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'.
Last edited by Tigerle; 11/30/14 07:23 AM.
