Tree-like Thinking: A Key to Understanding Giftedness?

The expression “tree-like thinking” was popularized in France by clinical psychologist Jeanne Siaud-Facchin, notably in her book called Too Intelligent to be Happy? (Trop intelligent pour être heureux ?, Odile Jacob, 2008). She describes a way of thinking allegedly typical of intellectually gifted individuals, where ideas branch out in multiple directions, leaping from one to another like the branches of a tree. This abundant and associative thought process is said to be so creative that it becomes difficult to structure—standing in contrast to a more linear and sequential form of thinking, attributed to non-gifted individuals.

This metaphor may reflect the lived experience of some gifted people. But beyond the image, what do current scientific data tell us?

What science says

To date, no study published in a peer-reviewed journal—in either cognitive psychology or neuroscience—has validated the existence of a specific “tree-like thinking” pattern, whether among gifted individuals or otherwise.

Therefore, "tree-like thinking" appears to be a descriptive metaphor, potentially useful in therapeutic dialogue, but not an operational concept measurable through scientific research.

Current knowledge about intellectual giftedness relies on standardized tools (such as the WISC-V or WAIS-IV) and reveals great variability in cognitive profiles. The differences observed between gifted and non-gifted individuals are statistical in nature; they do not support the notion of a qualitatively distinct cognitive functioning (Ramus, 2018).

A widely recognized neuromyth

A neuromyth refers to a false belief about how the brain works, often stemming from a misinterpretation or overgeneralization of scientific data.

The concept of "tree-like thinking" fits this definition well: it has spread widely among the general public without empirical validation and shapes certain social representations of giftedness.

This does not mean that people who identify with it are mistaken about their subjective experience. Their feelings are real, and seeking to make sense of one’s cognitive functioning is entirely legitimate. However, scientific inquiry requires distinguishing between subjective experience and empirically validated observations.

Why is the Concept so popular in France?

Many gifted individuals report fast, abundant thought processes. The metaphor of "tree-like thinking"coffers an intuitive explanation for this experience. Yet such identification can be influenced by a confirmation bias - adopting an idea because it resonates personally, without checking its validity.

Furthermore, the simplicity and imagery of "tree-like thinking" may enhance its appeal through a cognitive fluency bias (also known as the illusory truth effect): the easier an idea is to process or remember, the more likely we are to perceive it as true, plausible, or familiar—regardless of supporting evidence.

In addition, those who seek clinical assessment for giftedness often do so because of difficulties or psychological distress. This can create a sampling bias: generalizing findings from a non-representative subgroup to all gifted individuals, thereby reinforcing certain misconceptions.

A culturally situated concept

The concept of "tree-like thinking" is uniquely French. It does not appear in the international scientific literature on giftedness. Researchers instead use more operational notions such as divergent thinking and convergent thinking, first introduced by Joy Paul Guilford in the 1950s:

• Divergent thinking refers to generating multiple ideas from a given situation (e.g., brainstorming).

• Convergent thinking refers to identifying the most relevant solution to a problem.

These two cognitive processes are not opposed; they coexist within each of us and are activated depending on the task, context, and skills required. Creativity, for instance, often involves a fluid alternation between divergent and convergent thinking (Runco, 2008).

Kim’s (2008) meta-analysis even shows a modest but significant correlation between intelligence and divergent thinking. Yet this relationship remains statistical and does not demonstrate a qualitatively distinct mode of cognitive functioning.

“Tree-like thinking” being a neuromyth, what do we really know about gifted profiles?

Giftedness is generally defined by a total IQ score above 130, which statistically corresponds to about 2.28% of the population. Such individuals demonstrate intellectual efficiency above the average, with advanced reasoning and learning abilities. However, these characteristics alone do not suffice to identify giftedness: only a standardized intelligence test can provide a reliable evaluation (Grégoire, 2023).

Jacques Grégoire reminds us that the threshold of 130 is a statistical convention, not a clinical cutoff.

Franck Ramus (2018) supports this view, noting that observed differences are primarily quantitative - involving, for example, increased activation in certain brain regions, greater interhemispheric connectivity, or slightly larger brain volume - without implying a qualitatively distinct functioning.

Moreover, giftedness is not a uniform category. Some individuals display homogeneous profiles (balanced across cognitive domains), while others have heterogeneous profiles (contrasting strengths and weaknesses), as measured through indices in tools such as the WISC or WAIS (verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, processing speed).

Without “tree-like thinking,” what about creativity in gifted individuals?

Creativity can be defined as the ability to produce something new and original that also meets the constraints of a given situation or problem (Besançon & Lubart, 2015).

Studies on the relationship between intelligence and creativity yield variable results, but a general consensus emerges: there is a small positive correlation between intellectual efficiency and creativity. However, some studies suggest that beyond an IQ of about 120, this correlation tends to plateau or disappear.

In other words, intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creativity.

Furthermore, this statistical trend does not exclude significant individual variation among gifted people. Such differences may stem from factors beyond IQ, such as problem-solving strategies, domain-specific knowledge, or motivation.

Abundant thoughts sometimes resembling ADHD manifestations

A constant flow of thoughts that is hard to regulate, sometimes described as "tree-like thinking", may reflect heightened distractibility or cognitive overload. These manifestations overlap with some diagnostic criteria of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), as defined in the DSM-5 and ICD-11.

A careful differential diagnosis is therefore essential to avoid confusing a descriptive metaphor with a potential underlying neurodevelopmental disorder.

The study by Minahim and Rohde (2015) specifically examined ADHD symptoms among gifted children and adults. Among gifted adults, 37.8% screened positive for ADHD compared to 13.4% in the control group. Among children, the rate reached 15.38% versus 7.69% in controls. The authors concluded that ADHD symptoms are significantly more prevalent among gifted individuals.

Conclusion

The notion of "tree-like thinking" is not a recognized scientific concept and qualifies as a neuromyth about giftedness. It can help express a subjective experience but does not reflect a distinct cognitive architecture.

This observation is not meant to deny the difficulties or unique traits of gifted individuals but to encourage a nuanced and evidence-based understanding, distinguishing personal experience from measurable data.
Better understanding how thought processes work ultimately helps support each person’s cognitive and personal development more effectively.

References:

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5e ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

• Besançon, M. & Lubart, T. (2015). La créativité de l'enfant. Evaluation et développement. Paris : Mardaga

• Clobert, N. & Gauvrit, N. (2021). Psychologie du haut potentiel : comprendre, identifier, accompagner. De Boeck Supérieur.

• Dolidon, M. (2024). HPI : L'intelligence n'est pas une maladie. Tom Pousse.

• Grégoire, J. (2023). Evaluer l'intelligence. De Boeck Supérieur.

• Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-Analyses of the Relationship of Creative Achievement to Both IQ and Divergent Thinking Test Scores. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 42(2), 106–130.

• Minahim, D., & Rohde, L. A. (2015). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and intellectual giftedness: A study of symptom frequency and minor physical anomalies. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2014-1489

• Organisation mondiale de la santé (2022). Classification international des maladies (11e révision) : Chapitre sur les troubles neurodéveloppementaux. Genève : Organisation mondiale de la Santé.

• Ramus, F. (2018). Les surdoués ont-ils un cerveau qualitativement différent? A.N.A.E., 30(154), 281‑287.

• Rebecchi, K. (2022). La neurodiversité. L'Harmattan.

• Runco, M. A. (2008). Reasoning and Personal Creativity. In J.C Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.). Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development (pp. 99-106). New York: Cambridge University Press.