Anonymous wrote:

I'm 13:39, so I hope it's clear my theories aren't fancy, but are rather pretty seat-of-my-pants.

That said, I think there are plenty of explanations for the strong SES correlation. First, parents who have a high innate intelligence potential are genetically more likely to produce children who also have high innate potential, and high intelligence in parents correlates with high earnings and high SES. So there should be some statistical correlation between high SES and higher potential for innate intelligence. Second, high SES parents are more likely to have the money and time to provide their children with better learning opportunities, so any innate intelligence in children is more likely to be stretched to its upper potential.

I'm not sure I see any reason why SES would correlate with athletic ability on any large-number statistical scale. Maybe someone smarter than I am would have an idea.

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" ?

To clarify - I'm 15:09 and not 13:39/15:13

My opinion is yes to your question. That is why this population is very much at risk in our schools. Gifted parents of low SES were not identified in school and did not reach their potential so they remained in a low SES and their children are suffering the same fate. That is why in my opinion we need to work hard to develop strategies to seek out, identify and nuture the talents of these children so that they can reach their potential and stop the cycle. These are the kids that would most benefit from federal, state and local funding and mandates for gifted programs. Our government also needs to better fund research in refining identification strategies so we can eliminate the testing biases. Right now the only federal funding for research is the Jarvis grant and it is a drop in the bucket compared to funding for all other educational programs and research.

I want to make sure to note that I believe that all at risk children regardless of where they fall in the curve deserve better than what they are getting.

I'm 13:39, so I hope it's clear my theories aren't fancy, but are rather pretty seat-of-my-pants.

That said, I think there are plenty of explanations for the strong SES correlation. First, parents who have a high innate intelligence potential are genetically more likely to produce children who also have high innate potential, and high intelligence in parents correlates with high earnings and high SES. So there should be some statistical correlation between high SES and higher potential for innate intelligence. Second, high SES parents are more likely to have the money and time to provide their children with better learning opportunities, so any innate intelligence in children is more likely to be stretched to its upper potential.

I'm not sure I see any reason why SES would correlate with athletic ability on any large-number statistical scale. Maybe someone smarter than I am would have an idea.

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" ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:39 again. Although I agree with you that neurons/intelligence is dynamic in the sense that can improve/degrade, I also think it's important to recognize that there is an innate set point. The sky is not the limit for every neuron or person -- you have to work to reach your limit, but that limit is defined by your innate genetics.

Therefore, a 131 WPPSI is not simply garbage data, but rather is somewhat reflective of that individual's capabilities. Maybe that child's "true" IQ score measured over a long time through many tests might be 10-20% higher or lower, but it's unlikely to be 50% higher or lower.

The "sky's the limit" is just an expression I used. I agree with your post completely.

Oh good. I was hoping we'd agree. Nice to see some agreement here.

Anonymous wrote:How does the correlation between socio-economic status with WPSSI and SAT scores fit your fancy theories of mind over matter and intrinsic athletic ability and/or intelligence? Is there a correlation, too, between socio-economic status and athletic ability and performance?

I'm 13:39, so I hope it's clear my theories aren't fancy, but are rather pretty seat-of-my-pants.

That said, I think there are plenty of explanations for the strong SES correlation. First, parents who have a high innate intelligence potential are genetically more likely to produce children who also have high innate potential, and high intelligence in parents correlates with high earnings and high SES. So there should be some statistical correlation between high SES and higher potential for innate intelligence. Second, high SES parents are more likely to have the money and time to provide their children with better learning opportunities, so any innate intelligence in children is more likely to be stretched to its upper potential.

I'm not sure I see any reason why SES would correlate with athletic ability on any large-number statistical scale. Maybe someone smarter than I am would have an idea.

Anonymous wrote:How does the correlation between socio-economic status with WPSSI and SAT scores fit your fancy theories of mind over matter and intrinsic athletic ability and/or intelligence? Is there a correlation, too, between socio-economic status and athletic ability and performance?

All of today's IQ tests have some degree of cultural, racial, gender, socio-economic, etc. etc. bias. Educators and psychologists are working very hard to refine screening to correct these biases so that these at risk, gifted children aren't missed but there is still a lot of work to be done to identify all of these children. Giftedness is seen in every walk of life however, it is not always identified and nutured in at risk populations so these children often don't meet their potential.

I'm sure the same thing happens with athetics to a degree. However, our society values athetic ability very much. Our school systems and universities place a great deal of effort and funding to seek out, identify, and nuture athetically gifted people. Children from at risk populations are more likely to be identified for their athletic ability than for their intellectual ability.

Let's not get into outlier clouds of "the sky's the limit" for argument. Stick in the bulk region of the Bell shaped curve then neurons are neurons and muscle cells are muscle cells and one can essentially design superman or outstanding academic performance through exercise and practise (assuming willing parties over time or the long haul).

Let's not get into outlier clouds of "the sky's the limit" for argument. Stick in the bulk region of the Bell shaped curve then neurons are neurons and muscle cells are muscle cells and one can essentially design superman or outstanding academic performance through exercise and practise (assuming willing parties over time or the long haul).

How does the correlation between socio-economic status with WPSSI and SAT scores fit your fancy theories of mind over matter and intrinsic athletic ability and/or intelligence? Is there a correlation, too, between socio-economic status and athletic ability and performance?

Anonymous wrote:13:39 again. Although I agree with you that neurons/intelligence is dynamic in the sense that can improve/degrade, I also think it's important to recognize that there is an innate set point. The sky is not the limit for every neuron or person -- you have to work to reach your limit, but that limit is defined by your innate genetics.

Therefore, a 131 WPPSI is not simply garbage data, but rather is somewhat reflective of that individual's capabilities. Maybe that child's "true" IQ score measured over a long time through many tests might be 10-20% higher or lower, but it's unlikely to be 50% higher or lower.

The "sky's the limit" is just an expression I used. I agree with your post completely.

YAWN

Not phone talk about country club dress in the car pool pick up line

I think another good way to look at it is that IQ score is an indicator of potential. All the other data points discussed as well as the innate potential will ultimately determine the intellectual outcome of a child.

13:39 again. Although I agree with you that neurons/intelligence is dynamic in the sense that can improve/degrade, I also think it's important to recognize that there is an innate set point. The sky is not the limit for every neuron or person -- you have to work to reach your limit, but that limit is defined by your innate genetics.

Therefore, a 131 WPPSI is not simply garbage data, but rather is somewhat reflective of that individual's capabilities. Maybe that child's "true" IQ score measured over a long time through many tests might be 10-20% higher or lower, but it's unlikely to be 50% higher or lower.

Anonymous wrote:Yup:

Intelligence is similar to athletic ability or performance

neurons are similar to muscle cells


these are not static entities. they are dynamic.

I can measure the force of contraction in a runt today and get a weak signal or response. clearly a runt! therefore not worthy of enrichment.

I can enrich and work this muscle (from the runt) and repeat the test/experiment and get a robust and strong response. wow, the runt has morphed into the hulk!

Gals, the brain (neurons) intellectual performance is no different. The dynamism of systems, tissues and organs can flow both ways depending on stress, nourishment, challenge and enrichment .... or an absence of these tonic influences.

A single WPSSI of 131 in a 4-year-old remains garbage data as far as intelligence is concerned. You can refine the garbage with more data points over time.

Okay, it may be garbage data for determining innate intelligence.....especially over time. But can we agree it is not garbage data from an educational needs perspective? Psychologists and educators agree that an IQ score of 131 is indicative of a need for accomodation for optimal development. This accomdation could be an elite private school with like minded peers, and public school with enrichment/magnet program, homeschooling, acceleration or a private gifted school.

I think you'd really be interested in some studies regarding giftedness as athletic ability. I'm going to try and find them. Basically they hypothisize that the mind of elite athletes is what sets them apart and not their musculature, physical makeup, etc. The mind is simply better equiped to control and push their bodies to peak performance. Really cool stuff.

YAWN

Yup:

Intelligence is similar to athletic ability or performance

neurons are similar to muscle cells


these are not static entities. they are dynamic.

I can measure the force of contraction in a runt today and get a weak signal or response. clearly a runt! therefore not worthy of enrichment.

I can enrich and work this muscle (from the runt) and repeat the test/experiment and get a robust and strong response. wow, the runt has morphed into the hulk!

Gals, the brain (neurons) intellectual performance is no different. The dynamism of systems, tissues and organs can flow both ways depending on stress, nourishment, challenge and enrichment .... or an absence of these tonic influences.

A single WPSSI of 131 in a 4-year-old remains garbage data as far as intelligence is concerned. You can refine the garbage with more data points over time.