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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, the subject of the thread is FSIQ, so, unlike your snarky comment, my posts above are relevant to the thread. If you think I'm being boastful, too bad. It's an anonymous forum for crying out loud. The point is that, as I noted in response to OP, there are varying levels of giftedness (see Deborah Ruf's work, for example), and some are more easily accomodated than others.

...so I can hide my haughtiness behind the comfortable veil of anonynmity

Again, the notion of relevance has escaped you. You're probably one of those deluded false egalitarians who say things like, "all children even out by the third grade" or cling to The Hurried Child as dogma, so why are you even reading page 20 of a thread about FSIQ? Just do us all a favor and go away. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Kids taking the WPPSI or WISC aren't taking it because "their parent(s) detect a reason for them to do so," at least for the majority

While I agree with your point RE the kids on this board being a self-selected group from high income (and highly educated!) families - I think you are underestimating that there really are those of us who had child tested at the recommendation of teachers. And then, professionals (and teacher) suggesting that DC will probably be better served by privates at this point in DC's education.

That said - I am sure some of the outcome on that test can be attributed to our child having parents that take the time spend time with their child, read, go to museums etc and generally encourage and feed DC's many interests.

I think posters here need to remember that the percentiles on this test are for the entire US pop of kids - not the pop of kids who apply to expensive private schools in a highly educated area. It is not surprising that the kids on this board will be at the top end of the curve - the DC area has the most educated population in the country.

Alternatively, if you went to a poor rural town, where children didn't go to preschool and their parents had very low educational attainment - the test scores would surely be more concentrated on the lower end of the curve.

[Anonymous]

Uh, the subject of the thread is FSIQ, so, unlike your snarky comment, my posts above are relevant to the thread. If you think I'm being boastful, too bad. It's an anonymous forum for crying out loud. The point is that, as I noted in response to OP, there are varying levels of giftedness (see Deborah Ruf's work, for example), and some are more easily accomodated than others.


...so I can hide my haughtiness behind the comfortable veil of anonynmity

Again, the notion of relevance has escaped you. You're probably one of those deluded false egalitarians who say things like, "all children even out by the third grade" or cling to The Hurried Child as dogma, so why are you even reading page 20 of a thread about FSIQ? Just do us all a favor and go away. Seriously.

Wishful thinking. You are not left off the hook that easily. Thorns will seek out the supple targets of dull braggarts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, the subject of the thread is FSIQ, so, unlike your snarky comment, my posts above are relevant to the thread. If you think I'm being boastful, too bad. It's an anonymous forum for crying out loud. The point is that, as I noted in response to OP, there are varying levels of giftedness (see Deborah Ruf's work, for example), and some are more easily accomodated than others.


...so I can hide my haughtiness behind the comfortable veil of anonynmity

Again, the notion of relevance has escaped you. You're probably one of those deluded false egalitarians who say things like, "all children even out by the third grade" or cling to The Hurried Child as dogma, so why are you even reading page 20 of a thread about FSIQ? Just do us all a favor and go away. Seriously.

Wishful thinking. You are not left off the hook that easily. Thorns will seek out the supple targets of dull braggarts.

The PP you are quoting was conversing on topic for this thread. You are coming across very poorly....supple targets of dull braggarts...please.

If the topic is offensive to you that's fine; you are entitled to your opinion. But please just stop posting on this thread and seek out other topics of interest. Parents who have children with similar needs would like to have a frank conversation without being harrassed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, the subject of the thread is FSIQ, so, unlike your snarky comment, my posts above are relevant to the thread. If you think I'm being boastful, too bad. It's an anonymous forum for crying out loud. The point is that, as I noted in response to OP, there are varying levels of giftedness (see Deborah Ruf's work, for example), and some are more easily accomodated than others.

...so I can hide my haughtiness behind the comfortable veil of anonynmity

12:43 this troll that attacks anybody who attacks anybody who talks about levels of gitedness or the needs of highly gifted children. Don't feed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, the subject of the thread is FSIQ, so, unlike your snarky comment, my posts above are relevant to the thread. If you think I'm being boastful, too bad. It's an anonymous forum for crying out loud. The point is that, as I noted in response to OP, there are varying levels of giftedness (see Deborah Ruf's work, for example), and some are more easily accomodated than others.

...so I can hide my haughtiness behind the comfortable veil of anonynmity

@12:43 this troll attacks anybody who talks about levels of gitedness or the needs of highly gifted children. Don't feed it.

[Anonymous]

Even Elkind, author of the Hurried Child, recognizes the need for acceleration for some kids. His work is often used to support positions he doesn't hold.

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/elkind.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, the subject of the thread is FSIQ, so, unlike your snarky comment, my posts above are relevant to the thread. If you think I'm being boastful, too bad. It's an anonymous forum for crying out loud. The point is that, as I noted in response to OP, there are varying levels of giftedness (see Deborah Ruf's work, for example), and some are more easily accomodated than others.

...so I can hide my haughtiness behind the comfortable veil of anonynmity

Again, the notion of relevance has escaped you. You're probably one of those deluded false egalitarians who say things like, "all children even out by the third grade" or cling to The Hurried Child as dogma, so why are you even reading page 20 of a thread about FSIQ? Just do us all a favor and go away. Seriously.

So "relevance" justifies posting your kid's IQ score twice on the same page? (And I haven't bothered to go back over the thread, although I recall other references to the Feynman school.)

I'm not any of the previous posters. But I'm concerned this sort of behavior, by parents of highly or profoundly gifted kids, derails discussions about giftedness every bit as much as the trolls do. Same for the person who posts that homeschooling is the only solution, and the person (same person? different person?) who posts that if we don't understand their POV, our kids must be "merely" gifted.

There are a number of us who are genuinely interested in the subject because we have our own HG kids. I've noticed several besides myself who are annoyed/embarrassed/bored by the posts from both (a) certain parents of gifted kids, and (b) the crazy. Yes, you are derailing the conversation, because people think they need to stop and point out your bad behavior. The "thorns" comment (not me) is an example. And yes, there is one actual crazy person who posts on gifted threads, but that's different from "troll" trolls. It is not "trollish" to ask you to stop, rein in your boasts about your kid's IQ, and try to have a two-way conversation with different POVs.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

While I agree generally about dynamics on threads about giftedness, I didn't read the Feynman School poster as boasting so much as shilling. It's a new school with a dozen kids, preschool only at this point, and whether it can be what it aspires to be depends on who enrolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, the subject of the thread is FSIQ, so, unlike your snarky comment, my posts above are relevant to the thread. If you think I'm being boastful, too bad. It's an anonymous forum for crying out loud. The point is that, as I noted in response to OP, there are varying levels of giftedness (see Deborah Ruf's work, for example), and some are more easily accomodated than others.

...so I can hide my haughtiness behind the comfortable veil of anonynmity

Again, the notion of relevance has escaped you. You're probably one of those deluded false egalitarians who say things like, "all children even out by the third grade" or cling to The Hurried Child as dogma, so why are you even reading page 20 of a thread about FSIQ? Just do us all a favor and go away. Seriously.

So "relevance" justifies posting your kid's IQ score twice on the same page? (And I haven't bothered to go back over the thread, although I recall other references to the Feynman school.)

I'm not any of the previous posters. But I'm concerned this sort of behavior, by parents of highly or profoundly gifted kids, derails discussions about giftedness every bit as much as the trolls do. Same for the person who posts that homeschooling is the only solution, and the person (same person? different person?) who posts that if we don't understand their POV, our kids must be "merely" gifted.

There are a number of us who are genuinely interested in the subject because we have our own HG kids. I've noticed several besides myself who are annoyed/embarrassed/bored by the posts from both (a) certain parents of gifted kids, and (b) the crazy. Yes, you are derailing the conversation, because people think they need to stop and point out your bad behavior. The "thorns" comment (not me) is an example. And yes, there is one actual crazy person who posts on gifted threads, but that's different from "troll" trolls. It is not "trollish" to ask you to stop, rein in your boasts about your kid's IQ, and try to have a two-way conversation with different POVs.

Thank you.

I find it odd that you think it just fine to post that your child has an IQ of 131 but boasting to post that your child's IQ is 155. They are both high. Why is one bragging and offensive and the other totally acceptable? Why is including comments about hg and pg kids in a discussion about giftedness rude? What levels of giftedness meet your standard of acceptability?

You seem to want to control all discussions about giftedness by limiting the discussion to one segment of the population, misrepresenting the comments of people you don't agree with, and mocking other posters. If there is any post here that says that homeschooling is the ONLY solution for gifted kids, please copy it to this thread. I have yet to see that assertion, but maybe I missed it. You may not be as crazy as the other poster, but you are very aggressive.

[Anonymous]

No, I don't think putting "my kid's IQ is 131" is acceptable either. However I don't recall that poster mentioning it twice on the same page.

My point, which I suspect you understood but are pretending not to understand, is a broader one, about the behavior of gifted advocates across DCUM threads. So for example, I agree that homeschooling hasn't been mentioned on this particular thread. But it has been mentioned on other threads.

I'm aggressive because I'm fed up with bad behavior from all sides, including parents of gifted kids. You, too, derail the conversation, but then you come back here to complain that nobody likes you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think putting "my kid's IQ is 131" is acceptable either. However I don't recall that poster mentioning it twice on the same page.

My point, which I suspect you understood but are pretending not to understand, is a broader one, about the behavior of gifted advocates across DCUM threads. So for example, I agree that homeschooling hasn't been mentioned on this particular thread. But it has been mentioned on other threads.

I'm aggressive because I'm fed up with bad behavior from all sides, including parents of gifted kids. You, too, derail the conversation, but then you come back here to complain that nobody likes you.

So.. what upsets you is how many times people mention their children's IQ? Is is okay to ask for advice about how to help about a gifted child? If so, why is okay to say that a child is "gifted," which implies an IQ over 130, but not okay to say that a child's IQ is 131?

Did somebody complain that people didn't like them? I missed that post, too. Please copy it to this thread along with the posts that say homeschooling is the only option for gifted kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So.. what upsets you is how many times people mention their children's IQ? Is is okay to ask for advice about how to help about a gifted child? If so, why is okay to say that a child is "gifted," which implies an IQ over 130, but not okay to say that a child's IQ is 131?

Did somebody complain that people didn't like them? I missed that post, too. Please copy it to this thread along with the posts that say homeschooling is the only option for gifted kids.

OK, now you're just parodying my point. Which is childish, and basically exemplifies the bad behavior I'm talking about.

To repeat: I'm making a wider point about behavior across DCUM threads. Perhaps you missed the many posts from parents of gifted kids who claim to feel unloved, and about homeschooling. But I'm not include to spend any time for rude twerps like you. So find these posts yourself. Or just wait a few days and a few more will appear somewhere on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So.. what upsets you is how many times people mention their children's IQ? Is is okay to ask for advice about how to help about a gifted child? If so, why is okay to say that a child is "gifted," which implies an IQ over 130, but not okay to say that a child's IQ is 131?

Did somebody complain that people didn't like them? I missed that post, too. Please copy it to this thread along with the posts that say homeschooling is the only option for gifted kids.

OK, now you're just parodying my point. Which is childish, and basically exemplifies the bad behavior I'm talking about.

To repeat: I'm making a wider point about behavior across DCUM threads. Perhaps you missed the many posts from parents of gifted kids who claim to feel unloved, and about homeschooling. But I'm not include to spend any time for rude twerps like you. So find these posts yourself. Or just wait a few days and a few more will appear somewhere on DCUM.

I wasn't parodying you. I really don't think anybody has said what you think you read, which is disturbing, as are the glaring inconsistencies in your pov, and your attacks on other posters who are just trying to be helpful. I'm not mother of 155, but I think her post was a genuine attempt to guide the OP towards a preschool that might work for her child. She didn't deserve an attack for mentioning your child's IQ, especially from somebody who refers to their children as "highly gifted," which is just another way of saying their IQs are over 145.

[Anonymous]

Check out the post at 1/31/11 @ 14:41 for the sort of whingeing, toe-curling self-pity I'm talking about: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/147728.page

And so, so many more like this, if only you'd use the DCUM search function. This one was only 2 weeks ago, but I've been on DCUM for over a year, and I've seen it a lot. I've simply had enough of it.

Calling my post "disturbing," when you can't be bothered to look yourself, is disturbingly arrogant.... And, BTW, how do you know what my "POV" is, unless you have some sort of telepathy whereby you can link to other posts I've made on DCUM?

All I've been saying is, there's enough bad behavior to go around. Including by parents of gifted kids. Sorry if this offends you so much.