[url=http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/glossar1/g/abstractreason.htm]Abstract Reasoning.[url] Pay attention to the last paragraph explaining how children can improve it. Spatial reasoning is just he ability to visualize objects and see change/movement, etc. in them. Obviously, if you spend time practicing doing translations/rotations in your head, spatial reasoning will go up. See, the problem with them not being able to be studied, is that they are still able to be improved. And if they truly weren't able to be improved or studied at all, then they wouldn't have right answers at all, so IQ tests would be even more inaccurate, because I think they are determined by number of correct answers divided avg time spent on each question (I think, not 100% sure. :/)
Hm...That's interesting. However, that still doesn't address my point on exceptions. -shrugs-
So it's safe to say that it's not really fair for people with mental deficiencies to take IQ tests designed for their age, they can't help they were born with a brain that develops slower and they end up with a mind of a 10 year old at the age of 20. Of course a 10 year old isn't going to do well on any test designed for a 20 year old. Instead, they should be given the IQ test for a 10 year old, to see if their IQ really is average. And if everyone's going to treat him like a 10 year old, why not give him the test for a 10 year old, eh?
The us is probably one of the laziest and dumbest countries in the world. In Europe people aren't going to mcdonalds every 5 seconds and needing to go on constant diets to lose weight. also, European education systems are much better than in the us. There, a high school diploma actually means something
I agree with Kirby. You've never been to America. It's like us never going to Canada or Europe and making judgemental remarks about their people because of stupid patriotism.
Pay attention to the last paragraph explaining how children can improve it. Spatial reasoning is just he ability to visualize objects and see change/movement, etc. in them. Obviously, if you spend time practicing doing translations/rotations in your head, spatial reasoning will go up. See, the problem with them not being able to be studied, is that they are still able to be improved. And if they truly weren't able to be improved or studied at all, then they wouldn't have right answers at all, so IQ tests would be even more inaccurate, because I think they are determined by number of correct answers divided avg time spent on each question (I think, not 100% sure. :/)
IQ details your maximum ability, the glass ceiling so to speak. That's why IQ measures potential and not actual - it details how far someone can go, not how far they are. IQ tests aren't very accurate, and IQ is somewhat of an outdated measure.
So it's safe to say that it's not really fair for people with mental deficiencies to take IQ tests designed for their age, they can't help they were born with a brain that develops slower and they end up with a mind of a 10 year old at the age of 20. Of course a 10 year old isn't going to do well on any test designed for a 20 year old. Instead, they should be given the IQ test for a 10 year old, to see if their IQ really is average. And if everyone's going to treat him like a 10 year old, why not give him the test for a 10 year old, eh?
Depends on the deficiency, because very small IQ counts as a mental deficiency
The problem with that is that IQ measures one's potential reasoning skills objectively - if someone has the mental abilities of a 10-year-old at a more advanced age, than the test shouldn't be scaled back to measure their IQ because then it's giving leniency and skewing the score. Basically, 100 is the average score and if someone's brain is underdeveloped then it is supposed to be under 100 - and adjusting the test for them makes the IQ measure itself inaccurate. I can't find a perfect way to explain it - adjusting the test wouldn't be measuring their IQ correctly. It would be measuring their IQ against that of an average child. The point of IQ is to determine the reasoning ability in comparison to an average person of their own age, and not doing that with a mentally challenged person is therefore not accurately measuring their IQ. Does that make sense?
The us is probably one of the laziest and dumbest countries in the world. In Europe people aren't going to mcdonalds every 5 seconds and needing to go on constant diets to lose weight. also, European education systems are much better than in the us. There, a high school diploma actually means something
Do I hear the eurotrash song playing? By making such sweeping generalizations of the USA, you're regressing to a partial European version of the American idiot you're criticizing. You're being just as uneducated, and just as close-minded.
IQ details your maximum ability, the glass ceiling so to speak. That's why IQ measures potential and not actual - it details how far someone can go, not how far they are. IQ tests aren't very accurate, and IQ is somewhat of an outdated measure.
Then if that's the case, as the person gets smarter his IQ should go down, as their maximum capacity is getting closer to being filled. That's where I see the problem in the definition of IQ as being "otential." Think of it like potential and kinetic energy. If the object gets full kinetic energy, then potential energy is zero. So if a person spends the whole time studying and remembering everything they've ever learned/seen/heard then shouldn't their IQ be 0? No, it will be higher, even though they can't reach any higher when it comes to intelligence/knowledge.
The problem with that is that IQ measures one's potential reasoning skills objectively - if someone has the mental abilities of a 10-year-old at a more advanced age, than the test shouldn't be scaled back to measure their IQ because then it's giving leniency and skewing the score. Basically, 100 is the average score and if someone's brain is underdeveloped then it is supposed to be under 100 - and adjusting the test for them makes the IQ measure itself inaccurate. I can't find a perfect way to explain it - adjusting the test wouldn't be measuring their IQ correctly. It would be measuring their IQ against that of an average child. The point of IQ is to determine the reasoning ability in comparison to an average person of their own age, and not doing that with a mentally challenged person is therefore not accurately measuring their IQ. Does that make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense. But if the person thinks/acts/is treated like a 10 year old, then by all means he might as well BE a 10 year old. His potential should be equal to that of a lower age, and then we can start teaching him things suited for his grade level/age. After that, we can then take his results and see if it really matches up with the average and stuff and put him in the bell curve.But then again, what's the point of even giving a mentally deficient person an IQ test? Everyone KNOWS it'll be lower than average.
Then if that's the case, as the person gets smarter his IQ should go down, as their maximum capacity is getting closer to being filled. That's where I see the problem in the definition of IQ as being "otential." Think of it like potential and kinetic energy. If the object gets full kinetic energy, then potential energy is zero. So if a person spends the whole time studying and remembering everything they've ever learned/seen/heard then shouldn't their IQ be 0? No, it will be higher, even though they can't reach any higher when it comes to intelligence/knowledge.
It has nothing to do with how close to your full potential you are, just what your full potential is. It's an objective measure; I'm pretty sure I already said that.
Yeah, it makes sense. But if the person thinks/acts/is treated like a 10 year old, then by all means he might as well BE a 10 year old.
No, because there is no definition of '10-year-old' other than 'one who is ten years old.' If someone is 20 years old and has the mental reasoning ability of a 10-year-old, they're not a 10-year-old, they're a 20-year-old with the mental reasoning ability of a 10-year-old. Adjusting the IQ tests for someone who's mentally challenged completely removes the point of giving the person an IQ test - to measure the depth of the deficiency. IQ reflects potential ability objectively, and taking away the objectivity destroys any possible usefulness in the measure.
His potential should be equal to that of a lower age
Which is *exactly* why his IQ would be lower.
IQ tests on mentally challenged people mainly are meant to measure the severity of the deficiency, and dumbing down the test for the mental age of the mentally challenged/retarded test-taker makes it impossible to determine how deep the deficiency runs, and therefore makes the measure useless.
and then we can start teaching him things suited for his grade level/age
If we shape the test to determine their potential compared to an average person of their mental age, then we'll never be able to do just that because we won't be able to determine how bad their deficiency is overall, just related to an average child.
.But then again, what's the point of even giving a mentally deficient person an IQ test? Everyone KNOWS it'll be lower than average.
90 to 100 is still considered normal. 89 to 68 is slight-to-moderate deficiency. 67 to 21 is moderate-to-severe deficiency. 20 and below is extremely severe. There's a hell of a lot of difference in both severity and education for a slight deficiency and an extremely severe one.
After that, we can then take his results and see if it really matches up with the average and stuff and put him in the bell curve
That would be a good idea, but giving education like that won't increase the person's maximum potential, just help with the lack of education.
You would think that every living thing would be smarter than a non-living thing. Even a person with an IQ of 1 still has the ability to think, just not very much or as deep as those higher values. Do chairs, garden rakes, or...blocks of cheese think? No. If you think they do, then you're experimenting with some new plants you found.
See, it works like this. Every year, testers go to elementary schools and test children when they are at the ripest age to be tested. You see, it is the perfect time to test their knowledge, logic, and rate of thinking, before they hit that incredible IQ spike during puberty. Afterwards, they, the children, would be operating and performing skills so efficient that the testers couldn't base any numbers accurately. I remember when some testers came at my elementary school when they branded me a special needs kid. I couldn't blame them after they saw that my head was literally not screwed on right (inside joke).
Aaaaanywhoo... some types of tests that they run by you are: puzzles, simple mental-math problems, "what do you think?" questions, listing down objects and living things that go with a certain subject, all that jazz. I would think that teens and adults would be able to do all this in a snap. How could that be tested accurately? This is why they test children, most commonly 8, 9, or 10. They are at the age where they could "write down" just how much they are capable of learning and the rate at which they learn.
Actually, it is a JOKE. It is referencing to the fact that most people would rather play a game. That is because a game seems more like a fun thing than work does. Hence the fact that many people have bad work ethic.
Actually, it is a JOKE. It is referencing to the fact that most people would rather play a game. That is because a game seems more like a fun thing than work does. Hence the fact that many people have bad work ethic.
Like me getting on here after about four months because of a stupid Bio essay T.T.
We're in a culture in which no one scolds people for doing things wrong or even not doing them because we're afraid it will hurt their "self-esteem". Bah. IQ remains the same, but due to horrific work ethic (Basically, they don't care, 'cause they get a reward either way) it gains the appearance of dropping. Similtaneously, we have the same test so people can study for the questions, not the knowledge, and their IQ will appear to rise. The two factors don't quite cancel each other out, so you gain the appearance of IQ rising. Ick.
Despite the so called "appearance" of dropped IQ's, IQ is something that cannot be dropped or raised. Work ethic however, can, and is proven to be based off how much IQ a person has. A person with a lower IQ would generally and naturally work harder at achieving something than a person with a higher IQ. Now, what would happen if a person with a high IQ worked just as hard as the first person? He would be highly successful in life. I also don't see what's so wrong about studying either. There are people at my school including me that study to learn, not to memorize.
Another despite paragraph: We may have a lesser work ethic than people in the olden days, but that is because they knew they HAD to do that work. Now: we have choices whether to do this or not, because in the future, we have a higher standard of living. Because of that standard of living, we have much higher school standards. People back then didn't have to take a biology course. They didn't have to take a chemistry course. Math back then didn't go beyond Algebra I in high school. Because of all our advancements, we now have to take these courses (excluding chemistry, for some of you), and since we have built up our knowledge of math and science back in elementary school, we now have the ability to handle a chemistry course. Doubt if this proves my point, but there is a man in my chemistry class that is clearly not smart enough to take it, but he is passing the class. Not with a good grade, mind you, but he is passing it. Think how normal guys from the '50s, or from the '20, or even the late 1800's... I'm pretty sure they couldn't be able to take it with THEIR standards.
