WOO ALERT - Mensa inducts 2 yr old

[Rasmus55]

Interesting news article I read this morning. You can probably still find it on yahoo although I'm not allowed to post links yet.

The story concerns mensa society's "induction" of a 2 yr old girl. This was perhaps one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen. Mensa alleges the girl to have an IQ rivaling that of Stephen Hawking; utter bullocks. Of course, the news report conveniently skips over how it was determined that she had such an IQ. As for the parents, they seem like complete dolts to me. The mother (who does all the talking and I'm sure is the one most behind this woo) said something to the effect that they knew she was smart because she would repeat things she heard in the house from her parents, sometimes those phrases might be months old. Does anyone else have a 2 yr old? I don't have any kids, but any of my friends that do will tell you never say anything around a 2yr old if you don't want it repeated. This woman is an idiot and her husband is a brain dead terd. If there are any members of mensa on here, can you just answer a simple question: why?

[JJM 777]

This child was accepted because she is an exceptional natural talent in the mental tasks tested by Mensa.

I was in Mensa some years ago. Then I realized that they are doing nothing, except having parties and thinking highly of themselves. I can do that elsewhere, with much cooler friends. (Besides, Mensa has a very limited view of what "intelligence" is. They can be complete morons in other talents except math.)

Has anyone founded a Brasa society yet? For those with an exceptional bra size. And NASA for those with an exceptionally large nose.

[Rolfe]

I was in Mensa some years ago. Then I realized that they are doing nothing, except having parties and thinking highly of themselves. I can do that elsewhere, with much cooler friends.
Exactly what happened to me. I figured out the bit about having cooler friends at the first meeting I went to, never went back and ignored all requests to renew my subscription.

I've lost count of the number of other people on this forum who have also reported exactly this experience.

Rolfe.

[Rasmus55]

[QUOTE=JJM 777;2718397]This child was accepted because she is an exceptional natural talent in the mental tasks tested by Mensa.QUOTE]

Which "mental tasks"? What was the criteria and what was the test given? All that I see here is some psychologist talking about how great an IQ this girl allegedly has, yet no reference is made to how that was determined. I don't buy this; it looks and feels like a publicity stunt to me. I certainly steer clear of psychologists as I have found (perhaps unfairly) that many of them are completely full of *****.

As for mensa generally, I have noted other instances of asshatery over the years with respect to some of their activities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember that some years ago there was a group of mensa members (you guessed it; psychologists) who were advocating mystical powers (psychics, "healers", etc). They had some silly little group inside mensa and were sending around newsletters and such. Does anyone remember this? I can't find the article on the web anymore.

[money]

I've lost count of the number of other people on this forum who have also reported exactly this experience.

Rolfe.


Including Randi himself, IIRC...

[JJM 777]

Which "mental tasks"? What was the criteria and what was the test given?
The tests used by Mensa are not public, because that would enable people to practice in advance. They are available for researchers though -- or anyone who gets tested by them.

IQ tests are designed to measure performance in mathematical, logical and often also verbal tasks. All the rest that a brain can do remains unmeasured.

Some links about IQ testing of young children:

http://www.priory.com/psych/assessyoung.htm
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/iq_testing.htm
http://giftedkids.about.com/od/younggiftedchildren/a/youngtraits.htm
http://www.qagtc.org.au/assess.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20010610giftediqsidereg8.asp
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/intelligence.html

[Rasmus55]

The tests used by Mensa are not public, because that would enable people to practice in advance. They are available for researchers though -- or anyone who gets tested by them.

IQ tests are designed to measure performance in mathematical, logical and often also verbal tasks. All the rest that a brain can do remains unmeasured.

Some links about IQ testing of young children:

http://www.priory.com/psych/assessyoung.htm
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/iq_testing.htm
http://giftedkids.about.com/od/younggiftedchildren/a/youngtraits.htm
http://www.qagtc.org.au/assess.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20010610giftediqsidereg8.asp
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/intelligence.html

But this does not answer the question about this particular child. We have no idea what test or criteria was used in this case because none are proffered. We are apparently supposed to take this all on faith alone from the mouth of the psychologist in the interview. I find it very, very difficult to believe that a 2yr old child who can barely speak has developed an IQ rivaling that of Stephen Hawking. Children at this age simply have not developed the higher level cognitive skills present in adults. I'm not saying it is impossible; what I want is some proof of this. Notice also that only the mensa psych and the parents are interviewed, not the child. Why is that I wonder? It smacks of woo and publicity. I think mensa is generally just fluff in any case. It appears dominated by the psychologists in recent years, which should be enough to give anyone second thoughts about its legitimacy.

[ponderingturtle]

I have always wondered what the attraction of hanging out with other individuals who score abnormally high on certain standardized tests is.

Abnormal test scores seems like a very weird thing to base group membership on. I would much rather be a member of a group with shared interests.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The age thing does sound odd. After all, being precocious isn't necessarily the same thing as being extremely intelligent.

Reading at a 5th-grade level, for example, would be amazing for a 2 year old, but not compared to the population at large (all ages). I thought Mensa claimed to take the top 3% of the whole population. Again, being bright for your age isn't quite the same thing.

Also ditto what others have said about Mensa. I've never taken their test, but I qualified based on SAT and GRE scores. I never joined because I didn't see any point. Also, I'm pretty sure that I don't have the mental capacity I did when I was younger, though I probably know more information now. It would seem like some ex-high school athlete being stuck his entire life in his "glory days".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've definitely long ago let go of having to be the "smart one". After all,



<--------- I do stuff like this for a living.

[Rasmus55]

[QUOTE=<--------- I do stuff like this for a living.[/QUOTE]

There can be no doubt that fire breathing and stilt walking rate very high on the coolness meter. I envy you. As for mensa, with any of these types of societies, it seems to me ike a way for the members to feel better than everyone else; part of an "elite" club. Some people have a great need to feel special and worry about their place in society. For those who run the thing, it is just a money making gimmick.

[sophia8]

I started a thread about this yesterday: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85674
There's a link there to a BBC news article about it.
The article says the kid was given the Stanford-Binet test, but there's no details on exactly how the test was carried out. Since there's no mention of her being able to read and write, it must be assumed that the testing psychologist read out the questions; presumably the mother was present throughout. Plenty of scope there for prompting and non-verbal cueing.
Oh, and the test had to be cut short because the kid got tired.

[Rasmus55]

I started a thread about this yesterday: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85674
There's a link there to a BBC news article about it.
The article says the kid was given the Stanford-Binet test, but there's no details on exactly how the test was carried out. Since there's no mention of her being able to read and write, it must be assumed that the testing psychologist read out the questions; presumably the mother was present throughout. Plenty of scope there for prompting and non-verbal cueing.
Oh, and the test had to be cut short because the kid got tired.

Thanks for that, did not see that thread; still new to this forum. I suspected the wacko mother was behind this nonesense. In another article in confirmed the mother's insistance on the test and her presence during the testing. I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said cueing and prompting. It is also clear to me now that she was "tested" against her age group, although I should have realized that from the beginning. In any case, I wonder how large her testing group actually is. I wouldn't call this kid talented or otherwise unless she was performing something without assistance that truly was amazing. This is woo; and the mother is another one of these domineering, annoying, anal retentive, munchausen by proxy types. Give the same kid a test when she's 18 and let's see then.

[JJM 777]

(The admins routinely split threads, but apparently never combine them.)

I find it very, very difficult to believe that a 2yr old child who can barely speak has developed an IQ rivaling that of Stephen Hawking.
IQ scores are relative to the age of the person. The score should remain quite stable throughout one's life. This baby should reach the logical performance of average adults before she's 10 years old.

[Rasmus55]

IQ scores are relative to the age of the person. The score should remain quite stable throughout one's life. This baby should reach the logical performance of average adults before she's 10 years old.

That is assuming the integrity of the testing. I have serious, serious doubts. I would be nice to revisit this again if she is tested again some years from now. Or, if someone could (independant of the mother) give the test under controlled conditions with video cameras rolling. I would be willing to accept the results in that sort of set-up. I don't hold that it is not possible, I merely claim that I don't believe this particular story and find it to be woo based upon the indicators that are known.

[Slimething]

A few years back, I saw a mention of Mensa and it peaked my curiosity enough that I went to their website. At the time, they offered a "qualifier" test (it now appears as a "workout"). I took the thing and scored well on it. Well enough that my results included advice that I should contact the local branch to schedule an entry test. (My cynical self tells me that everyone gets this.) Anyway, it made me feel smug for a few minutes. Long enough, that is, to go in front of a mirror and tell my reflection that I was smarter than it. It was to no avail, the reflection won, AGAIN.

I've got some pretty brilliant friends and none of them ever joined Mensa. Either that, or they won't admit it. I just can't see sitting around in a room of people who consider themselves just so much brighter than others based on tests they themselves concoct. Much cheaper to stay in one's room and pat oneself on the back. (Of course, I decided to build a machine to do it that runs forever and doubles as a time travel gizmo but I don't want to derail this thread.)

Seriously, I agree with the other posters who think that testing a two-year-old for advanced cognitive skills is bizarre and, shall I say it, impossible. But, based on the description of the parents, maybe we've found the real Lisa Simpson? :lisasimps

[JQH]

I think you've just insulted Homer.

[Slimething]

I think you've just insulted Homer.

Is that even possible? ;)

[Beerina]

Interesting news article I read this morning. You can probably still find it on yahoo although I'm not allowed to post links yet.

The story concerns mensa society's "induction" of a 2 yr old girl. This was perhaps one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen. Mensa alleges the girl to have an IQ rivaling that of Stephen Hawking; utter bullocks. Of course, the news report conveniently skips over how it was determined that she had such an IQ. As for the parents, they seem like complete dolts to me. The mother (who does all the talking and I'm sure is the one most behind this woo) said something to the effect that they knew she was smart because she would repeat things she heard in the house from her parents, sometimes those phrases might be months old. Does anyone else have a 2 yr old? I don't have any kids, but any of my friends that do will tell you never say anything around a 2yr old if you don't want it repeated. This woman is an idiot and her husband is a brain dead terd. If there are any members of mensa on here, can you just answer a simple question: why?


Isn't it like 152 or something? That's pretty good, but it's not all that good. I don't know if he could barely get into the triple-9 society.

[Rolfe]

A few years back, I saw a mention of Mensa and it peaked piqued my curiosity enough that I went to their website. At the time, they offered a "qualifier" test (it now appears as a "workout"). I took the thing and scored well on it. Well enough that my results included advice that I should contact the local branch to schedule an entry test. (My cynical self tells me that everyone gets this.)
I did that trial test many many years ago, when I was a teenager. They send it to you in a sealed booklet, and you're supposed to get someone else to supervise you as regards time allowed and so on. I followed the instructions with my father timing me, and when I sent it back they said I'd scored 158. I didn't bother following it up at the time.

A good long time later (I think I was in my mid to late 30s) I took their official test, in a classroom with other people and rigorous supervision. I scored 161. I was really quite impressed by the repeatability of the testing procedure as evidenced by the closeness of these scores.

Even granted that the test is supposed to be standardised for age group, I still fail to see how you can meaningfully test a two-year-old. And what good it would do the child anyway. Why not wait until she can read and write, at least?

Rolfe.

[Slimething]

Thanks for the grammatical correction, Rolfe. You see I'm not Mensa material! (I'm rather lazy about proofreading and can't stand software spellcheckers!) I will file it for later, though! :)

[666]

Thanks for the grammatical correction, Rolfe. You see I'm not Mensa material! (I'm rather lazy about proofreading and can't stand software spellcheckers!) I will file it for later, though! :)

I don't think most standard spell checkers would qualify for Mensa either. They would just accept peaked as a valid word and wave the sentence on.:(

[Professor Yaffle]

I tried to post the following link about the predictive value of preschool intelligence testing yesterday, but my internet connection went all screwy on me.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food/V201e/ch06.htm

Also found this:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-3920%28197312%2944%3A4%3C790%3ATPPOTB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

[to.by]

Many years ago I tried to measure my own IQ using a book called just that; Measure Your Own IQ. I scored 65. I hasn't prevented me from obtaining an engeneering and a medical degree after that.

It certainly proves something, but what?

[JJM 777]

I still fail to see how you can meaningfully test a two-year-old. And what good it would do the child anyway. Why not wait
There is a multitude of mental development disorders that may go unnoticed for years by the parents and other non-experts, but could be detected in certain mental performance tests, where it becomes apparent that the child underperforms in some specific mental tasks.

Such tests are necessary not only for diagnosing whether a person is kosher for Mensa membership, but also for diagnosing potential health problems that have the better prognosis the earlier they are detected.

There is no reason to strongly doubt the validity of this baby news: IQ is distributed according to the bell curve, and one baby out of a thousand will always be remarkably smarter than the others. Another one remarkably less smart, and so on.

[bjb]

IQ can be defined by dividing your mental age by your physical age. If the 2-year old kid passes a test that an average 4-year old can pass, then her IQ is 200, at least as high as Stephen Hawking. However, a story about a 2-year old kid who has the mental capacity of the average 4-year old is not as interesting to read about.

For what it's worth, I read at an 8th grade level when I was in 3rd grade. By this measure, my IQ was over 260. Take that, 2-year old Mensa kid!

[ponderingturtle]

IQ can be defined by dividing your mental age by your physical age. If the 2-year old kid passes a test that an average 4-year old can pass, then her IQ is 200, at least as high as Stephen Hawking. However, a story about a 2-year old kid who has the mental capacity of the average 4-year old is not as interesting to read about.

For what it's worth, I read at an 8th grade level when I was in 3rd grade. By this measure, my IQ was over 260. Take that, 2-year old Mensa kid!

I believe they put significant value in math skills and you just showed why you would not pass that section. Age=/=grade.

The number you should get would be 155 assuming you start at 6 so that the ages are 14 and 9.

Of course looking at reading, or I suddenly go so much smarter in 7th and 8th grades when I went from reading well below grade level to well above grade level(in a year and a half reading comp form say 2nd or 3rd grade to college level)

[Rolfe]

Such tests are necessary not only for diagnosing whether a person is kosher for Mensa membership, but also for diagnosing potential health problems that have the better prognosis the earlier they are detected.

There is no reason to strongly doubt the validity of this baby news: IQ is distributed according to the bell curve, and one baby out of a thousand will always be remarkably smarter than the others. Another one remarkably less smart, and so on.
Argument from incredulity coming up here.

I can see why reliable tests would have to be developed and would be developed to spot porential health probelms in young children. However, I see less need for tests comparable to the sort of testing Mensa does on older people to be developed to identify two-year-old geniuses. I therefore have some doubt that a sufficiently robust testing procedure is in place to allow reliable correlation of results obtained at age 2 to results obtained by the same person in later life when performing Mensa's usual sort of test.

I could well be wrong, but if I am I'd like to have it explained to me.

Rolfe.

[JJM 777]

IQ can be defined by dividing your mental age by your physical age.
This was the basic idea when the system was first invented and named. And even back then it referred to children only. The peak in mental performance is around 20 years of age, after which it slowly begins to decrease.

When you do a modern IQ test, 20-year-old people give handicap to all others. For example, if you do the test when you are 30 years old, you need fewer correct answers in the test than a 20-year-old to get the same IQ score.

"Dividing your mental age by your physical age" plays absolutely no role here any more.

The number you should get would be 155 assuming you start at 6 so that the ages are 14 and 9.
I see no number here at all, since I cannot imagine what the "level of reading" of 8th graders is, and how it would essentially differ from the "level of reading" of 3rd graders.

[Timothy]

IQ can be defined by dividing your mental age by your physical age. If the 2-year old kid passes a test that an average 4-year old can pass, then her IQ is 200, at least as high as Stephen Hawking. However, a story about a 2-year old kid who has the mental capacity of the average 4-year old is not as interesting to read about.

For what it's worth, I read at an 8th grade level when I was in 3rd grade. By this measure, my IQ was over 260. Take that, 2-year old Mensa kid!

Absolutely not.

Some IQ tests, notable Wechsler, do take into account an age correction curve, but it's nowhere as simplistic as "divide by age".

While the original intent of the Stanford-Binet test was to have an age corrected IQ, it hasn't been used that way in decades.

One must also be very careful in stating IQ to specify the mean and the standard deviation used. Stanford-Binet and Wechsler use SDs of 15 or sometimes 16; Cattell uses 23 or 24. Which means that you can artificially inflate your IQ by quoting Cattell numbers.

It's not possible to simply quote an IQ number; one has to know something about the tests used to determine it and the correlation of those tests with general population intelligence tests.

[sophia8]

Many years ago I tried to measure my own IQ using a book called just that; Measure Your Own IQ. I scored 65. I hasn't prevented me from obtaining an engeneering and a medical degree after that.

It certainly proves something, but what?I had the same book! It had five tests in it (I think) and I scored differently on all of them - between 120 and 145. I've never got a degree in anything.

[Mattfn]

For what it's worth, I read at an 8th grade level when I was in 3rd grade. By this measure, my IQ was over 260

So did I, and college level by 5th grade. Shall we start a club?*

*I have limited my comments to sarcasm, as my M.Ed research proposal was the falsehood of educational testing and I haven't time to go there right now!