Intelligence research is full of surprises. For example, the brains of smarter people, as measured by IQ, tend to be less active but more efficient, Haier says.
I might have to watch the special on CNN on Sunday... sounds interesting.
I understand that, given the same situation for two people of different IQ's, the higher IQ would require less function to solve the same problem because it operates more efficiently. But couldn't that same brain, given more stimulous, function with the same efficiency and yield more productivity? In other words, can't we expect more work from the more efficient brain instead of letting it sit around relaxing? I feel I give some of my best reults when someone presents me with a challenge. Something that gets me thinking. It's Ok, I know what I'm trying to say anyway. May not be presenting the question too well.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy (8/26/06)
Iw ould have to disagree with that comment. While yes smarter people can solve a problem faster, it certainly does not mean they think less. Maybe less on the task at hand. But not less in general. As a matter of fact, as the IQ goes up, so does the probablility for depression and other mental illness. I know my mind races 24/7 with various thoughts. Just never very long on a single one. And I am one of those with the really high IQs, although I don't feel so smart most days.
I know how that is. Thoughts bouncing back and forth all of the time. Clear thoughts are a rarity because true focus is almost nonexistant. Don't know where my IQ is. Hadn't had it tested since I was six or so. But I feel like a complete freakin' idiot some of the time. Other times, the people surrounding me make it easy to get a superiority complex. lol I try not to let it get to my enormously overinflated head to much though. On the up side, I've read reports where they say that an underactive brain is more likely to develop Alzhiemers and other demintias. So, if it's true, that's a plus for my "scatterbrained" existence.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy (8/26/06)
[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 09-12-2006).]
IP: Logged
03:28 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by whadeduck: In other words, can't we expect more work from the more efficient brain instead of letting it sit around relaxing?
Sure. I think that was part of the point of the article.
For instance, high IQ person sees this: http://hem.passagen.se/dpref/iq/fig2.gif a couple neurons flash, and says, oh that's easy. The bars are at the middle and far left. Then he/she can go on to do other problems.
Meanwhile, low IQ person sees that, and sits there, neurons flashing, for an hour. Finally gives up and punches the dog
[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 09-12-2006).]
Sure. I think that was part of the point of the article.
For instance, high IQ person sees this: a couple neurons flash, and says, oh that's easy. The bars are at the middle and far left. Then he/she can go on to do other problems.
Meanwhile, low IQ person sees that, and sits there, neurons flashing, for an hour. Finally gives up and punches the dog
Could you try the picture again? I see a red "x" in a white box.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy (8/26/06)
But if a chicken and a half laid an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long would it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all of the seeds out of a dill pickle?
There, now I believe everything has been said. lol
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy (8/26/06)
Well the chicken lays 1 egg per day, as the half lays a half per day, so there for it would take 42 days for the monkey to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle.
IP: Logged
07:44 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
Well the chicken lays 1 egg per day, as the half lays a half per day, so there for it would take 42 days for the monkey to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle.
I beg to differ. Taking fatigue into account, sleep time, feed time and toilet time the monkey would actually take 52.3456 days.
Well the chicken lays 1 egg per day, as the half lays a half per day, so there for it would take 42 days for the monkey to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle.
But what if the monkey's allergic to both eggs and pickles? Ah yes, the Benadryl factor. lol
Sorry, sorry. Because the monkey is on crack and he's responsible for fueling the train, the train never left Chicago. lol That's right. My mind IS a scary place.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy (8/26/06)
[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 09-13-2006).]
No no no that is just not fair. You said what time DID the train LEAVE chi-town. Not IF it left. So therefor I stand with my original statement of 4:20. This is only because at that point the monkey sent the train on it's way so he could smoke a big fat spliff.
IP: Logged
01:42 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
But because the monkey is on some seriously bad crack, he also neglected his other responsibility of telling people where to find the good acid. We all got ahold of of some bad stuff and it's actually all just a bad psychosematic hallucination. Thanks a lot ya dumb monkey! Beat him with the fish previously mentioned.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy (8/26/06)
[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 09-13-2006).]
IP: Logged
03:02 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
-for every $100 spent on the "special" kids, 3 cents are spent on the gifted kids.
-20% of high school dropouts are gifted
So question - are we bettering our nation by spending so much on teaching the "special" kids how to use eating utensils vs letting the gifted kids learn at an accelerated rate?
IP: Logged
10:54 PM
Sep 18th, 2006
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
So question - are we bettering our nation by spending so much on teaching the "special" kids how to use eating utensils vs letting the gifted kids learn at an accelerated rate?
That's a legitimate question, even though I question the relative numbers ... if not the conclusion ... of the statistics you cited without seeing a lot more detail.
I might also ask a parallel question, "Are we bettering our nation by spending so much on teaching our student athletes how to play football and basketball vs. allowing our intellectually gifted kids to learn at an accelerated rate?"
The official answer to your question from educators and the like is usually along the lines of, "The top 20th percentile can take care of themselves and find their own way; the bottom 20 percent cannot." In recent years, by ordering increased funding for "special needs" children, the courts have tended to support this position.
I will agree that life is much more difficult for those with physical and/or emotional disabilities, but that does not justify ignoring those at the other end of the statistical spectrum. We certainly do spend a lot more on those students in the upper 20th percentile with respect to physical ability; both team and individual sports have achieved sacred-cow status in virtually every school district in the country. But those at the upper end of the spectrum in intellectual ability (and their parents) are far more likely than not to be left to make it on their own. End of rant.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-18-2006).]
That's a legitimate question, even though I question the relative numbers ... if not the conclusion ... of the statistics you cited without seeing a lot more detail.
I might also ask a parallel question, "Are we bettering our nation by spending so much on teaching our student athletes how to play football and basketball vs. allowing our intellectually gifted kids to learn at an accelerated rate?"
The official answer to your question from educators and the like is usually along the lines of, "The top 20th percentile can take care of themselves and find their own way; the bottom 20 percent cannot." In recent years, by ordering increased funding for "special needs" children, the courts have tended to support this position.
I will agree that life is much more difficult for those with physical and/or emotional disabilities, but that does not justify ignoring those at the other end of the statistical spectrum. We certainly do spend a lot more on those students in the upper 20th percentile with respect to physical ability; both team and individual sports have achieved sacred-cow status in virtually every school district in the country. But those at the upper end of the spectrum in intellectual ability (and their parents) are far more likely than not to be left to make it on their own. End of rant.
You should see some of the stuff they spend money on in the school districts by me. How many times do you need to replace and upgrade computers that are used 1% of the time for nothing more than internet? Have you ever heard of a smart board? It sits in the corner never being used. Elementry, middle, and highschools are all the same philosophy, technology will help the challenged. Heck, most normal people have a hard time operating new technology, I don't see it helping. There is maybe one school in the district that has the idea right, and that is better student teacher ratios. Hire more teachers, don't buy more computers. But I suppose they operate like any other government organisation. I haven't really looked at the private schools here, maybe they are better, maybe they are worse. I donno.
Time to go back to not thinking about what is was doing...
IP: Logged
11:29 AM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
Originally posted by 86fierofun: You should see some of the stuff they spend money on in the school districts by me. How many times do you need to replace and upgrade computers that are used 1% of the time for nothing more than internet?
God, the high school I graduated from signed a contract with Apple to buy new computers every 5 years at some discount... The latest "buy" was about 50 Imacs at $2500 each.
Just wasteful... And I'm sure macs will teach them the skills they need for the real world (filled with PCs). At least they have those convenient throwing handles...
On the other end of the spectrum, I remember a middle school that a gave a presentation at and then later talked to the kids. The teacher was allowed to use the one computer in the classroom but not the students. They didn't have any computer labs either. At a time when virtually everything is computerized, these kids weren't getting any experience. Bad idea if you ask me. While more computers aren't neccessarily an answer. Some computers might be good.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy (8/26/06)
[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 09-18-2006).]
On the up side, I've read reports where they say that an underactive brain is more likely to develop Alzhiemers and other demintias. So, if it's true, that's a plus for my "scatterbrained" existence.
