|
0 members (),
482
guests, and
10
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,390 |
The roughly equivalent scores for Profoundly Gifted, depending upon test instrument, are given as: 152-160, 175+, 145++, 180. (You omitted reporting the 145++, appearing to cherry-pick data to make a point.) And you omitted that the scores in that column were: MG: 124-133 HG: 133-145 EG: 145+ PG: 145++ I interpreted this to mean that the SB-5 was unable to distinguish above HG and so it was not really relevant to this discussion, so I left it out. My apparent cherry-picking was no worse than yours, and you have not shown in anything you've posted that there is a common understanding that PG = 145+ and 145+ = PG. To the contrary, you've thrown light a great deal of muddy thinking among many people about what these abbreviations mean, not excluding you or me. It's like having a vociferous argument about whether teal is a shade of blue or a shade of green. The bottom line is that there are children here who may not be best served by their current educational environment, and picking through prior posts trying to score points and accuse people of lying about their kids' LOG is not really a good use of anyone's time. Better to help the parents learn about what their options may be, given the information stated in the post at hand. If the suggestions don't really apply to them (whether because they are exaggerating LOG, misunderstood what a test meant, or for any other reason), they might still apply to people who read the thread later. If you want to talk to a specific poster to clarify an inconsistent posting history, take it to PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,390 |
Let me also say that I had missed the entire 10th page of this thread when I typed the above post. It would have been a lot simpler to just say that I mostly agree with Val and bow out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 78 |
I think it's good that you missed the tenth page, then. Your post is an important part of this discussion as well, ElizabethN.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8 |
All are welcome! It has been stated by several posters that one need not be PG to benefit from the forums... however embellishing one's intellectual gifts or level of gifted (LOG) may not be helpful, especially in the context of giving BTDT advice to others.  indigo, it seems that I'm not the only one who feels somewhat unwelcome by comments such as the above. People choose their own feelings. Some may raise taking offense to an art form. Here is a recent post which discusses taking a stand for free speech and thought (foregoing politically-correct coddling and the issuance of "trigger warnings" which are meant to avoid potentially offending anyone). While the setting in the linked article is a college campus, the same underlying principles may apply in other venues. For reasons I won't get into at this point, I am rather convinced that DS6's test results do not necessarily accurately reflect his LOG. I would be interested in starting a post on that topic because I'm a bit flummoxed by what's going on with him. But when folks make statements like the above, it makes me want to leave the forum altogether. On the forums, agreement is not necessary. Please do not expect all posters to agree with you at all times. Why would it matter so much whether anyone is embellishing theirs or their child's LOG anyway? This has been addressed by other posters: I do care, because making a claim about being "PG" when it isn't true can lead to all kinds of problems. For example, if people are fabricating giftedness, their posts can't be trusted. Yet we can't know who's making it up, and so parents here may be believing advice based on experiences that never happened. This could tend to harm their children rather than help them.
Also, if a false claim of giftedness is made in real life, it can make teachers cynical when an actual HG+ kid comes along. How many of us have had to convince teachers that our kids really are gifted in the face of a belief that parents make it up? That belief isn't formed in a vacuum.
...
(And if anyone here is fabricating giftedness, please stop that.) Everyone knows that they can't take advice proffered on here as gospel Possibly this is part of the reason you are hesitant to post about your aforementioned dilemma?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8 |
Now that we've discussed it a bit, I think I understand where you are coming from. I think of HG/HG+ as 99.9th percentile (per some definitions, like Hoagies) and you don't. I am not misinformed; we simply have differing opinions. It is a bit disappointing to see you bring this up again after it appears we had reached agreement that HG/HG+ is not equivalent to PG. The Hoagies page we've been referring to does not actually mention percentiles, rather summarizes the approximate equivalent test scores. These are overall test scores, Full Scale IQs, not individual subtests nor GAIs. As you now mention " HG/HG+ as 99.9th percentile (per some definitions, like Hoagies)", can you point me to the definition on Hoagies which you are referring to, which defines HG/HG+ as 99.9th percentile? ... if a parent here on the forum refers to their child, in isolation, as "my HG DC"...which "HG" are they referring to? That may depend upon the context. One may choose to ask for clarification. And, more importantly, does it really matter? In the context of a thread specifically about giftedness and level of gifted (LOG), yes. In other contexts, possibly not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8 |
Unfortunately, I've seen a trend here to extend subtest results or GAIs or FSIQs to what could be called the whole child. My child is PG! IMO, this isn't a good idea. I agree with this. I also agree with this: I do care, because making a claim about being "PG" when it isn't true can lead to all kinds of problems. For example, if people are fabricating giftedness, their posts can't be trusted. Yet we can't know who's making it up, and so parents here may be believing advice based on experiences that never happened. This could tend to harm their children rather than help them.
Also, if a false claim of giftedness is made in real life, it can make teachers cynical when an actual HG+ kid comes along. How many of us have had to convince teachers that our kids really are gifted in the face of a belief that parents make it up? That belief isn't formed in a vacuum.
...
(And if anyone here is fabricating giftedness, please stop that.) and this: 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).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8 |
you have not shown in anything you've posted that there is a common understanding that PG = 145+ and 145+ = PG. This was sourced from the fact that DITD Young Scholars program is not going to become more inclusive - they are 145+, no exceptions. and the DYS qualification pages which mention both 145+ and "Profoundly Gifted". As a separate point, the fact that there are distinct levels of gifted (LOG) was illustrated by the Hoagies page which lists 4 levels of gifted, along with a table or chart of increasing FSIQs, for each level. This shows that HG is not the same as PG. LOG: 1) Gifted (G) or Moderately Gifted (MG) 2) Highly Gifted (HG) 3) Exceptionally Gifted (EG) 4) Profoundly Gifted (PG) picking through prior posts... is not really a good use of anyone's time. Better to help the parents learn about what their options may be, given the information stated in the post at hand. One option may be to familiarize one's self with a poster's history, when a poster is offering advice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 282
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 282 |
How interesting that Val used PG and HG+ as synonyms in that post you just quoted. Were you planning on calling out Val for that? Also, look way back on this thread. You'll see at least one other poster who has done the same thing. Don't forget to call them out, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8 |
How interesting that Val used PG and HG+ as synonyms in that post you just quoted. LOL, I also use the term HG+, and will continue to do so in some contexts and for reasons such as: - being inclusive, - being modest and/or anonymous about one's own children's LOG, - not recalling a detail... Were you planning on calling out Val for that? Also, look way back on this thread. You'll see at least one other poster who has done the same thing. Don't forget to call them out, too. As previously noted, the thread wanders from discussing definitions of gifted, to Profoundly Gifted (PG), to twice-exceptional (2e). Way back on the thread, the discussion was not focused on DYS qualification criteria. Yesterday, I sought clarification of your use of HG+ specifically in the context of discussing DYS qualification criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
How interesting that Val used PG and HG+ as synonyms in that post you just quoted. Were you planning on calling out Val for that? Also, look way back on this thread. You'll see at least one other poster who has done the same thing. Don't forget to call them out, too. I wasn't using the terms synonymously.  I don't like the term PG and see HG+ as a least-worst label. That's about it.
|
|
|
|
|
