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

[Gerry Seymour]

yes, but doing brain train that mimic IQ tests is much the same as doing brain training using iq tests,

The article you posted specifically said the training was NOT similar to an IQ test.

but it is malleable, the latest thinking is that iq is circa 50% genetic and 50% nurture / enviroment, even if that ratio is more towards genetics,, its fairly obvious that changing the environment for the better will have the effect of increasing your IQ, there is no way to factor that out

This is true. The research I've seen shows that effect mostly (not entirely, I don't think) in early experience. This is consistent with what we know of brain development. Environment probably has the most impact before and shortly after the dendritic "pruning" that occurs during toddler years.

the issue is " education " should teach you to think, not just to be able to regurgitate information, that commonly only comes into effect at university, and certainly not in state schools, by which time it's to late to effect your life choices, unless you take matters into your own hands as an adult

This is a common complaint of mine about how parts of education are handled. There's little linking of subjects to make the lessons more pertinent than the topic at hand. Math seems to teach more problem-solving than any other topic, but schools oddly miss the opportunity to show how this approach can be generalized outside that area. The best teachers surpass the curriculum and force (teach) people to think for themselves.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh, I remember the "slipstick" and the architects scale quite well. Still use the scale quite often.

I actually have a scale in my workbench drawer, and sometimes even use it for its intended purpose.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The problem is kids not showing any work and giving an incorrect answer. You have no way of really knowing if they understand and can easily use the concept or not. A wrong answer in a complicated problem could mean they simply forgot to carry the 1 or messed up a simple addition or subtraction. Or it could mean they had no f’ing clue and wrote down anything.

I’ve been teaching grades 5 and 6 math this year and I despise teaching it. No way I’m going to do it again. Except for two kids who are completely clueless, when my kids make mistakes, it’s the simple math, not how to do the actual problem. As a teacher, I can live with the simple mistakes and not get stressed out about it. It’s the kids who’ve got no clue that make me have to change the way I present it.

Them showing the work allows me to give partial credit. Only putting an answer down doesn’t.

Then there’s NYS tests. The Regents exam in algebra has taken an odd turn. In the multi-step section, which is quite a big portion, the correct answer is worth 1/10 points. So the kids like you who just put an answer down, even if it’s correct, will score a maximum of 5/50. We had one clown do just that. He refused to show his work all year. The teacher kept penalizing him (but not to that extent) and told him repeatedly he’d lose all those points when he took the NYS exam. His reply “I’ll show my work on that test.” He didn’t do it. He got every answer right and still failed it. And he was reminded during the test, even though we weren’t allowed to. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

I actually teach that point when I teach Excel classes - I teach folks to use a similar step-by-step approach to complex formulae, so they can figure out where the error is.

My issue with "show your work" was that for a while, I literally looked at many questions and just knew the answer (of course, I was doing all the work quickly in my head, but wasn't actually having to think about it). Asking me to show my work would be like asking me to show the steps I took to find out 4+45=49. Of course, if I was wrong, the teacher could do nothing to help me.

I figured out the point of the exercise a year later in pre-calculus, which I dropped and re-took the next year (physics class taught me to think through the problem in steps again before that next year).

 

[jobo]

The article you posted specifically said the training was NOT similar to an IQ test.


This is true. The research I've seen shows that effect mostly (not entirely, I don't think) in early experience. This is consistent with what we know of brain development. Environment probably has the most impact before and shortly after the dendritic "pruning" that occurs during toddler years.


This is a common complaint of mine about how parts of education are handled. There's little linking of subjects to make the lessons more pertinent than the topic at hand. Math seems to teach more problem-solving than any other topic, but schools oddly miss the opportunity to show how this approach can be generalized outside that area. The best teachers surpass the curriculum and force (teach) people to think for themselves.

no it said it was dissimilar to the IQ test they used, not that is was dissimilar to all IQ tests, which come in various forms and DISIMILAR doesn't mean total different, it has to have some similarities to be considered dissimilar,

 

[dvcochran]

In the calculus I took, it was all about skipping steps - derivatives.

I took technical math 1-3 during my 3 semester stint in mechanical engineering. Technical math was all engineering math - logarithms, derivatives, graphing stuff, et al. It was all calculus based. I actually did pretty well and the professors for those classes all told me I should be a math major because the way I see it and understand it. Not a chance. I despised it. Doing math for a realistic outcome is one thing; doing it for the sake of doing it and/or teaching it is quite another. I really liked using it in my technical physics 1 and 2 classes, but just sitting there doing math problems made me want to off myself.

I Loved my physics classes. I could see the real world applications so it made sense. Derivation and integration is the calculus we use quite a lot. Not so much limits or standard analysis. SA models seem to be changing so rapidly I have no idea how anyone ever understand it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no it said it was dissimilar to the IQ test they used, not that is was dissimilar to all IQ tests, which come in various forms and DISIMILAR doesn't mean total different, it has to have some similarities to be considered dissimilar,

You have an odd definition of dissimilar.

 

[dvcochran]

You have an odd definition of dissimilar.

I hate to admit it by jobo is not wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I hate to admit it by jobo is not wrong.

The common definitions I find are similar to this one:
"not alike; different."

There's nothing in that definition that requires similarities.

 

[RTKDCMB]

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!

This tells me that you have never undertaken any kind of higher education, much less a PhD. Then I suppose anyone with an IQ above 80 will seem high compared to you.

 

[Orion Nebula]

you need an IQ in the Top 5% to get a phd, you cant just walk in off the street and give it a go

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.

While I disagree with the notion that it's a requirement to have an IQ in the top 5% to get a PhD, jobo's claim is actually somewhat supported by what little information I've seen on the topic. One source from the 1970's estimated the average IQ of a graduate degree holders to be 125, which is right around the 5% mark. I've seen a few more recent popular articles list 130 (in the 2-3% range) as the average for PhD holders, although people rarely cite their sources, so I'm not sure where they are finding their info.

However, as these are average values, that means there are people with both higher and lower IQ's who have PhD's, so an IQ of 125 or above is hardly a requirement. I would say this matches up with my limited exposure to graduate students at two universities, plus a variety of professors I've had along the way. There are plenty of people who seem particularly brilliant and everything comes easy to them, but there are also plenty of people who struggle a lot more with the coursework side of things but work their butts off to make sure they maintain a 3.0 GPA. They also work hard at their research and you don't need to have an IQ in the top 5% to think critically and come up with interesting new research questions that will expand human knowledge.

Of course, IQ tests are biased and favor the socioeconomic groups in power that design them. This blog gives a brief overview of bias in intelligence testing. That's not to say that IQ testing isn't a useful tool for what it was designed for as well as other applications, but using it as a cutoff for being able to achieve this or that is a mistake.

 

[jobo]

While I disagree with the notion that it's a requirement to have an IQ in the top 5% to get a PhD, jobo's claim is actually somewhat supported by what little information I've seen on the topic. One source from the 1970's estimated the average IQ of a graduate degree holders to be 125, which is right around the 5% mark. I've seen a few more recent popular articles list 130 (in the 2-3% range) as the average for PhD holders, although people rarely cite their sources, so I'm not sure where they are finding their info.

However, as these are average values, that means there are people with both higher and lower IQ's who have PhD's, so an IQ of 125 or above is hardly a requirement. I would say this matches up with my limited exposure to graduate students at two universities, plus a variety of professors I've had along the way. There are plenty of people who seem particularly brilliant and everything comes easy to them, but there are also plenty of people who struggle a lot more with the coursework side of things but work their butts off to make sure they maintain a 3.0 GPA. They also work hard at their research and you don't need to have an IQ in the top 5% to think critically and come up with interesting new research questions that will expand human knowledge.

Of course, IQ tests are biased and favor the socioeconomic groups in power that design them. This blog gives a brief overview of bias in intelligence testing. That's not to say that IQ testing isn't a useful tool for what it was designed for as well as other applications, but using it as a cutoff for being able to achieve this or that is a mistake.

thanks for the support, people on here just disagree with me for the sake of it.

but I'd take issue with your statement , that as these are averages there must be lower scores, and even if there are lower scores to average of say 3, that these are lower than 5%

 

[Gerry Seymour]

..

 

[Gerry Seymour]

..

 

[jobo]

This tells me that you have never undertaken any kind of higher education, much less a PhD. Then I suppose anyone with an IQ above 80 will seem high compared to you.

that's a bit uncharitable, I'm very good at IQ tests, partly naturally and as I've practised them to become better, I regularly score in the top 5,/10/ 15 % dependent on the make up of the test and how much time is a factor, I score a much higher % if time is tight, as if I know the answer I know it quickly and if I dont ,I realise that quickly and just move on.

this has translated in me breezing through a number of post grad qualifications as I can just read a book or 5 a week before and pass the exam, my masters was a struggle as I had to pay attention and work for The full duration of the course and I have no where near the work ethic required for a phd.

I take it you've judged part of your assessment on me as a result of my dyslexia, and to be fair your not the first to come to the conclusion I'm stupid, it's a problem I've had to face all my life, even more so if you saw my hand writting

note to mods, isn5 there a rule here that includes mocking peoples disabilities ? just wondering as it seems to happen quite a lot

 

[RTKDCMB]

I take it you've judged part of your assessment on me as a result of my dyslexia, and to be fair your not the first to come to the conclusion I'm stupid, it's a problem I've had to face all my life, even more so if you saw my hand writting

note to mods, isn5 there a rule here that includes mocking peoples disabilities ?

I wasn't even aware you had dyslexia. It wasn't a factor in my response, which was about the Dunning-Kruger type comment you made. Also, I resent the fact that you try to use your disability to misrepresent my position as an argument tactic.

 

[jobo]

I wasn't even aware you had dyslexia. It wasn't a factor in my response, which was about the Dunning-Kruger type comment you made. Also, I resent the fact that you try to use your disability to misrepresent my position as an argument tactic.

well you claimed I had an IQ substanially less than 80, if that were so I would be educationally sub normal , which in its self would be a disability you were mocking, so no matter how you analyse it, you were mockinga disability

dont worry the mods only hand out warnings for e xpressing anti war sentiments, mocking the afflicted seems to be ok

 

[Danny T]

Hahahahahaha...now he's a victim.

 

[dvcochran]

well you claimed I had an IQ substanially less than 80, if that were so I would be educationally sub normal , which in its self would be a disability you were mocking, so no matter how you analyse it, you were mockinga disability

dont worry the mods only hand out warnings for e xpressing anti war sentiments, mocking the afflicted seems to be ok

70 is the score for disability in the states. The field of law my wife works in deals with this.

 

[dvcochran]

well you claimed I had an IQ substanially less than 80, if that were so I would be educationally sub normal , which in its self would be a disability you were mocking, so no matter how you analyse it, you were mockinga disability

dont worry the mods only hand out warnings for e xpressing anti war sentiments, mocking the afflicted seems to be ok

You are arguing about who has a disability yet you concerned that the forum mods are going to slap your hand? That is really strange.

 

[jobo]

Hahahahahaha...now he's a victim.

70 is the score for disability in the states. The field of law my wife works in deals with this.

he said lessthan 80 which if my abacus doesn't deceive me includes 70 .?