http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-463539/Two-year-old-Matilda-youngest-girl-Mensa.html
Her parents knew Georgia Brown was bright. After all, she could count to ten, recognised her colours and was even starting to dabble with French.... According to an expert in gifted children, Georgia is the brightest two-year-old she has ever met.
Very bright little girl. Thoughts?
That’s interesting. But what was on this test other then drawing circles , recognizing colors and such? Guess I was a little confused.
My oldest was very much like this when she was growing up. She talked around 9 months , had the ability ( and still does ) memorizing long songs , like Shirley Temple and was singing them by a year old. Was reading at the age of 3 ( though she lost this because I didn’t know at the time I needed to really follow up on that). The one thing though is that if the mom doesn’t continue to harness what her little girl has she is going to lose it. My oldest did , sadly. Though she is still very intuitive. I wish I had the knowledge I had now back then when I had my three older children. Learning would be so much easier for them now. Granted my 3rd daughter has gotten 2nd honors this year all year and will most likely get 1st by the end of the year here ( which is all A’s).
Anyways I don’t see how those things compare to the intelligence of someone like Stephen Hawkings?
I do think she’s bright because I think ALL young children are bright! But like you, I wondered what else is on this test. My first thought? If it’s only what is written in this article, then half of the BrillKids babies should be admitted into Mensa! But these are industry standard IQ tests that do not incorporate reading skills at this age, so it must be more spatial reasoning, compare & contrast, recognition and so forth.
I am not particularly pro-IQ testing. They say if the child is being stimulated accordingly, there are no benefits to the label. But G & T programs are supposedly easier to enter in K level when the pool is wide open, versus later in the elementary years when spaces may only open up as kids move away or change schools. (This will vary by public/private and school districts of course). Even so, that would not occur until right before school begins.
And Tracy, you are very right, if not stimulated further, I too believe she will likely most not continue to progress, or at least as rapidly as she has during the brain building years.
From everything I have read:
-IQ does not stabilize until later elementary age (7-8ish if I remember correctly) so preschool entry IQ tests for elite institutions are semi-invalid to begin with. But when accepted, the kids will receive a higher quality education which will in turn “make” them intellectually superior if they were not already in the first place. Like Suzuki teaches with no admittance tests, all children can excel to their full potential if simply given an opportunity.
-IQ scores can be paid for depending on who you hire to do the test. Like any field, this kind of thing exists. I am certainly not saying all are invalid or implying that this one was (On the contrary, I believe it was as legitimate as the test itself is), but this was something discussed in Nurture Shock or Hot House Kids, I forget which. Some affluent parents feel a “need” their kids to get accepted to the “right” schools, and this is one way to ensure it happens.
-IQ scores can be dependent on mood and people test differently if they are happy and/or motivated (even bribed!) to do well.
-The teacher’s/parent’s perception of the child’s IQ plays a MUCH bigger role than we think.
I am in the middle of a book now called “The Happiness Advantage” which discusses a study on supposed IQ tests. Here’s a fascinating excerpt:
...One of the most well-known psychology experiments ever performed. A team of researchers led by Robert Rosenthal went into an elementary school and administered intelligence tests to the students. The researchers then told the teachers in each of the classrooms which students- say Sam, Sally, and Sarah- the data had identified as academic superstars, the ones with the greatest potential for growth. They asked the teachers not to mention the results of the study to the students, and not to spend any more or less time with them. (And, in fact, the teachers were warned they would be observed to ensure they did not.) At the end of the year, the students were tested again, and indeed, Sam, Sally, and Sarah posted off-the-chart intellectual ability.This would be a predictable story, except for an O. Henry type twist at the end. When Sam, Sally, and Sarah had been tested at the beginning of the experiment, they were found to be absolutely, wonderfully [i]ordinary[/i]. The researchers had randomly picked their names and then lied to the teachers about their ability. But after the experiment, they had in fact turned into academic superstars. So what caused these students to be out of the ordinary? Although the teachers said nothing to these children and had spent equal amounts of time with everyone, two crucial things had happened. The belief the teachers had in the students' potential had been unwittingly and non-verbally communicated. More important, these nonverbal messages were then digested by the students and transformed into reality. This phenomenon is called the Pygmalion Effect: when our belief in another person's potential brings that potential to life...The expectations we have about our children, co-workers, and spouses - whether or not they are ever voiced- can make that expectation a reality.</blockquote>Another interesting article (particularly the section on Early Development of Reading):
I am content to just go on and educate my kids knowing they are bright without a label, whether they “deserve” one or not is irrelevent. They have MY LABEL of being the absolute most wonderful, favorite kids in the world.
But this article did make me do a double take and wonder how “Doman kids” would stack up. But it goes against everything I think I believe in, and against what I believe is good for the child. Interesting article nonetheless.
I agree with you TmT! I think most of the brillkids kids would make it on to the gifted list!. I didn’t really think much of the test and whose to say exactly what is in the test.
All children are bright and as Doman says every child has the ability to become a genius you just have to give them the right environment to thrive in.
Kimba
Absolutely , it is interesting and that very thought entered my mind as well. I find your quote interesting. I think if teachers today would do what the experiment’s purpose was we would have a lot more children out there who suceed and reach their full potential. But as long as teachers in brick and mortar schools don’t accept this then children will just down right fail. And who knows? Any one of their students could be a the person to cure cancer , or achieve something great.
I know I have this very issue with my daughter’s preschool teacher. The school claimed to allow the children to work at their pace but I found it to be opposite. My daughter is being pushed to work at everyone else’s pace. She reads pretty well now. At least at an early 1st grade level ( I haven’t tested her , I’m just going by the levels on the books she is reading) but her teacher refused to put her in the reading group, drilled and killed her on the alphabet (which she already knew) and not until the end of the year did she finally put her in the reading group once everyone else was in the reading group. Then to top it off they spend weeks on one small little book that she reads and reads repeatedly over to me at home in one sitting. Then the teacher has the gull to complain she reads to fast ( well its too easy, duh?). And says she doesn’t comprehend, which just isn’t true because she answers questions I ask or comments on what she does read. So until that type of thinking is changed with , let’s challenge the kids a little more. Then nothing is going to be accomplished. I’m very greatful for the fact that I’m willing to go that extra mile to let her do what she is able to and challenge her at home. I’ll admit school has been a very interesting experience for my family. I do know I will be at least keeping her home.
I am not entirely sure what I believe about this. I know there are child prodigies who reach all milestones very very early and no amount of stimulation of most children can accomplish this. While talking to a baby may make them speak earlier, it cannot guarantee it and even if you say the numbers 1-10 to 30 different children the same amount of times while babies they will be able to say it themselves at different ages.
That said though, if you do NOT stimulate a child then they are likely to meet the milestones much later and the fact is that opening lots of brain pathways younger should stimulate a better intellectual ability later.
I suffer from depression on and off and once had a test very similar to an IQ test while depressed - I scored very high on the part of test where I just had to give an answer - mental maths and associations, but when it came to things where I had to solve problems using my hands or give verbal answers I scored very badly (it related to social functioning) and this was an indication that my IQ was high but I was functioning very poorly because of the depression. A simple IQ test therefore, like others have said, can be influenced by your emotional state that day.
The fact that “brighter” students get better teachers and better opportunities to learn is the real problem - it would be best if everyone could get individual attention by someone who supports the person and believes in them and can work to their level inspiring them to do better. This is possibly the reason that homeschooling is becoming more popular - even then you have to hope that parents will believe enough in their children to give them the right opportunities and be able to help them where they need help and encourage them to achieve what they can.
TmT, I find your attitude refreshing. And the general attitudes about children here on the forum.
Tracy, we are having similar issues with our 4 year old at school. Though, behavioral “stuff” has crept in, as it did with me in school.
I think kids need curriculum that matches their needs with a teacher who believes in them. “gifted”/delayed, whatever. Every kid would do better.
Hmm, H. couldn’t do any of the things this little girl could do when she did them. For example, being able to respond correctly to the request, “Hand me two blocks or ten blocks” is something I wouldn’t have expected H. to be able to do at two. I mean, “Hand me two blocks,” sure. But I’m pretty sure “Hand me two blocks or ten blocks” would have elicited a puzzled stare. And dressing himself at 14 months? Don’t make me laugh. I mean, I’m sure that knowing the main colors at age two isn’t hard for many children who has been repeatedly exposed to the information. But this says she could distinguish pink and purple, which is something most kids can’t do until later. Can someone with a two-year-old who knows his/her colors check to see he/she can distinguish pink and purple, in particular?
There is one thing that’s silly about the story, though. IQ tests before the age of five or seven or so are notoriously unreliable and unstable (as TMT says). Her IQ score could easily go up or down. What if she winds up at age ten with an IQ of 110, and no longer qualifies? Mensa, of all organizations, should know not to admit children before their IQ scores can be counted on to have stabilized.
She’s clearly a very, very bright girl for her age, right now. Her native ability (yes, I believe there is such a thing; twin studies establish that intelligence is mostly inherited) is probably much greater, at present, than that of most of our children. (Not all–there are some little ones out there that sound like they could easily give this little girl a run for her money, so to speak.)
Frankly, I don’t like claims that “all children are geniuses.” I understand the point people are driving at: children are capable of learning far more than is ordinarily understood, and the abilities they can demonstrate, if property trained, are akin to the abilities demonstrated by “untrained” child prodigies. But come on, let’s not fool ourselves. I’m hard-nosed and realistic about this: the genuine child geniuses catch on faster, and learn things on first showing, not repeated showings. That doesn’t mean that there’s no point to teaching a child with “average expected intelligence” (to coin a phrase). I’m sure you can improve a child’s intelligence somewhat, but more importantly, you can make it much easier for such a child to learn and remember.
Here’s a way to put my point. Suppose you had twins, separated at birth, Norman (for “normal”) and Gene (for “genius”). Norman receives an ordinary middle-class upbringing, without much special early learning. Gene gets the most effective early training that you can imagine, whatever that looks like. Next, suppose that Norman, after an ordinary, decent education, has an IQ of 100. I’m guessing that Gene would have a slightly higher IQ than 100, and that he would do better and be more motivated in school than Norman. What I am not convinced of is that it is even in the realm of possibility that Gene will become a certifiable genius, with an IQ of 140 or higher. The only circumstance in which Gene has an IQ over 140 is if Norman’s IQ is well over 100.
Am I wrong?
Off topic somewhat, I did not realize that telling the difference between pink and purple considered an advanced skill Just tried it with my girl, 2 years and 4 months and she did it with a few different objects. Fun to realize something your child does is not a common occurrence 
Yay! l :yes:
Is telling the difference between purple and pink really that unusual for children exposed to early teaching on colours? My daughter just turned 2 in April and she’s known the difference for at least the past month. She likes to ask for specific colours when doing drawings with colouring pens. I hadn’t paid it much attention!!!
But certainly many of the other things (e.g. talking in full sentences and using complex words) are not something she is ready for just yet!
This is an interesting post. I wonder what are the benefits of being a member of Mensa.
This link has some neuro-developmental milestones based videos. You can use it to see where your kids stand.
http://library.med.utah.edu/pedineurologicexam/html/home_exam.html
My girl seem to like “big” words. I am sure due to everyone’s reaction when she is using them. Kids love attention, and when they figure out something brings more of it lol , they will repeat, and repeat, and repeat again!
When she just turned two, while we were visiting friends, they put some children’s program on their TV. She looked at it for a few minutes, and when they asked her if she liked it she said, “No, I rather watch the Alphabet of Science” ( her favorite video at a time). They thought it was so advanced, but from my observation, most of the children on this forum are pretty advanced in their speech and judgment of situation. It just depends on the input we give them.
Also, like someone else mentioned earlier, we can not judge IQ or development on just one skill or factor. My daughter never crawled for example, but she was early talker and walker. My son is a crawler and tactile learner. They are so different.
I wonder if ‘giftedness’ is just early left brain development? As it seems to me that all the things to judge early giftedness is very left brain so to speak? Any opinions