Mensa

Overheal

I see some ignored posts from boobies: are they worth clicking?

5318008!

Overheal, i forgot about you.

The second boy's parents have failed him. Sadly, most of society does not seem to recognise this and many parents seem perfectly fine with waiting till their kids start school.

And for the record. I'm all for competition. I just think every child should be given a fair chance. An unrealistic goal; yes. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Overheal

But in that scenario they were each given that fair chance.

And I still maintain (And I think An File does too) that a fair chance means classes tailored to the special needs of certain students.

Take plants. I have a venus fly trap. It requires piss poor un-nutriated soil, lots of sunlight and clean rainwater. If I stuck it next to the ferns and the herbs and the tomatos, it would die.

If giving every plant genus in my garden means putting them all in the same patch of soil, giving them all the same amount of sunlight and the same water from the hose, a fair few of them would die. The Flytrap would die from the hose water, or the fertilizer. Take your pick. The Ferns would burn up if they werent in the shade. The tomatoes would die from under-watering or most of my plants would die from over-watering. You see where I'm going with this.

Fair chance does not always mean homogenous chance.

994

dyl10 wrote: »

I had a little respect for these tests, until one day in easons I picked up a book titled "How to improve your IQ".

The book was focussed around getting you a higher score in the test.
By virtue of the fact that a book could get you a higher score in the exam, made the exam instantly worthless.

I drew two possible conclusions.

1) The Book makes you more intelligent

2) The Exams can be researched and practiced in a way to manipulate your score and raise your intelligence quotation.

#1 undermines the concept of intelligence.
#2 undermines the concept of the IQ exam.

Take your pick!

3) the book does not improve one's IQ score, it only claims to.

5318008!

Well humans are all the same species so the difference between us is gonna be nowhere near as big as with different species of plant. But i see what you're getting at.

Of course children should be educated in the way best for them. But i think that most children, or at least those above average would benifit from the type of education you claim children in ESE get (that's not to say they should all be in the same class).
Giving every child a fair chance means NOT directing funds away from intelligent children with great potential so you can give extra funds to children who score slightly higher in some limited tests.

Also i believe that in the story I described the two boys clearly did not have a fair chance due to the second boy's parents never being told how to give their child the best chance to succeed.

miss no stars

5318008! wrote: »

If someone has very well developed mechanical and spatial awareness and a very keen interest in engineering, but their results in other areas (that they may have no interest in) put them in the 90th percentile overall, should they be rejected from a summer course in engineering even though they're clearly better suited for the course than someone else?

There is more than one way to get into CTYI. Having an isolated ability is not it, however, they also recognise that someone can be exceptional without necessarily being able to do well in the standard type of test. That's why, a psychologist's evaluation saying you would benefit from being in CTYI will also be considered.

5318008! wrote: »

I disagree. Consider two children. One is taught how read/write/do maths from as soon as he starts talking sentences (which happened earlier because his parents spent extra time teaching him ho to speak), and his parents do their upmost to develop his mind. They teach him all sorts of stuff about the world, give him puzzles to solve, encourage him to ask inquisitive questions and they make sure there are loads of interesting books lying around the house. He reaches school and he sits beside a boy with equal capacity but who at age 5 is only starting to learn his abcs.

Bearing in mind that the younger you are, the more impact such learning has on your abilities later on, can you not see how the first boy has a massive advantage over the second? One which now, due to his increased fluid intelligence (assuming no change in home enviroment) he will probably keep for the rest of his life. The parents in both cases are middle class, but clearly simmilar conditions do not exist.

I strongly believe that every child (excluding those with learning dissabilities) if given the right opportunities and encouraged in the right way could reach a level of intelligence considered today to be "gifted". I'll admit there may be some slight differences down to genes, but overall everyone has the potential to be in the same ball park.

Ok, consider this. Child A lives in Country A that speaks language A. Child B lives in Country B that speaks languages A, B and C. Child A moves to Country B. Child A has NO prior knowledge of the material that will be covered in school full stop. None, nada, nichts. Yet, within 6 months, Child A has outstripped Child B in all 3 languages (reading, writing and speaking).

Explain that to me. Are you seriously saying that Child A has NO innate ability? (Btw, I was Child A, the country was Malaysia and the languages spoken there are English, Chinese and Bahasa. Bearing in mind that for chinese, it was an entirely different system of language altogether. But sure, no, that was prior conditioning that led me to be able to acquire two new languages, from scratch, with just the normal amount of assistance any other child got. Despite the other children being native speakers. Sure. I have NO natural ability WHATSOEVER. Keep kidding yourself.



And re this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

JC 2K3

I would say that your parents' influence on you would be a huge factor in that. Not necessarily that they gave you extra help, but things like encouragement, the nature of their relationship, day to day conversations etc. I suspect someone moving to Malaysia from Ireland to work would be in an important position, highly educated and an extremely positive intellectual influence on their child

Re: CTYI, from an external point of view, I don't think it's for every gifted child, though perhaps I've only met a certain type of former CTYIer. I think it gives many people who've gone there an over inflated sense of their abilities compared to their non-CTYIer peers. They won't be necessarily very vocal about it, but you always sense it from them. I've also seen a good few who just can't seem to relate to their "normal" peers at all.

However, probably the most negative aspect of it I've seen is that with some it seems to foster sporadic, independent learning to the point where the person will lose interest in learning what's taught to them in school/college, which means they might have learned an incredibly impressive amount of stuff, but it's not what they're being examined on, and as a result, score poorly. It's quite a phenomenon, and is almost like a lack of discipline.

That said, I'm sure it's very positive for many kids who go there, and I wouldn't think it has such extreme effects on the majority of attendees.

Shacklebolt

That said, I'm sure it's very positive for many kids who go there, and I wouldn't think it has such extreme effects on the majority of attendees.

It was probably the most positive influence of my adolescent years.

5318008!

@Miss no stars.

As well as the factors given by jc2k3, i can also think of 2 off the top of my head.

1. You had already developed a far higher fluid intelligence by then.

2. The rapid change in enviroment caused your brain to switch on it's full learning capacities. You were learning it for youself, as a neccesity. You were incredibly motivated about it and not just listening to some boring teacher wishing you were somewhere else.

I think it's fairly well known that for example you could sit through 6 years of french classes at school and still not be very good, but if your parents just dumped you in france you'd start picking it up quite quickly. I'd also be under the impression that children could do this better than adults.

I'm not trying to take away from your achievement. Two languages in 6 months is pretty impressive. But i think two things influence how well you learn something.1. how motivated you are to learn it and 2, How important you honestly think it is deep down.

Obviously you were very motivated to learn these languages and I'd almost go as far as to say your subconcious saw it as neccesary for your survival.
Your parents encouragement probably helped a lot too.

This story doesn't prove innate giftedness, all it proves is the inefficiency of classroom learning and how amazingly fast people can learn things if they are properly motivated.

Valmont

You're discounting the fact that some people are inherently more intelligent than others by the virtue of their genes. It isn't solely environmental or solely genetic factors that contribute to intelligence but a combination of both. Your position seems to be resting on a completely non-deterministic assumption, which is wrong. Missnostars example demonstrates this in anecdotal form.

Valmont

5318008! wrote: »

1. You had already developed a far higher fluid intelligence by then.

Speculation.

5318008! wrote: »

The rapid change in enviroment caused your brain to switch on it's full learning capacities.

Speculation

5318008! wrote: »

But i think two things influence how well you learn something.1. how motivated you are to learn it and 2, How important you honestly think it is deep down.

A gross over-simplification imo. The psychology of learning is far more complex than this, but you don't really care about that.

5318008! wrote: »

I'd almost go as far as to say your subconcious saw it as neccesary for your survival.

Nonsense, there's no way of substantiating this whatsoever. The whole idea of a subconscious mind guiding us in the way you suggest is very outdated by the way.

5318008! wrote: »

This story doesn't prove innate giftedness,

You seem to be discounting any sort of natural ability whatsoever, is that right? Are you suggesting that intelligence is exclusively determined by the environment? Again, this is simply not the case. The case which is not my opinion, but a scientific fact.

Overheal

Valmont wrote: »

You seem to be discounting any sort of natural ability whatsoever, is that right? Are you suggesting that intelligence is exclusively determined by the environment? Again, this is simply not the case. The case which is not my opinion, but a scientific fact.

Before he goes off on a predictable tangent I reckoned I would just point out the Exclusively bit :cool:

miss no stars

Actually, I think I should probably mention that the everyday language in Malaysia (or at least in the ex-pat community) is English. Everyone speaks English there. We weren't staying there permenantly, so learning any other language was not important. In fact, my parents weren't at all worried about me going to school there, simply because I was quite young and had I stayed any longer, I'd have gone to the local International School and learnt the english curriculum. (Which did not include either Chinese or Bahasa).

The point I was making is that environment has only so much of an influence on how quickly a person learns. A lot of it is down to an innate ability to learn quickly. At four years old, I saw no urgency to what I was learning. I was not at all worried about my survival because I had my mummy, my daddy and my ama to look after me. I had plenty of (english speaking) friends. Four year olds pick up language quickly, sure. Not all four year olds get skipped into the next class up because they outstrip native speakers, they learn it so quickly. I just happened to like learning - and I was good at it.

Insect Overlord

JC 2K3 wrote: »

However, probably the most negative aspect of it I've seen is that with some it seems to foster sporadic, independent learning to the point where the person will lose interest in learning what's taught to them in school/college, which means they might have learned an incredibly impressive amount of stuff, but it's not what they're being examined on, and as a result, score poorly. It's quite a phenomenon, and is almost like a lack of discipline.

I never attended CTYI, but I can relate perfectly to your description here! I've acted this way for 4 sets of college exams. Admittedly I very nearly failed the first set, so I changed my revision methods slightly to make sure that didn't happen again. But, my college friends still comment on my habit of apparently switching off during lectures. I just don't find certain subjects stimulating in the slightest, and by exam time I have to learn off everything despite not having much of a clue what is relevent to the specific exam.
For me it is down to a lack of self-discipline in combination with a sense of total confidence in my ability to learn at the last minute. Take from that what you will, however, I am not suggesting that this is true for all cases. Which brings me onto this...

5318008! wrote: »

Also i believe that in the story I described the two boys clearly did not have a fair chance due to the second boy's parents never being told how to give their child the best chance to succeed.

There is a massive flaw in your style of argument. You crafted this scenario yourself to suit the conditions you were trying to prove. An anecdote that is designed to carry out a purpose like this is neither objective nor accurate. It is propaganda. Furthermore, your findings from this one fictitious case study cannot be assumed true for every single case.

5318008!

An File wrote: »

There is a massive flaw in your style of argument. You crafted this scenario yourself to suit the conditions you were trying to prove. An anecdote that is designed to carry out a purpose like this is neither objective nor accurate. It is propaganda. Furthermore, your findings from this one fictitious case study cannot be assumed true for every single case.

I don't think the scenario i outlined was completely ficticious. I think it acurately describes the difference between many gifted children and their average peers at age 5. I wasn't using it as evidence for anything, i was just asking overheal could he not see how in a scenario like that the first child would be at a massive advantage.

miss no stars wrote: »

A lot of it is down to an innate ability to learn quickly. At four years old, I saw no urgency to what I was learning. I was not at all worried about my survival because I had my mummy, my daddy and my ama to look after me. I had plenty of (english speaking) friends.

You know exactly that's not what i meant. You won't always have your parents around you and it doesn't make good evolutionary sense to be dependent on friends.

Four year olds pick up language quickly, sure. Not all four year olds get skipped into the next class up because they outstrip native speakers, they learn it so quickly. I just happened to like learning - and I was good at it.

Obviously you were way more motivated to learn than the other kids. You were at a disadvantage coming in at the bottom of the class so you worked to rectify this. The other kids weren't, as they knew they were safely in the middle somewhere. You knew you were good at learning so you would catch up.You just needed to learn it as quickly as you could. It's the opposite of a vicious cycle. People always find it easiest to spend time doing the things they're good at. As i hope i outlined before with the examples of someone being dropped in france or my friend who got to grade 5 piano in 6 months, If you've got the motivation you can achieve things that seem incredible (don't forget that self-confidence is massively tied in with motivation). I think your story can be easily explained outside of genetics (how do you know you weren't actually born slightly less intelligent, but with a little effort at an early age you completely overcame this disadvantage?).

Valmont wrote: »

Nonsense, there's no way of substantiating this whatsoever. The whole idea of a subconscious mind guiding us in the way you suggest is very outdated by the way.

I don't think so. Anyone who's ever tried to learn something they don't care about knows this is a lot harder than learning something you're genuinely interested in. Motivation is the important factor, and say what you like, but if you try and force yourself to be motivated you'll only have limited success. If we could, then we'd do it all the time and be super-productive because who wouldn't want to feel like they're doing something super-important most of the time?

That's why they someimes give ritalin and other such dopamergenic drugs to kids who they can't get to pay proper attention in school. It hi-jacks the brain's natural system for letting you know when to put in the work and when to not care.

You seem to be discounting any sort of natural ability whatsoever, is that right? Are you suggesting that intelligence is exclusively determined by the environment? Again, this is simply not the case. The case which is not my opinion, but a scientific fact.

I'm not discounting natural ability whatsoever. I just think the genetic difference between normal individuals is quite small, definitely not enough to make one person average and another gifted. If everyone was given the same advantages/ opportunities everyone would be operating within the same ball park. Granted some kids are going to be willing to put in more work than others and hence develop greater intellectual abilities, but this is a choice, not the result of being born more intelligent.

Overheal

5318008! wrote: »

I don't think the scenario i outlined was completely ficticious. I think it acurately describes the difference between many gifted children and their average peers at age 5. I wasn't using it as evidence for anything, i was just asking overheal could he not see how in a scenario like that the first child would be at a massive advantage.

Youre right, lets make it a law that Parents are either a) not allowed to teach their toddlers fcuk all about the world or b) Force parents to Homeschool their children starting from age 6 months.

Absurd theory One.

You know exactly that's not what i meant. You won't always have your parents around you and it doesn't make good evolutionary sense to be dependent on friends.

Which is Exactly why we are all single celled organisms.

Absurd Theory Two.

Obviously you were way more motivated to learn than the other kids. You were at a disadvantage coming in at the bottom of the class so you worked to rectify this.

So its a disadvantage to be a quick learner? Does that mean we should Identify smart students and enroll them in school a few years later than the other children so that they can "catch up"?

I don't think so. Anyone who's ever tried to learn something they don't care about knows this is a lot harder than learning something you're genuinely interested in. Motivation is the important factor, and say what you like, but if you try and force yourself to be motivated you'll only have limited success. If we could, then we'd do it all the time and be super-productive because who wouldn't want to feel like they're doing something super-important most of the time?

That's why they someimes give ritalin and other such dopamergenic drugs to kids who they can't get to pay proper attention in school. It hi-jacks the brain's natural system for letting you know when to put in the work and when to not care.

Government mandated Ritalin for all slow learners?

You should research Ritalin a bit.

I'm not discounting natural ability whatsoever. I just think the genetic difference between normal individuals is quite small, definitely not enough to explain the difference between a gited and average child. If everyone was given the same advantages/ opportunities everyone would be operating within the same ball park. Granted some kids are going to be willing to put in more work than others and hence develop greater intellectual abilities, but this is a choice, not the result of being born more intelligent.

When you give 3yrd old A and 3yr old B each a set of legos nobody tells them how to act. One of them builds a spaceship and the other builds color matching blocks.

You're really flying in the face of a century of psychology and genetics. But at least you appear to have a very strong interest in the field so why dont you do some actual research then get back to us.

Valmont

5318008! wrote: »

I think it acurately describes the difference between many gifted children and their average peers at age 5.

5318008! wrote: »

It hi-jacks the brain's natural system for letting you know when to put in the work and when to not care.

Source? Care to back this up with some experimental evidence? Care to elaborate on what you mean exactly?

5318008! wrote: »

Obviously you were way more motivated to learn than the other kids.

Again Boobies, you do not know this for certain, it is complete and utter speculation on your behalf and a HUGE generalisation. Will you please stop basing your arguments on such statements.

5318008! wrote: »

I just think the genetic difference between normal individuals is quite small, definitely not enough to make one person average and another gifted.

Unfortunately your thinking is at odds with science, yet again. If genes are enough to make us look different, why aren't they enough to make one person significantly more intelligent than the other? Give us some evidence that explains how an individuals genes do not go far in determining intellectual ability, not another "I think" post.

Valmont

Overheal wrote: »

You're really flying in the face of a century of psychology and genetics. But at least you appear to have a very strong interest in the field so why dont you do some actual research then get back to us.

Boobies, this pretty much sums up your entire, horribly opinionated argument.

I'm going to leave this thread with a quote from Confucius:

"If you know, to recognise that you know,
if you don't know, to realise that you
don't know: That is knowledge."

Insect Overlord

5318008! wrote: »

I'm not discounting natural ability whatsoever. I just think the genetic difference between normal individuals is quite small, definitely not enough to make one person average and another gifted. If everyone was given the same advantages/ opportunities everyone would be operating within the same ball park. Granted some kids are going to be willing to put in more work than others and hence develop greater intellectual abilities, but this is a choice, not the result of being born more intelligent.

Bullsh!t. Complete, total and utter crap.
Have you ever been in a classroom next to a child who really, really tries his best and still can't answer the questions his friends were answering a week earlier? What about the kid who spends her days looking out the window, but still learns the new story because she listens passively?
How about the teenager who can't stand going to school because the idiots in his class talk about how drunk they all got a few nights ago and got kicked out of a nightclub for harassing the bouncers, like it's the cleverest thing they've ever done?

Yes, weak learners can choose to work harder, but they can not choose to be more intelligent.
Yes, clever children can choose not to make a great effort, but (unless they hammer crayons up their noses) they cannot make themselves less intelligent.
People can and do suffer socially because they are exceptionally different from their peers, and no person would choose to go through this. Which brings us back to the point that some people can benefit greatly from keeping like-minded company in clubs such as Mensa.

5318008!

Valmont wrote: »

Source? Care to back this up with some experimental evidence? Care to elaborate on what you mean exactly?

Yes, methylphrenidate (ritalin) is well known to be a dopamine re-uptake inhibitor (just like cocaine) and it's also well known that dopamine has an important role in motivation and learning among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate

Unfortunately your thinking is at odds with science, yet again. If genes are enough to make us look different, why aren't they enough to make one person significantly more intelligent than the other? Give us some evidence that explains how an individuals genes do not go far in determining intellectual ability, not another "I think" post.

Intellectual ability is something you can work on (at least if you're young enough), beauty is not. Given the huge difference parenting can make in the final abilities of a child it seems clear that genetic differences are not as big a determinant as people give them credit for. From my own observations my "clever" friends all had these crucial envirmental differences that my "average" friends did not.

Overheal wrote: »

Youre right, lets make it a law that Parents are either a) not allowed to teach their toddlers fcuk all about the world or b) Force parents to Homeschool their children starting from age 6 months.

No, i think parents have every right to educate their children however they want (i'm libertarian). I'm just saying that the government should do something to make this knowledge available to more parents (afterall we want out citizens to all be as bright as possible). It shouldn't be a secret kept mostly within the middle classes.

Absurd theory One.
Which is Exactly why we are all single celled organisms.

There's a massive difference. There's 0 benifit to being dependant on friends, and it carries a massive risk, so unlike the evolution of multi-cellular organisms it does not make any evolutionary sense, especially when you could learn it yourself.

So its a disadvantage to be a quick learner? Does that mean we should Identify smart students and enroll them in school a few years later than the other children so that they can "catch up"?

wtf???

are you actually an idiot? or are you just completely misinterpreting my post to wind me up?

She was at a disadvantage because she didn't know these languages that her classmates did. She acted to rectify the situation and learnt the languages as fast as she could.

Government mandated Ritalin for all slow learners?

You should research Ritalin a bit.

Again, jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting my post. You're almost getting as bad as an file. I think no child should ever be given such powerful mind altering drugs unless it's a real extreme case. Could a 7 year old appreciate the concept of a comedown? Do the doctors who prescribe the stuff even know that it gives you a comedown?

I know a lot more about ritalin than most doctors.

I'm not going to get into this, but i think ritalin (not so much in ireland but definitely in other countries) is massively overprescribed. If someone actually had a problem with dopamine in their brain they'd be completely unmotivated about everything and you'd see it in all aspects of life. Granted some children genuinely do have such problems, but i think for most children a behavioural approach/trying to make develop an interest in school work would be a better approach.

When you give 3yrd old A and 3yr old B each a set of legos nobody tells them how to act. One of them builds a spaceship and the other builds color matching blocks.

Ficticious. I doubt this happens often in the real world. If so, incredibly rarely, and child A probably has autism or some other disadvantage.
If not you bet there's massive enviromental factors involved (and just because someone is in the same family does not mean they have the same enviroment. The sibling effect on iq is well documented).

johnny_knoxvile

5318008! wrote: »

I'm not discounting natural ability whatsoever. I just think the genetic difference between normal individuals is quite small, definitely not enough to make one person average and another gifted.

How do you then explain the entity that is Mary Harney?


...check-mate, your whole arguement just FAILED!

Overheal

Valmont wrote: »

Boobies, this pretty much sums up your entire, horribly opinionated argument.

I'm going to leave this thread with a quote from Confucius:

"If you know, to recognise that you know,
if you don't know, to realise that you
don't know: That is knowledge."

I think I'll get my coat too...play me some filler, Johnny!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY64meMb7-s

5318008!

An File wrote: »

Bullsh!t. Complete, total and utter crap.
Have you ever been in a classroom next to a child who really, really tries his best and still can't answer the questions his friends were answering a week earlier? What about the kid who spends her days looking out the window, but still learns the new story because she listens passively?
How about the teenager who can't stand going to school because the idiots in his class talk about how drunk they all got a few nights ago and got kicked out of a nightclub for harassing the bouncers, like it's the cleverest thing they've ever done?

Yes, weak learners can choose to work harder, but they can not choose to be more intelligent.
Yes, clever children can choose not to make a great effort, but (unless they hammer crayons up their noses) they cannot make themselves less intelligent.
People can and do suffer socially because they are exceptionally different from their peers, and no person would choose to go through this. Which brings us back to the point that some people can benefit greatly from keeping like-minded company in clubs such as Mensa.

I'm of the opinion that these differences are a lot more due to some people being more intellectually stimulated in their early years and not so much due to genetics.

If everyone got these same advantages and thus reached a simmilar range of intelligence then relatively speaking it would be a matter of choice.

I think you'll find most poor students don't have much of an interest in school, they lack the same natural motivation intelligent children have because they know they'll probably always be near the bottom of the class, so they'll always be secretly wishing they could be developing other skills.

Valmont

Boobies wrote:

I know a lot more about ritalin than most doctors.

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.

Mods, for the love of God, science, and rational debate, please delete this thread. I'm sure we could get boobies sectioned or something in return.

My name is URL

Valmont wrote: »

arguing ad nauseum

3 days ago was ad nauseum.

You're still arguing with him =p

Valmont

My name is URL wrote: »

3 days ago was ad nauseum.

You're still arguing with him =p

Whatever this is, it definitely isn't arguing.

5318008!

Valmont wrote: »

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.

What's so unbelievable than that? I'm not saying i know more about medicine than most doctors, just one particular drug out of thousands.

I have a particular interest in pharmacology and happen to have read up a lot about various mind altering drugs, and seeing as i know someone on ritalin, it is one of the drugs i have read most about.

Valmont

5318008! wrote: »

That's why they someimes give ritalin and other such dopamergenic drugs to kids who they can't get to pay proper attention in school. It hi-jacks the brain's natural system for letting you know when to put in the work and when to not care.

You don't know much about pharmacology either then. Wikipedia is great but I think you're taking it a bit far.

5318008!

Valmont wrote: »

You don't know much about pharmacology either then. Wikipedia is great but I think you're taking it a bit far.

I thought you were leaving?

Valmont

5318008! wrote: »

I never claimed to be an expert, but then again you shouldn't have to be an expert or even have done any formal study to have an opinion.

You're correct there, of course you're entitled to an opinion. The crucial mistake you won't acknowledge is that you're placing your uninformed individual opinion above and beyond a century of scientific evidence and that's why no one has actually agreed with you on any of your points.

Considering you have so many posts in this thread with so many basic logical errors with ridiculous assumptions underlying your arguments, it would take far too long for anyone, including myself to go through them all. Especially considering you have shown yourself to be possibly the worst ever arguer in the history of AH and to be completely impervious to reason.

5318008!

Valmont wrote: »

Whatever this is, it definitely isn't arguing.

care to back that up with evidence????????????

Overheal

5318008! wrote: »

care to back that up with evidence????????????

Arguments require logic.

Insect Overlord

Check mate.

5318008!

Valmont wrote: »

You're correct there, of course you're entitled to an opinion. The crucial mistake you won't acknowledge is that you're placing your uninformed individual opinion above and beyond a century of scientific evidence

please show me where? Do you remeber what my points were.

1. The concept of an overall "intelligence quotient" is flawed because many intellectual skills are not covered under iq tests even though they are included in many definitions of intelligence.

2. The concept of an overall "intelligence quotient" is flawed because there are too many intellectual skils to weigh up in determining this single number, and different people will have different opinions on how to weigh up these factors.

3. A high IQ doesn't correspond with being a genius, as someone could have amazing abilities in a certain set of skills, but be not so good in other skills which would drag their iq down. Also factors such as knowledge wisdom and creativity that go towards making a genius are not accounted for under iq tests. However many definitions of genius include references to intelligence.

4. The right enviroment has a massive impact on a childs intellectual capacities, and can overcome any slight genetic disadvantage small enough to not give a noticeable disability.

5. People are not just born gifted, it is something they have to work to achieve.

6.Given the right opportunities most children could achieve a level of intelligence considered today to be "gifted".

I don't see any of these points as going against scientific knowledge. All of this information i have picked up from mainstream media, so it obviously isn't blatantly wrong like you suggest.

Also;

7. All children should be given equal opportunities. This is a matter of opinion.

and that's why no one has actually agreed with you on any of your points.

I would see all these posts as agreeing with me on certain points. If one person is throwing their weight around a thread due to a formal qualification and being really agressive with the person they are debating with, you can understand why someone would chose not to post.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I would say that your parents' influence on you would be a huge factor in that. Not necessarily that they gave you extra help, but things like encouragement, the nature of their relationship, day to day conversations etc. I suspect someone moving to Malaysia from Ireland to work would be in an important position, highly educated and an extremely positive intellectual influence on their child

Re: CTYI, from an external point of view, I don't think it's for every gifted child, though perhaps I've only met a certain type of former CTYIer. I think it gives many people who've gone there an over inflated sense of their abilities compared to their non-CTYIer peers. They won't be necessarily very vocal about it, but you always sense it from them. I've also seen a good few who just can't seem to relate to their "normal" peers at all.

However, probably the most negative aspect of it I've seen is that with some it seems to foster sporadic, independent learning to the point where the person will lose interest in learning what's taught to them in school/college, which means they might have learned an incredibly impressive amount of stuff, but it's not what they're being examined on, and as a result, score poorly. It's quite a phenomenon, and is almost like a lack of discipline.

That said, I'm sure it's very positive for many kids who go there, and I wouldn't think it has such extreme effects on the majority of attendees.

We wrote: »

The idea being, there's no actual proof whether your 'good looking' at all, you merely have fulfilled this little quota, and is sufficient enough for your club to revere you as a handsome devil.

Its not a matter of jealousy, so please leave your bias out of this. Its a matter of labelling people as 'superior' because they may have a particular set of skills that may be of little to no use at all, and in no way represent superior intelligence.

People bash mensa for the same reason that people bash any association that claim things without sufficient evidence or justification.. Imho, for Mensa to claim that their members are above average in intelligence is pretty similar to religious people claiming they have a more developed sense of morality, an equally rediculous claim.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

IQ tests measure a certain type of intelligence. There's no disputing that IMO.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

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...

Considering you have so many posts in this thread with so many basic logical errors with ridiculous assumptions underlying your arguments, it would take far too long for anyone, including myself to go through them all. Especially considering you have shown yourself to be possibly the worst ever arguer in the history of AH and to be completely impervious to reason.

Impervious to reason?

Being learned in psychology i am sure you are familliar with the concept of projection.

Let me direct you to this post;

5318008! wrote: »

I've posted it below for added effect.

Instead of using reason, you just kept alluding to the fact that you have a qualification and are therefore right without ever needing to go any deeper.

Now. I didn't post all my points there as during such a long debate i'm sure i made a few. Please quote one of my points and tell me how it goes against 100 years of research?

Untill then, i'll make one more post and then i'm out. And unlike yourself, An File or Overheal (what with the video for dramatic effect, and then just joining back in as if nothing happened) my word actually means something.

5318008!

5318008! wrote: »

The whole concept of putting an objective number to intelligence is extremely flawed imo. It's like trying to put a number on coolness (the average mensa member has a C.Q of 65, well within the "retard" category ). Yes, you can get a rough idea of it, but you can't put a number on it. There's too many different factors involved. How do you weigh up each factor? Is verbal reasoning more or less important than spatial ability? If musical ability and maths use much of the same areas of the brain and a high score in one usually accompanies a higher than average score in the other, should we really count them as two fully seperate categories.

Valmont wrote: »

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 [URL="[URL]http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Psychometric-View-Paul-Kline/dp/0415055121"]one[/URL]
[/URL]. 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.

5318008! wrote: »

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).

Valmont wrote: »

aha, equally important to what? You're not being very specific here. Let me explain why they are equally balanced. If an individual were to score below 60 on the verbal scale, this would imply mental retardation. Now, the non-verbal scale is there to account for bias in terms of language, cultural, and educational factors that would adversely affect the measure of verbal I.Q.
So if the comparison reveals that an individuals non-verbal score is 100 compared to the 60 for verbal, it is then unlikely that the person is mentally retarded. This is simplified but gets the point across. See, if you had even read up the slightest bit on this before throwing around your opinions you would know this.

Again, your inchoate opinions of I.Q are leading you to completely ignore 100 years of scientific research and development into intelligence, what it is, and how to measure it. So it most definitely is not a matter of opinion. If you read my previous post about normative data you would see this. Now there are other accounts of intelligence, such as those proposed by [URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligences"]Howard[/URL] Gardner[/URL], but these don't offer us any viable means of assessment.

5318008! wrote: »

Let's pretend there's only two types of intelligence. a person scores 60 and 100. What should their overall intelligence quotient be given as? Different people will see them as having a different importances. So while the individual tests may be objective and accurate, the overall IQ given will be a subjective opinion.

Valmont wrote: »

That's it, make up a pretend, fallacious situation in order to support your already debunked point. Different people? Who? Provide evidence to back these points up please.
Test designers? Have you read the manual for the WAIS? Have you read the Mental Measurements Yearbooks reviews of the Stanford Binet? No. Then don't refer to what you think the test designers opinion is.

5318008! wrote: »

I've been trying to make the same common sense argument all along.I really shouldn't have to provide any evidence.
But here ya go;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence#Background

From Wikipedia wrote:

Determining whether men and women differ in average IQ has been difficult. It is easy to design an IQ test in which either males or females score higher on average, by selecting different tests or giving them different weights, so the question boils down to which weights the different tests should have for the g factor. For example, when the [URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford-Binet_test"]Stanford-Binet[/URL] test[/URL] was revised in the 1940s, preliminary tests yielded a slightly higher average IQ for women, a discrepancy attributed to a greater than usual emphasis on [URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verbal_ability&action=edit&redlink=1"]verbal[/URL] ability[/URL]. The test was subsequently adjusted to give identical averages for men and women.[URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence#cite_note-0"][1][/URL[/URL]]

Clearly someone attatches differing weights to each aspect of intelligence. How much weight each aspect of intelligence should get is a subjective opinion. Therefore an overall Intelligence Quotient can only be subjective.
If you cannot follow this logic then sorry, all hope is lost.

Valmont wrote: »

...

Good day.

Insect Overlord

5318008! wrote:

wtf???

are you actually an idiot? or are you just completely misinterpreting my post to wind me up?

This quote annoyed me...

5318008! wrote:

Again, jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting my post. You're almost getting as bad as an file.

This quote pissed me off...

5318008! wrote: »

Untill then, i'll make one more post and then i'm out. And unlike yourself, An File or Overheal (what with the video for dramatic effect, and then just joining back in as if nothing happened) my word actually means something.

And this one actually insulted me. Reported.

dr.bollocko

Boobies guy banned.
I see very little reason to keep this thread open.

javaboy

It's just like that Mensa episode of the Simpsons. It just ended in petty fighting.

dr.bollocko

I'm making such great time.
If only I had some place to go.