Nobody owns the definition of LOG: not you, not Davidson, and certainly not me.
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.
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.
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.
Let's stop tearing people down who use terms in a different way that we would like them to.
I have not torn anyone down.
You have recently called out one member for using the term PG in way that was not to your liking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No one is eroding anyone else's space.
Time will tell. Inclusion is great, so long as new populations do not supplant the profoundly gifted kiddos which Davidson set out to serve.
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. 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.
This thread pre-dated
DYS qualification changes. Raising awareness and discussing pros-and-cons is healthy.
