Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion How do you all define gifted?

I'm starting a new thread rather than totally hijack another. I have claimed here that I suspect more of us than not define gifted with high IQ/high intelligence/high ability being a requisite. As the parent of one 2e kid, I have some flexibility in my thinking on that especially when dealing with wild variation w/in scores that drag down the total #. However, I define gifted something like Mensa defines a member: an intelligence score around the 98th percentile or so.

It seems that those in the field of gifted education/advocacy use a lot of different definitions though and Jim Delisle is one of the few in that field who I've seen advocating a more narrow definition. See here for instance.

Being a bit of a sucker for quantifiable information, I have a hard time using things like behavioral rating scales as well, I'll admit. So, what is an absolute necessity, if anything, in order to call someone gifted to you all?

Disclaimer: I really am not trying to be elitist or rude here and apologize if this comes across as such.

For me I think it's the speed and/or depth of learning. So the iq is then the indicator of being able to do it, not whether you do it, but whether you could. So for me the 2e isn't a factor because it's whether you could with an accommodation. The accommodation assists you do the work you are able to do - so a HG kid with accommodations would do more than a kid who also needs the accommodation but is not HG. So I don't have a problem with number cut offs of iq but then I also think that achievement tests are worthy symbols of giftedness in that I don't think it matters if you could get a perfect score on an achievement test by hard work or less hard work buttressed by inate understanding. Where I do disagree is with exposure - while I don't doubt that exposure matters I think it works in concert with ability. We never spoke baby talk to our DS and didn't really dumb down our vocabulary at 3 he was asking what the words he didn't know meant whereas ND kids we met did not do that. So DS was exposed but it was his inante interest, drive, hunger for knowledge that had him run with it. So I think exposure would yield more gifted but not because they are making more gifted through exposure but because exsposure feeds the inate ability.

DeHe

Hey I dig playing with statistics as much as the next guy, but operationally, my favorite is Renzulli's 3 Ring Concept.

I avoid using the word at all, precisely because there are so many different definitions.

[ETA: well, I suppose I have implicitly used it here, in that I'm sure I've described DS as "HG+" a few times (often, but probably not always, with the rider "untested but seems"). Here what I mean is "he seems as remarkable as the other children who get described as HG+" I suppose :-) ]

lol! I hope that I'm not going around throwing "gifted" into my day to day conversations re dds either unless I'm not thinking at all. I guess that I'm thinking in relation to what draws us here. What is it about our kids that makes them seem different enough from age peers that we need to discuss here; what is it about them that is "gifted" whereas another child is ND? Do we see them as different due to social differences, academic achievement, IQ, or something else? Would we still call them gifted if one of those things was lacking? i.e. -- is there some specific thing that must be in place in order for an individual to be gifted?

Every kid is different. Gifted kids are more different--even from each other.

The University of Georgia has an entire graduate level, semester course called "Characteristics of Gifted Children and Youth". It's pretty much the prerequisite for all the other classes in the Gifted and Creative Education program.

We like to focus on IQ because it is (theoretically, kind of) a constant. But few schools give cognitive assessments to every student, and teachers are not particularly good at recognizing when a student's cognitive ability is beyond what is expected of them in the classroom. That's partly because teachers are very good at training kids to keep their heads down and not make a fuss. Certain personality types are more likely to complain if the work they are given does not match their ability, and gender certainly plays a role.

Some parents do advocate for the children, but many parents do not realize that their child is gifted, and many assume that the schools know what's best for their children. Some schools provide a good array of services for gifted students. Some entire districts do not.

I think gifted = smart. (?)

I grew up thinking other people were very talented at acting like they didn't understand very much.  I like the theory that gifted people understand more better.  If you explain yourself, and maybe re explain yourself I can understand what you said.  My whole life I've seen so many people say, "I don't understand," even when someone rephrases it and whatever.  I really used to think they were faking it.

Your other story (I forgot which thread it was on) about a school gifted program calling a high iq "not a sign of giftedness because the kid didn't meet the checklist of common gifted traits" is silly and sad.  

Is more education for academically gifted students truly beneficial.  If it is truly beneficial then wouldn't non-gifted students benefit?  Yes, but not as much.  Well even some is better than none.  Can we add more education to the regular classroom? Yes, but that would be harder on struggling learners.  

Many people would be happy to no longer mention gifted if the public schools could just freely educate all children at a beneficially challenging level and support every child with any learning struggles.  
(not me. I'd probably still say it if a situation fitted it it. I like speaking plainly.)

Ah, I'm with you :-) Well, then:

- I, personally, am here because DS's academic achievement makes him difficult to cater for in a school environment and I value the BTDT I read here. He also has the typical intensity and I value the BTDTs for that too, but I think if he had this without the academic achievement, I'd be happy talking about it in any congenial parenting forum.

- However, it doesn't surprise me, far less bother me, if other people find it useful to be here for other reasons! I think if someone finds their child has a lot in common with other children discussed here, so that this feels like the most useful place to discuss their child, why not?

- I do think it would be likely to lead to confusion if someone said that their child was definitely gifted who didn't have either high academic achievement or high IQ test scores, though.

I'm always trying to be radical about things, but I would say that intellectually gifted means "having a mind which natively prefers clear, deep thought, nearly all the time." I find I have a sence about someone really, really, really fast, and I'm unlikely to shift much after that, though it does happen. Numbers certainly would not make me think of changing my opinion.

I am becomming actively annoyed with the "academic precocity" definition of giftedness. Partly this is because of my pre-existing biases, but a lot of it is from watching my 3 yr old drool (ok, a little too literally) on anatomy posters _while_ a relative complains to me that I'm not teaching him kindergarden material. He cares about what an "ulna" is, he's not ready to care how to spell "ulna," and, frankly, I think that's partly _because_ he's smart enough to know his own mind in a rather literal sence. Oh, and partly becasue precocity vanishes, and I think giftedness is pretty fundamental to the self.

Anyway, why I define it that way:
1) A mind that NATIVELY prefers... Because some people cultivate the preference for clear, deep thought, but when they tire, they get less interested in it. Those people might well be smart, and I like 'em and they're "my people," but people I think of as _gifted_ are the ones who get nore deep and clearheaded when they get a little drunk or a little tired. I'm reminded of a young prof who, in a crisis of faith about academics, grilled some poor guy at the museum about an unrelated field, the poor prof just couldn't help but think about SOMETHING when he was that frustrated and miserable, and geologist boy was in just... handy. This may be a literalistic interpretation.

2) A mind that... PREFERS deep... This is the real core of it, I think. That the person would rather be thinking deeply and clearly than not. That it's a strait preference and not related to a feeling of duty or whatever. I guess I think I'm "gifted" partly because I'd rather be on here scouring my definition of gifted than... uh... well, I could be SLEEPING, eating my icecream, or drinking my wine right now

3) Deep and Clear thought... Because I think depth and clarity are what sets intellegent thought appart from garden variety "man it's cold in here" kinda thought. I'm reminded of DS taking his first look at a gorilla skeleton, and imediately noticing differences between it and human ones. There's depth: he had thought about human bones enough to spot differences from memory; and there's clarity: that differences in bones lead to differences in motion just made sence to him, he didn't need to be told that. Clarity is also something I think of when DH(mathematician) cuts though the fog of number in my head, and nails "no, that's definitly more, not necessarily much more, but more, becasue things just moved around over here, and you added something here." or "the Jack is the same as the king, because the Queen is gone"

4) Most of the time... Because I think pretty much everyone feels this way sometimes, and deeply gifted people have moments when they really are wanting something else out of life. But I think for gifites, deep and clear thought is the priority, well, most of the time. I'm not sure I have a good example for this one. It's a bit too fuzzy. Damn that "clear" thing I said up there... does 3/4's clear count as "most of the time???

-Mich (I'm gonna stop typing now.)