Without a doubt the authors' proposal of viewing gifted education in systemic terms is a promising one. In fact, it is most refreshing to read something eclectic like this with an aim to synthesize a field of research and practice which for too long has lacked consensus in both practice and theory. The author agrees with them that a mechanistic view of science is partly responsible for such disappointing results in that this understanding of science, reinforced by a psychometric worldview, has prevented much of the scientific community from "seeing the forest because of all the trees". A more holistic approach is long overdue, and perhaps a systemic view as outlined by Ziegler and Phillipson's article is a possible development. Such development, however, is not entirely without problems. It is easy to agree that a systemic view is paramount for any kind of progress if the intention is to be true to the subject of study and practice. It is more difficult to agree on, however, "how" such a system needs to be outlined. The author thinks that Ziegler and Phillipson slightly overstate their effort when arguing that their systemic view represents a paradigm shift. Their theory might certainly be the spark that triggers the onset of one. In this commentary, the author discusses a few loose ends in the suggested model. He awaits a future verdict as to whether the presented systemic theory for gifted education is indeed a cause for a scientific revolution or not. At the very least, Ziegler and Phillipson should be applauded for trying to impart much-needed new momentum into a research field that has been lacking seminal research and theory for some time.