I'm not trying to exclude anyone excepts those to pretend their child is PG.
I'm also a scientist and I love data :), but I also know that data can be manipulated in many different directions to tell a story, and that there are quite a few different definitions of what "profoundly" means when applied to intellectually gifted children
I'm confused about one thing in this discussion... the OP has a child with a specific GAI number. It seems to be the OP that this discussion is directed toward - is the concern that that specific # isn't high enough to be considered PG, or is the concern that GAI isn't a reliable indicator of PG (vs FSIQ)?
If the concern is the latter, I'd suggest spending some time with high GAI kids with disabilities that impact their ability to score high on PSI and WM. I wouldn't discount a 2e parent's opinion re level of giftedness simply because they are relying on GAI vs FSIQ.
Please know I'm not intending to be disrespectful in asking, I just don't understand what the origin of this discussion is with respect to the OP here in this post.
Best wishes,
polarbear
