Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Recommended Resources What is intelligence, is everyone gifted?

Another thought. Just read that a child adopted and raised by a high IQ mom will reap a temporary boost that will dissappear when they are older. �I have noticed that all the daytime cartoons like Dora, Umi Zoomi, Kai Lan, Agent Oso, The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse all teach to the test already, teaching sequencing, pattern recognition, asking quiestions and pausing for an answer. �I was going to ask Dottie and Aimee what all the parts of intelligence are and then ask if they're incorporating those into early childhood education and entertainment, trying to raise the nation's IQ? �I mean there's the patterns, and the verbal reasoning in the morning cartoons. �So is this going to raise the IQ of the nation entering kindergarten? �If it's a temporary boost, how long before it wears off. �And why is it only a temporary boost? �Couldn't they keep feeding it? �I've also just read somewhere that the act of taking tests itself reinforces or fosters intelligence. �And everybody says they're emphasis is on testing kids too much these days. �Not saying some people aren't smarter than others or that others could all "catch up". �But everyone's got room for improvement, even if some could stay a few steps ahead of the others. �Is that what they're trying to do here? �If so, how do you see that working out?

Isn't also a phenomenon of kids with really IQs at 5 losing 20 points by grade 7th or the reverse?

Maybe we just give the child so much stimuli they test really high?

Is it the creative element that makes a real difference and emotional quotient where you can relate and deal with other people that ultimately defines your intelligence?

Einstein or Feynman were able to use their imagination and creatively apply math and physics to their ideas that made them truly brilliant. Not just their ability to do math.

If you ever read Reminiscences of a Stock Trader (written in 1923) it is an interesting look at the psychology of what are generally brilliant people being very stupid because of emotions.

Just watched Larry King (at 5 am this morning drinking my tea) on the brain. And they talked about how the emotionally part of your brain has all these connections to the frontal cortex but few going back. The emotions dictate our thoughts. So if you are emotionally a mess, then you can do a lot of stupid things. But a emotionally really stable person can be a lot "smarter" because they are guided by their brain and not their "heart".

Ren

This does happen, but it only happens rarely. It's important to remember that IQ scores are always inrelationship to the whole large population. So if a TV show made everyone smarter, then the tests would have to be renormed and there would still be a 'top 5%'

Also, at age 5 and younger, there are enough kids who are still busy with other developmental tasks that they will look rather more average at 5 than they do at 10 on a IQ test. Because the scores relate to the whole population, every time one of those later bloomers blooms, another gifted kid scores a bit lower.

But the whole point of IQ tests being useful at all is that they get it right most of the time, and wrong rather fewer times. Of course when it's your kid, it's still a huge pain in the neck. Just like most kids are ready to learn to count in Kindy, but that doesn't mean that our kids are learning to count in Kindy. It's really important to realize how tests act on large numbers of people - and it's a bit tricky, too tricky for most adults actually.

Love and More Love,
Grinity

And indeed, the environment has been changing so as to make the kinds of classification and abstraction skills that are valued by IQ tests more common, and the tests are renormed: the Flynn effect. I expect the OP already knows the book by Flynn that I keep plugging, which is actually called "What is intelligence?" - it's third hit when you google the question (and googling the question is often a good idea when you ask yourself a question that others must have asked - you often find interesting things!) I think it plus Outliers makes an illuminating combination for this kind of question.

It would be really interesting to see the long term outcomes of DYS grads. Just like the study that followed Hunter grads, finding the ones that started in grade school (as identified top gifted students) didn't do anything exceptional. Had nice, contented lives, but didn't find their "passion" to make their mark. While kids who entered in 7th grade had much more success, both monetarily and noteworthy. Is it because of changes in IQ or what is it.

Grinity, I respect your knowledge but until you actually see the statistics can you say for sure? From the psychologist I know, he owns a major clinic in NYC that works with kids and testing and he said it was more common than you would expect.

Ren

Do you mean, those "future leaders" experimental school in the sixties. I read about it in the book Smart Boys. I'd have to get up and look to see the actual name of the project. The story said they didn't do anything spectacular but succeeded in making themselves nice contented middle-management lives. Although it mentioned a disproportionate number of divorces. The reason they suggested was that smart boys in the 60's were likely to see a wife as another accomplishment. The more spectacular accomplishments, according to the book, were likely to come from single mothers and rough backgrounds. The author was a specialized gifted shrink, so I guess it's the same guy you're talking about. I don't know. I keep seeing the forums saying there's a difference between intelligence and productivity.

Ren
Where did you find that study. I only saw the one on Hunter adults comparing to telman and that used hunter elementary kids from the 1940s and 1950s. I'm very curious to see how they measured "success." Plus how does the study distinguish in terms of why those entering in 7th were "better" if you just use entrance then this study seems to imply that outerboro kids are smarter since only manhattan residents can apply in elementary. There is no way to tell what those kids were doing prior to admission. The queens kids could have had higher iq's but couldn't go until 7th

And I think your point to Grinity applies to the psychologist - in order to say
the IQ goes down by 7th grade you actually have to test it does your friend have both sets of scores and can document the frequency then he should publish it, there would
be a lot of interest in it. Otherwise it's equally anecdotal.

DeHe

Isn't it equating two non related points, or three actually. First who decides what is productive. One of the interesting things of the 2008 economic crash was what happened to the choices of the best and brightest from top schools, they stopped choosing wall street because there were fewer jobs and it had lost prestige. Each generation produces it's own definition of best and brightest. In 1789 the best and brightest were in government, is that where they go now? 2nd, so many things interfere between input and output, socials skills, opportunity, circumstance, puberty! And I forget my 3rd point LOL

DeHe

Yeah probably. �And now it looks like we're thinking of two different studies anyway. �I was replying to this because the other experimental school I had read about from the sixties seemed to think by serving the top IQ kids their students would be the future leaders and inventors, but like in Wren's referenced study they only made comfortable lives for themselves, no real mark on the world. �There's nothing wrong with that if you ask me, it's just not what they expected that time. �
��I don't know about DYS, but when I read about The Academy initially a year ago the emphasis was on fellowship and peers and a place to relax and fit in. �The sixty's school just wanted to influence the future and beat Russia. The DYS seems to be more interested in supporting the kids lives here and now. �Maybe that's just how I read it.
About the question, "what is intelligence?". Why do they say pigs are smarter than dogs, and rats are more intelligent than guinea pigs and what's the connection with the things they test for human IQ? �And what about artificial intelligence? �Isn't intelligence just problem-solving then? �
I think giftedness is different than intelligence because it just means natural born talent. �Find out if giftedness includes determination and perspiration or if only talent does.

I am sorry I can't research it now. But it is a well known gifted psychologsit who speaks at all the gifted conferences who went to Hunter. That is what prompted the study, she went there. I spoke to her. I want to say Rena something off the top of my head.

And I heard the same thing from a mother who son is now at Hunter in 2nd grade. They were worried because they were finding the findings worth noting. That the kids who got in K were not driven. They lacked ambition compared to the kids coming in 7th grade. Parents didn't like it.

Ren