Must read article - The outsiders.

[ChristopherL]

This is an article I read years ago that I found quite enlightening.
I suspect most INTPs will find the same.

http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html

Here are some quotes to whet your appetites.

One of the problems faced by all gifted persons is learning to focus their efforts for prolonged periods of time. Since so much comes easily to them, they may never acquire the self-discipline necessary to use their gifts to the fullest. Hollingworth describes how the habit begins.

Where the gifted child drifts in the school unrecognized, working chronically below his capacity (even though young for his grade), he receives daily practice in habits of idleness and daydreaming. His abilities never receive the stimulus of genuine challenge, and the situation tends to form in him the expectation of an effortless existence [3, p. 258].

But if the "average" gifted child tends to acquire bad adjustment habits in the ordinary schoolroom, the exceptionally gifted have even more problems. Hollingworth continues:

Children with IQs up to 150 get along in the ordinary course of school life quite well, achieving excellent marks without serious effort. But children above this mental status become almost intolerably bored with school work if kept in lockstep with unselected pupils of their own age. Children who rise above 170 IQ are liable to regard school with indifference or with positive dislike, for they find nothing in the work to absorb their interest. This condition of affairs, coupled with the supervision of unseeing and unsympathetic teachers, has sometimes led even to truancy on the part of gifted children [3, p. 258].

A second adjustment problem faced by all gifted persons is due to their uncommon versatility. Hollingworth says:

Another problem of development with reference to occupation grows out of the versatility of these children. So far from being one-sided in ability and interest, they are typically capable of so many different kinds of success that they may have difficulty in confining themselves to a reasonable number of enterprises. Some of them are lost to usefulness through spreading their available time and energy over such a wide array of projects that nothing can be finished or done perfectly. After all, time and space are limited for the gifted as for others, and the life-span is probably not much longer for them than for others. A choice must be made among the numerous possibilities, since modern life calls for specialization

Hollingworth points out that the exceptionally gifted do not deliberately choose isolation, but are forced into it against their wills.

These superior children are not unfriendly or ungregarious by nature. Typically they strive to play with others but their efforts are defeated by the difficulties of the case... Other children do not share their interests, their vocabulary, or their desire to organize activities. They try to reform their contemporaries but finally give up the struggle and play alone, since older children regard them as "babies," and adults seldom play during hours when children are awake. As a result, forms of solitary play develop, and these, becoming fixed as habits, may explain the fact that many highly intellectual adults are shy, ungregarious, and unmindful of human relationships, or even misanthropic and uncomfortable in ordinary social intercourse [3, p. 262].

But if the exceptionally gifted is isolated from his contemporaries, the gulf between him and the adult authorities in his life is even deeper.

The very gifted child or adolescent, perceiving the illogical conduct of those in charge of his affairs, may turn rebellious against all authority and fall into a condition of negative suggestibility--a most unfortunate trend of personality, since the person is then unable to take a cooperative attitude toward authority. A person who is highly suggestible in a negative direction is as much in bondage to others around him as is the person who is positively suggestible. The social value of the person is seriously impaired in either case. The gifted are not likely to fall victims to positive suggestion but many of them develop negativism to a conspicuous degree

It is interesting to note how closely these descriptions parellel various personality "disorders" ADD, ODD, APD, NPD all have echoes this.


It's a fascinating read that I suspect everyone on the forum could benefit from.

 

[zxc]

An interesting read.

 

[merzbau]

thanks for the read.
am i the only person who finds the notion there are "superior" and "inferior" children somewhat distasteful? it gives me the impression that the distinction is made by cloistered, back-patting academics who have spent their lives being sheltered from the outside world, where they may find their IQ doesn't make them as superior as they think.

and what the hell does "too intelligent to be understood" mean? if you're intelligent, you should be smart enough to communicate with anyone, regardless of their level of understanding. that just sounds like bullshit.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

thanks for the read.
am i the only person who finds the notion there are "superior" and "inferior" children somewhat distasteful? it gives me the impression that the distinction is made by cloistered, back-patting academics who have spent their lives being sheltered from the outside world, where they may find their IQ doesn't make them as superior as they think.

and what the hell does "too intelligent to be understood" mean? if you're intelligent, you should be smart enough to communicate with anyone, regardless of their level of understanding. that just sounds like bullshit.

I think it is fine for them to classify with a scale. For example, an F grade is 'inferior' to the 'superior' A grade. We are complex, yes, but it is possible for us to try and categorize ourselves. These categorizations are implemented for comprehension, which benefit our actions when we require immediate data.

 

[cheese]

merbau:
It's like Superman having to walk at human speed to appear normal. It isn't natural for him and requires extra effort. Perhaps younger children have not yet learnt to reduce their ideas to simpler terms more digestible for the masses.

Also, there are some ideas that are simply too challenging for normal people. Extremely gifted individuals have the potential to understand more things at a much higher level. Expecting them to be able to communicate everything is ridiculous - just as we wouldn't expect a retard to understand everything we say.

*edit
Have you had any experience with retards? (IQ below 90) My cousin is one. She simply cannot understand some concepts. Your level of understanding limits you. That's why it's a level. There are some levels you cannot reach. The ability for abstraction increases with intelligence, which is why less intelligent kids almost always have problems with math (although the reverse does not follow). Extremely intelligent people would be able to understand things at a much higher level than the average person, and this level of illumination may not be reducible even to the peak of the latter's ability.

 

[Anthile]

I sense a Randian vibe there. And that is not good.

 

[snowqueen]

That was a very interesting article - thanks for posting that. I thought the three types of adaptation at the end of the article was interesting.

Of course one must remember not to fall into the logical trap of imagining that just because one feels like an Outsider that means one has a high IQ!

My IQ is in that 'optimal' range - I had a lot of problems making friends in primary (elementary?) school because no one wanted to discuss the esoteric subjects that interested me, but I was actually ok being a loner. My daughter who is probably at the higher end of the optimal range had real problems at primary school because she was neglected by (female) teachers who favoured the verbally articulate girls rather than the mathematical like my daughter and also she found it frustrating that other kids didn't want to benefit from her good ideas for games (probably far too complex) - but I was able to reassure her that it would get better at secondary school and largely it has because she's made friends with the other top kids - though she gets tearful that her female friends don't want to talk about physics with her. Her best friend is a boy.

The absolute worst thing that happened to me was that in my last two years of school I was picked on and victimised by one of my English teachers - I was naive and had no idea what was happening - and so by the time I left school my scores (I had been top of the class since starting school) plummetted, I didn't achieve good final grades, I totally believed that I wasn't really very clever and couldn't write and despised education. I became an obnoxious rebel and spent most of my 20s taking drugs and drifting from one career to another.

I am passionate now about education and have fought for both of my children's education - the superbright one and my other one who is also clever but dyslexic - because I think that good minds need the rigour of higher education to give confidence and satisfaction. The worst thing that can happen in my opinion is for bright children to have no guidance as to how to use their intellect or no forum in which to use it where it is appreciated.

The one thing in that article that amused me was the assumption that nerds are by definition, ugly!!

 

[Kuu]

thanks for the read.
am i the only person who finds the notion there are "superior" and "inferior" children somewhat distasteful?

Distasteful? Maybe. False? ........

and what the hell does "too intelligent to be understood" mean? if you're intelligent, you should be smart enough to communicate with anyone, regardless of their level of understanding. that just sounds like bullshit.

Cheese put it nicely. You can communicate indeed, but not in the same level. I can communicate commands to my dog; I can't talk metaphysics with it. Hell, I can't talk metaphysics with most of the people I know!

It's one of those thinks that current societies continue to consider extremely un-PC to express publicly (even though they rely heavily on it): that some people are smarter than others. There is severe collective trauma attached to the concept, but that does not make it any less true.

EDIT: I've had experience with severe retards. We visited some as part of forced school community service. I hated it to the core of my being. I'm awkward communicating and living with regular people, with them it was torture, it was so frustrating!... And completely lacking that F capacity for compassion, I just sat there paralyzed and disgusted by the whole situation. Seeing 40 year olds acting like 5 year olds, throwing tantrums, drooling, and barely capable of holding a crayon or understanding sentences of more than 8 words was a rather traumatizing experience for me as a young kid.

 

[merzbau]

I think it is fine for them to classify with a scale. For example, an F grade is 'inferior' to the 'superior' A grade. We are complex, yes, but it is possible for us to try and categorize ourselves. These categorizations are implemented for comprehension, which benefit our actions when we require immediate data.

yeah well, i understand this may be a contentious opinion to some, but i place no confidence in an intelligence test written by another human who believes there is a bell curve for "intelligence". that's old-fashioned elitism, pure and simple.

Also, there are some ideas that are simply too challenging for normal people. Extremely gifted individuals have the potential to understand more things at a much higher level. Expecting them to be able to communicate everything is ridiculous - just as we wouldn't expect a retard to understand everything we say.

too challenging? what kind of ideas are we talking about here?
didn't einstein once say that a theory isn't worthwhile until you can explain it to your grandmother?

 

[snowqueen]

too challenging? what kind of ideas are we talking about here?
didn't einstein once say that a theory isn't worthwhile until you can explain it to your grandmother?

That doesn't mean that there aren't ideas which are too challenging - just that it isn't worth anything unless it can be communicated - I am sure there are lots of brilliant ideas that can't be communicated which live and die in the minds that conceive them. And maybe they can't be communicated because they can't be understood by most people. I don't have a problem with that.

Niels Bohr said: 'If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet'


[I also found this fantastic quote from Bohr when I was looking up that one:

"No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical.”]

 

[merzbau]

*edit
Have you had any experience with retards? (IQ below 90) My cousin is one. She simply cannot understand some concepts. Your level of understanding limits you. That's why it's a level. There are some levels you cannot reach.

but a person with a disability is not the same as a person with a normal functioning brain.

 

[Anthile]

yeah well, i understand this may be a contentious opinion to some, but i place no confidence in an intelligence test written by another human who believes there is a bell curve for "intelligence". that's old-fashioned elitism, pure and simple.





too challenging? what kind of ideas are we talking about here?
didn't einstein once say that a theory isn't worthwhile until you can explain it to your grandmother?

I absolutely agree with that.
I didn't know that Einstein said something like that, but this is my approach, too. If you can't explain your theories to everyone you know then probably you are also some kind of retarded, just on the other side of the spectrum.

 

[merzbau]

That doesn't mean that there aren't ideas which are too challenging - just that it isn't worth anything unless it can be communicated - I am sure there are lots of brilliant ideas that can't be communicated which live and die in the minds that conceive them. And maybe they can't be communicated because they can't be understood by most people. I don't have a problem with that.

all i'm saying is that i have a problem with the notion that comprehending challenging ideas is a marker for a level of intelligence which some people are incapable of attaining. it's merely a hollow claim, used to justify elitism.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

yeah well, i understand this may be a contentious opinion to some, but i place no confidence in an intelligence test written by another human who believes there is a bell curve for "intelligence". that's old-fashioned elitism, pure and simple.





too challenging? what kind of ideas are we talking about here?
didn't einstein once say that a theory isn't worthwhile until you can explain it to your grandmother?

This is Einstein's opinion on the worth of a theory. Should we follow the subjective notions of a genius? I shall not, for I have independence. Not all concepts are easy to articulate, and translating a mathematical sentence (metaphorically) into an English one might not be essential.

It is less easy to achieve this translation when the difference between the two languages (mathematical and English) are large and both are profoundly complex. When the concept is larger and deeper, it will logically take longer with this process of translation.


Are you suggesting that other tests which measure someone's abilities are 'elitist'? They might not be fully accurate, but I think they provide a general idea of someone's level in the areas which they are gauging. Tests will not be correct all of the time, but I am sure they are utilized efficiently at times.

There are academic tests to test students' capabilities. They need to be teaching the student on the appropriate level for their abilities, essentially. This will not be correct all of the time, and there will be individuals with unfulfilled aptitide (tests exist to notice this as well), yet I am certain it has benefited most.

Tests are beneficial overall, elitist or not. An exceptionally high IQ test result is certainly higher evidence of someone being intellectually gifted in comparison to nothing. The abilities IQ test are related to intelligence, I think, and it should often be capable of distinguishing the retarded from the intellectuals to a degree. No academic/intelligence tests are perfect, but they can be useful.

Merc, a disability could be considered as an individual with a lower-functioning brain. Their brain is literally 'disabled' as it is not functioning correctly or to normal standards.

 

[snowqueen]

all i'm saying is that i have a problem with the notion that comprehending challenging ideas is a marker for a level of intelligence which some people are incapable of attaining. it's merely a hollow claim, used to justify elitism.

I think you are conflating two arguments here. Yes, I agree that intelligence testing is a dubious practice based as it is on a definition of intelligence largely confined to the ability to carry out complex logical and mathematical analysis (which is why I like the second Bohr quote about thinking). I also agree that it is often used to justify elitism - but then so is social class, race, gender, income etc.

But the possibility that people can have ideas which are sound, but incomprehensible to others is not necessarily false. Whether or not that implies they are cleverer than the rest of us is highly debatable - of course! It is perhaps more useful to consider in terms of 'original' thinkers - those willing to explore lines of argument or possibility which are counter-intuitive to those who get stuck in pure logic. Theoretical physics is littered with people whose ideas were ridiculed and then later accepted.

I'm loving these Bohr quotes:

“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”

“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.”

“Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.”

 

[merzbau]

@FacetiousPersona:
you can't assess "intelligence" as you would height, or top speed or marksmanship.

let me illustrate my point with an example:
take a primitive hunter-gatherer from their environment on the land. you sit him down, hand him a pencil and give him an IQ test - in his own language - that is written by a PhD professor in mathematics. he scores in the "low intelligence" category.

now, take that mathematics professor and put him out in the bush, leaving him there to fend for himself. he's dead in a week.

who is the more intelligent one there?

 

[snowqueen]

you can't assess "intelligence" as you would height, or top speed or marksmanship.

let me illustrate my point with an example:
take a primitive hunter-gatherer from their environment on the land. you sit him down, hand him a pencil and give him an IQ test, written in his own language, that is written by a PhD professor in mathematics. he scores in the "low intelligence" category.

now, take that mathematics professor and put him out in the bush, leaving him there to fend for himself. he's dead in a week.

who is the more intelligent one there?

I think we crossed posting then - I absolutely agree with you.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

you can't assess "intelligence" as you would height, or top speed or marksmanship.

let me illustrate my point with an example:
take a primitive hunter-gatherer from their environment on the land. you sit him down, hand him a pencil and give him an IQ test, written in his own language, that is written by a PhD professor in mathematics. he scores in the "low intelligence" category.

now, take that mathematics professor and put him out in the bush, leaving him there to fend for himself. he's dead in a week.

who is the more intelligent one there?

I think you're confusing IQ and intelligence. I've never considered one's IQ as substantial data to determine their intelligence. I would advise you to read about the difference between crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence.

 

[merzbau]

no, i'm making a point that you cannot state that one intellect is "superior" and another "inferior", and any testing to ascertain this will be faulty.

 

[snowqueen]

Are you suggesting that other tests which measure someone's abilities are 'elitist'? They might not be fully accurate, but I think they provide a general idea of someone's level in the areas which they are gauging. Tests will not be correct all of the time, but I am sure they are utilized efficiently at times.

The argument against intelligence testing is that as a result of the invention of it, 'intelligence' is now only defined in this limited way. The semantics of intelligence have been artificially fixed. As a discourse it is deeply problematic because it excludes all other forms of intelligence. In the part of the UK where I live, secondary education is still split into 'grammar' schools and 'high' schools and kids have to do a 'test' to get into the grammar school - it's nothing more than a basic IQ test (actually I remember you live in Cambridge so you're probably aware of all this but US readers might not be). So I have one child who is very mathematical and she breezed into grammar school and one child who is dyscalculic but otherwise an excellent critical thinker so she ended up in a high school - so essentially her education was selected through failure. She asked me why she wasn't going to the same school as her older sister and I explained it to her and she said 'oh I see so I was discriminated against because I can't do maths?' She was 11 years old. If she didn't have me as a mother, she would be aspiring to be a WAG or a hairdresser now (yes, yes I'm sure there are lots of very clever hairdressers ...!)

There are academic tests to test students' capabilities. They need to be teaching the student on the appropriate level for their abilities, essentially. This will not be correct all of the time, and there will be individuals with unfulfilled aptitide (tests exist to notice this as well), yet I am certain it has benefited most.

As an academic I can assure you I don't need tests to know what my students' capabilities are - in fact I am usually trying to undo the poor self-esteem of people who've been told they are not clever by having been rejected by the 11+

Oh and my office mate has just completed his PhD which was hailed as the most sustained scholarly work the examiners had ever read and he failed his 11+ which just shows how flawed IQ testing is! He's easily one of the cleverest thinkers I know.

 

[cheese]

but a person with a disability is not the same as a person with a normal functioning brain.

Of course not. I meant the relation between them and the average person, and the average person and geniuses, is the same. 'Normal' is subjective, and you could argue that geniuses have abnormal brains. The same disparity exists.

all i'm saying is that i have a problem with the notion that comprehending challenging ideas is a marker for a level of intelligence which some people are incapable of attaining. it's merely a hollow claim, used to justify elitism.

OP was talking about IQs above a certain level. According to the post at least, most of these people are capable in many areas. So yes, it would be a marker of intelligence, in those areas - same as the ones IQ tests measure.

As Face said too - there's a difference between crystallised intelligence and fluid intelligence. The hunter has learned skills (crystallised intelligence) for a specific environment that the professor does not. Therefore hunter > professor in that environment (probably anyway; although some untrained people, even in unfamiliar territory, are ingenious enough to survive them). It is possible the professor could become sufficiently skilled to survive in the bush. However the professor > hunter in the test - and will always be so, regardless of how much learning the hunter undergoes. This is because those tests measure fluid intelligence, at least in those areas, which is fixed. (Studies show there is little fluctation in IQ scores even after preparation.) The hunter's superiority in his area, however, is indeterminate. Raw ability /=/ learned skill.

Overall, the hunter could have greater physical intelligence and be better skilled in those ways. Perhaps there are some physical feats the professor could never pull off. However none of this changes the specific ability differences measured on the test. Whether or not these scores are a good indicator of overall intelligence is another issue, and does not alter the fact that the professor is superior at some forms of abstract thinking than the hunter.

This is getting a little off-topic though as the OP was not about IQ tests.

Elitism is an unpleasant attitude - but that does not mean all the beliefs held by the elitists are factually inaccurate. The intellectual abilities required for the type of thinking the OP talked about vary amongst people. Some people are more capable in these areas, some less. Just because someone gets snarky about it does not negate that fact. The elitist perhaps makes an error in his thinking by equating his superior mental abilities to superior worth, but this does not disprove the former.

Einstein's words are not necessarily truth. You're assuming his abilities in a specific area equate to superiority in value judgements, and are essentially using the same argument as the elitists.

I think your problem is against the inaccurate equating of superiority in one area to worth.

no, i'm making a point that you cannot state that one intellect is "superior" and another "inferior", and any testing to ascertain this will be faulty.

Wouldn't you say a top physicist has an intellect superior to the average man on the street?

 

[merzbau]

sorry for bringing this further OT. it seems you're slightly confused, both by what i've been saying and the particular example i stated.

Of course not. I meant the relation between them and the average person, and the average person and geniuses, is the same. 'Normal' is subjective, and you could argue that geniuses have abnormal brains. The same disparity exists.

the difference is that a disabled person is born without the ability to comprehend. the same disparity cannot be said of two people with normal functioning brains. we need to start thinking differently about what intelligence actually means.
take savants - autistic people who have capabilities in some areas and disabilities in others.. are they intelligent or stupid?

The hunter has learned skills (crystallised intelligence) for a specific environment that the professor does not. Therefore hunter > professor in that environment (probably anyway; although some untrained people, even in unfamiliar territory, are ingenious enough to survive them).

It is possible the professor could become sufficiently skilled to survive in the bush. However the professor > hunter in the test - and will always be so, regardless of how much learning the hunter undergoes. This is because those tests measure fluid intelligence, at least in those areas, which is fixed. (Studies show there is little fluctation in IQ scores even after preparation.) The hunter's superiority in his area, however, is indeterminate. Raw ability /=/ learned skill.

you're missing the point. let me state it again;

the differences in the professor and the primitive are culture-based, nothing more. they have nothing to do with superiority/inferiority of intellect. the professor failed the primitive's test, and the primitive failed the professor's test.

the assertion that we can all be placed on a bell-curve is fallacious.

furthermore, why do you assume hunter-gatherer intelligence to be concerned only with skills and experiences? surely fluid intelligence (finding meaning in confusion and innovative problem solving) would be just as essential? and why do you insist on putting one type of intelligence above another? sounds like you have a very biased, western-cultured view of things.

Elitism is an unpleasant attitude - but that does not mean all the beliefs held by the elitists are factually inaccurate. The intellectual abilities required for the type of thinking the OP talked about vary amongst people. Some people are more capable in these areas, some less. Just because someone gets snarky about it does not negate that fact. The elitist perhaps makes an error in his thinking by equating his superior mental abilities to superior worth, but this does not disprove the former.

Einstein's words are not necessarily truth.

I think your problem is against the inaccurate equating of superiority in one area to worth.

and i'm telling you what my problem is... if only you took the time to read what i've been saying.

Einstein's words are not necessarily truth. You're assuming his abilities in a specific area equate to superiority in value judgements, and are essentially using the same argument as the elitists.

i quoted einstein not because i think he's "superior" but because i thought it was a good quote that anyone would understand simply.

Wouldn't you say a top physicist has an intellect superior to the average man on the street?

no, why would you?

 

[Mars]

cleverest. love it.

but really, these IQ test really only measure factual recollection, IMO. Which always made me wonder if not taking notice of the news really meant that I was 'less intelligent'.

That was until I realised that it was just a facet and critical thinking/analysis came to my attention. Then I had fun, poking holes/playing with whatever I could understand from ethics and philosophy to science and poetry. It was a real self esteem boost, considering I had nobody to validate my ideas I was content with getting people to rethink and discard their own ideas. fun all round

 

[Concojones]

It's a fascinating read that I suspect everyone on the forum could benefit from.

The article is about frigging 170+ IQs! As if all of us fitted into that category! So I share Merzbau's objection.

Still, I don't want to entirely ditch the article, because there might be some truth to it - in the sense that many INTPs are used to having an easy school life, thanks to their intelligence, whereas some other kids who have to do more effort, acquire an attitude of working hard and patiently.

This could explain why we INTPs aren't very good at working steadily, especially in the absence of visible progress. Typical example: learning to use a new pc program from its manual. For me that's torture, I go nuts at the mere thought of it. 'Somebody please explain this to me! So that I can move on!'

 

[ChristopherL]

thanks for the read.
am i the only person who finds the notion there are "superior" and "inferior" children somewhat distasteful? it gives me the impression that the distinction is made by cloistered, back-patting academics who have spent their lives being sheltered from the outside world, where they may find their IQ doesn't make them as superior as they think.

I find it is misleading if anything, having superior intellect does not make you superior as a person.
An artist is superior in his ability to see and convey details in the world that we would ordinarily miss.
The musician does the same with sound.
The intelligent can "see" what others may not be able to see because of something inherent just as the other.
I think all contribute to humanity and claiming to be superior overall is folly, but to call them intellectually superior is simply the truth.

and what the hell does "too intelligent to be understood" mean? if you're intelligent, you should be smart enough to communicate with anyone, regardless of their level of understanding. that just sounds like bullshit.

That's idiotic.
We have a forum full of people who are very bright but don't quite understand when people are offended when they use big words. They do not realise that in using words that they should be aware most people don't use they are in fact giving the not unreasonable impression that they are trying to show off.
Being intelligent does not make you capable of commiserating with others thats an altogether different skill. This is sort of the point to be whole as people we must be able to see all the facets that are different and unique within people without questioning their motives.

 

[cheese]

the difference is that a disabled person is born without the ability to comprehend.

To state that they have no ability to comprehend is essentially saying they're brain-dead. My cousin can comprehend what people say, can follow orders, can argue to a degree - but if you tried to explain more complex things which are relatively simple for normal people (square roots for example) she would be clueless. This inability is not limited to math but extends into most areas of life requiring mental activity.

the same disparity cannot be said of two people with normal functioning brains.

Again, no such disparity. The average brain simply functions at a higher level of comprehension, just as the genius's does. Structural abnormalities are another matter. Most cases of retardation involve structurally normal brains that simply function at a lower level.
Structural differences can give rise to great gifting (Einstein) or great disability (certain retards).

take savants - autistic people who have capabilities in some areas and disabilities in others.. are they intelligent or stupid?

By savants I assume you mean people who are mentally disabled in some areas but brilliant in one specific area (although this is quite enlightening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome). I would say they aren't (though we're arguing semantics here) because most people would use the word intelligent to describe mental ability that can be applied in more than one area. Just concentrating on the individuals mentioned in the OP - they generally are mentally capable not just in one subject but in multiple ones (refer to post).

the differences in the professor and the primitive are culture-based, nothing more. they have nothing to do with superiority/inferiority of intellect. the professor failed the primitive's test, and the primitive failed the professor's test.

No. Example: pattern recognition (one of the components of IQ tests) is not culture-bound - this is precisely part of the 'fluid intelligence' you mention later that enables the hunter to learn and perfect his skills in his environment. If IQ tests truly were culturally specific, they would not be valid for young children who have not yet become fully immersed in it, yet a child's IQ can be determined at a relatively young age.

the assertion that we can all be placed on a bell-curve is fallacious.

Usually this bell-curve is within one culture. IQ measures performance on the test relative to other people and adjusts for variables such as age. There is a range of scores. These scores measure ability on the mental areas tested. 'We' are not placed on this curve - our mental ability in certain areas is. This does not equate to our worth as human beings, or our total ability.

why do you assume hunter-gatherer intelligence to be concerned only with skills and experiences? surely fluid intelligence (finding meaning in confusion and innovative problem solving) would be just as essential?

This is exactly why I said this:

although some untrained people, even in unfamiliar territory, are ingenious enough to survive them

Your assertion that the professor would die within a week is not necessarily true as well.

What I meant was that hunters are equipped with skills specific to their lifestyle's needs - tracking, hiding etc. This makes them more likely to survive, in the same way learning to handle a car is necessary to drive. This is learned. The ability to recognise patterns etc isn't. It is this potential that is applied in areas such as mathematics or hunting that is attempted to be measured in tests, or simply in one person gauging another's intelligence.

why do you insist on putting one type of intelligence above another? sounds like you have a very biased, western-cultured view of things.

Hmm. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was placing fluid intelligence above crystallised intelligence, as a general rule. I meant that in your specific example, the professor appears to have greater fluid intelligence than the hunter, based on the test. I was assuming for the sake of argument that IQ tests are a valid measure of fluid intelligence. This is not to say all hunters have inferior intelligence to professors with PhDs in math. There will be some hunters who, because of their culture, harness their intelligence differently, but are smarter than some professors. The differences in harnessing was not my point. My point was that you cannot prepare for an IQ test. You can, to a much greater extent, for survival in an environment. The types of ability measured in your example are different and cannot be equated. One is a much 'purer', refined test. Again, the abilities measured in these tests are not culturally-specific. In any case, the psychologist administering the test would probably get the entire tribe to take it just in case, in order to adjust for cultural differences. Your hunter's IQ would then be measured relative to theirs. I am assuming this in the discussion.

If you are talking about other forms of intelligence such as physical intelligence - my definition of intelligence does not include that, and I suspect most people's don't. However this is largely irrelevant to the OP, since it concentrates on mental ability. The issue of comprehension that was brought up is also a mental one. If you have other types of intelligence you wish to bring up please do.

i quoted einstein not because i think he's "superior" but because i thought it was a good quote that anyone would understand simply

I understood the quote, but did not find enough reason to back it. Since you did not provide any I assumed you meant his name and prestige to be sufficient. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

no, why would you?

It was meant more as an example to question whether you had ever considered one individual to have a greater intellect than another. I simply found it difficult to believe you hadn't, but perhaps this is truly the case.

I find it is misleading if anything, having superior intellect does not make you superior as a person.
An artist is superior in his ability to see and convey details in the world that we would ordinarily miss.
The musician does the same with sound.
The intelligent can "see" what others may not be able to see because of something inherent just as the other.
I think all contribute to humanity and claiming to be superior overall is folly, but to call them intellectually superior is simply the truth.

Yes, this was my earlier point merzbau. The elitism is not justified based one factor, but the error in reasoning about subsequent issues relating to that factor does not negate it. That's what I meant when I mentioned your 'problem' - I did not mean you had a mental one, but that you were objecting to this attitude (intellectual superiority = overall superiority) that you thought was hinted at in the article.

 

[ChristopherL]

but a person with a disability is not the same as a person with a normal functioning brain.

I'm sorry but this is also idiotic.
They are just on the extreme end of the scale.
Their ability to understand concepts that you take for granted is exactly the same as someone with a much higher IQ than you trying to explain a concept that seems quite obvious to them.

I'm not quite sure why this pisses you off so much, I know that I am smarter than many people and yet I have spoken to several people who made me feel simple.

It's a very important idea to digest as it has huge ramifications in pretty much all human endeavours.
People as a whole operate on the quite idiotic assumption that we are all the same. In just the same way I could not paint the Mona Lisa, or Dunk Like Jordan or rap like Nas other people cannot be brillliant at the things that you or I do.
I suspect you are putting way too much importance on the idea of IQ again, if this is true it is more of a burden than a blessing.

I'm not trying to be insultive I just don't see the reason for your umbrage.

Look, there are lots of ideas being thrown out there but I'm going to add another one.

Language is inherently flawed and as such more often than not an impediment to communicating ideas.

Anyone who has been exposed to more than one language is aware of the reality that there are some ideas that simply REFUSES to translate from one language to another.

Language is flawed because it requires tokenisation.
When I say to you I drive a blue car, your understanding me requires that
a) You have seen a car in your lifetime.
b) Your concept of a car is the same as mine.

For example the typical car here in the U.S is rather large compared to those that are driven in say europe.

So while we are talking to each other we are constantly and inexorably moving AWAY from understanding because of this tokenising.

If you have ever played the game telephone you should understand this easily.

So the notion that a diffidult concept should explainable to anyone is completely fucking ludicrous.

Einstein may have been a great physicist (as I understand it most of the hard lifting at Math was done by his wife) I don't necessarily think makes him authority on communication.

This underscores my point, despite Einsteins brilliance he just like everyone else is capable of foolish ideas.

Intelligence is not all so stop getting your panties in a twist, people are inherently better at things, that's the reality deal with it.

 

[Felan]

NOTE: I believe I am on ChristoperL's ignore list

I'm sorry but this is also idiotic.
They are just on the extreme end of the scale.
Their ability to understand concepts that you take for granted is exactly the same as someone with a much higher IQ than you trying to explain a concept that seems quite obvious to them.

I strenuously disagree with this. At one point in history the ability to read or do math was exceptional. These were not due to a lack of capacity in the more average person.

At some extreme low there are, thus far, apparent learning disabilities that greatly inhibit learning. At extreme highs there is an accleration of learning. The average person seems to my experience quite capable of understanding most anything, provided they are willing to put the effort in. Admittedly most are not willing to put the effort in.

I'm not quite sure why this pisses you off so much, I know that I am smarter than many people and yet I have spoken to several people who made me feel simple.

It's a very important idea to digest as it has huge ramifications in pretty much all human endeavours.
People as a whole operate on the quite idiotic assumption that we are all the same. In just the same way I could not paint the Mona Lisa, or Dunk Like Jordan or rap like Nas other people cannot be brillliant at the things that you or I do.

Hmm, I may not be able to paint the Mona Lisa, but I can appreciate and understand it. I might not be capable of creating advance theories in physics but the inability to create it should not preclude understanding it. I could not have created Calculus but I can use and appreciate it. I think this is the gist of what Einstein was getting at.

I suspect you are putting way too much importance on the idea of IQ again, if this is true it is more of a burden than a blessing.

I'm not trying to be insultive I just don't see the reason for your umbrage.

I personally find ChristopherL's manner of expression tawdry.

 

[cheese]

I personally find ChristopherL's manner of expression tawdry.

NOTE: I believe I am on ChristoperL's ignore list

I love convenience.

 

[QSR]

This sounds like where I am, although without the really shitty job and I don't do math problems in my free time. I'm a little higher performing and a little less interested in mathematics than the typical high-IQ stereotype.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The second kind of social adaptation may be called the marginal strategy. These individuals were typically born into a lower socio-economic class, without gifted parents, gifted siblings, or gifted friends. Often they did not go to college at all, but instead went right to work immediately after high school, or even before. And although they may superficially appear to have made a good adjustment to their work and friends, neither work nor friends can completely engage their attention. They hunger for more intellectual challenge and more real companionship than their social environment can supply. So they resort to leading a double life. They compartmentalize their life into a public sphere and a private sphere. In public they go through the motions of fulfilling their social roles, whatever they are, but in private they pursue goals of their own. They are often omnivorous readers, and sometimes unusually expert amateurs in specialized subjects. The double life strategy might even be called the genius ploy, as many geniuses in history have worked at menial tasks in order to free themselves for more important work. Socrates, you will remember was a stone mason, Spinoza was a lens grinder, and even Jesus was a carpenter. The exceptionally gifted adult who works as a parking lot attendant while creating new mathematics has adopted an honored way of life and deserves respect for his courage, not criticism for failing to live up to his abilities. Those conformists who adopt the committed strategy may be pillars of their community and make the world go around, but historically, those with truly original minds have more often adopted the double life tactic. They are ones among the gifted who are most likely to make the world go forward.[/FONT]

 

[merzbau]

People as a whole operate on the quite idiotic assumption that we are all the same. In just the same way I could not paint the Mona Lisa, or Dunk Like Jordan or rap like Nas other people cannot be brillliant at the things that you or I do.

where in any of the previous posts did i mention everyone being "the same", or that you can't measure weight, height, speed, agility, et al. according to an abstract value?
what i said was that you can't measure intelligence in that way.

Being intelligent does not make you capable of commiserating with others thats an altogether different skill.
...
So the notion that a diffidult concept should explainable to anyone is completely fucking ludicrous.

well, i think your archaic theories concerning the common ground between marginal society and gifted subjects may be roughly interpreted as an extemporary mirage, although inclusive of preferential recapitulation, this implied truth of subcultural motive has long been revealed as a mythopoetical ploy. however, the characteristic circuit you describe is only a partial didaction, and perhaps the detritus may be revealed as such; as we have seen, several desublimations concerning not appropriation, but preappropriation may yet be discovered. the primary problem with this collapse is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality.
since haegel, several solutions have been proposed, and what these attempt is not an underlying shape of opinion on the main paradoxes, but more of a concatenation of what human existence tends, as singular consciousness tends, to misunderstand - death as a form of becoming intractable.

i'm sorry, did you not understand what i was saying..? oh well, it's probably just because of your inferior intellect.

 

[ChristopherL]

well, i think your archaic theories concerning the common ground between marginal society and gifted subjects may be roughly interpreted as an extemporary mirage, although inclusive of preferential recapitulation, this implied truth of subcultural motive has long been revealed as a mythopoetical ploy. however, the characteristic circuit you describe is only a partial didaction, and perhaps the detritus may be revealed as such; as we have seen, several desublimations concerning not appropriation, but preappropriation may yet be discovered. the primary problem with this collapse is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality.
since haegel, several solutions have been proposed, and what these attempt is not an underlying shape of opinion on the main paradoxes, but more of a concatenation of what human existence tends, as singular consciousness tends, to misunderstand - death as a form of becoming intractable.

i'm sorry, did you not understand what i was saying..? oh well, it's probably just because of your inferior intellect.

I don't argue with idiots.
Welcome to ignore.

 

[merzbau]

wait, do you hear something whistling over your head? that right, it's my point!

anyone can manipulate with obscurantism. it takes real intelligence to be concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

 

[Felan]

I don't argue with idiots.
Welcome to ignore.

Welcome to the Ignore Club, merzbau!

I'm the Club President.

Population 3 that I know of.

 

[Beat Mango]

That's an interesting perspective, and a refreshing one to be honest. My IQ was measured at 170 when I was younger, and that article might as well be describing me.

 

[cheese]

I love this ChristopherL dude. What a champ.

What did you do Felan? You don't seem offensive.

 

[Felan]

I love this ChristopherL dude. What a champ.

What did you do Felan? You don't seem offensive.

Mind reading is what he said, apparently not reading but the first line of what I posted.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=2865

 

[Fukyo]

Welcome to the Ignore Club, merzbau!

I'm the Club President.

Population 3 that I know of.

Who's the third one?

 

[Felan]

Who's the third one?

SlyGuy

 

[merzbau]

i apologise for not making myself clearer, cheese. the more i examine your comments, the more i realise they were probably justified by the tenor of my initial post. in an effort to strive for some reasonable middle ground (and please forgive me if i lapse into semantic wankery), i'll explain why i made the comments above:

To state that they have no ability to comprehend is essentially saying they're brain-dead. My cousin can comprehend what people say, can follow orders, can argue to a degree - but if you tried to explain more complex things which are relatively simple for normal people (square roots for example) she would be clueless. This inability is not limited to math but extends into most areas of life requiring mental activity.

i was trying to illustrate why you cannot use a disabled person and a non-disabled person in your comparison of relative intellect. a disabled person is disabled because some part of their brain is underdeveloped or dysfunctional. you cannot state that the brains of any person who is not disabled, but not of "superior intellect" are, so the comparison is not useful.

If you are talking about other forms of intelligence such as physical intelligence - my definition of intelligence does not include that, and I suspect most people's don't. However this is largely irrelevant to the OP, since it concentrates on mental ability. The issue of comprehension that was brought up is also a mental one. If you have other types of intelligence you wish to bring up please do.

as you mentioned, mental ability does not equate to our total ability. the cognitive gymnastics which constitute tests, eg. calculating equations, spatialising shapes, or solving puzzles, are certainly a part of intelligence, but the concept of intelligence is more difficult to accurately define. i treat the above as intellemetrics, not intellect, similar to the way econometrics is not economics.
if you score well on tests involving these intellemetrics, you're certainly good at doing tests. but why do we prize this? why the "gifted" label? why impose a bell curve?
binet, the father of the intelligence test, had this to say:

"the scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured."

true intelligence comprises a range of things, such as self-awareness, clarity, empathy, reason, ethics, intuition, enlightenment, foresight, imagination and common sense. these arguably more important elements are also a function of intellect, but are not judged by tests and cannot be bell-curved, so they're not regarded.

to the "prometheus society" (linked in OP) this makes me an "IQ basher" - an epithet that suggests an outstanding superiority complex on their behalf.

By savants I assume you mean people who are mentally disabled in some areas but brilliant in one specific area (although this is quite enlightening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome). I would say they aren't (though we're arguing semantics here) because most people would use the word intelligent to describe mental ability that can be applied in more than one area. Just concentrating on the individuals mentioned in the OP - they generally are mentally capable not just in one subject but in multiple ones (refer to post).

what i intended with my question about savants was to introduce different ideas about what constitutes intelligence, why some people have what are thought of as "superior" abilities, but are unable to communicate, feed or clothe themselves.

Again, no such disparity. The average brain simply functions at a higher level of comprehension, just as the genius's does. Structural abnormalities are another matter. Most cases of retardation involve structurally normal brains that simply function at a lower level. Structural differences can give rise to great gifting (Einstein) or great disability (certain retards).

implying that a "genius" brain has some physical aspect that makes it better than an average brain is an opening to a lengthy, detailed discussion on immutability, i think is probably better to leave for another time.
this assertion that we cannot change, that from birth our brains are biologically limited to only reach a certain level i strongly disagree with, as did binet.
all i can say is that i would avoid this line of thinking, as it's only a short step to assuming anyone or any class with a low score is innately inferior and that their status is unchangable, which is -to say the least- controversial in relation to race and gender.

if you decide for your own purposes that intelligence is a set biological limitation that can never be breached, no matter how hard you strive, i think you're limiting yourself, but good on you, go for it.
however, when it becomes a justification for sociopolitical policies (elitism, racial discrimination, eugenics) that effect people's lives, including children who, before they've even properly developed, are being herded into groups based on a caste system, i will treat it with every iota of contempt it deserves.

 

[Razare]

The main article spells out my life quite well. I did not develop a strong negativity probably because I am not a genius, but just gifted level. I did, however, drift through school on auto-pilot. Then in college, I discovered that effort was important. Not intelligence, but sheer effort since that's what programming requires. I failed out of computer science because I lacked discipline, something school never taught me. What a waste of 12 years? Public schools are a disaster when they screw up a smart kid to the point he doesn't know how to work hard. I would have turned out better home schooled or something.

I'm still lazy as hell in college, I just made sure to take a major that I can pass without exerting effort. It doesn't challenge me at all and I love it, just like the good old days in high school. I know I study the least out of anyone else in my classes. I literally didn't read the auditing book all semester and just took the final exam today. I opened the book up before the exam for a few hours and skimmed through the highlights. I got an A or B+ on that exam. I feel sorry for the people who work harder than me and get lower grades, I just feel they deserve at least what I got.

 

[merzbau]

Welcome to the Ignore Club, merzbau!

I'm the Club President.

Population 3 that I know of.

cool!

...do we get t-shirts?

 

[Felan]

cool!

...do we get t-shirts?

Splendid idea, as President for life of the club, I delegate the design and distribution of some club t-shirts to you.

We'll need enough for all current and future members, which at this rate aught be quite a many.

 

[snowqueen]

this assertion that we cannot change, that from birth our brains are biologically limited to only reach a certain level i strongly disagree with, as did binet.
all i can say is that i would avoid this line of thinking, as it's only a short step to assuming anyone or any class with a low score is innately inferior and that their status is unchangable, which is -to say the least- controversial in relation to race and gender.

if you decide for your own purposes that intelligence is a set biological limitation that can never be breached, no matter how hard you strive, i think you're limiting yourself, but good on you, go for it.
however, when it becomes a justification for sociopolitical policies (elitism, racial discrimination, eugenics) that effect people's lives, including children who, before they've even properly developed, are being herded into groups based on a caste system, i will treat it with every iota of contempt it deserves.

I think this deserves quoting and highlighting because it's the crux of the matter. It's tempting to imagine that intelligence testing is somehow a value-neutral 'scientific' activity but you cannot truly analyse it without taking into account the social and historical context it emerged in and the purposes to which it was put. Intelligence testing had a 'market'. And the market was people who wanted to discriminate for various reasons. "Only the 'best' education for the 'best' children" is one application - rationing education.

My example about a child's future due to their educational separation at 11 is not trivial. Here's an story - I was having lunch with some friends and they were discussing their child's upcoming 11+ and the 'non-verbal' reasoning element (pattern sequences/Raven's matrices) and how hard they were for a child. I said that once you explained the principles and gave the child a bit of practice, they could get it. My friend said, 'Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the test?' Whaaaaaa????? It's this pervasive idea that there is some kind of 'raw' intelligence - fixed, immutable. Those non-verbal tests can be taught just like any other skill. But to admit that is to undermine the myth that intelligence can truly be tested accurately even within the IQ parameters.

 

[Mars]

I think this deserves quoting and highlighting because it's the crux of the matter. It's tempting to imagine that intelligence testing is somehow a value-neutral 'scientific' activity but you cannot truly analyse it without taking into account the social and historical context it emerged in and the purposes to which it was put. Intelligence testing had a 'market'. And the market was people who wanted to discriminate for various reasons. "Only the 'best' education for the 'best' children" is one application - rationing education.

My example about a child's future due to their educational separation at 11 is not trivial. Here's an story - I was having lunch with some friends and they were discussing their child's upcoming 11+ and the 'non-verbal' reasoning element (pattern sequences/Raven's matrices) and how hard they were for a child. I said that once you explained the principles and gave the child a bit of practice, they could get it. My friend said, 'Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the test?' Whaaaaaa????? It's this pervasive idea that there is some kind of 'raw' intelligence - fixed, immutable. Those non-verbal tests can be taught just like any other skill. But to admit that is to undermine the myth that intelligence can truly be tested accurately even within the IQ parameters.

I agree. Also, I wish to propose an idea in passing.

In another thread on this forum the notion that neuroses are just mismatched communication/application lines of the sub-conscious through the conscious, these errors could/do result due to careless/ignorant/limiting molding of a developing mind. These errors in internal articulation result in a structural compromise of the individuals measurable 'intelligence', similar to a spider webs abilities to trap insects is diminished when holes are poked in it.

Can result in spectacularly flawed logic when the individual is stressed and are presented with a problem that defies their capabilities of deduction [through lack of esoteric knowledge or otherwise]. Which leaves me with the sad conclusion that most tests touted as 'intelligence' tests are merely measurements of the individuals nurtured skills and not their natural capability to manipulate data for specific applications.

In the end I'm just content to say that a person who cannot see beauty is 'unintelligible'. By beauty I mean not my definition of beauty but appreciate it in their own capacity/context.

 

[cheese]

Thanks for replying in fashion merzbau; much appreciated.

a disabled person is disabled because some part of their brain is underdeveloped or dysfunctional.

I understood this, but did not agree. I don't think retards have dysfunctional brains - there isn't something 'wrong' with them, nor do they function abnormally. I see what you mean, I just don't agree with it.
I'm not sure though; I don't think we have enough concrete knowledge on how intelligence is linked to brain structure and function. I'm assuming we're both guessing here.

what i intended with my question about savants was to introduce different ideas about what constitutes intelligence, why some people have what are thought of as "superior" abilities, but are unable to communicate, feed or clothe themselves.

Yes, I understood this as well, and intended to address it. I stated that intelligence is generally defined as mental ability across a range of areas, and this ability was held by the children mentioned in the OP - making the label more applicable to them, and not on the basis of an IQ test (I think we got severely side-tracked there), although a high IQ seems correlated with this ability.

There are differing opinions on what constitutes intelligence of course, and it is probably worthwhile looking into a few and keeping an open mind. Personally I'm not sure the ability to communicate, feed or clothe oneself (to use your examples) are necessary characteristics of intelligence. In the end these kind of discussions often come down to personal definitions. If these are made clear there is less opportunity for contention.

My point with IQ tests was simply to demonstrate that they did indeed measure some part of raw ability and were not just an indicator of test-taking skills. The fact that preparation and practice does little to alter the score - unlike other tests - suggests natural ability.

implying that a "genius" brain has some physical aspect that makes it better than an average brain is an opening to a lengthy, detailed discussion on immutability, i think is probably better to leave for another time.

Not all do, but some such as Einstein's had specific abnormalities that allowed him to use his mental power in a different way to the average person. I wasn't implying that 'geniuses' necessarily have structural superiorities, but that differences can give rise to genius.

this assertion that we cannot change, that from birth our brains are biologically limited to only reach a certain level i strongly disagree with, as did binet.

I'm not sure about this. I definitely think that some people are mentally faster/more capable than others. Perhaps everyone with average intelligence is able to understand all concepts, but I do not think they would be capable of originating them. They would either require too much time or wouldn't have the creativity to come up with them.

My main point was really in relation to the OP - that it's quite legitimate for highly intelligent children to not be understood by their peers. As I mentioned earlier it could be that at their age they simply have not learned to simplify their ideas and words to a state easily digestible by the average child. Another factor could be interest. Children less intellectually inclined may simply be uninterested in trying to understand gifted children's unusual ideas - even if reduced. Perhaps in a controlled environment the gifted child could eventually be able to satisfactorily explain their concepts to an average child, but in normal life most would simply have no time/patience for listening to something not instantly 'get-able'.

I think the phenomenon of intelligence - to greater and lesser degrees - is real, and that the phenomenon of misunderstood gifted children is also real. Perhaps using this as a reflection on the average person's ability to comprehend was a bad idea. I was not entirely certain about this, but willing to make a guess.

when it becomes a justification for sociopolitical policies (elitism, racial discrimination, eugenics) that effect people's lives, including children who, before they've even properly developed, are being herded into groups based on a caste system, i will treat it with every iota of contempt it deserves.

Yes, I thought this was your issue. You were reacting to unjustified elitism that has significant, negative impacts. Fair enough.


It's good this didn't escalate to Ignore status. Lol.

 

[merzbau]

Not all do, but some such as Einstein's had specific abnormalities that allowed him to use his mental power in a different way to the average person.

never heard of this before. if it's not an urban myth, could you supply a link to more info?

My main point was really in relation to the OP - that it's quite legitimate for highly intelligent children to not be understood by their peers. As I mentioned earlier it could be that at their age they simply have not learned to simplify their ideas and words to a state easily digestible by the average child.

you make astute points.
it's my opinion that there's very little difference in makeup between children, some kids may have a head start with regards to intelligence, but this could be explained by environment. as we can't potentially ruin someone's life by controlling their environment from birth, there's really no way of knowing.
one interesting example of environment deciding supposedly pre-ordained traits i have heard of is the ambidextrous ability of young children when they write, starting with left hand and switching to their right when they hit they middle of a page. the teacher scolds them and forces them to choose a hand, which then becomes the left/right they are referred to as throughout life.

gifted children would surely find it difficult relating to others (analogous to INTPs in everyday life), but teaching them not to mix, keeping them separate & telling them they're gifted/special is not a solution, as it encourages feelings of superiority, and is likely to make them distrust and fear the contact of others simply because they "don't understand" them, which is a recipe for isolation and estrangement.
my suggestion would be for them to find older friends who will recognise their maturity.

It's good this didn't escalate to Ignore status. Lol.

early days yet.

uh.. you appear foolish in the eyes of others! ...etc.

 

[cheese]

never heard of this before. if it's not an urban myth, could you supply a link to more info?

Certainly. Wikipedia though there are further links at the bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain

it's my opinion that there's very little difference in makeup between children, some kids may have a head start with regards to intelligence, but this could be explained by environment. as we can't potentially ruin someone's life by controlling their environment from birth, there's really no way of knowing.

Hmm. I think it unlikely that intelligence can be entirely explained by environment. It is definitely an influencing factor, but not the sole determinant . My reasons for this are:

1. 'Geniuses' from under-privileged backgrounds - these people get by on sheer talent alone (which includes willpower)

2. The fact that IQ tests - and yes, they do not measure the full spectrum of intelligence - consistently place people at about the same percentile, despite multiple retakes

3. Personal experience. I am very far from a genius but in school often found myself outperforming schoolmates. This was despite a marked difference in effort, and no difference in academic immersion outside schoolwork. There are doubtless many others who would experience the same relative to me. When teaching I have also noticed these differences - within one family, the children have differing innate ability. They learn at different rates and are capable of varying amounts of academic success, given the same input.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, as I often feel extremely limited by my brain.

one interesting example of environment deciding supposedly pre-ordained traits i have heard of is the ambidextrous ability of young children when they write, starting with left hand and switching to their right when they hit they middle of a page. the teacher scolds them and forces them to choose a hand, which then becomes the left/right they are referred to as throughout life.

This is interesting. Do all children exhibit this? There are some adults with ambidextrous ability (without conscious practice), which suggests a natural tendency which others do not have - you could say they have not 'retained' ambidexterity.
Could you provide a link please?

gifted children would surely find it difficult relating to others but teaching them not to mix, keeping them separate & telling them they're gifted/special is not a solution, as it encourages feelings of superiority, and is likely to make them distrust and fear the contact of others simply because they "don't understand" them, which is a recipe for isolation and estrangement.

I agree with this to an extent. It does breed superiority and could induce detachment and isolation. Possibly however these states would be achieved regardless of educational policy. I think it is natural for the misunderstood to eventually retreat from society.
Forcible separation through academic streaming would probably exacerbate these states though, as you're saying. Policy should concentrate on re-integrating these naturally estranged children into mainstream society, if the government wants to avoid this. At the same time however these children's accelerated learning should be considered. Restricting their pace and encouraging laziness through the environment wastes their abilities.

I have no clear opinion on this subject. I don't know if integration is even desirable. My original point was simply that intellectual disparity and subsequent difficulties in communication is a genuine phenomenon and has significant effects on a gifted child's life. Policies and imperatives are interesting to consider, and I have no decided attitudes towards any. (In general I do not extrapolate from internal truths/possibilities to external decisions as I consider action a secondary concern and 'shoulds' hard to determine. I attribute this to the Pness out of convenience.)

my suggestion would be for them to find older friends who will recognise their maturity.

I found this interesting.

I suspect it would probably lead to the same estrangement issues. A 10 year-old with the mental age of a 17 year-old will eventually grow up. His peers as an adult may still be incompatible with him (in terms of preferred interaction style and mental gymnastics). Also, being capable of apprehending more advanced concepts does not make the child more 'mature' or likely to fit in with an older crowd. He may have normal or even atypical emotional maturity; they may also still prefer activities and discussion unrelated to the gifted child's less mainstream interests.

I have read that today's organisation of society along age lines is a likely cause for several social phenomena that we take for granted (eg the 'rebellious teenager'). In more technologically primitive cultures where interaction occurs regularly across all 'age groups', personal identity is less informed by age and the categories we assume in our culture exist to a lesser extent (if at all) - the conflict experience in moving between categories is therefore significantly reduced. I think if integration is desired social structure must be significantly altered to allow for more holistic assimilation, instead of targeted acceptance within a narrow age range.

 

[Sciosa]

gifted children would surely find it difficult relating to others (analogous to INTPs in everyday life), but teaching them not to mix, keeping them separate & telling them they're gifted/special is not a solution, as it encourages feelings of superiority, and is likely to make them distrust and fear the contact of others simply because they "don't understand" them, which is a recipe for isolation and estrangement.
my suggestion would be for them to find older friends who will recognise their maturity.

As a child (in one of my early exposures to everyday school life, at around third grade), upon my entrance into the school, I was marked as "gifted" and scheduled to be removed to "gifted" courses. I'm not sure exactly how this marking took place, as I was never administered an IQ test, or indeed any other type of intelligence test. It was irrelevant, at any rate, because my family felt that I would be better served by remaining in the traditional classroom.

Up until this point I had been homeschooled, and was accustomed to learning at a very fast pace, with a great deal of variation and in depth study of the topic at hand. By the end of that third grade year, I was failing in all studies, as a consequence of not doing any of the assigned work. I sat through the classes, and then went home to do what I was interested in (which I believe, at the time, was something about language...) I was removed from the public school setting, and continued excelling in a homeschool program.

I next entered the public school system at sixth grade, and would remain there until my graduation from high school. It took me four years to adjust to dealing with "busy work" and having to listen to lectures on topics I already knew intimately. I had to take the 9th grade twice, because I failed it the first time out of sheer lack of interest. Contrary to feeling superior, I developed an intense inferiority complex based around my inability to communicate with my peers socially and intellectually. I did not feel that my peers "didn't understand" me, I knew they didn't. I couldn't speak to them at all, because we were operating at different levels-- even my "casual language" was too formal and complex for usage in their circles. My only use to them was as the "Walking Dictionary", which is actually what I was mainly called, since no one cared to learn my name.

I eventually adjusted to this, certainly. In my second 9th grade year, I was finally able to connect with someone who communicated on a level similar to mine, and learned from this person how to reduce my level of communication. I developed a limited social circle. I calculated the minimum number of assignments that I would need to complete in each class in order to obtain an acceptable grade. I graduated with honors. It was still an extremely trying experience that would have at least been mediated had I been allowed access to people I could relate to.

In short-- I did not need to be sequestered into a gifted program to be isolated. The rest of the world was happy to oblige.

I have no definite opinion on this matter, only experience to add to your calculations. Do with it what you will.

 

[merzbau]

Certainly. Wikipedia though there are further links at the bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain

the witelson study was based on photographs of the brain, not direct examination. the differences in brain structure in the diamond study don't take into account the fact that einstein (by his own admission) was inarticulate and possibly dyslexic in his early school years, which points towards a deficiency in the areas diamond outlines in her study, not a benefit.

According to a 1992 study by S. S. Kantha of the Osaka BioScience Institute in Japan, Diamond's cell counts suggest "a strong possibility of some kind of lesion in this specific speech-related area in Einstein's brain which could have resulted in childhood dyslexia."
In other words, instead of possessing a superior brain, Einstein may have started out with a severely compromised one that subsequently healed. The possibility is especially intriguing because it suggests a theoretical diagnosis that, had Einstein's parents been aware of it, might have led them to steer their son toward the civil service instead of academia. But this would have to remain a mere speculation because Diamond's study, according to Kantha, was fatally flawed. He faulted her control group (who were these people?), the specimen itself (what had it gone through during the previous thirty years?), and Diamond's sketchy presentation of the data (why ratios and not actual cell counts?).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913

plus the fact, the over all contention diamond was trying to make was that the way the brain develops is plastic; not that people are born with better brains, but that they change according to environmental stimulus.

so, to say "Einstein had specific abnormalities that allowed him to use his mental power in a different way to the average person" is not a conclusion borne out by this evidence.

This is interesting. Do all children exhibit this? There are some adults with ambidextrous ability (without conscious practice), which suggests a natural tendency which others do not have - you could say they have not 'retained' ambidexterity.
Could you provide a link please?

hmm.. try "deviance, dominance, and the construction of handedness in turn-of-the-century anglo-america"
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=04mhkYuudy4C&pg=PA81

I think if integration is desired social structure must be significantly altered to allow for more holistic assimilation, instead of targeted acceptance within a narrow age range.

i think you're probably right.