IQ question (degrees, master, geology, biology)

[MobiusStrip]

IvoryTickler, I actually do worry more about helping my children develop character traits that will stand them in good stead in life. I am a college drop out too. Don't know my IQ but presumably from SAT/GRE (when I had aspirations of graduate school) it's 150ish (it's probably not really quite that high - I was on my math team in high school and took three years of Latin, neither of which hurt my scores!) I've made some decidedly not smart decisions in life though now am blessed with a challenging job that I love. I know well about being smart and making stupid life choices. I want better for my kids.

We'll see what the future holds. I know very little about the siblings but according to the egg donor, the half siblings are very bright kids (she was a friend of the family who donated the embryos so had no incentive to exaggerate.) I wish I knew more as the siblings are something of a glimpse into the future - the oldest full sibling is about 17 now and a couple of sets of twins are younger (embryo recipient had second set). Maybe one day.

[LauraC]

I'm 61 years old. No one has ever asked me about my IQ score. I only know what it is because my mother asked the high school guidance counselor for it. I took the test when I was 12. The score is meaningless if no one asks for it.

I can tell who is intelligent by how they apply what they know.

[Swack]

Originally Posted by MobiusStrip

Swack, I asked for the comparison because I wondered how significant 14 weeks is now though it's hard to say since they topped the test out based on the supposition that they had reached term - at least 9 points difference, apparently, though I know with time the 14 weeks will matter less and less in terms of IQ calculations (not that I plan to have them tested again till we have a real need).

They are considered caught up physically by 2 only because the difference in age has become less significant, not because they have truly caught up. Re the article, yes, I wish it had more answers rather than opening the door to more questions. Still, what a hopeful, exciting read for preemie parents. There are some discouraging studies on preterm brains in older kids like these: Effects of Preterm Birth on Cortical Thickness Measured in Adolescence Grey and white matter distribution in very preterm ado... [Brain. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI and Visual and visuocognitive development in chil... [Prog Brain Res. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI. So you can see that they may be labeled "caught up" developmentally, but are they ever? Will my son always struggle more in areas of self-control and frustration threshold (if indeed these issues are caused by prematurity and not just part of being a three year old boy). I wish there were some more definitive research. I just treat my kids like normal 3 year olds and hope I am doing right by them though this snippet "The premature group as a whole showed significant deficits on both auditory and visual tests of attention and attentional control from the TEA-Ch battery, on tests of location memory, block construction and on many visuocognitive and visuomotor tests." makes me want to learn more about these areas and what I can do to enhance my children's skills should we have shortfalls in these areas. Too many questions, not enough answers.

MobiousStrip that is precisely why 2 is set as the marker for physical catchup growth. The difference becomes negligible by the age of 2 and it is at this point that preemies can be switched over to standard growth charts. As for cognitive testing, as I stated before, there is no known age we set for "catchup."

Your children are nearly 4 and they not only do not show signs of neurodevelopmental delay, they in fact appear quite precocious. You are lucky! Their risk of developing any future delays is neglible at this point. The only thing I would still worry about is them developing ADHD. However if they have not shown signs of ADHD by the ages 5-6, you are probably in the clear.

[Rubi3]

150 IQ is being bandied about as if it is commonplace, which it is not. Last I heard, if a child has an unusually high IQ in childhood, doesn't mean it will be that way as an adult. During my two children's growing up years, very little time was spent being concerned about their intellect once it was verified in their early months they weren't challenged. I still don't know their IQ and they've both been adults for many years. My daughter is happily married with 2 children and my son has an excellent job in a large corporation. There were probably times my parents thought I might be a nit-wit and at times I have been.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by packer43064

Kids are tested as "gifted". This sounds like a fool-proof system.

That's the way it works. I didn't invent the system.

[Lorelilly]

Originally Posted by MobiusStrip

I asked a question related to IQ on a local thread but have a general question. I understand that a person with a 160 IQ is way less common than a person with a 150 IQ (pretend for the sake of this thread that IQ's are relatively static and actually are the perfect measure of a person's intellect). But how different are they from one another? Are they really any more different than a person with an IQ of 110 is from a person with an IQ of 100? I am still trying to digest my kids' recent scores (which as they are young may well not yet be predictive of future scores and certainly not of future success or happiness). Is the difference in learning styles between profoundly gifted and exceptionally gifted students going to make such a difference in the education appropriate to each? What are your thoughts if this is an area familiar to you?

I wouldn't worry about IQ tests now or maybe ever. What you may want to do is pick 1 or 2 of your kids teachers and open a dialogue with them and check in every month or so. The teachers will be the best barometer to follow. If your school has a Talented and Gifted program the teachers will be the ones that recommend that as well.

The BEST thing you can do for your child is give them the love of books. Start them young and just keep feeding that love. Make sure you get them a library card, yesterday, and take them their often. A Kindle is nice but nothing should replace the actual trip to the Library on a Saturday morning. Out library is beautiful. The actual brick and mortar, the smell, the quiet, the way a book feels when you hold it and the sight of all those books is truly amazing to young kids and creates memories that last forever not to mention bonding at it's best.

There is the concern of "book smart" versus "common sense" so....as long as your kid isn't running into walls and they know how to get home from 2 blocks away, set your GPS and head to the nearest book place.

[Woof]

Nothing special need be done for high IQ kids, other than helping them pursue whatever they're interested in. Genius can't be frustrated - if it is, it never was real genius to begin with.

[tvdxer]

Originally Posted by Rubi3

150 IQ is being bandied about as if it is commonplace, which it is not. Last I heard, if a child has an unusually high IQ in childhood, doesn't mean it will be that way as an adult. During my two children's growing up years, very little time was spent being concerned about their intellect once it was verified in their early months they weren't challenged. I still don't know their IQ and they've both been adults for many years. My daughter is happily married with 2 children and my son has an excellent job in a large corporation. There were probably times my parents thought I might be a nit-wit and at times I have been.

An IQ of 150 is rare enough to make a person the smartest out of 2,330 peers (assuming that their representation is equivalent to the IQ test). Certainly not "common". A child tested with this IQ would almost surely cognitively outshine their peers as an adult, unless something traumatic happened to their brain, such as a gunshot wound, stroke, or major blow to the head, perhaps resulting from an accident stunt-riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Even then those with brain injuries who had higher premorbid intelligence tend to have higher post-morbid intelligence in relation to their cognitively inferior counterparts.

I've read that an IQ of 120 (91st percentile) is sufficient for any occupation, but IQ scores are actually a composite of several subtest scores given during the test session, and sometimes these vary considerably, which could have an impact on what occupations a person with an IQ of 120 or 130 could competitively possess.

[MobiusStrip]

My niece's IQ was actually tested by her school (I don't know which test) to be 152 when she was about 8. She is very, very bright and her small school provides little challenge for her - at 15, she has never made less than an A and typically gets 100s on almost everything. And my daughter is ahead of where my niece was at this age. It will be interesting to see what the future holds!

[nald]

"IQ measurements" are rather measurements of knowledge instilled into your children, NOT real "intelligence measurements". Real intelligence measurement would require your children to be put into something completely new to them and then watch them solve the problems that they aren't familiar at all... and then compare the results with others. IQ of 100 thus measures about average knowledge on certain topics that the IQ quiz searches for.
You may be inclined to think that IQ test results are "hereditary" but they are not. Best proof would be to compare how well do adopted children fare compare to orphaned children who weren't adopted. Notice how parents tend to deliberately lie about it, either to themselves or to the community when their child scores great and achieves media attention - they always want to act like "it's in the genes". But you'll never see someone at random there - those are usually children of influential lawyers, doctors, etc. The key for your child's success is how you motivate it to learn and avoid environment (most notably school environment, because it is definitely horrid, both the problematic children and the most of the teachers) from demotivating your child. If your child stays motivated and keeps learning, it will reach full potential (or close to it, regarding various circumstances). If the child is demotivated in the process and strays, you need to set it back on track while it's still doable. In young age you need to instill a habit for them to learn and be eager to better themselves, to be the winners - most parents selectively approach their children and they cannot care less, they often neglect their child when the child seems not to be ideal or because they cannot identify themselves with their child, they are frustrated and then they channel their frustration into their child's future shortcomings, problem becomes bigger with years until the children simply become accustomed to failure, worst individuals will then turn into very problematic personalities to compensate and "achieve" something in their lives on the other fields... usually the bad ones.

Real IQ test is rather involving tinkering a practictical solution how to light a fire when you don't know anything about it - too bad all the children know about it today, thus the "fire test" won't work. It sometimes involves pure theoretical creativity while sometimes it involves pure practical creativity, and it usually involves both. However, even though practical creativity should be held much more important, in reality the academic society tends to evaluate "theory" (even though science demands practical proof/experiment to evaluate some theory as relevant) above everything else. I.e. Einstein is praised for his theoretical approach even though his theory may become obsolete within next 200 years, while his practical creativity (photoelectric effect) seems to be devaluated by the same people who praise him. Similar is with Tesla, the guy who is arguably greatest inventor and mind of all times (invented X-rays before Rontgen, telephone before Marconi, we use his numerous inventions and society is still to catch up with his revolutionary inventions in the fields of electricity and radio-technics, he invented mobile phone protorypes in the early 20th century, was the first one to deliberately send messages to extra-terrestrials, we still use altering current and his concepts are what is running this resource-hungry society even today).
Society as a whole though works differently - this is why most of the academical knowledge is useless to future students and they get to know real, practical knowledge and tend to value it if they want to stay in the workforce. However, society as a whole will rather be beneficiary to practical inventors who are good with charging their inventions. When Tesla is mentioned, he was an autist person who never was good with social aspect or how to charge his inventions (he was a visionary and a communist to the core and he believed that his inventions shouldn't be charged much because it'll stunt society's advancement), while mr Edison often stole his inventions and employed thousands of other smart people to "invent" things on his behalf, he was more of a businessman type and he became enormously wealthy.

So if you want to measure IQ and think of it as a future pointer of your child's success... you need to take many aspects into consideration. Bottom line is - "child geniuses" are generally faux stories, and you shouldn't bother yourself with it. But it's a good indication how well you positioned your child towards the future success within few years. If your child does well - great. If it doesn't do well - you need to give it more attention. Keep attention to the fact that some children get "overconfident" over time because they indeed think that their success is the result of natural talent and that household's influence has nothing to do with it.

Like someone said - you shouldn't worry about your children's IQ as long as they aren't mentally challenged. Anyways, very few folks are indeed "inventing something relevant" when compared to the general population, thus knowledge plays far greater role. That being said, knowledge plays less role while accessibility and ability to find relevant information plays more and more prominent role, while society puts abstract (and outdated) ways to cope with the issue - they require you "a relevant diploma" regardless of its true usefulness. Thus diplomas play prominently more and more role to it, while their usefulness factor tends to be less and less of an impact on person's capabilities than it was before - if you'll be honest with yourself you'll realize that we have google and yahoo and all the other web tools and our mobile phones can serve us as a walking encyclopedias if we're just averagely good with out search and averagely good with learning and reading what we find, so we don't need a brainiac with huge glasses anymore (ahem, stereotype, sorry), while society tends to put more and more emphasis on mere paper certificate issued by the state and more and more workplaces (at least government-ran workplaces) now require some education certificate, to the point of a burden to the workforce. This is also the reason why more and more people are entering universities, to obtain those papers, thus devaluating the diplomas in the process - but since you have to have it, you'll still do it because it is very relevant factor (and a great way to cover a hole in your CV, at least before you hit 30 y/o mark).