I tend to think of it a bit differently and I think that's why I bristle so much at ability test prep and retesting until the desired score is achieved. See, to me, the fact that our local advocates for the gifted, our local "experts," and, heck, even NAGC are defining gifted in such a way as to exclude high IQ as a necessity (and even saying that sky high IQ can exist in someone who is not gifted), indicates a fundamental difference of opinion as to what gifted is.
Because I view high IQ (98th percentile or so) as an absolute requisite to be gifted and don't view high achievement, teacher pleasing, or things like "leadership qualities" (another aspect to GT ids where I live) as necessary at all, I really hate to see people messing up an already imperfect measure yet further by essentially cheating. It calls further into question the validity of these tests in determining differences in brain functioning and we're already dealing with too many in the GT community in education who don't consider them to be able to show anything salient about giftedness.
Some experts have suggested sky high iq can exist in someone who isn't gifted??
That really toys with my understanding of the gifted mind.
I wonder if they're confusing underachieving and twice exceptional with non-gifted. The way I see it, it's increasingly more important to have a set of concrete, consistent standards with which to define giftedness, standards that perhaps don't include personality traits such as leadership qualities or extrovert tendencies.
