Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research PG? Husband is a skeptic, I am on the fence

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.

I meant the if I said my child was ASD without a test confirming so, and have advice about it, I'd say people whose child actually is ASD would be offended.

I know that there is one poster here whose child has tested as only about e average on at least two IQ tests still persists to call their child PG. I'm not saying there is a flat out score, but the general score is 145+, in the least. I prefer HG+. Why the desparate need to refer to a child as PG without quantifiable evidence? Why not just say "gifted" or "suspected gifted"? Why the need to way specifically PG to strangers on a forum outside of an educational setting? Kids are so different. It's perfectly possible for a child to achieve PG things without being PG.

Val is so right about the confirmation bias. People try to make the data fit the theory, rather than make a theory that fit the data.

I have a scientific background too and like to have some evidence. It depends on the situation though - I can claim my child is allergic to pollen on basic symptoms. I wouldn't claim my child was celiac without proof (i do say gluten or maybe wheat udpsets his bowels). I wouldn't claim my child was gifted without results unless they were amazingly advanced.

On the flip side, there are many adults who consider themselves to be on the autism spectrum who self identify (i.e., have not officially been diagnosed), and that has generally been accepted.

What if I were to flip this around and ask why you seem to have a desperate need to exclude people who are likely looking for a community that can understand and validate their experiences? Why should a potentially outdated notion of how human intelligence works (this is at least true of the WISC-IV), or scores from different tests on different days with different confidence ranges, be used to govern who should be allowed to use the PG label without always having to preface it with "suspected"? I think there is a tendency to put too much confidence into IQ testing as an absolutely objective measure. It's the best we have, currently, but that doesn't mean there isn't subjectivity within it, either.

That also swings the other way. I have a kid who has scored in the HG+ range. We weren't expecting that at all, and we still are hesitant to believe that even the highly gifted label applies to him.

Sigh. I don't know why you're being so emotive in your response if your child really is HG+. Obviously you're too emotional to read what I have a actually posted. I'm not sure if you will understand this or even want to try: I'm not trying to exclude anyone excepts those to pretend their child is PG. I'm not excluding anyone who thinks their child is gifted, just those who feel the need to attach the label "profoundly" onto it, as it is a measurement and they have no idea what amount of "gifted" their child is.


Adults don't often proclaim they are ASD. I only hear mentioned "I think I may be" or "I suspect I am ASD". I've never heard anyone say "I don't have a diagnosis but I 100% am ASD".

It's frustrating to hear so many parents throw around the term PG when one's children actually are.

Three thoughts on this:
1) On a forum specifically for ASD, it may be less accepted than in general?
2) Whereas for children, society is asked to provide services... adults may not be trying to receive services/remediation/accommodations. Rather they be seeking insight to work on self-healing and self-improvement.
3) Adult ASD is NOT the topic at hand. It may be wise to discontinue what you introduced so as to not hijack the thread, and instead resume the thread's focus on identification of gifted/PG (which may sometimes be made more complex due to a need to tease out differences between gifted and ASD behaviors, as explained in the article upthread).

The article describing the need to tease out differences between gifted/ASD traits may help explain this.

It has been explained elsewhere that the more "inclusive" the gifted identification, the less it may serve the PG gifted outliers.

Confusing "giftedness" with comorbid diagnoses such as ADD/ADHD, ASD, bipolar, etc does not serve the gifted community well.

I believe the conversation is related to how human intelligence is measured, not how human intelligence works, per se.

The phrase "who should be allowed to use the PG label" seems to advance the notion of PG as something to be grasped at.

Some kiddos are so far above the measure that there is no doubt. Those close to the measure but not quite there seem to have had the bar lowered to increase inclusion in a number of programs and services... sometimes supplanting the PG child.

This does not seem to be a reason not to test. All tests, measurements, and comparisons have a potential margin of error, including medical tests, radar traffic speeding tests, ACT/SAT/PSAT, GMAT/GRE, and feats of athletic ability such as the Olympics.

Two thoughts here:
1) What was your reason for testing?
2) Do the test results which you received help you in understanding, raising, and advocating for your child?

This thread looks like it might be heading in an inappropriate direction. Please stay on topic and always be respectful of other posters. Agreement isn't required, courtesy is.

Simply said, I tend to agree with dusty, Val, and puffin... who seem to value obtaining and understanding test results.

To that end, this describes the calculation of General Ability Index (GAI), as seen in The What, When, and How of the Wechsler General Ability Index (copyright 2007, updated to include citations/references to sources dated 2009): emphasis added

Some kiddos can be compensating for their weaknesses by utilizing their strengths. Others may be taught to compensate.

Is it disrespectful to point out that a poster is claiming their child is PG when they've tested as not even gifted? Okay then, my apologies.

This forum has really gone downhill in the past year. First the DYS program has taken upon adding anyone to its program (including those below the minimum 145 in all or any subtests) leaving me with the feeling of quantity not quality, and now the allowance of lying and misrepresentation. I think it's time for me to have a break.

I think of an IQ score as a single indicator in a box of cognitive talent. IQ and other factors go into what a person accomplishes, and different factors give different outcomes. Someone with a lot of drive, imagination, and opportunity may create something new, like a new type of engine or a new way to understand gravity. Someone without drive may lead a more typical life, and might influence others around him, but might not. Who knows? Luck and connections are also huge factors.

People with very high IQs may tend to process information differently than those without this trait, but the conclusions they draw often mesh with those of others. Highly intelligent people are also liable to making dumb mistakes like everyone else. My kids and I all have friends who aren't gifted, and we connect with them just fine. I may connect with one person about science and with another about politics and with a third about our kids. I don't believe that people will automatically connect just because they have high IQs any more than I believe two athletes will connect because they both made it to nationals in the 400.

This is part of why I've become leery about terms like PG. Profoundly gifted is just too loaded for my money. Also, there's a tendency here to set "PG" apart from everyone else, which I see as being unhealthy. Who wants to be that isolated? Not me, anyway, and I don't want that for my kids. I don't want my kids to see themselves as being more different than they already are. You skipped a grade, but that doesn't set you apart from everyone else in every other way, and people who aren't as smart as you are often see connections that you didn't.

I had a friend whose father did something amazing during a war. She got annoyed with others for putting him on a pedestal, telling me that he was just an ordinary guy who did something extraordinary during an extreme situation, and then went back to being an ordinary guy after the war. Like him, accomplished people with high IQs (and also kids with high IQs) are still just people who speak out of turn sometimes and who have to change their socks and eat properly. If a war hero can be an ordinary guy in almost every way, my kids with high IQs can, too.

So an IQ test tells me that I need to find ways to challenge my kids cognitively,and yes, that's a struggle. But it doesn't mean that they're somehow really incredibly different from the rest of humanity and that raising them is some kind of unique journey that's completely different from what others experience. Smart kids still have to learn to eat properly and change their socks and be polite, just like everyone else.