My 4 Yr Old Son's FSIQ is 131, Now What?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Good Lord. Find something more productive to do with your time. |
Anonymous
You are the person who most disrupts these conversations. You get upset when people suggest that there are different levels of giftedness and that the needs of of gifted kids differ depending on their level of giftedness. Then you insult them and falsely accuse them of saying their kids are smarter than yours. Admitting that you are resentful is a step in the right direction. |
Anonymous
You should take your own advice. And I'm not "MoCo mom".... |
Anonymous
|
I am MoCo mom, and I'm not resentful or jealous. Hey, as I mentioned earlier, my 2 kids have so far been in 3 magnets, with time for more magnets before they get to college.
What I do resent is being told that my experience with these magnets doesn't count because it's just my "little world.". And I have indeed been told by gifted advocates who knew nothing about my kids that they must be "merely gifted" (sniff). That happened on other threads - until two posts ago on this thread. I do need to give credit to the mom who ordered the Genius in All of Us book. And she may actually have thought that posting all those links was helpful, even though many of already know those sites and that literature. But some gifted parents on DCUM give the rest a bad name. |
Anonymous
Somebody said that their kids are smarter than yours? On this thread? Where? I wonder if you are reading things into posts that aren't there, which is easy to do in electronic communications. In any case, I don't think anybody here thinks you are a problem poster. You don't seem to hurl accusations at people or insult them. The problem poster is the angry one who admits to feeling resentful. |
Anonymous
|
Some posters on this board are just angry. Let's put that aside.
Other, reasonable posters seem to be getting frustrated with each other because they weight methods of acquiring knowledge differently. Some people here place a lot of faith in anecdote, especially their own anecdotal experiences. Other people place more faith in evidence-based research. When the people who favor research post links to research that supports their point of view and runs counter to other posters' experience, the people who favor anecdote feel like their experience is being dismissed. When the people who favor anecdotal evidence seek to refute research based on their own experiences, the people who favor research are skeptical about sample size and biases and feel like the research is being dismissed. We're talking about differences in epistemological paradigms here. Both points of view have a place. Let's save the ICBMs for the threads about the schools our kids didn't get into. |
Anonymous
OK, let's parse this condescending comparison of "anecdotal evidence" vs. "research-based evidence." I'm a researcher by profession, so here goes. 1. Talking about actual experience MoCo magnets is worthless, a data point of one. Despite the fact that the poster may know or have seen hundreds of kids in the magnets. Meanwhile, at least one of the posters who disagrees says her kids are in private school, i.e. she talks "theory" but has no personal experience with gifted programs whatsoever. 2. Talking about research in books like The Genius in All of Us is likewise worthless, because only the two people on this thread who read it can talk about it. This, despite the fact the book (which I too have read) has a really long footnote section with links to tons of research. 3. Conclusion: the only useful information comes from a select number of advocacy websites, which promote older views of IQ, but which happen to be linkable. Can you understand why some of us are frustrated? |
Anonymous
|
I'm MoCo mom, and I think I can take credit for posting the first reference to The Genius in All of Us, lo these many pages ago. It's got tons of research, extremely well-footnoted. You just can't link to most of it, and I don't have the time to dig out the links. But several of us have tried to summarize the various findings here.
I suppose the absence of links means that's not "research," though. Especially if I tried to combine it with my personal experience, which seems to have given you an excuse to write the whole thing off.... |
Anonymous
Not saying that anybody's posts are worthless. Just the opposite. Your inferences are bizarre, to say the least. I'm curious as to whether you interpret data with as much abandon. If so, your research must make fascinating reading. |
Anonymous
|
IQ as measured by exercises like WPSSI and SAT.
V oxygen max as measured by exercises including exercise tolerance exams with spirometry. Are Asian Americans more intelligent than other groups in the D.C. area (or nation)? A recent review of test performance (MD state, VA state, SAT averages, etc) put this group at the top of the heap. Does such incontrovertible performance on these aptitude tests indicate a higher intelligence? Or is this intellectual and academic performance largely due to a training effect? What component is due to training? Much like the incredible V oxygen maximum of the cyclist Lance Armstrong? There is data to suggest that training for an aptitude test like the SAT can result in up to a 300 point gain. There is also data emerging that training for the WPSSI (e.g., Aristotle Circle) can increase your IQ. |
Anonymous
| All children are gifted and should receive a challenging education appropriate for their aptitude, achievement and ability. |
Anonymous
Can you provide a dozen links to research on this, which people won't have the time or energy to read? Because otherwise, we'll all just ignore it as your personal or anecdotal opinion. 
|
Anonymous
Puhleeze. Let's not pretend that calling someone's experience "anecdotal" isn't exactly the same as dismissing it. (Even if that person's experience involves observing 100s of kids and she also cited a book.) If you yourself knew anything about research, you'd understand what the word "anecdotal" conveys to researchers. Also, let's take a look at this snippet from earlier in this thread: "You are the person who most disrupts these conversations. You get upset when people suggest that there are different levels of giftedness and that the needs of of gifted kids differ depending on their level of giftedness. Then you insult them and falsely accuse them of saying their kids are smarter than yours." Typically, however, you forgot to include the appropriate quotes from the threads you are referring to, which generally say something like, "If you don't understand my point, then your kids are merely gifted instead of profoundly gifted." Which, while we're at it, is another frustrating thing about your debating style: you change the terms of the debate when it suits your needs. Like when your position doesn't apply to gifted and highly gifted kids, so you start aiming your arguments at profoundly gifted kids, without telling other posters. Just last week, on another thread, several other posters chewed you out for doing this, after they figured it out, which took a while. In sum, stop pretending you don't understand the "resentful" poster's point: she resents YOUR DEBATING STYLE. It's not only sleazy. It's so transparently sleazy (most of us are pretty smart ourselves, you know) that everybody gets super frustrated. |
Anonymous
|
The research vs. anecdote thing, as 20:30 pointed out, doesn't characterize what's going on.
My take is that, to the extent that there's a debate over what counts as evidence, the debate is between people who understand how research works (controversy, paradigm shifts, limited claims, cross-disciplinary fertilization) and people (a person?) who think(s) that the existence of a study (that was funded by a grant and involved 3 universities!) establishes something (once and for all) as truth. Or maybe it becomes truth when some website declares a different POV "Myth".... At any rate. This hasn't been a research vs. anecdote debate. It's been a what kind of research do you look at and think is relevant and persuasive. The answer to those questions may involve explicit reference to personal experience. But that's not being biased so much as being honest (or maybe candid) and self-aware. Subjectivity always influences perspective. |
Anonymous
This is exactly why I think it's a waste of effort to try to point out to this poster what the problem is. She's been told -- repeatedy. She has no interest in changing what she's doing. Basically, it's probably the best she can do. So in the end, the best policy is to trust the intelligence of other readers, say what you have to say/enjoy whatever substantive discussion ensues, and ignore the noise and posturing. Anonymity obviously makes it harder to know whom you're ignoring when you ignore a dogmatic and belligerent post. But if a poster is sincere in wanting to engage, she can always find another way of doing so. (e.g. ask again in a less dismissive or inflammatory manner). |