The Children Chapter

My perspective through reviewing research and lived experiences

Giftedness is one of those terms that’s easy to say but harder to define. It tends to bring to mind child prodigies playing Mozart at five or kids doing algebra before they lose their baby teeth. But in reality, giftedness doesn’t always look like a headline. For some children, it shows up early and unmistakably; for others, it’s more subtle. At its core – at least from my perspective – giftedness refers to advanced cognitive ability. These are children whose brains work in more complex, faster or deeper ways than what’s typical for their age. This can show up as early speech, intense curiosity, deep focus or a child reading chapter books well before school begins.

Some cognitively gifted individuals do go on to achieve remarkable things: Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) reportedly has an IQ over 150 and a master’s in electrical engineering from Oxford. Brian May, astrophysicist and lead guitarist of Queen, is another example. But many gifted individuals never become household names and some don’t stand out at all. While unmet needs can certainly obscure their potential, other factors play a role too. As Dr. Deborah Ruf has pointed out, even children with the same IQ score may differ dramatically in how their giftedness presents, depending on intrapersonal qualities, intensity and other developmental traits. For some, these traits drive early and obvious achievement. For others, giftedness may be more inward, subtle or asynchronous – making it harder to recognise without a nuanced lens.

In my view, giftedness is primarily about the way a child’s brain engages with the world – how they think, question and make connections beyond age expectations. Talent, on the other hand, can depend on chance and with the right intrapersonal qualities, it can then be developed with enough practice and the right opportunity, while giftedness is something innate – often noticeable early in life.

Definitions of Giftedness

Giftedness is traditionally defined by IQ – usually a score of 130 or above, placing a child in the top 2-3% of the population, though definitions and thresholds vary. In the UK, the term “gifted” is no longer part of national education policy, which has shifted to broader terms like “more able” or “high learning potential.” However, the concept is still actively used in practice by organisations like Potential Plus UK. The American Psychological Association and most clinical psychologists still use this as a benchmark.

That said, definitions vary. One of the earliest broad-based definitions came from the 1972 US Marland Report to Congress, which identified giftedness across six domains: general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts and psychomotor ability (physical skill and coordination). While primarily a US policy framework, it helped shape international discussions and recognises that giftedness may be expressed in diverse ways beyond academics.

François Gagné’s model distinguishes between natural ability (giftedness) and cultivated skill (talent). Joseph Renzulli describes giftedness as a mix of ability, creativity, and motivation. Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory expands the idea of giftedness beyond traditional IQ by identifying eight distinct intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic. This model allows for a broader recognition of human potential – highlighting that a child may be gifted in ways not captured by conventional academic testing.

Dr. Ruf’s five-level model defines intellectual giftedness primarily as a cognitive spectrum – ranging from mildly to profoundly gifted – based on developmental traits and IQ scores. Her work emphasises how giftedness is evident early and tied to the way a child processes information with greater depth, speed and intensity. Miraca Gross, meanwhile, defined profoundly gifted children as those with IQs above 180, and examined the distinctive challenges they face in environments not designed to support their advanced intellectual and emotional development. The book Living with Intensity introduces another dimension by viewing giftedness as a way of experiencing the world more vividly and intensely across emotional, sensory and intellectual domains.

Across definitions – whether IQ-based, developmental or holistic – there’s a common thread: gifted children think and learn differently from the norm. Some models emphasise reasoning ability, rapid learning or early intellectual milestones; others focus more on creativity, intensity or motivation. But for me, the definition that resonates most is rooted in cognition – how quickly, how intensely and how deeply a child understands and interprets the world. Whether identified through testing or observed through daily behaviour, giftedness reflects a distinctive cognitive profile that needs to be recognised and supported in thoughtful, personalised ways.

IS GIFTEDNESS THE SAME AS NEURODIVERGENCE?

Neurotypical, Neurodivergence, Overexcitabilities and Brain Differences

This is a big question and one that stirs up debate. Debates around whether giftedness belongs under the neurodivergent umbrella are still evolving and views can vary significantly depending on cultural context, community values and diagnostic frameworks. Many people assume gifted children must be neurodivergent – after all, their thinking is so different from the norm. And it’s true that gifted kids often show traits that overlap with conditions like autism or ADHD: intense focus, emotional sensitivity, sensory issues, asynchronous development (such as where their intellectual skills outpace their emotional ones) or feeling out of step with peers.

Neurotypical generally describes individuals whose brain development and functioning align with expected age norms. Neurodivergent in contrast is a descriptive term that originated in the neurodiversity movement of the late 1990s. Coined to challenge deficit-based views of autism and related conditions, the term is now widely used to describe people whose brains function in ways that diverge from the societal norm, most often including those with diagnosed conditions like autism, ADHD, dyslexia or dyspraxia. While it isn’t a medical label (you won’t find the term “neurodivergent” in diagnostic manuals like the DSM-5 or ICD-11), the term has come to imply a difference that significantly affects how someone learns, behaves or communicates in daily life and often requires support or accommodation.

Psychologist Kazimierz Dabrowski introduced the concept of “overexcitabilities” to describe the intense inner experiences often seen in gifted individuals. These may be emotional, intellectual, imaginational, sensory or psychomotor. Overexcitabilities are not diagnoses as they are traits. Although they can sometimes resemble characteristics found in neurodivergent conditions, they are not the same thing. Unless these traits result in challenges that significantly affect day-to-day functioning, in my opinion, they do not fall under the widely accepted use of the term neurodivergent.

Some argue that the brain differences observed in gifted individuals, such as increased neural connectivity, faster processing speed or denser grey matter (which really explains why gifted children often process information more rapidly and intensely) mean that giftedness itself should be included under the neurodivergent umbrella. But from my understanding, neurological difference alone doesn’t define neurodivergence. In current usage, neurodivergence implies not just difference, but functional impact – differences in regulation, adaptation or communication that require support. A person is typically considered neurodivergent if their cognitive profile leads to difficulties in areas like attention, communication, executive function or sensory processing. If a gifted child with overexcitabilities is thriving without needing therapeutic intervention or special accommodations (meaning they have advanced cognitive abilities, may be socially typical, emotionally regulated and high-achieving in conventional environments), they wouldn’t usually be described as neurodivergent.

I believe giftedness exists across the spectrum of neurological development. Some gifted children are also neurodivergent – these are known as twice-exceptional (2e). Others are not. It is possible to be cognitively gifted and neurotypical. And many experience intense inner worlds through overexcitabilities. The challenge with 2e children is that their strengths can mask their struggles – and vice versa – so they are often misdiagnosed, misunderstood or labelled as “difficult” when they’re simply wired differently. Understanding and respecting that variety is key to supporting the real child in front of us. Not the label, but the learner.

HOW GIFTEDNESS IS IDENTIFIED

Giftedness is most commonly identified through a combination of formal cognitive assessment, expert interpretation and contextual understanding. In the UK, this is often done privately through an educational psychologist or an organisation such as Potential Plus UK. Standardised tools like the Wechsler scales – WPPSI (ages 2.5–7), WISC (6–16) and WAIS (16+) – are frequently used. These tests provide a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) and in some cases a General Ability Index (GAI) – a composite score that reflects reasoning ability without including working memory or processing speed – which is particularly useful when a child presents with a “spiky profile.” This occurs when working memory or processing speed scores lower than verbal or perceptual reasoning, as is often the case in twice-exceptional (2e) children. The GAI helps isolate the reasoning-based cognitive strengths without being skewed by weaker processing components.

Although not universally defined in levels, some psychologists and education specialists find it helpful to describe different degrees of giftedness when interpreting assessment results or considering a child’s learning needs. These level-based frameworks aren’t formal diagnoses, but practical tools, especially when trying to understand the wide variation that can exist among children with advanced abilities.

Dr. Ruf proposed a five-level model ranging from moderately to profoundly gifted, with corresponding IQ estimates between approximately 120 and 180+, based on patterns of early development and intensity. Her framework is often used in parent and educator communities to help understand how giftedness may present differently in real life.

Similarly, some organisations apply fixed thresholds to determine eligibility for support or membership. Mensa, for example, typically accepts individuals who score in the top 2% of the population on an approved intelligence test. The Davidson Institute in the US defines profound giftedness as scoring in the 99.9th percentile, roughly equivalent to an IQ of 145+, particularly on tests like the Stanford-Binet or WISC-V.

For highly to profoundly gifted children, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB-5), is sometimes preferred because it offers a higher ceiling than many other standardised tests. While the standard scoring typically tops out at 160, extended norms allow for extrapolated estimates that can reach beyond 180. These scores are used cautiously and are generally interpreted by professionals with experience in assessing exceptional cognitive profiles. When a child’s abilities exceed even those measurable limits or when their development presents atypically, assessors often incorporate qualitative data – such as developmental history, behavioural observations, work samples and insights from parents or teachers – to form a fuller picture of their potential.

Identification in 2e children remains particularly complex. Learning differences such as dyslexia, ADHD or autism can mask giftedness, while giftedness can compensate for and obscure those same learning differences. A child may be highly verbal and analytically advanced but struggle with executive functioning or written output. This is why a full psychoeducational evaluation for such children – considering not only scores but also behavioural patterns, developmental history, classroom functioning and family insight – is essential.

Importantly, IQ scores only capture part of the picture. Standard tests do not assess traits like creativity, emotional depth, metacognition or passion for learning. A child may fall short of a numerical cut-off but still display clear signs of giftedness in how they think, relate and engage with complex ideas. For this reason, I believe identification should never rely on numbers alone. Giftedness is best recognised by considering the whole child – both their abilities and how those abilities shape their experience of the world.

The Bigger Picture

Giftedness isn’t the same as high achievement – just as talent isn’t always the outcome of giftedness. A child may read at three, master abstract logic before school age or question the universe with startling depth, yet never bring home top marks or trophies. That’s because giftedness begins not with output, but with the way a child processes the world: their intensity, their curiosity, their inner complexity. The intrapersonal factors – like motivation and perseverance often shape whether gifted potential translates into talent or achievement over time. And those, in turn, are deeply influenced by the child’s environment, support and opportunity.

In the UK, it’s disheartening that giftedness has come to be seen by some as elitist or exclusionary – a perception that contributed to the quiet removal of the term from national policy. Terms like “more able” or “high learning potential” as mentioned have taken its place, but they often dilute the distinct cognitive and emotional profile that defines giftedness. In an effort to promote inclusivity, we’ve risked overlooking a group whose needs are equally complex – just different. Gifted children don’t ask to be exceptional; they ask to be understood. Whether or not their abilities lead to visible success, giftedness deserves to be recognised for what it truly is: a different way of thinking, feeling and relating to the world – one that calls for understanding, not just measurement, and support, not stigma.