Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Of low coding scores, and M & Ms.

(I don't know if the coding test described here is the same one, or close to the same, used on the WISC. If so, might it tell us that the GT kids who score low on it are just plain old unmotivated? Certainly happens with our kids. I don't really know what I'm talking about, but this is an interesting read. Have at it.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...d_tells_us_about_motivation_and_iq_.html

Read most of this article, kind of depressing if you have a child who's scored low on the coding. They won't make as much money as others! Thousands less than those willing to push themselves to do boring work!

But! on the other other hand...
Thankfully I am ok with my son making thousands less than other folks who are willing to do things that don't interest them in the least...(and I would also point out that thousands of dollars doesn't really amount to much nowadays anyhow. )

It doesn't make sense to equate success with only how much money you make. Weird.
I would rather find out how many of the low coding score kids are now math or physics teachers or scientists or artists doing meaningful work than whether they make more than another guy.

But an interesting read, thanks for posting!

EXACTLY. Thank you

Oh no--I definitely don't equate success with that. (Check my tax return if you'd like to know more!) I did find the article quite interesting, though!

Silly, we all know that success is a mathematical calculation somewhat akin to the following:

Success = (Financial Wealth + Name of Occupation) * (Name of Undergraduate School + Name of Graduate School)^Social Class

I think I got that right. The board will correct me if I've made any errors.

The coding test says, "if you try harder you do better."
The marshmallow test says, "if you delay gratification you do better."
They're both testing from a curiosity about old fashioned values, it seems.

I finally made my kid's reward chart to reinforce behaviors I like seeing. I included "ask first" on the list. When I complimented him for "asking first" or "asking and taking no for an answer" I remembered the marshmallow test. I thought, "Stanford tested if a kid would resist temptation from one marshmallow with the promise of two marshmallows later. The kids who would were doing better in life later on when they followed up. What if a kid would just accept 'don't eat the marshmallow, you asked for it. I said not now, maybe later". Is it just the kid who will wait for the marshmallow in exchange for two? Is there a difference?

JonLaw, with all due respect, there are some people here who think that way but many who do not, and you know it. Stop trying to poke people.

Well, shouldn't we at least try to figure out the ideal way to think about this?

We're pretty intelligent and we should be able to come up with the answer.

It can't be that hard, right?

The author of the article has several books out with the same premise, so it isn't a big leap that he'd make the same assumptions here. But I think a couple of assumptions require the use of a pretty broad brush - that all kids find the described test boring, thus leading to his assumption that it was lack of motivation that caused the results, and that a lack of motivation at one stage of life in one specific circumstance is a predictor of success or failure.

Oh, and the assumption that a kid who scores a 79 or 97 is going to end up average. That's a bit black and white as well. IQ tests have their place and do provide vital insight, but they are not perfect, nor do they provide accurate results in all cases. Many of us here know that first-hand.

Thought JonLaw was very tongue-in-cheek; not to be taken actually seriously!

I would be interested in helping to define success, starting by proposing that one could say
success = happiness

how does one get to happy?
- parental/family approval?
- career satisfaction?
- financial stability?
- family doing ok?
- one's general sense that one is an ok human?