I don't know my child's IQ - am I a bad parent?

[Anonymous]

The poster who claims that it is impossible to quantify an IQ over 130 is very misinformed. Either the expert that she said claimed this is a quack or she is just not understanding the information she was given.

Here are a number of articles taken from the website of The Gifted Development Center in CO. Linda Silverman is a PhD who has studied and assessed this population for upwards of 30 years. Some of these articles are written by her and some written by other experts in the field.

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/sblm.htm

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/How%20to%20Use%20the%20New%20IQ%20Tests.pdf

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/testing.pdf

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/NewWISC.pdf

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/WISC-IVIndices.pdf

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/practical.pdf

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/tstresults.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The WISC III is no longer in use, in part because of the deficiencies you mention, so your point doesn't apply to people tested since it was put into place. And if you're basing your conclusions on some undergrad courses taken years ago, you aren't basing them on the latest information.

And the Hoagies link you provide doesn't support what you're saying at all. It discusses the difficulties and inadequacies of measuring higher IQ scores but it never EVER indicates that these measures are "bullshit" but that they may not adequately measure IQ at those levels. If anything, it implies that IQ scores are understated..

I think because of my poor formatting in my post you got me (the hoagies gifted link poster) confused with the poster I was responding to, just FYI.

[Anonymous]

Oh that was me, sorry. I thought the Hoagies link was being used by the poster who is citing the "city's foremost authority" on IQ tests.

[Anonymous]

My parents had me IQ-tested at a young age because I was reading way ahead of grade level and advanced at other subjects, so the school suggested that I skip a grade. They decided not to skip me, but I started doing Gifted/talented activities (and getting extra enrichment assignments from certain teachers) in early grade school due to the test results. They had my sister and brother tested as well, and they were both very bright (120ish IQ's) but not G/T.

My IQ is somewhere in the 136-142 range (was also tested in adulthood) and my daughter's dad tested at 147, so odds are good that we'll have our daughter tested at some point for G/T programs. I'm ok with however things turn out.

You're not a bad parent if you don't know your child's IQ and you're not necessarily a neurotic parent if you do know your child's IQ - as other PP's have described, there are a number of good reasons to have your kid tested. I think a good reason is so that you have some kind of heads-up on where his/her skills might lie and what your expectations should be.

[Anonymous]

Those of you who are boasting about high IQs do realize that the higher your IQ the more likely you are to have a learning disability or be on the Autistic Spectrum. Right? Being in the higher range of normal is OK but once you deviate on either side of the average range you run into trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are boasting about high IQs do realize that the higher your IQ the more likely you are to have a learning disability or be on the Autistic Spectrum. Right? Being in the higher range of normal is OK but once you deviate on either side of the average range you run into trouble.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. At this end of the spectrum, I'd wager folks can compensate or maneuver their way around any LD or other disorders they have.

[Anonymous]

Troll, troll, go away.

If you have data to back up his "learning disability" thing, give it to us. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Sure, many high IQ people have learning disabilities, but so do average IQ people. Show us your numbers or just be quiet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are boasting about high IQs do realize that the higher your IQ the more likely you are to have a learning disability or be on the Autistic Spectrum. Right? Being in the higher range of normal is OK but once you deviate on either side of the average range you run into trouble.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. At this end of the spectrum, I'd wager folks can compensate or maneuver their way around any LD or other disorders they have.

While I do agree PP's way off the mark, I don't buy that highly intelligent people can "maneuver around" something like autism or a learning disability. As though people who struggle with dyslexia just aren't smart enough to sidestep it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are boasting about high IQs do realize that the higher your IQ the more likely you are to have a learning disability or be on the Autistic Spectrum. Right? Being in the higher range of normal is OK but once you deviate on either side of the average range you run into trouble.

(a) Bitter;

(b) Misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are boasting about high IQs... (stuff deleted)

People are stating high IQ scores, as a matter of fact. They are not boasting about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Troll, troll, go away.

If you have data to back up his "learning disability" thing, give it to us. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Sure, many high IQ people have learning disabilities, but so do average IQ people. Show us your numbers or just be quiet.

Google is your friend. There is all sorts of data on this.

[Anonymous]

Can't be that hard to join Mensa - they offered me a spot.

I'm with Groucho on this one, and won't be joining.

[Anonymous]

Call it whatever you like: A lot of people on this board seem very attached to their IQs and those of their children. Look how upset they get when anyone says anything to threaten the validity of the IQs that they've practically tatooed to their heads.

Classic textbook stuff of people who are extremely insecure in almost every aspect of their lives . . .

And what makes people think that the owners of this intelligence testing firm are men? Ah. Gender bias follows us everywhere. Use the words "firm", "intelligence" and "testing", and people conclude that it must have a penis and nice pair of balls.

[Anonymous]

We're insecure because that poster can't back up their claim?

[Anonymous]

No. You're insecure for a multitude of reasons as to which I wouldn't hazard a guess. But anyone who feels so threatened that the number assigned to them by their parents or elementary school teachers decades ago or by some pimp they hired to bless their child with an IQ of 152 certainly has issues. And many of the posts on this thread evidence feelings of great, adrenaline-pumping, arterty-blasting threat.

And make no mistake -- it's not that I can't back up my claim. It's that I choose not to disclose the name of the firm on whose opinion I rely and trust. Because I want to spare them a flood of calls from all you yahoos. Besides, as I've stated before, those with IQs as high as some of you profess to have should also possess a modicum of resourcefulness. You know, like where you take the facts that you have; do a little research; draw some obvious connections, and add a dash of ingenuity? These are all things that those of us whose IQs indicate that we are super duper geniuses should be able to do. So take the Pepsi challenge. Or don't. Either way, you're all still a bunch of freaks with inferiority complexes much, much bigger that you could ever hope your IQs to be.

Signed,
135 or above, and neither bitter nor misinformed.