Our friend Dr. Noks Nauta has written a careful critique of how research on gifted adults gets done. Much of it centers on a problem we are part of. She argues that this field turns too readily to Mensa members, and that Mensa members are not a random sample of gifted people.
Our own Unmet Needs Study was open more broadly, but we recruited primarily through Mensa channels, so the sample skews the same way. What it tells us is what those adults told us. That matters, and it will keep guiding our work. What it cannot do is speak for everyone. We would rather say that plainly than leave you to notice it.
None of this is a knock on anyone in this community. It is a caution about what happens when one group becomes the default lens.
What she is really making is a case for a different kind of research. Methods that do not reduce a life to a number. Gifted people studied inside the systems where they actually live. Gifted people taking an active role in researching their own experience.
We are thinking hard about what an organization like ours should do with that. If you have thoughts, we want to hear them.
Her work is below, as she wrote it.
Research on the Highly Intelligent
This is the English translation of a blog in Dutch:
https://noksnauta.wordpress.com/2026/06
That blog is an adapted and expanded version of a piece I originally published in the Dutch New Mensa News (Nieuwe Mensa Berichten) on January 21, 2026.
I wrote this blog for:
- People interested in learning more about highly intelligent adults and adults with characteristics associated with giftedness;
- People who conduct, or would like to conduct, research on highly intelligent adults;
- People who make claims about highly intelligent adults;
- People who think I am overly critical of statements about highly intelligent adults (for example, when someone writes “many gifted people…” without adequate evidence, I tend to question it);
- People who ask me what kinds of research I would like to see conducted on gifted adults and older gifted adults, and what research questions I believe are worth exploring.
More reliable knowledge about highly intelligent adults can contribute to greater well-being and create more opportunities for them—and for us—to develop our talents and potential. At the same time, research in this area comes with many methodological challenges. In this blog, I will explore those challenges and conclude with some reflections that I hope will stimulate further discussion.
What Is “Good” Research?
Let me begin with a basic question: What constitutes good research? And perhaps even more fundamentally: Can gifted individuals actually be studied as a group?
One major challenge in research on gifted people is selection bias. In practice, it is nearly impossible to obtain a truly representative sample. Researchers often recruit potentially gifted clients from coaches or psychologists, many of whom have never been formally tested. However, such individuals do not represent a random sample of gifted adults. Another common approach is to study members of Mensa.
Mensa members do offer one advantage: they all meet a criterion of measured high intelligence. However, an internal survey among Dutch Mensa members (Cramer et al., 2023) revealed some interesting findings. Participants were presented with several possible reasons for taking an intelligence test and asked whether those reasons had played a major role in their decision.
Approximately 40% indicated that the statement “I regularly encountered difficulties in my life and suspected that my intelligence might be related to them” had played a major role.
About 30% reported that the statement “As a child, I experienced problems that may have been related to my high intelligence” had been an important factor.
Among those who joined Mensa based on the results of an externally administered intelligence test (approximately 11% of the sample), 50% reported that the test had been part of a counseling or mental health support process.
To me, these findings suggest that Mensa members are not representative of all highly intelligent individuals.
Throughout this article, I use the terms highly intelligent and gifted interchangeably. Although they are not completely identical concepts, dictionaries generally treat them as equivalent. In my view, giftedness refers to the characteristics associated with high intelligence. I discuss this distinction in greater detail elsewhere (Nauta, 2026a).
An article published in 2024 by Anne Rinn (Department of Educational Psychology, University of North Texas) offers several important observations about giftedness research that align closely with my own views. Although Rinn writes from an educational psychology perspective, her insights are broadly applicable. I will discuss some of her key points later in this article.
First, however, a few general observations about research itself.
Basic Principles of Good Research
In my opinion, one does not need formal scientific training to understand the basic principles of science. A few examples include:
- A clear and unambiguous research question;
- Clearly defined concepts and terminology;
- A transparent description of the research methodology;
- Sufficient detail so that others could replicate the study.
Transparency means explaining all the important decisions made during the research process: Who was studied? Which questionnaire or instrument was used? How were participants selected?
This list could be much longer, but these principles serve as a useful introduction.
In my professional career, I have been extensively involved in the development of medical guidelines. Through that work, I became familiar with the principle of critical appraisal: how to assess the quality of a scientific publication. Various appraisal checklists have been developed that are extremely useful when evaluating research articles. They encourage more critical reading and help readers ask better questions about published findings.
Research Involves Choices
Scientific research—even highly quantitative and seemingly objective research—always involves choices.
Researchers must make decisions about:
- The formulation of the research question;
- The selection of participants;
- Research methods;
- Measurement instruments;
- Statistical analyses;
- The interpretation and presentation of results.
All of these choices are made by human beings and therefore involve an element of intersubjectivity. Researchers discuss these decisions with colleagues and document the rationale behind them.
The sociologist and anthropologist Bruno Latour famously conducted participant observation in a scientific laboratory. He discovered that researchers continuously made decisions throughout the research process—often without even realizing it—and concluded that scientific research was far less objective than he had originally assumed (Latour & Woolgar, 1979).
Different Types of Research
Many people assume that “good research” always consists of an experimental group, a control group, large quantities of numerical data, and sophisticated statistics.
That is only one type of research.
Unfortunately, this type of research tends to receive the greatest recognition in academic journals. University researchers are often encouraged to conduct studies that are more likely to be published in peer-reviewed journals with high impact factors.
However, many other forms of research exist.
The choice of methodology depends on:
- The research question;
- Existing knowledge;
- Available resources;
- The practical realities of conducting the study.
My impression is that many of the questions raised by gifted adults and older gifted adults cannot easily be reduced to numbers. These questions may be better addressed through qualitative approaches.
Examples include methodologies from:
- The social sciences;
- Anthropology;
- Philosophy;
- Historical document analysis (letters, diaries, personal narratives);
- Mixed-methods research combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
I would love to see more of this kind of research in the coming years.
Of course, qualitative research also requires methodological rigor and can be extremely time-consuming.
A Critical Look at Research on Giftedness
Let us now return to Rinn’s article, which critically examines research on gifted populations and raises many concerns that I have been highlighting for years.
The article is open access, so readers can examine it themselves. Here are some of the key points.
1. How Do We Define Giftedness?
Giftedness is a social construct.
There is no single definition that everyone agrees upon, and definitions have changed over time. This immediately raises an important question: What exactly are researchers studying?
Related to this issue, Rinn discusses differences in research paradigms.
2. Paradigm Differences
In research on gifted children, Rinn identifies three major paradigms:
- The Gifted Child Paradigm
- The Talent Development Paradigm
- The Differentiation Paradigm
Each paradigm uses different concepts and terminology.
For example, what exactly is meant by “social and emotional experiences”? The answer may differ depending on the paradigm being used.
As a result, studies originating from different paradigms are often difficult—or impossible—to compare directly.
I have observed for years that professionals working with gifted children often operate from different paradigms than those working with gifted adults or older adults. My own background is in medicine and organizational psychology. I sometimes find it challenging to communicate my perspectives to professionals whose primary framework is clinical psychology, psychiatry, or education.
3. Selection Bias
As discussed earlier, research on gifted individuals almost always involves some degree of selection bias.
Rinn cites the 2017 study by Karpinski and colleagues involving 5,000 Mensa members in the United States as an example. At the time, colleagues and I at the Institute for Gifted Adults (IHBV) also published a critical response to that study (Backbier et al., 2017).
Karpinski and colleagues relied heavily on poorly defined—and therefore difficult to measure—constructs such as Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities.
Research involving gifted individuals who seek help for psychological concerns cannot be generalized to all gifted people.
I participated in a study of relationships among Dutch Mensa members (Dijkstra et al., 2016). Those findings likewise cannot be generalized beyond the population that was actually studied.
4. Which Intelligence Test Was Used?
Even when participants have documented high IQ scores, caution is still required.
The results depend on:
- Which intelligence test was used;
- How the test was normed;
- When the testing took place.
For example, participants in the famous Terman study cannot simply be compared with gifted individuals today.
Similarly, populations identified through the SAT are not necessarily comparable to individuals assessed with instruments such as the WAIS.
I also encounter studies that use unusual IQ cutoffs. If participants are included based on a minimum IQ of 140, I immediately wonder why that threshold was chosen.
The WAIS uses a standard deviation of 15 points. If a researcher intends to study individuals three standard deviations above the mean, then a cutoff of 145 would be more consistent.
I suspect that practical considerations sometimes play a role. In one qualitative study involving only seven participants, a stricter cutoff would likely have reduced the sample even further.
Still, I find myself wondering why journal editors do not challenge such decisions more often. Peer-reviewed journals should be especially attentive to methodological issues like these. A basic critical appraisal would immediately raise such questions.
5. The Gifted Population Is Not Homogeneous
This is a point I would add personally.
Highly intelligent individuals are not a homogeneous group.
People who score more than three or four standard deviations above the mean constitute distinct subgroups that may deserve separate study.
Such research could potentially contribute to their well-being as well.
If approximately 1 in 50 people can be considered highly intelligent or gifted, then profoundly gifted individuals (above +3 SD) occur at roughly 1 in 750 to 1,000 people. Exceptionally gifted individuals (above +4 SD) occur at approximately 1 in 30,000 people.
In my view, there is currently very little high-quality, reliable research on these populations. Existing studies almost always involve highly selected samples.
One promising initiative seeks to collect and organize existing research while encouraging new studies in this area (HGEG homepage and Wiki).
So What Should We Do?
I strongly support research on gifted individuals. As I mentioned earlier, greater knowledge can improve well-being.
At the same time, I see how many methodological challenges are involved.
Like Rinn, I do not view gifted people as isolated individuals. They live, learn, and work within systems and societies that are, on average, less intellectually advanced than they are.
This makes research difficult because gifted individuals cannot be studied independently of the environments in which they function.
The challenge is therefore to identify which factors within systems—such as families, schools, workplaces, and communities—support development and well-being, and which factors inhibit them.
The questions that interest me most are exploratory in nature and revolve around a broad theme:
How can gifted people use their broad potential in positive and meaningful ways?
Rinn argues that we need new research approaches drawn from different paradigms and disciplines. Coming from educational psychology, she points to fields such as sports psychology, career development, and counseling.
As a social physician and organizational psychologist, I find this perspective highly appealing.
I would add at least two additional disciplines:
- Anthropology
- Philosophy
As an example of a philosophical approach, I would point to the work of Biewinga (2025), who created “philosophical workshops” in which older adults themselves reflect on and discuss their lived experiences.
I would love to see a similar methodology applied to research involving gifted and profoundly gifted adults.
Such approaches allow gifted people to speak for themselves.
Too often, others speak about us, while we ourselves could contribute significantly to a deeper understanding of our experiences. We know firsthand that the way we perceive, experience, and interpret the world is not always fully understood by researchers with average—or slightly above-average—intelligence.
Moreover, the questions gifted people ask about themselves often do not align with existing research agendas.
What Conditions Are Needed for Good Research?
Good research requires funding, largely because it requires substantial time and effort.
Research on giftedness does not attract funding easily—and I understand why.
As we sometimes say: ‘suffering sells’.
Gifted people are not a disadvantaged group in the conventional sense, and that can make it difficult to attract research funding.
Some researchers are fortunate enough to conduct studies as part of their employment, for example through occupational health organizations. Others fund their work entirely from personal resources.
For independent researchers, access to academic literature can be a major obstacle. Fortunately, some universities provide access through volunteer or zero-hour affiliations.
Researchers also need colleagues who can provide critical feedback, and studies involving human participants require access to ethics review processes.
All of these are barriers that must be overcome.
What Should We Do with Research Findings?
When good research is conducted, it is essential that the findings actually benefit the target population.
Ideally, researchers should think about implementation before the study even begins.
Implementation of results is often neglected in research. The gap between academic researchers and practitioners—including gifted individuals themselves, coaches, and psychologists—remains disappointingly wide.
The Gifted Adults Foundation in the Netherlands (IHBV) seeks to bridge that gap by supporting research, contributing where possible, and disseminating findings in ways that are useful to the community.
What If No Good Research Exists?
When I encounter statements about gifted people that contain words such as many, most, or often—and sometimes even claims about all gifted individuals—I become skeptical.
Where does that claim come from?
What is the evidence?
When I investigate such statements, I see for instance these recurring pitfalls:
- Selection bias: coaches and therapists primarily see gifted individuals who are seeking help.
- Confirmation bias: people notice information that confirms what they already believe and overlook contradictory evidence.
- Pattern-seeking: after observing several gifted individuals with a particular characteristic, it is easy to assume a meaningful pattern exists when it may simply be coincidence.
For Discussion
In my view, there is still very little high-quality research on gifted adults and older gifted adults.
If you disagree, I would be delighted to hear from you.
Let us:
- Be more cautious in our claims about gifted people;
- Question one another’s assumptions;
- Remain curious and critical;
- Use more qualitative research methods to deepen and broaden our understanding of giftedness;
- Collaborate and encourage rigorous research;
- Strengthen opportunities for gifted people themselves to conduct research.
And perhaps most importantly:
Let gifted and profoundly gifted individuals take an active role in researching their own experiences. (Nauta, 2026b)
References
Backbier, E. (2017). Recensie van High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities. IHBV. https://ihbv.nl/recensie-esther-backbier-high-intelligence/
Biewinga, S. (2025). Ouder worden als ervaring. Boom.
Cramer, Y., Hoekstra, T., Rill, W., & Nauta, N. (2023). Rapportage Mensa ledenonderzoek 2022. Vereniging Mensa Nederland.
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., Ronner, S., & Nauta, A. P. (2016). The intimate relationships of the intellectually gifted: Attachment style, conflict style and relationship satisfaction among members of the Mensa Society. Marriage & Family Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1177630
HGEG. (w.d.). High Giftedness Expertise Group. [Website]. High Giftedness Expertise Group – The homepage of the international expertise group for the highly gifted
Holahan, C. K. (2021). Achievement across the life span: Perspectives from the Terman study of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220934401
Karpinski, R. I., Kinase Kolb, A. M., Tetreault, N. A., & Borowski, T. B. (2018). High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities. Intelligence, 66, 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.09.001
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Sage.
Nauta, N. (2026a, april). Hoogintelligent, hoogbegaafd, hoe zit het eigenlijk? Noks Nauta Weblog. https://noksnauta.wordpress.com/2026/04/
Nauta, N. (2026b). We moeten het zelf doen. IHBV. https://ihbv.nl/noks-nauta-we-moeten-het-zelf-doen/
Rinn, A. N. (2024). A critique on the current state of research on the social and emotional experiences of gifted individuals and a framework for moving the field forward. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231197780
Warne, R. T. (2018). An Evaluation (and Vindication?) of Lewis Terman: What the Father of Gifted Education Can Teach the 21st Century. Gifted Child Quarterly 63(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218799433
Comments (0)