I tend to agree with Dusty. As a scientist, I've learned to be careful about calling something y until some kind of test confirms y. As an example in medicine, there is often much evidence to suggest condition y in a person who turns out to have condition x upon testing. Suggest is not confirm.

One can't confirm everything with a test, but in the case of IQ, it's possible.

There's also confirmation bias (a tendency to seek or interpret information so as to confirm a belief while ignoring evidence to the contrary). So that's a problem and leads us back to the need for an objective measure (e.g. an IQ test administered by a competent professional who doesn't know the child and has no stake in the score).

Even so, giftedness labels vary, even when talking only about IQ scores. The DITD says PG = 145+ on any subtest. Hoagies says FSIQ of 152-160. Other organizations have different definitions. There's no universal agreement, so I don't really see the point of using the term at all.

Besides, it sounds so extreme. PROFOUNDLY GIFTED can put pressure on a person (I can see that someone with this label might feel inadequate for not having a big academic career, for example). HG/HG+ are somewhat looser and may work better. Or, more simply, scores in the top 1% of the IQ distribution (or insert another value in place of 1). This description is specific and carries no implicit judgment the way that terms like profoundly gifted and highly gifted do. But it doesn't offer an easy acronym, unfortunately.

An unfortunate fact is that there are also people who wish to brag and/or keep up with others on social media. "My kid is PG" is presumably one way to do that. So back to my first paragraph: I've learned to be careful, even when thinking of my own kids. I don't think I would be comfortable saying, "My DD is PG" in the absence of test results. But that's just me.



Last edited by Val; 08/31/16 05:08 PM. Reason: typo