The question of whether the differences observed between HPI, THPI, and TTHPI are immutable or can be influenced by knowledge acquisition, self-improvement, or simply by time is essential for understanding the complexity of intellectual potential. This section explores how traits often attributed to THPI and TTHPI can be developed by individuals through their life paths, regardless of their IQ score.

The Role of Fluid Intelligence

Fluid intelligence, defined as the ability to solve new problems and adapt to unfamiliar situations, is one of the traits often associated with THPI and TTHPI. Unlike crystallized intelligence, which relies on the accumulation of knowledge, fluid intelligence can be developed through stimulating activities that engage cognitive flexibility, critical thinking, and abstraction.

Regular cognitive challenges, such as complex puzzles, advanced mathematical problems, or strategic games, can help develop this form of intelligence. Additionally, exposure to varied environments and regularly stepping out of one’s comfort zone can enhance adaptability and the ability to solve novel problems.

Development of Emotional and Social Skills

Cognitive and emotional development is greatly influenced by the environment in which an individual evolves, by their life experiences, and by the learning opportunities they are offered. Carol Dweck (2006) and her theory of the "growth mindset" have shown that the belief in the ability to develop intellectual skills through effort and learning plays a crucial role in achieving individual potential. This suggests that the cognitive and emotional traits associated with THPI and TTHPI are not exclusive to them, nor are they necessarily determined in their intensity, which cannot truly be measured.

For example, an individual who engages in stimulating educational experiences, cultivates active curiosity, and benefits from high-quality coaching can develop critical thinking, complex problem-solving, and abstraction abilities that are generally attributed to THPI. Furthermore, the development of emotional and social skills, such as empathy, communication, stress management, and emotional intelligence, can also be influenced by personal development programs and rich life experiences.

Marc Brackett (2019) has shown that emotional intelligence, which includes the recognition, understanding, and regulation of emotions, is crucial for managing complex situations.

Cultivating Extra-lucidity and Fine Perception

Extra-lucidity, often associated with TTHPI, refers to the ability to perceive extremely fine details and nuances in complex situations. This ability is not necessarily linked to an IQ score but can result from in-depth experience and rigorous training.

Daniel Goleman (1995) demonstrated that the ability to perceive emotional nuances and understand the subtleties of human interactions can be developed through experience and learning. By engaging in an intensive personal development path, such as training in psychology or coaching, an individual can enhance their fine perception and manifest extra-lucidity similar to that of TTHPI.

Managing Hyperexcitability and Developing Resilience

Hyperexcitability, which encompasses heightened emotional, intellectual, sensory, and psychomotor responsiveness, is another characteristic often observed in THPI and TTHPI. This intensity can be an asset when well-managed. Kazimierz Dabrowski (1964) described this responsiveness as a gateway to deeper personal development, where individuals learn to manage and channel their intensity constructively.

Linda Silverman (2013) noted that perfectionism and extreme sensitivity, often exacerbated in THPI and TTHPI, can be mitigated through sustained psychological work. To effectively manage hyperexcitability, one can practice emotional regulation techniques such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, meditation, or relaxation exercises. By developing emotional mastery, an individual can achieve a level of resilience and self-management comparable to that of THPI or TTHPI.

Creativity and Divergent Thinking

Individuals with HPI are often characterized by creative and divergent thinking, which allows them to generate innovative solutions to complex problems. Mark Runco (2004) showed that this ability is largely influenced by environmental factors and exposure to varied experiences. By engaging an individual in activities that stimulate divergent thinking, such as art, science, or intellectual challenges, it is possible to develop creativity comparable to that observed in THPI and TTHPI. Not all great creators were TTHPI!

THPI and TTHPI are often able to think radically and originally due to their ability to make unusual connections between disparate ideas. However, Feldhusen and Gagné (1991) demonstrated that creativity can be cultivated and that subtle connections between concepts can be strengthened through education and experience.

The Importance of Time and Experience

Time and experience also play a key role in the development of intellectual and emotional skills. Lev Vygotsky (1978), in his theory of proximal development, emphasized the importance of social interaction and experience in cognitive development. As an individual gains experience, they can refine their analytical and emotional skills, reaching a level of mastery typically associated with individuals with higher IQs.

Thus, an individual who invests in their own development through experience, continuous education, and interaction with stimulating environments can achieve a level of complexity in thinking and emotional depth often attributed to THPI or TTHPI.

Conclusion

The traits attributed to THPI and TTHPI, such as extra-lucidity, hyperexcitability, and radical creativity, are not exclusively determined by an IQ score. The development of these capacities can be influenced by environment, experience, and personal commitment to self-improvement. An individual with HPI, through knowledge acquisition, rich life experiences, and sustained personal development, can manifest traits often associated with THPI without necessarily having an IQ above 140.

These observations highlight the evolvability of intelligence and the plasticity of intellectual potential, as well as the importance of a holistic approach to this concept and the development of individuals with high potential.

References

1. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1-22.

2. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.

3. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.

4. Brackett, M. A. (2019). Permission to Feel: Unlocking the Power of Emotions to Help Our Kids, Ourselves, and Our Society Thrive. Celadon Books.

5. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.

6. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive Disintegration. Little, Brown and Company.

7. Silverman, L. K. (2013). Giftedness 101. Springer Publishing Company.

8. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 657-687.

9. Feldhusen, J. F., & Gagné, F. (1991). Creativity and giftedness. Pergamon Press.

10. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

The distinctions between gifted, highly gifted, and exceptionally gifted individuals (in France HPI, THPI & TTHPI) are often described in terms of cognitive abilities measured by IQ, with respective thresholds of 130, 145, and 160. However, it is essential to examine how factors such as knowledge acquisition, the development of social skills, learning to take a broader perspective, self-awareness through therapy or psychoanalysis, and structured coaching can influence and potentially bridge the differences between these profiles.

To further challenge the representation of this distinction, it is interesting to question the various abilities that are supposedly more developed in highly gifted and exceptionally gifted individuals, even without prior context regarding their learning or life experiences. By exploring what research on the development of these abilities allows us to infer, we can ultimately attempt to answer this question: can one develop the same characteristics or skills as highly gifted or exceptionally gifted individuals?

Knowledge acquisition and the expansion of cognitive abilities

Knowledge acquisition plays a central role in the development of cognitive abilities. Recent research, such as John Sweller's work on cognitive load theory (2011), shows that structured and well-designed learning can optimize information retention by reducing cognitive overload. This approach is particularly beneficial for individuals with gifted intellectual potential, as it maximizes their ability to integrate and use complex knowledge.

K. Anders Ericsson and his theory of deliberate practice (2016) have also demonstrated that acquiring expert skills is not simply the result of innate talent but stems from intentional and sustained practice, often starting in childhood for many gifted individuals. For a gifted individual, engaging in continuous and targeted learning can significantly strengthen cognitive abilities, bringing them closer to the performance levels observed in highly gifted and exceptionally gifted individuals.

Moreover, Robert Bjork's (2011) work on "desirable difficulties" highlights the importance of learning methods that, while challenging, improve long-term retention and understanding. By adopting techniques such as spaced learning or self-referential testing, a gifted individual can develop the ability to abstract and connect ideas, characteristics often associated with highly gifted individuals.

Finally, John Hattie's (2008) meta-analysis on the effectiveness of educational practices shows that well-designed learning environments can promote deep and lasting learning. A gifted individual who dedicates themselves to acquiring knowledge in diverse fields, such as advanced mathematics, philosophy, or social sciences, can develop a global vision and depth of reflection comparable to that of individuals with higher IQs, such as highly gifted individuals.

The development of social and emotional skills

Social and emotional skills are essential for navigating complex environments and interacting effectively with others. Marc Brackett (2019) has shown that emotional intelligence, which includes recognizing, understanding, and regulating emotions, is fundamental for establishing positive interpersonal relationships.

For a gifted individual, developing these skills can compensate for the differences observed with highly gifted or exceptionally gifted individuals, who may naturally perceive emotional nuances with great sensitivity. Engaging in social skills development programs, such as those based on emotional agility proposed by Susan David (2016), can enable a gifted individual to cultivate deep empathy and sophisticated emotional management, characteristics often attributed to highly gifted individuals.

Matthew Lieberman (2013) demonstrated that understanding the neurological foundations of social interactions can help improve these skills. Furthermore, life experiences requiring complex social interactions, such as participating in interdisciplinary workgroups or managing team projects, can help a gifted individual develop skills similar to those of highly gifted individuals in the realm of interpersonal relationships. Vanessa Van Edwards (2017) offers strategies for succeeding with others, allowing gifted individuals to develop interpersonal skills that bring them closer to highly gifted individuals.

Learning to take a broader perspective

The ability to take a broader perspective, that is, to adopt a global view of complex situations, is often considered a distinctive trait of highly gifted and exceptionally gifted individuals. This aptitude allows for analyzing problems by integrating multiple viewpoints and anticipating the long-term consequences of decisions.

This skill can be developed by a gifted individual through educational and professional experiences that encourage strategic thinking and systemic reasoning. Peter Senge (1990), in his book The Fifth Discipline, emphasized the importance of systemic thinking in understanding complex dynamics within organizations and social systems. By cultivating this skill through advanced studies in management, strategy, or social sciences, a gifted individual can develop a perspective-taking ability similar to that of a highly gifted individual.

More recently, David Snowden and Mary Boone (2007) introduced the Cynefin framework, which helps decision-makers navigate complex contexts and adopt global perspectives. This framework encourages systemic and adaptive thinking, which is essential for developing perspective-taking in ambiguous and changing situations.

Learning to take a broader perspective can also be supported by practices such as meditation or mindfulness. Jon Kabat-Zinn (2013), through his work on mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), has shown that these practices help develop mental clarity and the ability to observe situations with emotional detachment, allowing for more objective and integrated analysis of complex circumstances.

Self-awareness through therapy, psychoanalysis, and coaching

Self-awareness is a crucial aspect of personal development that can significantly influence an individual's cognitive and emotional skills. Therapy and psychoanalysis are powerful tools for exploring deep motivations, thought patterns, and repressed emotions. Carl Jung (1961) emphasized the importance of self-awareness in the individuation process, that is, the realization of one's unique potential.

In a more recent context, Irvin Yalom (2002) explored the importance of existential therapy, where understanding oneself and confronting existential realities lead to a more authentic life. This introspection can help a gifted individual better understand their emotional and cognitive reactions and develop skills akin to those of highly gifted and exceptionally gifted individuals, such as extra-lucidity or sophisticated emotional management.

Coaching, on the other hand, provides a structure for exploring personal and professional goals while questioning limiting beliefs and developing new perspectives. John Whitmore (2009), a pioneer of coaching, demonstrated that coaching helps unlock a person's potential by helping them overcome internal obstacles and explore new avenues of thought and action.

Moreover, the work of Carol Kauffman and David Peterson (2017) on leadership coaching has shown how coaching can be used to develop advanced strategic and emotional skills, enabling a gifted individual to approach the skills often attributed to highly gifted individuals, even without a higher IQ.

Of course, all of this needs to be contextualized to move beyond generalizations, but it clearly shows that knowledge acquisition and personal development can lead an individual to develop characteristics often found in highly gifted and exceptionally gifted individuals.

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

References

1. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.
2. Ericsson, K. A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
3. Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society, 2, 56-64.
4. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
5. Brackett, M. A. (2019). Permission to Feel: Unlocking the Power of Emotions to Help Our Kids, Ourselves, and Our Society Thrive. Celadon Books.
6. David, S. (2016). Emotional Agility: Get Unstuck, Embrace Change, and Thrive in Work and Life. Avery Publishing.
7. Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. Crown.
8. Van Edwards, V. (2017). Captivate: The Science of Succeeding with People. Portfolio.
9. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
10. Snowden, D., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.
11. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2013). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. Bantam Books.
12. Jung, C. G. (1961). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Pantheon Books.
13. Yalom, I. D. (2002). The Gift of Therapy: An Open Letter to a New Generation of Therapists and Their Patients. Harper Perennial.
14. Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for Performance: Growing Human Potential and Purpose: The Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
15. Kauffman, C., & Peterson, D. B. (2017). The Science of Coaching: Applications of Psychological Research. American Psychological Association.

The concept of multiple intelligences, introduced by Howard Gardner in 1983, has profoundly transformed our understanding of human cognitive abilities. Gardner's theory challenges the traditional view that intelligence can be measured solely by standardized IQ tests, which primarily assess logical-mathematical and linguistic abilities. Instead, he proposes that intelligence is not a singular, unitary attribute but a combination of distinct modalities, each representing a different facet of cognitive ability. This article argues, based on solid empirical and scientific evidence, that multiple intelligences should not be considered merely a peculiarity but rather a fundamental norm of human cognition.

The Evolution of the Theory of Intelligence

Historically, intelligence was narrowly defined by a person's ability to perform well on IQ tests. This view dominated throughout the 20th century, reducing intelligence to a single measure: the IQ score. However, this reductionist approach fails to capture the complexity of human cognitive abilities. Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences posits that individuals possess various types of intelligence, including linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligence. Each of these intelligences functions independently while potentially cooperating to solve complex problems.

Gardner's theory has been widely validated by empirical research and practical applications in education. Studies have shown that individuals excel in different types of tasks depending on their dominant intelligence(s), indicating that intelligence is truly multifaceted. For example, while a high IQ may lead to academic success, it does not necessarily correlate with creativity, emotional intelligence, or physical dexterity—domains where other forms of intelligence are more relevant.

Empirical Evidence Supporting Multiple Intelligences

The empirical evidence in favor of multiple intelligences is undeniable. Research has demonstrated that different cognitive abilities are localized in distinct areas of the brain, providing a neurological basis for Gardner's theory. For example, logical-mathematical intelligence is primarily associated with the left parietal cortex, while musical intelligence is linked to the right temporal lobe. This neuroanatomical evidence underscores that intelligence is not monolithic but rather a constellation of specialized cognitive processes.

Furthermore, longitudinal studies have shown that individuals develop these intelligences at different rates, influenced by genetic, social, and environmental factors. This variability further supports the idea that intelligence cannot be captured by a single score but must be understood as a dynamic and evolving set of abilities.

The Fallacy of a Single Metric for Intelligence

The persistence of a single metric for intelligence, such as IQ, is increasingly seen as scientifically untenable, even though it remains indispensable for institutions to categorize certain students. Researchers like Robert J. Sternberg and Stephen J. Ceci have argued that relying exclusively on IQ tests neglects essential aspects of human cognitive ability. Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence, for example, expands the definition of intelligence to include analytical, creative, and practical components, all necessary for real-life problem-solving. Similarly, Ceci's bioecological model emphasizes the role of contextual and environmental factors in developing cognitive abilities, which are not captured by traditional IQ tests.

Moreover, studies on emotional intelligence (EQ), popularized by Daniel Goleman, demonstrate that interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences play a crucial role in personal and professional success. These findings invalidate the notion that a high IQ is the sole determinant of cognitive intelligence, reinforcing the view that multiple intelligences are not merely peculiarities but essential elements of human capabilities.

Multiple Intelligences: Norm or Reality

Given the substantial evidence, it is clear that multiple intelligences represent both a general and inclusive view of all the cognitive processes involved in expressing intelligence. This is far from being merely a peculiarity and should not be seen as a theory aiming to create a norm. The diversity of cognitive abilities reflects the complexity of human interaction with the world, where different types of intelligence are required to accomplish various tasks. We are dealing here with a reality that is not simply a norm, as few individuals have deeply or evenly developed all their capacities and multiple intelligences, due to educational, social contexts, or simply life experiences and interests. The impact of these aspects on intelligence has already been discussed in other articles.

Moreover, educational systems and psychological assessments that do not recognize this reality risk marginalizing individuals whose strengths lie outside the narrow confines of traditional IQ measures.

In conclusion, the theory of multiple intelligences, supported by extensive empirical and scientific research, has definitively established that intelligence is not merely a panel of a few cognitive and academic skills but a complex set of capacities and aptitudes. Far from being a peculiarity, multiple intelligences are a reality in human cognition, reflecting the diverse ways individuals perceive, interact with, and understand the world. It is therefore imperative that educational systems, psychological assessments, and societal norms evolve to embrace this multidimensional view of intelligence, recognizing that each individual's cognitive strengths uniquely contribute to the richness of human potential.

The concept of multipotentiality, often discussed in France, refers to individuals who possess a wide range of interests and skills, enabling them to adapt successfully to various fields. This term is sometimes used in parallel with Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, which posits that human intelligence is composed of several distinct modalities, such as linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical intelligences, etc. However, it is crucial to distinguish these two concepts. While multiple intelligences focus on specific and measurable cognitive abilities, multipotentiality refers to a psychological disposition and functional versatility that transcends these categories, involving the ability to excel in multiple areas due to interest or choice rather than specific cognitive aptitude. Emilie Wapnick, who popularized the term "multipotentiality" in the Anglo-Saxon world, emphasizes that multipotential individuals are driven by curiosity and a desire to learn, often at a surface level, without necessarily reaching the level of specialization seen in Gardner's multiple intelligences. Thus, while both concepts recognize the diversity of human talents, multipotentiality is more focused on the diversity of interests and adaptive capabilities, whereas multiple intelligences concentrate on the diversification of measurable cognitive abilities.

The term "High Intellectual Potential" (HPI) is associated with a high IQ score, typically above 130. However, the definition and representation of HPI, along with its variations such as THPI (Very High Intellectual Potential) and TTHPI (Extremely High Intellectual Potential), go far beyond a simple number. These categories, discussed in educational and psychological circles, reveal complex differences that cannot be fully captured by an IQ test. I have already published a few articles on this topic, and you can find many more online. This article explores these nuances based on empirical studies and clinical observations, while also considering the critiques of these classifications.

Interestingly, in the United States, known for labeling everything, the vocabulary is simpler, focusing mainly on the terms "Gifted" and "Highly Gifted," with fewer fine distinctions than those observed in Francophone countries. The simplicity of this approach is seen as an advantage, avoiding over-segmentation and the complexity of diagnoses. Something to ponder...

What are HPI, THPI, and TTHPI: Subtle Nuances?

THPI and TTHPI are specific subcategories within HPI, generally defined by higher IQ scores. THPI individuals (IQ > 145) and TTHPI individuals (IQ > 160) are distinguished by even more remarkable abilities than those of HPI. These thresholds are used to differentiate levels of extreme intelligence, but their relevance is debated in the scientific community. The differences between these profiles rely on distinct qualitative traits, which will be explored below.

Cognitive Abilities and Thinking Styles

HPI individuals are often described as having complex and fast thinking, the ability to process information more quickly than average, and the capacity to create connections between disparate concepts. These characteristics are supported by studies showing that high-potential individuals process information more efficiently, using fewer cognitive resources to solve complex problems (Rindermann et al., 2011).

Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson (2011) examined the impact of "smart fractions" on the social and economic development of nations. They demonstrated that individuals with very high IQs (beyond 145) have a disproportionate impact on innovation, science, and technological progress due to their ability to understand and manipulate extremely complex concepts. This finding supports the idea that THPI and TTHPI individuals possess not only superior cognitive abilities but also an increased aptitude for making significant contributions to society. They also found that people with very high IQs can perform complex tasks with exceptional speed, thanks to greater efficiency in cognitive processes such as working memory and attention. These abilities allow THPI individuals to perceive complex relationships between concepts more quickly and generate innovative solutions to difficult problems.

TTHPI individuals, with scores above 160, often exhibit what is called "hyper-lucidity," characterized by mental acuity that allows for detailed perception of the most subtle elements. Lubinski and Benbow (2006) conducted a longitudinal study spanning several decades, tracking individuals identified as mathematically precocious in childhood. Their research revealed that those with IQs above 160, often classified as TTHPI, demonstrate excellence not only in mathematics but also in various complex fields. They also observed that these individuals often develop skills in areas requiring strategic thinking and a comprehensive understanding of systems. However, they noted that these individuals may face social and emotional challenges due to intellectual isolation and the rarity of peers with whom they can truly connect.

Hyperexcitability and Emotional Reactivity

One of the central concepts for understanding high-potential individuals is hyperexcitability, a term introduced by Kazimierz Dabrowski in his theory of positive disintegration (1964). HPI individuals are often more emotionally sensitive and reactive than average, which can make them particularly attuned to social and emotional injustices.

Dabrowski (1964) proposed that individuals with hyperexcitability, often observed in HPI, THPI, and TTHPI individuals, undergo emotional disintegration crises that can lead to higher personal development. According to him, these individuals experience more intense emotions and have a greater capacity to perceive the moral and ethical complexities of the world, which sometimes drives them to internal conflicts. These crises can be painful, but they also allow these people to reassess their values and rebuild themselves on a moral and ethical level.

THPI and TTHPI individuals tend to exhibit these traits more intensely. Silverman (2013) indicates that these individuals may experience more intense emotional overload due to their greater analytical capacity, allowing them to perceive more emotional nuances and anticipate problems, but this also makes them more vulnerable to frustration and anxiety. Their empathy and moral sense are also more developed, which can create even greater internal conflicts when faced with injustice or cognitive dissonance in their environment, with the inconsistency of others, systems, and functioning being the major source.

Hyperexcitability in THPI and TTHPI individuals could also manifest as exacerbated sensory reactivity, where environmental stimuli, such as sensations on the skin, noise (or certain types of noise), or bright lights, for example, can be perceived as particularly disturbing. Dabrowski (1964) describes this heightened sensitivity as a potential driver of personal development, but also as a significant source of stress if not properly managed.

There is no indication, however, that HPI individuals are not also affected by these extremes…

Creativity and Originality

HPI individuals tend to be highly creative because their brains can make unusual connections between different ideas, fostering innovation. Runco (2004) shows that HPI individuals have a better capacity to generate creative and innovative solutions, especially in unstructured situations. This creativity is often linked to their ability to think divergently, meaning to generate multiple solutions from a single question or problem.

THPI and TTHPI individuals, due to their even higher cognitive abilities, are often capable of thinking in an even more radically original and unexpected way. Feldhusen and Gagné (1991) observed that people with very high IQs (above 145) are particularly adept at developing unique ideas because they combine a strong imagination with exceptional analytical abilities. This study demonstrated that creativity in high-potential individuals is often linked to their ability to perceive subtle connections between seemingly unrelated ideas or concepts. This ability is crucial in fields such as art, science, and technological innovation, but can also socially isolate them, as they often struggle to express or share their ideas in a way that others can understand.

Critiques of Distinctions Based on IQ

The distinctions between HPI, THPI, and TTHPI are sometimes criticized for their excessive reliance on IQ scores, which do not capture the entirety of intellectual abilities.

Foremost among the critics is Howard Gardner (1983), with his theory of multiple intelligences, who argues that IQ tests measure only a limited type of intelligence, primarily logical-mathematical and linguistic. He emphasizes that skills such as interpersonal or intrapersonal intelligence are just as crucial for personal and professional success and are not measured by traditional IQ tests. Gardner has criticized the reduction of intelligence to a single IQ score, introducing the concept of multiple intelligences, such as interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, kinesthetic intelligence, etc. This theory challenges the idea that THPI and TTHPI are simply individuals with high IQs.

Pfeiffer (2012) advocates for a holistic approach to supporting high-potential individuals, which does not focus solely on IQ but also includes emotional, social, and psychological aspects. He criticizes the exclusive use of IQ tests to categorize individuals, arguing that it can lead to restrictive labels and an incomplete understanding of the person. Pfeiffer recommends comprehensive assessments that consider various aspects of personality and intelligence to better support the development of HPI, THPI, and TTHPI individuals.

Many other authors and researchers contribute to a body of criticism that highlights the limitations of IQ tests and the need to consider intelligence as a broader, multidimensional concept. Their work emphasizes that intelligence is not limited to what is measured by IQ tests, and they advocate for more comprehensive and contextualized approaches to understanding and evaluating human abilities, including:

Robert J. Sternberg: Sternberg developed the triarchic theory of intelligence, which includes analytical intelligence (measured by IQ), creative intelligence, and practical intelligence. He argues that IQ captures only part of a person’s overall intelligence and that crucial skills, such as creativity and problem-solving ability, are not accounted for by IQ tests. Sternberg criticizes distinctions based solely on IQ, arguing that they are too limited to represent the complexity of human intelligence.

James R. Flynn: Flynn is known for the Flynn effect, which shows that IQ scores increase over generations. He has also criticized the rigidity of IQ tests and warned against overinterpretation of high IQ scores. Flynn emphasizes that the skills measured by IQ tests are contextual and that intelligence is not limited to what these tests measure. This critique questions the importance of distinctions based on IQ thresholds like 145.

Carol Dweck: Renowned for her theory of the "Growth Mindset," Dweck criticizes the idea that intelligence is a fixed ability, as IQ tests might suggest. She argues that intelligence can be developed through effort and continuous learning. Distinctions based on IQ can lead to a "Fixed Mindset," where individuals feel limited by their IQ score, potentially hindering their growth potential.

Keith Stanovich: A cognitive psychologist, Stanovich critiques the excessive focus on IQ, which he considers an incomplete measure of intelligence. He developed the concept of "rationality," distinct from intelligence, arguing that IQ tests do not adequately capture decision-making skills. He points out that some high-IQ individuals may lack practical rationality, showing that intelligence, as measured by IQ, is not the only or best indicator of overall cognitive ability.

Daniel Goleman: Known for popularizing the concept of Emotional Intelligence (EQ), Goleman argues that emotional intelligence is equally, if not more, important than cognitive intelligence for personal and professional success. Goleman critiques the emphasis on IQ in evaluating intelligence, asserting that the ability to understand and manage one’s own emotions, as well as those of others, is crucial for successful functioning in daily life.

Stephen J. Ceci: A developmental cognitive researcher, Ceci has criticized the limitations of IQ tests as sole evaluators of intelligence. He studied how intellectual abilities can be influenced by environmental and contextual factors, including education, culture, and life experiences. Ceci has shown that intelligence cannot be fully captured by standardized tests like IQ because these tests do not account for cognitive adaptability in real-world contexts.

Richard Nisbett: A social psychologist, Nisbett explored cultural influences on cognition and criticizes the idea that IQ is a universal measure of intelligence. In his book Intelligence and How to Get It, Nisbett discusses how intelligence is influenced by social and environmental factors, and he questions the notion that high IQ is a stable and predictive indicator of success across all cultural contexts.

Henry H. Goddard: Although Goddard is best known for his early work on IQ, he was also one of the first to recognize the limitations of these tests. His research on intelligence showed that social and environmental factors play a crucial role in intellectual development, challenging the idea that IQ alone is a complete indicator of a person’s intelligence.

Multiple Intelligences: A Peculiarity or a Norm?

These highly academic tests, in their origins and foundations, are normed according to cultural and socio-economic criteria that can bias the results, not to mention the subject’s motivation during the test—something I will never stop repeating. By focusing solely on IQ, we risk neglecting crucial aspects of intelligence. Today, we speak of multiple intelligences as a peculiarity, whereas it may simply be a reality for everyone, with some components being less developed for certain individuals depending on their environment or experiences. Therefore, it is important to supplement IQ tests with other assessment tools and thorough clinical observation to capture the full richness of an individual’s intellectual potential.

The Empirical and Clinical Perspective

Empirical research seems to show that HPI, THPI, and TTHPI individuals share common traits but also significant differences in their life experiences, although some researchers criticize the statistical biases of empirical observations, arguing that only those with problems see a psychologist (Frank Ramus). HPI individuals may face social adaptation difficulties, feelings of isolation or misunderstanding, and sometimes mood disorders. THPI and TTHPI individuals, due to their exceptional abilities, might experience these same difficulties in a more exacerbated manner, but by what standard or scale remains to be defined. And each observer will have their own reference points…

Clinical observations indicate that the support of these individuals must be personalized and holistic, taking into account not only their intellectual abilities but also their emotional and social well-being.

Conclusion

HPI, THPI, and TTHPI go far beyond simple IQ scores. The differences between these categories lie not only in measurable intellectual abilities but also in the qualitative and subjective dimensions of these individuals' experiences. Therefore, the question of whether the differences identified in HPI, THPI, and TTHPI can be bridged through the acquisition of knowledge, experiences, self-work, etc., showing that an HPI could eventually exhibit the same traits as THPI without necessarily having an IQ score above 140, must be addressed—and this will be the subject of two other articles. To fully understand these profiles, it is crucial to adopt a multidimensional approach that combines cognitive evaluation, clinical observation, and consideration of emotional and relational aspects.

References

1. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). Pearson.
2. Rindermann, H., Sailer, M., & Thompson, J. (2011). The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development. Talent Development & Excellence, 3(2), 85-98.
3. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316-345.
4. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive Disintegration. Little, Brown and Company.
5. Silverman, L. K. (2013). Giftedness 101. Springer Publishing Company.
6. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.
7. Feldhusen, J. F., & Gagné, F. (1991). Creativity and Giftedness: Relationships between problem solving, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2), 85-92.
8. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.
9. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Serving the Gifted: Evidence-Based Clinical and Psychoeducational Practice. Routledge.

In the field of human intelligence, a multitude of acronyms has emerged over the years, whereas in the past, everyone simply referred to "gifted" individuals. Today, we encounter terms like HPI (Haut Potentiel Intellectuel or High Intellectual Potential), HQI (Haut Quotient Intellectuel or High IQ), THPI (Très Haut Potentiel Intellectuel or Very High Intellectual Potential), THQI (Très Haut Quotient Intellectuel or Very High IQ), HPE (Haut Potentiel Émotionnel or High Emotional Potential), THPE (Très Haut Potentiel Émotionnel or Very High Emotional Potential), TTHPI (Très Très Haut Potentiel Intellectuel or Extremely High Intellectual Potential), THQI+, as well as EIP (Enfant Intellectuellement Précoce or Intellectually Precocious Child), EHP (Enfant Haut Potentiel or High Potential Child), APIE (Adulte à Haut Potentiel Intellectuel et Émotionnel or Adult with High Intellectual and Emotional Potential), Zebra, and many others. This proliferation creates confusion and raises an essential question: what purpose do these distinctions serve if they only complicate an already challenging concept? Are they more beneficial for psychology and personal development professionals, or do they truly serve the individuals they describe?

The Origins of Acronyms: The Persistent Desire to Categorize

The emergence of these acronyms stems from a desire to better identify, understand, and classify individuals with exceptional intellectual or emotional capacities—a commendable goal at its core. Initially, the aim was to provide more precise responses to the specific needs of these individuals, whether in education, psychology, or support. However, over time, these classifications have multiplied, creating a sort of jargon that tends to divide and complicate rather than clarify, leading to rigid boundaries that often fail to reflect genuine differences.

HPI and HQI: A Necessary Distinction?

The term HPI, which closely aligns with "gifted" or "zebra," is often used interchangeably with HQI, which specifically indicates a high IQ score. Many argue that these terms are not exact synonyms. HQI refers strictly to a numerical measure obtained through IQ tests, typically above 130, whereas HPI encompasses a more holistic approach, considering not just IQ but also aspects like creativity, curiosity, broad thinking, and emotional intensity. An individual identified as HPI may not even know their exact IQ at a given time, reflecting the idea that cognitive or intellectual functioning and a test score are distinct entities. While this subtle distinction might seem necessary to some, it risks further segmenting a field that would benefit from unification. It’s worth questioning the true value of this distinction, which is seldom done. In fact, it seems that some so-called experts thrive on this complexity, perhaps motivated by personal gains.

The Variants THPI, THQI, and More

Acronyms like THPI, THQI, and their variants attempt to differentiate individuals according to increasingly higher levels of intellectual capabilities. This has led to even more specific subgroups like TTHPI, THQI+, and possibly others that seek to capture finer nuances, often based on anecdotal evidence with limited empirical support. This proliferation of categories can become counterproductive, complicating diagnosis unnecessarily and potentially leading to excessive expectations or pressures on individuals, without offering much in return—especially in the context of self-diagnosis through reading, outside of any clinical or educational intervention.

HPE, THPE, APIE: The "E" for Emotional Intelligence, a Dimension in Its Own Right

The introduction of terms like HPE, THPE, and APIE reflects a growing awareness of the importance of emotional intelligence. As if, in earlier discussions of "giftedness," this dimension was overlooked. Emotional intelligence, long relegated to the background compared to IQ, is now recognized as an important factor in both intelligence and personal and professional success. However, the multiplication of categories again raises questions about their real utility, particularly since emotional intelligence can be developed. This begs the question of whether it should be considered a distinct dimension.

Toward a Unified and Necessary Concept of Intelligence

The proliferation of these acronyms, though driven by a desire for precision, ultimately complicates the understanding of intelligence without significantly advancing our overall comprehension or the possibilities for support. Rather than getting trapped in increasingly fine classifications, it might be better to return to a more holistic vision of intelligence—one that considers each individual in their entirety, without reducing them to an acronym. Intelligence, whether intellectual as measured by IQ, multiple, or emotional, is a human quality that cannot be fully captured by rigid categories and is constantly evolving throughout life. It may be time to simplify this approach to better recognize the richness and diversity of individual talents. This form of inclusivity borders on the absurd.

For an Intelligence Beyond Labels

If acronyms like HPI, HQI, THPI, THQI, HPE, THPE, TTHPI, THQI+, Zebra, EIP, and APIE are used without truly representing or highlighting the varied aspects of human intelligence and specific functioning—or if they are understood only by certain experts who congratulate themselves for their mutual understanding—what is their real utility? Simplifying our thinking about intelligence could not only make it easier to support high-potential individuals but also contribute to a more inclusive and less segmented view of this complex and valuable human quality, which can also be developed. Shouldn't we rather question each person's relationship with inquiry and, more importantly, how they apply it? We might consider three dimensions: first, the lucidity that is built by understanding the broader implications of a situation; second, the extent to which the individual allows themselves to question the world, society, and norms; and finally, once established ideas are questioned, whether the person remains simply accepting of limits or seeks ways to change them.

After all, beyond these observations about intelligence, about who belongs to which category, what are the effects on the individual, society, or the world? And more simply, does the THQI+ individual feel more valued, appreciated, understood, and better overall? In a system where everyone is free to express, manipulate, and embellish concepts while promoting their ideas, it becomes very difficult to control intellectual disarray.

Memorization and its effectiveness are key to success in the school context, enabling students to retain and reuse learned information. Various memorization methods exist. Here are the main memorization techniques used in school learning.

It's important to note that while certain types of learning or research may indicate better performance with specific methods, context is inseparable from the outcome. The method employed is not the sole factor and can be challenging to isolate; therefore, these insights should be viewed as raw data to be implemented or adapted according to the situation, cognitive particularities, preferences, and context of each individual.

1. Spaced Repetition

Spaced repetition involves reviewing information at increasing intervals based on Hermann Ebbinghaus's forgetting curve. Research by Pavlik and Anderson (2008) shows that this technique improves long-term retention. For example, Anki, a software based on spaced repetition, has been widely used by medical students to memorize massive amounts of information with increased success rates in their exams.

2. Mind Mapping

Mind maps, popularized by Tony Buzan, are used to structure information visually and non-linearly. A study by Nesbit and Adesope (2006) found that mind maps can improve understanding and retention of knowledge in education compared to traditional methods. Students who use mind maps in subjects like history or biology have demonstrated a better ability to organize and retain complex concepts and detailed information.

3. Association of Ideas

The association of ideas is a technique where new information is linked to existing knowledge or mental images. Bellezza (1996) demonstrated that associative techniques enhance long-term memorization, particularly when vivid and meaningful images are used. For example, foreign language students often use idea associations to memorize vocabulary by creating mental images or associating words with similar sounds in their native language.

4. Memory Palace (Method of Loci)

The method of loci, also known as the memory palace, is an ancient technique used to memorize information by associating it with locations in an imaginary space. Roediger (1980) showed that this technique is particularly effective for memorizing long lists or complex information. For instance, memory champions regularly use this method in memory competitions to recall long sequences of numbers or cards.

5. Mnemonics

Mnemonics use acronyms, phrases, or rhymes to facilitate memorization. Levin (1993) showed that mnemonics are particularly effective for memorizing specific facts, such as chemical elements or historical dates. For example, to remember the order of the planets in the solar system, the phrase "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Noodles" is commonly used by students.

6. Self-Explanation

Self-explanation involves talking to oneself or explaining what has been learned. Studies like those of Chi and Bassok (1989) have shown that this technique significantly improves understanding and memorization, particularly in complex subjects like mathematics and science. Students who use self-explanation demonstrate a better ability to solve problems and transfer their knowledge to new situations.

7. Repeated Testing (Testing Effect)

The testing effect is a technique where students regularly test themselves on the learned material. Roediger and Butler (2011) found that self-testing improves long-term retention of information more than simply rereading. This method is often used in academic environments where students answer quizzes or use flashcards to reinforce their learning.

8. Distributed Practice

Distributed practice involves spreading out study sessions rather than learning all the content at once. Cepeda et al. (2006) showed that this method improves long-term retention, particularly for learning foreign languages or music. Students who adopt distributed practice have shown superior academic performance in tests and exams.

9. Cornell Method

The Cornell method is a note-taking technique that helps organize and review information. A study by Jacobs et al. (2002) found that students using this method had a better understanding of the studied subjects and more durable retention of information. It is often used in schools and universities to improve the effectiveness of note-taking during lectures.

Conclusion

There is no universal memorization method that works identically for all students or all subjects. Each method has its strengths and limitations, and effectiveness often depends on the student's learning style and the type of content to be memorized. Teachers should be proactive in suggesting the best methods for their subjects, and students should experiment with different techniques to find those that best meet their specific needs while combining several methods to maximize learning and information retention.

References

• Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2008). Using a model to predict and optimize the scheduling of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(2), 101-117.
• Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-448.
• Bellezza, F. S. (1996). Mnemonic methods to enhance storage and retrieval. Memory, 4(4), 309-330.
• Roediger, H. L. (1980). The effectiveness of four mnemonics in ordering recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(5), 558-567.
• Levin, J. R. (1993). Mnemonic strategies and classroom learning: A twenty-year report card. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 235-244.
• Chi, M. T. H., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-70.
• Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20-27.
• Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380.
• Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (2002). Children's metacognition and the teaching of study skills. Metacognition in Learning and Instruction, 9, 19-32.