@ Dropping an IQ a standard deviation. I don’t know, @pfury. I was trying to clarify your idea of a range of 70 (borderline Mental Retardation) to 130 (intellectually gifted), that an IQ anywhere in these ranges is possible, depending on environment. No. That’s not something you’d see because one kid was raised in a trailer park without a lot of books and ate a typical, not so healthy, American diet. It would have to be something horrible like the examples I gave.
Without looking for the research, I won’t speculate more on just how low you can drop someone and how to do that.
If you put your kid through a test that told you his cap was 90 would you try harder to help him achieve intelligence?
I guess I don’t understand how knowing a number, that may or may not be reflective and may or may not be influenceable (sp?) Would change anything. I’m going to put 100% into my kids being smart regardless of what the number is.
So we DO have minimum IQs? The ability to quantify that would serve as de facto proof of superior intelligence over others wouldn’t it?
Acknowledging my range may not be accurate, as I just kinda tossed it out there, but my point being all these genetic factors are cool, but due to the simple distributions it would be useless to know without either testing an individual OR knowing their environment well enough to extrapolate it out.
I’d say yes to the first question, unless something really terrible happens. And yes, some individuals have a higher genetic potential than others. Talking about individuals here. We’re not all the same.
BTW, with kids who grow up in poverty, you’re often going to see a very uneven distribution of scores on subtests. It’s very common to have higher nonverbal skills, which may be more indicative of that kid’s potential. Maybe kid doesn’t have great language models or books at home, but he’s really good at video games or nonverbal puzzle type of tasks, and his friends all consider him average or smart. That would be very, very common.
If I see depressed scores across the board, I’m likely looking at a child with a real Developmental Disability, and everybody knows that kid is a little bit slow. My experience.
Nope. I’d try to help him achieve as much as he would be able to with the understanding that the sky is not the limit.
Extending this to a population at large, you don’t want to teach beyond a child’s capacity learn. That would be overwhelming and cause some serious problems of its own, and be a waste of learning resources.
I had the experience of tutoring a girl in college who was the product of a Dragon Mom. She was having panic attacks and failing in algebra after getting drilled on for 12 years to learn beyond her capabilities and aptitudes.
She actually improved quite a bit once we reframed her relationship with the process and was able to start moving toward her full potential. And was a hell of a lot happier through it.
I’m not talking about top end potentials. I’m talking about low end potentials. IE, save some horrendous 3rd world circumstance, person X will always be above 100 etc.
With the structure of IQ tests, genetics and environmental factors, I can’t fathom a way to accurately evaluate a child’s IQ and have that be the deciding factor on how far you teach them. To take that a step further, even if you could, I can’t fathom a society that carries that out.
Definitely here. At least that was part of the process when I went. Put the smart kids in the more advanced classes, middle kids in the middle, and the slower ones where they can get the help they need.
Yeah, I’ve heard. One buddy of mine is a high school principal, and another woman I know is on the board of the district I grew up in.
Stooge moves in my opinion. I already got to see what happens when you get a bored kid in a classroom with a teacher that is only about half as smart as the kids. Its ugly. It ends in tears, long hiatus, and psych meds.
I’m more of a armchair psychologist. Self taught, and only about subjects that interest me.
The thing is though, there is no end to the potential
For abuse of any scientific or intellectual development. The same argument you have against a better understanding of the development or occurrence of intelligence has been made about the laws of physics, the development of medicine, electricity, nuclear power, and more recently computers.
It has? My argument is the real world values of studying genetic IQ issues doesn’t tip the scales against the ‘accidental or intentional misinterpretation of said IQ knowledge.’ Knowledge only matters to the extent people actually fall in line with what it actually means
I don’t recall that happening with medicine, electricity, nuclear, or computers. Nor how that’s even possible. Nobody was worried about Bubba misunderstanding a motherboard and use that to discrimate against other people
I don’t really care that things can be abused, assuming there’s a trade-off somewhere. All of the things you listed were inevitably going to be made, because they can be used to make a buck.
Remove the financial incentive from any of them, and not a single one comes to be.
I’m also perfectly happy to admit there could be a marketable and/or useful application for what would inevitably be the data gathering process from hell, I just haven’t heard one yet.
Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” just off the top of my head.
Mmm, maybe, maybe not.
I think (not that I know through first hand experience) that the development of new knowledge is a little more altruistic than that.
Newton, Einstein, Tesla etc. Weren’ sitting around broke saying “Damn! I better think of something!”. I see those types of minds as unbridled power that are gonna go where they go regardless of the result (money).
Can you name a major advancement in the past 200 years that wasn’t financially driven? Any field any industry
I would be surprised to hear they all stole the equipment necessary to create said experiments and if not, the funding was given to them with no expectation of a real world application
Because there’s no financial incentive to a healthy population? It’s not generally a cost saver to eliminate a crippling illness that the healthy portion of society is forced to support?
And they can do that.
But gathering the level of data needed to accuractly use genetics & IQ together is going to require tens of millions to start (plenty of which will be your tax money), thousands upon thousands of man-hours, spanning decades and decades before we even see enough data to use.
No major advancement worth making falls from the sky, and the major driving factor is ALWAYS its use case