Were you a "bright child who didn't apply him/herself"?

I am in the same boat as the rest of you slackers!
I go for my job interview and they give me a test. All the math questions (including fractions) I did in my head and just wrote the anwers down. They informed me that I would have to show my work (hated doing this in school as well).
I asked them if they were wrong, "no, all of your answers are correct but as far as we know you may have gotten someone to give you a copy of the test".
Fine, I reply, give me some problems right now. They did and I answered them all correctly. Got the job .
Quad

reply to post by WhiteAlice

This thread is NOT about being labelled gifted. It's a whole other label in its entirety.

Yet through out this thread the "douchbaggery" (to coin your phrase) of the "gifted child" is being widely discussed however you do not seem to be trying to close down those members who are talking about how "gifted" they were.

I just hate the pomposity of it all: "I was gifted",

"really so was I",

"ohhh excellent, so many of us on ATS, all gifted children, look at the moron"

"ahhh look at him, shame he does not know what we know. i love you and your massive mind by the way, so gifted"

"ohhh i love you too, and i i love me".

AHHHHHHH

It does my head in, you are not special, being a "gifted child" does not make you special, all children are gifted and i find it really quite a disgusting display of arrogance to sit and read a bunch of people who have probably never been truly academically gifted sit about and have a nice old chat about how absolutely amazing they all where in school.

All kids were told they could apply themselves better that in no way makes you any brighter or gifted than the guy who failed every single exam because he was spending all his home work time watch porn and playing xbox who was also told to apply himself more.

This thread and that other rather sad thread about the gifted program is no more than a outlet for some ego rubbing in fantasy land where you guys could all have been collage professors.... if only you had applied yourself.

This was me.

I scored in the 99th percentile year after year in Reading/English portions of our state's standardized testing, always higher than everyone else in my school. However, instead of paying attention in class, I would get bored and think about something else, and before I knew it, class was over and I would realize that I hadn't paid ANY attention. Then I would go home, and either NOT do my homework, or half-ass it. I still passed every single class, some with flying colors, most with a B/C, and my Math classes I usually kept a D, but always made sure it was a few points over a passing grade. Why? I didn't care and it bored me.

Now I wish I had paid more attention and tried...I know I easily could have. I just didn't have the attention span for it. I've recently been diagnosed with Hashimoto's disease and still have the short attention span today, along with many other symptoms I had then and more that I have acquired. I blame that

I think that someone is getting furiouser and furiouser as more people post. Kill the thread... jk.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Umm. I think that you're subconsciously selecting only those posts that apply to your specific bias. I see both types of posts--statements of high and average iq. Not all of one theme. The "bright but does not apply" would basically be stuck on pretty much anyone of average or slightly above average intelligence and up. This thread is actually holding pretty true to my suspicion that it's a heavily used term for any kid of average or better intelligence that was disinterested in schooling, homework and more. Because of that, the posters' intelligence would be on a wide spectrum.

If you want to talk with me about the gifted thing, I'll meet you here. This thread isn't about being gifted or in the gifted program and I'm not going to derail my own thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh - I was also nominated for the Gifted/Talented program at my school for two years in a row. The first year, I passed the first part of the "test"...but failed the second because you were supposed to write and illustrate your own book. I wrote a great book, but on one of the pages I got upset because I couldn't draw a bathtub and had my mom help. They didn't like that. I was in second grade.

The second time was in third grade. I didn't even pass the first test. It gave you a bunch of shapes and things, and you were supposed to showcase your creativity. I was obsessed with aliens at that time, so almost everything on the test was made into an alien of some kind. They didn't like that, either. They never tested me again! lol

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Bright but does not apply is basically stuck on any student who does not make target grades.

its a way of saying "he spends all his time not doing what he should be doing and could do better".

It has nothing to do with being in away above average intelligence.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Bright but does not apply is basically stuck on any student who does not make target grades.

its a way of saying "he spends all his time not doing what he should be doing and could do better".

It has nothing to do with being in away above average intelligence.

Which is what I have been saying in every response that I have made to you on this specific subject. Glad we finally agree.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


so to be clear then we are in agreement that a teacher saying "wee jimmy is bright but needs to apply himself", in no way means that wee jimmy is in anyway above average intelligence or a "superior child"?

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

This thread is NOT about being labelled gifted. It's a whole other label in its entirety.

Yet through out this thread the "douchbaggery" (to coin your phrase) of the "gifted child" is being widely discussed however you do not seem to be trying to close down those members who are talking about how "gifted" they were.

I just hate the pomposity of it all: "I was gifted",


It does my head in, you are not special, being a "gifted child" does not make you special, all children are gifted and i find it really quite a disgusting display of arrogance to sit and read a bunch of people who have probably never been truly academically gifted sit about and have a nice old chat about how absolutely amazing they all where in school.

This thread and that other rather sad thread about the gifted program is no more than a outlet for some ego rubbing in fantasy land where you guys could all have been collage professors.... if only you had applied yourself.

Wow dude, relax. You go on and on about people acting gifted when they're not and than go on to conclude everyone is any way. It seems like this may have been a point of contention for you in school?

Yes everyone is gifted and the way the schools are designed, supports a specific learning type over others. Some gifted people learn that way while others don't. If your point is that you merely feel most ATS'ers are idiots and liars, than the only one they're lying to is themselves. It ain't hurting you so why take it so personally? You didn't think we were here posting resumes did you?

Did it ever occur that a thread like this could encourage one to reflect on their past performance and incorporate what they've learned in the present. For all you know, this thread could encourage a pompous douchebag to study harder because of others thoughts.

No need to be all RWAR and #.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

so to be clear then we are in agreement that a teacher saying "wee jimmy is bright but needs to apply himself", in no way means that wee jimmy is in anyway above average intelligence or a "superior child"?

edit on 22-2-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Yep. Like I said in my first post in response to you, if I thought the term was exclusive to the above average intelligence or "gifted" level crowd, then I would've simply asked it in the appropriate pre-existing thread. I didn't. We have a spectrum of iq's on this thread that can find common ground in that school just did not work for them.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I was opposed to homework for philosophical reasons since I was young. Isn't was a waste of my time and just there to help other kids grades. I got 100 assignments behind in math in 4th grade (awesome teacher to not tell my parents sooner). I tested out of math for college on my act but only got to algebra 2b ( remedial). I thought I was not too smart all through grade school because my grades were bad. When grades has effort (homework) and acedemics(tests) separated I always had failing scores in effort and top scores in tests. It wasn't till I got to college that I realized I loved learning once it was divorced from busywork. School is made for the middle. The people who struggle with acedemics get left behind yet succeed as business owners tradesmen laborers etc. but they get "told" they are not good enough from an early age because they don't fit the mold. Same happened with me. Even though my mom knew I was not low intelligence the grades never stacked up. And I wasn't good enough in my mind. There is a real problem with our education system. I came out ok but what a waste of time.

Me to!
I had the highest IQ in the class at one school.
113 and thats not that high.
I hate to think what the lowest was.

reply to post by zardust


I agree that the public school system takes a "middle road" approach for general classes and differentiates only in some cases based on iq--and measurements of iq are fraught with issues in themselves from being prejudicial against those who may have a reading disability, are ESL and so on. There's a ton of educational research, on the other hand, that supports the idea that different people learn best in different ways. They've even broken these learning styles down into three basic types--visual, auditory and tactile--and will test to see who learns best in what form. I even had professors that instructed us to find out our preferred learning style but still never applied any of that information to their class. Instead of busting up kids on a potentially flawed basis, why not actually use some of that information and divide students up based on learning style?

It'd probably work a lot better and who knows, it could end the 100 year stigma of not applying oneself.

OtherSideOfTheCoin


But guess what, kids at school like to skip class, act out to impress friends/ the opposite sex.

Or state education was an uninspiring boring failure.

Didn’t stop me getting straight A's in maths Science, history and geography but I can understand how smarter ones can be turned off because the teachers are too busy teaching too the lowest common denominator.


And I’m not surprised ATS attracts people of above average intelligence as the whole sites s based round questioning everything around us and barring the more woo woo wacko posters id say people that tend to question everything are on the whole brighter.


Ok I doubt every other person on here is !Q 155+ But I’m guessing the average IQ is likely around 120.

And no I wasnt in the "gifted" program, they called it grammer streamed in my school (Best to call it gifted so we dont confuse the poor Americans eh? Haha) Though to be fair it didnt take much to get into the program, mainly cause the rest of the school was from the local sink estates so was full of Jerry Karl like animals, not hard to shine

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Yeah standardized tests aren't great either. I had a friend bomb an important test that he knew the material much better than me. I scored 97 percentile. Test taking is a skill

reply to post by WhiteAlice


A good book on education which I recently read is "The Social Neuroscience of Education" by Louis Cozolino.

He makes the strong argument that schools have failed largely because of the industrial model their patterned after. We treat children like machines; we apply one strict inflexible model for success - and only the ones who meet that arbitrary standard "make it". What happens to the rest? THey become acculturated to underperforming, to "not being academic" or "intelligent" and so largely fail to apply themselves because the system - the culture - of the school environment enforces this response in the students. It's a self perpetuating feedback loop. And it is actually quite bad for society.

Safe relationships are a prerequisite to human fluorishing. We need it as children with our mother, with our father, and when we enter school, we need a safe relationship with our teachers - who themselves regulate the emotional tone in the classroom. Does this happen nowadays? Not always. Most teachers simply don't have the emotional stability to take control of their classrooms, or the doggedness to care about the quality of their relationship (secure, or insecure) with each of their students, even though the quality of this relationship plays a fairly large part in the developmental trajectory of students.

More needs to be done in preparing teachers for teacherhood - before we can expect major changes in how students self regulate, relate to one another, and are able to focus their minds more ably on academic success. Teachers, as Cozolino cogently argues, have to be emotionally secure; they also need to be therapists - somewhat - in the sense that they need to be more aware of the emotional dynamics which make children receptive - or unreceptive - to learning.

This is what affective neuroscience and social neuroscience is teaching us: how emotions regulate and modulate how we learn. If were stressed - we don't learn. If were preoccupied with what other kids are thinking about us, we don't learn. We have to be relaxed, joyous, and feel comfortable with others and our teachers, before we really develop the energy and interest for learning.

This is why paleo approaches to education are becoming more important, and indeed, our future education is likely to be patterned after anthropological research into how human beings best function; and the research indicates that human beings work best in small groups, with a tribal quality, led by a "wise elder".

reply to post by crazyewok


I would definitely agree that ATSers are above average intelligence. While various people around the country are "Who's Joe Biden?", people here pretty much have it down pat.

This is pretty random, but I thought participants in this thread might find it interesting. I had an acquaintance about 10 years ago that I used to play chess with at the local coffee shop. He was extremely bright (far smarter than me) and claimed he could tell a persons IQ just by looking at their signature. So one day he had a bunch of my friends and I sign our signatures and looked at them one by one and told us what he thought our IQ ranges were. We all took IQ tests shortly after just to see if he was right, and he was 100% accurate. All of his predictions were within 5 IQ points. I'm not sure how the heck he was able to do it, but it was freakishly uncanny. Has anyone ever heard of that before?

reply to post by DeadSeraph


If he didn't explain his technique, I imagine his "ability" to predict IQ based on signature was largely an imagined ability, and perhaps some suggestion was at play.