Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion What is giftedness?

In reality, Hoagies doesn't actually answer the question. It's rather a clearinghouse of information about what various professionals think. And it should be clear that there is not agreement. Some believe that PG should come down to include 145 and above because more modern tests don't differentiate between higher LOGs well, but...


That is true, but all of the ranges are different, depending on the test. Some scale's notion of HG starts at another scale's notion of PG. EG is probably the most convoluted, which is probably why you don't hear the term standalone that much.


Simply stating this does not make it true. I believe that the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate otherwise.

You are repeating yourself. Please see that I have already addressed your challenge, in this post.

The DYS criteria and the Hoagies chart approximating equivalent FSIQ scores and LOG agree on this. These were the sources of identification criteria previously introduced into the discussion.

I have not called that agreement. You have introduced new resources into the conversation as though to obfuscate the issue.

Some may say that schools could provide for the educational needs of these students with flexible cluster grouping by readiness and ability, without regard to grade level or chronological age.

There is always the possibility that legal action has caused the greater inclusion.

Inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve.

**Edited**

Nobody owns the definition of LOG: not you, not Davidson, and certainly not me. As you have said previously, this is an all-inclusive community, and we support each other no matter what we decide to "call" our children (or words to that effect). Let's stop tearing people down who use terms in a different way that we would like them to. No one is eroding anyone else's space.

To clarify, Hoagies webpage summarizes the approximate equivalent test scores. These are overall test scores, Full Scale IQs, not individual subtests nor GAIs. Various tests have different scores corresponding to 3SD+ from the norm, 99.9th percentile.

The equivalency table may be seen as similar to a conversion between centimeters and inches. The numbers will change when a different measurement instrument is utilized (cm side of tape measure vs. inch side of tape measure), even when the same object is measured and found to be the same (equivalent) size.

No, there is no burden of proof on me. You suggested "HG+ as synonymous with PG" and have been unable to substantiate that, beyond stating that you have an "impression".

Meanwhile I have demonstrated that HG and PG are two distinct levels of gifted, in this prior post, and cited the source.
Hoagies shows four levels of gifted, each with progressively higher scores:
1) Gifted (G) or Moderately Gifted (MG)
2) Highly Gifted (HG)
3) Exceptionally Gifted (EG)
4) Profoundly Gifted (PG)

It may be wise for members of the gifted community to become aware of the terms, working definitions, and sources which inform beliefs, in order to facilitate meaningful communication.

I have not torn anyone down. However your statement "I have to say, indigo, that your level of pedantry absolutely astounds me" may be seen as a personal attack and does not add to the conversation in a positive manner.

Time will tell. Inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve.

the forum has traditionally be open to anyone with questions about giftedness.

---wow, have never had that feeling on this forum. does that really happen? what an odd waste of someone's time. Hm.

At the same time, they should become aware there is no standard definition for ranges for a given LOG. Hoagies is incredibly clear about this. Pretty much the only thing that one can glean is that it's likely to be a needs gradient (though not the only one). MG/HG/EG/PG is simply a model to think about those needs increasing as rarity increases.

You have recently called out one member for using the term PG in way that was not to your liking.

What I meant to say was that the level of pedantry that you are applying to your argument makes it extremely difficult for me to follow you. This discussion, as a result, has simply become noisy, and I find that astounding.

Again, Davidson sets their parameters and is solely responsible for accepting people into their programs. I would think that Davidson knows their own mission the best, and I applaud them for reevaluating their minimum qualification criteria from time to time to best align with this mission. If families who have been with their programs for a long time are starting to feel supplanted, I would hope that they bring it up with a program director about how their needs are no longer being met and not just generally be frustrated that the minimum qualification criteria has changed.

Yes... "as rarity increases"... thereby indicating HG/HG+ is not synonymous with PG.

The point you made, which I challenged, was that HG/HG+ was synonymous with PG. It is not. I believe that you now see there is a difference... let's move on.

On another thread (in which you pointed to this thread, and in which you expressed dismay that one might embellish a child's intellectual gifts) I asked a poster whether her child tested as PG, then later cautioned posters to consult other poster's history and understand the source of their child/ren's "PG" label when deciding how to weigh the advice offered... in light of the embellishment of their child/ren's intellectual gifts. My post only pointed to posts made by that individual and did not "tear down"; Quite the contrary, I shared that all are welcome, there is no need to embellish a child's intellectual gifts.

By level of pedantry, do you mean citing facts rather than "impressions" as a source? I believe the thread became difficult to follow due to your refusal to accept that HG is not synonymous with PG.

This thread pre-dated DYS qualification changes. Raising awareness and discussing pros-and-cons is healthy.

Well, I think the forum has changed quite a bit recently. Personally, as someone whose kids have not been formally tested, I do not feel comfortable posting much, if at all anymore. One of the issues that I found fascinating when I first joined the forums was the issue of whether to test at all, an in depth discussion of the pros and cons. Frankly, I'm embarrassed to have suggested the forum to acquaintances and friends who had questions or wanted advice about gifted issues.