![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 19 to 43 of 66. Go back in thread:
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:51:57
In reply to Re: Please be kind? » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:43:08
>> "most people could get into mensa if they studied for the tests..."
> This is untrue. The test is a measure of reasoning ability...The test is a measure of a *certain kind* of reasoning ability. You can practice the specific kinds of reasoning by practicing with different instances of those kinds of tasks. You can learn little heuristic tricks that will help you too. For example... Some of the tasks are mental rotation (if I remember rightly) you can practice and practice and practice mental rotation tasks if you like. You can learn little tricks that make it much easier to spot the odd one out.
My claim isn't that EVERYONE could get up to speed just by sheer slog. My claim is more that... Maybe... 40% of the population could get in by sheer slog of the above mentioned variety.
There are books that have been written on how to get into Mensa. People who have managed to do it via the above technique. They scored a bit above average on the tests pre study and now... They are members (or qualified for membership).
> They take the top 2% so it is impossible for everyone to get in.
Clearly. But then also remember that some people qualify but choose not to join... How much does it cost to sit the Mensa test these days? Some people don't like the thought of those kinds of groups...
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:56:33
In reply to Re: Mensa and Intelligence Testing » AuntieMel, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:51:57
So...
'the test is a measure of reasoning ability'
I have problems with this claim...
Significant problems with this claim...
I do not believe that it is. There are more kinds of reasoning ability than are tested in the test. The test tests a very limited kind.
It also suggests (for the appeal of Mensa to be so great) that the test shows you something of where you are placed in society regarding your reasoning ability (top 2%) and where you are likely to remain (i mean if people's reasoning ability went up and down a lot then the test would be fairly meaningless re: predicting long term reasoning ability)
Fact is... It is not a measure of reasoning ability. It is a measure of very specific kinds of reasoning ability.
The existence of tests like that also suggest that where one reasons (where one scores) is likely to remain fairly constant through ones lifespan. But that is crap. A bit of study and what do you know.
I'm not keen on testing in general...
Intelligence testing
Personality testing
etc
etcIMO those kinds of tests tend to do more harm than good.
And people (psychologists typicallY) overgeneralise from the score to something meaningful about the person who has been tested.
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:58:14
In reply to Re: Mensa and Intelligence Testing, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:56:33
and the 'meaningful generalisation' is what tends to do more harm than good.
i mean...
say someone doesn't score very well on the test.
from there people get to 'you aren't a very good reasoner'
from there the person tends to take that on board and what...
doesn't bother trying.
self fulfilling prophecies.
but then maybe...
something is wrong with my reasoning ability ;-)
Posted by Racer on March 22, 2006, at 19:37:29
In reply to Re: Mensa and Intelligence Testing, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:58:14
The whole Intelligence Quotient is a long standing discomfort of mine, which I won't go into here right now. Suffice it to say, it's something I've thought about.
My two comments:
Define "intelligence?"
You can't, because there really isn't any one definition. Unless, of course, you're eight years old and can say, "It means 'smart'"
And keep in mind the original purpose of the tests -- one which I think was and is appropriate and rather progressive: it was about making education available to more children. Before the IQ test came along, a lot of kids were catagorized as uneducable, due to mental retardation, when in fact it was cultural factors, or vision or hearing loss, or other factors totally unrelated to intelligence. Today, we don't think of that in the US, and probably not in Oz or NZ, either. There is a promise of free, public education, with special education for those who require it. That wsn't the case not all that long ago. The IQ tests were meant to show which of the kids really could learn, and to get an idea of how much they could learn.
Nowadays, though...
So, sometimes things get perverted from their original purpose. Kinda like how the internal combustion engine somehow became a Ferarri...
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 20:03:57
In reply to Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by Racer on March 22, 2006, at 19:37:29
> The whole Intelligence Quotient is a long standing discomfort of mine, which I won't go into here right now. Suffice it to say, it's something I've thought about.
:-)
Me too :-)
> Define "intelligence?"
> You can't, because there really isn't any one definition. Unless, of course, you're eight years old and can say, "It means 'smart'"
Yep. Another way to make the point 'what do all intelligent acts have in common' is just like 'what do all games have in common' which is to say it is a cluster concept and there is no essential property (that can be tested) running through all the instances...
w.
> And keep in mind the original purpose of the tests -- one which I think was and is appropriate and rather progressive: it was about making education available to more children.
sigh. was it? i don't remember the history.
> Before the IQ test came along, a lot of kids were catagorized as uneducable, due to mental retardation, when in fact it was cultural factors, or vision or hearing loss, or other factors totally unrelated to intelligence.
oh. i thought intelligence tests were designed to show that... well... initially it was a screen for brain damage / mental retardation - wasn't it?
then it got used for... well there was a finding that yellow people were smarter than white people were smarter than black people. the bell curve. and that was used as justification (even though that DIDN"T FOLLOW) for not even trying to educate black people. 'cause the thought was it would be a waste of resources because they were innately stupid.
I think a guy from Wellington NZ showed how bogus the bell curve conclusions were...
Yeah. Ones IQ score was supposed to generalise to what one was capable of learning...
Kind of like how the GRE is supposed to generalise to ones success in graduate school...
I feel really angry when I think of how these tests tend to be used and interpreted...
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 21:43:10
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » Racer, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 20:03:57
You are right about the origins, Racer.
'The most widely used intelligence tests in the United States today are those originally developed by psychologist David Wechsler during the 1940's and 1950's... Wechsler (1939) emphasised that an IQ test measures functional intelligence, not intelligence itself... According to Wechsler, a score on an IQ test is a reflection of what one has learned, which is a function of the opportunities to which one has been exposed and one's ability to take advantage of those opportunities. The subtests on Wechsler's tests represent samples of behaviour but they are not exhaustive'.
"Introduction to Clinical Psychology Science and Practice" pg 200-201.
And hence... The wealthy aren't just wealthy... They come up 'smart and deserving' as well... In virtue of their getting more learning opportunities in the first place...
And the status quo is preserved.
Sigh.
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 22:00:42
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 21:43:10
'Classification as a Characteristic Activity of Humans
Classification of people and their problems has been a hotly contested issue throughout much of the history of clinical psychology and psychiatry. On the one hand, many professionals have argued that classification or diagnostic systems are necessary to facilitate our understanding of people and their problems, to provide a basis for understanding of people and their problems, and to provide adequate treatment to those in need of help (Clark, Watson, & Reynolds, 1995). On the other hand, critics have argued that classification systems for personality and psychopathology are inherently problematic because they lead to the dehumanisation of individuals and contribute to the development of stereotypes of individuals who are placed in certain diagnostic categories (Kutchins & Kirk, 1997). Critics also argue that stigmas and other negative attitudes are attached to the labels that emerge from classification systems (Tucker, 1998)...
THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF CLASSIFICATION
The decision to classify psychopathology has both benefits and costs. There are two major benefits
- Organised information about the characteristics of people whom we try and help can be useful when clinician's make treatment decisions...
- A classification system allows professionals to communicate with one another in an informed manner, which facilitates better undersanding and treatment of problems and leads to new insights.
In response to the first... That will only happen if you can make generalisations from dx to the kind of treatment that will benefit.
In response to the second... That will only happen if you can make generalisations from dx to symptoms and from dx to the kind of treatment that will benefit and from dx to insights.
The point is that generalisation... Doesn't constitute knowledge.
There can be more symptom variability between two individuals with the same dx than there is between two individuals with different dx.
IMO currently... dx just promotes stereotypes which do not count as knowledge because they are more likely to be inaccurate than accurate and because you cannot generalise from dx to treatment...
Sigh.
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2006, at 23:03:21
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 22:00:42
I think I have to disagree here.
Somewhere along the line it became bad form to value high IQ, and I don't think that's fair. People have different abilities, and that's fine. Why should intelligence be downplayed?
Yeah, there are different types of intelligence. And they're all measured differently. And they're all valued by people.
There are people who are born with qualities that make them good at one sport or another, fast reflexes or an ability to judge depth, etc. There are people born with an outgoing nature and an ability to judge social situations. There are people who are born intelligent in different ways.
And yes, there are different ways to be intelligent. My spatial abilities are laughably low, and my hard drive access speed is slow. So I was a lousy candidate for Prep Quiz Bowl, and I can't do great on IQ tests. My husband could do both of those things with ease and facility. My father had an uncanny ability to remember vast amounts of information. He had at his fingertips what would take most people a lot of notes and a Daytimer. I had to look things up, but not my father. Those things weren't learned. They were born with certain gifts. It didn't make them better than other people, just lucky in that particular area.
And so what? I admire them for it. Just as I admire people with artistic ability or creativity or a really great sense of humor, or who have fabulous bone structure, or a gorgeous body. God given gifts should be admired. As gifts, perhaps, and not accomplishments.
I *like* that my son has a high IQ. It means that he won't be hampered in any intellectual pursuit he might desire. Or he can squander it, if he wishes. But I've got to admit that if he wishes to pursue an athletic career, he's probably got his work cut out for him. I like that he had the opportunity to take the IQ test, because it helps his teachers and his parents realize his potential and present him with the proper amount of stimulation. How many kids act out in school because no one knows they have special needs?
It's more important to me that he be kind, of course, and honorable. And he knows that.
Why is it ok to admit that people have natural abilities in one area, but not another? Just because it's been misused doesn't make it a bad thing. It's one quality out of many in a person, and it can be admired just as any other quality can be admired.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 22, 2006, at 23:59:24
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2006, at 23:03:21
Wow, Dinah, That's precisely what I believe about intelligence, but it would have taken me eons to ever write something summing it up so beautifuly.I'm really glad one of your obvious gifts from God gets used so frequently to the delight and benefit of Babblers :-)
Can I just hire you as my personal writer....though come to think of it, I couldn't pay you what you're worth...drat!
'kay, I'm done gushing now. - 10der
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 4:04:41
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2006, at 23:03:21
> I *like* that my son has a high IQ. It means that he won't be hampered in any intellectual pursuit he might desire.
Er... Because my point is that that doesn't follow. It does not follow from any IQ test...
Nice for your son I guess since he scores high and other people have faith in him because of it.
Not so nice for other people who score low and other people have no faith in them because of it.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 4:23:33
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 4:04:41
the test doesn't mean so much as what people choose to interpret because of it.
did you need a test to believe in his ability?
what difference does the test make?
how would you feel differently if he had scored below average?
aka... what difference does the test make?
studies have been done on how teachers treat classes very differently depending on whether they have been told they are 'smart' or 'stupid'. people perform differently depending on whether people believe in them or not.
there may seem to be no harm when people do well (like your son)
but having faith in it when it tells you something you want to believe...
is to preserve the status quo...
and there is one half the population who come up below average...
is the harm...
counterbalanced by the good?
i don't think so...
but typically the people who design these things score well...
hence there is some motivation to convince others...sigh.
and do we really want to know how much money has gone into this process...
while poor children have trouble getting enough to eat and getting access to a reasonable education...
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 9:26:15
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 4:04:41
Yes, actually it does, to some extent.
He won't be hampered in any pursuit that depends on intelligence. He'll likely be hampered in some pursuits that depend on other factors. Does that make me think more or less of him? No. Would I be any less proud of him with a low IQ? No, of course not.
You can't be proud of things that are gifts from God. That would be taking credit for things that are not yours to take credit for. You can only be proud of what you do with them. You can be grateful for them though. I am grateful for those gifts I've been given, and I sometimes wish for a few of the gifts I haven't been given.
Can the tests be wrong? Sure. Some kids just test poorly for one reason or another. Can they be right? Sure. Does it affect a teacher's expectations? Yes, and I've benefitted a few times in my life from a teacher expecting the best from me and giving me the benefit of the doubt. And there's also the negative side of it, in that teachers believe you're slacking if you don't do well - even if there's a subject you just aren't able to grasp easily.
It's not the be all and end all. If a kid grasps concepts easily and turns in excellent work, a teacher's going to expect good things even without a stellar IQ test result. If a kid doesn't do well on a standardized test, parents can ask that other qualities be considered. And it would be a strange teacher, or even testing psychologist, who believed the test scores over other indications of a child's IQ. Good grief, we knew our son was smart before the test. And my father, to my knowledge, was never tested, but I know he would have tested well. A goodly number of people saw him as the smartest person they knew.
I just don't get the big deal. I really don't.
IQ tests do have predictive value. They aren't perfect, but they're not irrelevant either. And they do help identify special needs, which isn't to be scoffed at. If you've got a kid who's misbehaving in class, it's useful to be able to see if it's because he's just bored and needs more challenge, or if he's in an overly challenging environment and could use more support.
It's only a judgement if people make it into a judgement. It's a quality, that's all. Like beauty, or quick reflexes and whatever else makes up athletic ability, or introversion or extroversion.
But there seems to be a movement that makes it something you almost need to apologize for, or downplay. And that doesn't seem right, or grateful. The same thing is true of beauty, I think. But doesn't seem to be true of athletic ability, or many other abilities.
(I'm also grateful that my son looks like my husband and not me. grin.)
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 9:29:39
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on March 22, 2006, at 23:59:24
:) Thank you.
Posted by verne on March 23, 2006, at 11:53:52
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » 10derHeart, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 9:29:39
Not sure whether anyone mentioned this (too hungover to read the entire thread) but I think I read somewhere Mensa accepts high SAT and GT (military) scores (just to name a couple).
verne
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 12:11:46
In reply to SAT's and Mensa, posted by verne on March 23, 2006, at 11:53:52
You darling you!
I had only read the one page of admissions requirements, but when I looked it up, darned if you aren't right.
My husband, I, and my son apparently have all the documentation we need. :)
Whew. No test anxiety required.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 12:12:06
In reply to SAT's and Mensa, posted by verne on March 23, 2006, at 11:53:52
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:24:16
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 9:26:15
> Yes, actually it does, to some extent.
> He won't be hampered in any pursuit that depends on intelligence.
So you really would take a score on a test to be predictive of future performance? :-O
> He'll likely be hampered in some pursuits that depend on other factors.
And I guess he would probably be encouraged to do so...
> Can the tests be wrong? Sure. Some kids just test poorly for one reason or another. Can they be right? Sure. Does it affect a teacher's expectations? Yes,
So I guess I'm wanting to make a fairly strong claim that the difference between an average or a slightly above average score and a higher score and a yet higher score... Affects people's perceptions of the intelligence of the person involved and that is what has the biggest impact on the future course their life is going to take. I want to say that scores in that range... Self fulfilling prophecy... If you removed that would there be much validity between a Mensa score and a slightly above average score? I wouldn't think so...
> I just don't get the big deal. I really don't.I've already said what my problem is.
> But there seems to be a movement that makes it something you almost need to apologize for, or downplay.That isn't what I'm getting at. I'm getting at the legitimacy of testing. Not just in this context.
Funny... I thought you were against standardised tests for things like... Progress in therapy... Therapy improvement... How are these tests different?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:41:27
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:24:16
Perhaps because I don't think they're that flawed?
Nobody knew my IQ score, but they still expected high academic performance from me, because that was my history. My son was at one school where the admissions office knew his score, but I have no idea if the teachers did. And during the hurricane he was in a different school where they hadn't the slightest notion of either his IQ or his previous school performance. His report from that school was even more full of superlatives than from his regular school.
There is a difference between slightly above average and well above average. I'm not quite sure how there wouldn't be. There's a difference between slightly below average and well below average. The difference between Bill Gates and me is great enough that he probably has trouble understanding why I'm so slow. To deny gifted children gifted programs is no better than denying children with developmental delays education appropriate to them.
However, expectations in life don't come from people's knowledge of your IQ score. They come from their history with you. And IQ scores aren't perfect indicators of intelligence. Any more than an exam may be a perfect indicator of how well someone understands subject matter.
But that doesn't mean you should throw out standardized tests, or exams.
I never said that I was opposed to psychological standardized testing. I rather enjoyed my MMPI.
However, I expect we're not going to agree on this, and I have no desire to argue with you over something that really isn't dear to my heart.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:03:29
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:41:27
> Perhaps because I don't think they're that flawed?
Okay. I guess most people would agree with you. Because those kinds of tests are very popular. And because most people do take them very seriously. And because people make good money designing tests and administering tests and interpreting the results.
> Nobody knew my IQ score, but they still expected high academic performance from me, because that was my history.
I think you are plenty smart. And I guess I think a test would be... Irrelevant. Basically. Because things you scored low on could most probably be remidied if you could be bothered investing the time to get better on those kinds of tasks... I guess my point is... Why bother?
Please don't think I'm trying to say that your son isn't smart...
My point is more that... Please don't think other people are less smart...
(Because I think that is the flip side. Around half come up... Below average)
> There is a difference between slightly above average and well above average.There is a difference in test score. I grant you that. But I don't think it is a difference that could be sustained through someone slightly above average being very determined to improve their score and investing the time / energy into studying those kinds of tasks...
> To deny gifted children gifted programs is no better than denying children with developmental delays education appropriate to them.
But another consequence...
Is that it tends to be to deny slightly below or average or slightly above scoring people... The investment that could make the biggest difference to their scores (if scores are what is important). And then... The gifted program... Tends to draw the most interesting and innovative teachers. Teachers who have a lot of faith in the ability of their kids etc. So it gives those people... A better quality of education. I think that is terrific. But there are limited resources (in the public sector especially) and when it comes to where those resources are best spent (re the biggest practical difference...)
I guess it is just that you have seen the good...
And I guess it is just that I have seen the harm...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 23, 2006, at 14:13:31
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:03:29
"(Because I think that is the flip side. Around half come up... Below average)"
Well, actually half come below the median.
<grin>
I think the tests can be a tool. One of many tools. And I think they can identify a gift. But it's one of many gifts people can have.
My father coerced me into taking the test when I was a teenager because he was tired of my aunt bragging about her kids. I got in and I stayed in until he quit paying the dues.
I would happily trade this gift for another one. I'd trade it for a musical ability or an artistic ability in a heartbeat.
Being labeled "smart" ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Now, you are right that those with exposure to education and reading are going to do better than those who arent. But in a given population with a semblance of a homogeneous education system you would expect that the differences due to culture would diminish.
But - on the other hand - a lot also has to do with the family experience. Are those grey cells challenged?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:29:03
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:03:29
Actually, I lied a bit.
Part of the topic is dear to my heart. The part about gifted children having special needs that should be recognized as much as any other special needs.
Too well do I recall moving from schools that recognized that to schools that didn't. Fortunately I spent my bored senseless time moving ahead in the book and asking for extra assignments from sympathetic teachers. But not all gifted children would.
I never said I had a low IQ. I said I have trouble with the spatial abilities portion that seems to make up a lot of the Mensa test. I just didn't use my own IQ as an example, because, well I'm sure you understand. And since it's a few points below my son's and probably a few more points below my husband's, they were better examples anyway.
Does my son know he's more than ordinarily smart? Of course. He doesn't know his exact score, but it would be hard to miss that with the reports he gets. If they didn't want him to know, they shouldn't write that he is phenomenally gifted. And that was the teacher who had no idea what his IQ was. Does he know he's smarter than some of his classmates and less smart than others? Show me a kid who can't do a pretty decent job of lining his classroom up by relative ability. Does he think he's *better* than some of his classmates and not as good as others according to his intelligence? Absolutely positively not and he'd vehemently argue with anyone who said that. And so would I.
It's *just* intelligence, just like beauty is *just* beauty, and athletic ability is *just* athletic ability. Not acknowledging it is, in my opinion, putting as much more emphasis than it deserves as letting them think that they are better people because of it would be.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:08:06
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 23, 2006, at 14:13:31
> "(Because I think that is the flip side. Around half come up... Below average)"
> Well, actually half come below the median.
> <grin>ROFL!!! Yeah, I was thinking there might have been something wrong with that as I typed it...
;-)(though... hasn't this one been contested too... regarding 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5. or somesuch... if i remember how to do medians - which i probably don't - 2 would be the median and yet more people score above two than below in this instance)
> I think the tests can be a tool. One of many tools. And I think they can identify a gift. But it's one of many gifts people can have.but then it is a gift people can learn to have... in which case... is it really a gift? when hard work can do the same. i mean... not everyone is gifted to be able to do it even via hard work... i guess i'm just thinking... that it isn't so important... and that when the tests are used at the top end (rather than for identifying problems at the bottom) i think they tend to do more harm than good. if you think the tests test innate abilities (which have future predictability) then they do more harm than good for the people who don't score very highly. the middle people don't get extra resources thrown at them... and the low people... might get some kind of judgement about their likely future performance (like the way the bell curve findings were used)
> Now, you are right that those with exposure to education and reading are going to do better than those who arent. But in a given population with a semblance of a homogeneous education system you would expect that the differences due to culture would diminish.er... if you could design a test that didn't have cultural bias... but then maybe 'cultural bias' just is a difference in the average test scores across cultures...
> But - on the other hand - a lot also has to do with the family experience. Are those grey cells challenged?and fed.
and so on.
and believed in etc.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:16:56
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:29:03
it works out great for your son.
i'm not contesting that.
really.
it is a good thing for your son.
i'm not contesting that.
really.
i just don't buy into the whole system...
i personally think that when you consider the population as a whole... that kind of testing harms more than it helps.
i think it would have a better use as a dx tool for people coming up low...
so that they have more resources thrown at them...
but i'm just not so sure...
i get the whole boredom at school thing.
i went from a private school between 4-7 to a public school... where i repeated the same stuff for the next however many years.
and i learned to be lazy yup.
better would have been to...
encourage me to help others with their work.
would have kept me occupied...
and studies and stuff...
rather than the same old problems and just a whole bunch more of them.
sigh.
i guess it is just that i think of these tests as a way of legitimating the status quo...
like the GRE.
that is a personal bug bear of mine.
it is supposed to be predictive of success in grad school.
gee i wonder why... because a grad school won't take you unless you do alright.
and there is a cultural bias.
it was apparant to me.
then there was the point that people in the US can take courses to prepare for it. they are schooled in those kinds of tasks for many years in anticipation...
personally... i worked my butt off grappling with work in the field i wanted to be studying.
and yeah... i feel a little resentful that i couldn't apply to more schools because of that.
and yeah... i feel a little resentful that they charge you over one hundred dollars for the privelage of receiving a score.
and yeah... i feel a little resentful of how much money they make in running courses to prepare people (in the us) selling study guides and so on and so forth.
it is used as a screening tool.
as are other kinds of intelligence tests.
it does affect peoples futures...
because imo people have too much faith in these tests...
self fulfilling prophecy.
i really think that is the main thing responsible for generalisability etc.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:15:38
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 23, 2006, at 14:13:31
I'm not sure how many IQ points I'd trade for artistic ability, because they seem to be dropping off year by year on their own.
But I do wish I had been blessed with artistic abilities. I often long to be creative and am stifled by my total lack of artistic abilities.
And I suppose I should add that I also love the fact that we have a local school designed to nurture the gifts of those with artistic and musical gifts. And that it's not all that hard to find schools and other organizations to nurture gifts of athletic ability.
All gifts should be valued and nurtured.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 24, 2006, at 9:04:59
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:16:56
"i personally think that when you consider the population as a whole... that kind of testing harms more than it helps.
i think it would have a better use as a dx tool for people coming up low...
so that they have more resources thrown at them..."
Well, consider this. Assuming, of course, that a school is silly enough to *only* consider an IQ test for kid grouping.
Those that "come up low" could have *different* resourses thrown at them. If they are different then there wouldn't have to be more of them.
And those who come up high would also have resourses geared towards them.
Then those in the middle? They wouldn't always have to struggle to compete with those who will always do better.
And they wouldn't have to lag behind because they are waiting for those who are slower.
Every child deserves to be in the best group for that child. And every child will do better if he is in the best group for him.
They separate the best from the not so great already in music (different band and orchestra levels according to talent) and for athletics (the best get on the best teams) so why not do it for brains, too?
Kids get picked on just as much for being too smart as they do for - well, not being so smart.
--
But again = my premise here was that a school was silly enough to go by one test. I think that is wrong, too. Many very, very intelligent people don't test well. If a person who doesn't score high is motivated enough to work extra hard to keep up he should be allowed to go to the higher class. And if a person who does score well is lazy he should go down to the middle classroom.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.