A recent study claiming to provide a basis for gifted education to drop the construct of overexcitabilities in favor of the construct of openness to experience and align itself with the Five Factor Model and a talent development perspective on gifted education is shown to be without merit. An analysis shows that the study supports the conclusion that the constructs are less similar than they appear to be from descriptions in the literature. This raises questions about the evidence needed for a field to drop constructs and the role of theory and research in guiding practice. It is argued that proposals for a field to change direction must be very strong and that gifted education should pay increased attention to justifying ethical claims.