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

[Anonymous]

For the love of God!

The barrage of links are to scholarly studies and research backed articles to support my opinions!

I NEVER called anyone's points BS.

I did NOT write the post about anyone having a minimal understanding of basic concepts.

This was addressed like two posts ago! Are you even reading the thread?

You realize you are trying to thwart the efforts of someone trying to advocate for the needs of children, right?

Anyways, I agree that This thread has seen better days. There are only a bunch of mean girls left on here just waiting to pounce.

My hope is that a parent or two took something beneficial away from all the time and effort I put into this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who tries to discredit standardized tests is kidding themselves. Of course they matter!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the love of God!

The barrage of links are to scholarly studies and research backed articles to support my opinions!

I NEVER called anyone's points BS.

I did NOT write the post about anyone having a minimal understanding of basic concepts.

This was addressed like two posts ago! Are you even reading the thread?

You realize you are trying to thwart the efforts of someone trying to advocate for the needs of children, right?

Anyways, I agree that This thread has seen better days. There are only a bunch of mean girls left on here just waiting to pounce.

My hope is that a parent or two took something beneficial away from all the time and effort I put into this thread.

You're advocating for a particular group of children who are already very privileged, for the most part. By the time IQ is testable, at age 8 or so, environment has played a huge role. Even strong supporters of the IQ test agree that tests at age 4 are not very meaningful. Others here have been arguing for an even stronger version of this, i.e. that IQ is less innate and more subject to environmental factors.

The point others here have been trying to make is that, by the time kids reach age 8, when IQ tests are more valuable and magnet testing starts in many districts, a privileged environment has played a huge role for some kids.

If you want to help low-SES kids, you need to start at age 4 (when IQ is much harder to determine) and spend your money on providing an enriched education to ALL low-SES kids. Then, by the time they are age 8 and testing for magnet programs begins, they will be more likely to pass the tests. All the recruitment in the world won't help if the low-SES kids aren't able to do well on magnet entrance tests because they had a poor educational environment.

[Anonymous]

As 8:54's response suggests, there's no debate here about whether we (schools/communities) need to do more/better wrt recognizing and nurturing the talents of kids who aren't growing up with the resources and support structure that have them poised for academic success before they even enter school. In fact, the writing off smart kids with lower SES issue was raised by the people who are skeptical of IQ tests being used as gatekeepers.

So "the don't pillory me for my advocacy for the children" shtick is a bit over the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the love of God!
The barrage of links are to scholarly studies and research backed articles to support my opinions!
I NEVER called anyone's points BS.
I did NOT write the post about anyone having a minimal understanding of basic concepts.

If it's not you, then it's someone who seems to share your attitude and views. Here are posts I personally find frustrating that look like they might be yours. Other people might point to other posts, but for me personally, these are the ones that bother me. Please claim the ones that are yours, so we can know which belong to this other person. Thanks

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/165/148770.page#1343171 (data dump link to long article with absolutely no explanation)
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/165/148770.page#1343397 (claiming that anyone who disagrees is ignorant, and should go buy a book)
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/195/148770.page#1344554 (long cut-and-paste job from some website, without any explanation of your point or how this might support you)
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/195/148770.page#1344858 (more links to articles without any meaningful explication)
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/195/148770.page#1344945 (anyone who finds data dumps off-putting is "copping out")
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/210/148770.page#1345151 (anyone who finds data dumps off-putting is "making excuses" and has "flawed" positions)
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/210/148770.page#1345362 (anyone who finds data dumps off-putting is spouting "utterly uninformed nonsense" without any "minimal understanding of common definitions")
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/210/148770.page#1345465 (semi-apology for some prior accusations, but ends with "I still think that you're a copout")
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/210/148770.page#1345485 (clarifying that there are two posters, but both agreeing that anyone who objects to data dumps is a cop-out -- which one of these two are you, PP?)
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/210/148770.page#1345531 (discussion of Jarvitz grant and belittling other posters with "little world" comments)

It also seems like there are many posts where you (or maybe the other poster who shares your views) spend all your words denigrating someone else's position, but never actually state your own position clearly. That's a lot more work to catalog and decipher, so I'm not going to try here. If you want to make a simple and concise listing of your views on this topic, I'd be curious to see it.

To be clear, I'm not trying to fight with you. I think I might even agree with you on some points. But I can't actually understand your points because of all the excess noise surrounding them.

[Anonymous]

You people are nuts.

[Anonymous]

I'm not 9:51 and she devoted way more effort than I would have to explaining the meta-conversational issues. That said, I appreciate her efforts and understand why she bothered. Basically, every discussion involving gifted issues gets derailed by what appears to be the same (or same couple) of posters. For awhile, it looked like this one might be different. But no.

So I read 9:51's approach as an attempt to explain to this poster/these posters what's producing the dysfunctional dynamic in the hope that future discussions on these issues could be more productive.

I can see why, if you haven't seen this pattern repeated a number of times, the responses might seem crazily disproportionate to the provocations. So, FWIW, there's a broader context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 9:51 and she devoted way more effort than I would have to explaining the meta-conversational issues. That said, I appreciate her efforts and understand why she bothered. Basically, every discussion involving gifted issues gets derailed by what appears to be the same (or same couple) of posters. For awhile, it looked like this one might be different. But no.

So I read 9:51's approach as an attempt to explain to this poster/these posters what's producing the dysfunctional dynamic in the hope that future discussions on these issues could be more productive.

I can see why, if you haven't seen this pattern repeated a number of times, the responses might seem crazily disproportionate to the provocations. So, FWIW, there's a broader context.

I am 9:51. This PP perfectly describes my reasons for posting the list. I think those 1-2 posters can contribute good value to discussions about giftedness. They clearly have studied the issue, and like I said, I might even agree with them on some points. But I've seen on this thread and a couple others that they sometimes inadvertently undermine their own advocacy with a style that comes across as dogmatic and off-putting. I'm sure that's not what they intend, but it nevertheless seems to happen repeatedly. I do hope there is a way to improve the dialogue.

[Anonymous]

I'm 8:54 and the MoCo mom, and I agree it's very difficult to have a thoughtful conversation about giftedness on DCUM. If you disagree on some issue, you will be told "you'd understand if your kid was as smart as mine" or "that's what you think in your little world" or "you will agree with me after you read these 12 links."

Then, inevitably, after a few days someone posts that DCUM resents gifted kids. I guess who I resent is some parents of gifted kids.

[Anonymous]

I think we've got some OCD posters with waaaay too much time on their hands on this thread. Just sayin'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we've got some OCD posters with waaaay too much time on their hands on this thread. Just sayin'.

Thanks for this helpful comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 8:54 and the MoCo mom, and I agree it's very difficult to have a thoughtful conversation about giftedness on DCUM. If you disagree on some issue, you will be told "you'd understand if your kid was as smart as mine" or "that's what you think in your little world" or "you will agree with me after you read these 12 links."

Then, inevitably, after a few days someone posts that DCUM resents gifted kids. I guess who I resent is some parents of gifted kids.

this (especially the last sentence) is my favorite post of the entire thread

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty shocked that you took the time to go through and try to identify my posts. So, I figure that since you took the time I will also take the time to humor you with a response. I am hoping this will put this issue to rest and there won't be further nitpicking about my data dumping. Again, my sole purpose for everything I included was to share information.

I still stand firm that the information I posted was to scholarly studies from major universities and research backed articles. I'm hopeful that a parent or two found it helpful.

So, I'll go link by link in the order that you posted above:

1 - yes, this one's mine. The info was on low-SES and at risk gifted kids. It was a study released based on a colaborative effort by UVA, UCONN, & Yale. The other posts that were quoted with the link clearly indicated that the link was in reference to the same topic. There is an abstract at the beginning of the study so really you could have gotten the gist of it in a few paragraphs and continued on if you found the topic of interest. There was no need to include any more of an explanation and no need to read the article to keep up with the thread if you didn't want to devote the time.

2 - No

3 - yes, this one's mine. This was an advocacy paper from the National Association of Gifted Children (you can google it for credentials). We touched on several of the topics in the pages leading up to it. I included the source of information and the bullet points of the 3 topics addressed:

•Message #1—Our nation’s ability to compete tomorrow depends on how well schools challenge advanced students today.


•Message #2—When gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds lose ground year after year, our nation leaves behind a national treasure.


•Message #3—Every child deserves to maximize his or her potential.

If you cared for further explanation you could have read the couple of additional paragraphs below expanding on each of the 3 messages....or not. It really should not have derailed anything and was hardly a data dump.

4 - yes, this is mine. This was a follow on post to the quoted post. It clearly said that it was related to the quoted post. The quoted post talked about one of the easiest and cheapest ways to accomodate gifted kids is to allow for greater flexibility in public shcools.

The first two links posted were two local newspaper articles detailing the struggles of a MoCo girl trying to get an appropriate education in our inflexible public school system.

The last link was to the G&T Association of MoCo and included additional links from the Wash Post, Education Week, Examiner, Gazette, etc. with similar news stories.

5 - yes - cop out post - it was not nice to try and invalidate everything I posted. The post I responded to wasn't nice and I responded in kind.

6 - yes - cop out post - the post I responded to here wasn't nice either and I responded in kind.

7 - no

8 - yes - more discussion on cop out post

9 - yes - more discussion on cop out post

10 - yes - I did use "little world" which was probably offensive to the poster. But if you look a couple posts back that poster called me entitled with self-congratulatory positions. I wasn't feeling very friendly to her. I may have chosen different words if I hadn't been unnecessarily offended.

You will note that in the data dumps you are referring to you pointed out 3 posts out of 248 posts. This is why I was incredibly offended by the assertion that I wasn't doing anything more than posting inane links off the internet and you couldn't stand to continue the dialogue. It was unnessary. The poster could have just stopped posting but decided to give me a jab. I don't regret calling the data dump reasoning a cop out because it was one.

I also find it very interesting that some people are willing to say that one poster on one forum who was trying to be helpful and friendly is the reason that they don't support issues related to gifted kids.

There was nothing dysfunctional about any of my posts and any post that came accross as harsh was a response to the same tone. I'm being made out to be some villian and it's completely undeserved.

In general on any gifted related post on DCUM there are atleast 3 and sometimes many more absolutely nasty posts attacking someone speaking about a gifted issue. I find it very ironic that you are trying to turn the tables here and claim to be the victim. Just in this thread alone there was a post calling the OP obnoxious, another post laughing in support of the obnoxious post, another post giving a snippity snap in support of the obnoxious post, another post laughing at the snippity snap, and another one telling the OP that her child will grow up to be just as obnoxious.

I'm not going to post any more on this thread. I imagine there will be a few folks that will want to put in one last jab and that's fine....what's new?!

Have a great weekend!

Please leave me be!

[Anonymous]

The human brain and the human body are quite plastic...so is intelligence, the soul, the heart and will power (in my opinion and experience). Training in any one of these domains makes a huge impact on outcome measures (in my opinion and experience). Lack of training also makes a huge impact on outcome measures.

IQ a measure of neuronal output/performance is akin to the physiologic concept of maximal oxygen consumption (V02 max): both can improve with training!

[Anonymous]

But, if your tools for measuring intelligence (WPSSI and SAT) are biased isn't the positive SES correlation and positive feedback loop only a self fulfilling and simply self serving prophecy and a measure of "pseudo-intelligence" ?


This is another reason why I wonder whether IQ really measures what we want to measure. Once you start talking about leaders or scientific breakthroughs, I'm not at all sure that the success stories involve people with the highest IQs. I think that an approach that starts from looking at people who have actually accomplished the sorts of things we'd like to see more of and asking what makes them the kind of people they are/enabled them to achieve what they achieved is a more promising approach than positing innate intellectual capacity/talent and trying to test for it and then foster it in the kids who test highest.


Perhaps our attempts to capture intelligence (or "pseudo" intelligence) in a bottle is simply catching those individuals that score highly on the WPSSI and the SAT exam (on a particular day) and we are not really capturing intelligence only people who reach a certain score/bar on the WPSSI and SAT. I wonder how we define or categorise the epoch changing contributions to mankind and the species of average "WPPSI and SAT" performers (or those that do not meet our definition of intelligence). Maybe what we are calling intelligence afterall isn't really the intelligence we are striving to measure rather only a mechanism to get into various schools, colleges and clubs.

I agree with the concept of IQ and V oxygen (max) as measures of intellectual and aerobic physiological training, respectively. Both are dynamic entitities affected by specific tasks and training as well as deconditioning.

I therefore support the concept of providing appropriate challenge and stimulation for all on the playground and in the classroom!