HPI, THPI, TTHPI: What Differences Beyond the IQ Score?

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.