I recently got in trouble with a group of parents in a gifted group for saying that giftedness in kids is in the top 2%. Some feel it is 10%, others believe it is a way of thinking and gifted traits- regardless of an average IQ and achievement.

I have to admit that I find it annoying to be in a group for the gifted when the kids aren't gifted (either not tested or tested with no gifted IQ). My two kids are confirmed HG+ and I get made to feel like a pompous show off for saying they are. It's one thing to say your kid's smart, but to label them profoundly gifted when no test has confirmed it is unfair to those whose kids are actually gifted.


I guess what I'm trying to say is why label them as "PG"? Why not just "really advanced" or "really intelligent"?

Is it just me who feels this way?

I'm confused, are you using PG and gifted as synonyms? Generally, gifted refers to somewhere around 125-130 IQ (depending on school district) and PG to 145+ IQ. Population-wide they are the top 5% and 0.01%, respectively. But, in your local area 125 might be the top 20%, and if you live in Los Alamos it might qualify you for remedial work. It's all relative.

When I'm tempted to feel all woe is me about how much harder I have it than someone whose child is MG or optimally gifted I remind myself how individual kids are. You really can't sum up the entirety of a child in a number. Maybe their kid has executive function issues, or the most incredible knack for telling a story, and therefore school is a trial for them too. Even two kids with the same FSIQ can have both wildly differing strengths AND interact with the world in wildly different ways. And they can all be cool, amazing little people.

Maybe take this fight as a good reminder to listen with an open heart (I sound like a yoga teacher, but you know what I mean). It is hard to realise that even in a group of parents supposedly dealing with the same issues that you're not all dealing with the same issues. I'd have to hold my tongue around you the same way you have to hold your tongue around these people, and the parent of the athletically talented kid has to hold their tongue, or the incredible musician's parent, etc, etc. Or we could all accept that everyone's different and be supportive of each other. Maybe this person who's annoying you feels terribly inadequate themselves and is trying to build up their kid to compensate? I dunno, I just don't think you can go far wrong being kind and gentle with people, including yourself.

No, I mean they believe their child has an IQ over 160, despite average IQ test results.

I thought that joining a gifted group that is for highly gifted children meant that the kids would IQ's of 135+. But I'm told that I shouldn't be so pompous for thinking that. That IQ tests aren't the only way to prove giftedness.

I don't care of they think their child is brilliant, smart, genius, or the results might be wrong. Annoys me that they use the term "profoundly gifted" despite having no evidence. I believe gifted terms should be used once confirmed as being so.

They're the reason teachers think we all believe our kids are gifted.

Gifted is typically the top 2%, approximately IQ 130-132 and up. This page of Hoagies Gifted Education Page summarizes it well: What is Highly/Exceptionally/Profoundly Gifted? What Does It Mean?

While I would tend to agree, some may say that their "evidence" is a match in behavior characteristics to common lists of gifted traits, rather than evidence of IQ test scores as a measure of being intellectually gifted.

Others believe that high achievement, as a result of participation in a large number of opportunities afforded through high SES, or hot-housing by Tiger Moms, are evidence of giftedness. They may associate "prominence" with gifted.

Possibly in response to those who ascribe to hot-housing, including extensive IQ test prep, there has been an attempt to refine that gifted kids don't just learn more information (and repeat it back like parrots, following rote memorization) but rather they process information differently, creatively, making many connections which others may not have considered. Many have come to understand that gifted is a way of thinking. This reinforces that hot-housing doesn't make a kid become "gifted". However, over time some have deconstructed and analyzed the creative thinking process, and children can now be taught/coached in this as well.

Some kiddos, when tested, are found to be globally gifted (gifted in each area assessed by IQ tests), others are found to have slow processing speed and low working memory and may have a General Ability Index (GAI) calculated if the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is found to be invalid. Conversely, some "obviously gifted" kiddos may have exceptionally high processing speed and large working memory, but other scores may be average.

Then there are fabulously talented kids, like Jackie Evancho, who would easily be described as a "gifted" singer, regardless of IQ tests.

Here is an archived definition of gifted as asynchronous, developed by The Columbus Group.

This archived article includes a chart comparing high achievers, gifted learners, and creative thinkers

I agree. If I joined such a group I would expect the kids to have been assessed OR the siblings of those who had been 0R were not old enough/cooperative enough to test. I would alternatively accept 'working multiple level above expected for age without obvious hot housing (fine line but I don't think you can hot house an average kid past a certain point). It would be a bit like joining a dieting club for those with a serious weight problem and finding it full of people who put on a couple of pounds over Christmas. Although that is fairly common as one persons serious is not the same as others.

I also agree that it doesn't help with teacher's impressions.

Eta. Having a science background I tend to only accept objective testing not parent based assessment against checklists. One persons energetic is different to another's. I know in my case I wildly underestimated my kids' IQs.

dusty, my personal philosophy leans towards multiple-intelligence so I am fine with parents who believe that their child is gifted even though IQ test scores fall within the average range. I am thinking of a 2nd grade student I have been getting to know. He isn't academically driven and he is probably an average student but he is a natural leader, widely popular, and has that charisma you cannot teach or learn. If his parents say their son is socially gifted, I wouldn't disagree. Children could also be athletically, musically, or artistically gifted and those things will not show up on IQ tests.

Drive to learn, imagination and creativity are also traits that are not measured by standard IQ tests. So, if parents feel their children are exceptional based on those qualities, then okay, I get that too but...that's really different from insisting that a child's IQ is above 160 when the actual score is within the average range. That would confuse me but I probably would leave it alone.

What are the parameters for joining the group that you are in?

Is it more of an informal social group? Do you have to have a specific IQ score to join? Do parents self nominate? Is it for advocacy or finding peers for your children with common interests?

Personally, I don't think you are a "pompous show off" for saying your kids are highly gifted. However, if the group is open to anyone who is, lets say in the top 10%, then that's how the group defines giftedness. I totally get what you're saying about levels of giftedness and the top 2%, but if members of your group have children who are not in the top 2% I wouldn't expect them to react happily to being told that they shouldn't be allowed to be in a group where they fit membership criteria.

I'm a bit confused by someone insisting that their child is PG despite having average test results but perhaps their child is gifted in a different area such as music or art or an area not measured by IQ tests?

My DD5 hasn't been formally tested yet. I've learned to be very, very guarded about sharing her academic progress. I know you're probably disappointed because you thought your group would be a safe place where you could feel comfortable talking about your kids. Obviously the people in the group have a different perspective then you. I would take the good out of what it has to offer and keep looking for a better fit.

ETA I agree this makes advocating at school much more difficult. DH and I also never refer to DD as gifted outside of this forum, which is my sanity saver, as she has yet to be formally identified.....though she has been recently flagged at school.

I disagree about it making advocacy more difficult. I thought an insanely high test score would shock the school staff who'd been trying to patronisingly humor me while continuing as normal. You know, show that it wasn't me, it was a legitimate, impartial, verified quantifiable difference. Nope! They knew exactly how big the difference was (the about to retire teacher said "didn't you realise? I've only had one or two other kids like this in 40 years"). Test scores are nothing against educator apathy. My kid would have been better off if I'd been a pushy status-seeker, or if there'd been a pushy status seeker in the class.

But, I am old and cynical!

I think the term gifted is the issue here. Gifted can come in many variations. I think if the parents want to say gifted without testing that's fine but I personally wouldn't say a child was PG or HG unless testing had determined it. I know there are people on this board whose children tick all the boxes but haven't been tested yet for whatever reason, they still know their child is gifted based on their child's behavior. My brother is definitely gifted (and likely 2e) and was tested several times in elementary school but didn't test gifted. He also didn't test well on the SATs. He is still brilliant and got a doctorate in a highly scientific field and was told that he had solved problems they had been trying to solve for over 10 years in the department. So IMHO testing while it is the gold standard for educational purposes it is not necessarily a one size fits all situation. I think the criteria should be whether the child appears to need this group and fits in. BUT I am personally concerned with accuracy. If a child has not been formally tested, or did not test into HG they should not be referring to their child as HG or PG. The concept of HG and PG are constructs used to describe a child who has been tested and found to have a particular IQ - I'm not sure they can apply without testing since they are related to scoring (others may disagree, and that's fine). That said, I do believe in multiple intelligences too, and so if a child doesn't necessarily look gifted they still may be gifted. My DD does not look gifted compared to my DS, however I had her tested at the same time and she tested higher than he did (to my utter surprise). I realized I had a sleeper on my hands...

You are not elitist if you say you have a HG child. You have had your child tested and this is what you have - and you have a child who thinks very differently than most children and you are trying to support that by finding peers. This is difficult to do if the other kids haven't been tested so I think you need to trust that if a child is not gifted it will soon be obvious to all and that child will end up leaving the group anyway.

So what is the criteria set for this group? It sounds like the people in the group have differing opinions on what giftedness is in the first place...

While we are on the topic, I have been feeling like I shouldn't really participate in this forum because I do not have a PG child. How do people feel about people with children who are only gifted or HG participating?

No one will ask you to prove that your child is gifted before replying to your post. Many parents, including myself, have posted about children who have never had an IQ test, although they have shown other signs of giftedness. If you have a question, go ahead and ask it.

This.

My DD15 has never been tested. A test is just a number-- and a snapshot. Some kids are more photogenic than others, let me also add, here.

There are "risks" associated with testing, and not everyone is comfortable taking them. (If it's lower than achievement/performance would indicate, then what? If it's HIGHER, is that a burden?)

Since DD15 is kicking it in a college STEM major, I feel pretty comfortable saying that she's at least HG. She matches up with "PG" qualities on most checklists, etc. The biggest 'tell' in my estimation is the rate of learning that such children are capable of. It's not that they are more mature, more emotional, more-- well, more of anything in particular.

Like other people, when you've seen one gifted child, you've seen one gifted child. There are tells, I think-- but they aren't what a lot of people think that they are, and they are not easy to observe unless you have a window into the child's everyday life for a long period of time.

Nobody would have predicted my then-3yo to be anything more than "bright." She doesn't tend to be especially showy, and she's extraordinary at blending in socially-- more than that, she tends to probe others very rapidly for their expectations of her; then she sets about meeting them in every way.

My 3 year old is obviously untested. DH and I were both ID'd as gifted as children (I have no IQ test in hand--though there is probably one out there in the ether somewhere-- but was radically accelerated at the school's initiative, and DH is confirmed PG). DS is unmistakably much "more" than any other children I've met. He has no off switch. I feel confident given his behaviours and parents that DS is some flavour of gifted.

If I were to define giftedness, I would say that it is an intellectual hunger that cannot be satisfied by ordinary means and, for high LOG, even by extraordinary means. The percentiles a are a mechanical construct that exist because of resource scarcity and budget constraints.

I wouldn't worry about that if I were you.

+1

I don't think your child needs to be PG for this forum. This is more a support group for those whose gifted kids just won't get in the d*** box and stay there. Gifted can be be defined fairly loosely in that context.

To say in real life my child is PG, the test was wrong, you are elitist for testing and trusting the answers is a different thing.

In medicine and psychology a syndrome is a collection of signs (objective features) and symptoms (subjective features) which suggest a unified disease process even if the cause is not known. (A syndrome in genetics in different).

Giftedness is like a syndrome in that there is no one single test available to pin down the "cause" giving rise to it so no one test is a perfect identifier for who has it.

I agree strongly that the difficulty of providing a single definition for the construct of intelligence let alone giftedness is one reason it is hard to advocate.

This forum does not discriminate on level of giftedness or require proof for admission. The posters here are able to assist with providing advice and support on all aspects arising from giftedness which are so different for every child in every situation.

I guess my question would be to the OP, do you feel comfortable and supported by the group you have joined? Do the issues or topics discussed appear relevant to you and your child? If so there are positives to be gained from going along.

I can understand though, that it may be difficult to feel accepted if within that group you can't have a friendly and open discussion about the difficulties of gifted identification. That has certainly been raised many times here.

Lepa, please do not feel like you shouldn't participate. My DS has been tested privately and by the school and found HG (but 2e) by one and not gifted by the other...a test is just a test and it may find your child's giftedness or it may not- as someone else said it's a snapshot. A lot figures into it, including how old your child is when tested, if they are 2e, if they feel comfortable with the assessor, etc. If you find benefit from what you learn on here, then you need to be here for your child's sake.

I kind of felt like you a bit as I didn't have children that appeared to need or want acceleration, they weren't reading at two, and my DS not only didn't talk early he actually didn't start talking without intervention via speech therapy. So the types of challenges we have are different. But I really have found my tribe here and I have also found that the people with the "poster child" gifted kids are very supportive and have great advice even if their children's giftedness appears differently than mine.

The support you get here does tend to be pretty gifted (or suspected gifted) specific. I really don't think most people would end up here if their kids are not gifted (regardless of testing).

We need to stick together, it's a long strange road we are privileged to travel on with our kids. Our roads will look a little different based on what our children need, but it certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't be on this road.

I also have un-tested children, although I have documentation of HG+ for myself, and pretty good circumstantial evidence for my spouse. And, of course, I test for a living...but I do think that this forum benefits mainly those who belong here. (So if it benefits you, you belong.)

Another thought for contemplation: I think there is some value in taking a page from the other end of the bell curve, and combining measures of cognition with levels of need. On the left hand end of the curve, IQ is necessary but not sufficient (and the cutoff is somewhat flexible) for diagnosis. The other prong, in that case, is adaptive skills, with level of support the critical criterion. So an individual who scores rather low cognitively, yet is able to function independently in life without any modifications or accommodations, would not be considered intellectually impaired (it doesn't impair, you see). Perhaps we can consider levels of need in the right hand tail as well. Those way up in LOG require substantial modifications, to their education certainly, and often to other aspects of their lives, as well, to have their needs met. (Of course, when we throw in 2e, the level of support needed becomes quite a bit more complicated.) I know it's not a perfect parallel, but just something to think about.

In acknowledging different "flavors" of gifted, and welcoming a broad range of posters, a parent of a tested-and-found-to-be-PG child ought not to be made to feel badly for their experience of gifted or their support for IQ testing. Schools, psychologists, and researchers are among those who also tend to support testing.

Many have written that the more inclusive and all-encompassing "gifted" identification becomes, the less well it serves the intellectual outliers who most need different supports, approaches, curriculum, and pacing (and for whom gifted education was ostensibly created).

Unfortunately, the same may be true of some forums. This TED talk on "filter bubbles" may serve as a reminder to be open to various perspectives... including the parent of the tested-and-found-to-be-PG child... so they may also feel welcome.

I'm not fussed at all, we all have a need.

I agree very much with these ideas.

On the one hand, this forum is titled "gifted issues," not "HG+ issues." On the other hand, the Davidson Institute serves HG+ kids. As far as I'm aware, there really isn't another place on the web that focuses on the educational needs of HG+ kids, though there are a variety of organizations that serve mildly and moderately gifted kids.

Inclusiveness seems like a nice idea. I wouldn't say that a public forum should only allow certain people. At the same time, a very common complaint here is that when a gifted program or a class aimed initially at gifted students becomes too inclusive, the population it was meant to serve doesn't get served anymore.

If I understood the OP correctly, the writer annoyed some people because she didn't define giftedness inclusively enough. That's a (very common) reaction to a trait a child was born with. To me, it's why I think that HG+ kids and their parents deserve ONE PLACE that focuses on extreme outliers without having to feel obligated to include everyone so as not to make anyone feel left out.

It's like...it's okay to be rude to HG+ people ("you must have hothoused him/you are so pompous for bragging about your kid's high IQ/etc.), but it's not okay to say, "Okay then, I'll find a HG+ sandbox to play in" because suddenly that sandbox becomes a hotbed of elitism and pomposity.

I am NOT saying that this attitude prevails here. I'm saying that too much inclusiveness can start off like a wonderful idea and end up sidelining the people a program was originally designed to benefit.

While I agree that this can be a problem, I think that these forums are somewhat protected by the fact that DITD Young Scholars program is not going to become more inclusive - they are 145+, no exceptions. So I think that these forums will continue to draw a higher-IQ population than other "gifted" venues.

FWIW - It appears from the FAQ responses, that the Davidson folks specifically anticipate that this forum will support both PG kids/parents as well as gifted kids (and their parents) who are not PG. Here is the response to the question of whether DYS admission is possible for those who don't make their cut-off criteria:

As we strive to serve the extreme of the gifted population, the scores listed on our website are considered to be the minimum in terms of eligibility requirements. . . . Many very bright students may not meet our qualification criteria for this program, but are likely to benefit from the information and free resources that the Davidson Institute makes available to the public via our websites, including . . . . the public Gifted Issues discussion forum. . . .

And anyway - the folks on this board are so uniformly kind and supportive, that I can't imagine them rejecting anybody who reaches out for help.

So - welcome!

Sue

FYI, I am not referring to this group. I am talking about a group in my area with the name "highly gifted" in its title.

Sorry for the rant. I don't have problem with a variety of levels of giftedness in gifted groups, even mildly gifted kids in highly gifted groups. I do have a problem with parents calling them gifted when they're not. I especially can't stand them calling their child "profoundly gifted" when they've never been tested or when they've tested as average. Why not just say " I think little Timmy is gifted"? Why does it have to be "little Timmy is PG"? Why specifically profoundly? The only time I see this, it's PG. I never see someone say that their child is highly gifted (when they're not) KWIM?

Possibly these parents believe it gives them more credibility, a louder voice?

and The vibe of a forum changes based on participants. On one hand, it may be comfortable but ultimately unhelpful to have an insular bubble of agreeable yes-men, on the other hand parents may wish to be aware that some may be drawn to gifted forums in effort to cut down tall poppies and force equal outcomes for all.

I use to care about this a lot. I think it comes from feeling like your kid isn't getting the help he/she needs to flourish.

However, I've realized that there are kids who are in the top 10% and are struggling in their schools because they aren't getting what they need either. So, they feel the frustration too. I know a lot of 125ish IQ kids who are bored in class and their parents are frustrated.

When I hear, "oh my kid or grandkid is so smart" I think, they probably are. I consider PG or HG just to be an entirely different ballgame that isn't even comprehensible except by a few.

I welcome any opportunity to safely (ie, semi anonymously) take the issue up with those people. They say anyone short of PG isn't really gifted, so there should be no accommodations. I say, well then, accommodate my kid and the others like them, and since you insist they're not just 12 months ahead, make the accommodations fit that. They say all gifted kids drop out of college anyway, and I can say yes, they do, ever wonder why that is? Because they have not ever in their lives been asked to do something difficult or uncomfortable. Why is a kid with a higher IQ worth less than any other kid? Why do they deserve to get thrown by the wayside when everyone else gets taught how to strive and fail, and strive and succeed?

While ultimately I agree with the final question you pose, I'm not following parts of your post and have three follow-up questions. Possibly there is confusion over definitions.

1) Who is "they"... who says that anyone short of profoundly gifted is not really gifted? There are many articles and webpages which discuss the normal distribution curve for IQ and levels of gifted (LOG). Many have termed moderately gifted as optimally gifted, and profoundly gifted as outliers beyond the scope of many gifted programs and services.

2) No accommodations? The word "accommodations" has a specific meaning in education and advocacy, which is typically: agreed-upon supports to address the needs of learning disabilities or learning differences for children with an IEP or 504. Gifted kids can also have an LD, and then are termed twice-exceptional or 2e, and may receive accommodations. In this context, possibly you do not mean accommodations but rather differentiation in curriculum, instruction, and pacing, especially when you say "they're not just 12 months ahead".

3) Do you have a source to share, that informs this view? A research paper, article, book, thread/post, etc?

Unfortunately, gifted kids spend much of their school years doing what is difficult or uncomfortable:
- waiting for others
- tutoring other kids
- being ignored, invalidated, or undermined
- watching others receiving attention, encouragement, support, validation, and affirmation
- teaching themselves (often they may receive higher level worksheets without instruction.

However they may lack:
- appropriate academic challenge at their zone of proximal development (ZPD),
- intellectual peers.

Agreed. This is the quintessential question. Some may envy them, some do not trust them because they do not follow the typical development for their chronological age and may be highly internally motivated (less responsive to external rewards), others may fear them because they find them to be eerily "scary smart". Some IRBs may find it justifiable to place these children in a control group while attempting to grow the intellect of other children, specifically for comparison to see if equal outcomes can be achieved.

Some people like me are very into trying to make a self consistent reality. When we hear something like "My child is PG!" then later hear "My child only scored average on an IQ test, but the test was obviously wrong"; it causes something similar to pain in our brain. I have discovered that not all people require a high level of self consistency. When I meet somebody who does not have my required level of consistency, now, I try to back up and say to myself "isn't that cute," or equivalent. No reason worrying about somebody else's level of self consistency that doesn't meet mine. There are probably people who find my required level of consistency totally lacking as well. Actually, later versions of myself often find earlier versions lacking self consistency, hence I fairly often delete my own posts.

After I am no longer worrying about said person or group, I can move on to the more pragmatic actions.

Yes, cognitive dissonance is particularly painful for some people. And for other people (or in other circumstances for the same people), there are "truths" that serve important functions for them, for the sake of which objective data may be bent quite significantly.

To your solution: in our house, our twist is the question, "In what way is this true for the other person?" Works for sibling quarrels, too!

Exactly.

I find that even though our daughter is very far outside even that norm, we as parents have considerable common ground with many parents.

Yes, there are some unique things about raising a child who is very far from the norm even among gifted/identified 'gt' kids. I save most of that stuff for here-- or, when I get the opportunity, for when I run into another parent who has (clearly-- and truly, it IS pretty obvious when you meet those parents) a HG/HG+ child. They aren't the parents bragging on their kids. They are the ones trying NOT to, and saying little, maybe looking a bit uncomfy about discussions of milestones, etc.

They light up when they realize that you're a kindred spirit-- they don't look sulky, but PLEASED to have found you. I started realizing that my DD was "more than just MG" when I learned that even most of them can't identify with some of the things that we live with. The maladaptive coping that kids learn at high LOG is really fearsome-- and unusual. Parents definitely need support for those things, and that is a lot of what happens in a place like this.

One thing that I've learned about IRL versus on-line support groups is that the on-line variety in a message board format tends to draw those who really do NOT have good luck finding true peers for support in IRL support groups. In other words-- those who are isolated for some reason and have NO real support group, or those who are at the very ends of the distribution. Our experiences are often extraordinary even among the larger cohort. IRL support groups tend to match the center of the distribution quite a bit better-- but that may make them less of a good fit for the needs of those at the tails of the distribution.

Some may say that this is a sign of a very highly evolved individual. Being able to edit, clarify, provide additional context, and/or delete posts is a benefit of this forum.

Looked at another way, seeking clarification may help individuals examine their beliefs, what informed them, and clarify their view. This can sometimes help a person leap ahead light years in their advocacy.

Agreed. And yet a gifted forum is, for many individuals, their only peek into the gifted community; The impressions they form in reading a gifted forum may linger, grow, and form policy and practice. For example, an unchallenged misconception that PG kids tend to score average on IQ tests may lead to a corollary based on the inverse: that an average score on an IQ test tends to indicate a child is profoundly gifted. For this reason, some may find it pragmatic, even necessary, to ask/probe/seek clarification.

This brings to mind the recent thread on The Overvalued Child.

I will agree with the concern re consistency/accuracy being an issue. By way of analogy: My son is allergic to nuts and peanuts and used to be allergic to milk and eggs. When folks in the allergy community say "allergic" they don't mean "I hypothesize that my child's behavior will improve if I remove X from his diet." They mean "my child will have to be injected with epinephrin if he is exposed to X, and he could still die anyway."

There are many people with food-related hypotheses, and who am I to say they are wrong? I have no idea. However, as a short cut to explain why they need everybody else to follow their child's food rules - they say "my child is allergic." Well - no, your child isn't. They are sensitive, or have a bad reaction, or say whatever you want. Maybe it is even an exquisite sensitivity, and if so you have my sincere sympathy. I know it's hard.

But when 100 people say "my child is allergic" and they aren't, it virtually mutes my plea - "My child is allergic to milk and nuts. Please don't give him any of the rocky road ice cream." Instead, people wait until my back is turned and slip him a little taste because "he deserves a little bit at least, even if he is allergic." And then they truthfully say, "How were we supposed to know he was SO allergic he'd get that sick, that fast." Because honestly, the way people toss around the word "allergic," there really was no way they could know. [[Yes - this really happened to us. DS was fine after a trip to urgent care and meds and a very bad experience.]]

My point is - misuse or inconsistency is dangerous when it mutes people who need to use a word to mean what they say. And there's no other way to get the point across without going on and on and sounding like a crazy person. And then you're really muted anyway.

This is why I think the HG/PG community needs to abandon the word "gifted" and exclusively use the word "asynchronous." Better still, give it a three-letter acronym - "asynchronous development syndrome" = ADS.

Imagine: "My child has ADS. Sure - he has some challenges, but there's a plus side, too. And it's important we all stay focused on that." Now we're talking their language!!

Some may say that what parents share may depend upon their previous lived experiences, their awareness of gifted issues, their childrens' recent events (good news to share vs. dilemma to solve), the level of trust in those with whom they are communicating, and whether they do perceive the other as a kindred spirit.

As in unrequited love, it is entirely possible for one party to believe they've found a kindred spirit, and for another party to believe otherwise. As with other "credentialing", some may attribute value to IQ test scores... the absence of which does not diminish the person but may, in some minds, invalidate the use of certain designations such as HG, HG+, PG... or fail to convince a parent that they've found a kindred spirit.

This has my support because being "asynchronous" does not sound like something to be grasped at. There is something about the word "gifted" which causes some people to correlate it with intrinsic worth... inspiring a condition of coveting it... and a sense of status, that more of it must be better.

Precisely. And a kid with Ads inherently cannot be "highly gifted, but totally normal in every other way." Which is what the graspy folks always want to say about their "highly gifted" kids.

Important note to parents with "ADS" kids who are magnificently well-adjusted: Please don't think I'm saying your kids aren't HG/PG. In fact, I'm only admiring the hard work I know you and your kids did to achieve that.

I don't see anything in the definitions of asynchronous development that precludes a child being several years ahead in academic/intellectual areas, and spot-on average developmental milestones in other areas such as social, emotional, motor/athletic. ETA: My bad, not mentioning emotional intensity... due to being largely familiar with seeing it channeled for good.

In my own experience, "graspy folks" need their child to be #1, regardless the academic dishonesty, undermining, or withholding of information it may take to eliminate any who might be perceived as competition.

Indigo, haven't you ever encountered those folks? You surely live a more sheltered existence than me. I'd go hunt some examples down for you, but it's too depressing. You'll have to take my word for it that real life and the internet are both littered with people saying "they're not gifted, they're just smart". And the following reasoning is just a nonsensical as that statement.

Yeah-- "Wow, we had no idea..." is truly music to our ears. It means that we've done a good job making sure that DD is somewhat cushioned from the expectations of a world that is entirely out of step with her development in many ways.

That wouldn't be possible at all, however, if she were a different child, or if we didn't (all of us-- her too) work as hard as we do at it.

By "kindred spirit" I'm definitely not talking about assuming that another party is a soulmate or anything. I'm referring quite specifically to certain "tells" of an unusual condition that often garners nothing but ostracism/envy/derision from the community at large.

I have two different (and unrelated) experiences there as a parent, and I stand by my assertion that you can tell who the other parents are-- there are things that they do (or do not do) which are often subtle indicators reflecting their lives as "other" with respect to other parents.

To go with suevv's analogy, these are the families with smartphones out, who read EVERY label in a grocery store-- and even read duplicate labels on two identical cans of tomatoes before placing them into the basket. Their kids wear fanny packs or cross-body "purses" even as little kids, and they have medic-alert bracelets on. Then there are the people with "wheat allergy" who eat the pumpkin out of the pie shell, or "just take the bun off" of a burger while they tell everyone within earshot about how amazing their chiropractor is with their food allergies (always plural). The latter, I just grit my teeth and ignore, much as it pains me... and the former, I smile at with a great deal of sympathy-- because I know just how hard life is for them. If they smile back, or look particularly defeated, I might even strike up a conversation. Because I already know.

Same with the hyper-energetic 3yo at the park who is talking 100mph and asking why-why-why-why questions, peppered with observations about EVERYTHING, many of them insightful in the extreme, and a preference for older kids and adults. That's a "tell" for a gifted child. The parental exhaustion and attempts to get her child to be quiet about unusual topics of interest... well, I know that look, too.

These are not generally parents who are trying to seek attention. Usually, they are tired and attempting to go under the radar of those around them, having learned that most of the world is completely out of step with their day to day reality. They are sometimes very lonely.

Yes, I've seen many parents in denial about their own childrens' giftedness. For some parents this may be due to being undiagnosed as asynchronous themselves as kids, therefore not seeing their child as differing from the norm, just a smart little apple that did not fall far from the tree. I've known others who held to the belief that their child's intelligence was not innate but due to hard work... while others covertly engaged in hard work in order to present their child's intelligence as innate. Some of this may be reflective of the parents' level of awareness, some may be cultural, some of it may be by design. Although some may see a number of these approaches as sub-optimal, kids have been largely successful under each type of parental guidance, depending upon the circumstances.

By analogy, here we exchange "recipes", understanding they may need to be altered for local preferences, baking time at high elevation, etc.

Agreed. At the age of three, most gifted children are not yet tested, and most parents would not seek the "credential" of a confirming IQ test score. For some parents the "secret handshake" for recognizing another parent of a giftie as a kindred spirit may change as the children age.

So you ladies have seen my son at the park, have you?

�What is giftedness?� indeed. I am going off on a tangent here, but I hope you�ll bear with me. Our 4-year-old was tested recently as a requirement for application to a school recommended by his preschool director. His FSIQ was 144 (WPPSI): His subtest scores were mostly 17 to 19, plus a 16, 14 and 13. So, fairly even. But not 145+.

Frankly, we were thinking he might not cross the 130 threshold required for application. We didn�t consider him gifted, because he didn't check all those boxes. He's bright, for sure! He started reading at 3, without hesitation and with inflection so must have been working on that in his head for a while. He has always had an ease with numbers, and makes little problems for himself throughout the day (first thing he does every morning is check his watch and figure out to the minute how much sleep he got). He gets concepts like prime numbers, factorials, Fibonacci sequence, etc., as they are explained.

But he doesn�t fit the profile of always asking why, why, why, and he�s not really a tinkerer or Lego fan. Jigsaw puzzles are capital-B Boring. He�s also an extrovert, rarely serious, and very athletic. Says he wants to either be an artist or a golfer when he grows up. He has a lot of different interests, but just seems to file away facts without going really deep into any one subject.

So despite whatever the snapshot of this test shows, the label �gifted� still seems ill-fitting. Or maybe I just don't like labels.

So, why does it matter? We have to make a decision in the next month about where he will go to school. We think socially, he�d be fine at any school where he can make friends and play games at recess. But academically, he�s going to be a square peg at least for those first few years. Will he and his teacher figure out how he can survive and thrive in a standard kindergarten setting? Or does he need to be in a special setting for gifted or advanced learners? Our fear is that he will quickly come to believe that school is boring and it sucks, or that it could actually be difficult for him socially once he is out of his sweet little preschool environment. (His preschool mates recognize that he�s advanced, but think it�s pretty cool, according to his teachers.)

Any parents of kids who fit this profile somewhat? If yes, what is/was your school situation? If there is a better place to post this, kindly send me there. Thank you! I can�t believe all the handwringing we�re doing over kindergarten. :P Just want to get it right the first time.

For us it is being the parent at the lighted playground at late hours of the night getting dirty looks for being a bad parent, but then what is the choice. If we do not wear her down she will not sleep. Or being the bad parent unable to child proof our home from the tool wielding 2 year old. We do supervise, because child proofing... well that doesn't work. Many times I fear myself the bad parent for the things I let her do, but... you don't know her.

To me giftedness means very high intelligence or ability in one or more areas. I also assume it to mean intellectual giftedness unless another area is specified (athletic, social, etc.).

It annoys me to hear giftedness defined as "out of the box" thinkers, or the similar concept of creativity. Some gifted kids fit that mold, while others don't.

The problem with "asynchronous" as a descriptor is that it is even more open to misattributions than "gifted". Any developmental trajectory that is out of the norm is asynchronous, the delays as much as the precocity. And it explains only part of the gifted experience.
I would not mind "highly intelligent" as a descriptor at all. The problem with that one is that is of course that Gardner came up with the multiple intelligences, without any empirical data, which again enables the tired old trope that everyone is intelligent in something, and that intelligence is only what intelligence tests measure (why "only"? one might ask).
The way I like to describe what the tests measure and what difference it makes to my child is "highly logical" - with the VCI results describing his capacity for finding and applying logic in the verbal field, and the PRI in the nonverbal field, and I explain that the one makes these kids so good at reading and learning foreign languages, and the other at maths and science, and the WM and PS indices describe how fast and efficient they are at doing this. I also describe how these kids have this intense need for logic in their personal interactions as well, and how illogical behaviour and rule breaking bothers them, even though their impulse control may not enable them to follow the rules as well as they themselves think everyone should, and how that sometimes bothers them as well. From there, it is in easy step to explain what intelligence tests do NOT measure, and why that means that these children may not appear like model students, or advanced, or "smart" in every domain in life, and it makes it easier for people to understand these limitations as well.
This is just me, and it works for me and the few RL life folks I have spoken to about this. It also describes only a part of the gifted experience of course, but IMO the on e that is most relevant to dealing with teachers and other parents. I realize that it's not going to sweep the field of gifted education any time soon.

About the OPs question:
I would not expect for parents in a gifted group to somehow prove their child's giftedness by providing test scores. People may have reasons not to test, or delay testing, and I have hung out on gifted forums and even joined a parent group before we had our oldest tested, because I was perfectly sure for myself about what I Was seeing.
However, "profoundly gifted" is specialist terminology - denoting a specific score on specific IQ tests, and I frankly do not feel comfortable using anything but "HG+" for my oldest with a 154 IQ, because I have no idea how the European version of the WISC that was used compares with the US version for which this terminology was developed.

Parents whose kids have scores in the average range but talk ant their kids as profoundly gifted because of those subjective checklists? That is just bizarre and probably says a lot more about those parents needs than about their kids'.

Some may say that in covering the delays and precocity, "asynchronous" encompasses the whole gifted experience.

While many parents gather on gifted forums to discuss intelligence, some may say that intelligence is only part of the gifted experience, to wit: "highly logical"... illogical behaviour and rule breaking bothers them, even though their impulse control may not enable them to follow the rules as well as they themselves think everyone should..."

Additionally, the term "highly intelligent", like the term "gifted", may inspire some to covet that designation/label.

I can't multiquote, but talk of a behavioural 'tell' for IQ is over generalising your personal experience. I don't deny that your child was into everything at two, or needs to be run hard in order to sleep, or asks lots of questions, or is upset by others not following the rules, but those are not universal or even necessarily common amongst high IQ kids. I know more than several dozen very high IQ kids (all tested, and many PG), and tons of very smart adults and they are as varied as any other group. Sure, the high IQ kids with ADHD do need to be run before they can concentrate, the anxious ones are nervous when people break rules, the talkative ones talk and the quiet ones sit back and observe. But that's part of their personality, not a necessary part of where they fall on the range of IQ. Some of the quietest rule followers can blow you away when you really dig, as can some of the most fidgety wrigglers.

As a parenting tactic, it might be useful to stop saying "my kid runs me ragged because she's bright" and start saying "my kid runs me ragged and she's bright". Two different things.


Your commonality with that parent is the activity level of the child. You're not knocking on the door of the parent whose kid is curled up with a book to share a knowing look.

If you play with the edit features a bit, you'll be able to multiquote, I believe there is a limit of 3 or 4 nested levels of quotes.

The example given by that parent matches items found on several lists of common traits of gifted, (NAGC, Austega, Hoagies, DITD) although it was expressed in that parent's unique style. When parents seek/find kindred spirits, it may often be a bond over some particular subset of gifted traits and the experiences which those traits may engender, it may be a bond based on level of gifted (LOG), it may be based on personality.

Absolutely. The posts shared by parents were not all-encompassing but helped shine a light on a few aspects of gifted near and dear to them, with which they may be most familiar.

While having a high IQ neither necessitates nor precludes the other behaviors, research continues to explore which traits/behaviors/characteristics tend to correlate with high IQ.

Two different things and each may be true.

Two parents bonding as kindred spirits over the commonality of their experiences in parenting their gifted children is a good thing. Other parents with their own unique experiences will hopefully find and bond with others who share a commonality. No parent can be expected to be all things to all people.

Actually-- I am. Because THAT was my kid.

She peppered me with her talking, all right-- but most people who saw us in public would have had no idea when she was that age. I just looked haggard and lonely, if anything. So yes, the example that I chose is just that. ONE example

I also pointed out earlier in the thread that when you've seen one gifted child, you've seen one gifted child.

Still, the entire package of being "other" takes a particular and peculiar toll on parents. That is the real "tell" for me personally. DD and I are aces at finding and warmly interacting with (often wary) parents and their 2e kids. Seriously. It makes us both very happy to share something kind of normal which is-- ultimately-- a rare slice of normal for both us and them, because we're non-normative. While we may become accustomed to non-normative, and accept it, or even prefer solitary living if we are introverts, there is also a powerful undercurrent of sadness in not being able to share in common social experiences as freely as others.

Howler, the toll of finding appropriate educational settings for a smart child is entirely different to the toll an incredibly energetic child takes on a parent. I don't have to spend 14 hours a day fielding questions, and apparently neither do you. It is unfair of us to claim that experience, just like its unfair of people who just need a small adjustment for their kid to be acccomodated to claim it's anything like what some of us have to do for our kids (and, again, you and I get it relatively easy because our kids aren't 2E).

1) There may be considerable overlap between gifted and energetic; A child may be both.
2) The toll of finding an appropriate educational setting may be a subset of the toll of supporting the positive growth and development of a gifted child. ( Gifted All The Time, Dan Peters, Summit Center )
3) HK has taught her child at home, utilizing an online public school, in order to facilitate her child's learning style and pace. A pace which may be 3 years accelerated (college at 15, average age of matriculation is 18)?
4) HK has experience in these matters, including fielding an exhausting level of inquisitive questions from an infinitely curious child; Experiences which HK has generously shared over the years, for any who may benefit.
5) On numerous occasions, HK has shared that her child is 2e.

HK, please let me know if you feel I overstepped in summarizing what I recalled, or if I summarized incorrectly.

ah just deleted my very long post... will try again later. Long story short - I interact with several gifted kids, my DD has the highest IQ by quite a way, honestly you wouldn't know it most of the time. I think that conversations limiting giftedness are dangerous territory for people with such a huge emotional investment. I think it's easy to reject inclusiveness when your child makes an arbitrary grade instead of being the kid that is only in the top 3 or 5% who still have needs.

What is the purpose of your group, is it to socialise, advocate, commiserate? If so then the more the merrier surely? If however it is to provide stimulation for the top few percent then yes I guess you can be more exclusive. Some would argue that the top 2% are not highly gifted and that you would need a separate group for the top .1%.

I do think that it is odd to label a kid a specific LOG without evidence of some kind. I don't think that is limited to IQ tests though.

FWIW - I find it very difficult to keep my mouth shut about DD, one because I am an open book, people would think it weird if I didn't talk about her much. Second ( and I know this may change at some point) I don't think I should feel embarrassed to talk about her. She hasn't done anything wrong, I don't walk into a room and say wow look what we did today either....

Yes, my daughter is 2e. She is (with some coaching) currently trying to navigate accommodations with her university, in fact, and has definitely had something of a rough fall as a result of that second e.

On the other hand, while I can empathize with many of the people that I know (here and IRL) with a second exceptionality which directly impacts learning or demonstrating academic progress, I can't really know what that experience is like, because it has not been mine as a parent.

What constitutes "tail of the distribution" is a moving target. It depends largely upon local norms and one's support system IRL, in my experience.

Among a cohort of academic parents and others with terminal degrees, DD still stands out in a big way. On the other hand, only if one is paying attention-- because she is (as I've noted elsewhere and at length) also profoundly good at making others feel at ease. Always. She is the ultimate chameleon-- so while I say that when out in public, by the time she was 2 or 3, few people would have really SEEN her for what she is-- that is, she would have been remarkable only for her quiet observation of everything around her and her super-human compliance with whatever behavioral standards seemed appropriate for the venue. She was quite a different child at home, I assure you. Talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-talk. I can still hear her little voice reminding me of something that she'd observed earlier in the week, and asking me earnest questions, thinking, and questioning, and then making some observation that was MIND-blowing coming from an elementary school aged child, never mind a toddler. I quit trying to share any of it-- even with family. They didn't see her doing it, and frankly thought I was lying.

This is where that "other-ness" is a problem for us as people and as parents.

It's the "other-ness" in parenting that leads to things like Welcome to Holland, which resonates so strongly with the parents of disabled children. There is a glass wall between us and "normal" and we're the only ones who seem to be aware that it exists.

The more unusual one's experiences, the more isolated and alien it can feel to be "social" around the experiences which so many other parents share. Shared experiences form a social fabric and a social currency, and yes-- this is a passion of mine, and something that I've thought a lot about over the years-- because there are a few fundamental activities that, if impacted by disability, pretty much alienate you from ALL social activities. Communication disorders (or those which profoundly impact communication) certainly do. Disorders which impact food do, as well. Name one "normal" social activity that doesn't involve both of those things. This changes everything for my family.

There's that "other-ness" at work. Those things are simply not the same for families that work around those things, and they CANNOT be shared experiences with others without accommodations for the difference/disability being in the center of the planning.

I think that in some ways, cognitive asynchronous development is like that. People are fine with "bright" children-- up to a point. When it becomes so different that you require flexibility/accommodation from those around you, it becomes alienating.

Yep.

Oddly, I haven't found the other-ness to be exceptionally wearying. Perhaps it's because I've always been a member of one minority or another (the type varying by the setting), and I grew up in a community enriched for this particular kind of other-ness. Maybe I'm used to it; the comments from other parents, need for relentless (but sweet!) advocacy (until we switched to homeschooling), balancing act wrt how much one says about one's children, etc. are all just par for the course.

Granted, I don't believe my kids are PG, which certainly figures into our experience. That the oldest is charmingly respectful yet confident with adults probably helps to take the edge off of the freakishness factor.

And I do have a good built-in support system, with sibs, which I agree makes a huge difference. Our children kind of function as their own norm group, too, when it comes to expectations.

In my case, it's definitely often been the 2Eness rather than the giftedness alone...

Yes. You can tell people about what it is like to always have one leg in the hospital, to speak about brain surgery as routine, to take trips to the ER as all in the days work, to plan your days (and sometimes, nights) around a medical procedure that needs to be done every four hours. Only those who have been there can really understand.

On the other hand, you CAN talk about it, and you do get sympathy, and help, almost all of the time, even if there is no real understanding.

I cannot talk about the struggles with my HG+ child except for the very very few parents who have been there.

The other day, we were at an event in aid of the children's hospital, organized by a HG+ kid who had been a preemie at that hospitals NICU, which we had been invited to through the local gifted group. DH was hailed by a man who he needs to deal with in his professional capacity through his volunteer work, and who asked how come he was there. And DH started babbling about our oldest being a preemie, too.

It's a different kind of different,

We were in a similar situation. We went with a gifted private school at 4 (figuring if it didn't work we could always try public K 2 years later). When you put a gifted kid in with other gifted kids the dynamic is really interesting. They seem to really "get" one another in a way that does not happen with NT kids the same age. My kid does not appear outwardly gifted either (acting is one of his gifts I think). We did not want our guy getting into bad habits and coasting through school. So far things are working out pretty well.

SLO, I just sent you a loooong PM.

(bump)

In less than two years since this post, there has been a change in DYS qualification criteria, as well as parental posts of a child admitted with scores below the new, less stringent qualification criteria.

This thread was recently linked by another poster on the current active thread "PG? Husband is a skeptic, I am on the fence"

No, you are not correct. In general, it is not helpful for things to be "taken out of context", as doing so may lead to misinterpretations.

As stated in this recent post, "On this forum, all are accepted, supported, and encouraged regardless of level-of-gifted (LOG); There is no need to make embellished claims of a child's intellectual gifts."

Thank you. I hope it was clear enough that there was no ill will behind my question. I would genuinely understand if parents of EG and PG kids wanted a community of their own to share and commiserate. That said, we continue to have some serious struggles with DS6 (mostly around the OEs and possibly with an undetected LD) and I have found some solace and sage advice on this forum. I am currently reading The Explosive Child, and I hope it will help.

Cheers.

You seem to have a very realistic approach to learning about and helping your child, and I hope you can continue to find answers which are useful for understanding, raising, and advocating for your child. Kudos to you for not inflating or embellishing your child's level of gifted (LOG).

Trying to remember where I heard this, but I believe that there was some recognition that the HG+ 2e population was being underserved by the YS program, which was one likely reason for the change?

I also know that Davidson has maintained that they look at the whole child, indicated by the fact that the application process asks for complete assessment results (including writeups) and will not accept scores by themselves.

And thank you for providing context in a later post. Even though I was the poster that referenced that old thread, it seemed out of the blue to me, too!

To be fair, qualifications have not been lowered across the board. You need considerably higher scores on the Explore and on the SAT now. For example, the Minimum SAT scores went up some a few years back and then the last change in 2016 went from requiring just one to two out of three (Math, CR, Composite) SAT scores. In fact, it is now easier to qualify for Davidson Academy than for Davidson Young Scholars on the SAT because you only need one qualifying SAT score for the academy versus two for DYS and the minimums are the same.

This may have been conjecture read from the thread DYS qualification criteria. Other conjecture included expanding access to families for whom encountering fewer test fees may be a significant budgetary factor.

I'm curious as to what informs your view that the DYS mission is to serve HG+, rather than Profoundly Gifted? The Davidson Young Scholar program qualification criteria webpages plainly states (in context): Other eligibility criteria include factors such as: age, citizenship/residency, extreme precocity, student’s ability to learn and process complex information rapidly.

Backpedaling statements which retreat or withdraw from the minimum requirements as expressed on the website include:
This would seem to indicate that scores just missing the cutoff (and within the standard error's confidence interval to include the cutoff score for eligibility) may be considered, depending upon the strength of other portions of the application...
and
Extenuating circumstances, as determined by the applicant and family...
and

There is good and bad in everything... inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve.

Thank you for this analysis.

I would tend to agree with having raised the qualifying scores on Explore and SAT, because these tests have changed, there are many study guides and prep courses, and students may take these multiple times, only reporting their highest scores. I'm not sure whether super-scoring may fit in here, but I thought I would mention it.

It is interesting that you compare qualifying scores for Davidson Academy admission with those for DYS, as the Academy requires 3 nominations from specific teachers and the overall application process differs enough that some may consider it a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison.

I am not suggesting that it is easier to gain acceptance to the Academy than to DYS as that is obviously not the case. In fact, I would posit the opposite. For the Academy, you would also have to travel to Reno and interview, test, and shadow, etc, etc. I am only comparing the minimum acceptable test scores.

Thank you for mentioning prepping, multiple testing and super scoring - for some reason, that actually did not occur to me. I know the prevalence for high school juniors and seniors but did not think younger kids would pursue SAT scores in the same way or to the same extent.

We both learned something from this conversation.

I believe that they are synonyms, at least the way Davidson defines profoundly gifted and the way I've seen many parents identify their child's LOG here (many seem to find HG+ a more comfortable term than PG). See their FAQ for how Davidson defines PG.

Everyone does not use the term PG in the same way. Even the Hoagies page you've recently linked to says that there is no common agreement on how any of these levels of giftedness are actually defined. Neither does that mean that there are no differences between a child with a 145 IQ and a 160 (or higher) IQ.

You could certainly argue that Davidson paints the HG+ group with a broad PG brush, and I would agree with that. But you can't take something that Davidson clearly defines (their notion of PG) and then apply your own definition of PG to it and then suggest that, somehow, Davidson is not targeting their program at HG+ kids. HG+ isn't a term they use, ever.

Being that Davidson itself is still the organization setting criteria and determining acceptance of applicants to their programs, I don't think you have to worry about that. More likely it seems to me that people generally dislike change if it has the potential to adversely affect them.

I think the focus has shifted away from achievement and more towards ability. If that's the case, it explains why an applicant no longer needs a qualifying achievement test score if they have a qualifying IQ index but now need two indices from achievement tests like the WIAT or WJ if there is not a qualifying IQ index.

HG+ is not synonymous with PG, specifically PG is farther to the extreme right tail of the bell curve as compared with HG. HG+ is an attempt to be more inclusive, by combining kiddos with lower scores (HG) together with kiddos in the PG range.

The link you provided is to a document titled "Frequently Asked Questions: Profoundly Gifted Students & Gifted Education", and is a mash-up of topics, some focused on giftedness in general (without regard to LOG), and some focused on PG: "Profoundly gifted individuals score in the 99.9th percentile on IQ tests and have an exceptionally high level of intellectual prowess. These students score at least three standard deviations above the norm on the bell curve..." This is how Davidson has defined Profoundly Gifted (PG). Again, this is not synonymous with Highly Gifted (HG).

This is an attempt to be more inclusive, by combining kiddos with lower scores (HG) together with kiddos in the PG range.

There is agreement that Profoundly Gifted is 145+, 3SD from the norm. HG is not as far to the extreme right tail of the bell curve. HG and PG are not synonymous.

Not too many years ago, kiddos who were globally PG (as measured by PG scores in each area) were labeled Profoundly Gifted.

Then parents whose kiddos who measured one score in the 99.9th percentile against a backdrop of MG began describing their kiddos as PG.

Parents with kiddos on the ASD spectrum began describing their kiddos as PG, based on similar behavioral traits.

GAI was created and replaced FSIQ in some cases.

Now many gifted kiddos are described as PG, or at least HG+.

As inclusion increases, are the globally PG children well-served? Or is there a growing notion that "they'll be fine on their own", and that other children are more in need of gifted advisory services?

Where does Davidson define HG and/or otherwise "paint the HG group with a broad brush"? I find no Davidson reference to "HG". As you have said, "HG+ isn't a term they use, ever."

1) Davidson has clearly defined PG this way: "Profoundly gifted individuals score in the 99.9th percentile on IQ tests and have an exceptionally high level of intellectual prowess. These students score at least three standard deviations above the norm on the bell curve..."
2) I have not applied my own definition to PG. I have quoted Davidson, and provided links to the sources.
3) I did not "suggest, somehow, Davidson is not targeting their program at HG+ kids." Actually, it was you who said that Davidson is targeting HG+, and I questioned your source, quoting Davidson webpages as stating they serve the PG population, which is farther to the extreme right tail of the bell curve.

Yes, that is what "supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve" means. Several posters have commented on this concern, throughout this thread.

The Hoagie's Gifted page that attempts to quantify levels of giftedness defines "highly gifted" as 145+, and "profoundly gifted" as 152+, 175+, or 180+ depending on the instrument used to test. (It does not include the WISC-V, the most recent test edition, in its definitions.) Davidson, on the other hand, defines "profoundly gifted" as starting at 145. I think that George is correct in stating that Hoagie's and Davidson are using these words differently, and that "Davidson PG" is roughly the same as "Hoagie's HG".

My impression of the term "HG+" as used on this forum (it might even be exclusive to this forum) was to say it's 145+, by whatever other names it goes by. I am unaware of anyone using the term to indicate that it refers to those with a score less than 145. Indigo, can you find a post that suggests this?

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 roughly equivalent scores for Profoundly Gifted, depending upon test instrument, are given as: 152-160, 175+, 145++, 180. (You omitted reporting the 145++, appearing to cherry-pick data to make a point.)

One ought not to conflate scores from different tests, as the levels of gifted (LOG) are distinct and represent progressively higher scores.

On Hoagies the gifted ranges are described as:
1) Gifted (G) or Moderately Gifted (MG)
2) Highly Gifted (HG)
3) Exceptionally Gifted (EG)
4) Profoundly Gifted (PG) <== defined by DITD: 3SD+, 99.9th percentile, minimum 145.

HG is not synonymous with PG.
HG+ is not synonymous with PG.
HG+ would include those who are Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted.

The real question may be, George C, can you find a post which states that HG+ means 145? Stated another way, what informs your impression that HG+ means 145, and/or is synonymous with PG (as you stated in your previous post)?

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.

One ought not to conflate scores from different tests, as the levels of gifted (LOG) are distinct and represent progressively higher scores.

On Hoagies the gifted ranges are described as:
1) Gifted (G) or Moderately Gifted (MG)
2) Highly Gifted (HG)
3) Exceptionally Gifted (EG)
4) Profoundly Gifted (PG) <== defined by DITD: 3SD+, 99.9th percentile, minimum 145.

HG is not synonymous with PG.
HG+ is not synonymous with PG.
HG+ would include those who are Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted.

That is not my understanding. Can you please provide examples which lead you to believe that the term HG+ is meant to include kids who have scored lower than a 145? Because I cannot find anything that suggests that.

Who is agreeing about this? Here's another source ("adapted from Hoagies") that suggests that PG is 6 or more SDs from the norm. There is a school for the "highly gifted" in California whose cutoff score is the 99.9th percentile. Call that what you will, but please don't call that agreement.

Yes, and no. I think having a kid score within the error range of 145 or higher on a standardized intelligence test means two things. First, it means that it's very likely that they will have educational and advocacy needs that go beyond (or sometimes well beyond) what most schools can provide. Second, it means "forcing the issue" of treating the child as a unique learner with unique needs and meeting them where they need to be met. DITD clearly must feel that they can help provide with the needs of the global PG kid as well as the one-index PG kid or the PG kid with a high IQ index but not high achievement. We should be celebrating that notion that they can cast their nets wider now than when the program first started.

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.

All are welcome!

It has been stated by several posters that one need not be PG to benefit from the forums... however embellishing one's intellectual gifts or level of gifted (LOG) may not be helpful, especially in the context of giving BTDT advice to others.

personally, it does not matter to me if the child in question is PG or HG or HG+ or EG or any other shade of gifted. it does not matter too much to me if there is embellishment or not either. people are generally aware that they are taking advise from total strangers on the internet on these forums ... so, they are also aware that they need to take internet forum advise with a huge pinch of salt. If they are not, it is advisable to learn how to use the internet safely before frequenting any forum.

It is always best to consult professionals if parents have issues that are big or considered serious. But, for general issues like how to help my gifted child remember their daily schedules, what reading list is great for a PG kid with certain interests, how to word a conversation with a school admin, Talent Search information etc, certainly use the internet forums because they are a goldmine for such information.

cricket3, I am really sorry that you feel that way about the forum. I've gotten so much insight from other people here, everything from how to best advocate for DS to how to help me interpret test results. While I can't speak from the same position as you (I came here because I received test results), it saddens me to think you don't feel as welcome as someone who has had their DC tested.

This whole emphasis that some may put on identifying a child with a particular LOG is, in my opinion, a distraction. Really, the only important thing to know about LOG is that it is essentially a graph. Generally, as IQ increases along one axis, educational needs increase along the other. Where exactly you put the hash marks along the IQ axis (i.e., MG, HG, EG, PG) is far less important than realizing that someone far down the IQ axis is much more likely to have greater needs.

But even then, it's only so useful, as it's only one model and certainly not the only factor that determines needs. There the "2e" factor as well, which is not really a single dimension unto itself but multiple. And then there is the fact that every child has his/her own strengths and weaknesses, some of which may be reflected in test scores but others may be hidden.

With all of that said, it's complicated and only limited in value. Meanwhile, can we please, please focus on being accepting of one another, listening to each other, and creating a safe space? Thanks.

cricket3, I want you to feel welcome and not feel afraid to post. What can we do to help increase your confidence in this online community?

There is a difference between stating that all are welcome and actually going the extra mile (or kilometer) to make people feel welcome. I think that's the disconnect.

Read my many posts, and the many times people have thanked me.

The fact I did not back down when you stated HG/HG+ was synonymous with PG seems to have not set well with you. As stated previously, let's move on...

indigo, it seems that I'm not the only one who feels somewhat unwelcome by comments such as the above. For reasons I won't get into at this point, I am rather convinced that DS6's test results do not necessarily accurately reflect his LOG. I would be interested in starting a post on that topic because I'm a bit flummoxed by what's going on with him. But when folks make statements like the above, it makes me want to leave the forum altogether.

Why would it matter so much whether anyone is embellishing theirs or their child's LOG anyway? Everyone knows that they can't take advice proffered on here as gospel, so why worry so much about this particular issue?

You have contributed lots of good advice here, without question. That doesn't mean that you haven't also inadvertently made people feel unwelcome from time to time.

You initially asked me why I thought that the YS program was targeting HG+ kids instead of PG kids, and I thought that was a strange question. Now that we've discussed it a bit, I think I understand where you are coming from. I think of HG/HG+ as 99.9th percentile (per some definitions, like Hoagies) and you don't. I am not misinformed; we simply have differing opinions.

Keep in mind that "Hoagies HG" (99.9th percentile) and "Davidson PG" (99.9th percentile) are essentially synonymous. So if a parent here on the forum refers to their child, in isolation, as "my HG DC"...which "HG" are they referring to? And, more importantly, does it really matter?

I don't really understand this need to label someone as PG. There is way more to people than IQ test results: an IQ test measures a limited set of g-loaded abilities, and provides information that can be very useful for understanding a small subset of person's cognitive strengths and weaknesses. That's it. A person is not defined by a WISC-V or an SB5, and yes, I see people doing that, in spite of lip service to the contrary.

Unfortunately, I've seen a trend here to extend subtest results or GAIs or FSIQs to what could be called the whole child. My child is PG! IMO, this isn't a good idea. Defining a child with such a loaded term can create all kinds of secondary psychological effects in the child. A parent may contribute to them, especially by sending messages that tell the child, "you are incredibly different by virtue of a standardized test that took a couple hours to administer."

Kids with high IQs still have to learn to tie their shoes and change their socks and be polite and fit in and a thousand other things that aren't relevant to how quickly they can learn multiplication tables. My interpretation of many messages on this board (an on email lists I'm on) is that "PG" kids stand apart and must be treated as though they are just so different from other kids. Again IMO, this is a really bad idea that tends to isolate a child rather than help him see common ground with the rest of humanity, of whom he is a member.

My kids are very bright and I understand that getting a good education for them is difficult. I had the same problem myself until college. But, honestly, in an age of high stakes testing, this is a problem for everyone, regardless of IQ.

I'll add that in recent years I've begun to question the lengths that parents go to regarding gifted education. A decade-ish ago, multiple grade skips and homeschooling were generally seen as "least-worst options." I don't see that term as much as I used to here. Instead, I see radical acceleration being promoted as a generally wonderful thing with a bit of lip service about how ymmv, but it sure did work around here!! How much of this is a status thing? How much is a result of getting caught up in what others are doing? Is this a good idea? Does a PG! label based on a subtest, GAI, or FSIQ really help a child? Or is it better to use an IQ test as a single tool that helps identify areas of relative strength and weakness?

Can't like this enough.

Thanks, Val. I agree 100 percent.

And you omitted that the scores in that column were:
MG: 124-133
HG: 133-145
EG: 145+
PG: 145++

I interpreted this to mean that the SB-5 was unable to distinguish above HG and so it was not really relevant to this discussion, so I left it out. My apparent cherry-picking was no worse than yours, and you have not shown in anything you've posted that there is a common understanding that PG = 145+ and 145+ = PG. To the contrary, you've thrown light a great deal of muddy thinking among many people about what these abbreviations mean, not excluding you or me. It's like having a vociferous argument about whether teal is a shade of blue or a shade of green.

The bottom line is that there are children here who may not be best served by their current educational environment, and picking through prior posts trying to score points and accuse people of lying about their kids' LOG is not really a good use of anyone's time. Better to help the parents learn about what their options may be, given the information stated in the post at hand. If the suggestions don't really apply to them (whether because they are exaggerating LOG, misunderstood what a test meant, or for any other reason), they might still apply to people who read the thread later. If you want to talk to a specific poster to clarify an inconsistent posting history, take it to PM.

Let me also say that I had missed the entire 10th page of this thread when I typed the above post. It would have been a lot simpler to just say that I mostly agree with Val and bow out.

I think it's good that you missed the tenth page, then. Your post is an important part of this discussion as well, ElizabethN.

People choose their own feelings. Some may raise taking offense to an art form. Here is a recent post which discusses taking a stand for free speech and thought (foregoing politically-correct coddling and the issuance of "trigger warnings" which are meant to avoid potentially offending anyone). While the setting in the linked article is a college campus, the same underlying principles may apply in other venues.

On the forums, agreement is not necessary. Please do not expect all posters to agree with you at all times.

This has been addressed by other posters:

Possibly this is part of the reason you are hesitant to post about your aforementioned dilemma?

It is a bit disappointing to see you bring this up again after it appears we had reached agreement that HG/HG+ is not equivalent to PG.

The Hoagies page we've been referring to does not actually mention percentiles, rather summarizes the approximate equivalent test scores. These are overall test scores, Full Scale IQs, not individual subtests nor GAIs. As you now mention "HG/HG+ as 99.9th percentile (per some definitions, like Hoagies)", can you point me to the definition on Hoagies which you are referring to, which defines HG/HG+ as 99.9th percentile?

That may depend upon the context. One may choose to ask for clarification.

In the context of a thread specifically about giftedness and level of gifted (LOG), yes.

In other contexts, possibly not so much.

I agree with this.

I also agree with this:
and this:

This was sourced from
and the DYS qualification pages which mention both 145+ and "Profoundly Gifted".

As a separate point, the fact that there are distinct levels of gifted (LOG) was illustrated by the Hoagies page which lists 4 levels of gifted, along with a table or chart of increasing FSIQs, for each level. This shows that HG is not the same as PG.
LOG:
1) Gifted (G) or Moderately Gifted (MG)
2) Highly Gifted (HG)
3) Exceptionally Gifted (EG)
4) Profoundly Gifted (PG)

One option may be to familiarize one's self with a poster's history, when a poster is offering advice.

How interesting that Val used PG and HG+ as synonyms in that post you just quoted. Were you planning on calling out Val for that? Also, look way back on this thread. You'll see at least one other poster who has done the same thing. Don't forget to call them out, too.

LOL, I also use the term HG+, and will continue to do so in some contexts and for reasons such as:
- being inclusive,
- being modest and/or anonymous about one's own children's LOG,
- not recalling a detail...

As previously noted, the thread wanders from discussing definitions of gifted, to Profoundly Gifted (PG), to twice-exceptional (2e). Way back on the thread, the discussion was not focused on DYS qualification criteria. Yesterday, I sought clarification of your use of HG+ specifically in the context of discussing DYS qualification criteria.

I wasn't using the terms synonymously. I don't like the term PG and see HG+ as a least-worst label. That's about it.

A few assorted thoughts:

The SB5 is able to generate IQ scores up to 225, using extended norms, just as the WISC-IV was able to extend up to IQs of 210. (Some of this information may not have been available to Hoagies at the time the cited article was written.) SBLM scores also extend well into the 200s, but are on a completely different scaling. I believe some of the sources cited above may be confounding SBLM-style ratio IQs with more contemporary deviation IQs, which is not contributing to clarity.

IQ test-documented giftedness is a particular kind of academic-focused giftedness, with its own value. This does not preclude the existence, or deny the value of, other kinds of giftedness--including other types of intellectual giftedness--perhaps not so readily measurable on a standardized instrument.

All terms are short-hands for much more complex and nuanced constructs, and tend to accumulate social-emotional accretions over time, often resulting in their eventual abandonment, under the weight of these overgrowths. (E.g., at the other end of the cognitive spectrum, such previously neutral terms as idiot or mentally retarded.) We use these terms only for convenience in communication. As soon as they become obstacles to effective communication, they lose their purpose.

Perhaps we would all benefit from occasional reminders that human beings are much more than labels or scores, neither is our value ever defined by them.

Indigo, none of your HG+ vs PG arguments make any sense to me, and I really don't think at this point that is going to change. You are seeing what you want to see. Maybe I am, too. Let's agree to disagree.

This is completely applicable to DD6.

It hasn't always been easy but I am really glad that we opted to work on her challenges and weaknesses. I think she would be a happier person because of it.

I think people are getting confused and twisting indigo's words.

1) He believes the DYS is lowering its standards by accepting those outside of being PG-- NOT this forum. This forum is welcome to all and he has been emphatic about that.

2) He does not care about people's LOG other than to state as an absolute fact that one is PG when they are not or have evidence they are not.

3) Don't give out advice in a BTDT manner when you don't infact have BTDT experience, especially when you're a regular and others may lax their usual awareness of internet advice.

I absolutely agree with indigo. When your child is a rarity and you have trouble finding other rarities it doesn't make life easy when everyone has a "rarity", too.

Agreed.

I want to argue, too!

What are we arguing about?

I can help!

It's about time you showed up. ;-)

Others may disagree, but I find your responses belittling. You could have just suggested that I misunderstood your point, but instead you chose to criticize me. I find your comment that "Some may raise taking offense to an art form." to be rather offensive in and of itself.

I have followed this thread with an overwhelming sense of appalled sadness.

I have seen spats here over the years but nothing like this one - my word!

Can we all please go back to assuming positive intent, agree to disagree sometimes (after fully stating our positions) before moving on now?

Linking to a thread with article - "How to Raise a Genius", as it seems to discuss topics touched on here, including identification... and potential identification controversy.

The article also provides comparative achievements from cohorts in the top 1% of childhood intellectual ability and the top .01% of childhood ability, based on a longitudinal study.

I think those getting hysterical or offended need to get a grip.

It's very easy to share what one believes without misleading.

"Suspected PG" √

"I think my child could be PG" √

"My child's results say he is MG, but I can't shake the feeling it'a closer to PG" √

*Looks at MG results* "My child is PG" x

Oh, but wait. It's suggested that I'm insecure, so I better agree. Everyone is PG!

And I think some of the touchiness is that it reminds us a lot of "all children are gifted", "we can't ability group because it is elistist", "your child's test results mean nothing to me". We don't expect to hear that here whatever LOG our children are.

I don't claim my HG kid is PG. I find it hard to believe my PG one is though and not being in the US there is nowhere else to go.

It is difficult to imagine that a person has an expectation of privacy when posting publicly on the internet. This was discussed recently on another thread. Here is one post to raise awareness.

Board rules provide guidelines:
Absolutely, posters need to decide for themselves how to weigh the information which others post.

No one needs to state their child's LOG, but if they choose to, it may be best to not overstate it.

I believe encouraging honesty is intended to keep this a safe place.

Many posts show the forum still serves that function.

There are always requests for information, and topics tend to repeat with some regularity. Please jump in at any time to provide help!

I believe all flavors of gifted are accepted on this board, and offer as proof: One need not embellish their child's intellectual gifts to be accepted. Please invite your friends to also help answer posts on the forums, if they are not doing so already.

Which boards are you suggesting?

My point exactly. Why change any other letter to a P before posting?

While it may not seem like an invasion of privacy to me, it is nevertheless difficult to believe that other posters would comb through one's posting history to attempt to refute a statement.

I think many find it a little creepy when another poster asks you if your child tested PG, you answer that they did, then said poster goes through your posting history and essentially says, "No, actually he didn't. You told us this from 3 years ago, then this from 2 years ago, then you said this last month." Such actions invoke feelings of being interrogated. You may say that this is an all-inclusive community, but if your actions make others feel like they're being interrogated, that is the opposite of welcoming. You could also say that you're not responsible for how other people feel as a result of your actions, but that seems to indicate that you don't care.

After this topic, I'm tempted to go back and delete most everything I've said on this forum as well.

I also advise being cognizant of one's own public social media presence, their children's public social media presence, and their children's friends' social media presence.

In this age of data collection, including
- whether a student is identified gifted,
- facebook page,
- other web accounts,
people may be wise to carefully consider what they post.

Some may say it is wise to seek clarification and understanding through source documents.

When choosing to edit and/or delete old posts, posters may wish to consider what is a beneficial contribution to others on the forum ongoing, and what may have been largely/solely for a temporary purpose and/or for their own personal benefit. Posters may also wish to consider the possible impact on their grown children who may read these forums in the future.

Friendly reminder to everyone: anything and everything you post here can be picked up by web crawlers (e.g. spiders) and archived permanently. Sites like the Wayback Machine are public repositories designed to archive as much of the public web as possible. I mentioned once before that I was able to find messages there that had been deleted by a user here.

Bottom line, and this is what I tell my kids: once you post something online or message/email it, you've lost control of it. Don't post, email, or message anything that you wouldn't want to see published on the front page of the newspaper.

This is a public forum. The small community of active members here may make it seem intimate or make it seem like it's reasonable to post personal information and request that others not refer to it or re-post it. Neither of these ideas is true. And even if people here agree not to refer to your old messages, there's nothing to stop any of the other of billions of web users from doing that. If you don't like the idea of someone going back through your old messages, don't post them to begin with.

It's honestly a bit surprising to me to see adults who don't seem to fully understand the idea that everything posted online is public, for the whole world to see and refer to. And maybe repost. My DH and I emphasize this point repeatedly with our kids. The idea needs to be second nature if they're going to avoid being taken advantage of.

I fully understand the idea that everything posted online is public. I am ashamed of nothing that I have posted on this public forum, and I have kept my identity and the identity of my family hidden. (Did you actually think my name is George C? )

However, if people here on this forum are going to hold the words I have said years ago over my head and call it relevant, I don't see why I should make it easy for them to access it. Of course it's not impossible; it's simply harder.

Why care so much when they do?

Surely, as an assumed gifted person yourself, you must understand what it's like: the investigative nature, being pedantic, to sense of injustice. I know I feel these things.

I know I enjoy going through past post and noticing those whose kids' ages and scores change over time. Someone wants their child to be hunger and therefore more achieving; or someone is suddenly more gifted because they chose tongo by the GAI incorrectly. It's interesting.

There's no laws to saw that no one can use the term "PG"; it would just be nice if we could just stick to decency and not mislead each other when we're meant to be in a safe place and can be quite intimate, sometimes.

I have my own enrichment club for PG kids. I deal with parents trying to deceive quite often. It's frustrating trying to find friends for my kids when they are such outsiders from the average community and the gifted community.

So, the question is: why doesn't it bother you?

I have read hundreds of previous posts by many posters here over the years. I always use the advanced search to look up things.
For me it has been a treasure trove of information.

This is a tangent but I'm curious about something. Are there any tests designed for separating out LOG? I know some people have developed brackets for mainstream tests but I am wondering if there is anything out there specifically for the gifted population.

It is disappointing to see you repeat this, when it has been well answered upthread:

I will join with another parent here, in asking why this does not bother you.

"Levels of Gifted" (LOG) is a means of describing and grouping distinctions between IQ scores at the upper tail of the normal distribution or bell curve.

The percentiles are determined by comparing the IQ scores relative to other test-takers.

aeh describes this well in a post upthread.

Agreed. Board rules encourage this.

Catching up here after I was referenced on page 7. Phew! Hot topic! I'm honored to have rocked the boat to this degree.

So, Davidson refers to serving the profoundly gifted community and has set the minimums at one subtest score of 145. So is 145+ PG? Google can lead you to believe that 141+ is PG (source)...or 152+ (source)...or 160+ (source)...or even 180+ (source). So which is it?

My intention in applying wasn't to contaminate DYS with a not-PG kid. My intention was to find additional resources in best serving my kid. And I have achieved that. And I am pleased. Nobody but those that received her DYS application have seen her full written report, her tested grade-level equivalents, her supporting work samples, her nominator letter. I'm happy that DYS focused on the "whole child" when considering her application. Will I walk around calling her PG based on her acceptance? Nope. Will I now have a wonderful additional resource in caring for her unique emotional and academic needs? Yup.

Given the broad range of PG definitions, and the even broader range of our kids' qualities/abilities, at the end of the day no two children--even with identical "scores"--are going to have identical needs. I think everyone here knows that regardless of what letter they assign in front of their kid's "G."

tl;dr Can't we all just get along?

Indigo, this is why it doesn't bother me.

Aah, that sense of injustice. The reason I keep coming back here is to appeal to your sense of justice to realize that people post what they need to post at a certain given time. Maybe they really need to clarify what level of G their kids are and think mentioning PG without test results will help communicate their worries faster. Maybe they see something in their kids and are in panic mode. I'm really not being hysterical, dusty. Just overly pedantic these last few days and quite unlike my usual quiet self.

Yes, I agree that it is definitely interesting how stories change. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt all the same.

When you start an enrichment club, what do you expect parents to do? Any parent would want to give their kids the best opportunities! When I organize small group learning opportunities and I know that I am looking for a certain level of maturity and understanding, I usually source families directly. I don't advertise. I write directly to families with kids who will be a good fit. Might that work better for you? Just an idea?

It doesn't bother me specifically because I belong to a large gifted community (of all flavors, including some really super amazing 2e kids) in real life and have watched and learned over the years that my child does not really benefit in the end from only learning to mix with kids at the same or similar level of giftedness/ ability/ achievement. A couple of his closest friends were not identified but are very obviously HG-PG and their 2e-ness masks that a lot. Personally, as a parent, I have learned so much from all of the other parents. Usually, in my experience, when a parent is snobby and elitist and picky about who their kids are mixing with, there is something they are seeking to hide. The truth then comes out that their kids are not what they've claimed to be. But we don't discover that by policing everyone. We give them the benefit of the doubt and even if it comes out that the parents were lying, we don't come out with a set of rules saying you have to qualify what you say or that you cannot be a part of the community anymore. We still get along. People are always learning and it's nice to give them room to do that.

If you do not wish to have a post quoted, you may state so. I have now removed my link to your post. However you have replicated the link in your post. From this point onward it is up to you as to whether you wish to maintain your link to that post, or edit your post to remove that link, and possibly also ask others who've replicated it to remove it... this would include Quantum2003 and George C.

We've been using that as a working definition for purposes of this discussion thread, due to the mention of both "Profoundly Gifted" and "145+" on the DYS qualification pages, while also recognizing G/MG < HG < EG < PG, as summarized on Hoagies webpage which lists 4 LOG, each with progressively higher FSIQ scores.

A couple of responses to this:
1) Google only amasses and replicates content on the web, it makes no attempt to convince a reader or "lead you to believe" anything.
2) With the exception of the first source quoted, which reports the same score for Exceptionally and Profoundly gifted ... All scores which you list as being found through google are 145 or above, therefore, in shorthand form: 145+.
3) As mentioned upthread: The numbers will change when a different measurement instrument is utilized (for example, 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.

I do not believe that anyone has expressed that DYS has been "contaminated". On the contrary, it has been stated multiple times: "Inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve. "

A few thoughts on this:
1) This is great.
2) As expressed upthread... and this is only a guess..
Excellent!

Agreed.

Posters stories can change over time. Mine has. I only shared qualifying Achivement scores for DYS with one person here.

I have not bothered this poster with additional test scores. No need to. I started out with only a RIAS score back in the day.
Progressed over the years to other scores from various tests. Every single test has revealed the same issues common with ASD in the language area.
I have gone from thinking my child with ASD may have had hyperlexia, to not. Being only HG to PG.

I even had therapy for myself to be able to come to terms and admit he is PG.

I feel stupid at times. He is so smart. Everyone has a story. Some are true some are not.

Due to the limits of nesting quotes, I will take the liberty of paraphrasing:

1) George C: Why would anyone care if a parent calls their child/ren profoundly gifted (PG), when the child/ren is/are not tested and reported to be profoundly gifted?

2) Val, quoted upthread: 3) dusty to George C, and indigo to George C: Why would you not care?

4) George C, answering why unsubstantiated claims of PG do not bother him:
George C, Please note the poster which you quoted is not a person calling a child PG.

Absolutely.

Yes, There is a saying "Trust but verify."

Absolutely no need to edit the link out! That just confuses things

Not linking to the original post provides a bit of anonymity. Not a lot, as you've made a public post... but to many (depending upon their memory for such things), it may seem a needle in a haystack.

No need for anonymity! Nothing to hide. If I wanted it hidden I wouldn't post it on the internet. In fact I want it known that scores falling below the cutoff don't disqualify applicants--that DYS considers the whole child when reviewing and if you think your kid could benefit from these services it doesn't hurt to try.

In fact, here: http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....ghter_was_accepted_into_.html#Post232574

LOL

I believe I had a similar thought and posted it this way: "Possibly these parents believe it gives them more credibility, a louder voice?"

Given that there may exist a possibility of misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses, a parent may, in some cases, choose not to acknowledge the possibility of 2e: gifted/ASD behavioral similarities. However a parent may be doing a disservice to a child who may need or benefit from early remediation/accommodations.

A few thoughts -
1) How do you find these families to source directly?
2) Possibly playing a bit of devil's advocate here... please this consider a rhetorical question: Based upon your selectivity, what if people were to accuse you of being elitist in running your group, and demand you be more inclusive...?

Same rhetorical question as above... based upon your group, which is run by invitation only, might some accuse you of being "elitist and picky" about who your kids are mixing with?

A few thoughts -
1) You seem to agree that parents may be disingenuous in describing their gifted children, as you have encountered this.
2) By what means have these discoveries "come out" that families have had something to hide because the children were not as described?
3) I noticed that in your post you have changed from speaking in the singular ("I") to speaking in the plural ("we"), which seems to imply that there has been some communication among various individuals that certain parents in your group were disingenuous.
4) You mention "we don't come out with a set of rules saying you have to qualify what you say or that you cannot be a part of the community anymore" as if to contrast your community with another community. What community has "come out with a set of rules saying you have to qualify what you say or that you cannot be a part of the community anymore"?
5) The community you describe seems to be a community without capacity limit. Are you interested to share it with this forum, in the event some of us may not already belong?
6) There may be a vast difference between "only learning to mix with kids at the same or similar level of giftedness/ ability/ achievement" and finding any PG children to add to mix of all kids with whom a child is acquainted.

I believe the same may be said of these forums. Out of many currently active threads, I believe this may be the only one showing disagreement/controversy. BTW, please feel free to post on other threads, as it seems you have considerable years of knowledge to pass along.

As mentioned, I have a large local community. No, families are not sourced based on LOG or academic achievement! I'll let you in on a secret...to ensure that people don't throw accusations around, I don't insist on parent participation but my groups are set up in a way that students benefit best through parent participation. That's a very good way to determine who is really interested and will contribute time/ space/ money or all 3. So if someone is interested to join in (not sourced directly) they are very welcome to but unless they contribute in some way, their kids don't fully benefit. I've never turned anyone away but anyone who drops drops willingly because they realize they have to sustain the group too. We don't ask for money but parents bring snacks for example or volunteer time to teach or email links for everyone to watch/ research before a class meets. I don't do these any more because my son is so busy now. It was really very fun while it lasted. It is much easier when they are of elementary/ middle school age.



I wish I could type all of that out but no, I really am not going to. You can choose to not believe me, it's totally fine!

I would be happy to but that would mean giving away my location which I am not very comfortable doing right now (other posters have insisted that we should all be aware this is a public forum! ). I do not mean that I belong to one specific group. We are homeschoolers/hackschoolers/unschoolers/hybrid schoolers of some form or another. Most activities happen during usual school hours and why families with kids in B&M schools usually don't join in. There are national / international homeschooling groups and these are just a Google away. I sometimes meet families through those homeschooling groups and then after exchanging PMs, we might realize that we don't live too far away from each other!

I don't know if I will be around much here but if I can help in some way I would be happy to. Thanks!

These have been some of my favorite groups as well.

Actually, my children associate with many different children in everyday life. But sometimes one wants their child to be with like minded peers. In the way that they say being at 130 to 100 is the same as PG to MG: it's like that. MG kids are wonderful, but they're as different to mine as they are to average kids. There's nothing wrong with me wanting them to have friends on the same level for certain activities and interests.

There aren't many around like mine, and I still haven't found any in my small area. My kids tend to intimidate many parents, who perhaps feel like their child is less special, and then we attract those who wish their child was PG. Which I even go along with until it becomes very obvious they are lying and they bow out. In my club I do ask for proof and I look for a certain profile because I am desperate for my lonely kids to find others like them. I haven't yet. This is why it bothers me. It makes it really difficult for me and my kids. They have plenty of kids to be friends with, but not to be best friends with.

I don't check IQ reports when going to the playground, but when I fund a club for the sole purpose of finding PG friends for my kids then yes, I do.

And, you did. (Seriously).