It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Meet Britain's brainiest toddler: Two-year-old Karina has the same IQ as Stephen Hawking

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Meet Britain's brainiest toddler: Two-year-old Karina has the same IQ as Stephen Hawking


www.dailymail.co.uk

Most little girls of Karina Oakley's age are chatterboxes, just like her. But few can talk as much sense.

The toddler has just been found to have an IQ of 160 - the same as Stephen Hawking and six points higher than Carol Vorderman - which makes her eligible to join Mensa.

Experts say that she is particularly imaginative and gifted with words.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
My question is - how can they compare?

She got a high IQ for her age group, not for the same age group as Stephen Hawking. I was under the impression IQ changed with age and conditions. Your lifestyle and experiences affect your IQ as you grow and change.

On the other side of the coin, we are "overdue" for another "Einstein" or "Newton." We really have yet to have a great person appear since Mr. Hawking - and it's really only a matter of time before he passes away.

Hoping she's the next best thing for science.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

The professor noted that Karina gave imaginative responses to questions. For instance when asked, 'What do you use your eyes for?' she answered, 'You close them when you go to sleep' and then also said, 'You put your contact lenses in them'.


Hmm, what exactly is so brilliant about that? Imaginative I guess, but the correct answer to the question is "to see with." The question was not "What do your eyes do when you go to sleep" or "How do you help your eyes see better?"



To be eligible for Mensa, candidates must in the top 2 per cent for intelligence.


I guess it's safe to say that the author of the article won't be joining Mensa. Nice sentence.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Diplomat]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
These stories are BS. Who cares? Honestly - who really cares?

This girl has had her 15 minutes of fame. I read the story in my newspaper today. It seems to me like an over-zealous mummy wanted her little princess to be recognised as being better than the other kids.

One thing that I could never understand is why there is such a misguided belief that an IQ score actually matters?

She's two years old. She could still grow up and make the most dumb-arse decisions with her life.

Bah! This is just junk.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
IQ is largely up in the air until it solidifies around 16, so she has a ways to go. Still impressive but I'd be more curious about how it changes over the years.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Maybe she's Stewie Griffins cousin


Victory is mine!!!



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
not impressed. I mean by these standards Mozart at age 3 would be considered to have an IQ of a "zillion"
.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   
More evidence that IQ test are irrelevant to humanity.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Daym!

Sorry for posting a crappy story....



Maybe I'll just stick to my collab. fiction....




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
As noted in this article ("As for where her intelligence comes from, Miss Fraser said: 'I have stayed at home with her for almost three years, I have always talked to her a lot, always tried to answer her questions"), THAT is what I think makes the BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

I am of the opinion that, for the most part, we are ALL born with equal potential and capability to be bright! What determines whether we achieve brightness likely has MORE to do with nurturing than anything genetic.

My youngest daughters son (my grandson, obviously), amazes me with some of the things he knows and says. He's even put me to shame when he asked me if I could repeat the alphabet backwards. I tried and gave up on X, ha. He then proceed to ramble off the whole alphabet forwards and backwards in about 15 seconds. Nope, he wasn't BORN knowing that, his mommy taught him that. He''ll be three in a few months, and already he can read. He also speaks three languages. PROOF that nurturing makes ALL the difference.

Anyhow, I don't put much faith in IQ scores. I myself was tested twice, got 148 the first time on a military IQ test which was required for the job I wanted, and I got 168 a few years after that. That was back when I was 18 and 22 years old. But I have to tell you, I don't even feel half as smart as all those brainiac physicists, I can't understand half of the stuff I read in their white papers and such. I suppose I could learn those things if I studied them, but then I believe ANYONE can, if they only apply themselves (which is kind of difficult if you lack the interest or desire and passion to do so).

And, I don't think we can really accurately test a child to determine their potential. There could be a LOT of kids out there that could have performed the same as this child, if only their parents cared enough to take the time to teach and nurture them.

I know a few will disagree with me about everyone being essentially equal in potential and capability, but you just can't TEST a person on what they know to KNOW what their REAL POTENTIAL actually is. Everyone could have the potential to be a brainiac scientist, if they merely went on to become one AND were motivated to do so.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
I am of the opinion that, for the most part, we are ALL born with equal potential and capability to be bright! What determines whether we achieve brightness likely has MORE to do with nurturing than anything genetic.

Excuse my bluntness, but I don't agree with this. However, I'm assuming that you mean that babies are equally able to perform well at anything?

If you've ever worked with children, you'll realise that some of them just don't get 'it' - and they'll never get 'it'.

Now the point of debate is what that 'it' is.

Some can never draw, paint, play music, read well, do math, speak in public, read a map, ride a bike, etc... lots more examples.



but then I believe ANYONE can, if they only apply themselves (which is kind of difficult if you lack the interest or desire and passion to do so).

The biggest load of crap that's fed to children is that they can do anything that they dream of, if they try.

Sorry, no. It's not true. Without some kind of natural talent, possibly genetic, there are some things that you'll never be able to achieve. Ever.

What children should be taught is that it's ok to give their best and realise that it was their best.

False praise and unrealistic goals cause more harm than good.

Here's an article that strongly suggests that people could be born with an innate number sense. In other words, if the kids aren't born with it, then they're not going to have it. They can work hard to improve it, but they'll never 'get it' like the other kids do.

I would willingly bet that most Maths Teachers will tell you that their anecdotal experience absolutely confirms this article's findings.

I wouldn't be surprised if some time in the future a 'maths gene' or a 'music gene', etc will be identified.

Children will eventually realise what they are naturally good at. Nurturing will help them reach their potential earlier, perhaps. However, you can't nurture some aspects that just aren't there.

My opinions, without offering proof.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
A quick observation on IQ tests.
During first year of my degree we had to take IQ tests, not for grading but to learn more about them. Two students got exceptionally high scores... one of these students was taking part in an open day, she was from a local secondary school. After investigation it seemed she was an average student, expected to ass but not excel.

So why did she score so high?

She herself was shocked with the result but could explain why. At home she has a 1990s puzzle book which was bought to fill time during a camping holiday, this puzzle book contained lots of puzzles identical or very similar to those in our IQ test.

She blitzed the test because she already knew the answers or at least already knew the methods needed to solve the problems.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat

The professor noted that Karina gave imaginative responses to questions. For instance when asked, 'What do you use your eyes for?' she answered, 'You close them when you go to sleep' and then also said, 'You put your contact lenses in them'.


Hmm, what exactly is so brilliant about that?


By this criterium I guess that death row inmate who ate one of his eyes to be declared unfit to stand trial and the other one in order to get a stay of execution is a bonafide genius.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 




[edit on 11-6-2009 by catalyst2466]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
These stories are BS. Who cares? Honestly - who really cares?

This girl has had her 15 minutes of fame. I read the story in my newspaper today. It seems to me like an over-zealous mummy wanted her little princess to be recognised as being better than the other kids.

One thing that I could never understand is why there is such a misguided belief that an IQ score actually matters?

She's two years old. She could still grow up and make the most dumb-arse decisions with her life.

Bah! This is just junk.
I totally agree. It is the "Quality Of Life" that is important, there is too much emphasis on iq. EQ - "Emotional Inteligence" -Is Key.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I have a nephew that is particularly imaginative. Honestly, i sometimes think he is autistic...but it is mostly just because he gets so immersed in his thoughts.

While visiting the doctor once, the doctor asked him if there was something that he wanted to change about himself. You know, to see if he might feel bad in any particular way, to see if his quiet behavior was some sort of depression or just the result of a subdued and introspective child.

When the doctor asked him if there was anything he would like to change about himself, he replied, "I would like to be able to phase into other dimensions." He was about 12 at the time, i guess.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
...the correct answer to the question is "to see with."


That's the answer you, myself, and many others would give, but it is not the answer everyone would have to the question.

I don't know how to explain what I'm feeling about it right now so I'll leave it as it is and hope you'll look into it a bit more.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I always beleived genius is locked in the imagination. ... to truly create something, or perceive it in a new way.

alot of very smart people are bad spellers, ... not because they operate from memory, ...... but analyse and create the words every time its spelled. .... its also a good excuse to use if you cant spell. haha.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Imo this iq test given to a 2yr old is not reflective of what her iq will be in say ten years.
They are saying her iq is equal to hawkings although they would have vastly different tests to complete and hawkings would not be based on his imagination.
I would certainly hope that all children have wonderful imaginations I know mine does.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
More evidence that IQ test are irrelevant to humanity.


Indeed Rapinbats!

I have felt for a long time that IQ needs to be combined with EQ to get a true indication of what someones 'intelligence' is.

IRM



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join