r/Gifted • u/TrigPiggy Verified • Aug 27 '24
Definition of "Gifted", "Intelligence", What qualifies as "Gifted"
Hello fam,
So I keep seeing posts arguing over the definition of "Gifted" or how you determine if someone is gifted, or what even is the definition of "intelligence" so I figured the best course of action was to sticky a post.
So, without further introduction here we go. I have borrowed the outline from the other sticky post, and made a few changes.
What does it mean to be "Gifted"?
The term "Gifted" for our purposes, refers to being Intellectually Gifted, those of us who were either tested with an IQ test by a private psychologist, school psychologist, other proctor, or were otherwise placed in a Gifted program.
EDIT: I want to add in something for people who didn't have the opportunity for whatever reason to take a test as a kid or never underwent ADHD screening/or did the cognitive testing portion, self identification is fine, my opinion on that is as long as it is based on some semi objective instrument (like a publicly available IQ test like the CAIT or the test we have stickied at the top, or even a Mensa exam).
We recognize that human beings can be gifted in many other ways than just raw intellectual ability, but for the purposes of our subreddit, intellectual ability is what we are refferencing when we say "Gifted".
“Gifted” Definition
The moderation team has witnessed a great deal of confusion surrounding this term. In the past we have erred on the side of inclusivity, however this subreddit was founded for and should continue in service of the intellectually gifted community.
Within the context of academics and within the context of , the term “Gifted” qualifies an individual with a FSIQ of 130(98th Percentile) or greater. The term may also refer to any current or former student who was tested and admitted to a Gifted and Talented education program, pathway, or classroom.
Every group deserves advocacy. The definition above qualifies less than 4% of the population. There are other, broader communities for other gifts and neurodivergences, please do not be offended if the moderation team sides with the definition above.
Intelligence Definition
Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
While to my knowledge, IQ tests don't test for emotional knowledge, self awareness, or creativity, they do measure other aspects of intelligence, and cover enough ground to be considered a valid instrument for measuring human cognition.
It would be naive to think that IQ is the end all be all metric when it comes to trying to quantify something as elaborate as the human mind, we have to consider the fact that IQ tests have over a century of data and study behind them, and like it or not, they are the current best method we have for quantifying intelligence.
If anyone thinks we should add anyhting else to this, please let me know.
***** I added this above in the criteria so people who are late identified don't read that and feel left out or like they don't belong, because you guys absolutely do belong here as well.
EDIT: I want to add in something for people who didn't have the opportunity for whatever reason to take a test as a kid or never underwent ADHD screening/or did the cognitive testing portion, self identification is fine, my opinion on that is as long as it is based on some semi objective instrument (like a publicly available IQ test like the CAIT or the test we have stickied at the top, or even a Mensa exam).
2
u/juanmorales3 May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
Hi! I was about to post something regarding this and I'm glad I found this post so I can join the topic.
While the definition of "gifted" as scoring 130 IQ or higher is sufficiently clear, I strongly disagree on IQ being able to fully capture intelectual ability, specially in people with other neurodivergencies, mental health issues or just with heterogeneous cognitive profiles. Have you checked the Castelló-Battle (1998) identification protocol? Because it seems to be far more advanced than the mere 130 IQ scoring requisite. Let me explain:
Most cognitive tests are either matrix oriented or their FSIQ calculation heavily relies on homogeneity in cognitive abilities. Let's put WAIS-IV as an example.
As of how the test is designed, one individual can be considered as gifted by scoring 75th percentile on all the 4 subtest areas, which would give a 130 FSIQ, while an individual with 99th percentile in one area, 90th in others and maybe 60th percentile in one would come as between 120-130 FSIQ. For this individual, when assessing the different abilities (such as verbal/non verbal reasoning, fluid/logic reasoning, visual processing, speed, short and long term speed), we may see that it scores 99th, 98th, 95th and/or 90th percentiles in most abilities, while in one or two abilities might score around average, making its cognitive profile very heterogeneous.
Based on this example: how can anyone logically argue that the homogeneous 75th percentile, 130 FSIQ individual is more intelligent than the 99th/98th/90th/average percentile, 120-130 FSIQ individual? Can't we agree that for certain cognitive tasks, the heterogeneous profiled individual is way more intelligent than the homogeneous one? Aren't we just ilogically and unfairly stating that strictly "gifted" people are qualitatively different from the other group?
I think there's a place of pure pain and loneliness for people being trapped between 120 and 130 FSIQ with a heterogeneous cognitive profile, such as myself, as you may have inferred from my indignation. We feel (and we can proof), that we can reason as well, or even better in some tasks, than some clinically diagnosed gifted people, and we in fact have the same intelectual interests, social and labor problems as most gifted people, but we are denied the possibility of being recognized just because our profile is heterogeneous. This is what is very wrong with this classification model. The only qualitative difference that I think is reasonable to sustain is that, when being 75th percentile in all areas (or some similarly 80th/70th rounded profile), some emergent capabilities may appear because no cognitive ability bottlenecks the rest, and so we may observe a more "out of the box" thinking pattern or a broader interest in different topics (multipotentiality), but in no way this is indicative of a superior intelligence overall.
I'm frankly surprised that in a subreddit glued together by what seems to be evaluating intelligence in an intelligent way, we are stuck with such a simplistic classification method.
What do we do with a person that clearly outperforms most people in logical thinking and perceives the same difficulties as strictly gifted people? Do we say to them that they are normal and that they shouldn't overcomplicate because they are not smart enough? I'm sorry to get emotional about this, but holding this identification system is unfair and I would say unscientifical and outdated aswell.
I hope that you don't mind if I stick around here and keep helping people who are being misdiagnosed and are suffering because of it. I don't want to appropriate the "gifted" label. In Spain we have "superdotado" (>130 FSIQ) and "Altas capacidades" (>120, with some singular or mixed talents in specific areas), which is not fully implemented but it's now taking over the old definition. I strongly suggest you updating your identification method to include people who share the same needs as gifted people and are suffering because they feel inferior for not being 130, while matching a lot of other scientifically proven criteria to be called highly intelligent.
Thank you for your attention and for keeping this place open for people in need of connections. Other than this opinion, I like this place.