That's an interesting notion.I wonder if there is a link; i.e. those who can't see the board properly early in life quickly develop strategies to work around the problem and end up able to store more information directly into the memory?
That could also be the greater amount of reading done by a higher IQ person, affecting how the eyes develop (say).Not all high-IQ / Mensan folks require vision correction, but I've consistently found far more of those that do are nearsighted rather than farsighted.
I'm another one with the high IQ/myopia combination. I wonder if there is a link; i.e. those who can't see the board properly early in life quickly develop strategies to work around the problem and end up able to store more information directly into the memory? ...
I'm going to slightly disagreeIn my case - not just 'yes', but 'HELL yes' ...
By the year preceding my 'explosion into Kid Brainiac' (cf. earlier post) I'd trained myself to literally 'pantograph' the teacher's arm / hand movements at the blackboard onto my notebook paper for later parsing into words and numbers. Once accustomed to the teacher's personal 'hand movement coding', I could often just jot down a number or word rather than a graphical imitation of the writing motion(s).
Memory has a lot to do with it. First, one has to learn how to efficiently / effectively manage memory 'inputs' on the front end (attentional focus; care with details; consistency checking).
Second, one has to develop memory management skills relating to 'organization', 'indexing', and recall.
Third - and perhaps most importantly - one has to develop reliance on imagination (in the broad sense of internal visualization / conceptualization). Phrased another way, you have to learn how to develop a good 'local copy' and then work with it on your own.
These are the very skill sets educators like to think they're imparting to students early on. These are also the skill sets most vulnerable to evasion or degradation in modern life, and the ones I find more and more lacking among children and younger folks.
My stock explanation is to invoke a physical training analogy. You develop muscles by working against resistance. You develop agility by overcoming time pressures and maintaining coordination in your actions. For me the resistance was my perceptual deficit, and the need to keep up with everyone else forced me to develop agility.
I didn't realise that not everyone could see what was written on the board until I had an eye test when I was 13. I had to invent my own form of maths and my spelling was teribul.
I went from dumb kid to smart kid but the damage had already been done and I had no interest in education. It was only after leaving school, with mediocre O levels, that I read my first book and haven't stopped since. ...
I'm going to slightly disagree...one might argue your IQ facilitated this process.
More to the point, no-one has yet figured out how to raise anyone's IQ with any kind of exercise. It'd be great if a way can be found. Software programs to do this turn out only to make you better at those programs, this doesn't transfer to IQ, a more general ability. ...
Same here. I can't seem to remember things if I have no interest at all in the subject matter. It's like an aversion.I was another who had some trouble over my IQ score, not with employers but at school. I was a weird kid (hence I was always being tested for this and that) and had trouble conforming to the program. When they found out my IQ score, many teachers just assumed I must be lazy and/or rebellious and was treated as such.
I was neither (well, maybe a little rebellious) Truth is, I just seem to have a different way of processing information.
I'm glad it turned out OK for you in the end. I've known folks for whom it didn't ...
I don't think I've ever encountered anyone with a childhood myopia problem who got diagnosed so late (age 13).
I've long suspected that timing (with regard to maturation / personal development in childhood) is a factor - particularly with respect to how it affects interplay between (e.g.) 'intellectual' and 'social' development.
In my case, my accelerated 'mental' skill sets were unleashed while I was still learning how to fit in socially. This, I believe, is why I immediately suffered a near-breakdown in understanding my relationship to / with my classmates.
In other words, I got pegged as Kid Brainiac while still developing my 'social self'. My interest in learning was innate, but I was to some extent kept on track (and / or occasionally stymied) by social reinforcement for this ascribed role.
I've often wondered how it would have gone if I'd not been diagnosed until later. I suspect my story would then have resembled yours. (... and, just for clarity, I'm not insinuating I would have considered that outcome 'worse', but simply 'different')
I'm another one with the high IQ/myopia combination. I wonder if there is a link; i.e. those who can't see the board properly early in life quickly develop strategies to work around the problem and end up able to store more information directly into the memory?
I am ashamed to say I have followed this thread for a few days now and had decided to not admit to Mensa membership, even under torture.
In my defence, I only joined after moving out of London. Everything there is rushed, should have been done yesterday and hurry up. Upon my arrival in this village I realized that, despite being on crutches, I was still faster than most - especially mentally. There was a test evening in a nearby town so I booked a place. A week later my results came through along with a membership pack, so I signed up.
I swore my children to secrecy and never mentioned it in conversation, but it did embolden me to go to University, which I don't regret.
That's why the precocity factor has long been an issue in IQ testing and scoring. IQ scores are normalized with respect to one's age cohort. Some kids can outperform their peers on tests so much and so early they get assigned stratospheric scores, only to settle back toward the mean once they become adults being compared to other adults, who (figuratively speaking) have collectively 'caught up' or 'closed the gap' in the mean time.
Absolutely. It can also be hard to differentiate between very well developed memory skills and problem solving skills, especially at an early age.That's why I don't put much stock in the recurrent news stories about some 5-year-old maxing out an IQ score. It really only means they're 'way out front early on in a virtual marathon. It doesn't mean they'll score that far out on the statistical extreme at the (developmental) finish line.
68% of the population lie between an IQ of 85 and 115. An IQ of 84 is borderline untrainable in the real world.Scientists research man missing 90% of his brain who leads a normal life
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...f-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125
When a 44-year-old man from France started experiencing weakness in his leg, he went to the hospital. That's when doctors told him he was missing most of his brain. The man's skull was full of liquid, with just a thin layer of brain tissue left. The condition is known as hydrocephalus.
"He was living a normal life. He has a family. He works. His IQ was tested at the time of his complaint. This came out to be 84, which is slightly below the normal range … So, this person is not bright — but perfectly, socially apt," explains Axel Cleeremans.
Formal IQ testing is suspect for people who can't read well or have not had access to good education.68% of the population lie between an IQ of 85 and 115. An IQ of 84 is borderline untrainable in the real world.
Andy Warhol's IQ was tested to be 86.Formal IQ testing is suspect for people who can't read well or have not had access to good education.
The more your take an IQ test, the higher your numbers. The more exposed to experiences the better you perform.
A couple of articles with explanations about what IQ testing can and cannot measure:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/do-iq-tests-actually-measure-intelligence
[From 'In the Know' by Warne, a tremendously useful and readable book about the nonsense surrounding IQ and the testing of it, via my memory].Formal IQ testing is suspect for people who can't read well or have not had access to good education.
The more your take an IQ test, the higher your numbers. The more exposed to experiences the better you perform.
A couple of articles with explanations about what IQ testing can and cannot measure:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/do-iq-tests-actually-measure-intelligence
There's at least three a priori assumptions in that statement. (1) that no racial differences in IQ exist (2) that any such differences might be socio economic, as there is a reasonable link between nutrition as a child and eventual IQ, it's a brain development thing and (3) that the tests contain language based questions in the language of the participants...or not.“If these tests were not biased, we wouldn’t have different IQ scores along racial and ethnic lines — but we do. It’s an indication that there is something wrong with these tests, not with us.”
I am having a really difficult time with this post as I keep losing portions of it and keep hitting a random button. I will have to continue later.As did @Coal, I have observed that people blame poor outcomes on external factors, but almost always attribute success to their own efforts.
Crap I lost my attempt at reply. Stupid phone and me not knowing how to put multiple quotes in. So I have to start over.
@Endlessly Amazed, I really have to read my links closer lol. I was making a reply to @Coal's comment regarding the statistic of the percentage of population in the average of IQ (85-115) and stating that a person with 84 is borderline untrainable.
These are descriptions of ranges of IQ and not a description of a person. To use only these numbers to try to assess a person's ability to function successfully in society is imo not a useful tool.
I have no knowledge of IQ testing and my only experience was in public school when we were given testing of which we were never given our results. I assume they were IQ tests. These were written and no verbal. If you didn't understand the written instructions, you couldn't answer anything of the test. And they were timed, so you couldn't complete the test either.
Would I have scored better on the questions that I couldn't complete? I don't know. Were the questions random in that they tested verbal vs visual vs comprehension, or whatever the questions were testing in no particular grouping? I don't know. But I know that the questions were grouped with same or similar tasks until you moved onto another component. I am not good with spatial recognition, so that is basically where I stopped in the testing. Because I couldn't answer. So were these really a good form of testing? I don't think so.
I am having a really difficult time with this post as I keep losing portions of it and keep hitting a random button. I will have to continue later.
Hihohiho of to work.
I did not take that particular quote as just referring to a racialized person, but groups. As I understood it, the testing results indicate that racialized or marginalized groups scored, on average, lower and that the demarcation points based on ethnic and/or race were fairly clear. This I have also heard from other sources (but years ago, so I can't list).From @brownmane's post: Do IQ Tests Actually Measure Intelligence? | Discover Magazine
“(IQ tests) are culturally, linguistically and economically biased against minoritized students, in particular Black, first and foremost, and then Hispanic,” says Ford. “If these tests were not biased, we wouldn’t have different IQ scores along racial and ethnic lines — but we do. It’s an indication that there is something wrong with these tests, not with us.”
(IQ is not my field. My comments below are about the US.)
I find a disturbing lack of logic in the above quotation. It gives no further information, but rather assumes that if a black or Hispanic person scores low, than it is because of a problem with the test, and is not an accurate measurement of the person. WTF.https://www.researchgate.net/figure...tes-partially-adjusted-results_tbl1_311882118
I did not take that particular quote as just referring to a racialized person, but groups. As I understood it, the testing results indicate that racialized or marginalized groups scored, on average, lower and that the demarcation points based on ethnic and/or race were fairly clear. This I have also heard from other sources (but years ago, so I can't list).
Think of circles in a graph that indicates "white" subjects and the range of results, and then "black" subjects range of results circled on the same graph. I would see that the circles overlap, but that maybe the black group's range starts at a lower number and ends at a lower number than the white group's. This is how I understood that comment. To me, if that is the case, then there is a bias somewhere. Race does not equate to level of intelligence.
And AFAIK the situation is more complicated by differences in variance around a similar mean. It seems, for example, that men and women have similar mean IQ, but men have a larger variance. So there are more male geniuses but also more male crazies. And because the geniuses are more visible, there is the wrong impression of higher male IQ."Race does not equate to level of intelligence." Sufficient evidence supporting or refuting this statement has not been published - at least as far as I am aware, but that is not very far as this is not my field. For any individual, this is true; for groups, this is not so clear. The means of different groups' IQ scores are different. All over the world. Perhaps thousands of studies, in different countries, in different languages, totaling millions of individuals. If one includes the military entrance testing (ASVAB in the US), then hundreds of millions across the world. Different contributing factors have been identified: genetic, cultural, socio-economic status, nutrition and environment, etc. After controlling for all non-genetic factors, a variance still existed which correlates to genetics.
I have probably no more than about 200-300 hours reading about this. Some for my doctoral studies, some just personal interest.
All groups' IQ dispersion around the mean show diminishingly small numbers at the left (lower) and right (upper) edges of the curve. This means that, theoretically at least, some individuals from any group can be found at the extremes. Enough individuals exist at the mean (average), the left of the mean (stupid zone), and right of the mean (smart zone) to make it hazardous to assign probable IQ to any individual based on group membership. Personally, I was taught almost everything about money and investment, which made me successful, from American blacks.
I have often wondered why people find it unacceptable that some groups are inherently less intelligent than others (Blacks, Africans), but that it is acceptable for some other groups to be inherently more intelligent (Jews, Asians). WTF. Aggregated results have meaning. We can't all be above average like in Lake Woebegone - an American radio show in the 1980's.
There will always be more intelligent and less intelligent, more wise and less wise people. What is the point to rearranging patterns, and choosing sequential situations?
It defines people and provides statistics for studies - that is all.
I have often wondered why people find it unacceptable that some groups are inherently less intelligent than others (Blacks, Africans), but that it is acceptable for some other groups to be inherently more intelligent (Jews, Asians).
I have often wondered why people find it unacceptable that some groups are inherently less intelligent than others (Blacks, Africans), but that it is acceptable for some other groups to be inherently more intelligent (Jews, Asians). WTF. Aggregated results have meaning. We can't all be above average like in Lake Woebegone - an American radio show in the 1980's.
Isn't that what Parents and Teachers do?I have a different view of it. If someone shows early ability, that ability should be nurtured and supported. If someone shows an intellectual weakness or lack of ability, that should be identified and remediated. That is one of the functions of IQ testing, or ability testing, or aptitude testing.
Aggregate data supports governments, school districts, etc., to make better decisions and better uses of public funds. Not just or not only theoretically.
Exactly. For some reason teachers and those who use them on children seem to blindly follow the numbers without seeing the child for what their interests and actual abilities are. I know it all has to do with funding and not children's best interests.Isn't that what Parents and Teachers do?
I sat for an Aptitude and IQ test as a15 year old and was informed afterwards - to my Fathers horror - that I would be best suited for factory work.
I have had many occupations during my 70 years on this Planet - from factory work building tractors, Riding trackwork for racing stables, working in an abbatoir, through to being a Librarian for 35 years, and studying Paleoanthropology and Archaeology purely as an interest through New England University.
I also studied and gained Diplomas in Land Management, Conservation, Agricultural studies and Horticulture.
'Their' interpretation of my results from this aptitude and IQ testing were misguided - and for some, misleading.