Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Charles Murray argues that the most intellectually able should have their abilities both challenged and nurtured - for their own sakes and for society's, as well:
"The problem with the education of the gifted involves not their professional training, but their training as citizens. We live in an age when it is unfashionable to talk about the special responsibility of being gifted, because to do so acknowledges inequality of ability, and this sounds elitist."
Intriguing. I'll just throw this out there as well - we should be validating and nurturing the gifted in multiple endeavors, not just the academically gifted as assessed by IQ testing. If that sounds like I'm channeling Gardner, it's because I am.
Intriguing. I'll just throw this out there as well - we should be validating and nurturing the gifted in multiple endeavors, not just the academically gifted as assessed by IQ testing. If that sounds like I'm channeling Gardner, it's because I am.
We already nurture gifts in many non-academic areas - athletics first and foremost among them. Both music and art get more support than other areas, as well, even if they often get short-changed compared to the general program.
As for Gardner - he of the 'marketing intelligence' - the number of meaningful programs for intrapersonal intelligence that have been developed is... negligible. And I agree it would be good to have.
Charles Murray argues that the most intellectually able should have their abilities both challenged and nurtured - for their own sakes and for society's, as well:
"The problem with the education of the gifted involves not their professional training, but their training as citizens. We live in an age when it is unfashionable to talk about the special responsibility of being gifted, because to do so acknowledges inequality of ability, and this sounds elitist."
I agree with this but there are also very intelligent people with "regular" and low IQs and I feel they should be included as well.
When I was about 12 or 13 I took an IQ test and it was a 113 but it said the test was designed for people over 18 and the results may be flawed for people under 18.
I know this is unrelated but is a 113 IQ low, regular, or high?
I agree with this but there are also very intelligent people with "regular" and low IQs and I feel they should be included as well.
When I was about 12 or 13 I took an IQ test and it was a 113 but it said the test was designed for people over 18 and the results may be flawed for people under 18.
I know this is unrelated but is a 113 IQ low, regular, or high?
A score of 100 is the 50th percentile, meaning half of the scores are above and half are below, and standard deviation is 15, which means a score of 115 would be higher than about 85% of the scores. Your 113 would have had a margin of error plus or minus a few points.
A score of 100 is the 50th percentile, meaning half of the scores are above and half are below, and standard deviation is 15, which means a score of 115 would be higher than about 85% of the scores. Your 113 would have had a margin of error plus or minus a few points.
Thanks for explaining that to me, I really didn't know if it was high or low.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.