|
0 members (),
262
guests, and
10
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
I moved this discussion here. Perhaps this is the wrong place to point this out, but the entire concept of "IQ" is deeply flawed. If "intelligence" could be boiled down to a single number it wouldn't be much good, would it? Human cognition is a very complex process and despite what psychologists like to believe, no test or battery of tests can describe it. We all possess a wide array of skills that reflect both our genetics and our interests and experience. Although I don't agree with all of it, this is an interesting link: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdfI also recommend Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man." Quick read and a very interesting book. The fact that all of these tests are reported to be "reliable" -- i.e. there is consistency with scores early in life and later in life, is primarily a function of the fact that most "IQ" tests and their ilk test similar skills, not that the tests are "valid" and actually measure "intelligence." I will eat my words when someone demonstrates that these tests show high consistency with jazz improvisation, or creative writing, or the ability to reduce a complex process to a simple mathematical description. "Success" is far more varied than testing, or academics for that matter, can really capture. Moreover, I would argue that one should think carefully about labeling a child "gifted" or "intelligent." On the one hand, it could serve as a form of encouragement and that's not all bad. But the downside is that it is inherently a relative term -- i.e. "you are in the top 97%" and may foster a sense of entitlement and lack of empathy with others. It could also be a burden --setting out a specific form of achievement as a goal. It is not necessarily helpful for all children to be saddled with these types of goals. The entire issue of a "gifted" label also makes no sense to me, as in my estimation the strategy for raising a child should be the same regardless of what you might label them (of course, I don't think this applies to major issues such as autism spectrum, etc.). If your son is interested in math and reading, then by all means encourage those interests and find the best environment to give him what he wants and needs. But bear in mind that much of these skills are just that -- skills that children develop by interest and practice, and not necessarily inherent abilities that set them apart from other children. Other kids are more interested in soccer or swimming or music and devote their time to these activities. They do these things more and practice them and get good at them. At this young age, this certainly doesn't mean that they will be academically limited in the future... I always consider with some bemusement programs like "your baby can read" -- which claims to teach children at very young ages to read. I don't doubt their claims -- surely you can teach children many things early on as they are very smart. However, they cannot make a claim (and there is no evidence for) long-term improvements to reading. Simply because a child is precocious in one aspect of development does not mean that it will persist or transfer to the much wider skillset necessary for future life. Sorry for waxing so abstract. The upshot, in my opinion, is that I wouldn't put too much stock in the scores of these tests. Even less in the subscores. Based on his environment (which probably IS in the top 90% in terms of stability and economics), you should expect to see scores on the "high" range. Your son could easily just be a normal kid who likes reading and math.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
I agree that IQ is not everything, (Self-discipline has a higher correlation with success.) but it is a precondition to functioning at a high level intellectually. There is a very strong correlation between IQ and the ability to learn and to reason. I will eat my words when someone demonstrates that these tests show high consistency with jazz improvisation, or creative writing, or the ability to reduce a complex process to a simple mathematical description. Madonna's IQ is 140 and Shakira's is 140. Neal Pert's is 150. Stephen Hawking's is 160. Most top mathematicians are >160. Moreover, I would argue that one should think carefully about labeling a child "gifted" or "intelligent." On the one hand, it could serve as a form of encouragement and that's not all bad. But the downside is that it is inherently a relative term -- i.e. "you are in the top 97%" and may foster a sense of entitlement and lack of empathy with others. All of these are assertions with no evidence to back them up. First, its a fact these kids learn faster and retain greater detail. Second, its a fact that these kids have a higher level of sensitivity to others and to most situations. Third, knowing their high abilities will motivate them and their parents to seek out much more challenging schools and choose more demanding professions. Fourth, the documentation is needed where advocacy is required to ensure these kids get what they deserve. The entire issue of a "gifted" label also makes no sense to me, as in my estimation the strategy for raising a child should be the same regardless of what you might label them
...
But bear in mind that much of these skills are just that -- skills that children develop by interest and practice, and not necessarily inherent abilities that set them apart from other children. If kid can do calculus at age 12 and can earn their PHD at 20 years of age, that makes them no different from other kids? These kids are INHERENTLY different because they are very, very capable academically from other kids - both from their level of interest and their level of motivation - not to mention their talents. However, they cannot make a claim (and there is no evidence for) long-term improvements to reading. Simply because a child is precocious in one aspect of development does not mean that it will persist or transfer to the much wider skillset necessary for future life. Reading is not a requirement for success in life? Learning via reading is not conducive to success in life? There are many, many studies showing the effect of literacy on success in life. And many many studies showing the effect on learning if literacy is achieved early. The upshot, in my opinion, is that I wouldn't put too much stock in the scores of these tests. Even less in the subscores. Based on his environment (which probably IS in the top 90% in terms of stability and economics), you should expect to see scores on the "high" range. Your son could easily just be a normal kid who likes reading and math. LOL. So, you are a licensed child psychologist? A pediatrician? A published researcher? A teacher? A college professor? Do you even have any kids?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172 |
Madonna's IQ is 140 and Shakira's is 140. Neal Pert's is 150.
Stephen Hawking's is 160. Most top mathematicians are >160. This is a side conversation and I do generally agree that high IQ isn't just some random number and a prerequisite for a "gifted" label. However, may I ask where you are getting these numbers? I see a lot of IQ numbers thrown around on the internet for celebrities and politicians. I don't know that any of these individuals have actually ever taken an IQ test let alone shared the #s publically. I also don't know that any person's IQ is an exact # so much as a range.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
Madonna's IQ is 140 and Shakira's is 140. Neal Pert's is 150.
Stephen Hawking's is 160. Most top mathematicians are >160. However, may I ask where you are getting these numbers? I see a lot of IQ numbers thrown around on the internet for celebrities and politicians. I don't know that any of these individuals have actually ever taken an IQ test let alone shared the #s publically. I also don't know that any person's IQ is an exact # so much as a range. I know that most of these people have stated their IQ in interviews. Many are members of Mensa as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 8
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 8 |
"So, you are a licensed child psychologist? A pediatrician? A published researcher? A teacher? A college professor? Do you even have any kids?"
I think now of an interview I heard recently with Noam Chomsky (no slouch himself) where he said something to the effect of "I don't think my opinion is any more valid than a great number of people in many professions. I happen to have the luxury of spending all day reading, but my ability to think and reason is fundamentally the same as everyone else's..."
Whether I am those things or not doesn't really matter seems to me (although if I were not a parent I would probably be worrying about other things).
"First, its a fact these kids learn faster and retain greater detail. Second, its a fact that these kids have a higher level of sensitivity to others and to most situations. Third, knowing their high abilities will motivate them and their parents to seek out much more challenging schools and choose more demanding professions. Fourth, the documentation is needed where advocacy is required to ensure these kids get what they deserve."
Talk about assertions without evidence to back them up! There is no way that these generalizations can be true. This is one of the great dangers of developing and deploying labels.
What's important for children are choices and opportunities -- not using simple measures of limited cognitive abilities to constrain life or career paths.
Also, simply because a test or tests are correlated with deficits in function linked to specific conditions does not necessarily imply that higher scores in the tests are associated with abnormally high cognitive function. Simply because the lack of something (think insulin) is harmful doesn't mean that its excess is necessarily beneficial.
Yes, there are outliers and savants. Yes, they probably score highly on most tests that they could be given. But, again, this is not strong evidence that the tests measure any kind of cognitive ability -- simply that they may be correlated with something that is NECESSARY for high cognitive function. What is SUFFICIENT -- who knows -- and I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people who are very intelligent and successful who do poorly on IQ tests. They probably just don't take them and advertise them so much...
As for the high correlation between IQ and the ability to learn and reason... this begs the question if the measures of learning and reasoning used are similar to those used for "IQ." Yes, this can establish a correlation. No, this does not provide evidence that IQ is a good measure of cognition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172 |
Madonna's IQ is 140 and Shakira's is 140. Neal Pert's is 150.
Stephen Hawking's is 160. Most top mathematicians are >160. However, may I ask where you are getting these numbers? I see a lot of IQ numbers thrown around on the internet for celebrities and politicians. I don't know that any of these individuals have actually ever taken an IQ test let alone shared the #s publically. I also don't know that any person's IQ is an exact # so much as a range. I know that most of these people have stated their IQ in interviews. Many are members of Mensa as well. Given the responses thus far I can see that this thread is going to be contentious so I should probably bow out, but I feel the need to address this first. Mensa requirements are 130. I also don't tend to believe everything Madonna or Shakira says in an interview. I can state that my IQ is 140. It doesn't make it so. As a member of Mensa myself I do also have access to the online searchable member directory. All current members names are listed there. They may omit all other details (address, etc.) but I believe that their names would be there at least. No one with the first name Shakira is listed as a member. There are a very few Madonnas but I am quite certain based upon last names, ages, and addresses they they aren't the Madonna. There is also no Steven Hawking or Neal Pert.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 389
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 389 |
I think that many of us would not feel the need to use the gifted label if our kids' needs were being met in the school system. It is not my fault that child would rather read a history book over Dr. Suess or gets aggravated when the school spends weeks teaching the principles of division when she figured it out her own years before.
I agree 100% that IQ is only one measure of person, and when used alone it is low measure of a person. Which is why Davison requires more than IQ for proof of extreme abilities. But the fact remains, no matter how extreme my child's abilities are, unless she gets the minimum IQ score, required by the school to be labeled gifted or ESE, her needs will be lumped in with what's best for majority. So, in our case the label is needed, not for bragging rights, but for the legal guarantee of an appropriate education.
I believe that many of us with precocious children don't like the labels either. In a perfect world our education system would put more focus on the individual and less on sorting out the low and high from the average, which would eliminate the need for labels entirely. However, I don't that happening in the near the future and we don't live in a perfect world.
I am curious do you also disagree with a low IQ score being used to identify a ESE child?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 735 |
What I always find interesting about these debates about the use of IQ tests which has been mentioned elsewhere is the willingness to use tests and measures to identify the LD but also the willingness to use tests and measures everywhere else, including sports, and even in the arts, but not with giftedness. Posts and blogs of these kind always say, sure there are outliers, but then discount the presence of them. And by extension discount parents fighting for them.
Even if you want to argue that people with high IQ scores are simply good at taking tests - that's a measure. Its real and quantifiable and not a fluke. How can it not be meaningful when a 10 year old scores higher on the SATs than comparable 18 year olds. It means something is different about that individual and that difference relates to the absorption of knowledge because if they had not absorbed the knowledge they would not be able to do better than their age cohort as well as better than older individuals with more time to master skills and knowledge.
It is so strange to me that you mostly get this argument from very bright people - as if they worry they can't achieve or succeed in life because some other people learn faster, see more complex connection or any of the other myriad things IQ tests measures. No one feels that way about the star athlete or the violin virtuoso.
DeHe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 8
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 8 |
I certainly didn't come to be disputatious -- but as the result of a chance Google search (sorry). What touched a nerve for me is the realization that I may soon have to deal with this issue, and some of the assumptions that I'm seeing were a bit alarming.
I read through the Hoagies guide -- and although I am normally a big fan of quantifying, classifying, and systematizing things -- I make a BIG exception when it comes to people. We have a natural tendency (biologically-based, likely) to divide people into our tribe and others, and make generalizations about the superiority of our tribe (i.e. we're in the top 3%, and we share this identity). A large component of cultural progress has involved overcoming these tendencies and seeing people more and more as individuals.
Therein lies the conflict I see here. Advocating for the unique needs of children by grouping them under the label of 'gifted.' It's a common strategy for many identity politics movements, and in my view this is a very Faustian bargain.
The reason I am unmoved by many of the guides and descriptions is that it seems like the very elaborate world of diamond grading -- the four "Cs.' There is an entire industry devoted to developing rigorous, quantitative tests of diamond quality and then assigning values to the results. Very systematic. Very organized. Experts and authorities to rely on. The whole deal. It's a nice system, designed to obscure the fact that what is really important is how the stone looks on your finger. Simply because tests are real and reliable doesn't mean we should use them, or that they are valid.
The other big issue is that it's not clear to me that early, rapid learning necessarily implies what people seem to be arguing that it implies. Simply going faster doesn't necessarily imply going farther. If this were the case, then we would now all likely be working for Asian companies, where students progress very rapidly along regimented, academic curricula. My own experience is that products of these educational systems think differently, yes, but there are costs as well.
Development is not a simple, linear race but a number of interacting processes that proceed at their own rates in different people. Trying to force a "gifted" identity onto this, it seems to me, is not true to the process and could actually limit, instead of expand, the possibilities for the individual children.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,172 |
Simply going faster doesn't necessarily imply going farther. See, and I don't view gifted as a matter of speed. Perhaps that it b/c my kids are less fast than they are different. Dd11 could be viewed as going faster in that she is very academically advanced by all measures. However, she regularly takes longer than the teacher intended on her homework assignments and is more of a deep processor than a fast processor. Dd9 is more divergent and creative than she is fast. She sees the end result without getting the intermediary steps and she often devises her own ways to solve problems that, more often than not, work quite well. Neither of my girls tested above average on the processing speed component of the intelligence tests they were given. I, on the other hand, am straight fast. I always finished assignments, tests, everything in half the time allotted or less. I wouldn't view myself as more intelligent than my kids, though, and I would venture to say that my eldest at least is brighter than am I.
|
|
|
|
|
