In this essay, I respond to commentators on my article on the Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership (ACCEL) model for understanding giftedness. I cover a number of topics that arose in or out of the commentaries, in particular, systems inertia; toxic leadership; teaching for creativity; flight from reality; the role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in teaching for wisdom; the developmental nature of giftedness; making a positive, meaningful, and enduring difference; IQ as a diagnostic tool rather than as a gatekeeper; meeting the needs of marginalized young people; teacher education; and retrospective studies. I conclude that the differences among all of us in this symposium are small and that we all agree that a model like ACCEL--whatever its exact terms--is needed to move the field of giftedness beyond a preoccupation with abilities, narrowly defined.