists who were worried about black kids being pipelined into special education.

Those psychologists must have been mistaken because from this person’s perspective, of course, like everyone knows black people aren’t as intelligent. And then he like offered me this array of explanations invoking conditions under slavery and all kinds of things. It was just, it was kind of stunning.

So I detailed that in my most recent longer essay, which is called Saving Higher Education isn’t enough. So I invite you to check that out if you would like to. And I have other essays that are forthcoming and I’m also going to be sharing dissertation diaries on my Substack quarterly, so you can sort of follow the evolution of my research and some other projects that I’m working on.

And one other thing that I’ll say really briefly is that there are also some other ways in which people can work with me if they would like to. So I am now open for speaking engagements and I’m also offering clinical consultations to mental health professionals and coaches who work with gifted and otherwise intense people as well as gifted identified people who are looking for like a one time conversation around any concerns of a clinical nature.

Like maybe it would be helpful for someone to, reconsider a diagnosis that they’ve received in the light of some sort of larger socio historical context, for example. So I’m happy to offer that kind of feedback to someone and resources that they can use for self-advocacy. And then finally I’m also offering limited coaching and mentoring for women and non-binary people who are identify as gifted or intense.

And I’m focusing on Bipoc folks, though I’m happy to consider working with other people. There’s so many wonderful people within the gifted support landscape. So I feel proud to be able to contribute to that landscape. And I love to, explore working with people who resonate with my unique flavor of intensity.

And if I’m not that person for you, that’s great, because there’s so many other wonderful people out there too, doing really great work including Aurora and Sheldon and other people. So I think that’s all that I have to share for right now. It was so nice to be here with you all and I so appreciate your willingness to go on this journey with me.

Awesome. Well, I’m so glad that you made it. I look forward to sharing.

Upcoming Events and Community Invitation

And just a little update for you guys on upcoming. I have one more guest call coming up in a couple months with someone I met at the A DHD conference. Her name is Fizzah Zaidi and she’s a therapist, but she is talking about executive functioning, which is a topic that I’ve been wanting to address for a long time.

 And then moving into the new year, I am working full-time now in schools, so I definitely have to kinda rework my energy and how I can still continue to do work that supports others without draining myself. So we’re still working that out. But um, come join us talking about executive functioning.

So I’m looking forward to that. And I’m hoping to get at least four, maybe six, guest calls next year, ’cause I do love to continue this. So if there’s specific topics or guests that you guys would like to see, feel free to let me know because I would love input on the topics and possible guests that you might like to see down the road. So, thank you.

Outro

 Looking for ways to embrace your own intensity. Join our embracing intensity community@embracingintensity.com where you’ll meet a growing group of like-minded people who get what it’s like to be gifted and intense and are committed to creating a supportive community as well as access to our courses and tools to help you use your fire without getting burned.

There’s also a pay what you can option through our Patreon where you can increase your pledge to help sustain the podcast or. Or join us at a rate that better fits your needs. You can also sign up for my free Harnessing the Power of Your Intensity, a self regulation workbook for gifted, creative, and twice exceptional adults and teens.

All links can be found in the show notes or on EmbracingIntensity. com.