Originally Posted by JonLaw
Originally Posted by ColinsMum
Originally Posted by CFK
Why the assumption that gifted people are all passionate about learning? There are gifted slackers just like everyone else. Slackers who won't put int the time or effort. Slackers who will not contribute to the class.

And there are high achieving, hard working non-gifted people who are passionate about a subject and who will put in the time and effort. And they don't all have to be labeled with such a pejorative term like "Tiger Cubs".
Agree. It's easy to get into circular reasoning: PG looks like this, and these kids look like this, so these kids are PG, and it's good to be round these kids, so it's good to be round PG kids. For how many of the children you're talking about do you actually know an IQ number, HK? Come to that, don't I remember that you don't have one for your own DD? So these characteristics that you see her sharing to some extent with some, but not all, of her classmates, how do you know they are giftedness as defined by IQ? And does it matter?

Yes it matters.

(And I can use cut and paste here from another thread!)

The real problem seems to be that we need to figure out developmental arc over a lifetime, which I.Q. tests apparently can't do very well.

I suspect that such arcs are reasonably fixed, with some wiggle room, but not much.

The significance is the nature of the arc for the individual, not the score on a test on a particular day.

I also suspect that it's somewhat obvious and able to be seen, in the sense that you can tell how tall someone is.

So, I think we're trying to figure out how to deal with something that clearly exists but we don't know how to figure it out properly or exactly what it is we are looking for, but I.Q. tests kind of tell us *something* about it sometimes, so we will use those even though we know they don't really work that well.

Yes.

(And also-- Val's post immediately above this one.)

Clearly I'm not expressing this very well. I'm tired of this "everyone is equally capable" mantra because I've seen how toxic it can become-- FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. Not just for the "more" able (however you want to sort things) but also for those who are less so.

To be crystal clear-- I do NOT believe that IQ is a good way to determine who is permitted to access particular opportunities, classes, etc.

But ability sure ought to play some role at the higher levels.

It's very very obvious that "ability" exists to a greater or lesser degree (whatever you want to call it) when some persons have the ability to do, or even to do with EASE... what others simply cannot do at all.

Running a 4 minute mile, for example. Completing and fully understanding a 1000 page work in a couple of days. Writing a grant overnight. Completely mastering undergraduate integral calculus in two weeks.

All of those things would argue for ability in the "extraordinary" range, yes?

But those are things that often make others who lack those singular abilities rather uncomfortable-- particularly if they prefer (as most human beings do) to think of themselves as "considerably above average."

Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.