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
Yes, the education system needs needs changing. I'm not against streamed classes or anything. I'm just against telling children they're inherantly gifted and giving them special treatment (i deal with this later on).
But if you had everyone constantly praising your intelligence (and not anyone else's- even when siblings or friends are present)! Then yeah, there's a good chance it'd go to your head (also see 2 points below).
I agree. But if you tell someone at that age that they were born extra talented, how are they not supposed to feel a bit superior?
As I mentioned earlier, your argument is based on the assumption that some individuals might take praise too seriously and let it go to their heads. There is no concrete proof than all people will act in this way in this situation; some will, some won't. I have to echo Overheal's point: There are some elitist douchebags out there, but there are also humble prodigies. Its unfair to label all High IQ people with one large brush. Just because a student attends a Gifted Education Progrom does not make them arrogant. Your apparent failure to take this on board is frustrating.Why not tell them what i consider to be the truth; that they have developed some good/great talents, and they now hold an advantage over their peers because of it, and if they keep developing their talents they might end up doing something really great with them.
I fail to see how a change in semantics changes the meaning behind the message. You are against the idea of telling a child that he/she is naturally gifted, that much is clear. But how would one explain to them that they have developed an advantage, one which their peers have failed to develop despite similar conditions? Surely there has to be some natural talent working in conjunction with favourable nurturing conditions. In which case, they still get the message that they have some innate "advantage".
I admire your advocation of equal opportunities for all children, no matter what their ability. This is something that is constantly reiterated to student teachers, that every child in a classroom is entitled to the best possible education. It should not matter what nationality, creed, social class, economic background, special needs or individual strengths are present, so long as everybody is treated fairly and equally by the establishment.I dissagree. I think all children should be given equal opportunities. I'm not saying we should ignore intelligent children, but i don't think we should give them special treatment to the detriment of other children.
Where my opinion differs from yours in this respect is in relation to "special treatment at the detriment of others". Many highly intelligent children experience conditions detrimental to their education simply because their teachers have to give equal (and usually greater) attention to the less able children in their classes. I know you have suggested that they can learn just as well in their own time, but that is not always true: many parents do not have the knowledge, skills or resources to foster their children's abilities to the fullness of their potential. Programmes like CTYI can give these children access to the resources they need to keep them from being failed in the regular education system.
You should take into account the fact that there are proportionately far more people in the "reasonably high intelligence" bracket than in the "exceptional" bracket. The fact that there are relatively so few true genii should be explanation enough for their rarety in the public eye.#I don't think the difference between someone with an IQ of 131 and someone else with an IQ of 121 is so large that it warrants the kid with the 131 iq being given a massive advantage. Due to IQ tests being limited in what they test for, the child with an iq of 121 could easily have way more potential than the kid with 131. If you look at people who achieve great things you'll see that their IQs although reasonably high, are usually not in the "genius" range and maybe not even in the "gifted" range. We should spread out resources as fairly as possible.
edit:Overheal wrote:For the love of Hitler quit assuming differently.
Nice work on the Godwin Overheal
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm not neccesarily saying that teachers say it to them, but I do believe that being told they are inherantly special could help someone develop such an attitude. I know one guy who seemed fine, then he got accepted into ctyi and suddenly developed this "gods and clods" attitude.you automatically assume that an ESE class consists of a teacher telling gifted students day in and day out that they are superior beings, instilling them with nazi ideals.
Its simply not the case.
In fact,
"Why not tell them what i consider to be the truth; that they have developed some good/great talents, and they now hold an advantage over their peers because of it, and if they keep developing their talents they might end up doing something really great with them."
Thats exactly what happens. For the love of Hitler quit assuming differently. You do not have all of the facts.
No I'm not. I was using that point in another argument about the inherant flaws with trying to represent such a wide variety of skills acuurately in a single "intelligence quotient".No you're arguing someone with more musical talent but poor verbal IQ should be admitted into the gifted program. Sure that child can learn a lot more from the music classes (an Extra Curricular activity whichever way you swing it) but they will also fail to grasp the core curriculum and hence advance to further grades - its a waste of resources. IQ tests for the rate at which a child can learn, not their extra curricular talents.
I did music in a place supposedly for children with exceptional musical talent. Although, in fairness, I don't think it was that hard to get into. Strange though, for entrance they tested your musical abilities and not anything else. Ponder on this;
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?As I mentioned earlier, your argument is based on the assumption that some individuals might take praise too seriously and let it go to their heads. There is no concrete proof than all people will act in this way in this situation; some will, some won't. I have to echo Overheal's point: There are some elitist douchebags out there, but there are also humble prodigies. Its unfair to label all High IQ people with one large brush. Just because a student attends a Gifted Education Progrom does not make them arrogant. Your apparent failure to take this on board is frustrating.
What apparent failure? I never tarred all of any group with the same brush. I insisted from my very first post that "most of them [people who went to ctyi] aren't like this (or are only to a small degree)". So stop claiming i said stuff i didn't.
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.I fail to see how a change in semantics changes the meaning behind the message. You are against the idea of telling a child that he/she is naturally gifted, that much is clear. But how would one explain to them that they have developed an advantage, one which their peers have failed to develop despite similar conditions? Surely there has to be some natural talent working in conjunction with favourable nurturing conditions. In which case, they still get the message that they have some innate "advantage".
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.
-now that's not to say we should do this if we can, many people believe childhood should be fun and obviously a balance needs to be struck. I think giving children the tools and encouragement to learn independantly in their own time is the best way to do this.
streaming.I admire your advocation of equal opportunities for all children, no matter what their ability. This is something that is constantly reiterated to student teachers, that every child in a classroom is entitled to the best possible education. It should not matter what nationality, creed, social class, economic background, special needs or individual strengths are present, so long as everybody is treated fairly and equally by the establishment.
Where my opinion differs from yours in this respect is in relation to "special treatment at the detriment of others". Many highly intelligent children experience conditions detrimental to their education simply because their teachers have to give equal (and usually greater) attention to the less able children in their classes.
I said learn independantly, not learn through parentsI know you have suggested that they can learn just as well in their own time, but that is not always true: many parents do not have the knowledge, skills or resources to foster their children's abilities to the fullness of their potential.
For reasons i have already outlined i highly doubt that anyone in ctyi has parents who are lacking in the fostering talent division.Programmes like CTYI can give these children access to the resources they need to keep them from being failed in the regular education system.
Point noted. However there are plenty going by the IQ definition of genius and there are not many people considered truly great.You should take into account the fact that there are proportionately far more people in the "reasonably high intelligence" bracket than in the "exceptional" bracket. The fact that there are relatively so few true genii should be explanation enough for their rarety in the public eye.#
But moreso; Someone might have the exact right combination of analytical ability and creativity (and a reasonable proficiency in other skills) to allow them to do truly wonderful things for society, while another person might be really good verbally, mathematically, spatially ect. and have a massive IQ but not be in a position to be anywhere near as brilliant. I think this answers people's questions on "if everyone in mensa is so smart why don't they ever do anything for the world?"
People have different skills, and an overall IQ is too vague to account for this. Different combinations of skills are needed to suceed in different fields, and having a high IQ does not neccesarily mean you posses this right combination of skills to be successful.
In the scenario outlined above i know exactly what set of skills i'd rather have
! 0 -
-
And what does any of that have to do with Mensa?
Not a lot, I do mention them somewhere near the end though
...
In fairness, this whole argument was always off topic
.
and valmount;
:rolleyes:
If you can't attack his argument (i'm only talking about one specific point here, not my entire argument), attack his technique , failing that; attack him! 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
If you can't attack his argument (i'm only talking about one specific point here, not my entire argument), attack his technique , failing that; attack him!
I did attack your bloody argument, several times, you didn't respond. Your entire argument on this thread is based on a whole range of unsubstantiated opinions which are based on cloudy assumptions and presuppositions that you have repeatedly failed to back up or elaborate upon when requested to do so. Add to that the fact that you are completely unwilling to learn, to acknowledge your ignorance, or to engage in a meaningful discussion. Also your opinions fly in the face of over 100 years of research in psychometrics and again, this hasn't dissuaded you one bit.
I decided to stop arguing with you in a protest against nonsense and because I don't like the sensation that I'm in some nightmarish Kafka novel. Am I?0 -
-
-
-
Is it a scientifically verified fact that the type of intelligence measured by IQ tests cannot be increased through practice?
I know Mensa claim that intelligence is constant and never lost or gained (as a result of my 156 score on an IQ test at 12, 8 years ago, I can still join Mensa without having to ever take another test), but I think that's bollocks.
The guy above proves what somebody in this topic said before: those with great intelligence often do not amount to much. (He is a moderator on an internet forum.)*
*This is a joke. Please don't ban me.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 28648
candlegrease wrote: »The guy above proves what somebody in this topic said before: those with great intelligence often do not amount to much. (He is a moderator on an internet forum.)*
*This is a joke. Please don't ban me.
It's sad that so many people have no idea what exactly the role of forum moderator entails. Overheal, link your n00bz thread please! 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
sigh. Again?It's sad that so many people have no idea what exactly the role of forum moderator entails. Overheal, link your n00bz thread please!
I wish I had it as a smiley. like :nooblink:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055461510
and oh yeah: I might at some stage join mensa for kicks and giggles. But I'll sooner do a 1yr sub to boards and its just not in the budget right now :pac:0 -
What?candlegrease wrote: »The guy above proves what somebody in this topic said before: those with great intelligence often do not amount to much. (He is a moderator on an internet forum.)*
*This is a joke. Please don't ban me.
You think this is my job? lmao.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
@Valmont. I think you'll find that's just not the case;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.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).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 Howard Gardner, but these don't offer us any viable means of assessment.
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.
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.
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#BackgroundFrom 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 Stanford-Binet test 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 verbal ability. The test was subsequently adjusted to give identical averages for men and women.[1]
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.... 0 -
Advertisement
-
Please ignore the above post if you are not valmont.Is it a scientifically verified fact that the type of intelligence measured by IQ tests cannot be increased through practice?
I know Mensa claim that intelligence is constant and never lost or gained (as a result of my 156 score on an IQ test at 12, 8 years ago, I can still join Mensa without having to ever take another test), but I think that's bollocks.
Proponents of the "use it or lose it" theory of synaptic pruning seem to suggest that if you stop using certain areas of your brain as much during your teenage years, you could expect your IQ to drop.
Also this very contoversial study seems to suggest IQ could change over time;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm
The jist of it being that from the age of 14 onwards boys gain a slight advantage over girls iq wise (or at least in the tests they did).
I'd tend to agree with you, although i can see why mensa would dissagree. Imagine the embarrasment a veteran member would suffer if they were actually thrown out of mensa?
ps. I'd thank your post but it might seem a little cheeky :P.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement