What is this “profoundly gifted” malarkey anyway?

[The3]

There’s a few threads around referring to profound giftedness. Is this actually a thing or is it a poncey way of saying extra specially clever? Or is it some sort of learning disability? Please enlighten me.

And i’m confusing my threads! Sorry! Links were for OP, comments were for OP on other thread

I really don't get why IQ makes much difference to schooling, the whole concept of IQ is that it's not trainable, so you're not ahead of what you should learn at a particular age simply because you have a high IQ.

Now certainly it's very likely that you'll acquire certain concepts (but not necessarily skills) more rapidly, and that could mean you could progress through many parts of the curriculum more rapidly than others. However that even more so doesn't mean that you'll do better in a different year - because you still acquire the relevant concepts more rapidly than the other people in the year so nothing is gained. You will still need differentiated work.

Of course, there's also lots that you need to learn that you don't get much advantage with a high IQ - physical skills, the simple body of knowledge in history/geography/science that takes time, being widely read enough etc.

I have often wondered if Maths is so often the thing people are "gifted" in when it is just one area, not because they genuinely are particularly gifted in that area, but simply because that is the area where time and practice are less important than in others.

SirFred: “I have often wondered if Maths is so often the thing people are "gifted" in when it is just one area, not because they genuinely are particularly gifted in that area, but simply because that is the area where time and practice are less important than in others.”

This interests me a lot, mainly because my DD is merely ‘top group’ for maths, whereas she excels at literacy. It seems from Mumsnet that most discussions on the G&T board are about children that are exceptionally good at maths. I think this warrants its own thread, which I’m going to start shortly!

I do very much agree that IQ tests are an imperfect tool. However I do not think they are worthless, if the limitations are acknowledged, and they are not used beyond that. They clearly do not measure success, and they do not measure potential success. However, I do think that they provide some useful information about the outliers.

They identify my DD as an outlier in terms of her academic potential. When you look at the speed with which she has learnt and the degree to which she is able to understand beyond the material that she has been taught (by working it out herself and by applying what she has been taught), then she does stand out as an outlier. If you look at the speed she thinks and processes and works, she stands out. So for us, the psychometric testing and ability tests have supported what we see. But they work in her case because she has no additional learning differences, and she is confident about things learning related.

I am dyslexic and they didn’t work for me. If you don’t think the way the tests work (non-neuro typical), they are poor. And you have already pointed out that they are not generalisable across all cultures and countries.

I also totally agree that accelerating across a single year doesn’t address the issue that is raised by IQ tests.

Just quoting for 1 in a million across the UK/world etc ( regardless of is that is correct) does not mean that the frequency cannot be more concerntrated in specific areas . Eg social and economic groups containing highly educated professionals may have more than 1:1000000. Also schools with professional parents etc or selective entry criteria. Schools that have a good reputation for encouraging application from children with certain abilities. Take a school that enters children for national competitions when all the children are in one venues that venue may well contain a few "profoundly gifted" children. Those children may be younger than other participants and they may almost seek each other out ......

From what I understand the 1 in a million is an outdated American quote. As there is no centralised data it's not known how many but I was told that in any given year group there could be 10-30 kids in the UK. Also different tests have different boundaries

If you have such a detailed info, can you not get in touch with those 10-30 kids in UK? Places that offer to test to determine the profoundly giftedness of the child at that young age must be quite limited.

Try Potential Plus. They also have a Facebook group which I think will help you.

I'd heard of it before, and think it probably is quite useful to understand that giftedness isn't one big mass, and that how much of an outlier a person is will have big implications for their experience. Of course, it's not exact, doesn't take twice-exceptionality into account, yadda yadda.

Something I read once (again, a generalisation - but still useful) is that people often struggle to identify with those who are more than 30 iq points different from them.

If you think about the way the bell curve works, you can do the maths on what this means for the different 'levels of giftedness'.

• E.g., someone who is merely 'moderately gifted' will identify with most people they interact with, and schools will know how to deal with them. This is arguably the 'sweet spot' of giftedness
• Someone 'exceptionally gifted' will be a bit of a mystery to their teachers, and will only identify with 1:1000 of the population, so is bound to feel quite isolated (until/unless they get into a top uni and academic/professional job)

I think that's useful to understand.

OnlyG, I agree about the 30 points etc. I have seem people in both and with a supposedly 152 IQ myself (or may be I was just good at IQ tests and university exams etc!) i found my school (not at all academic) there wer enot many people I could even discuss work stuff about in the sixth form - the teacher just used to read out my essays to others in class sometimes and I sdidn't mind helping people with work either as I've always liked to explain things simply to help people understand.

I have never bothered to look into definitions of gifted, profoundly gifted so have nothing to add on that other than it never pays to show off in life.

I doubt I was at such a high level I could not be understood by teachers however. I was just good at IQ tests. Also whether these things are born are made has never been easy to lknow either.

IQ is a limited measure of intelligence and effectively measure potential.

It doesn't mean the kid is a second Mozart or Einstein, it simply means the kid's got potential.

If guided properly, if taught according to his/her strengths and if there's no diagnosis of learning difficulties, disabilities or neurological conditions like ASD, Asperger's, dyslexia or ADHD.

xenia mystery is perhaps too strong I'd certainly expect them to understand your academic work, since their extra age and experience would bridge the (likely) iq gap.
Often they would only have had to remember things they had already learnt/thought about whilst you were discovering something new.

namechange it's not really just increased potential though, it's also a difference in thinking about things and learning on a day to day basis. Especially speed and depth of thinking, which will limit being able to bounce ideas off people - a good part of how we build rapport.

I work with a team that develop tests for KS2 SATS. In trialling these tests for many years, across a very broad spectrum of ability, there has never been a single child who has scored 100%
I am also a KS2 SATS marker, and when there used to be a separate test for Level 6 children not one child scored more than half marks. Having a very high IQ does not equal being able to pass tests you have not been taught the material for.
For those of you who suggest that schools should provide an EHCP or additional TA support for their clever little darlings, that is NEVER going to happen. Provision for SEN children is about closing the attainment gap, not pushing children into the higher echelons of clever cloggsness.
All the children I have taught who have been exceptionally bright have struggled with friendships, often with creativity, and other social skills. A high IQ can be a curse!

It means so gifted you'd be like 'how much more gifted could this be?'. And the answer is none. None more gifted

Having a very high IQ does not equal being able to pass tests you have not been taught the material for.
@bezm - your observations are really interesting especially the above. I've long wondered how a child is said to be fluent in Japanese or able to do long division at 4 if never taught it. It sounds like they will always have been taught it or exposed to in the case of a new language.

Robo there's a group within Mensa for gifted children, some areas have family officers who arrange meet ups (and this is expanding). It's a safe area to discuss gifted/PG children with parents going through similar situations.