Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Is it correct to assume that you have a higher IQ?

Is it correct to assume that you have a higher IQ than someone else if you think that you could have accomplished a lot more in school if you had the resources and the supporting environment?

I don't know what to believe. I lived with a toxic, lazy father and a mother who works as a nail technician and as a nail salon owner. I feel that I inherited my father's indolence, and now I feel like garbage because there are many people around my age who have accomplished a lot more like IMO/ISEF/IOI winners. I wasted my time playing video games all day though I did get pretty good at the age of 11 at a Star Wars multiplayer game named Star Wars: Jedi Knight Jedi Academy which is difficult to master due to the fact that you have to time your attacks on your opponent. You can look up the game if you want. I was in a clan at the time between the ages of 11-12, and I left due to the hate that I was receiving from everyone. I was an annoying brat, and I still get called that today.

The game that the people whom I envy played is Minecraft. I don't know the other games they played, but I feel that they are of the type that requires creativity.

So yes, FML. My mother used to give me math books to do as homework, but I kept feeling that homework was boring so I hardly did them. Maybe I got that ideology from my mediocre elementary school and the shows and books that I had been viewing, but I feel that anyone gifted would have gone against that ideology on his/her own and embrace the benefits of homework.

Maybe the people whom I envy was forced by their parents to do the homework? They most likely lived in households that encouraged thinking and had no fighting unlike mine. I don't understand how people like Luke Robitaille, the IMO gold medalist whom I think has an IQ of 145-150, had more of a proclivity for mathematics and other subjects that require intense thought while I was merely mediocre who only cared for fun and video games.

I often look at the profiles of them, and see just how privileged they are. One person made MOP for mathematics, got two gold medals at the IOI, a spot on the USAPhO team, two-time TMEA All-State band, and attends Harvard as a CS and Math double major and a CS masters student.

He went to a school full of TMEA All-Staters in Plano, TX, so of course he got into TMEA All-State due to the exposure of the talent. That school has a history of having multiple people doing very well at the science olympiads and scientific research. My schools weren't great at all.

And you have the case of Luke Robitaille who has been homeschooled since first grade. Never went to a public school. Plays chess, and got up to 1600 rating at around that age. I don't really know what I was missing to be so invested in mathematics like Robitaille. I could have been homeschooled, but then that probably wouldn't have benefited me since I was so lazy.

HighIQ, I would worry far less about others and how you stack up against them, and enjoy delving into challenges you find fulfilling. You have your own unique skills and strengths, and I guarantee the world needs each one of us, beautiful imperfections and all.

Read voraciously on topics that interest you, connect with people in those fields to drive your skills development and build your network, and look for opportunities to practice what gives you meaning. The others don't matter; you're on your own journey.

Much warmth and encouragement to you!

I do want to beat these people at life. That's the only thing that will give me satisfaction, and I feel that I can accomplish it.

I could have gotten a trigger for mathematics and physics back then; I know what it could have been and I would have been a lot more overpowered in these subjects than these kids if I got it. What do you think is the IQ of kids like Luke Robitaille and the person who got IOI gold medals? I have estimated Luke's IQ to be in the 140-150 range, but I'm still having doubts about it.

You've asked another good question. IMO, a classic. My answer is this: If one could have accomplished a lot more than another has accomplished, if they would have had the same resources, encouragement, supportive environment, and opportunities that the other person had... then it may be that this person has a higher IQ... and/or more motivation... and/or more appreciation for those factors... and/or more sense of competition... and/or more work ethic... and/or more goals... and/or more sense of personal responsibility... and/or more resilience, persistence, grit.

But here's the thing: with any combination of those traits and life skills (IQ, motivation, appreciation, competition, work ethic, goal-setting, personal responsibility, resilience, persistence, grit)... a person can make the most of opportunities that ARE available, and can cultivate some amount of support.

Your mom, a small business owner and entrepreneur, may be a potential resource for role modeling math skills including budgeting and scheduling.

One does not inherit indolence, that is to say, I do not believe they have found a DNA marker for this trait. That said, there is an old adage: "What you reward, you get more of." One may have to do some soul-searching or introspection to determine what they find rewarding about a particular course of action or inaction. This may sound counter-intuitive at first glance, but some experts have theorized that fear of failure... or fear of the pain of being pointed out for making a mistake (rather than treating mistakes as normal and as providing learning opportunities for continued growth)... essentially learned "perfectionism"... may result in refusal to take risks, resulting in underachievement... procrastination... all to avoid being pointed out as being "wrong." This may be a common trait among the gifted, a maladaptive skill in response to some people having unrealistically high expectations of the gifted, as exemplified by statements such as, "I thought you were smarter than that" ... or, "If you're so smart, then why can't you do XYZ " ... or, a gifted person meeting negative expectations in order to keep peace, when one observes that exceeding those expectations results in being treated negatively (also called "cutting down tall poppies").

One book that may be of interest is Perfectionism: What's Bad About Being Too Good. Amazon provides a "Look Inside" feature, people can also read the reviews. The book may be available at your local public library, or may be transferred in for you, upon request.

Wanting to beat other people at life is not, IMO, a SMART goal:
S = Specific
M = Measurable
A = Achievable
R = Realistic
T = Timely

For example, in what manner would you beat someone at life?
- Earning more money, higher salary, better investments?
- Wielding greater power and influence in your community?
- Becoming known for lifestyle, travel?
- Building the largest home?
- Developing a better physique, living longer?
- Cultivating stronger relationships, a happy and lasting marriage?
- Having the most children?

For some people, materialism, prestige, and accolades are not important. They may be considered temporary. Helping others, knowing one has made a difference may be more lasting, and therefore become the cherished guiding goals to live by. This may include writing a modest and realistic budget, working fewer paid hours, volunteering one's time, working hard at enjoying a simple life which values family, community, and health.

I want to beat them in basically everything, so everything on your list applies. I doubt that this mindset will change, and I'm glad that it won't. Competition only makes me better.

Budgeting and scheduling aren't difficult to do. I wish that I had someone like a professor seeing potential and guiding my 3-year-old self, but it's useless mourning the past. I don't think Luke Robitaille is all that talented in mathematics as he is homeschooled yet still struggles to score perfect at the IMO, and he once got tied in score to someone from Mongolia in the CMC. That Mongolian has an IQ of 150, and I don't think that he studied as much as Luke R.

I might be sounding silly since the IMO is no joke, but you would think that someone who is homeschooled should be able to ace the IMO. Same case with Reid Barton, who is currently a nobody in mathematics. I've seen several people saying that they have IQs in the 170-200 range, but I don't believe that one bit.

As with most goal setting in life, it is the consistent follow-through which can be challenging. This may include analyzing variances and incorporating the feedback/insight into future iterations of the budgeting and scheduling.

For personal finance, it is often helpful to have an annual budget, detailed by month, and also a two-year and five-year projection. Possibly you already have these in place? Otherwise this may be a good activity to address at this point, as you outline the finances needed to fuel your other goals.

Yes, I already have these taken care of. It's not difficult.

Indeed, with budgeting and scheduling, as with most goal setting in life, it is the consistent follow-through which can be challenging.

This may include analyzing variances and incorporating the feedback/insight into future iterations of the budgeting and scheduling...
- to keep on track,
- to get back on track,
- to change tracks (to retire one or more old goals, and to reach one or more new goals).

Have you thought about joining the Prometheus or Mega societies?
DH joined one of these in his youth and found membership to be rewarding. Work and family commitments have prevented him from being active these past two decades but if you don’t currently have these other heavy commitments, you might find it worth your while.

Validation may initially have been one of DH’s motives for joining, but he really enjoyed exploring ideas as part of his regular correspondence with a handful of other members. Eventually, his profession became very demanding & reasonably rewarding and the members he was closest to passed away, so his participation in the society diminished and he is no longer active. Membership has shrunk significantly, so I probably should have checked this before making the suggestion.

IMO, the only loser lifestyle is one lacking ethics (ethics defined loosely in this context as following "the golden rule," treating others as you'd like others to treat you). You may wish to discontinue certain elements of your communication style which reveal negative thought patterns. Making disparaging comments about others may reveal more about the speaker, than the person(s) spoken negatively about. From a recent post on another thread:

It is not up to me, you, or anyone else to judge someone's lifestyle for its success. If an individual is not bringing harm, is happy in their relationship with themselves and others, self-supporting to whatever extent they are able, and engaged in daily activities that bring them life satisfaction and meaning, then who is to say they are not successful?

Conversely, one may be in a position of high social status, earning copious praise for one's "accomplishments", and making a lot of money--yet without internal happiness or meaningful relationships with others. I leave it to the reader to consider which form of "success" is preferable.

Well said, aeh.
(I see "not bringing harm" as akin to following the "golden rule.")

There is more than one way to be a loser.

I fear that my future will be full of failures and I will stay a loser forever. No one ever agrees with my ideas and opinions, and dismisses me as a idiot. This can't continue. If I'm gifted, then why does this keep happening for many years since pre-K?

Literally every day I get insulted, and this is going to be a huge impediment to my ultimate goals if this continues.

HighIQ, a few thoughts on your most recent post:
1) Many/most people have a concern that their future may include many failures. No problem with that thinking, as the exercise of considering "worst case scenario" is often recommended as a strategy to stimulate the development of plans to recover/recoup after a setback. Similarly, many/most companies/organizations have "disaster recovery plans." This is closely related to budgeting/scheduling, and involves making changes to those items for charting a course forward despite setbacks.

2) IMO, no one is a loser unless they are violating ethics (aka the golden rule). In other words, one is only a loser if they are treating anyone poorly. Unfortunately, there are many ways to do this.

3) In these threads, many have agreed with your ideas and opinions and have been very supportive, even while sharing wisdom of the years with you. You are young. Live and learn.

4) You've certainly not been dismissed as an idiot on this forum. In my observation, members on this forum have acknowledged you as a fellow member of the gifted community. Personally, I believe that many Vals/Sals may be gifted.

5) All types of agreement, partial agreement, and disagreement, whether empathetic, blunt, pithy, snide, insulting, snarky, etc... will continue throughout the lifespan. It is not something to fret about: value TRUTH over any smarmy compliments, and you won't be easily manipulated. Said another way: beware of those who attempt to assess pecking order and then "kiss up, kick down." Decide for yourself what feedback may be applicable and beneficial, and dismiss what you believe to be negatively motivated and therefore harmful. In the process, understand reciprocity: others may find your posts and/or in-person communications to range from respectful, reflective, thoughtful, to bullying, condescending, sarcastic, etc.

6) Being gifted does NOT mean one has a golden life of bliss, ease, health, recognition, friendship, opportunities, wealth, etc. It does NOT mean one is better than anyone else, or entitled in any way. It means that one's intellectual profile may show both strengths and weaknesses... and that the strengths reveal above average processing power, indicating that as a pupil, this person may need or benefit from specially tailored teaching pedagogy, curriculum, placement, pacing at their challenge level or zone of proximal development (ZPD), and effort may be needed to cluster them in the company of intellectual peers. Life is still a combination of NATURE and NURTURE. The IQ may be nature, whereas our environments, self-talk, and the attitudes we cultivate may be a few of the many components of NURTURE.

7) As far as why this keeps happening since pre-K... there may be multiple factors, and combinations of factors, such as:
- level of maturity (younger people's self-esteem may quickly go up with every affirmation/validation and down with every invalidation... more seasoned individuals may have a more even-keel sense of self and may tend to know what to take to heart, what to brush off and let go of),
- mistakenly thinking all disagreement is harmful,
- taking it too hard (over-reacting, catastrophizing, dramatizing) when people disagree or do not express support,
- being emotionally needy or high-maintenance (expecting more agreement, support, comfort, accolades, attention, etc than the average person),
- making derogatory statements about others (which invites pushback, escalation),
- not understanding the interplay of teamwork/collaboration and appropriate competition (the need to move fluidly between roles),
- not maintaining healthy interpersonal boundaries.
Unfortunately, if early home life did not include healthy affirmation/validation and did not role model supportive communication, appropriate interpersonal boundaries, polite disagreement, ethics (for example, the golden rule), and did not value making mistakes as stepping stones to learning, etc... it may take substantial effort to heal and to learn these communication skills. But it is worth the effort.

8) Literally every day, everyone gets insulted, it's part of being human (while living in a society which values individuality and freedom of speech). A resilient person does not allow this to be a huge impediment to their goals.