Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Dead serious here.

It seems to me that for "success in life" it's possible to be too smart. As a rough estimate I'd say the best odds for success are with people who have an IQ of 120 - 140. Above that, and their brains start to get in the way. The stereotype of the "absent minded professor" isn't entirely lacking in basis in reality.

I could elaborate, but what do you all think?

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:21 pm: Edit

I don't know about that. I know absent minded, lack of pragmatism types at all IQ ranges, but they tend to be more in the lower brackets. It's just more of a contrast when you get the "space cadet" with high academic aptitude, another stereotype to pigeon hole the person in. My younger kids have had some learning issues and so I have been to many group sessions where I see kids at the lower end of the accomplishment scale, and many, many of them, in fact most of them have no common sense which is the hardest thing to teach and often their biggest pitfall. My one little boy with the lower IQ has a lot of common sense and people sense which has taken him much further than his brother who has the high IQ without the commonsense exacerbated by ADHD and some emotional and behavioural issues. You can trust the one with common sense to be home alone with a "to do" list and warnings; the other one, well, I don't know. But he is the exception, (the one with common sense) among the many troubled kids I see, and the brighter boy is also the exception in that many of the LD and other challenged kids I see are working with sub par or average IQs.

By Entropicgirl (Entropicgirl) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit

A lot of the smart kids I know got really turned off my school--by the ease and stupidity of the assignments we have to do. Therefore, lower grades, harder time getting into college, etc. etc. I'm hoping they all turn out okay.

By Patient (Patient) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Kluge--not sure that you can generalize that much, but tend to agree that there is truth in what you say. I am sure though that we can all think of many examples of those who had both. Just off the top of my head: Albert Schweitzer? Gandhi? Am I off base?

Have you read Emotional Intelligence by Goleman? In a sense, he describes this phenomenon but not as being too intelligent, but does focus on biological origins for those who seem to lack emotional intelligence and social/psychological awareness of others, despite having impressive intellectual gifts.

By Latetoschool (Latetoschool) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit

LOL, sadly, I fall into the very high IQ category, and it seems that whatever gifts one has are counterbalanced with others.

It's not entirely what you asked, but I go through life getting lost on the way to my neighborhood grocery store, or, if I do arrive, I cannot remember why I needed to go.

When I bought my last new car, I drove it to a store the next morning, and, upon exiting the store 30 minutes later with my purchases, could not find my car anywhere, and so I reported it stolen. The police found it immediately - right where I parked it. (I'd been looking for my old car - the one I traded in the day before - somehow I forgot I bought a new car.)

I could fill this thread with stories, but the absent-minded thing does often get in the way of life. Over time you just develop a sense of humor about the whole thing. And - very important - you learn to make adjustments in life because you know you're going to have these episodes.

Recently, while on business in Kansas City, Missouri, I drove my rental car to my hotel, and checked in. Room service was closed, so I asked for, and received, directions to the McDonald's around the corner. It was pretty basic - go to the light and turn right - McDonald's is right there.

I couldn't follow that simple instruction of course. Somehow I ended up on the interstate to Kansas. Fighting back panic, I decided to simply exit the interstate and re-enter it, and go back. This might have worked, but the interstate wasn't logical, and so I got lost. I pulled into a Walgreens, and decided to ask for directions back to my hotel. Except that, I forgot where I was staying, couldn't remember the name of the hotel (Ramada? Hilton?? Marriott???) and all of my paperwork was in my briefcase, back at my hotel.

Happily, I could use my cell phone to call my child to ask "remember the email I sent to you? What is the name of my hotel, and did I happen to type the city?" (my child has lived with me for 18 years and so knows to expect these types of calls).

Name of hotel in hand, I called the toll free number for reservations, but of course there were all sorts of problems getting them to tell me where I was supposed to be. Finally got the information out of them, went into the Walgreens, and three of their staff spread out a map to help me reason out directions back to the hotel.

Directions in hand, I left the Walgreens, but of course once in the parking lot, I could not find my rental car, because I had no idea what I was driving. I'd been valet parked at the hotel so I didn't really pay any attention to what car showed up. Figured it out pretty quickly though - it was just a matter of locating the car with the keys hanging in the ignition with the doors locked.

It was many hours before I finally got back to my hotel, exhausted and still very hungry, but, my meeting with senior Monsanto execs on the global glyphosate issue went wonderfully, and I won the business.

Sometimes I think that I would happily trade places with a more normal person, but mostly I just try to make allowances for what I now know will be "issues" ie more time factored in for travel because if there is any opportunity at all to mess things up, I'll find it.

I think that if one has a child like this, probably the best thing to do is accept it, and guide that child to operate from their strengths.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Again, it all depends on what one means by success. If one intends to be a scholar and unless one has some debilitating personal traits, then there is no such thing as "too smart." But for some other careers, it is more important to be wise, to possess commonsense, and to have the human touch than to be intelligent. In some settings, THK's command of five languages would dazzle. In others, it marks her as "not one of us."

Let me paste a post I made yesterday:


From Burkhard Bilger, "Nerd Camp" in The New Yorker, July 26, 2004

The article is about CTY.


>>Lubinski showed me a series of graphs based on the gifted students' SAT scores. In college, those with high verbal and low math scores mostly majored in the social sciences and humanities; those with high math and low verbal scores gravitated toward math and engineering. Students with high scores in both areas often studies physics; those with equally low scores drifted into business. By the age of 33, when the students had become professionals, physicians occupied the center of the graph--good but not great in both math and language. And lawers had joined businesspeople in the bottom quarter.>>

And guess who made less money? My H's colleague who has a Ph.D. in physics, has moved into a different field, and is still paying off student loans, laughed when he read the passage above. His S just attended his first CTY camp.

***
One could argue that he was not smart to go into a field that did not pay well, and indeed, in which he could not get an academic position, forcing him to retool. So he was too smart to succeed. One could equally argue that he had many years in which he pursued his passion before he had to yield to the harsh realities of life, and that it was worth the foregone opportunities to make more money; by that yardstick, he has been successful.

By Clipper (Clipper) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Late - that story made my day!

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 01:14 pm: Edit

The very smartest people I have known have been tortured in one way or another. I'd never thought about it, but I think you're on to something.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Late:

It's hysterical! I empathize, though I've never been so bad. The reason I don't drive is that I've gotten lost on a straight road, in a city on a grid pattern. Now that I live in a city that has no grid, I'm sure I would never find my way.

By Avoidingwork (Avoidingwork) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

smart is overrated - hard working, honest, compassionate - those are the attributes for success in life (defined pretty much any way you want)

By Latetoschool (Latetoschool) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Marite, I even get "lost" in my own house. Some days ago I hung a new mirror in an upstairs room. Walking through that room yesterday I saw a person, and jumped and screamed. It was my own reflection - I forgot there is now a mirror, not a blank wall, in that space. (But I can tell you with precision how to hang the mirror, as well as describe the drywall and studs behind it...)

I think the most successful persons are those who possess incredible people/social skills. Certainly, they must be the happiest. I know lots of "brilliant" people who are reasonably successful in materially measurable areas (income, career, etc.) but who are not as happy...

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit

>smart is overrated>

Hm... I have not noticed it, at least not in this country.

Smartass, smartaleck, smartypants. These are ways of "cutting" someone "down to size."

Yesterday, I entertained some of my S's chums. They are all in a summer academic program. One reported that a teacher of his had told him he had to learn to tolerate being bored in school. And it was not meant as a way of putting down the rest of the class.

By Latetoschool (Latetoschool) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 02:14 pm: Edit

When my child was in 3rd or 4th grade, evidencing academic giftedness, I asked the principal of the private school if/when we could expect special programs or opportunities to be added for "gifted" students.

He responded that EVERY student in the school was gifted in one way or another - every single one. I learned a lot from that statement.

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

I have asked that question more from a social angle concerning happiness than success at work. We often label those so intelligent as living in their own little world. Often, I think they do because there's no one around that thinks on their level and enjoys things from their perspective. My wonderful dad, who passed away in Nov. was such a person. After retirement, he retreated more or less into his own world. He lived in a small town, and there were no organized groups of individuals that enjoyed what he did. He was well read and a research whiz. He thoroughly loved learning new things when he got bored with the old, but he just didn't interface much with those around him and could be a little too critical of them.

When my son was small, I saw some of those same personality traits in him. His impatience with kids in class who struggled with an assignment while he waited on them. I pointed out how frustrating it must be for them to see him finish when they didn't understand. He learned to temper his impatience with compassion and understanding. I encouraged him to be in band, which he was for six years, and he wouldn't have done it any other way. I found though, that his closest friends at school were the kids doing Comp Sci competitions and AcDec with him. More cerebral pursuits. Not that he's Einstein, he just finds it more interesting. That's why when he said he wanted to stay in a city environment for college, I had no problem letting him do so. He is a city mouse and I often thought that if my dad had lived in a city or college town that he too would have found more friends who found cerebral pursuits were their interests.

I think that the "too smart" people that Kluge refers to aren't "too smart". I truly feel that they've had a harder time carving a social niche for themselves where they can share interests and sharpen their social skills. Latetoschool referred to the principal stating that every student in the school ws gifted in one way or another - every single one. Amen. We so often think of giftedness as something we can measure as in academics. So many times, it's that intangible something. Someone that has the ability to reach people and make them smile, make them want to be better or live in a better world. You can't measure it - you just know it when you see it.

By Sybbie719 (Sybbie719) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

But what really consitiute smart considering that there are multiple intelligences showing that there are differnt types of smart. We all know plenty of peole who are book smart and life stupid.

The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults.

These intelligences are:
Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart").
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")

Dr. Gardner says that our schools and culture focus most of their attention on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence. We esteem the highly articulate or logical people of our culture. However, Dr. Gardner says that we should also place equal attention on individuals who show gifts in the other intelligences: the artists, architects, musicians, naturalists, designers, dancers, therapists, entrepreneurs, and others who enrich the world in which we live. Unfortunately, many children who have these gifts don’t receive much reinforcement for them in school. Many of these kids, in fact, end up being labeled "learning disabled," "ADD (attention deficit disorder," or simply underachievers, when their unique ways of thinking and learning aren’t addressed by a heavily linguistic or logical-mathematical classroom.

By Hoosfun (Hoosfun) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 02:59 pm: Edit

It is possible to be "too smart" in some ways if other kinds of smarts are sacrificed, though, of course, it can all depend on the circumstances in which you are put into.

My father is extremely bright, but not so attentive in the real-world/business politics side of things. He received a Ph.D.EE from Stanford and worked in the private sector for over twenty years. Two years after winning his company's highest personal achievement award (40+ patents and an estimated 10 million in revenue to the comany from those patents in the last year) he was laid off, and while his connecitons haven't, his business and negotiation skills (which weren't great to start with) kind of attrophied. There's a kind of intelligence that just has to do with working in the real world and understanding the bigger picture. Not having it can hurt, and I think a lot of book smart people can tend to lose touch with those skills.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:03 pm: Edit

alongfortheride:

All too often, though, when a principal says that every student is gifted, it is an excuse for not addressing the needs of the academically gifted. Another, all too common, way of dealing with the academically gifted is to tell them, as my S's friend reported just yesterday, that they must learn to tolerate being bored in school. That is very different from teaching them patience or compassion. It's telling them their particular gifts are not valued.

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Marite, point well taken. My son was blessed with teachers that were experienced when this was going on. They knew how to engage the students that had finished. They made it interesting so that he actually enjoyed moving on to something else. They were bright teachers themselves, but most important, I think, was the experience they brought to the classroom. They were comfortable multi-tasking and those ahead were accomodated while those behind were tutored. I'm glad he had that in the early years, because it didn't happen for him in his secondary education.

In the case of your S' friend, the teachers telling him to tolerate being bored is a cop out of the highest order. I'm afraid that it happens too often when the teachers are not up to teaching that level or are too lazy to research extra work that might interest those students. And you're right, their gifts aren't being valued.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Bush has an IQ of 90. He is a Yale and Harvard alum and the president of the US. If you use that as a standard, I think that anything above below average intelligence is too smart!

By Shennie (Shennie) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Actually, they have done studies on this. They find that people who have IQs above 160 tend to have a more difficult time in life overall. No, not everyone who is this smart, but a significant number. They tend to have difficulty being with other people because they think so differently and can't figure out how to explain things in a way that gets other people to understand. Ultimately, they tend to become fairly isolated socially. Academia tends to be a somewhat safe place for them as their skills are valued and they are more likely to run into others who think the way they do.

People with IQs in the 140s are about the top of the range for people who don't feel so different from the rest of the world. Certainly those who have extremely high IQs can learn the social skills they need to be successful but researchers find that it is much more difficult for them. Also, people who have such extremely high IQs don't fit in with their peers at all as kids and so they often don't participate in those activities that help up learn to socialize as children. Kids who are studying quantum mechanics at age 12 don't go out and play kickball with class mates at recess. And for the most part, with the exception of athletes, society does not have a lot of tolerance for those folks who are extremely far removed from the norm.

By Bookworm (Bookworm) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:50 pm: Edit

I also thought the line about 'all kids gifted" rather a way to not provide/stimulate a child. Some teachers will permit children to read when classwork done, or work at own pace, have different assignments, encourage them to help others,etc. Allowing a bright child to be bored on a regular basis is just not acceptable.
As well as Gardner, Jung spoke of 4 different styles, from analytic to sensitive, which could explain why someone can be so smart in one area but weak in another, e.g., sense of geography, people skills, organizational skills.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Shennie:

Could it be, though, that the social isolation results from the fact that there are so few people with 160+ IQs in any given context, rather than some innate personality trait that lead them to isolate themselves from others?

The image of the absent-minded professor who risks his life every time he crosses the street because his head is full of equations has some validity. But nerd camps fill not only an intellectual but also a social need. Not for nothing are there scenes of crying at the end of every CTY camp. One of my H's colleagues had agonized for the last six months over whether to send his 12-year old to one such camp, worrying that the kid had never been to a sleep away camp, would be homesick, would miss his friends, would not know how to cope... (BTW, the kid is a baseball fanatic). He reported that when he went to pick his S from camp recently, all the kids were crying and his S did not want to leave. You can bet he'll be back!

By Backhandgrip (Backhandgrip) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Really interesting Shennie.
I guess 'debilitating personal traits' means being a 'character' or absent- minded professor.?
I don't really know if it matters if one is 'too smart', but I do think someone can be too educated and that can hurt one's job prospects. I think.

By Pinkearmufs (Pinkearmufs) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 04:09 pm: Edit

I'm not sure exactly how to define smart though, I don't really think your level of intelligence can be marked simply by your IQ. But I do think that someone who could be characterized as a "genius" may be inept in other meaningful aspects of life like interacting with other people, etc. And I do think that someone of lesser, but still great intelligence who is hard working and full of good character will often surpass someone who is simply "naturally smart."

By Entropicgirl (Entropicgirl) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Marite--that physics stuff really hit home with me...(1600 kid who wants to be a physicist). I'm inclined to just say "hey, this is what I want--nothing else can beat the intellectual stimulation of physics--I'll just go for it" without thinking through the real-world consequences.... Huh. Anyway, thanks, that was interesting.

By Cheers (Cheers) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Marite, I read that New Yorker article and immediately organized a "Woohoo Olympics" party for sixty friends. Just heard from an English friend that he is coming as "Eddie the Eagle". lol.

Maybe this is a perspective about the length of my arm, but do you wish you were smarter? I don't.

Plenty clever, but not "genius" level, I truly feel welcomed by the world, and in fact, have travelled and worked successfully everywhere I've gone.

Many of my super-bright academic friends never seem to "fit". They don't "get" social structures and bump into walls because of it--still to this day--in their forties and fifties. Their hurt is unimagineable. I try to explain things to them as a highly social being who is bright enough to hold a higher level conversation. (Mind you, intricate explanations of their research leave me foggy).

'Society' isn't rational. It makes perfect sense to me, but it often seems absurd to extremely rational people. IMHO.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

>They just couldn't get their minds around Mandatory Fun.> From "Nerd Camp."

That's what my S reported last year. The kids were taken to the riverbank and told to enjoy themselves and refrain from talking math. That seemed such an oxymoron that it left the kids speechless for a while.
Yesterday, my S brought some of his chums home. They're a gregarious lot who study together and eat together and play together. At our request, they did a reprise of the Monty Python skit that won first prize at Talent show. It had us in stitches. They won a water gun for it, but so far have not tried it out.
I know a lot of academics, and none of them is maladjusted. And yes, I do wish I were smarter on occasions.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Entropicgirl:

My S is also considering a math/physics major. I am not going to stand in his way. I have no way of knowing what the job market will be like by the time he receives his higher degree. As his parent, I am willing to subsidize his passion as best I can. If he has to retool later on, so be it. But he will at least have enjoyed his college experience. I realize that other families have other constraints and priorities, so I am not saying our way is best. Good luck to you.

By Deerhunter (Deerhunter) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Great article about this in the New Yorker last week.

It's funny, but here's the breakdown:

Kids with high math/low verbal scores go into chemistry...high math/high verbal kids go into physics...both usually end up becoming professors (relatively speaking, not high paying, even at the upper-levels)

Kids with good but not great math/verbal scores become physicians.

Kids with low math/low verbal scores go into business/law (explains why some businessmen and lawyers are not too bright...)

Perhaps salary is inversely proportional to SAT score?

By Shennie (Shennie) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Marite - I think you are right in that not having others in your "peer" group makes life even more difficult for these folks. I think that is why so many of them do tend toward academia, because they are more likely to find others who are like them. I, too, know a great many academics and quite a few of them are very inept socially. The are often way too blunt, they don't know how to make small talk, etc. I also many who are extremely adept socially. Because of the need for intellectual peers, I think extremely bright kids do better in larger schools rather than smaller as they are more likely to find others who are like them.

By Patient (Patient) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Deerhunter...LOLAM (laughing out loud at myself) about the lawyer comment. You missed one category: high verbal, low math: subsequent profession is....?

By Cheers (Cheers) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Marite, point taken--though, on the whole, I wouldn't categorize my friends as maladjusted. They survive nicely in the academic world. Some intersections with the non-academic cause great pain, but those are few--as their intersections are few.

But seriously, NONE of your academic friends are maladjusted? NONE? Bit hard to believe...

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Latetoschool fits that brilliant professor/absentminded professor prototype which is ripe for all kinds of stories. Unfortunately, the same episodes for someone without the IQ and back up plans are not so funny. One parent was just devastated, shaken to the core when a similar thing happened to her serverely LD son when he needed to transfer buses and suffered a disconnect and memory lapse. It is a great fear for her that something terrible could happen when he loses his thread as he cannot always figure out what to do though several scenarios are drilled into him. With him, you just cannot tell what he will do and you cannot sketch out every possibility.

Marite, you don't need to wish to be smarter!!You seem to be ever wise and compassionate which is a much more powerful combination. "And does the weary woman, seeking the sage, upon looking in the mirror, finds her".

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Well, they are not any more maladjusted than anybody else in another walk of life (and that includes my architect friends, LOL!). I do not count people who do not suffer fools gladly or cannot make small talk as maladjusted (I cannot make small talk and will never run for office). It does not mean that I like all the academics I encounter equally. I knew someone who had no social skills; he was a 17 year old graduate student, poor guy, I gather that once he grew older, complaints about his lack of social skills stopped completely. I know a former I-banker who was a real people person. He was extremely successful, and became quite wealthy. He bailed out because he was emotionally drained and was suffering from high blood pressure. He's currently seriously depressed. I have no idea what correlation, if any to establish. Another person I know who has been clinically depressed before is in administration. Two cases do not make a statistical sample, though.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Latetoschool fits that brilliant professor/absentminded professor prototype which is ripe for all kinds of stories. Unfortunately, the same episodes for someone without the IQ and back up plans are not so funny. One parent was just devastated, shaken to the core when a similar thing happened to her serverely LD son when he needed to transfer buses and suffered a disconnect and memory lapse. It is a great fear for her that something terrible could happen when he loses his thread as he cannot always figure out what to do though several scenarios are drilled into him. With him, you just cannot tell what he will do and you cannot sketch out every possibility.

Marite, you don't need to wish to be smarter!!You seem to be ever wise and compassionate which is a much more powerful combination. "And does the weary woman, seeking the sage, upon looking in the mirror, finds her".

By Latetoschool (Latetoschool) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit

Re the principal's comment, I, too, heard it as a cop out - at first. Over time, though, I came to see what the truth in the statement, at least in terms of the philosophy of the administration of the school, and how the children were guided by the teachers of smaller classes - each according to his or her gifts, though very informally - no true structure.

Is it possible to be too gifted an athlete, or too beautiful, or musically/art inclined, etc.?

I'm convinced that for each gift in excess there's a price paid in the form of a difficiency in another area. I think the challenge is how to get the most mileage out of one's gifts, while striving to develop in the counterbalancing areas of difficiency.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Latetoschool:

>>Re the principal's comment, I, too, heard it as a cop out - at first. Over time, though, I came to see what the truth in the statement, at least in terms of the philosophy of the administration of the school, and how the children were guided by the teachers of smaller classes - each according to his or her gifts, though very informally - no true structure. >>

No one actually told my S to learn to tolerate being bored in school. But one teacher (whom I otherwise love as she is a great humanities teacher), told us she did not believe in tracking when we asked whether our third-grader could study math together with the fourth graders (the two grades were combined). This is the kid who self-studied AP-Calculus BC in 7/8 grades.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Jamimom:

Thank you kindly. I will quote you when my family laughs at my ineptness when it comes to anything technological, LOL!

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 08:02 pm: Edit

"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king", but when you are among the mulitvisioned, which it sounds like your guys are in the technological area, well, you might just have one blurred eye.

By the way, I am considered a total loser in anything technological, particularly the computer where the family sits in total disbelief at how backwards I am. Actually, I can't even turn on the TV in this house, the way it is wired. Yet other than H, when it comes to math proofs, logic, etc, I can beat them all, hands down.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 08:08 pm: Edit

>Actually, I can't even turn on the TV in this house, the way it is wired.>

Ditto here. And since I am surrounded by competent males, I'm afraid I am really letting the sisterhood down with my ineptness! I can't beat anyone at math either. Haven't done, since my S solved an equation faster than I when he was in third grade.

By Nvadad (Nvadad) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit

http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/aspergers.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html

Asperger's (occasionally written Asberger's) Syndrome is real. Both of my sons (especially the 3 time MOPper) show signs of it.


- - - - -

I think success in business takes a basic amount of 'book' smarts but beyond that, an understanding of human nature, the ability to communicate, inspire others (and intimidate others), to judge risks and take risks are more important. Most important of all might be to think and care deeply about something that would not be considered intellectually stimulating. Many recent fortunes are the result of the deep examination a routine business (e.g. making hamburgers or donuts, waste disposal, renting videos) and execution of it more relentlessly than anyone else.


"We take the hamburger business more seriously than anyone else," Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald's Corporation said, explaining McDonald's success. Source: http://www.media.mcdonalds.com/secured/bios/kroc.html


Well, ok.

By Mimk6 (Mimk6) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit

I've done workshops on parenting gifted/highly gifted kids. I've known many kids in the highly gifted range (above 145) who were well adjusted, high functioning and happy and successful. They had been in gifted or highly gifted programs which, I think, helped a lot. I think it's easier to be unhappy if you are a square peg trying to fit into a round hole (very bright trying to fit into a non-gifted school setting). I also think the kids who do best are the ones whose parents make a concerted effort to help them "mainstream" socially whether it's through organized sports or other extra-cirriculars. I am of the particular belief that it is helpful for the exceptionally bright child to participate in an activity that doesn't play to their natural strengths -- it's good to know what if feels like for something to not come easily and it helps them to understand that what comes easily for them may not for others.

By Alwaysamom (Alwaysamom) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

Mimk6, I'd have to agree with what you said. One of my children is in that highly gifted range and she's one of the most well-rounded kids I know. She was in a self-contained gifted program for four years prior to high school and it was an ideal situation for her. Parenting and/or teaching these kids is always interesting!

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:09 am: Edit

NVadad: My S's cousin has borderline Asperger's. It's real, all right.

Mimk6: You are very right. One of my S's close friends is a C student with great people skills and street smarts. It's good for my S to realize that his friend outshines him in those important life skills.

By Patient (Patient) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

I have heard that the incidence of Asperger's is quite high in Silicon Valley. I heard one doctor recently surmise that environmental factors are at play, but others say that these highly intelligent people with no ability to read social cues are attracted to the engineering field and gravitate here.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit

Could it be that the famous American love affair with cars is a sign of incipient Asperger's? You know, being more comfortable with cars than with people? Just kidding.

By Patient (Patient) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit

It's okay, it's late for you Marite. The night is still young out here!

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

Patient-- that's so interesting. I, too, had heard the thing about the high preponderance in Silicon Valley, but not that people who have it might GO there. My nephew has been diagnosed with this so I'm interested. The book "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" is told from the point of view of a 15-year-old boy who apparently has Asperger's. It's fascinating.

By Patient (Patient) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

Enjoyingthis...I just finished that book (perhaps it was you who suggested it, I know I got the recommendation from someone here)...wasn't the narrator actually autistic (a more severe illness than Asperger's, which I think is often called high-functioning autism)? It was a wonderful book and the author's ability to empathize with the child narrator allows us to understand what it must be like for these children to face an overwhelming world.

In my practice, I have two autistic children and so I too have become interested, plus one of my friends' children was thought to have characteristics of Asperger's so I am trying to learn more about it. I'll let you know if I find out anything more about what they say about its incidence here.

By Patient (Patient) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:50 am: Edit

Ah, actually the "Wired" link above may be this article:

"Steven Silverman examines the concentration and increasing numbers of Asperger's and Autistic persons in the Silicon Valley in an in-depth article on this phenomenon in the magazine Wired, in the December 2001 issue. That article points up the natural affinity of high functioning autistic persons for computer and related occupations, and examines genetic and environmental reasons why there might be such a startling increase of Autism and Asperger's disorders as has been reported in California generally, and in the Silicon Valley specifically."

Google is so great....

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

Patient:

The author never actually came out and said exactly what was the matter with his character; it's reviewers and readers who have suggested that it is Asperger's.

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:13 am: Edit

Patient-- I just read the article above. Wow. And no, I don't think I recommended the book on this site. Funny that we both just read it. (Well, actually, it's on the best-seller list so maybe that's not so strange!) Marite-- I noticed only later that Asperger's was never actually mentioned in the book. It's just that my sis-in-law used the word in recommending it.

I've met a few kids who were later diagnosed with Asperger's and, at the time, when they were younger, they seemed incredibly brilliant and charming.

By Dmd77 (Dmd77) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:32 am: Edit

Is it possible to be too smart? Define "too smart."

If you mean, can you have a high IQ and great SAT scores and still be a failure (as you want to define failure)--well, of course! Lots of high IQ people have terrible marriages, boring lives, etc. So? Being academically "smart" doesn't mean that ALL aspects are smart...

HOWEVER, I think that being smart--in the high IQ sense--makes a person more likely to be trainable. It is possible to learn social skills, for example, even if they don't come easily. It is possible to develop a good marriage--if you can define one. Smart people can even develop a fashion sense, if one is required of them...

My husband is the smartest person I've ever met. He has a quick, incisive wit that can turn almost any situation around; he can be charming and romantic, too. He's a great husband and a wonderful father. He's started successful businesses (he started his first after a company president he was do some research for told him "well, you can't use those chips for that purpose"--and three years later, he'd outcompeted the company president--using those chips). But he didn't start out as all those things: some of them he figured out through painstaking research and study.

In any case, my husband told me once that Bill Gates was the smartest person he'd ever met.

Brains are a good start: persistence and determination help a lot too.

By Calmom (Calmom) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:18 am: Edit

I think you need to look at "smart" the way Howard Gardner does -- as in 7 kinds of smart. IQ tests measure only the academic, verbal/mathematical area. But two qualities that are probably most critical to "success" (with "success" being defined as getting recognition and/or financial rewards in one's career) are interpersonal skills and persistence - neither of which are measured by any sort of IQ test.

I personally don't think these qualities are particularly tied to IQ - a person can have a genius level IQ and be talented in these collateral realms, or not. A person's upbringing can also play a part - the parent of the highly gifted kid who also finds a way to keep the kid involved in peer relationships and emphasizes social skills may build up strength in an area that another, more academically competitive parent might ignore.

Interpersonal skills are crucial because in every field, including academia, the ones who get the recognition and/or earn the most money are the ones who also have the skills to get along with the "right" people, and to make sure they are noticed. Also, in a hierarchy, a rise to the top invariably means taking on responsibility for managing the work of others -- and those with strong interpersonal skills tend to be best at running a department or leading a team.

Persistence simply means that a person who keeps on working and trying, despite various obstacles or set backs, is more likely to succeed in the long run. As Edison said, genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

Again, I don't think these qualities correlate with IQ one way or another, but it may be that those with less-than-stellar IQ's (or their parents) are more likely to realize the importance of their interpersonal skills and the value of hard work, and to plan accordingly, simply because they recognize that they cannot coast on brainpower alone.

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit

I'm curious about how so many of you seem to know your own IQs or your children's or spouse's. How have I lived this long without knowing this number about any of my nearest and dearest, including myself? Did you take some test along the way? Of course, I sure wouldn't want to take any test NOW as I'm pretty sure my number would be dropping! I feel like I'm suffering from brain holes these days. Specifically, I draw blanks when I need to recall a name or a certain word. Anybody else?

By Patient (Patient) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:29 am: Edit

Enjoyingthis, my twin :-), I'm in about the same boat, especially with regard to the brain holes, I posted about my short term memory issues a few days ago (if I remember correctly).

I do know one of the IQs in my family of 5. I suspect that 4 of us are clustered in around the same range and H is higher. That's as good as I can get and I may be wrong. My H does fit some of the descriptions mentioned above. My brother and I were tested when we were young and my mother refused to tell us our IQs, saying only that we were exactly the same.

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:53 am: Edit

Patient-- when I can't remember a word, I'm trying to remind myself not to freak out and stop the whole conversation trying to find it. I recall how frustrating that used to be for me when older people would do that. Hey, we just want to get on with the chat, right? But NOW I understand that the frustration expressed is not about the necessity of knowing that word for the sake of the conversation, it's about the frustration of having brain holes. We want to say, "Hey, you don't know how crummy this is, not having the word pop into my head like it should!" I did feel like this improved a bit for me when I was put on a very small dose of thyroid med, but it's a hard thing to quantify and I'm afraid in generall the trend is still downhill!

By Latetoschool (Latetoschool) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit

Enjoyingthis, in our case, I was tested as a child; in D's case, I sent her to private school all 12 years, but attempted to enroll her in a public school summer program for gifted, which required an IQ test.

The psychologist who administered the test and issued the results told her: "the IQ test result is simply the engine you happen to have, and is no guarantee of success, in school or beyond. It's totally up to you how you're going to decide to drive this car. Most people have engines that are not as powerful, but if they're better drivers, they may very well pass you by on the road".

O.K., weird analogy but very good point.

Personally, I think high IQs are almost worthless if one lacks requisite the social skills. Happily, my child is overly gifted in that area as well. I am not, and it has cost me.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit

We don't know our IQs. There seem to be some districts in which it is common for kids to be tested but it does not happen in ours.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Sorry I didn't have a chance to read all of the posts here (I have just a couple of minutes before my break is over), but I wanted to add something on this subject. There is a big difference between intelligence and knowledge. Honestly intelligence doesn't really mean much if it isn't accompanied by knowledge. The only thing intelligence gives people is the ability to learn (to varying degrees as far as ease vs difficulty in learning). Knowledge actually gives us something to work with. And when it comes to success, there are so many other variables such as passion, creativity, intuition, dedication, etc. So I would have to disagree that anyone can be "too smart" because I really don't think there is such a thing.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Interesting posts, all. When I said "smart" I meant traditional, verbal/math/SAT type smart. The existence of other forms of "intelligence" is clear, although some might use the term "talent" instead of "intelligence" to describe those areas not within the traditional realm of "smarts." I guess my postulation is that having an extra helping of the V/M talent may "crowd out" the capacity for high levels of the other "intelligences."

There are 5 members of my immediate family. 3 are regular smart people, 2 "highly gifted". (I don't know the IQ numbers, but the classification seems pretty clear - regularly scoring in the 99th percentile on standardized tests, etc.) The 3 regular smart ones all have more "people smarts" - natural talent for dealing with social situations, reading social "clues" etc. than the HG ones. While it does appear that HG's can train themselves in those areas, it seems to be a conscious effort, as opposed to coming naturally. Daydreaming, lost in abstract thought, focused on something other than what's present, all seem to be more common among (though not exclusive to) the HG.

It doesn't surprise me to see HG-level intelligence not correspond to higher income than the regular smart people, although money is not the only form of "success" I had in mind.

By Emptynester (Emptynester) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit

How smart is too smart?
How pretty is too pretty?
How tall is too tall?
How red is too red?

IMO Success seems to also be a rather subjective idea based on the attitudes previously expressed on this board.

Of course that's just my opinion

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

"Daydreaming, lost in abstract thought, focused on something other than what's present, all seem to be more common among (though not exclusive to) the HG."

These supposedly negative traits are what make smart people smart. HG students daydream because they tune out some boring lecture about something they've already studied; perhaps, they spend the time solving some problem in their head while the teacher tries to explain long division for the umpteenth time. The capacity to focus intensely on solving a problem, on analyzing what one reads instead of just skimming the surface, is what makes a reader a critical reader, one who can retains the essential message of a passage rather than forgetting it the minute the book is closed, etc...

Let me quote from a portfolio letter my S wrote in 5th grade: " I'm sorry that I have no work that really stood out. I already knew all the stuff we did in this unit. And I don't think this should go in any portfolio either.
PS: I didn't learn anything in the last 3 units, either. Sorry. I've found the math unchallenging."
When I read that, I nearly wept. I suspect that several scenarios happened during those units where my S did not learn anything.
1. he was daydreaming about something totally unrelated to math and not disturbing the class.
2. he was lost in abstract thought, trying to solve an advanced math problem, and not disturbing the rest of the class.
3. he was building origami airplanes which he then tried out in class, greatly disturbing his teacher, though perhaps his classmates enjoyed the disruption.
4. he was solving the problems for everybody else, which feat of generosity prevented them from actually learning the math.
Was he too smart? yes, definitely, for that particular class. This was the year that we seriously considered homeschooling, by the way. But he is not too smart for the program he is in currently, or the classes he takes in college. We've had no report of either daydreaming or disruptive behavior :-) And when he visited colleges, one prof had origami structures in his office and recommended to him a book about the mathematics of origami.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:55 pm: Edit

I've skimmed a lot of these posts and would like to throw in a few comments.

Early on in high school, I was teased mercilessly for being "smart." (Just a side note: I've scored in the 99th percentile on nearly every standardized test I've taken since the 5th grade; LSAT was 98th.) It really was miserable, as kids didn't like that I got better grades than they did. Eventually, I learned to stay below the radar screen by becoming more adept at hiding intelligence. Sports helped; track was a big deal in my high school and I did well at that, which softened some of the geek aspect. I was often quite bored, but honours classes didn't come along soon enough (and some of them were still really easy) - I was sometimes one of those people who didn't do well because there was no challenge. Grew out of that, thankfully. Socially though, things were pretty rough except during middle school, where it was really cool to be smart, especially in the sciences. Girls in science, even cooler. For some reason, that dropped off starting in 9th grade, and I got teased a lot.

College was tough because it was the first time that I saw material which I couldn't understand immediately. There's a difference between work ethic and study skills - it took me a while to develop ways to break down and comprehend material that I couldn't "get" immediately. I imagine that other kids probably had the same issues.

Memory-wise - well, one of my friends termed me "the human Rolodex." Very useful, but I tend to scare people. Never let your credit card number within my sight unless you want me parroting it back to you two years from now!

By Momofonly (Momofonly) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Enjoying This,

I can empathize with the inability to remember words. The other day my daughter asked me what we were having for dinner. We were having spinach tortellini and I just couldn't for the life of me remember EITHER word!! So I finally just said "green pasta."

By Mimk6 (Mimk6) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

"I'm curious about how so many of you seem to know your own IQs or your children's or spouse's."

I know it because my kids were tested. The school district they are in requires identification through one of a couple of ways in order to obtain gifted funding for schools and to be able to apply and get into certain programs. One of those ways is through stanine scores for a couple of years from standardized testing (only for gifted ID not highly gifted) and one is through IQ testing. Because the gifted magnet my kids were in received money for identified kids they did not want to wait two years for stanine scores and would test the kids they felt had the strongest chance of doing well. Then the parents get the results. In our district you must have an IQ of 145 or higher to be in highly gifted programs -- that's the other reason my kids were tested -- to see what options were they could/should pursue after elementary school. My kids tested from gifted through highly gifted. We did not share the results of their tests with them (partly because we didn't want to fuel sibling rivalry, etc.) although it was clear who was able to apply to highly gifted programs -- a little touchy. We emphasized that it's not how smart you are -- it's what you do with what you have. I will say this -- it was very helpful to me as a parent when a particular child was identified highly gifted -- I did a lot of reading and realized that a lot of dynamics that I was personalizing were really dynamics that are common with highly gifted kids. I felt the information allowed me to parent much more effectively.

By Mimk6 (Mimk6) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

One of the fun things about going to the spring admit weekends was hearing experts in their field speak (you get to sit in on lectures). Since I am a mental health professional, I went to hear Yale's expert on EQ -- emotional intelligence. It was very interesting. I think high intelligence is not a problem if people are also blessed with a high EQ or whatever innate abilities it takes to connect with others, socialize and read people. My HG child is a social butterfly -- equally comfortable with people who are very bright and people who are average -- she is very intuitive. She's lucky. But I've known many HG people who move through the world easily -- they have other abilities in addition to intelligence -- I don't think intelligence -- whether it's high or average is what makes people happy -- it's other stuff. Some HG people have it and some don't -- that's true of average people as well. There are plenty of people who are average to superior who lack the ability to be in relationships and to be well socialized -- it's just pretty pronounced when you meet a brilliant person who lacks other skills -- the difference is so noticable. Also, gifted and highly gifted kids can be asyncronistic -- in other words they may be years ahead with one skill and average or below average in others. They may be reading very well and still wearing pullups. Sometimes that makes it hard to fit in -- it takes some parental effort to deal with that. But a child whose repeated social experience is that it's hard to fit in might have a learned response to social situations and not do well in that area.

By Justice (Justice) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit

I think it's just the contrast effect at work (while we're busy quoting irreverent psychopop).

You see someone who obviously possesses a great amount of brainpower. Perhaps she/he shows signs of social awkwardness. You think "wow that kid must be awkward because she/he is smart." When you see someone with a 100IQ who lacks common sense and social skills, you think "hmm he's just a typical kid who doesn't know what's going on." Because of the stereotypes that you've seen and certain individuals who stand out in your mind, you gravitate toward the one which tells you that "really gifted kids must let their intelligence get in the way."

I just want to say, Kluge: If you look at people in the 100-120IQ range. You'd certainly see a ton of awkward people who don't know what's going on, probably even more so than for gifted people. It is only because you are expecting HGs to behave a certain way that when it does happen, it acts as a confirmation rather than additional information to help you reach your own conclusion. Look up "attribution bias" in psych tomes for more about this common human error.

I guess my postulation is that having an extra helping of the V/M talent may "crowd out" the capacity for high levels of the other "intelligences."

So you think that human intelligence/skill is endowed via an attribute system? HARDLY. I think we have all met people who are extraordinarily intelligent and talented in many social/industrial aspects (many of whom go to HYPS), people who are generally weak, and everything in between. To say that there is some sort of a balancing effect (implication being that some higher being uniformly controls how much skill we have) is a huge overstatement which ignores the other 99% of the human population who don't follow the rule.

The one-dimensional-ness that you are referring to is almost certainly a product of environment. Put an HG kid out on the street or in an orphanage and he will master the skills of social manipulation--put him in a comfortable middle-class home and he'll ace everything you put in front of him. Put a born-to-play soccer player in a wealthy Italian family and he'll break into the World Cup by 18. Put him in a poor Chinese family and kiss that goodbye. How one-dimensional someone is has to do more with which opportunities one has and what one's personal inclinations are then their IQ.

HG is certainly a problem if you just don't have the equivalent of EQ, but that's the same way for people of all IQs.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Justice - you have a point. The "sample" of people who are HG is quite limited. I know a lot of people in the 100-120 and 120-140 range - based on my imperfect assessment - but few who I'd guess are HG. And it's likely that I'd notice the shortcomings of the HG because we tend to put them under higher scrutiny as a general matter. So my essentially anecdotal observations may not be valid.

So you think that human intelligence/skill is endowed via an attribute system?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My notion is, first, that people with a high level of "traditional" IQ tend to spend their time flexing those muscles, to the detriment of other "intelligences" which might otherwise flourish. But I also consider that, even with a wide range of distribution of strengths there is likely to be a finite limit to the overall "intelligence" capacity of the human brain. So while it's possible to be "book smart" and "people smart" and one person's total "book + people" smarts can be larger than another's (i.e. there will always be some people who are superior in both areas to some other people) I think it's not unlikely that a person endowed with a large amount of one may be more likely to be shorted on another. And I wouldn't ascribe that so much to a higher being as to biological limits and the finite nature of human capacity.

By Patient (Patient) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Momofonly, LOL about the "green pasta" Sounds like me.

The reason I thought the child in "Curious incident" was autistic because the biographical note stated that the author used to work with autistic children and seemed to imply that it was that experience that led him to write the book. I couldn't put my hands on it this morning before I left to go to work (more forgetting stuff, alas).

By Calmom (Calmom) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Enjoyingthis,

There is no such thing as an IQ. What people cite as an "IQ" is merely a test result - it is as meaningless as someone dividing their SAT score by 10 and calling that IQ. (Which, by the way, would probably tend to correlate roughly with real IQ's).

I had my IQ measured through various instruments in childhood, from about age 10-14 - and my test scores ranged from 132 to 178. Those two scores happened to come from separate test administered the same day -- and I was indeed smart enough to figure what the difference was between the two tests. The lower score was on a test that heavily emphasized verbal skills, especially vocabulary - kind of like SAT analogies - it happened to also be a test designed for adults, and I was on the young end for taking it. The high score was on one of those tests with a lot of pictures and diagrams - the kind where you are supposed to figure out which shape is supposed to come next in a series. In other words, the scores came out differently because my spatial and associative reasoning skills were stronger than my verbal skills. Also, the two tests were scaled differently, but not so differently that the scores were equivalent. I am sure the results were valid -- I really did find the test that yielded the lower score to be much more difficult to complete -- and the test with the higher score was also re-administered at a different time, different setting, with the same high result. But the point is, they were two different tests - neither one could give a definitive "IQ".

I had my daughter tested privately when she was age 6 -- but these days, I'm not dumb enough to consider a WISC combined score as an "IQ". Like most children given the WISC-III, the goal of the testing was to get a picture of strengths & weaknesses... or to prove (or disprove) something to the school.

It is also a myth that IQ scores are static - in fact, many individuals will show marked differences in IQ tests at different times in their lives. There is a tremendous growth in brain matter immediately before puberty, and brain development continues through mid-life. Of course, kids who are tested a lot will tend to become more adept at the testing - so kids who enjoy puzzles, games, and skill-building exercises which contain the type of problems typically posed on IQ tests will likewise tend to bolster their own scores. This may contribute to the "Flynn effect" -- the fact that average IQ scores for any population increase significantly over time.

IQ tests do measure an aptitude for certain kinds of reasoning and problem-solving abilities, so they shouldn't be discounted entirely. But the numerical score is overrated -- no one really has an "IQ", although the closer one is to the norm (average) the more likely it is statistically that the IQ score would be replicated in repeat testing. Human nature being what it is, though, most people who know their own test results (or those of their children) will tend to quote the highest score ever attained as being their IQ.

P.S. I stand by my statement above that what really counts in life are interpersonal skills and hard work/preparation/persistence.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit

What people cite as an "IQ" is merely a test result - it is as meaningless as someone dividing their SAT score by 10 and calling that IQ. (Which, by the way, would probably tend to correlate roughly with real IQ's).

Very true. The SAT score/10 does correlate very strongly with IQ (in a small sample of people I know), esp. when you use the first-time SAT score. My SAT/10 is 3 points lower than my IQ, and the correlation is equally close for a handful of other people I know. 1400 and 138, 1300ish and 135, and the obvious 1000 and 100.

By Patient (Patient) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit

If the above is true (SAT/10)--what relationship does this have to the old SAT before re-centering? Still the same formula? Or do we get to use the new correlated scores to find our IQ?

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Use the new ones I guess.

By John123 (John123) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 02:14 am: Edit

how can a test like the SAT determine intelligence?

a healthy portion of the verbal section involves words that people are unlikely to encounter -- unless they read all the time or memorize their meanings/uses, which doesn't really paint my picture of intelligence =\.

Of course, there are similarities between sat/iq, but the obvious flaw shows the relationship is in no way accurate.

By Calmom (Calmom) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 02:21 am: Edit

The point is - it's only a test. There is no such thing as a measurable IQ - there are normed tests that purport to measure certain aptitudes. The SAT test measures what it says it measures -- nothing else. IQ tests measure whatever aptitudes are needed for answering the type of questions they pose, nothing else. The whole notion of an IQ is based on late 19th century/early 20th century notions of intelligence that came into vogue at the same time as the eugenics movement, and were used during the first half of the 20th century to justify a wide variety of racist and culturally discriminatory practices, including forced sterilization of the "feeble minded". Obviously, certain aptitudes can be measured and categorized - but there never has been any scientific basis for the notion that there is an across-the-board, singular type of intelligence. Of course we can observe that some people seem very smart, and others quite limited -- but most people have a mixed set of aptitudes. A "gifted" student is as likely to be very strong in some areas and weak in others, as to have a uniform set of aptitudes -- and the notion of IQ only creates a corresponding myth of the "underachiever" (the kid who somehow never manages to perform as well as the tests say he should).... to the detriment of those whose very strong accomplishments are discounted because their performance outstrips their test scores.

This discussion illustrates the false dichotomy that the notion of IQ creates -- hence, the title of this thread. ("too smart?"). A pragmatic definition of "intelligence" would make it impossible to be "too smart" - because intelligence would be defined as the overall ability to cope and succeed in one's environment, not as the ability to do well in the limited arena of academics or the even more limited area of test-taking. We only have the concept of a mismatch between IQ and ability to succeed because we have created this false idea of IQ which doesn't happen to measure a variety of other factors that are important to an individual's success.

You can roughly correlate your SAT to your probable score on a standard IQ test, but SATs don't measure IQ...... nor do the IQ tests. They measure testing aptitude, which may or may not transfer to other areas of life.

By Mimk6 (Mimk6) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:43 pm: Edit

"how can a test like the SAT determine intelligence? "

It correlates very closely to IQ tests, particularly at the higher end.

By Marite (Marite) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

I've read that IQ tests are not accurate after the age of 12 because it is impossible to separate knowledge and intelligence after that age. The same issue is raised as regards the SAT, despite attempts to eliminate culturally biased questions.
We know that someone raised in a household full of books will have a rather different vocabulary than one raised in a household bereft of reading materials. This is even before the child has been prepped for the SAT or before s/he has retaken it. Now, our friend Xiggi is a very very smart person. But he thinks that the SAT can be prepared for, if only it is by familiarizing oneself with the format. So even the first SAT may not be an accurate gauge of intelligence.

By Cheers (Cheers) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Okay, back from playing tour guide (and college coach, lol) to two nephews....

What is genius level? 160? And what percentage of the population has that IQ? Under 1/2%?

I spent the 1990's living in a highly academic community (well regarded med school), surrounded by loads of folks in that top 1/2% and, while they are perfectly happy in academia, they are not so happy in regular, big box retail, suburban America. My observation is that many geniuses, (but not all), lack the ability to read social cues. If it isn't merit based, ie logical, they don't get it.

Also, I have a sibling with a severe case of bipolar depression. One of the main symptoms? Inability to read social cues. Of all the junk that goes with that disease, that deviation is crippling--the most isolating factor. Heartbreaking, really.

I don't wish for the 99th percentile. Based on the lives I've seen in academia, I don't envy it. (Mind you, I'm not hopeless with technology, thank goodness).

By Robyrm (Robyrm) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 06:47 pm: Edit

A fine book on this topic is "Successful Intelligence" by Robert Sternberg...a Yale Psychologist...

By John123 (John123) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

[quote]"how can a test like the SAT determine intelligence? "

It correlates very closely to IQ tests, particularly at the higher end. [/quote]

You don't understand :<<

A healthy part of the SAT verbal section is all about the extent of one's vocabulary.

Show me how this determines intelligence, and I'll show you a cow that can fly.

I have superb aptitude! I memorized webster's!

The fact that it correlates just goes to show how innacurate IQ tests are as well.

By Calmom (Calmom) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:22 am: Edit

Marite wrote:
I've read that IQ tests are not accurate after the age of 12 because it is impossible to separate knowledge and intelligence after that age.

Probably true, but IQ tests could not possibly be accurate before the age of 12, either, because it is similarly impossible to separate acquired knowledge and innate aptitude, and also impossible to account for normal differences in the rate if development.

I do think there is value in testing children -- as noted above, I had my daughter evaluated using WISC III and other tests - but NOT in order to get an "IQ". My daughter was tested because we had concerns about appropriate grade placement - she was a very precocious early reader and we wanted to know what her aptitude and abilities were at age 6 to help us (and the school) decide whether she should be accellerated. These tests are also commonly used to assess for learning disabilities - my daughter did not have any LD, but my son did.

So I'm not trying to attack the value of the tests - I think they are extremely useful for making educational decisions for young kids. I just think it is a mis-use to use the results of a test as a measure of the lifelong aptitude or abilities of the child.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit

Calmom:

Except for my S's cousin, who had reasons to be tested, I don't know of anyone who has been tested for IQ, or have had their children tested. They may have, they just don't tell.

But from the gifted literature I have read, it appears that there is substantial opposition to testing before the 4th grade because of, as you say, normal differences in the rate of development. Many teachers in fact are said to be skeptical of claims that some very young children are indeed gifted and should be accommodated. A common refrain is said to be: "It will all even out by 3rd grade." Supposedly, the ideal time for testing is between 8 and 12. Have you read about this?

By Calmom (Calmom) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 04:56 am: Edit

Marite,
The WISC III, which is the most commonly used IQ test for children, can be given at age 6 and over. The WISC III is an excellent assessment tool, because it is broken down into a number of subtests, so it gives a very good profile of learning strengths and weaknesses. The subtests fall either under the title "Verbal" or "Performance", and an "IQ" is assigned to each section, with a combined IQ based on averaging the two. However, the primary reason the test is used is for diagnostic purposes, usually in assessing giftedness or learning disabilities; a child with LD will by definition score relatively poorly on some of the subtests - and because of that poor performance, the overall "IQ" is really invalidated. The whole point of the subtests is that the pattern of scores can help diagnose the specific LD. On the other hand, a very highly gifted child will top out on the WISC III (which I believe has a ceiling of 150) - so that child will often be assessed with other, additional IQ tests.

The reason parents have kids assessed -- or that schools arrange the testing -- is, as I have noted, to get information needed to make educational decisions. With my daughter, we had this question: should a 6 year old child who reads at 4th grade level be placed in 1st grade at a public school - or should she be accelerated into 2nd grade. The school principal opined that d. was only "decoding" and not truly reading. Testing - which included achievement tests as well as the WISC - showed that she was in fact reading with full comprehension at beyond 6th grade level - but her math skills were only at mid-2nd grade. Based on a combination of factors, we opted for partial acceleration, putting her in a combined 1/2 class that year, and moving her the following year to straddle two classes - taking language arts in a 3/4 class, and returning to 2nd grade for other classes (math, science, social studies, p.e., etc.). The testing simply saved a lot of time and effort debating the issues of where she stood academically - it also qualified her for the gifted program - which wasn't much at our school, but there was a summer GATE program that she attended in a neighboring district that was definitely worthwhile. (Plus, they gave her a partial scholarship based on her IQ test score - can't complain about that). FWIW, her combined WISC IQ was 140, but this is the same kid who I have posted about elsewhere who has barely above 1200 on her SATs. The WISC, by the way, is an oral test given in a one-to-one setting, not a multiple choice test - it allows for some degree of subjectivity in the way the evaluator interprets the child's responses - so it really isn't closely analogous to an SAT.

It is NOT true that testing for giftedness or learning disabilities should be delayed, because the primary grades in school are probably the time that kids are most vulnerable and least able to cope with an educational environment that does not meet their needs. I mean, you don't want a 7 year old who is bored to tears every day at school -- and you don't want a kid the same age feeling like a failure every day because he can't keep up -- so I would say the ages 6-10 are when it is MOST important for parents to have a good understanding of their kid's academic needs, if there is any reason to suspect that the kid will not fit in well with the expected grade level curriculum.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 06:59 am: Edit

Thanks, Calmom. I agree this is the most productive use of testing. I don't know what I would do with information about my S's IQ.
But even with actual knowledge of his advanced level, many teachers did not quite know what to do or had ideological reaons for not accelerating when it would have caused minimal disruption (e.g. putting him together with 4th graders for math in a combined 3/4 grade class). When my S took the Stanford 9 in 6th grade, results showed that he could read at 12th grade level, but that did not lead to any form of acceleration. He eventually got accelerated in math by the simple expedient of the 7th grade math teacher giving him the 8th grade math text after 6th grade and asking if he knew the contents. When my S said yes, after having looked at the text for about a week, he was skipped to precalculus. That was acceleration with a vengeance. It left us a little breathless. That, and the SAT in 7th grade is the extent of our experience with non-mandated "testing."

By Mimk6 (Mimk6) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit

"You don't understand :<<

A healthy part of the SAT verbal section is all about the extent of one's vocabulary. "

I understand. I knew a psychologist who did a ton of testing. He told me that each section (verbal and nonverbal) of the WISC for kids has a section that is considered the core thing you would look at if you had only one section to choose that was most valid for IQ -- on the verbal it's the vocab section-- I had the same objection that you do but he said that it's not just exposure or drilling-- people with high verbal intelligence know how to use vocabulary -- they remember it, they process it, they get it's correct context in language and that is more than a learned behavior -- it takes certain mental abilities which is what the test is looking at. I agree that on the SAT you can boost your vocab but kids taking IQ tests aren't cramming vocab. But the correlation between SAT tests and IQ tests is still there -- even with the ability to study. My take on it is that you can boost your score but it's unlikely that someone of average intelligence will get a 1600.

By Calmom (Calmom) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:28 am: Edit

Mimk6 - it is unlikely that a kid will score at the top ranges of the Verbal SAT, even with study, unless he also has very high verbal intelligence -- but it is very common that a highly intelligent student who has not had strong exposure in early years to written and spoken "standard" (academic) English will score poorly, despite innate intelligence. For example, a child of non-English speaking immigrant parents who attends inner city public schools simply is not going to get exposed to the type of vocabulary, or sophisticated grammatical structure and syntax of language, that my own children -- the offspring of two highly educated and talkative lawyers -- were exposed to in utero. The immigrant child may have language and syntax that is quite sophisticated (at least according to Chomsky) -- but it isn't the same as what is on the test.

The same issues would apply with verbal subtests on the WISC 3 - although, as noted above, with the subjective one on one nature of the test, an skilled examiner might make some allowances. But no kid, no matter how bright, is going to gain proficiency in a language that he has not had adequate exposure to. Testing for verbal skills simply has an innate cultural bias because of this factor.

By Wlrsqtr (Wlrsqtr) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

OK my D got a perfect score on the SAT. FYI, the easiest part for her was the analogies because she has an uncanny ability to guess the right answer when she isn't sure of the meaning - so there is something going on besides memorizing vocab. I think her score is one indication of where she stands academically and intellectually vesus her peers at our good public school. But, in her crowd she was not an out there somewhere genius, just one of the kids near the top of the class with plenty of friends/peers with high SATs and good grades and interesting activities. I am sure that if she was a student at the mediocre school that I attended she would have had a lower score. If her English was limited her score would be lower (not a surprise I would hope). But more germaine to this thread, I believe there are many schools in this country in which she would not have found social peers, or she and her peers would have been outcasts because they are too smart! Or she would have had to compromise on who she is to be popular.