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.
You just used actual numbers and applied logic to it in a correct fashion....I'm not sure which one but I was beginning to wonder if that was against the TOS around here.
Well yes. I never said you couldn't *practice* for the test. That absolutely helps. But you're not being tested on what you memorized from history class.
Honestly, I think all of the test prep type things like you listed, at an early age, actually strengthen the brain. I would bet good money that science will eventually show that much that stuff you did to game the test actually made your kids legitimately smarter in the long run. I know all ya'll CPSObsessed folks think you're "cheating", but I think your just ahead of traditional science at figuring out the real ways to manipulate intelligence in early childhood. That's my personal opinion anyhow.
I know... I was just trying to clarify for other poster the types of info I remembered being on the test, at least the student test.
I agree that all the prepping doesn't hurt, but I also think it skews the results, since they (and a small subset of students) "crammed" for the test, and theoretically (according to Stanford I think) this test material exposure should invalidate the results. BTW, we also did every one of the other things you listed... early foreign language, early music, playing a complicated instrument, etc... but we did that for the love of it.
I still think childhood IQ testing is a game known and played by the few (yet affects publicly funded opportunities for many), which is why I think it treads on the slippery slope of ethics.. And you're right, I do think many things in life are games, and systems to be manipulated...
Please realize that all of the points you posted from Maintsteam Science on Intelligence support the argument I was making.
They don't, actually. The post you were responding to in the quote of yours I responded to asked whether IQ is fixed throughout one's lifetime. The list on links you provided were on that topic. The points I posted from the Mainstream Science on Intelligence paper were clearly in conflict with the idea that intelligence is fluid to any significant extent throughout life:
"IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter"
Some of my motivation in posting about the Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement was simply to show that experts in a field often hold views that are contrary to a single or even multiple sources found on the internet. Experts are in a position to look at all evidence and form an educated opinion; anyone with Google can find a single source. A lot of people in this thread seem to enjoy being in the latter group, and I was directing much of my comment toward the entire forum, not you. I suppose I should have clarified that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5
Heritablilty of intelligence in early childhood is estimated at .4, and then in adulthood at .8. Which means, in early childhood, the variability in IQ is about 40% due to genetics, and in adulthood, the variability in IQ is about 80% due to genetics. Which completely supports what I said. Environment can affect IQ (apparently up to 60% of variability can be attributed to environment) as a young child, but IQ stabilizes as you get older.
Yes, I agree with all of this. However, I'm not certain that there is accurate knowledge on how to affect the environment in such a way as to produce higher IQs. I read the rest of your post (that I haven't quoted here), and while I'm certain that there is some positive mental effect produced by doing those things, I'm not sure they can reliably produce higher IQs. Perhaps, but I'd like to see a study of some sort on it.
Personally, I would be surprised if there is anything an ambitious parent can do above and beyond what is considered normal parenting that would raise IQ scores more than a few points. That doesn't mean that there is no benefit to certain activities, but I don't imagine they have a major effect on IQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
You don't need a high IQ to understand theoretical physics. Big leaps and discoveries haven't been apart of science in quite some time.
You don't need a high IQ to understand higher mathematics. You don't need it to solve equations in physics. You don't really need a high IQ to be proficient in any of the hard sciences.
Understand abstract concepts and being able to repent it mathematically is the biggest key. But all of this can be learned by anyone. I'm pretty sure I could teach a 10 year old calculus if you presented the concepts in more abstract real world terms.
The reason why everyone isn't proficient in hard sciences is because the way hard sciences are taught. They're almost always taught to emphasize rote learning. Which is probably what IQ test measure. That's raw memorization.
And in the real world there is nothing even remotely as complicated as theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is something that could be understood by anyone.
I'm also not sure how smart you have to be to be a Philosopher. all you need is an opinion on something. I don't think having an opinion about the world around you takes an enormous IQ
1. You didn't answer my question: Is it just a coincidence that the top 10 physicists in the world and the top 10 philosophers in the world probably all have IQs that are well above the mean -- likely 150 or higher? If it is not a coincidence, can it be said that there is no function for such a high IQ in certain fields?
2. One may be able to understand calculus with a moderate IQ. One probably can't be a mathematical pioneer with a moderate IQ. Newton likely had a very high IQ. High school students across America regularly learn the same things Newton discovered. Does that make them as smart as Newton?
3. I'm not sure you understand what philosophy is.
4. IQ tests certainly don't measure memorization ability. Any glance at a real IQ test would clear that up.
You don't need a high IQ to understand theoretical physics. Big leaps and discoveries haven't been apart of science in quite some time.
You don't need a high IQ to understand higher mathematics. You don't need it to solve equations in physics. You don't really need a high IQ to be proficient in any of the hard sciences.
This is a huge pile.
I took modern physics in college. With a half-dozen university-level math courses, I could crank through the homework and get good grades but there is no way in the world I actually understood quantum mechanics and relativity the way I can internalize Newtonian physics. A 1975-era 730 Math SAT score isn't enough mental horsepower. The people who can truly comprehend that stuff get an 800 and can't be accurately measured on an IQ test. I do things professionally where I encounter those people occasionally. As Clint said, "A man's got to know his limitations."
When I'm screening new grads from less selective schools for tech jobs, I ask their SAT Math score. A lot of people administer a quick IQ "aptitude" test but I've found that most candidates will cough up their score and not lie about it. From a transcript, you can make some good guesses about work ethic but they don't say much about whether the person is intelligent enough to be highly productive. The output of the 125+ IQ candidate is far higher than the 110 IQ candidate assuming the same work ethic and social skills. I don't get to see the 145+ ones. They're siphoned off into fields with much higher top-end compensation.
I really hate responses like this. Taluffen wasn't making a personal complaint about his or her own prospects in life. He or she was commenting on the possible outcomes of the thing we're discussing in this thread. I see this tactic in political debates all the time. If a liberal says something defending social safety nets, a conservative might respond with "Well how about you work hard and get a job so that you don't need that net?" even though the conservative has no idea what the liberal's actual status in life is. Simply because a person is commenting on ideas or a process doesn't mean that person would currently be a recipient of some change he or she is suggesting.
Here we go again: Thoroughly incoherent, yet excellently(?) written. C+
IQ can be objectively calculated as well. There is nothing subjective about IQ.
IQ is mostly a product of what a person is born with.
The SAT only covers basic subject matter. Being in advanced courses in high school won't help a student do better on the SAT. The SAT is a reasoning test. The goal is to test content that everyone should know but to do it in a manner that requires reasoning skills. As such, it is a good proxy for IQ.
I don't think anyone would suggest that IQ is indicative of skills and abilities. It is probably useful to have a high IQ if one wants to learn to be a pilot, though. A sufficiently high IQ gets one into the party, but it doesn't mean he or she knows how to dance.
I'm not sure what you think "political correctness" means, but we may have different definitions. I don't think telling kids they are "dumb as a box of rocks" is a good thing to do. Does that make me too PC?
Let me guess: You're a Trump fan?
Brain surgeons definitely have an IQ hurdle to overcome in order to get into their profession. The MCAT is a very good IQ proxy, and there is no doubt that admission to medical school in general serves as an IQ hurdle. I would imagine there is something similar for pilots.
The plural of anecdotes isn't "data." There is no question that certain minority groups have a lower average IQ. That doesn't mean there aren't some extremely intelligent folks in those groups.
Malcolm Gladwell discussed much of this same concept in Outliers: Small differences that can mean selection into an advanced track can produce big differences in the long run. I think that some differentiation of curriculum based on IQ is a good thing. I think that can be taken too far, although I suspect the net effect of it is positive.
But the fact of life remains: You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But you can knock yourself out trying, I guess.
BTW, the MCAT is a test not so much separating "IQ" as it is a way of assessing an individual's ability to do well on a standardized test - specifically, those tests you take in med school, and the tests you'll take for licensing and board certification - they are (necessarily, you understand) standardized. I know some very brilliant people who couldn't get into med school simply because though brilliant, standardized tests were not their forte. They would be unlikely to do well in med school, let alone ever get board certified.
Off-topic, but the recent movie Joy seemed a very good example of someone who was just naturally brilliant at abstract thinking. I mean, who comes up with over 100 patents single-handedly in one lifetime? How can anyone argue that there isn't an element of natural ingenuity to that?
But the fact of life remains: You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But you can knock yourself out trying, I guess.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinbrookNine
BTW, the MCAT is a test not so much separating "IQ" as it is a way of assessing an individual's ability to do well on a standardized test - specifically, those tests you take in med school, and the tests you'll take for licensing and board certification - they are (necessarily, you understand) standardized. I know some very brilliant people who couldn't get into med school simply because though brilliant, standardized tests were not their forte. They would be unlikely to do well in med school, let alone ever get board certified.
The MCAT is in no way like med school tests or board tests. The MCAT is a reasoning test that takes basic science knowledge and tests the person's ability to reason with that basic information. As a result, it correlates very well with IQ -- some sections more than others. The "ability to do well on a standardized test" is IQ for most standardized tests.
I suspect there are very few people who are extremely intelligent but just happen to be bad at standardized tests. I accept that learning disabilities and perhaps certain actual psychological issues could cause that, but being able to solve problems on most standardized tests is very much an indicator of intelligence.
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.
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.
