Sue, If I may offer a bit: Sounds like your two children are right on target: the firstborn is a stickler for doing things "right", and refusing to accept other kids doing it "wrong". Your second is the easier-going, "charming" one (as a means to compete with firstborn). My studies show a 25 point IQ "gap of understanding". If two men are separated by 25 or more IQ points, there can be no true understanding or communication between them. It [John, incomplete] ----------------------------------------------------- John, Your reply to me started off great but it got cut off after the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph. Your were about to explain about two men being separated by 25 IQ points and....ZAP.....your message disappeared into the ether. I am very interested in what you had to tell me, so if you have time, please repost. If you would prefer E-mail, that would be fine. And thanks again for your concern and help! Sue ---------------------------------------------------- John, Most of your message about this "gap of understanding" got lost, right after the words "communication between them". It sounds fascinating, and I'm not familiar with this concept. Please finish your message if you can, and define terms like "true understanding or communication". I'm not sure I'm going to agree with it, but I'd like to hear what you have to say. -bc- ------------------------------------------------ Two people separated by 25 IQ points acnnot fully understabd each other or communicate fully. Prepare a very gifted kid for this, bolster his "difference", make it positive, and forget socialization in that case! John ------------------------------------------------ The study shows that 25 IQ points (roughly) limit full understanding. That is why a president Kennedy coulf communicate with the masses with and IQ of 115. His "umbrella" covered [John] ------------------------------------------------ I gather you are a psychologist (from previous messages I have read). Do you teach (if so where and what), or are you in private practice? [Neal to James.] ------------------------------------------------ Neal, I am a real mixed bag. My PhD is in Soviet studies. I lack 3 hours of having an MA in Psychology. I also have an M.Div. and specialised in pastoral counseling. All of my counseling is as clergy in the church office, even though under Florida law I have also been able to practice privately under supervision in a couple of associations. I teach primarily. About six years ago I was asked to leave the university where I was teaching to join a group of faculty settin up an International Baccalaureate Programme for one of our magnet schools in Broward County, FL. After a lot of thought, I decided to do it. So I put together the psych programme which is a two year sequence taught on the college Freshman/Sophomor level. It must be good--My older daughter went through it. She is a Psych major at Vanderbilt. Her advisor took one look at what we did and told her to expect to be bored into her junior year. The sequence begins with research design and stat. It then moves into normal child development in the first year. The second year focuses on comparative developmental theory (Freud, Erikcon, etc.), learning theory, personality theory, and abnormal behaviour and therapy. Jim ------------------------------------------------ Nonsense! Valid IQ tests do a good job of measuring "G", and have good predictive value for employment career and success in life. [John to Sean.] ------------------------------------------------ Becky, Depending on how gifted your son is, it may be that the best you can do for him is to make him realize his "differentness" and strengthen it. You might also look for a sport that size doesn't matter that much, such as Tennis . . . or a team sport which doesn't feature stars per se, like soccer. [John] ------------------------------------------------ Sounds like an excellent program. I bet the students learn much and have fun doing it. My Ph.D. is in psychometrics and I do consulting work - everything from testing and selection research design, market research related to the testing industry, to developing and programming computer-based tests. [Neal to James.] ------------------------------------------------ Hi John! Thanks for your input. We did try a beginner tennis lesson last year and he said he enjoyed it but the "teacher" said that most of the kids in his "beginner" class would need another beginner class before moving to intermediate. My son decided that this was not for him [I suppose because he saw himself as not having achieved excellence] and has expressed no interest this year except to hit tennis balls with dad on the cul-de-sac. Appreciate your thoughts and quick reply. Having a gifted child in the family is not as easy as some might think! Becky ------------------------------------------------ Becky, As sad as it is, I have decided that having a retarded child is easier than a gifted. My experience with my gifted child is that they never seem to believe they fit. They are always ahead of their peers in something and see themselves as different. It is a task for both of us. I wish I had answers for you, but I'm still looking for my own. Jim ------------------------------------------------ >>Nonsense! Valid IQ tests do a good job of measuring "G", and have good predictive value for employment career and success in life.<< Sometimes I wonder, John. Sometimes it seems as if the folks I know with a lower (demonstrated) IQ are happier & more "successful" in life than many of the folks pushing the upper end of the IQ scale. Elsewhere in this forum is a discussion of the trials & trevails of raising gifted children; I suspect that many of us participating here could speak eloquently on the trials of _being_ gifted children. While IQ tests probly have a "good predictive value for employment career," I question where there is any demonstrated correlation between high IQ and "success in life." Possibly a negative correlation, perhaps? [BillyBob to John.] ------------------------------------------------ [it seems as if the folks I know with a lower (demonstrated) IQ are happier] The problem is, what can one do against it? Perhaps who has an impressive IQ should show that with this he can solve real problems too. One answer to the question you posed is of course, that an important component of human happiness is living in the midst of similar beings, and being different is therefore a source of discomfort even in an otherwise favourable environment. This means also that some people with high IQ, which someone may believe are unhappy because of this IQ alone, would be at least as happy as other people, if they had the same 50 similar fellows around as other people usually have. If you add that your so-called happier part of mankind spends most of the nation's resources for cars, stupid tv, weapons, clothes, "power", that the happiest politicians in the world usually have exactly that IQ of 115 which makes them unable to count their populations, and guarantees that they surely shall never have any idea about how to solve even simple organizational problems in economics or health administration, you must agree, I think, that most intelligent persons need much less for their own happiness and have a much smaller potential for making other people unhappy than the majority. [To BillyBob] ------------------------------------------------ To bring into play statesmen, Hitler had a very high interaction with his nation, and, at least in one direction, a very high communication. Maybe this could be a point of attack. Because, even if your theory is true (and I remember the impression it made on me, when I read a few years ago in a book of a renowned neurophysiologist, Valentin Braitenberg, in my opinion not an IQ fan, who simply wrote that different brains cannot communicate), one could try at least a one-way communication in order to achieve interaction. Of course, Hitler had a big advantage, his probably (at least for organizational tasks) highly developed intellect had not undergone an adequate education in something as academic society, so he came out having a deep meanness and badness in common with so many people. [To John] ------------------------------------------------ I'm sorry, but I'm curious about how you did measure communication between those people. [To John] ------------------------------------------------ Sean, Read the IQ Controvery in America by Seligman in his new book: A QUESTION OF INTELLIGENCE". Most of the research I've seen indicated that higher IQs cannot communicate with "the common man". That's why lower management, engineers, supervisors, average about 115 in IQ. The high IQ person is a loner by nature, not choice. If you need brilliance, do not go on social value alone. [John] ------------------------------------------------ Intelligent people might not be dangerous... but did you ever hear of nuclear testing or toxic waste in the stone age? Sean. [To me] ------------------------------------------------ Sad -- you have to LISTEN to the criticism to be able to counter it. You also have to ACCEPT the PARTS of the criticism that may be valid -- to correct the "failings" that everyone and everything incorporates by default. And no -- I don't mistake charisma for intelligence. Both however involve LISTENING and UNDERSTANDING as a primary first step. Someone commented that if there's more than a 25 point IQ difference between two people -- communication and understanding is impossible. IMHO this is the ultimate in condescension. IMHO the **primary** indication of "intelligence" is the ABILITY to adapt your conversation and discussion-logic to a level at which communication begins. Like software -- conversatin should be DOWNWARDS compatible -- upwards is another issue. Granted the conversation may not be stimulating -- especially if all the other guy can discuss is baseball results or TV soaps. That doesn't mean his OPINION of you as a "self styled higher being" has to be rejected as invalid. The only solution is to close your eyes and ears and --- well --- reminds me of the old joke of the atheist who got to heaven and asked St Peter -- "I can see the jews -- the protestants -- the muslims -- even the New Age Travellers -- but why are there no Catholics up here?" The reply was " see that large wall over there? They're all hiding behind it pretending they were the only ones I allowed to come in". Get out there amongst the masses and mingle Mike. There's a lot more to life than counting the extra grey cells under your hairline. Larry [To Mike, in another thread.] ------------------------------------------------ John, your OPINION on the IQ gap creating communication problems is incredibly ridiculous. Get out from behind your computer screen and try talking to someone. You might find that they, also, are capable of expressing themselves through verbal communication. Now, John. Start slowly. Learn to accept rejection at first- it won't happen overnight. Be patient. Now once you make first contact, as long as you don't attempt discussing astro-physics or global-thermonuclear strategic defense mechanisms, you will probably find that they are just as capable of carrying on a conversation as you are- maybe even better. John, don't use your IQ as an exuse for your own social inadequacies. [Jay] ------------------------------------------------ [The high IQ person is a loner by nature, not choice. If you need >> brilliance, do not go on social value alone.] I believe Terman's studies indicate a very low correlation between IQ and personality. [Neal to John] ------------------------------------------------ I am not talking "personality". I refer to the 25 pt. IQ "barrier" to full communication. A 140 IQ CANNOT fully communicate with a 100 IQ. [John to Neal] ------------------------------------------------ >> A 140 IQ CANNOT fully communicate with a 100 IQ. I don't believe anyone can _fully_ communicate with anyone else. But meaningful deep communication is possible. I believe the barrier is a personality one. An intelligent person could be capable of understanding how less intelligent people think. I have worked with mentally retarded people (in a special education facility), normal-intelligence children (high school and middle school teacher), above average intelligent people (taught graduate students). I have never percieved a communication problem, and I have probed to make sure there wasn't one. I remember having a very difficult time communicating with an autistic child once. One day he was hanging upside down on a monkey-bars. I broke through by hanging upside down facing him. Now it is true that this doesn't qualify as "fully communicating," but for him the ensuing gestures and listening to me was a greater level of communication than he had previously had. Cultural differences are more difficult communication barriers than intelligence differences, but the open, inquisitive, analytical mind can succeed there also. [Neal to John] ------------------------------------------ [John to Neal] I admire your efforts and results. The studies I have seen support the 25 point IQ barrier. Moreover, the predictive and explanatory benefits of that barrier weigh more heavily to me than opinions to the contrary. -------------------------------------------- [Robin to John] If it is impossible for people to communciate with others whose IQs are more than 25 points less (assuming that IQ measurement were that precise, which I seriously doubt), then would it be impossible for a Mensan to be an effective journalist? It seems to me that one good test of REAL-WORLD "intelligence" should be the ability of the high-IQ person to communicate effectively with others, regardless of the recipient's quotient. For a person to claim personal intelligence and yet purport to be unable to communicate with lessers seems, well, dumb. ------------------------------------------- [Jean to Robin] I don't think anyone has said that it is "impossible" for people with an IQ 25 points higher than those she or he leads to communicate with said people. The point is that communication is facilitated if the difference is no greater than that. ------------------------------------------ [Ashwin to Robin] Perhaps the proper thing to say would be that people who are 25 points apart might not be able to communicate with each other normally due to a misunderstanding of ideas, concepts, etc. that one or the other presumes the other has. If this fact is realized, it is certainly possible to communicate by "looking through the other's eyes". Makes sense to me. Anyone else? Ashwin. ------------------------------------------ [Robin to Jean] Jean, perhaps I misunderstood, but I certainly thought John said that he considers it "impossible." Even so, my point stands: The ability to communicate effectively has to be a key element in a broad definition of "intelligence." ----------------------------------------- [Robin to Mike] Ah, breathes there the Mensan (or equivalent) who hasn't been berated for using big words? Mike, the point, though, is that an intelligent person ought to be able to suppress the big words if she needs to, in the interest of communicating with the general public. And if she can't do this, she may have genius IQ in terms of test-taking, but she's subnormal in terms of functioning adequately in the community. Where's the glory in that? ------------------------------------------- [BillyBob to Robin] >>Ah, breathes there the Mensan (or equivalent) who hasn't been berated for using big words? << Too true. But when a person _thinks_ with a respectable vocabulary, it's likely that the vocabulary will occasionally break out into the open. >>Mike, the point, though, is that an intelligent person ought to be able to suppress the big words if she needs to, in the interest of communicating with the general public. And if she can't do this, she may have genius IQ in terms of test-taking, but she's subnormal in terms of functioning adequately in the community. Where's the glory in that?<< Perhaps the point is that those who know the correct word recognize that smaller words don't really _have_ the same meaning. If I state (as a gratuitous example) that Bill Clinton's recent actions were assinine, that does not mean the same thing a stupid. The words may be close, but they're not the same. Someone with a larger vocabulary of usage (not necessarily the same thing as a larger IQ, let us remember) is likely to use that vocabulary in an effort to convey a precise meaning. Unfortunately, the meaning may get lost when the audience doesn't recognize the word, and therein lies the problem related to the 25-point difference. It's not that the one with the better vocabulary is trying to obscure communications; it's that his/her efforts at preciseness _of_themselves_ may tend to bring about that obscurity. Yes, we can strive to use smaller, more common words. But that hampers the communication -- and the point of discussion was whether communication was hampered when the IQ difference was > 25 points. IMHO, yes. ------------------------------------------------------- [Robin to Daniel] Hey, Daniel, I make my living by writing, and I can see arguments on both sides. Yes, knowing big words and how to use them is fun, and yes, it helps those who can do it communicate nuances, at least when talking to like-minded word lovers. But I can't believe anyone here would disagre that a person, no matter how intelligent, who can't communicate with the rest of humanity (or at least those who speak her native language) has got a problem that intelligence won't solve. ------------------------------------------------------