In this article, the author asks why we assume that we must define something before we can begin to understand it? Is that assumption a holdover from the predominantly behaviorist orientation of the 1950s when everything had to be measurable? Haven't we gotten past the paradigm of defining, measuring, then studying phenomena? If physicists had to agree on a definition of the nature of the universe before they could study it, we would still be working on pre-atomic theory. There is also the possibility that we can only define something after we understand it sufficiently. If so, then the definition would come after intensive study rather than before it. Even then, would we be content to stay with the resultant definition for all time? Perhaps expectations of a complete and universally agreeable definition are too reductionist in nature. A single definition would defy the principles of the cultural and temporal relativity of the concept of giftedness. A story from our nation's early history clearly illustrates this cultural relativity.