Mensa Starts Dating Site

[Ideologue]

I projected myself into the future once, and my dishes were really gross.

[alfred russel]

And all I do is defend them.

Seriously, the true value of IQ testing is what Valmy said, in identifying people with cognitive deficits.  I've found it useful in understanding my borderline clients (~70-80 IQ).  It isn't low enough to get legally excused from any culpability, but it isn't high enough to provide a good grasp of concepts like: cause-and-effect; projecting oneself into the future; impulse control; consequences; etc.

I mentioned the girl I know that told me her IQ was 74. Is it clear to you that people in that range are not really playing with a full deck?

I'm asking because I've never known what to make of it. Before I would have thought serious punishments are not cool for someone in that range, but I'd never have guessed she was in that range before she said so.

I don't know when she was tested, and she immigrated from another country at a young age, so it is possible her score is actually invalid.

[Ideologue]

74 would seem within the range of the pretty dysfunctional to me, but I'm a layman.  I bet it's invalid.

[DGuller]

When it comes to low IQs, you have to differentiate between really unintelligent people, and people with a developmental disorder, where low IQ is just one of many symptoms.  You have to be careful not to mix up cause and effect there.

[jimmy olsen]

And all I do is defend them.

Seriously, the true value of IQ testing is what Valmy said, in identifying people with cognitive deficits.  I've found it useful in understanding my borderline clients (~70-80 IQ).  It isn't low enough to get legally excused from any culpability, but it isn't high enough to provide a good grasp of concepts like: cause-and-effect; projecting oneself into the future; impulse control; consequences; etc.

I mentioned the girl I know that told me her IQ was 74. Is it clear to you that people in that range are not really playing with a full deck?

I'm asking because I've never known what to make of it. Before I would have thought serious punishments are not cool for someone in that range, but I'd never have guessed she was in that range before she said so.

I don't know when she was tested, and she immigrated from another country at a young age, so it is possible her score is actually invalid.

If she graduated from college and is functional at work it's almost certainly invalid. She might not be the smartest, but something like 94 is more believable.

[Capetan Mihali]

And all I do is defend them.

Seriously, the true value of IQ testing is what Valmy said, in identifying people with cognitive deficits.  I've found it useful in understanding my borderline clients (~70-80 IQ).  It isn't low enough to get legally excused from any culpability, but it isn't high enough to provide a good grasp of concepts like: cause-and-effect; projecting oneself into the future; impulse control; consequences; etc.

I mentioned the girl I know that told me her IQ was 74. Is it clear to you that people in that range are not really playing with a full deck?

I'm asking because I've never known what to make of it. Before I would have thought serious punishments are not cool for someone in that range, but I'd never have guessed she was in that range before she said so.

I don't know when she was tested, and she immigrated from another country at a young age, so it is possible her score is actually invalid.

Well, there a couple things in play.  If you don't give a shit about the test and don't try hard, you're going to get an incorrectly low score. (As the psychiatrists who don't want to find our clients incompetent.  Same with ADHD, if you can't focus on the test, you'll score lower than you would if you were medicated could concentrate.

Guessing totally, but I'd bet she does not have a 74 IQ.  All the people I've met at that level have had substantial learning disorders, as well as just general behavioral problems, that preclude successful post-secondary education.

With some people it's more obvious than with others.  We had a client around that score who was definitely impaired, he couldn't remember his own birthday, but he'd been hanging out with the local bad boys long enough that he knew the legal lingo pretty well, which hurt his chances of being declared incompetent.

[PDH]

My IQ is in triple digits - however, one of them is a zero.

[Capetan Mihali]

My IQ is in triple digits - however, one of them is a zero.

140?  No need to brag, Einstein.

[alfred russel]

PDH, tell the truth, are all 3 of them are zeros?

[Capetan Mihali]

When it comes to low IQs, you have to differentiate between really unintelligent people, and people with a developmental disorder, where low IQ is just one of many symptoms.  You have to be careful not to mix up cause and effect there.

That's a fair point, Guller.  I wonder how low intelligence, distinct from other developmental disorders, impacts the kind of impulse- control/planning/etc. skills that my clients often lack. 

It could be that someone who tested very low as a child, but was raised in a well-educated upper-middle class family, might end up going to college since that's the thing to do for people of that class, and god knows there are colleges who will accept anybody.  And it's not too hard to pass from those schools.  But along the way, they would be inculcated into "pro-social" cognitive skills.

Whereas someone who tested low as a child, but was raised in constant strife by parents who dropped out of high school, might develop the kind of cognitive issues that bear on their ability to conform appropriately to social and legal standards of behavior.

[Malthus]

When it comes to low IQs, you have to differentiate between really unintelligent people, and people with a developmental disorder, where low IQ is just one of many symptoms.  You have to be careful not to mix up cause and effect there.

That's a fair point, Guller.  I wonder how low intelligence, distinct from other developmental disorders, impacts the kind of impulse- control/planning/etc. skills that my clients often lack. 

It could be that someone who tested very low as a child, but was raised in a well-educated upper-middle class family, might end up going to college since that's the thing to do for people of that class, and god knows there are colleges who will accept anybody.  And it's not too hard to pass from those schools.  But along the way, they would be inculcated into "pro-social" cognitive skills.

Whereas someone who tested low as a child, but was raised in constant strife by parents who dropped out of high school, might develop the kind of cognitive issues that bear on their ability to conform appropriately to social and legal standards of behavior.

I remember reading somewhere that when they tested young kids from low and high class families based on the usual standardized tests, the kids from low class families fared significantly worse.

Then, the researchers repeated the test - but offered candies as a reward for correct answers. This time, the testing proved much more even (I think the low class kids still fared worse, but not by nearly as much).

What differed, according to this research, was the immediacy of the reward. High class kids more likely absorb the notion of doing boring shit (i.e., working hard on a test) because the reward is presumed to exist some time in the future, or is abstract (such as getting social acceptance for a future good result). Low class kids are more likely to require an immediate and tangible reward for applying themselves, and this difference influences how they do on such tests - in short, it may be this difference and not "innate intelligence" that is being measured.

[Valmy]

That is why my Dad always bribed the kids with Hot Chocolate for each section 

[DGuller]

When it comes to low IQs, you have to differentiate between really unintelligent people, and people with a developmental disorder, where low IQ is just one of many symptoms.  You have to be careful not to mix up cause and effect there.

That's a fair point, Guller.  I wonder how low intelligence, distinct from other developmental disorders, impacts the kind of impulse- control/planning/etc. skills that my clients often lack. 

It could be that someone who tested very low as a child, but was raised in a well-educated upper-middle class family, might end up going to college since that's the thing to do for people of that class, and god knows there are colleges who will accept anybody.  And it's not too hard to pass from those schools.  But along the way, they would be inculcated into "pro-social" cognitive skills.

Whereas someone who tested low as a child, but was raised in constant strife by parents who dropped out of high school, might develop the kind of cognitive issues that bear on their ability to conform appropriately to social and legal standards of behavior.

I remember reading somewhere that when they tested young kids from low and high class families based on the usual standardized tests, the kids from low class families fared significantly worse.

Then, the researchers repeated the test - but offered candies as a reward for correct answers. This time, the testing proved much more even (I think the low class kids still fared worse, but not by nearly as much).

What differed, according to this research, was the immediacy of the reward. High class kids more likely absorb the notion of doing boring shit (i.e., working hard on a test) because the reward is presumed to exist some time in the future, or is abstract (such as getting social acceptance for a future good result). Low class kids are more likely to require an immediate and tangible reward for applying themselves, and this difference influences how they do on such tests - in short, it may be this difference and not "innate intelligence" that is being measured.

It can also be that high class kids were taught not to accept candies from strangers.

[The Brain]

Low class families? High class families? Wtf is this shit?

[garbon]

Low class families? High class families? Wtf is this shit?

Trashy