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

[dvcochran]

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.

Agree. To be fair, the Pope or President are not likely to be in a leadership role in MA. In regards to the original video, the leadership at the childs school may not have been the ones who initiated the video, but they must have agreed to it. A poor reflection.

 

[dvcochran]

You really seem stuck on the standardized tests in general. I was saying that the standardized tests are just a part of the application. Most And the ones you’re referencing are for undergrad degrees. Well, except the IQ test... no one uses that. Jobo was talking about graduate school.

But, just for fun, can you explain how this relates to the thread?


Saying that only people in the top 5% IQ are admitted to a PhD program is very different than saying someone with impaired cognition will be able to earn a PhD.

I cannot say it applies to the original thread all. Like most threads it has derailed into something else.
It is apparent you are trying to make it something very different. I will ask again, what is your point to the remarks you made?

 

[Bruce7]

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.

I agree the 7 year old is one of a kind.The form was a work of art.
It takes way more skill to do a traditional form that perfect than doing a flip.
Sorry for the bragging about the grandkids.

 

[TSDTexan]

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.

Honorary degrees actually have that printed on them. I have seen a few honorary dan certificates, that every one of them failed to have this printed upon them.

Of course, I have not seen every honorary dan certificate on the planet. So, I don't want to say that all such certs fail to state that the dan certificate is honorary.

The ones that are honorary, and a teacher hides this, and presents it as the same as an earned one...... well this practice does devalue others that were infact earned.

especially, when such individuals don't know the curriculum that that dan level should in fact know.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Honorary degrees actually have that printed on them. I have seen a few honorary dan certificates, that every one of them failed to have this printed upon them.

Of course, I have not seen every honorary dan certificate on the planet. So, I don't want to say that all such certs fail to state that the dan certificate is honorary.

The ones that are honorary, and a teacher hides this, and presents it as the same as an earned one...... well this practice does devalue others that were infact earned.

especially, when such individuals don't know the curriculum that that dan level should in fact know.

I think they can devalue the ranks of others holding the same rank (especially from the same source), but mostly only if the person receiving the honorary rank treats it as if it were a standard rank. So, if you granted me 2nd dan in Texfu in recognition of my prolific contributions to Martial Talk, and I hang it in my office because it looks cool there, that has little effect. If, on the other hand, I put Texfu on the window of my dojo and start wearing 2 stripes on the end of my belt because of that certificate, that's a different thing.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think they can devalue the ranks of others holding the same rank (especially from the same source), but mostly only if the person receiving the honorary rank treats it as if it were a standard rank. So, if you granted me 2nd dan in Texfu in recognition of my prolific contributions to Martial Talk, and I hang it in my office because it looks cool there, that has little effect. If, on the other hand, I put Texfu on the window of my dojo and start wearing 2 stripes on the end of my belt because of that certificate, that's a different thing.

The issue is that you don't know what someone will use their honorary dan for. If you visited my imaginary dojo a couple times, and for convenience purposes I gave you an honorary first dan in William Kempo, I wouldn't expect you to start teaching william kempo or claiming rank in it. In fact, that's exactly why I would feel comfortable giving you that rank. But, with that certificate, you could include that in your resume if you chose to. But if you started promoting yourself as a 1st degree black belt in William Kempo, not knowing the tech's I normally teach, that would give people an incorrect impression of the art.

 

[dvcochran]

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

I am hesitant to jump back into this conversation but here goes. I ask this purely to spark debate, nothing else. How do you define the difference between IQ and knowledge?

When I am looking at engineers to hire I am less concerned with initiative in a physical sense, something I test for in my own way and have a good record for recognizing. When I am screening Techs, I look for a different "personality" that displays natural inclination to be hands-on. Can I give you detailed instructions on how I do this? Not that would be clear and make sense to anyone else I don't think. I have people working that I am certain would have an IQ in the genius range. Does that matter to the work we do? Only if it is pertinent and they can apply it. We have some people I affectionately call cubicle geeks. Brilliant at writing code or designing control systems and crazy in their breadth of general (trivial) knowledge. But if you try to get them to get into the nuts and bolts of a problem outside their areas of expertise and they absolutely balk. This is different for each person so it is a personal endeavor to learn their strengths and what interest them. I believe this is a big part of why our turnover rate is very low.

So, to circle back around to the OP, if everyone on this site were asked to be the judges at the 6 year old's BB testing, and she was judged purely on skill and correctness, I think and hope collectively she would receive poor grades. This is nothing to do with the child herself, or whether she should be testing or not. If you look at the video objectively, how can you not think the technique is below any BB standard?

 

[jobo]

I am hesitant to jump back into this conversation but here goes. I ask this purely to spark debate, nothing else. How do you define the difference between IQ and knowledge?

When I am looking at engineers to hire I am less concerned with initiative in a physical sense, something I test for in my own way and have a good record for recognizing. When I am screening Techs, I look for a different "personality" that displays natural inclination to be hands-on. Can I give you detailed instructions on how I do this? Not that would be clear and make sense to anyone else I don't think. I have people working that I am certain would have an IQ in the genius range. Does that matter to the work we do? Only if it is pertinent and they can apply it. We have some people I affectionately call cubicle geeks. Brilliant at writing code or designing control systems and crazy in their breadth of general (trivial) knowledge. But if you try to get them to get into the nuts and bolts of a problem outside their areas of expertise and they absolutely balk. This is different for each person so it is a personal endeavor to learn their strengths and what interest them. I believe this is a big part of why our turnover rate is very low.

So, to circle back around to the OP, if everyone on this site were asked to be the judges at the 6 year old's BB testing, and she was judged purely on skill and correctness, I think and hope collectively she would receive poor grades. This is nothing to do with the child herself, or whether she should be testing or not. If you look at the video objectively, how can you not think the technique is below any BB standard?

well as above all tests require under pinning knowledge, all test scores can be improved with practise, so practice of IQ tests give an under pinning knowledge of how IQ tests are constructed and means you are rated as having a higher IQ

, the only differance between what is commonly referred, very deductively an an IQ test is how its scored. but then only superficially, you still end up with a ratio of comparison against a % of the test population.

and it's quite easy to conclude that say getting a phd means you need intelligence only present in 5% of the population. how you measure that is largley irrelevant as long as its reasonably accurate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The issue is that you don't know what someone will use their honorary dan for. If you visited my imaginary dojo a couple times, and for convenience purposes I gave you an honorary first dan in William Kempo, I wouldn't expect you to start teaching william kempo or claiming rank in it. In fact, that's exactly why I would feel comfortable giving you that rank. But, with that certificate, you could include that in your resume if you chose to. But if you started promoting yourself as a 1st degree black belt in William Kempo, not knowing the tech's I normally teach, that would give people an incorrect impression of the art.

Agreed. That's part of the selection process of who you give it to (if you're going to do them). Pres. Obama, for instance, was a safe choice. The Karate guy you bring in to do a weekend seminar on kicks, because you heard good things about his seminars, probably isn't.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am hesitant to jump back into this conversation but here goes. I ask this purely to spark debate, nothing else. How do you define the difference between IQ and knowledge?

When I am looking at engineers to hire I am less concerned with initiative in a physical sense, something I test for in my own way and have a good record for recognizing. When I am screening Techs, I look for a different "personality" that displays natural inclination to be hands-on. Can I give you detailed instructions on how I do this? Not that would be clear and make sense to anyone else I don't think. I have people working that I am certain would have an IQ in the genius range. Does that matter to the work we do? Only if it is pertinent and they can apply it. We have some people I affectionately call cubicle geeks. Brilliant at writing code or designing control systems and crazy in their breadth of general (trivial) knowledge. But if you try to get them to get into the nuts and bolts of a problem outside their areas of expertise and they absolutely balk. This is different for each person so it is a personal endeavor to learn their strengths and what interest them. I believe this is a big part of why our turnover rate is very low.

So, to circle back around to the OP, if everyone on this site were asked to be the judges at the 6 year old's BB testing, and she was judged purely on skill and correctness, I think and hope collectively she would receive poor grades. This is nothing to do with the child herself, or whether she should be testing or not. If you look at the video objectively, how can you not think the technique is below any BB standard?

IQ is meant to be a measure of overall intelligence, mostly considered aptitude for learning, more or less. (It's arguable whether it actually measures that, whether it's using a reasonable definition of "intelligence", etc.)

Knowledge is learning already achieved - often expressed as information that can be recalled and topics that can be understood based on that, sometimes as skills one can execute - usually in a given area.

So, I can have a higher IQ than the next guy, and still have less knowledge than him. Someone of average IQ who attends an engineering school and graduates will have a crapton of knowledge I don't possess.

 

[jobo]

IQ is meant to be a measure of overall intelligence, mostly considered aptitude for learning, more or less. (It's arguable whether it actually measures that, whether it's using a reasonable definition of "intelligence", etc.)

Knowledge is learning already achieved - often expressed as information that can be recalled and topics that can be understood based on that, sometimes as skills one can execute - usually in a given area.

So, I can have a higher IQ than the next guy, and still have less knowledge than him. Someone of average IQ who attends an engineering school and graduates will have a crapton of knowledge I don't possess.

your failing to make an adequate distinction between knowledge and memory.

and as above, using IQ tests as practise means, he would be gaining knowledge and mean Mr average could quite easily become Mr well above average, if your only using standard IQ tests as a measure

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well as above all tests require under pinning knowledge, all test scores can be improved with practise, so practice of IQ tests give an under pinning knowledge of how IQ tests are constructed and means you are rated as having a higher IQ

, the only differance between what is commonly referred, very deductively an an IQ test is how its scored. but then only superficially, you still end up with a ratio of comparison against a % of the test population.

and it's quite easy to conclude that say getting a phd means you need intelligence only present in 5% of the population. how you measure that is largley irrelevant as long as its reasonably accurate.

You are quite correct about some of the issues with IQ tests (and there are others, of course). It's a useful measure in some ways, but relatively useless in most others. It doesn't correlate well to scholastic success, nor to success in other endeavors.

The folks getting PhD's do not all fall into the top 5% of IQ scores. It's probable there's a higher percentage of high IQ's in the lot than in the population at large. If I recall correctly, the average score for people graduating college is near that 5% mark, so there's clearly some correlation. Your original claim was that IQ was used to determine who could attend a PhD program, and that's what I was calling you out on. If that wasn't the claim you intended, then it's just a miscommunication.

EDIT: I looked around and managed to find some numbers that seem to match up. So the average IQ for folks with PhD is actually around that 5th percentile. That means about half of the people with PhD's are outside that group.

 

[jobo]

You are quite correct about some of the issues with IQ tests (and there are others, of course). It's a useful measure in some ways, but relatively useless in most others. It doesn't correlate well to scholastic success, nor to success in other endeavors.

The folks getting PhD's do not all fall into the top 5% of IQ scores. It's probable there's a higher percentage of high IQ's in the lot than in the population at large. If I recall correctly, the average score for people graduating college is near that 5% mark, so there's clearly some correlation. Your original claim was that IQ was used to determine who could attend a PhD program, and that's what I was calling you out on. If that wasn't the claim you intended, then it's just a miscommunication.

EDIT: I looked around and managed to find some numbers that seem to match up. So the average IQ for folks with PhD is actually around that 5th percentile. That means about half of the people with PhD's are outside that group.

which particular average are you using,as that has a significant bearing. ?

it does correlate to success, as previously discussed, it failed to take both social and personality issue in to accounts as they are at least as important, as it fails to acknowledge has certain skill sets like verbal communication as being important in success

and of course how your defining success, academic qualifications are success, then you will not reach them with out the nessercery intelligence, if being ritch is success, then there appears to be a very high% of really dim people who achieve that

 

[Gerry Seymour]

your failing to make an adequate distinction between knowledge and memory.

and as above, using IQ tests as practise means, he would be gaining knowledge and mean Mr average could quite easily become Mr well above average, if your only using standard IQ tests as a measure

Memory is a function in the brain, and is a large part of how we generate what is commonly known as knowledge. If someone doesn't "know" something, they can't remember it (whether they could in the past or not). If you see a distinction between them, provide it.

As for your claim that someone could move from around the 50th percentile to something significantly higher just by practicing the test, I've never seen that in any study. The closest I've seen is that several years of schooling (in the write-up I'm recalling, it was early schooling) can raise the IQ by several points (I believe they cited an average of 7-8 points).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

which particular average are you using,as that has a significant bearing. ?

it does correlate to success, as previously discussed, it failed to take both social and personality issue in to accounts as they are at least as important, as it fails to acknowledge has certain skill sets like verbal communication as being important in success

and of course how your defining success, academic qualifications are success, then you will not reach them with out the nessercery intelligence, if being ritch is success, then there appears to be a very high% of really dim people who achieve that

It is a weak correlation, in most cases. If I said there was no correlation, that was a mis-statement on my part.

Other measures seem to correlate more strongly (EQ, as coined by Daniel Goleman is an attempt to measure aspects not included in IQ, like the ability to understand in active communication).

You aren't entirely wrong. You simply overstated the case in your early posts, including making a claim that IQ was used as an entry qualifier. You're now strawmanning my responses to try to make it as if I said IQ doesn't matter.

 

[RTKDCMB]

you need an IQ in the Top 5% to get a phd

No, you don't. You just have to do the work and make an original contribution to a field of study. Speaking as someone doing a PhD right now.

 

[jobo]

It is a weak correlation, in most cases. If I said there was no correlation, that was a mis-statement on my part.

Other measures seem to correlate more strongly (EQ, as coined by Daniel Goleman is an attempt to measure aspects not included in IQ, like the ability to understand in active communication).

You aren't entirely wrong. You simply overstated the case in your early posts, including making a claim that IQ was used as an entry qualifier. You're now strawmanning my responses to try to make it as if I said IQ doesn't matter.

we will never know if its weak or strong unless you have a working definition of " success" to compare it against.

your continuing you MO of making up definitions to prove a point, that you refuse to reveal

 

[jobo]

No, you don't. You just have to do the work and make an original contribution to a field of study. Speaking as someone doing a PhD right now.

well you need a high IQ to make an original CONTRIBUTION, or put it another way, the fact you dont know that , makes me doubt tha your doing a phd or if that is so, that you will achieve it. QED!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

we will never know if its weak or strong unless you have a working definition of " success" to compare it against.

your continuing you MO of making up definitions to prove a point, that you refuse to reveal

Actually, what's happening is you're continuing your MO of changing the target to avoid defending an entirely incorrect statement you made.

When we reach that point, we're done. So we're done here.

 

[Buka]

Honorary degrees actually have that printed on them. I have seen a few honorary dan certificates, that every one of them failed to have this printed upon them.

Of course, I have not seen every honorary dan certificate on the planet. So, I don't want to say that all such certs fail to state that the dan certificate is honorary.

The ones that are honorary, and a teacher hides this, and presents it as the same as an earned one...... well this practice does devalue others that were infact earned.

especially, when such individuals don't know the curriculum that that dan level should in fact know.

I think they can devalue the ranks of others holding the same rank (especially from the same source), but mostly only if the person receiving the honorary rank treats it as if it were a standard rank. So, if you granted me 2nd dan in Texfu in recognition of my prolific contributions to Martial Talk, and I hang it in my office because it looks cool there, that has little effect. If, on the other hand, I put Texfu on the window of my dojo and start wearing 2 stripes on the end of my belt because of that certificate, that's a different thing.

The issue is that you don't know what someone will use their honorary dan for. If you visited my imaginary dojo a couple times, and for convenience purposes I gave you an honorary first dan in William Kempo, I wouldn't expect you to start teaching william kempo or claiming rank in it. In fact, that's exactly why I would feel comfortable giving you that rank. But, with that certificate, you could include that in your resume if you chose to. But if you started promoting yourself as a 1st degree black belt in William Kempo, not knowing the tech's I normally teach, that would give people an incorrect impression of the art.

I have a few of those Honorary suckers. They're in a cardboard mailing tube in my closet. I just went and looked at them and yup, they say "Honorary Black Belt" right there on the front of them.

But I'll tell you what, they mean more to me than ones I've earned. To me, they are a great honor bestowed upon me by long time recognized Instructors from other systems/styles/lineages. Some of these people I've trained off and on with for forty years. I've trained some of their students in how to apply their own art to fighting and/or self defense, I've trained under some of their instructors, too, Masters, what-have-you. And back in the day we used to beat the crap out of each other in competitions, or at each others dojos.

I'm just surprised nobody as yet to give me an Honorary Punching Bag certificate. I think I've earned it.