Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Cassea

Existential Depression among the Gifted

160 posts in this topic

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'.

But crystallized intelligence is obtained information from experience. Your ability to use previously learned things to help you tackle similar or new problems. It takes intelligence for you to recognize how a test's questions are set up (trends in tests, etc.) in order to answer them better, which makes you 'better at the testing'. It's a form of pattern recognition itself, also.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See if you can evaluate your IQ with this "clever bot" program :tu:

I have decided I don't like Cleverbot (my thought in black, 'his' in blue):

cleverlove.jpg

edit: Though I seemed to make the bot think longer than I had ever seen with the first statement below. I thought it would be unable to give an answer, as I watched the cursor blink with no response for far longer than I'd ever seen it do before. At least this conversation seemed complete.

loveclever.jpg

Thanks, that was fun.

Edited by _Only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Right!!!! What I was eluding to is that the more intelligent people are the quicker they will learn the test methodology and what is expected of them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

yes i am arguing that your intelligence hasn't increased, only your score

mensa states that one's iq does not significantly increase either. i think i'm going to go with their slant on it thanks

Edited by JGirl
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30943725.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Oh yes there are multiple forms of inteligence. Most IQ tests only test a few variants and therefore do not test many of the other forms. Eg emotional intelligence and intuitive intelligence. Probably the least tested forms of recognised intelligence are naturalist, existentialist, and kinesthetic, but musical intelligence is also neglected.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right!!!! What I was eluding to is that the more intelligent people are the quicker they will learn the test methodology and what is expected of them.

Jgirl, you bring in a great point, testing for intelligence begins with how it is being defined, at present it is controversial this whole idea about what constitutes intelligence, there are many theories on intelligence. It does appear that MW has one thing correct though, that testing exists for a variety of things, testing for such things like: behavior, ability, feelings, attitudes, traits, so and and so forth. Each type of test has a set of specific rules for administering the test, the important things, to keep in mind, about testing are standardization, validity, and reliability. Standardization has to do with making sure the procedures of test taking are uniform, that the test is given and scored in a consistent manner.

This is why standardized tests generally come with manuals, that include detailed instructions, on how to give the test the same way over and over, and why it is generally preferred that a trained psychologist-- give the Weschler (WAIS)/ Standford-Binet IQ test. If the test is administered 'properly' (that is key)-- it would not vary over time. It is wise of you to have questioned 'the notion' that one could raise their IQ over time, as you I'd be diligently leery of such claims. The third aspect of testing is validity, or ensuring that the test is measuring what it is supposed to. Another heads up on intelligence, as a side note, is that ones environment plays a important role too, ( namely the Nature vrs. Nurture idea.)

Another kind of test falling under the 'considered' controversial umbrella would be the Aptitude test, this type of test predicts ones ability to be successful in a given curriculum, it is utilized to highlight the gifted, it is synonymously used to identify learning deficiencies, tests of this nature include the SAT's, the PSAT's the ACT's and AP exam's.

Edited by Sherapy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another kind of test falling under the 'considered' controversial umbrella would be the Aptitude test, this type of test predicts ones ability to be successful in a given curriculum, it is utilized to highlight the gifted, it is synonymously used to identify learning deficiencies, tests of this nature include the SAT's, the PSAT's the ACT's and AP exam's.

Good points, Sherapy. However, I would not lump all these tests you have listed as "aptitude tests". The SAT, PSAT and ACT I would agree test aptitude to some extent, but they are also heavily knowledge-based. A traditional aptitude test, I think, would not require prior knowledge of geometry and algebraic formulas, as the SAT does.

I remember taking AP exams in high school. They are entirely knowledge-based and course-specific, and are designed to give you early credits for college.

Edited by Cybele
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes there are multiple forms of inteligence. Most IQ tests only test a few variants and therefore do not test many of the other forms. Eg emotional intelligence and intuitive intelligence. Probably the least tested forms of recognised intelligence are naturalist, existentialist, and kinesthetic, but musical intelligence is also neglected.

Good Good. Now a common ground to start. I believe like Jgirl said some people think about IQ. IQ stays the same as it really is huge fast you can process new information. Keyword New. What you were increasing was not you actual IQ but a different part of your Intelligence. Training and time can compensate for a low IQ on a basis for knowledge. This is why we have an education system in the first place and why IQ will never be an accurate indicator of success* or greatness* or accurately gauged with testing. My friend from above and I took an "IQ" test in school that wasn't based on a time limit he beat me by a large margin even though I passed in the test way before he did. On a test with a small time limit but a huge amount of questions to complete I beat him. Only times we strayed from being closely even was because time was the major factor.

You do anything to affect time and knowledge(This is why every generation our testing IQ scores are getting higher as we progress through the ages technology is basically prepwork for the brain and why people from different cultures tend to get lower scores) your going to affect your score on a test but not your actual IQ and though you are in fact getting smarter. This is the impression I got being forced through years of testing. The actual what they are trying to find out from the testing vs actual straight definition for IQ. This is why it is one of the best indictors for problems in school(learning to fast or slow for classes is a huge problem) and one of worst ways to figure out how intelligent/gifted/skilled/talented somebody really is.

*Success/Greatness according to what society claims it is and the bull that follows.

Sherapy is right though when they tests are given and taken correctly the scores should stay generally around the same area.

sigh such a mouhful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, Sherapy. However, I would not lump all these tests you have listed as "aptitude tests". The SAT, PSAT and ACT I would agree test aptitude to some extent, but they are also heavily knowledge-based. A traditional aptitude test, I think, would not require prior knowledge of geometry and algebraic formulas, as the SAT does.

I remember taking AP exams in high school. They are entirely knowledge-based and course-specific, and are designed to give you early credits for college.

@ Cybele

You bring in a great distinction one worthy of mention, thanks for pointing this out. On one hand Aptitude tests are designed to try and gauge how students will do in the future e.g., the SAT ( Scholastic Aptitude Test) this measures how a student will perform in future endeavors like college, at current these are considered controversial because it is up for debate as to whether one test can be predictive of future performance.

Aptitude tests can test what you already know but they also try to figure out ones ability to figure things out-- and ones intelligence level as a whole, a good example would be the LSAT (the test students who want to enter law school take). This one measures logical and analytical reasoning as well as reading comprehension, these tests in specific are based on things one has learned in the past/ has learned in the past through their life-- but are not necessarily always content specific. As you-- I don't think one can divorce an aptitude test completely from drawing on prior knowledge or content, but the purpose of the test is different. The MCAT comes to mind ( medical school aptitude test) and is this way, as it tests prior knowledge-- but also tests ones reasoning ability for future work. Any test someone takes to figure out what they should be when they grow up is considered an aptitude test because it hopes to predict what the student is capable of in the future. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

getting back to the depression aspect of it all, from what i've recently read on the subject (and what i've experienced myself in therapy) almost all depressed patients go through this line of thinking - some longer than others albeit.

it's really not different than any other 'depressed' thoughts, the feeling of hopelessness, uselessness, being trapped, wanting to die. the only difference is where the focus lies i think.

as in the case of so called 'gifted' or highly intelligent people i don't think it has any special significance.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the struggles in my life has recently been diagnosed as existential depression. I had no idea that others didn't see the world this way. Through a long time of therapy it has been shown to me that this is a very different type of depression. I have dealt with an increasing amount of violence towards the way I see the world. In time it escalated to a viciousness I didn't understand. But then it was that it became about trying to "kill the thought' of the way I would question. Sometimes as a believer I feel that atheists do the same thing. It is not enough to discuss or debate. But the person is vengeful and angry. Bloody angry.

This shows that existential depression can develop in gifted children

Prior to all the physical traumas in my life I was considered gifted. Part of my recovery entailed me looking at the way violence has occurred and the reaction. I have met many in my therapies that are going through equally debilitating physical, traumatic, and psychological issues.

None have the same experience with express harm. For a long time I wondered if I was paranoid. Then my therapist pointed out the way I saw the world. Are gifted thinkers persecuted and oppressed to the point of death? If so why?

http://www.sengifted...fted-individual

TBH I've only really started talking about most of everything in the last year I get the oh your crazy look but really it doesn't faze me anymore, I have already vowed to not sink my daughter in the same hole of the big picture untill she finds it on her own. I don't mind about most of my believings but gifted kids need the prettier things in life to be showed to them to keep them in concious acceptance of the complete world around them in my opinion, I couldn't have it on my concious seeing a young person forced into the world I see when they are not ready. Unfortuantly most including myself didn't or won't have that option. I still find the better side to life and the beautiful side to it but it has been tainted with disgust of what's happened to us as a species. I have always been my own man never particulated to the "norms" and will continue to do so, many of my teachings in my family will be to embrace such, but in saying that this the bigger picture of demise must be found on their own then helped in confronting such.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i am arguing that your intelligence hasn't increased, only your score

mensa states that one's iq does not significantly increase either. i think i'm going to go with their slant on it thanks

Not true. I agree with the statement that says pattern recognition, logic and reasoning and critical thinking are improved and reflected in improved test scores. Learning is one part of being intelligent. The ability to demonstrate this is another vital part. When people blow off testing, it usually means they can't demonstrate it within the parameters of the evaluation. That's part of intelligence. At the same time it's only part of intelligence, as Mr. Walker so wisely stated. Another part is emotional intelligence. A big clue in that for me are overly defensive and hostile people. They don't have the sophistication and self control to be what I would consider "gifted.' Someone once said there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Hitler was alleged to have been a genius. But he was angry and hostile and violent and evil and rejected spirituality. Those types of people are not gifted IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I've only really started talking about most of everything in the last year I get the oh your crazy look but really it doesn't faze me anymore, I have already vowed to not sink my daughter in the same hole of the big picture untill she finds it on her own. I don't mind about most of my believings but gifted kids need the prettier things in life to be showed to them to keep them in concious acceptance of the complete world around them in my opinion, I couldn't have it on my concious seeing a young person forced into the world I see when they are not ready. Unfortuantly most including myself didn't or won't have that option. I still find the better side to life and the beautiful side to it but it has been tainted with disgust of what's happened to us as a species. I have always been my own man never particulated to the "norms" and will continue to do so, many of my teachings in my family will be to embrace such, but in saying that this the bigger picture of demise must be found on their own then helped in confronting such.

People who experience it understand the difference. People who don't experience it get huffy and competitive and reject others experiences. This is also problematic when it comes to being gifted. Avoiding solipsism in thinking. Some people are so narcissistic they can only see their own world view and reject the experiences of others. It can be especially sad to see teachers in this position. Nothing can torture a young gifted child than to mistreat them out of jealousy or rejection. Your child is lucky to have you.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. I agree with the statement that says pattern recognition, logic and reasoning and critical thinking are improved and reflected in improved test scores. Learning is one part of being intelligent. The ability to demonstrate this is another vital part. When people blow off testing, it usually means they can't demonstrate it within the parameters of the evaluation. That's part of intelligence. At the same time it's only part of intelligence, as Mr. Walker so wisely stated. Another part is emotional intelligence. A big clue in that for me are overly defensive and hostile people. They don't have the sophistication and self control to be what I would consider "gifted.' Someone once said there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Hitler was alleged to have been a genius. But he was angry and hostile and violent and evil and rejected spirituality. Those types of people are not gifted IMO.

true or not to you, as IQ is understood (as far as testing is concerned and the resulting number), mensa states that it does not increase. you can go to their website and duke it out with them, but i'm still going to go with their idea of how IQ levels work.

Edited by JGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true or not to you, as IQ is understood (as far as testing is concerned and the resulting number), mensa states that it does not increase. you can go to their website and duke it out with them, but i'm still going to go with their idea of how IQ levels work.

They're talking about IQ. She's talking about intelligence. There is a difference, as odd as that last sentence sounded. I'm also noting that at least 3 people here of 'mensa' level IQ feel that intelligence is involved in improving standardized test scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're talking about IQ. She's talking about intelligence. There is a difference, as odd as that last sentence sounded. I'm also noting that at least 3 people here of 'mensa' level IQ feel that intelligence is involved in improving standardized test scoring.

i'm noting there are several people who claim to have an iq in the range that would qualify for mensa admission, but none of them have claimed to be members.

i was referring to the mensa organization, not merely people with high iq's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes a special kind of person to actually become a member of Mensa or any high IQ social groups. I only liked the person who invited me to go and maybe a small handful of other people that I met so I didn't join. I didn't fit in, I was looked at as an outsider because I didn't get there the same way they did and it p***ed a lot of people off the same exact thing that happened during school, which is also why I take it as a reference point with a grain of salt. I figure there are a lot of people like me in that aspect.

This happens to gifted kids who don't fit in the mold of what today's genius is currently construed as. You get told your insane when you are truly not... depending on how they do it you will eventually you will snap.(Now imagine being in a situation where you did snap and it scared you) Now imagine know that you at anytime can be pushed towards being something you hate. Sad thing is it's not simply a gifted person's problem... it happens to anybody who is different.

Which is why I try to find out what a person means after I don't agree with what they say but eventually figure out we are both being idiots and talking about the same thing.

Mensa holds the same outlook on IQ as I do... simply that testing isn't an accurate way to do it. The number is an actual indicator of how different you are from the norm but not your actual IQ. Basically they are trying to weed out people who try to scam the system which you can't because getting in involves more then just an actual paper test. Mensa is supposed to be an elite sort of group no who has to have some sort of standard to get in.

Which everybody pretty much agrees on but doesn't realize it. See and here I go again trying in vain to get people to agree on crap. I guess I must be insane or something :)

*To be fair though they are getting better at involving different types of thinkers(Don't let my ten year bias affect a discussion to join though who knows how it could of changed by then)

Edited by Jinxdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mensa this, having good tunes and something interesting basic food needs 3 days up to a week straight without fatigue :D tought myself basic operations of a record label (contractual, manufacturing, pr, marketing, distribution, legal, statistics on basic royalties and payments done on a average of pps)(aspirational goal :D) at 16 in a month. by that time i had hosted 2 internet radio shows, made graphics good enough for orders on forums (young mentality of money not being the important thing in life did it for free hence mostly forums), designed websites and was teaching myself production of music. Got top grades for business, music, maths, english all through school but because of homework and not having the attention span to sit through a class. I was denied even trying to go for my OP (equilivant to SAT) by grade 10 because a school counciler didnt believe I was "approvable". just because im not sheldon running around busting particals doesnt mean im not intelligent, I have alot of intelligence, sadly because it doesnt fit you mensa patterns and "approved" theories of what a "genius" is. Scientist > War, Famine, Chemistry. The natural progression is to train for what they as a empire need to succeed.

Hence everything else is bolegne apparently.

That is the main pain, the OP was trying to aim about (well what I understood, obviously there can be many other factors but on a educational upbringing pov). luckily i can still see the beauty of things or trust me i would not be here. it is something you wish upon no person a brain clogged of "alternative" theories shunned as crazy so they shut their mouth and explode and get locked in the looney bin hence i turn to UM to unravel my brain.

tbh i couldn't give 2 pieces of flying fieces about their grant or their podium they place people on. hamsters in cages play with hamsters in smaller cages. it's something i am down to the core part of me not interested in being, they are not interested in listening i won't be the silly fool holding my breathe for them to do listen either and further more it goes further than that, most my jobs I have excelled in knowledge and abilities, various work enviroments at most learnt base operations of running and what i needed to know as a manager for that place. p***es someone off when you know more about their business than they do, especially when you can tell customer trends and patterns of purchasing better than senoir staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're talking about IQ. She's talking about intelligence. There is a difference, as odd as that last sentence sounded. I'm also noting that at least 3 people here of 'mensa' level IQ feel that intelligence is involved in improving standardized test scoring.

Exactly. Intelligence is not based on a number on a piece of paper. Whenever people start tossing out their genius IQ numbers but exhibit a lack of compassion you know they are not "intelligent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Intelligence is not based on a number on a piece of paper. Whenever people start tossing out their genius IQ numbers but exhibit a lack of compassion you know they are not "intelligent."

compassion is not intelligence, and neither is sophistication btw.

it seems the definition of this word becomes looser and looser on this thread.

cassea, i do think you are exceptionally intelligent but you really need to jump down from your pedestal and get realistic about how you stack up against the rest of us.

Edited by JGirl
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people think differently and in different parts of the world and in different groups, one opinion may seem weird or distasteful towards the majority, that doesn't make it special or unique except to the person concerend who thinks it's does.

If you were in Afghanistan and said you were athiest, your worldview would be outlawed and looked down upon, but that doen't mean the athiest is gifted or unique.

Likewise, if a heavily religious believer was walking around the Czech Republic, they'd be looked down upon and their world view would be seen as dangerous to the majority - again, that doen't make the person special, it's just an opinion and opinions don't matter.

I have a friend who's all full of life, loves socialising and going out. He doesn't get how I hate meeting new people and getting into relaionships and making new friends, he has to socialise and can't see the world without it, me on the other hand, I can do without it. I also told him my disdain for the world and how it'd be better to have never been born and he just could not see this way of thinking, he loves life too much I guess. But my worldview, why very different to the majority, still doen't amtter, it's just that - a view.

Edited by Sean93
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compassion isn't intelligence but it does come from understanding which is a facet of intelligence. Which is why you need to take it in to consideration. How can you be compassionate if you do not understand what somebody else is going through?

The ideas of the terms are getting looser and looser because the details aren't set in stone. There is no straight definition of intelligence then can encompass the whole. Everything that has to do with how you think, how you feel, and why are all things play in to intelligence. It's quite complicated.

The more gifted you are the more you can relate something to something else. Which generally encourages more sympathy, compassion, since your understanding tends to be wider. There are always exceptions though.

It's not putting yourself on a pedestal to recognize the difference and similarities in people. What is putting yourself on a pedestal is thinking that you are better. Which isn't happening in this conversation. Which goes back to my first post about talking about yourself and how I said It can come off as egotistical without meaning to. Like people said before being gifted is more of a curse then a benefit. The whole ignorance is bliss comes to mind in all this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compassion isn't intelligence but it does come from understanding which is a facet of intelligence. Which is why you need to take it in to consideration. How can you be compassionate if you do not understand what somebody else is going through?

The ideas of the terms are getting looser and looser because the details aren't set in stone. There is no straight definition of intelligence then can encompass the whole. Everything that has to do with how you think, how you feel, and why are all things play in to intelligence. It's quite complicated.

The more gifted you are the more you can relate something to something else. Which generally encourages more sympathy, compassion, since your understanding tends to be wider. There are always exceptions though.

It's not putting yourself on a pedestal to recognize the difference and similarities in people. What is putting yourself on a pedestal is thinking that you are better. Which isn't happening in this conversation. Which goes back to my first post about talking about yourself and how I said It can come off as egotistical without meaning to. Like people said before being gifted is more of a curse then a benefit. The whole ignorance is bliss comes to mind in all this.

don't get me wrong - i do understand the isolation that being 'gifted' in certain areas can bring. i'm not insensitive to the feelings that are described with respect to it. i lived it and in some ways i still live it.

the 'pedestal' statement has nothing to do with recognizing difference and similarities in people. most of use do this from a very early age without even realizing it.

i made it in reference to a 'gifted' person who comes off as an 'elitist' person. she is the gifted one and therefore she should know.

that's no more true than it would be for me.

cassea has set herself apart, and i think she enjoys that place to some degree for the superiority of it.

i invite her to come to earth and talk about it with others who share some of those experiences - but without the airs.

Edited by JGirl
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.