19 Dec 2009, 12:21 pm
19 Dec 2009, 12:26 pm
b9 wrote:
i am sorry i am not in the spirit of the thread but:
my psych(iatrist/ologist) discussed with me, the basic attributes of the "levels of intelligence" when i was young, and i remember her descriptions.
she started at "genius"
she said genius was when someone knew without any external tuition, a completely valid and correct set of realities. some of these realities may never have been seen by other people, and the genius person is a pioneer of experience that they may communicate to the rest of the world that never thought of it.
under "genius" is "gifted", and gifted people have an almost instantaneous appreciation of whatever they see or hear. they can recreate in alternative ways what they see, and they can explain their observations in a way that many people can benefit from. they are creative of solutions in a way that makes others transfixed.
under "gifted" is "superior". "superior" people are extremely efficient in thought, and they consider nothing that is not facilitative to their mental aim.
they voraciously learn all that they need to know to be very efficient in managing their thoughts and actions.
under "superior" is "bright".
"bright" people (110-120) are enthusiastic listeners, and are also very keen to learn. they are curious about things, and they are very grateful for instruction.
my psych(iatrist/ologist) discussed with me, the basic attributes of the "levels of intelligence" when i was young, and i remember her descriptions.
she started at "genius"
she said genius was when someone knew without any external tuition, a completely valid and correct set of realities. some of these realities may never have been seen by other people, and the genius person is a pioneer of experience that they may communicate to the rest of the world that never thought of it.
under "genius" is "gifted", and gifted people have an almost instantaneous appreciation of whatever they see or hear. they can recreate in alternative ways what they see, and they can explain their observations in a way that many people can benefit from. they are creative of solutions in a way that makes others transfixed.
under "gifted" is "superior". "superior" people are extremely efficient in thought, and they consider nothing that is not facilitative to their mental aim.
they voraciously learn all that they need to know to be very efficient in managing their thoughts and actions.
under "superior" is "bright".
"bright" people (110-120) are enthusiastic listeners, and are also very keen to learn. they are curious about things, and they are very grateful for instruction.
Well, to start off, this is all wrong. There is no evidence to support these characterizations. I'm gifted, and I've done a lot of reading about it (Hoagie's Gifted is a good place to start) and the first thing to strike out at me, beyond the characterizations which I will get to later, is that the labels are wrong. Giftedness and genius are both different words for roughly the same spectrum. Levels of Giftedness
The characterizations are extremely problematic. Not all gifted people are good at school. You can be good at school and not be gifted. The traits she fixates on may help magnify intelligence, but they do not cause or characterize it. There is no research to support her characterizations. It's a nice way of describing some people, but that's all--and it's problematic when extended to entire groups, or when it is implied that intelligence is connected to these traits, or when you presume to be able to look inside a person's head and know not only how they think, but why they are able to think that way. It is sheer hubris to then extrapolate that this invented experience must be true of an entire group.
Quote:
under "bright" is "high normal, and normal, and low normal" . they are average people who consider things mainly from a perspective of self maintenance. they seek entertainment and other products of society that they can not really contribute to. they pay for what they get.
under "low normal" is "dull". "dull" people are concerned primarily with their own desires.
if they had a chance to listen to einstein talking and they were also very hungry, they would go and eat instead. they usually relegate all the technology that they use to the "inventions of boffins" that are like aliens to them.
they have many opinions about things that affect their lives like taxes, but their protests are simple gutteral rebuttals to a circumstance, rather than a dissemination of it.
under "low normal" is "dull". "dull" people are concerned primarily with their own desires.
if they had a chance to listen to einstein talking and they were also very hungry, they would go and eat instead. they usually relegate all the technology that they use to the "inventions of boffins" that are like aliens to them.
they have many opinions about things that affect their lives like taxes, but their protests are simple gutteral rebuttals to a circumstance, rather than a dissemination of it.
These characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.
Quote:
under "dull" is "moron" and that is 60-80 iq. a "moron" is in the realm of retardation, but many are never detected. they seem impulsive and ebullient sometimes, and they cut across the grain of expectation. they can garner support from others because of their "simple straight forward" thinking. their impulse however is based upon a foundation of extreme mediocrity.
mostly, "morons" have jobs like laborers or store men.
they can be expected to perform instructions adequately, but they can not formulate a successful plan of action on their own.
under "moron" is what was termed "imbecile".
"imbeciles" have an IQ of 40-60.
they can be taught repetitive tasks and can work in sheltered workshops. they remain living with their parents or in group care. they are not able to live by themselves.
"imbeciles" seem happy and even excited about things that are very mundane to people with average intelligence.
they can help with domestic duties like setting the table etc.
they still perceive reality, although only the simplest aspects of it.
under "imbecile" is "cretin" (i know "cretinism is a disease, but at that time "cretinism" was still used as a description of the second lowest level of intelligence).
"cretins" have an IQ of 30-40.
they must be managed, and they can not contribute meaningfully to any process. they can sometimes walk and eat and toilet themselves, but they can not talk in a way that is decipherable except with extreme effort (on the part of the listener). they report no observations, but just react to stimulus in physical ways.
under "cretin" is "idiot".
"idiots" are between 5-29 IQ.
idiots can not eat without help, and they can not toilet themselves, and they can not walk. they do not control the direction their eyes point in because they have no curiosity even on a crude scale.
a 29 IQ person may be able to follow your finger motion with their eyes for a small while, but if you point at something for them to look at, they will not look there no matter how much you try to tempt them.
under 20, there is no evidence of any attachment to outer reality, and they will not look at anything you thrust in their face.
mostly, "morons" have jobs like laborers or store men.
they can be expected to perform instructions adequately, but they can not formulate a successful plan of action on their own.
under "moron" is what was termed "imbecile".
"imbeciles" have an IQ of 40-60.
they can be taught repetitive tasks and can work in sheltered workshops. they remain living with their parents or in group care. they are not able to live by themselves.
"imbeciles" seem happy and even excited about things that are very mundane to people with average intelligence.
they can help with domestic duties like setting the table etc.
they still perceive reality, although only the simplest aspects of it.
under "imbecile" is "cretin" (i know "cretinism is a disease, but at that time "cretinism" was still used as a description of the second lowest level of intelligence).
"cretins" have an IQ of 30-40.
they must be managed, and they can not contribute meaningfully to any process. they can sometimes walk and eat and toilet themselves, but they can not talk in a way that is decipherable except with extreme effort (on the part of the listener). they report no observations, but just react to stimulus in physical ways.
under "cretin" is "idiot".
"idiots" are between 5-29 IQ.
idiots can not eat without help, and they can not toilet themselves, and they can not walk. they do not control the direction their eyes point in because they have no curiosity even on a crude scale.
a 29 IQ person may be able to follow your finger motion with their eyes for a small while, but if you point at something for them to look at, they will not look there no matter how much you try to tempt them.
under 20, there is no evidence of any attachment to outer reality, and they will not look at anything you thrust in their face.
Much of this has been flat-out disproven.
Quote:
i hope they are not alive inside because it would be torture to be a normal person in the brain of an idiot for life.
Nice ableism there!
In fact, the whole thing is highly ableist. That's probably why people object to it.
19 Dec 2009, 12:30 pm
19 Dec 2009, 12:58 pm
19 Dec 2009, 5:35 pm
19 Dec 2009, 5:48 pm
19 Dec 2009, 6:26 pm
19 Dec 2009, 6:40 pm
19 Dec 2009, 7:05 pm
All those labels b9 mentioned were used in the past for mentally ret*d people. I know, offensive. Moron and idiot used to be medical words, now they aren't anymore. ret*d is no longer be a medical word in parts of the world but it is still where I live. But my school didn't use that word when I was in my teens. I don't remember what word they used and every time I said ret*d, teachers get on my back about it. Why not correct me instead? 
Obviously I wasn't being insulting. Could they not see that?
20 Dec 2009, 6:56 am
20 Dec 2009, 8:30 am
20 Dec 2009, 9:07 am
20 Dec 2009, 2:45 pm
20 Dec 2009, 9:22 pm
20 Dec 2009, 11:34 pm
bdhkhsfgk wrote:
A child's mind in an adult body.
i have that. and u know what somebody actually refered to that as mental retardation also, i hope not, i know im not mentally ret*d i may appear slow in some things but far from ret*d.
_________________
Being Normal Is Vastly Overrated
21 Dec 2009, 1:55 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
|
Ruby Franke mental disoder?
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
20 Mar 2024, 11:02 am |
| Research: camouflaging and mental health |
26 Apr 2024, 10:38 am |
| Neurodiversity affirming practice and mental health |
04 Mar 2024, 10:43 am |
|
Question about fear about calling 911 for mental health
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
06 Apr 2024, 7:09 pm |
