Every empirical science must first determine its object of investigation. In most cases, this is predetermined by a cultural imprint. In the case of empirical giftedness research, the roots reach back to the beginning of the last century. Many scholars were fascinated by the phenomenon that some persons act much more efficiently in particular fields than others. It seemed to be completely out of the question that a normal person would be able to attain this same level of efficiency, even through extensive learning and with the best means of support. However, terms such as gifts, talents, or genius were suggested as causal explanations – regardless of the fact that they originated from mythological, theological, and metaphysical traditions (Ziegler & Heller, 2002).

No science can be content with nonscientific concepts in the long run. Consequently, the theoretical development in the last century was marked by the longing to determine what these terms “really” meant and to supply them with an empirical substance. Obviously, this attempt only makes sense if there are entities within the human psyche that correspond to these terms. Unfortunately, this has only rarely, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Margolin, 1994; Tannenbaum, 1983), been subjected to serious scrutiny. Fascinating terms such as genius or talent were bandied about, and a spectacular quest for the psychic entities with which these names could be christened was inaugurated.

The first momentous attempt to replace talent with a psychological construct was made by Terman (1925).