Ratio, probably.

(I'm pretty sure by now - that there's an EMQ (emotional manipulation quotient) which greatly modifies all the 'IQ' numbers, in actual kid-behavior observed. It is no scalar 'quantity' - nor do I think the scalar-'IQ' is other than a monstrosity ;-)

I believe that unmeasurable facet confounds parents, teachers - who now 'expect' whatever they imagine the stupid number meant .. they should.

What I'd bet $$ on is ~
(from everything yet read and from experience of the effects of IQ conditioning in my own early experiences - while noticing the manipulators and their assumptions. And mine, occasionally..)

Any kid, not brain damaged and with normal curiosity:

A) Read-to assiduously, material of increasing subtlety (and wide enough range to finally hit more than One Interest neuron)

B) A) being managed so artfully as to reinforce (not attenuate) any nascent desire for the kid to Read for Herself. Other encouragements to that end, via exactly-matched gifts, perfectly (!) timed. Heh.

C) Abetted by the suppression of the plethora [now!] of time-wasting, repetitive games as merely hone the reflexes of the moving brain - and demand no pondering of any sort.

Ditto - re suppression of 98.3% of the Tee Vee or DVD Sales-material of car chases and NARC warz, etc. as are again, more and mere passive visual stimulation -- with the ugly toxin of anti-social what-if?s constantly intermixed and 'sold'.

D) Exposure to 'labs' - people at Work, in a variety of fields + Art + Music == meaning the Whole Range, and not just 500 pop songs. (Lots of work, some $, this one.)

Minimizing at this period: bizness, or 'labs about eliciting as much personal aggrandizement as a one can scheme' - clearly bad for any nascent psyche. (Is this even arguable?)

Prediction:

Such a kid will 'Improve' in all subsequent IQ 'tests'; improve the most, if all of A though D are followed, in principle and reliably (but short of becoming a despised ritual - by seeming to be 'scheduled' / timed / measured results.)

Natch - I believe that the IQ number is a phantasm concocted by the insidious MBA-mind within each of us; the one that thinks spreadsheets are a suitable way to manage a Society .. ensuring that the Rich group form dynasties and the many poor, never 'group' ie organize very well == all in an orderly manner.
A rather constricted/contrived idea of what 'talent' to 'measure' and why (?)

But I do not expect my POV (but not only mine) to be widely shared anytime soon: with or without the ascension of the corporatocracy into various joint theo- hyphenations; especially in our scripted 24/7 Repo Emergency for the Foreseeable. Especially Not: Now, in other words.

Oh well. No disappointment - I never expected the (IQ + its many myths) Gordian knot to be dismantled in my lifetime. (Even without the Fear-people in charge of other 'dismantlings'.)

Post #226,806 by admin 9/27/05 7:03:46 PM 9/27/05 7:06:14 PM Reply	Ratio, probably. Stanford-Binet test IIRC. He took it when he was 4. IQ tests obviously show something, because kids like Duncan tend to do very well on them. However, they're demonstrably not the whole picture. Duncan can be maddeningly obtuse about some things. :-P Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Edited by admin Sept. 27, 2005, 07:06:14 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #226,814 by drewk 9/27/05 8:20:47 PM Reply	One thing "kids like Duncan" are "maddeningly obtuse" about ... is just how little IQ tests really measure. Especially when they get older, and still think IQ is meaningful. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #226,828 by Ashton 9/27/05 10:18:56 PM Reply	IQ tests and the unmeasured cute parts - (I'm pretty sure by now - that there's an EMQ (emotional manipulation quotient) which greatly modifies all the 'IQ' numbers, in actual kid-behavior observed. It is no scalar 'quantity' - nor do I think the scalar-'IQ' is other than a monstrosity ;-) I believe that unmeasurable facet confounds parents, teachers - who now 'expect' whatever they imagine the stupid number meant .. they should. What I'd bet $$ on is ~ (from everything yet read and from experience of the effects of IQ conditioning in my own early experiences - while noticing the manipulators and their assumptions. And mine, occasionally..) Any kid, not brain damaged and with normal curiosity: A) Read-to assiduously, material of increasing subtlety (and wide enough range to finally hit more than One Interest neuron) B) A) being managed so artfully as to reinforce (not attenuate) any nascent desire for the kid to Read for Herself. Other encouragements to that end, via exactly-matched gifts, perfectly (!) timed. Heh. C) Abetted by the suppression of the plethora [now!] of time-wasting, repetitive games as merely hone the reflexes of the moving brain - and demand no pondering of any sort. Ditto - re suppression of 98.3% of the Tee Vee or DVD Sales-material of car chases and NARC warz, etc. as are again, more and mere passive visual stimulation -- with the ugly toxin of anti-social what-if?s constantly intermixed and 'sold'. D) Exposure to 'labs' - people at Work, in a variety of fields + Art + Music == meaning the Whole Range, and not just 500 pop songs. (Lots of work, some $, this one.) Minimizing at this period: bizness, or 'labs about eliciting as much personal aggrandizement as a one can scheme' - clearly bad for any nascent psyche. (Is this even arguable?) Prediction: Such a kid will 'Improve' in all subsequent IQ 'tests'; improve the most, if all of A though D are followed, in principle and reliably (but short of becoming a despised ritual - by seeming to be 'scheduled' / timed / measured results.) Natch - I believe that the IQ number is a phantasm concocted by the insidious MBA-mind within each of us; the one that thinks spreadsheets are a suitable way to manage a Society .. ensuring that the Rich group form dynasties and the many poor, never 'group' ie organize very well == all in an orderly manner. A rather constricted/contrived idea of what 'talent' to 'measure' and why (?) But I do not expect my POV (but not only mine) to be widely shared anytime soon: with or without the ascension of the corporatocracy into various joint theo- hyphenations; especially in our scripted 24/7 Repo Emergency for the Foreseeable. Especially Not: Now, in other words. Oh well. No disappointment - I never expected the (IQ + its many myths) Gordian knot to be dismantled in my lifetime. (Even without the Fear-people in charge of other 'dismantlings'.)
Post #226,822 by ben_tilly 9/27/05 9:30:07 PM Reply	They measure ability at certain kinds of mental processing They don't measure ability at anything else, or motivation, or interpersonal skills or... [link\|http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/grady/emptypromise.html\|http://www.eskimo.co...emptypromise.html] is an interesting essay about some studies which found that IQ alone doesn't suffice for outstanding success. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!