Thank you to those of you who translated Lijaco's initial remarks, I couldn't be bothered to apply my 160+ IQ (Yes, it really was measured that high, once) to make sense of what she wrote in OP.
So I was labeled Gifted a as child. I was mostly looked after from the age of 4 months by uneducated housekeepers/babysitters/nasty siblings as both my parents worked full time+. So much for the devoted parents providing super-stimulation-to-the-intellect theory. My parents didn't realise I was bright until my reading levels soared after I started school.
I've had a similar experience with my own DC.
Why does Lijaco keep banging on about this? Who is she trying to convert? Most MNetters already agree with her basic convictions, that the G&T label is a bad one, and that some parents take it too seriously.
I wouldn't mind if the thread were a genuine discussion of how do we ensure fairness for children of poor families who aren't given sufficient opportunities for expanding their intellect from an early age. (As if the topic could be discussed non-judgementally, harhar).
The research I've seen suggests (to me, as a lay person) that there is a kind of stimulation threshold, as long as a child gets enough intellectual stimulation from a young age they will develop to their full potential (assuming that they go onto similar quality schools and further opportunities). Going massively over and above that threshold for under 5s doesn't seem to make a difference though. It's when the preschool-age environment severely lacks variety that children definitely do suffer intellectualy -- perhaps irrevocably.
There's a lot of research on the Romanian orphans, what techniques worked best for them. Some psychologists say that the emotional harm can be reversed with the right approach(es), but it's harder to say about intellectual damage done in the early years by lack of environmental stimulus.