Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mensa
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 28648
The National Geographic is not a complicated magazine. Their articles are pretty straight forward, imho.My name is URL wrote: »If you want complicated articles you could subscribe to National Geographic for less cost and you don't need to have a certification to do so
You're basically advocating an education policy where intelligent children are forced to carry on at a level way below their capabilites. You might as well suggest that 10 year olds stay in the same classes as 5 year olds, because they can "learn in their own time". I get the impression that you have very little understanding of children and how they learn.I'm just saying that we shouldn't give them the impression they're something they're not. Clever children should be encouraged to develop interests and move ahead of the class by learning in their own time. Most "gifted children do this anyway, hence them becoming "gifted".Yes, as i said before they should be encouraged to operate outside the confinements of formal learning and acquire knowledge independantly. If you're genuinely interested in something and you're doing it purely for yourself it's way easier to get things done (for example i've a friend who thought himself piano and got as far in 6 months as 5 years of lessons got me).
Again, this independant learning idea. Are you really arguing that smart children should have to carry the burden of teaching themselves everything? Would you say the same thing about a talented young footballer, for example, who should go off and train on his/her own because they're so much better than their peers? I doubt it.
Indeed, children are impressionable by nature. Do you think we should give them the impression that it's ok to be good at some things, but that being good at "intelligent" things is wrong? And another rhetorical question for you: is it fair to assume that all "clever" children are arrogant because you happened to be a bit arrogant as a child? It's like saying all kids should have a certain hair-cut just because you remember having one as a child.So you expect people to be well adjusted at such a young age? kids are impressionable.
I remember actually thinking i was better than my 6th class teacher because he gave a wrong answer to what i thought was an obvious question. Back then, i was as arrogant as they come. I thought i was just plain better than other people, when in fact the only reason i was clever was because my mother had thought me how to read at a very young age and i had always kept well ahead of my "average" classmates. School was boring (as it would be for anyone who's ahead of their class) and this made me seek intellectual stimulation elsewhere.i realised that i wasn't special or gifted, and neither were any of the other nerds in the class. We weren't gonna just fall into amazing jobs and become the elite of society (gods and clods spring to mind), to achieve that would require work.
Sadly, many of them didn't fully grow up. One guy in particular still has the arrogance i had at 12.
I'm actually saddened by your pessimism
You got lazy when you hit puberty, therefore none of the smart people in your class have any hope? That's a pretty depressing sentiment, and a misguided one.
It could also be argued that the time they don't spend playing is putting them at a social disadvantage, and therefore a "club" such as MENSA should be lauded for giving a social outlet to people who didn't have gangs of friends as children. Also, it is certainly possible to make time for both play and reading/watching documentaries, so your polarising of them is inaccurate to say the least.Instead of telling some children they're "gifted", we should tell them the truth. They're not innately superior, they have an advantage over other kids because for every few hours they spent playing, they might spend a half hour reading a factual book or watching a documentary or something. Tell them that they're in a privileged position and that they should work hard to maintain/increase this advantage into adult life.
One last point, for somebody who claims to have sought intellectual stimulation, your user-name is ironically immature
5318008 reads "boobies" on an inverted calculator
lol did you pick this out of the sky or what?
Read the thread before you make ignorant posts much?0 -
Why lol?
I personally would lean towards the thinking that how intelligent one is in later life is heavily based on one's upbringing. I don't see what's "lol" about that...
Intelligence is not your knowledge, it's your ability to acquire knowledge.
e.g. as the dictionary says:
'having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals: an intelligent student.'
It doesn't matter really if they learnt to read before getting into school or not; if they are more intelligent than their classmates they will learn it far faster than anybody else in their class.
I suppose you could be right in the sense that if it's not exercised properly in their early years it can get 'rusty' but I don't suppose that's what you meant?
0 -
Advertisement
-
I read the thread. Any my post wasn't directed at you. My post was direct at bluewolf, and I gave justification for it. Maybe you didn't read that post thoughRead the thread before you make ignorant posts much?
Oh the irony..
FAO: JC 2K3 , I'll reply to your post in a while, heading out atm, this isn't over 0 -
I personally think there's way too many hours in a school day (for primary school, especially early on). Many education experts agree with me (well moreso me agreeing with them
You're basically advocating an education policy where intelligent children are forced to carry on at a level way below their capabilites. You might as well suggest that 10 year olds stay in the same classes as 5 year olds, because they can "learn in their own time". I get the impression that you have very little understanding of children and how they learn.
). I think kids should play and do sports and music (if their interested) a lot more. Maybe kids who finish their work early should be encouraged to read in another room (i remember doing this in 2nd class).
Knowledge and skills are completely different. If a child wants to learn a certain skill outside of school, yes we should do everything we can to facilitate this learning. I think any child with such an intellectual interest should be allowed the opportunity to develop it though, not just those in the top 5%. Who knows, if you try and force this upon intelligent children you may kill their passion for learning.Again, this independant learning idea. Are you really arguing that smart children should have to carry the burden of teaching themselves everything? Would you say the same thing about a talented young footballer, for example, who should go off and train on his/her own because they're so much better than their peers? I doubt it.
You're trying to put words in my mouth. I clearly said "for every few hours spent playing", not "instead of playing". I think play is really important.It could also be argued that the time they don't spend playing is putting them at a social disadvantage, and therefore a "club" such as MENSA should be lauded for giving a social outlet to people who didn't have gangs of friends as children. Also, it is certainly possible to make time for both play and reading/watching documentaries, so your polarising of them is inaccurate to say the least.For somebody who claims to have sought intellectual stimulation, your user-name is ironically immature
As you pointed out above, you have to have balance in life!I'm actually saddened by your pessimism You got lazy when you hit puberty, therefore none of the smart people in your class have any hope? That's a pretty depressing sentiment, and a misguided one.
Again with the putting of words in my mouth. When did I ever say that?
I should make this clear; these people I'm talking about never overestimate their own abilities (it'd take a special kind of person not to know their own limits). Their problem lies moreso in their under-estimation of the abilities of others.
Oh, and i've always been lazy! 0 -
-
There are something like 3 different IQ tests one for languages one maths and another, its not near as hard to qualify as people think if it was they'd make less money! Last time I checked I qualified under maths but failed miserably in the other categories and so was still eligible to join
not paying those ***** a penny though!Eh..none of that is true.consultech wrote: »Lies make baby Jesus cry MENSA's testing proceedure has already been mentioned in this thread; Where exactly do you "check" if various aspects of your intelligence make the grade? Mensa hotline or something?
Apologies for getting all serious in AH but..
As different IQ tests were developed, each was given its own scoring system. Therefore, an IQ of 150 is a meaningless claim unless you know the actual test which was used. In order to compare one IQ test against another, the scores are converted to 'percentiles', i.e. where a person's score falls in comparison to the rest of the population by percentage. Mensa offers membership to anyone whose IQ score places them within the top two per cent of the population, no matter which approved test was used.
A top 2% mark in any of these frequently used tests below qualifies you for entry to Mensa. The minimum test mark to get into Mensa is:
Cattell III B - 148
Culture Fair - 132
Ravens Advanced Matrices - 135
Ravens Standard Matrices - 131
Wechsler Scales - 132
-www.mensa.org.uk
I got a bit confused earlier as my memory is quite hazy these days, as 2% in any category qualifies you that would mean that near 10% qualifies for mensa
anyhoo the test I took wasnt created by mensa it was a similar one designed to tell you if you would qualify for mensa it was somewhere online can't find it at the mo.
http://www.mensa.org/workout2.php? - just did that and got
Your score was 25 out of 30. That is an excellent score—you would have a very strong chance of passing the Mensa test and joining Mensa.
Please note that the Mensa Workout is NOT the official Mensa test, and your score will not qualify or disqualify you for membership.
if that prooves anything! :P0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I'm not the type of person who goes around the place reading random research papers, so here's an article i found interesting;Could we have some then please.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125691.300-how-to-be-a-genius.html?full=true
It might point you towards some research.....if it really means that much to you (jesus, this is After hours, not ****ing childpsychologyforums.com).
Well why isn't everyone with a genius IQ a millionaire or outstanding acedemic, when many with only slightly above average IQs are?Could you please elaborate with an explanation or a reference.
The picture completion isn't really what i was looking for. For example someone who has spent ages analysing market trends in an efficient way might have developed such a good understanding that they can make themselves a millionaire with almost no effort.It measures both fluid and crystallised intelligence, i.e. what you know already and your ability to think analytically and to solve novel problems i.e. innovative solutions. The matrices section covers this very well. In the WAIS III intelligence test the picture completion task and general knowledge section would take into account a persons knowledge of how the "world works" although I have a feeling you meant that in a vague rhetorical sense.
Surely such a great capacity for understanding the workings of such systems (as opposed to knowledge...which a computer can beat a human at) would make someone intelligent, no?No, it really isn't. Intelligence tests can be and are objective, to an extent of course, it's not perfect. For example, the latest edition of the Stanford Binet intelligence scale was based on a normative sample of 4800 people stratified to represent the population of the United States. So if you take the test, then the chances are that there is a huge group of people of similar race and socioeconomic background with which your result can be compared.
You obviously have no idea about psychometrics or have never read even a wikipedia article on the subject. If you are interested I'd recommend this one
. Throughout the history of intelligence testing there has been plenty of research into the area of what factors make up intelligence and as of 2009 there is considerable professional convergence on what these factors are. Again, rather than start arguing with me, I suggest you actually read up on the subject. If you read wikipedia you will see that the WAIS intelligence scale is equally balanced for both verbal and spatial intelligence.
aha! and how do we know they're equally important? That's my point. While you can put objective numbers on various types of intelligence, if you try and lump them all together in a single category the result is going to be a matter of opinion.
Is the ability to tell two sounds apart a factor in overall intelligence (some would argue it's a part of musical intelligence), what about the ability to tell two smells apart? is that equally important? obviously not! Does musical ability deserve to get the same weight as verbal ability? obviously not! If you're a retard at music who cares? if you can't understand sentences you're ****ed! Although, at higher levels it may work differently (e.g verbal intelligence is only way more imporatant up to a point, after which it's relative importance drops off to a lower level).
No, they'd agree with me. No-one is ever born a genius, enviroment is very important. Some people might be born with an advantage, but you have to work hard to develop a good talent, and especially with fluid intelligence the earlier you develop these skills the better they'll be (synaptic plasticity and all that).The entire field of genetics would tend to disagree with you there. Environment is important, but it won't work unless a natural gift is present.I.Q tests do more harm than good? Are you for real? The reason I.Q tests were originally developed was to identify children that are in need of special education, indeed that is the predominant reason for their use today. Every year, hundreds of children can be accurately assessed as to whether they need special education and if so, what type, all thanks to I.Q tests.
You're right. I didn't think of that. I withdraw my statement. However, I still disagree with the use of IQ tests in problemless children. If you tell a child they're innately talented and part of an elite they'll develop a bad attitude and gravely underestimate those less overtly intelligent than themselves. If you tell a child the exact opposite it could be soul destroying. Especially in a family whose parents hark on about intelligence and grades all the time. You see where i'm coming from.
I still think that you can't put an objective number on intelligence. Also I still believe that unless they're actually born with some sort of retardation, most people could become a genius at something if they put in the time and developed the neccesary skills at an early enough age.
You can bet your ass the girl who joined mensa wasn't just playing patty-cake all these months (i would say years, but she's not onld enough for that)! 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement