Giftedness and High IQ: What We Need to Know (and Understand)

By Dr. Patty Gently on October 1, 2024

Bright Insight Support Network founder and president Dr. Patty Gently (formerly Williams) is a trauma therapist and coach who specializes in EMDR, ND-Affirmative DBT, and IFS modalities. Through Bright Insight, she works to counsel, coach, and advocate for gifted, twice-exceptional, and neurodivergent persons, along with other marginalized populations.

Giftedness and High IQ: What We Need to Know (and Understand)

There is undoubtedly an overlap between giftedness and high IQ (Intelligence Quotient). In fact, in many spaces, I insist that anyone assessed as having a high (enough) IQ is also, undoubtedly gifted. The problem is that not every gifted person can be assessed as having a high IQ. There are several reasons for this, including first that IQ testing is culturally narrow in its norming and development.

That is, IQ tests are best suited to evaluate White, Western/European folk without disabilities.

Here is a visual conceptualization of this concept:

IQ assessments essentially cater to privilege: the privilege of a shared language and speaking, the privilege of affluence and the means of seeking assessment, and the privilege of ability where those with second exceptionalities, such as learning or attention difficulties, may be missed or seen as having spiky and “inconclusive" assessments or profiles, as is also depicted in the graphic above.

**If you are a professional who sees a spiky profile as unreadable, please contact me, and I will offer free assessment support. The same goes for individuals who were told as much.**

Whether we are looking at a misalignment between individual and assessment or other impacting factors, it is important to consider how different groups might present when having their IQs assessed. In the chart below from the Albuquerque Public Schools Gifted Task Force (Nielsen, 1999), performance differences are conceptualized in relation to how various groups present in different assessment areas:

So whether a gifted student is culturally/linguistically divergent, is assessed as existing at a low socioeconomic level, or might be characterized as a student with a disability, this chart presents information about how their basic, verbal, reading, or observation skills may be impacted in relation to more traditional or privileged peers. Such charts can be used when assessors notice spiky profiles (or what might seem like an assessment where something seems off) so they might align perceived deficits with other impacting factors.

And What Is a High IQ Score Anyway?

So let's get down to it. What is "high IQ" and who gets to decide?

High IQ scores typically refer to intelligence quotient scores that exceed 130, indicating far-above-average cognitive abilities compared to the general population. This cut-off depends, however, on school district policies, assessment types, and psychologists' philosophies even. Regardless of opinion, IQ tests are derived from standardized intelligence tests that assess various cognitive functions, such as reasoning, problem-solving, and comprehension.

While a high IQ score can signify strong intellectual potential, it is important to recognize that intelligence is multifaceted and may encompass creativity, sensitivity, and practical skills that are not always reflected in numerical scores. Also, the test may not accurately assess all people's intellectual abilities and aptitudes.

So What Other Qualities Align With Giftedness?

Giftedness extends beyond high IQ scores, encompassing a spectrum of cognitive and emotional traits that uniquely influence individual experiences. Dąbrowski (1972) noted that individuals with high levels of overexcitability perceive reality with greater intensity and depth, which is a hallmark of giftedness. However, his framework does not explicitly categorize high developmental potential as giftedness.

Research by Büyükkıdık and Şimşek-Batar (2021) emphasizes that parents identify numerous characteristics in their gifted children beyond high IQ, including strong curiosity, keen observational skills, vivid imagination, creativity, rapid learning abilities, problem-solving skills, extensive vocabulary, and perfectionism. This recognition supports the view that giftedness is a multi-dimensional construct that a high IQ score alone does not always capture.

In my work, I identify gifted individuals as complex beings with a distinctly above-average ability and compulsion to develop new understanding, knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, attitudes, and preferences. Expeditious learning can be attributed to a tendency toward rapid pattern-finding and meaning-making processes where new (and interesting to them) material is retained after one to two repetitions of exposure. This pattern-finding and meaning-making also lends to the depth and complexity noticed in gifted persons. Along with a rapid ability and drive to learn, and in relation to depth and complexity, it is noted that gifted persons can experience the world with great intensity or the blunting of intensity in sensual, psychomotor, imaginational, intellectual, and/or emotional domains (Dabrowski), and develop in a way that seems initially asynchronous.

Levels of Giftedness

As was addressed in my book, Intersection of Intensity: Exploring Giftedness and Trauma, I need to also explain here how the identification of leveled giftedness is akin to functioning labels (labels that judge a person’s ability to function in day-to-day life), which I avoid in an effort to be more neurodiversity-affirming.

That said, there are five levels of giftedness identified in existing literature and research that can be considered in a meaningful way. These five levels are coined in some spaces as mildly, moderately, highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted (Gross, 2000). In the 5 Levels of Gifted books by Deborah L. Ruf (2022), however, she prefers to number these one through five or label them as moderately gifted to gifted, highly gifted, exceptionally gifted, exceptionally to profoundly gifted (4), and exceptionally to profoundly gifted (5). While levels four and five appear to be the same, Ruf insists that because of limitations of IQ tests, the distinct differences between these two levels reside in individuals’ behaviors.

Still, such as with the chart below, though IQ scores may vary depending on the assessment used, they are helpful when conceptualizing how uncommon an outlier of outliers may be.

Since each of these five levels relates to a range of high IQ scores with some exceptions per Ruf’s measures, they are not perfectly assessed. That said, it can be suggested that with each increasing variation, there is an increase in minority status. That is, while one in six to one in forty-four individuals in the general population might be considered mildly gifted, fewer than one in every one million people are imagined to be profoundly gifted (Gross, 2000). With the variation seen in the first category, one can also see the potential for difficulty with these measurements. What can be concluded is that the higher a person's IQ and intelligence or level of giftedness by this measure, the more rare they may be in relation to the general population. 

Because of the rarity of more highly gifted individuals, it is readily understood how finding like peers can be a challenge. Additionally, with more highly to profoundly gifted individuals, research suggests an increased risk of socio-affective concerns, social isolation, and pressures to conform (Gross, 2000). Because of their rarity, there is an increased risk of misunderstanding.

How much rarer might this be though, if your giftedness cannot even be captured or conceptualized with an IQ test?

The Intersection of Giftedness, Neurodiversity, and Socio-Emotional Needs

Recognizing giftedness as part of the neurodiversity framework enhances our understanding of diverse cognitive profiles and their influence on individual experiences (Neihart, 2011). This approach fosters inclusivity and acknowledges the unique needs of gifted individuals, whether they are assessed using IQ tests or more trait-reliant measures.

As an oh-so-important example, gifted individuals frequently navigate complex socio-emotional challenges as attended to above. Heightened sensitivities can complicate self-regulation and social interactions, increasing the risk of isolation and mental health concerns (Pfeiffer & Petscher, 2008; Gross, 2000). These same socio-emotional challenges can also both mask giftedness or point an awareness compass towards it, depending on who is looking. We need to watch for it.

Cultural Context

Cultural factors significantly shape perceptions of giftedness, leading to disparities in recognition and support across different communities. Acknowledging these cultural nuances is essential for appreciating the diverse experiences of gifted individuals (Garrison, 2009). Additionally, we need to be exceptionally clear about current biases that limit gifted identification for minorities and marginalized populations. We KNOW that BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) are under-identified in gifted spaces, so we need to compensate by looking for BIPOC gifted, specifically. We also need to amplify the voices of BIPOC gifted and advocates.

Misdiagnosis, Missed Diagnosis, and Misunderstanding

Gifted individuals often face misdiagnosis, missed diagnoses, or misunderstandings regarding mental health conditions. While many experience depression or anxiety, these feelings should not automatically be categorized as negative development or mental illness. Dąbrowski’s (1966) theory of positive disintegration suggests that what is often labeled as mental illness can instead serve as a catalyst for growth.

Diagnosing gifted individuals can be complicated though. Tools designed to assess struggles often focus on observable behaviors without investigating their origins, which may stem from innate traits or trauma. Misdiagnoses can occur due to clinician biases and vague diagnostic criteria that pathologize normal behavior. Furthermore, misunderstandings about processing abilities in non-intellectual areas can hinder gifted individuals' identification as struggling. For instance, gifted people may excel intellectually but struggle with social or emotional processing, leading to a reliance on harmful stereotypes about their capabilities.

Emphasizing Strengths and Interests

Recognizing and nurturing the distinct strengths and interests of gifted individuals is vital for fostering positive and engaging learning experiences (Tomlinson, 2017). Creating educational environments that honor these qualities can significantly enhance their development. Furthermore, this model fosters a more full understanding of giftedness and its presentation beyond intellect since high IQ alone is not the sole identifier of giftedness and ability.

Community and Connection

We know how finding community among gifted individuals is essential for emotional well-being. We see this in gifted classrooms and schools and in gifted communities online. Shared experiences can mitigate feelings of isolation and promote understanding (Friedman, 2009). Given that social sweet spots for giftedness often lie within high IQ scores between 125 to 155 (Hollingworth, 1926), those who are highly gifted may face more significant challenges in forming connections. As such, creating these spaces where outliers can find each other is so crucial.

Conclusion (For Now)

Giftedness is a complex and multifaceted form of neurodivergence that extends far beyond high IQ. It encompasses a range of characteristics that shape how individuals experience and interact with the world. Recognizing the various levels of giftedness (and the socio-emotional challenges that accompany them) is crucial for fostering a supportive environment that values every individual's unique strengths. As we continue to understand and address the needs of gifted individuals within the broader context of neurodiversity, we can promote inclusivity, minimize stigma, and enhance overall well-being.

References

Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hebert, T. P. (2014). The Role of Gifted Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 250-261.

Büyükkıdık, B., & Şimşek-Batar, M. (2021). The Identification of Giftedness: A Parent's Perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(4), 448-458.

Dąbrowski, K. (1966). Positive Disintegration.

Dąbrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis Is Not an Illness. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Friedman, R. (2009). The Gifted Adult: A Revolutionary Guide for Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. M. Evans & Co.

Garrison, L. (2009). Cultural Perspectives on Giftedness: A Gifted and Talented Education Primer for Parents. Gifted Child Today, 32(1), 29-38.

Gently, P. (2024). Intersection of Intensity: Exploring Giftedness and Trauma. Gifted Unlimited, LLC.

Gross, M. U. M. (2000). Exceptionally Gifted Children. New York: Routledge.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Children Above 180 IQ: Origin and Development. New York: World Book Company.

Neihart, M. (2011). The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know? In S. I.

Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of Giftedness in Children (pp. 123-134). New York: Springer.

Pfeiffer, S. I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Social-Emotional Development and Giftedness: What Do We Know? Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 334-344.

Ruf, D. L. (2022). 5 Levels of Gifted: School Issues and Educational Options. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Williams, P. (2023). Understanding how twice-exceptional individuals navigate adolescence: A grounded theory study.