6 year old first dan??? whiskey tango foxtrot!

[vince1]

If your a movie star and living in the U.S.A you can buy a degree from a prestigious University for your son/daughter. Just saying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do to my perception that Jobo has been trolling me, I put a filter on his comments. Would you do me the favor of paraphrasing his claim? I would appreciate it.

That universities use IQ as a necessary qualifier for entry.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can't speak for drop bear, but I do have a sense of child martial artists and who is the "real deal" and who is not? (and who is something in between.) My experience is the last 14 months since I came back to MA.

Real deal among higher belts (brown and black belts) does not mean a genuine badass who can presumably fight against a fit adult and win. But it does mean they can more than hold their own against kids their own size, and apply their technique. And it means the same level of mastery over the curricullum as an adult student. I have not seen a 6 year old who meets this criteria. Among 7 year olds, maybe 1 in 100 is the "real deal". Among 8 year olds, maybe also 1 in 100. Among 9 year olds, things get better and it goes up to maybe 1 in 10. The kids who stick it out to age 11 or 12 are mostly pretty good, and the ones who continue their training into their teenage years are exceptional.

I wouldn't assume a child must have the same mastery as an adult. Their brains are quite different, and I'd expect a different outcome. When I see a child with a BB, I assume there's a specific set of requirements for the BB.

But even if we assumed the same standards for child and adult BB, that puts us right back at the question of what the standards are for BB. Give me any given child, of any given skill level with a BB, and we can probably find an adult with a BB of similar skill level.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

and you have a particular definition in mind that stops that being an IQ test, all test measure intelligence to one extent or another,

what stops that being a test of intelligence and therefore an IQ test ?

I've taken and administered a considerable number of iq test and they differ massively dependent on which aspects of intelligence the test designer values, if you take 3 scores t you will most likely get three different scores, they are all however test of iq

. I did one a couple of years back which required me to do long division with pen and paper, something I'd not done in 40 years, which knocked my test score down to 90% and caused me to have a debate with the testing authority that it wasnt a fair test of IQ as it required memory, those complaints fell on dear ears,note, they insisted that it was a national test of IQ and pre existing knowledge was indeed a requirement of all IQ tests



the problem being that IQ its self is not adequately defined, as anything other that an ability to take IQ tests to a specified standard, and IQ test is only defined as a test that measures IQ. therefore they can look like anything you want and still fit under the heading of iq

There's a difference between testing intelligence, and using a test to calculate the Intelligence Quotient.

 

[jobo]

There's a difference between testing intelligence, and using a test to calculate the Intelligence Quotient.

so you keep saying, but as you also wont say what the fundamental differance is, which leads me to suppose that you dont actually know,!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

so you keep saying, but as you also wont say what the fundamental differance is, which leads me to suppose that you dont actually know,!

If that's what it leads you to, fine. I'm not actually here to try to correct your gross misinterpretations and unsupported assumptions for your understanding.

 

[TSDTexan]

If your a movie star and living in the U.S.A you can buy a degree from a prestigious University for your son/daughter. Just saying.

actually.. i dont think the scandal was buying degrees. It was cheating the admissions tests. ACT, MCATs et cetera.

Wealthy people were paying to have their kids tested at an alternate location, where the proctors were "fixing" the outcomes to award higher scores to get them into such prestigious institutions.

somehow the cheat system was unveiled, which lead to the FBI investigation and a number of arrests.

But this is far easier to achieve then buying off an entire element of university admin to secure the actual diploma.

 

[TSDTexan]

That universities use IQ as a necessary qualifier for entry.

hmmm. I dont think my point was specifically addressed @ that. Which means jobo's claim it is irrelevant may have some merit, if that was what it was meant to address.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Just to get the IQ thing done with. Intelligence is just how well you acquire information and how well you retain and can apply it. Obviously some people are more minded in some fields than others and they might be able to acquire and retain the knowledge given to them but not be able to freely apply it outside of taking exams for example.

Worth noting some universities take people based on professional experience and also bring people in who have worked in a field for long enough who may or may not have a official qualification or degree in the field. And below universities do that as well. I believe i heard of a good photographer not knowing the science behind photography just knows what does and does not make a picture better in context, cant explain why, just knows thats what you should do.

Back onto something i was thinking, i do kind of wish they would let lower belts teach more often, or let people who say have a sports BTEC teach for the warm up/exercise component. They might not be as knowledgeable in the field of the style as a black belt in it, but it doesn't mean they cant teach the white belts or below their belt to some degree and be pretty good at teaching which is a separate skill in its entirety. Same with say TKD and the warm ups/exercises they do,if you have done a sport BTEC you know some exercises. (hell you might have in some cases done TKD in your sports education) Pet peeve of mine honestly. It kind of takes the issue about questionable black belts away to some degree, plus i have no real issue if you prefix it with honorary if you traditionally only let black belts take a position in your organization. as long as nobody thinks that equates you to a full one. After all, skill in the style has no say in how well you can help run the organization.

Outside the scope of the thread i know, but there is a IQ argument going on.

actually.. i dont think the scandal was buying degrees. It was cheating the admissions tests. ACT, MCATs et cetera.

You technically buy your degree anyway, as you need to pay the university for the course, but yes the scandal would have been that. given succession of a degree registered you to practice as some things. Like if you did a engineering one, you could be registered as a chartered engineer which indicates you are trained to preform to the level of your registration. Or getting membership to other bodies etc. (which is basically fraud if you didnt pass your exams truly)

 

[Steve]

Yes, there are two different thoughts. Yes, my statement is different than the other one. Ask yourself, why would I make the specific statement I did. The exercise might tell you something that could easily be missed or overlooked.

I did think about it and I got nothing . can you spell it out? Why would you feel it necessary to say someone with a cognitive impairment would not be accepted into a PhD program? If you're making a subtle point, it's too subtle for me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I did think about it and I got nothing . can you spell it out? Why would you feel it necessary to say someone with a cognitive impairment would not be accepted into a PhD program? If you're making a subtle point, it's too subtle for me.

He was responding to the IQ discussion, but couldn't see Jobo's posts.

 

[Bruce7]

Yeah. She’s on par with some of the xma kids I’ve seen.

This guy is also pretty good.

The 7 year old girl was a lot better.
My 9 year old granddaughter can do everything this kid did better and she does not do MA, she is a gymnast.

 

[Bruce7]

isn't that a bit easy on the fitness.? that really shouldnt a challenge for any one under 50( who has any pretence of being fit) if , as seems to be the case on here, we want bla k belts to be considered elite, then the fitness standards need to be elite as well. not sure quite were that should be ,! top 5% , top 10% of the population by age . certainly no lower than the upper quartile, or it really does stop being elite and just gets very ordinary.



not sure an ability to memorise dance moves should be included, technique s yes, but in any order against a fully resisting partner, ie if you cant kick him in the head, you've failed your kicking exam if you do get kicked in the head, you've failed your moving out of the way exam.

I agree with you. In high school I could run a 5 minute mile. In the navy ran a mile on the beach in boots in 6 minutes.

 

[Bruce7]

When I went through the police academy we had to run 5 miles in 50 minutes and most everyone also had to run a 6 1/2 minute mile. I really struggled to work up to the mile pace. I just do not have the correct anatomy to be a natural runner. I was only 23 but still remember the struggle. I was just out of college where I played football also. Back then I could line up and do several fast 40 or 100 yard sprints before running out of gas as long as I had a short breather in between. I used to hike a lot with no problems. But I never had the grace or rhythm or coordination, etc... to run any distance at all. Time has not helped the situation.

To be fair, when I ran track in high school on a track, I weighed 135 lbs. ran 50 in the quarter, 2:06 in half, so 5 minute was very doable.
The 6 minutes in the sand was different story.

 

[TSDTexan]

I did think about it and I got nothing . can you spell it out? Why would you feel it necessary to say someone with a cognitive impairment would not be accepted into a PhD program? If you're making a subtle point, it's too subtle for me.

Well... I was touching on IQ and its use. Someone pointed out that it wasnt useful or predictive as a measure of success. I was comparing the inverse. Its measure as a predictor of failure.

It is inversely true. Those who fall on the highest side of the bell curve might not matriculate into PhD-hood.... but the lowest of the low definitely will not succeed in progressing to that level.

Barring the most improbable case of a nearly braindead autist or something of the sort. If somehow he or she could get the paper written intelligibly enough (with help). perhaps in math (rainman) or chemistry.

A human who couldn't dress themselves, but could had a unique or revolutionary insight into a rarified extreme high level of specialized knowledge.

 

[jobo]

If that's what it leads you to, fine. I'm not actually here to try to correct your gross misinterpretations and unsupported assumptions for your understanding.

well if not why do you dedicate so much of your time to erroneously try to correct me,

 

[Steve]

He was responding to the IQ discussion, but couldn't see Jobo's posts.

Ah. The ignore thing. That just causes confusion. I get it now.

 

[Steve]

The 7 year old girl was a lot better.
My 9 year old granddaughter can do everything this kid did better and she does not do MA, she is a gymnast.

I thought we already agreed your grand kids are awesome.

Seriously, though, I don't believe many 7 year olds can do what the kid did in the video. I also think his movements were as crisp and controlled as in the other video. He just was trained to do different things. And, most importantly, exceptional kids may invite comparison to one another, but I don't see much good comparing them to an average kid. For most kids, teaching then there is value in an activity even if you're not elite is a great life lesson.

 

[Steve]

Well... I was touching on IQ and its use. Someone pointed out that it wasnt useful or predictive as a measure of success. I was comparing the inverse. Its measure as a predictor of failure.

It is inversely true. Those who fall on the highest side of the bell curve might not matriculate into PhD-hood.... but the lowest of the low definitely will not succeed in progressing to that level.

Barring the most improbable case of a nearly braindead autist or something of the sort. If somehow he or she could get the paper written intelligibly enough (with help). perhaps in math (rainman) or chemistry.

A human who couldn't dress themselves, but could had a unique or revolutionary insight into a rarified extreme high level of specialized knowledge.

That all makes sense . my only quick note is that there is a differwnce between the root abd the effect. The iq isnt the reason a person is rejected from a PhD program. The cognitive impairmebt is the reason.

 

[WaterGal]

The other thing that is just as bad (imo), as awarding dans to folks who havent really earned by demonstrating a dan level of skill with technique, dan level knowledge of the forms etc... is when organizations award dans for folks who clearly dont even know an inkling of the curriculum for it.

Like when the KKW gave Mr. President Obama a 7th Dan. TKD was something he dabbled in while in college. This practice just as much cheapens and disrespects those who actually did the work to earn that grade... as the former issue of the OP

Eh, plenty of universities give honorary degrees to people who never studied there. That doesn't devalue their degree. Giving an honorary black belt to the Pope or the US President or whatever is basically the same as giving them an honorary degree, IMO.