My 4 Yr Old Son's FSIQ is 131, Now What?

[Anonymous]

Amen, sister!

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry but I don't buy it. I think you have just run out of ideas to defend your position because your position is flawed. The information pasted makes sense, is concise, and is logical and reasonable. It's hard to argue with it so you are making excuses and taking your balls and going home.

Bye bye!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but I don't buy it. I think you have just run out of ideas to defend your position because your position is flawed. The information pasted makes sense, is concise, and is logical and reasonable. It's hard to argue with it so you are making excuses and taking your balls and going home.

I'm 12:12 who originally posted my opt-out. You don't even know what my position is or that it's flawed, because I haven't posted for several pages now, so I don't appreciate your judgment/accusations. And I must say, I can't even tell what your position is, because you just keep posting long cut-outs without any clear statement of where you actually stand. I can't tell whether or not I agree with you, and I'm not interested in trying to agree/disagree with all the hundreds of points in 42 different sub-arguments from half a dozen different articles you are copying. I'm not opting out because I disagree with the substance, but rather because you're doing a data dump.

[Anonymous]

You complain about "cut-outs" and "articles." Yet what you offer is utterly uninformed nonsense. Take the time to read some of those articles, and you will learn that you don't even have a minimal understanding of common definitions of intelligence, much less psychometrics.

[Anonymous]

I'm 13:27, and before I log off rather than go over the same ground all over again, I'll tell where my POV comes from. So far my 2 kids have done 3 MoCo magnets, and counting because we have another round of magnet apps next year.

So I have personal experience with gifted programs. And they're great. But when I look around the gifted classrooms, I see ...

1. My kids are being met at their level, but lots of MoCo kids are not. That's why I'm leery of campaigns for more $ for an already privileged group.
2. Almost all kids in the 3 magnets we've been associated with are high SES. Including the minority magnet kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You complain about "cut-outs" and "articles." Yet what you offer is utterly uninformed nonsense. Take the time to read some of those articles, and you will learn that you don't even have a minimal understanding of common definitions of intelligence, much less psychometrics.

12:12 here. And again here you are attacking me, yet you have no clue what my position is or how much I might know. For all you know, I might even agree with you. I might even have a Masters in this field. But we'll never know because you're too busy hurling insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but I don't buy it. I think you have just run out of ideas to defend your position because your position is flawed. The information pasted makes sense, is concise, and is logical and reasonable. It's hard to argue with it so you are making excuses and taking your balls and going home.

I'm 12:12 who originally posted my opt-out. You don't even know what my position is or that it's flawed, because I haven't posted for several pages now, so I don't appreciate your judgment/accusations. And I must say, I can't even tell what your position is, because you just keep posting long cut-outs without any clear statement of where you actually stand. I can't tell whether or not I agree with you, and I'm not interested in trying to agree/disagree with all the hundreds of points in 42 different sub-arguments from half a dozen different articles you are copying. I'm not opting out because I disagree with the substance, but rather because you're doing a data dump.

The only data dump I see after going all the way back to page 8 is the NAGC advocacy statement. I hardly call a one page document overwhelming. The information was very concise and nicely summarized the points I was attempting to make on my own in other posts. The only other posts that I might be inclined to think you are referring to as data dumps are those that include links to research articles, etc. Those links were posted as a means to back up my stated position with research. You can choose to read them or not. But the point in including them is to provide data to prove that I'm not just pulling opinions out of my ass as well as to share information with others. I will also point out that I'm not the only poster to post links to back up opinions on this thread or other threads for that matter. This forum is great for conversing but its also an excellent way to recieve and share information beyond what people have in their heads.

So, this is why I don't buy your data dump reasoning. Maybe you believe that my other posts are cut outs from various sources and if that is the case that is not a correct assumption. I really don't see any reason for you to think that though from reviewing all of the posts (because I'm not the sole author of every post other than yours and the IQ test skeptic). Also, I always provide some sort of source information when posting information other than my own opinions.

I'm sorry to have come across as judging your position which I agree I'm not familiar with. That part of my post was really directed at the following poster who glommed on to your reasoning about the data dump. Her position was apparent and in my opinion flawed and disproven many times over.

So, I'm sorry but I'm a skeptic and still think that you're a copout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You complain about "cut-outs" and "articles." Yet what you offer is utterly uninformed nonsense. Take the time to read some of those articles, and you will learn that you don't even have a minimal understanding of common definitions of intelligence, much less psychometrics.

A big THANK YOU from 15:36! I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one left on this thread with any sense!


-

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You complain about "cut-outs" and "articles." Yet what you offer is utterly uninformed nonsense. Take the time to read some of those articles, and you will learn that you don't even have a minimal understanding of common definitions of intelligence, much less psychometrics.

12:12 here. And again here you are attacking me, yet you have no clue what my position is or how much I might know. For all you know, I might even agree with you. I might even have a Masters in this field. But we'll never know because you're too busy hurling insults.

Actually this is a new poster who is "attacking" you. 14:57 and 15:36 (me) are different people. But I do agree with 14:57. You are still welcome to take your ball and go home though. This is getting tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually this is a new poster who is "attacking" you. 14:57 and 15:36 (me) are different people. But I do agree with 14:57. You are still welcome to take your ball and go home though. This is getting tiresome.

Well, we can agree on the last point at least. I'm signing off now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 13:27, and before I log off rather than go over the same ground all over again, I'll tell where my POV comes from. So far my 2 kids have done 3 MoCo magnets, and counting because we have another round of magnet apps next year.

So I have personal experience with gifted programs. And they're great. But when I look around the gifted classrooms, I see ...

1. My kids are being met at their level, but lots of MoCo kids are not. That's why I'm leery of campaigns for more $ for an already privileged group.
2. Almost all kids in the 3 magnets we've been associated with are high SES. Including the minority magnet kids.[/quote]

Okay, in your little world of Montgomery Count magnets I can see how you believe that gifted kids needs are being met. Because in your little world they are. But the world is much bigger than the HG gifted centers, Eastern & TP middle schools and Blair highschool. About 4 pages ago I posted a link to a research paper which was funded by the Jarvitz grant that was a collaboration of 3 Universities. This paper explains a lot about the educational crisis in this country.

Also, do you see what I've bolded? This is the problem. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. All the kids are high SES because there is no funding to seek out, identify, & enrich gifted kids that are anything other than high SES.

Read some of the other information that I've posted and you will expand your world a little bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 13:27, and before I log off rather than go over the same ground all over again, I'll tell where my POV comes from. So far my 2 kids have done 3 MoCo magnets, and counting because we have another round of magnet apps next year.

So I have personal experience with gifted programs. And they're great. But when I look around the gifted classrooms, I see ...

1. My kids are being met at their level, but lots of MoCo kids are not. That's why I'm leery of campaigns for more $ for an already privileged group.
2. Almost all kids in the 3 magnets we've been associated with are high SES. Including the minority magnet kids.

Posted again to correct the quoting...

Okay, in your little world of Montgomery Count magnets I can see how you believe that gifted kids needs are being met. Because in your little world they are. But the world is much bigger than the HG gifted centers, Eastern & TP middle schools and Blair highschool. About 4 pages ago I posted a link to a research paper which was funded by the Jarvitz grant that was a collaboration of 3 Universities. This paper explains a lot about the educational crisis in this country.

Also, do you see what I've bolded? This is the problem. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. All the kids are high SES because there is no funding to seek out, identify, & enrich gifted kids that are anything other than high SES.

Read some of the other information that I've posted and you will expand your world a little bit.

[Anonymous]

Wow, 15:36 and 14:57, do you think that if you had set out to persuade people that gifted advocates are a nasty, sneering, condescending bunch, you could have done a better job than your last few pages of posts here? The only thing missing is calling our kids dumber than yours, which I presume is coming next.

Yes, I'm persuaded: you guys are bullies! Dogmatic bullies. No, I'm not the person who is leaving that you're ganging up on.

I too will leave you now. Go back to thinking that intelligence is 100% innate, IQ tests capture it, and most important, your kids don't already have enough advantages so taxpayers owe your kid an education that can get them into Harvard....

[Anonymous]

Javits for godssakes. If you're going to pose as an expert, at least try to get the names right. And no, this wasn't a typo -- you're consistent across posts. I'm guessing Jarvik and Javits have somehow morphed in your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Javits for godssakes. If you're going to pose as an expert, at least try to get the names right. And no, this wasn't a typo -- you're consistent across posts. I'm guessing Jarvik and Javits have somehow morphed in your mind.

Nope, just a typo but good try!