Existential Depression among the Gifted

[Mr Walker]

i think the accusation of trolling had to do with the fact that seeker claims he intentionally baited the other readers with that information to see what they would do/say.

i'm not suggesting that is trolling, but i can see how it would be considered that by some.

in any case

the nature of IQ tests are such that if you train for them the score is not accurate.

it's like knowing the answers to a test already before sitting down to write it

i don't doubt your IQ is fairly high, just by reading your posts, but i doubt training for the test makes you more intelligent.

Tests measure the ability to do the test. Training and practice is known to be the clearest and most effective way to improve scores in any test format. eg by understanding the nature of the questions more fully.

Iq tests measure Iq. If you can do well at them you have a high iq no mater how you managae it (as long as you are not cheating) The experts say you cant learn for Iq tests or improve your scores through familiarity and practice but that is bunkum.

I left high school with a measured IQ of about 120. At university it went up to the mid 130s I also learned how to have a photographic memeory and went into my examms able to see a hundred pages of lecture notes from the year verbatim as I answered the questions. After reading about president kennedy's success, I also taught myself to speed read so that i could read understand and remember a page as fast as i could turn it. Those skills enable one also to improve your IQ.

when i started teaching and got involved with Iq testing of students i bumped it up to 160 plus as a sort of cahllenge to see how high I could go.

The highest consistent scores i have had were in the 180s Today i have dropped back considerably because it no longer challenges or interests me.. It depends a little on the forms of intelligence being tested and the weighting in each test type. I do most well on verbal and logic tests, and more poorly on spatial tests. but you can learn how to improve on your areas of weakness too.

[Mr Walker]

Ps i never lie on this forum because, indeed, one lie would destroy my credibility; but also because it is a matter of honour and principle to me. BUT "Mr walker" is my avatar not me. In other words readers only get to see a small part of who/what i am in my real life. Mr walker has a persona quite differnt in some respects from me. In other ways we are the same.

mr walker is honest and consistent as I am, but his life is less mundane than mine, because he only talks about the unexplained parts of it.

I dont get to talk about the 30 hours a week of boring marking/ lesson preparation etc the hassles of modern teaching or taking out the garbage, doing the cooking etc. Mr walker talks about the 5% or so of my life which is kinda unusual and relevant to UM.

[White Crane Feather]

Well, would you like to link to these threads you speak about where you did what you say you did? I don't believe this actually happened.

That's nice... I assure you it did. I'm not about to humer you or anyone else on some search for links to some random posts I made on some forum well over a year ago, so you can decide if I am unethically manipulating people or not. I have participated in dozens of forums. It is by far the least fantastic thing I have said I have done on this forum. None of which is untruthful.

Besides, It would be so very against my nature to oblige such a request to validate something so silly.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

It is not suprising that i replied, given that i do have a lot of empathy for seeker,

Part of what they are seeing is simply that early on I was timid at entirely exposing my thoughts and experiences and would hold back. Watching you post inspired me to rise above that irrational fear of not pleasing people. I'm in business, I have to do that all the time it was a habit. I knew we had similar experiences by the things that you said, yet you were unafraid to expose yourself.

I am so very glad you set that example for me. I cant imagine poking my way around these forums hiding what I want to say. Unfortunately it seems that a few have decided we are the same person because of it. Which is very interesting because I had not intended to emulate you that much... But I'm a quick study when I learn something useful

Thank you.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Seeker79

[Beckys_Mom]

Thankyou.

No problem.. Because of so many on line ( Facebook, my space and other forums ect ) go all out to pretend they are something different for fun and their entertainment, I now tend to be more skeptical of so many tales I read .. Your post reminded me that I should not take all I hear and read seriously.. ...If I am pretending for fun, I would let others know it is just a bit of fun

Edited November 27, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[FurthurBB]

Standardized tests like the SAT, ACT and GRE--all of which I've been required to take as a part of my education here in the U.S.-- are not IQ tests, though they may correlate with them. They are certainly correlated with educational attainment. I've never taken an official IQ test such as Stanford-Binet, WISC, WAIS, etc. I'm guessing from your use of "primary" school that you're from Britain?

I've taken many standardized tests required for school and a few summers ago I took an aptitude test because I thought it would help me figure out what sorts of careers would be best for me, based on my strengths and weaknesses. They all seem artificial and limited to me. For example, multiple choice or analogy vocabulary tests can't tell you if you truly understand what a word means. You can have a general sense for the meaning of a word and have no idea how to use it properly in a sentence or in writing without prompting. Or you could just be good at test-taking and eliminating incorrect answer choices.

I agree in that I don't think intelligence, by itself, determines the way in which you are treated. Personality, attitude and confidence are often more important in this regard.

No, I am from the US and I was talking about official IQ tests, not any standardized testing. The only standardized test I took that I thought told anything about my knowledge was the GRE biology subject test. The rest are kind of silly, including the regular GRE.

[FurthurBB]

They watch you first, and see how quickly and accurately you do your work, then the start with the iq tests with the lovely bonus of still having to do those standardized tests. Stray to far from the average(too high or too low) and your boned taking iq tests. At least it was the case in my elementary school back years ago.

Yes, that is what I am talking about. My son had a learning disability where he takes in information faster than he can process it, so I can understand why they would want to IQ test him. It turns out that on a written test he scores 116 and on a visual and verbal test he scores 138. That showed the special school district that he needs verbal and visual cues to help him take tests. They started testing me in second grade when my grandmother mentioned that the books they were giving me were too simple because of the books I had already read, like Gone with the Wind. They gave my oldest daughter her first IQ test when she was 18 months old because she had always been a very strange baby. She said her first word when she was still cooing and by 18 months had the vocabulary of a 4-year-old. They wanted me to send her to kindergarten when she was 3, but I wouldn't. I started school a year early and was put ahead 2 more times. They were always trying to force more and more academics on me when I had other interests. I ended up dropping out when I was a sophomore after much skipping and then went back 2 years later. The funny thing is when no one was pushing it on me, I ended up going to university for a cumulative 18 years and attaining a mess of degrees.

[Mr Walker]

Yes, that is what I am talking about. My son had a learning disability where he takes in information faster than he can process it, so I can understand why they would want to IQ test him. It turns out that on a written test he scores 116 and on a visual and verbal test he scores 138. That showed the special school district that he needs verbal and visual cues to help him take tests. They started testing me in second grade when my grandmother mentioned that the books they were giving me were too simple because of the books I had already read, like Gone with the Wind. They gave my oldest daughter her first IQ test when she was 18 months old because she had always been a very strange baby. She said her first word when she was still cooing and by 18 months had the vocabulary of a 4-year-old. They wanted me to send her to kindergarten when she was 3, but I wouldn't. I started school a year early and was put ahead 2 more times. They were always trying to force more and more academics on me when I had other interests. I ended up dropping out when I was a sophomore after much skipping and then went back 2 years later. The funny thing is when no one was pushing it on me, I ended up going to university for a cumulative 18 years and attaining a mess of degrees.

It makes me wonder if such abilities are genetic or a result of family practice. As stated earlier i was read to from birth and began reading by the age of two. All my family are avid readers and have extensive libraries. And yet my mum never went past primary school. Dad was very talented and creative. Was it their genes, or the environment i was raised in, with a love and practice of reading, that set me on my path in life?..

[Beckys_Mom]

My IQ is 136.. I have taken many IQ tests and 136 is my usual score.. I once got a 138, but I don't peg my IQ at 138, as my usual score is always 136 ..and I am happy with that...

[JGirl]

Tests measure the ability to do the test. Training and practice is known to be the clearest and most effective way to improve scores in any test format. eg by understanding the nature of the questions more fully.

Iq tests measure Iq. If you can do well at them you have a high iq no mater how you managae it (as long as you are not cheating) The experts say you cant learn for Iq tests or improve your scores through familiarity and practice but that is bunkum.

I left high school with a measured IQ of about 120. At university it went up to the mid 130s I also learned how to have a photographic memeory and went into my examms able to see a hundred pages of lecture notes from the year verbatim as I answered the questions. After reading about president kennedy's success, I also taught myself to speed read so that i could read understand and remember a page as fast as i could turn it. Those skills enable one also to improve your IQ.

when i started teaching and got involved with Iq testing of students i bumped it up to 160 plus as a sort of cahllenge to see how high I could go.

The highest consistent scores i have had were in the 180s Today i have dropped back considerably because it no longer challenges or interests me.. It depends a little on the forms of intelligence being tested and the weighting in each test type. I do most well on verbal and logic tests, and more poorly on spatial tests. but you can learn how to improve on your areas of weakness too.

i was to understand that the point of the IQ test was to measure your perception, and a lot of that is being able to figure out what is expected of you with each 'problem' in order to solve it.

if you 'test' before the test you already know how they are structured.

that's what i was getting at

the more often i do an IQ test the easier it is because i already understand what is being asked of me.

[Mr Walker]

i was to understand that the point of the IQ test was to measure your perception, and a lot of that is being able to figure out what is expected of you with each 'problem' in order to solve it.

if you 'test' before the test you already know how they are structured.

that's what i was getting at

the more often i do an IQ test the easier it is because i already understand what is being asked of me.

You are correct. This is true of all tests, including IQ tests. it is why, once standardised tests are introduced into a school system, every school and teacher spends an inordinate amount of time teaching children how to do the tests and practicing them, so that their class wil perform credibly .None the less, performance at a test reflects ability to do the test, and thus what it is measuring.

[JGirl]

You are correct. This is true of all tests, including IQ tests. it is why, once standardised tests are introduced into a school system, every school and teacher spends an inordinate amount of time teaching children how to do the tests and practicing them, so that their class wil perform credibly .None the less, performance at a test reflects ability to do the test, and thus what it is measuring.

you had me right up to your last sentence.

i would say performance at a test reflect ability to do the test, and thus measures one's ability to do the same thing better and better. it doesn't challenge what you do not yet know, which i believe is the true test of one's intelligence and perception, not the ability to master an already learned task

[White Crane Feather]

you had me right up to your last sentence.

i would say performance at a test reflect ability to do the test, and thus measures one's ability to do the same thing better and better. it doesn't challenge what you do not yet know, which i believe is the true test of one's intelligence and perception, not the ability to master an already learned task

But you don't see the other level.. That of course should be part of the test.

[JGirl]

But you don't see the other level.. That of course should be part of the test.

i don't think i follow you

i might not be expressing it in the right way

ok

in an IQ test you are presented with 'problems' but you don't get told what the problem is. you have to find out what it is and what is required to address it, and ultimately solve it

how do you get more intelligent just because they get harder or more obscure? the method is now known

seems to be that you just get better at what you already know. not that there's anything wrong with that, but i never thought that is how IQ was determined.

[Jinxdom]

I'm still trying to figure out what IQ actually means. My friend and I are completely different except for iq's both high enough to know better then to post it on the forums but he's what you consider smart and me quick and clever. Almost polar opposites. He was a preacher's kid, my family not so whats a good word for it unwholesome. He fit in with the Mensa crowd me not so much lol. He has a successful job and career engineering, I don't look very successful from the outside(yet I make almost the same as him) and my talents are more generalized. Basically another Batman vs Joker type deal.

What's funny though is when it comes to mine since he seen my test results... both him and I don't believe it because I take it with a grain of salt and he sort of reacts like most people on the forum when iq is posted and is unbelievable. I could never get mad at it because of understanding comparisons. Since each test is different the results will be different so the meaning of IQ for the number they posted means something different. So why get bent out of shape trying to put the square peg in to the round hole?

Then again I'm clever and not smart.

[JGirl]

I'm still trying to figure out what IQ actually means. My friend and I are completely different except for iq's both high enough to know better then to post it on the forums but he's what you consider smart and me quick and clever. Almost polar opposites. He was a preacher's kid, my family not so whats a good word for it unwholesome. He fit in with the Mensa crowd me not so much lol. He has a successful job and career engineering, I don't look very successful from the outside(yet I make almost the same as him) and my talents are more generalized. Basically another Batman vs Joker type deal.

What's funny though is when it comes to mine since he seen my test results... both him and I don't believe it because I take it with a grain of salt and he sort of reacts like most people on the forum when iq is posted and is unbelievable. I could never get mad at it because of understanding comparisons. Since each test is different the results will be different so the meaning of IQ for the number they posted means something different. So why get bent out of shape trying to put the square peg in to the round hole?

Then again I'm clever and not smart.

i think it depends on how one defines intelligence. i also think that once you know how the tests are set up, and the different ways of looking at the problems presented, it would not be accurate to test yourself again. your advantge (familiarity) would set your score higher, and i think part of the point is in going at it cold and starting from nothing.

[_Only]

i think it depends on how one defines intelligence. i also think that once you know how the tests are set up, and the different ways of looking at the problems presented, it would not be accurate to test yourself again. your advantge (familiarity) would set your score higher, and i think part of the point is in going at it cold and starting from nothing.

There are multiple factors of intelligence tested in legitimate IQ tests: fluid and crystallized.

And it would never hurt to have another try and become better. The ability to learn is a huge part of a healthy intelligence. The points gained are earned through intelligence.

Edited November 28, 2012 by _Only

[Jinxdom]

i think it depends on how one defines intelligence. i also think that once you know how the tests are set up, and the different ways of looking at the problems presented, it would not be accurate to test yourself again.

Exactly what I was trying to get across in a really twisted way. Except you replaced IQ with intelligence. Same exact idea but thought in a completely different way. I was focusing on me and my friend having the same Iq but thinking completely differently and you on the testing itself. Both come to the same conclusion.

Hard to judge and compare things when nobody is agreeing on a set definition. Is what we are both trying to get across.

Things like this is where most verbal battle takes place from.*

*case and point post above

Edited November 28, 2012 by Jinxdom

[JGirl]

There are multiple factors of intelligence tested in legitimate IQ tests: fluid and crystallized.

And it would never hurt to have another try and become better. The ability to learn is a huge part of a healthy intelligence. The points gained are earned through intelligence.

yes i'm aware of what an IQ test is comprised of.

and i still feel that in taking the test repeatedly only makes you better at the testing. it does not make you 'smarter'.

even mensa will tell you that one's iq doesn't really change all that much over the years. (and they're the go-to people for that info i would imagine lol)

[Mr Walker]

i don't think i follow you

i might not be expressing it in the right way

ok

in an IQ test you are presented with 'problems' but you don't get told what the problem is. you have to find out what it is and what is required to address it, and ultimately solve it

how do you get more intelligent just because they get harder or more obscure? the method is now known

seems to be that you just get better at what you already know. not that there's anything wrong with that, but i never thought that is how IQ was determined.

You learn new ways of thinking and new ways of seeing and addressing a problem. You learn to use multiple forms of intelligence sometimes squentially and sometimes concurrently. You can learn to divide your operating mind into parts and attack a problem using different parts of your mind to work on different aspects..

You learn and practice the skills upon which the test is based, and those are transferrable to all other such tests. You learn to recognise and compensate for the cultural and linguistic biases inherent in most such tests. You learn the "languages" of such tests, and thus understand what is being asked for more clearly and quickly.

For example if a test asks you to look at an object/shape on the test paper, and then to rotate it 270 degrees and invert it, then describe its shape from that perspective, practice will improve your ability to do this and the speed with which you can do it.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Mr Walker

[JGirl]

You learn new ways of thinking and new ways of seeing and addressing a problem. You learn to use multiple forms of intelligence sometimes squentially and sometimes concurrently. You can learn to divide your operating mind into parts and attack a problem using different parts of your mind to work on different aspects..

You learn and practice the skills upon which the test is based, and those are transferrable to all other such tests. You learn to recognise and compensate for the cultural and linguistic biases inherent in most such tests. You learn the "languages" of such tests, and thus understand what is being asked for more clearly and quickly.

For example if a test asks you to look at an object/shape on the test paper, and then to rotate it 270 degrees and invert it, then describe its shape from that perspective, practice will improve your ability to do this and the speed with which you can do it.

please refer to my post just prior to yours

[Jinxdom]

Lol. I love things arguments like this when people are are trying to convince people to their side by things the other already knows.

When one does something more often you get better at it you both agree... Now just a battle of what the results of the test actually show. Is it Your ability to take tests, your ability to take iq tests, or your actual iq? Since you can't settle on the definition a disagreement comes about.

This is what makes me want to bash my skull in most times.

[Mr Walker]

please refer to my post just prior to yours

Yes i saw that. My post attempted to explain how doing the test DOES make you smarter, the same as doing a physical fitness test, again and again, makes you fitter. The process of undergoing testing teaches you new skills, ways of thinking and responses, All that, is "being more intelligent." Then, when you do new and different tests, your scores go higher. I am not talking about repeating one test, til you know all the answers.

Let us suppose, for example, that I begin with an IQ of about120. I spend a decade learning about IQ tests and doing dozens of them for fun. At the end of the decade, every I Q test I now undertake shows an IQ of around 160. These are tests i have not taken before.

Are you arguing my IQ hasnt actually increased? if so, how can you (or any one marking the tests) know that, when the only mechanisms available to find my IQ show a 40 point average increase.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Lol. I love things arguments like this when people are are trying to convince people to their side by things the other already knows.

When one does something more often you get better at it you both agree... Now just a battle of what the results of the test actually show. Is it Your ability to take tests, your ability to take iq tests, or your actual iq? Since you can't settle on the definition a disagreement comes about.

This is what makes me want to bash my skull in most times.

I would argue there is no difference between the three. Your abilty in any test transfers at least partially to an abilty to take an iq test, (this is a known correlation between all forms of testing) and your abilty to take an iq test reflects or affects your actual IQ.

It is known, for example, that early Iq tests had severe cultural biases, which "reduced" the measured IQ of people outside the cultural group which set the tests. Hence afro americans, indigenous australians, and others, scored less well in tests set by white middle class academics. Country kids, even today, do less well in standardised tests based around city/urban culture, and life experiences .

Edited November 28, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Jinxdom]

I would argue there is no difference between the three. Your abilty in any test transfers at least partially to an abilty to take an iq test, (this is a known correlation between all forms of testing) and your abilty to take an iq test reflects or affects your actual IQ.

Lol I knew that you would see it that way. Can you admit that IQ is only a small slice of actual intelligence?