I like my Ramanujan poured over pancakes, how about you?
Dumb Ox writes:
> Yup. But here’s an interesting fact: what’s average keeps
> getting better. When they re-standardize the tests every
> 10 or 15 years, they always find that the mean score has
> crept higher.
Yes, this is the Flynn effect. Until the early 1980’s, nobody had even thought about the question of whether there was any overall change in intelligence through time. Most psychologists, if they thought about it, would have said that there couldn’t be significant change because there hadn’t been that much change in society, and obviously there wasn’t time since I.Q. tests were introduced (in the 1910’s) for there to be any significant amount of evolutionary biological change. In any case, whenever they created a new I.Q. test, they didn’t even bother to compare its results with previous tests. They just tested it on a large sample group and set up the norms for the test according to how the sample group did.
In the early '80’s, a New Zealand academic named James R. Flynn looked at some of the IQ tests that had been used for a long time. He found that when a group that scored 100 as an average on a newly created test took a test that had been normed 10 years before, they got an average of 103 on the old test. He then looked through many different tests from all the countries that had a long history of I.Q. testing and found that this was consistently true. In every country, people’s scores were increasing on I.Q. tests by about 3 points per decade ever since regular I.Q. testing had started. (A little more than 3 points in some cases, a little less in other cases, but surprisingly consistent.) In countries with 80-year histories of I.Q. testing, this means that the average person taking an I.Q. test 80 years ago would score a 76 I.Q. then, at the bottom of the “dull normal” range.
Nobody has a good explanation for this. Some people have hypothesized that better nutrition and disease control have meant that it’s no longer as common for people to have low I.Q. just because they suffered through the effects of bad nutrition or of disease. This effect is too large for that, though. We have figured out the effect of nutrition and disease on I.Q., and you’d have to assume that most people back then were on the edge of starvation, and that’s just not true. Other people have conjectured various changes in society, although none of their theories are really convincing.
I wonder if it means that whatever ability I.Q. tests are measuring isn’t really a useful ability.
Chronos said:
Actually, while it’s been pointed out that the majority of children with autism are not gifted, the disorder you may be referring to is ‘high functioning autism’, also known as Asperger’s Syndrome (spelling may be incorrect, I don’t have any references here). There is some debate over whether this is actually a form of autism or not, but it does have some similar characteristics, and it has also been said that a lot of these children (and later, adults) are gifted.
I do some clinical-assistant type work with a child with Asperger’s, and the resemblance to typical autism is hard to pick out at first. He interacts with people, but has an inability to express interpersonal emotion in a constructive manner. He can be very aggressive, but has difficulty explaining why he’s angry. He has a good head for science, but finds language arts very difficult. He doesn’t understand personal interactions with any certainty, and sees most interactions between the opposite sexes as sexual in nature (unless he’s involved, because he can understand his own motives). Basically he can’t figure out what other people are thinking or feeling, no matter if they are characters in a play or his classmates.
There has been some talk over whether Asperger’s is correlated with high intelligence, and to be perfectly honest, I do not feel qualified to make any statements. In my limited experience, people with Asperger’s are definitely not gifted in the area of literature, because of an inability to grasp the more subtle elements.
I don’t know enough about dyslexia to make a qualified answer.
And I’m not touching the ADD/ADHD discussion with a ten foot pole. 
FunkDaddy.
This sentence was not well-written:
> In countries with 80-year histories of I.Q. testing, this
> means that the average person taking an I.Q. test 80
> years ago would score a 76 I.Q. then, at the bottom of
> the “dull normal” range.
I meant something more like this:
> In countries with 80-year histories of I.Q. testing, this
> means that the average person taking an I.Q. test 80
> years ago would score a 76 I.Q. on an I.Q. test now, at
> the bottom of the “dull normal” range.
Incidentally, the problem is not that I.Q. tests are culturally biased. The rise in I.Q. scores actually seems to be higher in categories that are usually considered to be less culturally biased.
There has been a tendency in recent times to pathologise highly gifted kids as Aspergers. It is an interesting syndrome to track through the literature of gifted kids. Hans Asperger’s original list of symptoms as far as I have been able to find did not include high IQ as a symptom. When you look at Leta Hollingworth’s book, which currently I cannot remember the title of, published in the 1930’s anyway, there are kids in there who would definitely qualify as AS using the criteria of Tony Attwood. Miraca Gross’ book Exceptionally Gifted Children (a must read if one is interested in EG+ kids) definitely includes at least one child, Ian who would score a dx if he came into the hands of Attwood et al. Formal language, an interest in maps and an IQ of 200 (as measured on the SB LM).
Attwood uses a scatter of scores on the WISC III to dx AS. Interestingly enough Weschler himself says this is a wrong use of the test. One of the symptoms of AS is the formal or pedantic usage of English. However IMO HG+ kids who use an adult vocab appropriately are not necessarily AS.
The ADHD link - I haven’t ever found decent research which supports the idea that most ADHD people are HG. IME EG+ kids in an inappropriate environment can look ADHD. One way of looking at IQ scores is to consider them as a measure of processing power. What might take a child of average IQ several repetitions to learn a kid of IQ 160+ can learn on the first go round. Then they get bored. Then all hell breaks loose <G>
Primaflora
Um, PrimaFlora, would you mind explaining the meaning of some of theose TLAs? Your post looked very interesting and informative, but I couldn’t read half of it!
Primaflora, who is Tony Attwood? I’ve never heard of him, and his methods sound somewhat, well… unorthodox.
FunkDaddy said
Good point. Asperger’s is indeed referred to as high-functioning autism, but this does not mean that Asperger’s kids function higher than the general population. Rather, this term is used to denote that Asperger’s kids are higher functioning than autistic kids.
Currently, both autism and Asperger’s are classified under Pervasive Developmental Disorders, along with Rett’s Syndrome and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.
Ack! Sorry. Ookay AS =Aspergers Syndrome. HG is highly gifted, IQ of over about 150. EG is exceptionally gifted IQ over about 160. PG is profoundly gifted, an IQ over 180.
SB LM is the Stanford Binet LM - it is an outdated IQ test which is used when ceilings are hit in the WISC III. The use of the SB LM is controversial - it is championed by people like Gross and Silverman who are doing research in the area of EG+ kids.The WISC III is one of the most commonly used IQ tests developed by Weschler. It has a ceiling of 140 or 160 depending on who you believe ;). Weschler himself says that it is not a good test to use at the extremes - it is a test which is designed to test for normal IQ.
Did I get them all? Sorry again.
Primaflora
[QUOTE]
**
Primaflora, who is Tony Attwood? I’ve never heard of him, and his methods sound somewhat, well… unorthodox.
well bear in mind that I am seriously not a fan of the man. Tony Attwood is the author of Asperger’s Syndrome. Check out http:www.attwood.com
another view of Attwood and his stance on highly gifted children and AS is at
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s319886/asperger.htm
please note that this essay is primarily concerned with the issue of mis diagnosis of gifted kids and Aspergers, rather than the mis diagnosis of kids in general
Primaflora
I was always taught that genius starts at 140. My IQ is supposedly 137. Its been so long since I have been in school or worked in an office I’m not sure of things like I once was.
If they can grip well by one year, I’d say yes!
Napachild, there’s no standard definition of “genius” using the I.Q. score. Look at this Wikipedia entry:
It quotes a couple of early researchers in I.Q. testing. One (Terman) says that genius begins at 140 I.Q. and one (Hollingworth) says that it begins at 180 I.Q. However, this was relative to the old ratio definition of I.Q. Using the new deviation definition, these scores would translate to 136 and 162. These definitions were never generally accepted though. 160 is merely the highest score possible on any standard modern I.Q. test. It’s possible for someone to theoretically have a higher I.Q. (Indeed, given the population of the world and the fact that one person in 31,500 will have an I.Q. at least that high, we can expect that at least 200,000 people in the world have an I.Q. that high or higher.) It’s just not possible to measure it on any standard modern I.Q. test.
And there are plenty of people who know that “genii” is not the proper plural of “genius.” Unless you really are referring to a magic spirit of lore that takes on human form and give service to the person who called it.
If you’re referring to someone who has exceptional intellectual capacity or ability, the plural is “geniuses.”
Otherwise I am in agreement with your post.
Oh, you better believe there’s such a thing as a genus. You’re lookin at 'em…
jazz hands
Wendell Wagner already addressed this, but Ramanujan wasn’t living in a hut somewhere cut-off from the rest of civilization. He went to school, read textbooks, talked to professors, and all the usual things. He had a mathematical education. He just happened to also be very talented at mathematics, and, as often happens, managed to derive many things on his own without or before being aware of the previous similar discoveries of others. He had idiosyncratic interests, so there were large swaths of math he never bothered to acquaint himself with; the same is true of every mathematician. And of course he went on to do much great mathematical work that was wholly original. But the idea that he re-developed “a thousand years of Western mathematics” entirely from scratch? No, people in India weren’t that ignorant of the rest of the mathematical world…
I’d say not. Babies are instinctively able to grasp objects almost from birth, but no one-year-old has the arm and upper-body strength necessary to hold and control an instrument as big as they are for more than a few seconds. Nor do they have the manual dexterity to manipulate individual strings with any kind of precision, or delicately control a bow.
(Unless, of course, they mean “playing” the violin as a percussion instrument against a sibling’s head. That they could do.)
I just noticed this thread is actually a 10 year old zombie, resurrected by Napachild.
Hah! Indeed it is.
BrrrrAAAAAINS!
BraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAaiiins!
Here’s a 6 year old piano prodigy.
Re Philip Pauli he’d be 20 now but he seemsto have fallen off the map./ This all I could find.
When English adopts a word from another language, it’s acceptable to form the plural either according to the rules of the original language or those of English. I am aware that “geniuses” is a perfectly valid plural form, but I happen to prefer to use the Latin form.
Next up: “bacteria” vs. “bacteriums”.