EVERYONE College-Bound?:SAT,IQ,Education, etc.

<p>

</p>

<p>So you don’t believe that intelligence really exists, right? So height, weight, arm length, sprinting times, memory, and a whole bunch of other human traits all follow a normal distribution if we took a sample of every person in the world? But ability to reason doesn’t, right? Ability to grasp complex topics, while admittedly more abstract, doesn’t really exist? A distribution wouldn’t be bell-shaped, but basically a whole bunch of people all around the same?</p>

<p>Also, I agree with your second sentence if applied to high school. The teacher’s pets and the kids who spend all their free time memorizing vocab and reading Sparknotes obtain grades due to work ethic and not intelligence. But, the kid who works really hard in physics and gets straight A’s because the teacher gives strict guidelines for test material, how does he do on the SAt II? How does he do when he goes to college and has to take Physics 102 where the professors forces understanding rather than memorization or understanding just the concepts tested on homework? I’ll tell you because I went to an Ivy League college and also took Honors courses at a state school. They don’t do well because they’re simply not smart enough. I would study for days for exams (engineering) and it would rarely matter that much. Oh it mattered, but I’d estimate around 25%, ballpark figure that matches my previous EVIDENCE (something your ad hominem attack lacks). When I took the exam, each question was completely new and I’d have to take my knowledge (gained from studying) and apply it to complex situations I’'d never seen before.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Most certainly a person’s work ethic is caused by the environment. How hard they pursue something is determined by cultural values. Thats why Asian students, even the unintelligent ones, on average, study more than say Latino students. Sorry, my sentence came out wrong. I meant that not intelligent people are not working hard enough to succeed. Even if they are working harder than smart people, they’re not working enough to match them. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my assumption. Most people, dumb or smart, don’t work for more than 60hrs a week. And yet, it probably takes much more than 60hrs to catch up. Just like how an obese person has to put much more effort to get a 6pack than say an athletically fit person. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes. I agree. Some are born smarter than others. And yes it’s likely that its hereditary as shown by twin studies. But did they force the adopted assumingly less intelligent sibling to work much harder than the smarter one? Probably not. The only causation I see is that some people are born smarter than others due to genetics. But as I mentioned above, IQ doesn’t put you in your place. It only will if you let it.</p>

<p>dontno, I always enjoy reading your point of views.</p>

<p>I agree with what you say to an extent, but I mainly differ in that I’m not so sure it’s that easy to determine where the line of “intelligent enough” lies or how fuzzy that line really is: it’s more complex than quantifying intelligence on a linear spectrum. Also, the fact that SAT Subject Tests and GPA, to my knowledge, are a stronger predictor of college success than SAT Reasoning seems to support that work ethic has a larger influence than intelligence. Of course, I’m not denying that some level of innate intelligence is necessary for college. Also, I find the Japanese and Chinese systems too invasive.</p>

<p>To answer the initial questions: no, not everyone should go to college. I feel SAT measures a combination of general intelligence (not simply innate intelligence, though that does have a strong impact, as you’ve noted) and knowledge/preparation. The college prep track should be an option for those who wish to pursue it, but we need a stronger system that provides students with the option to incline toward other career paths (I say starting in 10th or 11th grade). Disparity in intelligence exists, but I’m not sure how much of the population, assuming high motivation and work ethic, could succeed in a college environment. My guess is a high number.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No apologies necessary: as a Hispanic from a traditionally harder-working background, I’m used to seeing the massive amounts of Hispanics who simply don’t try. It’s no secret that they’re just lazy and unfocused when it comes to school, and differences in average intelligence are certainly not wide enough to account for the vast differences in achievement. This comes from their parents, as you mentioned: work ethic is definitely a nurtured trait.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If only! And the problem seems to start even earlier than high school (I hate how high schools are expected to make up for the shortcomings of middle and elementary schools). My opinion? Schools seriously need to stop being so afraid to fail students. Self-esteem may fall, but it’s no solution to just bury the problem and tread on, especially if that lessens the meaning of a high school diploma. And this is ignoring the larger problem–the fact that lack of school achievement most often starts in the home.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hold up. What exactly is the difference between SAT-specific tutoring and reading a lot of books as a kid, for example? By artificial, then, do you mean pretty much anything not genetic? I got a 2330 on the SAT’s without studying, but I sure as hell think it had something to do with years of more subtle training.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know much about statistics so forgive me, but isn’t 25% of variation a significant number? And doesn’t that tell you nothing about non-comparative IQ trends (i.e. how IQ is acting as a single unit)?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Most of the article was about the effects of differences in IQ, not the causes. Again, as no expert, I think there’s an obvious flaw in that study when they assumed that two siblings raised in the same household endure the same environment. Birth order, age of parents at birth, and so many issues of family dynamics are ignored. For example, an older child may claim the role of studious intellectual of the household, thereby directly pushing the second child to a different position to find his/her niche. Small and subtle these things may be, but, as I mentioned before, nurture and nature intertwine and reinforce each other, compacting their effects over a lifetime to produce remarkably pronounced differences in environments that ostensibly appear the “same”. Heck, let’s just suppose that an aging mother is less likely to breast feed her second child; I’ve read that breast feeding is said to account for up to 8 IQ points.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, work ethic highlights the part of the environment that we have conscious control over.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I do believe that smart people exist, but a lot of cases it’s a big chicken-or-the-egg scenario.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Intuitively, I would say intelligence comes in a bell curve. There is intelligence. People are born smarter than others, often significantly so. No one is denying that.</p>

<p>The only thing I am asserting, and which greatly separates intelligence from most other attributes, is that the brain is highly plastic. Intelligence, as an individual and as with society as a whole, is not nearly at its limits yet, so there’s no need for early slotting and SAT minimums to impose rigid barriers.</p>

<p>You mentioned height earlier. Isn’t height one of the most heritable traits? Well how much has height increased in the past century, due to environmental effects?</p>

<p>I think where coffee and I disagree is that I think work ethic comes in a bell curve too :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree somewhat. I do agree that work ethic is surely important. I agree motivation can surely help an individual overcome a deficiency in innate intelligence. You don’t do this, but i get frustrated when people, like x90 above, discard all evidence for intelligence actually existing. It does exist and it has a huge bearing on an individual’s “ceiling.” And here’s where I disagree with you.</p>

<p>Innate intelligence doesn’t “put you in your place”, it just really helps. It does however put a ceiling to one’s success (in intellectually loaded fields or activities). You can’t take an average person and make them into a successful doctor. You can’t take an average person in science and have them graduate from a top school in physics. You can’t take an average person and expect that they can graduate with honors from Yale. An average person can’t write an award winning novel or a novel that is published for that matter. Average people don’t direct Best Picture nominees or fill up the pages of the New York Times. Stupid people can’t score above, say, the 50th percentile on any kind of intellectual examination. Average people can surely be very successful, become CEO’s, become President (!), become journalists, etc. But the elite is mainly reserved for people with innate gifts.</p>

<p>Agreed or not?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The scenario you described is not how you are supposed to go about exam preparation at all. You don’t study to gain knowledge so that you can apply it to complex, never seen before problems on exams. You’re supposed to study to gain knowledge to apply to complex never seen before problems in your book or several books so you can do the same on exams. The latter is more time consuming. For example, my physics professor usually puts 4-5 completely never seen before problems on the midterms that lasts 50min. So what I would do to study is to first understand the theory, then start doing problems timed. I would go through the book; only doing the problems that looks completely unfamiliar and do five under the time limit of fifty min. If screw up. I would look at what I did wrong, strengthen my understanding, and move one to the next 5 unfamiliar problems. I would continue until I reach a consistency of successful attempts. This does take a long time, so I hit the ground running from day one. Needless to say, I’m satisfied with my grades.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, agreed. Obviously you can’t make an average person the next Einstein. But you can take the average person and have him graduate from a good state school. You can take a averagely smart person and make him become a doctor. You can take a average genius and make him the next Einstein. And for the record, I have consistently tested about two standard deviations in IQ higher than the score I have achieved as a lazy child. I may be an exception to the trends, but at least it know its not impossible.</p>

<p>OK there so I’ve got a million people disagreeing with me. I’m really not an expert in these fields. I’ve only been researching them in the past month or so. If you’d like an expert opinion, read The Bell Curve and read essays by Charles Murray like these two: [For</a> Most People, College Is a Waste of Time - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121858688764535107.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]For”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121858688764535107.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) and [AEI</a> - Short Publications - The Age of Educational Romanticism](<a href=“http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27962/pub_detail.asp]AEI”>http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27962/pub_detail.asp)</p>

<p>But i’ll brielfy respond to some.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Fine, I see what you’re saying and I usually did a similair process. But your entire scheme for studying and subseuqent conclusion is based off yourself. Only a highly intelligent person can understand the theory. It’s that simple. Look at Euler angles and tell me even someone who’s simply good at physics can master that topic. I could barely and I got an A+ in the course. And I was also satisfied with my grades (smiley face).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ironically, I’m in a very similiar situation. I wasn’t even in the top math and reading class until 4th grade. But I never denied excpetions existed.</p>

<p>@ ee: you make way too many points for me to respond to. I"ll respond to the most ineresting ones.

</p>

<p>These would all presumably cancel out across the entirety of the sample. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but it’s more like 5. And it only works for people with a certain gene carrier (if I remember correctly). Also, many of these changes disappear as a person matures. For example, the Head Start program has an effect on IQ that dissipates after a couple of years.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Good point, but I never started environment was inconsequential. But I raise your good point with a better one. All races in America have gotten taller, but are Asian-Americans (3rd generation or so as to not compound the issue) taller, on average, than blacks?</p>

<p>@ JoeTrumpet:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you and not to turn this into a mutual admiration society, I enjoy your well thoughtout responses as well. I imagine you can safely assume I’m not lying considering how honest I like to be.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The researchers who published this were from UC, the same institution attempting to get rid of the SAT. Also, many liberals hate the SAT, most likely b/c of how objective it is. On the original thread (linked on the first post), I stated some possible reasons for the results. Also, I read that there’s a correlation of 0.83 between SAT and SAT II scores. So either, I win!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wonderful. Thanks for saying it.</p>

<p>OK NOW FOR EVERYONE!</p>

<p>I can’t believe I completely missed an obvious conclusion from this study that I linked to earlier (Minnesota Twins study…): [Gene</a> Expression](<a href=“http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/IQ.php]Gene”>Gene Expression)</p>

<p>The study found genetics account for 75% of general intelligence. Then according to the next link I posted (don’t feel like copying it), IQ was very useful as a predictive measure. OK, well what about the other 25%? Well, there ya go, everyone can be satisfied: because it’s clearly accounted for by work ethic and environment. So I give conclusive data that work ethic can only bring you so far! </p>

<p>So depending on the importance you put on work ethic (I say it’s important but way way less than innate intelligence), we’ll either agree or disagree.</p>

<p>I’d like to elaborate upon ee33ee’s point about the brain’s plasticity. I recommend the book ‘The Brain That Changes Itself’ by Norman Doidge; it has several fascinating stories describing how people’s brains can be successfully ‘rewired.’ </p>

<p>

Actually, the brain can be altered such that it is more capable of understanding thought processes. Cindysphynx’s story illustrates this phenomenon (assuming, of course, that she wasn’t regurgitating example problems), although she didn’t mention (and possibly wasn’t aware of) the neuropathology behind her change in ability – the physical differences that likely occurred in her brain due to her hard work.</p>

<p>Doidge’s book describes a very similar situation, actually, not localized to math ability. (Here’s where I’m going to skim the chapter for facts and blatantly rip off Doidge, but I totally recommend checking out the book for yourself, if anyone finds this interesting.) He describes a woman who was born with severe damage to the left side of her brain (which manifested in damage to the right side of her body) and who, in childhood, was practically incapable of critical thought, also suffering problems with spatial reasoning and kinesthetic perception. </p>

<p>She had auditory and visual and memory tested in the 99th percentile, but she did not possess basic logical ability; she didn’t understand the concept of cause and effect, she could not understand the relationship between “left” and “right” or the difference between “the father’s brother” and “the brother’s father,” and she could not read a clock. She got through school relying on her memory; the most striking example of her disparity in ability is this sentence: “Before tests she prayed they would be fact-based, knowing she could score 100; if they were based on understanding relationships, she would probably score in the low teens.” </p>

<p>She graduated and went to a university, where teachers soon recognized her inabilities but noticed her gifts in other areas; she was incredibly observant in the child-observation laboratory and was asked to teach the course. She then attended graduate school, where she typically had to read a research paper twenty or so times, and consult many of its sources, before she could grasp its meaning. </p>

<p>One day, in graduate school, she read of neuroscientists’ work on similar patients. She read of a case in which a soldier had been shot in the head and survived but with massive damage to the left side of his brain; after the injury, he was unable to grasp the idea of prepositions, logic, spacial relationships, etc. Luria, the neuroscientist who wrote of this man, realized that the bullet had lodged in the left hemisphere, at the place where the temporal lobe (which processes sound and language), the occipital lobe (which processes visual images), and the parietal lobe (which processes spatial relationships and other sensory information) meet. This man was capable of perceiving properly but could not appropriately make sense of his perceptions. </p>

<p>Back to the main character in the story: Now, she knew where the problem was in her brain. But while she had an explanation, she didn’t have anything to do about it. But one day, when she was twenty-eight and still in graduate school, she read an article about neuroplasticity (demonstrated in an experiment in which the brains of rats brought up in more stimulating environments had a greater number of neurotransmitters, were heavier, and had better blood supply than those of rats brought up in less stimulating environments.) She realized that the brain could be modified.</p>

<p>K, so if you were skimming the post until now, start reading here. After this woman realized that the brain could be modified, she decided to work on her own. She isolated herself and worked hard for weeks and weeks, practicing her greatest challenge: relating symbols to each other. One of her exercises involved reading cards picturing clock faces with different times; she spent hours trying to understand the relationship between the picture and the time without memorization. Many of the posters in this thread probably believe that someone who is incapable of reading clocks at twenty-eight is hopeless in terms of succeeding at anything that involves basic reasoning ability. But this woman tried and tried until she understood the concept and could eventually read clocks faster than a normal person. And as a result of this understanding, she began to understand grammar, math, and logic. After this success, she designed exercises for her other disabilities, like her trouble with spacial reasoning and knowing where her limbs were, and brought them up to average or above-average level. She wasn’t memorizing – she was developing ability by stimulating her brain. </p>

<p>She went on to found The Arrowsmith School, a special-education program dedicated not to compensation for lack of ability but to developing reasoning ability; one of its primary exercises is a computerized version of the clock practice that she used to train herself. </p>

<p>I know that I could have summarized this in like a paragraph, lol, but I find it fascinating and hope other people will find it interesting, too. (The woman’s name is Barbara Arrowsmith Young, if you want to read more about her.) </p>

<p>So, yeah, just wanted to demonstrate that it is literally possible to build yourself a better brain. Countless animal studies demonstrate the physical manifestation of mental stimulation, and it’s no doubt observable in humans, too. Improvement can be quantified by measuring number of connections among neurons, brain mass, etc. </p>

<p>Of course, in the context of this thread, it is necessary to acknowledge that people who are naturally capable of higher reasoning skills are at an advantage. Buttt you can’t say that someone who gets a bad score on a test will, without fail, be unsuccessful in this area, because he or she is just not capable of higher thinking.</p>

<p>OK one last item. It’s always in the context of intellectual ability/achievement where people are unwilling to put any type of stringent limits. </p>

<p>In physical strength, athletic ability, memorization, musical acumen, etc, everyone agrees that work ethic can significantly improve one’s ability. But people don’t generally make analogous statements as offered in this thread regarding intelligence. If an individual is in his high school band and is 5th chair, but in the top band at the school. So he’s good, but nothing to write home about. The instructors isn’t going to encourage him to practice as much as he can because if he does so, he’ll have a shot at All-State. Come on, that would be mean. I could give a million other situations similiar to that one. One more for good measure then. A guy is 25 years old and weighs 150 lbs and is very skinny with barely any musculature. He goes to a trainer and says give me 10 years of extensive training, nutrition, etc (no steroids of which there’s no equivalent for intelligence, well not yet) and after that’s over, I want to be 200 lbs, with minimal fat gain. The trainer would discourage such unfettered ambition. Maybe the guy can gain 20 lbs, but with his genetics, significant muscle gain is unattainable.</p>

<p>Yet with intelligence, we’re always so unwilling to say the exact same thing.</p>

<p>@ Poseur:</p>

<p>Interesting. But of course I must rain on your parade a little. Clearly, she’s an extreme case.</p>

<p>But neuroplasticity does not go against my 25% value for non-genetic factors. It can be included in that. Soduku puzzles, crosswords, just schooling in general (all part of neuroplasticity exercerices I presume) are well within that 25% figure. </p>

<p>But you don’t actually believe someone can go from state school to Princeton (not Harvard, right Joe?) because they learned a new language or two as a child, right? And I’ve read learning a new language is the most neurologically beneficial exercise one can do. And please don’t tell me it’s simply memorization because it’s far from that.</p>

<p>Hey, if you want to define a finite limit of “intelligence” (which by the way is much more multifaceted and not as easily quantifiable as physical strength or the features which you described in your other posts: height, weight, arm length, sprinting times, etc.), I’d be fascinated in your results. No one’s really proven one yet, though… brain plasticity is a recent discovery and I doubt anyone’s successfully tested its limits!</p>

<p>Oh, and I don’t think that going from not being able to understand a clock to above-average reasoning ability falls within 25%. </p>

<p>Of course, she’s an extreme case, as most people are unwilling to go through the intensive training necessary for such a drastic change. But once this capacity for improvement has been proven, you can’t describe such things as impossible – unless, of course, you think that her brain was more capable of plasticity than the average one…?</p>

<p>edit: Oh, I didn’t see your edit before. Well, first of all, the difference between getting into a state school and Princeton nowadays might be luck… but aside from that, I really can’t say. Do I think that someone who gets mediocre grades at a state university could train himself intellectually to the point of being capable of excelling in classes at Princeton? Absolutely.</p>

<p>intelligence does not equal to success. SAT does not measure intelligence.</p>

<p>it’s as simple as that. </p>

<p>Many intelligent people don’t really try, and as a result doesn’t do well in school (like me, well i’m not that smart, but above average for sure).</p>

<p>Also, despite what people say, SAT is NOT a measurement of intelligence. No matter how smart you are, you still won’t know what those crazy CR words mean. Nor will you do very good on the grammar section without having learned all the arbitrary grammatical rules. It’s the same for math.</p>

<p>The people who take classes and get 2400 SAT is no is impressive than a person who didn’t. </p>

<p>I know people who’s parents force them to read shakespeare and the alike when they were in grade 7, and find EVERY SINGLE WORD that they didn’t 100% understand and know how to spell. Sure, they’ll do well in SAT even if they didn’t take classes, but really, there’s no difference from taking classes, except they had to cover a bunch of extra stuff. </p>

<p>SAT is a measure of how much you know, not a measure of intelligence. It’s really hard to measure intelligence, especially when there are people who are smarter than those who invented the IQ tests.</p>

<p>I think I agree with you to an extent (and your argument was much more coherent when I got around your typo and realized that you meant “The people who take classes and get 2400s are NO MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN those who don’t take classes”), but let me play devil’s advocate here: </p>

<p>Isn’t everyone, with the exceptions of those who were brought up with little to no education, provided with the tools necessary to answer every question on the SAT? What if it’s a matter of information retention and application as opposed to knowledge? I mean, not everyone goes out of his or her way to study vocabulary or “arbitrary grammatical rules”; these are the types of things that one picks up throughout life. And isn’t the ability to pick up on these things and apply them when necessary closely correlated with intelligence?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s very possible that her brain is capable of plasticity while the average person’s is not. Mind I tell you, she had an extremely rare abnormality in the first place. However, I agree that the most people can increase their intellect. To see this, we would have to look at normal people. I posted this article earlier in this thread, but no one paid attention. [url=<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080605163804.htm]Plastic”>Plastic Brain Outsmarts Experts: Training Can Increase Fluid Intelligence, Once Thought To Be Fixed At Birth | ScienceDaily]Plastic</a> Brain Outsmarts Experts: Training Can Increase Fluid Intelligence, Once Thought To Be Fixed At Birth<a href=“for%20the%20record,%20I%20didn’t%20expound%20on%20it%20earlier%20because%20I%20wanted%20to%20argue%20dontno%20with%20the%20premise%20that%20IQ%20is%20fixed%20and%20show%20that%20hard%20work%20prevails.%20Then,%20I%20would%20eventually%20bring%20forth%20the%20argument%20of%20plasticity”>/url</a>. Basically this shows that a person can increase their IQ by improving their fluid intelligence; something crucial for understanding relationships between concepts and objects. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is to a degree. I read somewhere that the SAT has a .7(not sure, don’t remember exactly) correlation to IQ(Meyers, intro to psychology). But there’s really no cause for concern. Firstly, as new research has shown, intelligence can be improved and hence SAT scores as well. And even if one can’t increase one’s natural intellect, one can certainly increase his SAT scores by studying and memorizing almost every type of problem and word that shows up on the test. This would take much longer and the score would be “fake”. But it doesn’t matter.</p>

<p>But really, I don’t think that the average Joe can be molded into Einstein. Thats just too much of a difference. Even if their IQ are equivalent, their discrepancy in creative powers are salient. Creativity is positively correlated to IQ up to until an IQ of 120 is reached(meyers, intro to psychology). After that, there really isn’t any relation. Some people have relatively low IQ( i.e Richard Feynman-IQ 123), and yet displays profound creativity. Now, there might be a way to increase creativity though. Perhaps someone else can expound upon that.</p>

<p>in response to #33, many people DO go out of their way to study vocab, though not just for SATs. Most of those words just don’t show up enough for you to understand the meaning without actually checking it up, or trying to learn new vocab. Also, it also depends on the teachers. I have NEVER learned any grammar. The only grammatical rules I abide by is weather it sounds “right” or not. You can’t really just “pick up” grammar. You have to have learned it, and if your teachers don’t teach you, then you have to take SAT classes, or find other means of learning it. </p>

<p>No matter what, you had to have learned it, it doesn’t come naturally like logical reasoning. </p>

<p>and while the “ability to pick up on these things and apply them when necessary closely correlated with intelligence”, you can’t really pick up something you have never seen before.</p>

<p>I disagree. I have no other way of telling you why I disagree than to tell you this: I didn’t get an 80 on the Writing MC by learning and memorizing grammar rules. With rare exceptions (most of which occurred in my junior year after I took the SAT), I’ve never learned anything about grammar in school, aside from the fancy names for everything. Most of the grammatical rules that we learn in class are just common sense to me. Instead, I was able to notice the errors in the sentences because, as a function of having a firm grasp on the English language, the errors were clear to me. I didn’t think, “hey, we learned in school that the subject and verb should agree!!!”; I was able to recognize this (no doubt from a young age) by having read books and picked up on patterns. </p>

<p>“I have NEVER learned any grammar. The only grammatical rules I abide by is weather it sounds ‘right’ or not.”
Exactly. And on what is this instinct based? The grammatical rules that you’ve picked up on by reading.</p>

<p>“you can’t really pick up something you have never seen before.”
I don’t want to turn this personal, but again, I disagree based on my own experience. I didn’t get an 800 on CR by memorizing vocab; I just happened to know most of the words that showed up on the test. When I didn’t know a word, usually I knew the other choices or could make a reasonable guess based on what the word sounded like it may mean. </p>

<p>I don’t think that lower scorers have “never seen” these words before; I think that they have failed to retain the words they’ve seen as well as higher scorers. Of course, information retention is a function of how much exposure one has gotten to a certain topic, which is why avid readers typically do better in CR. (I read a lot in elementary and middle school, for the record. I guess I “learned more” and had an unfair advantage in taking the SAT… sorry. You’re right; my score is far less impressive than that of someone who is illiterate.) </p>

<p>That said, I don’t think that the SAT is representative of intelligence. I just think that the “your SAT score depends on what you’ve been directly exposed to” argument has holes.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>No, I didn’t say that. I do believe intelligence exists, but, between successful students and mediocre students in most school systems, I wouldn’t cite intelligence as the dividing factor. I just don’t believe that success in school is indicative of it. There are people who just aren’t suited for the rigid, flawed academic environment and hence have little interest in it. Who is to say that those who’ve succeeded are more intelligent? </p>

<p>If I didn’t know better, I’d probably have the mentality that more successful students are more intellectually gifted, but I have met some brilliant people, who, while apathetic towards the school environment, are far more intelligent and capable than their book-smart counterparts.</p>

<p>@ CoffeeBreak: When you said “the average Joe” and “Einstein,” I thought that you were speaking only in terms of intelligence. But I see we’re in agreement as far as neuroplasticity. </p>

<p>I didn’t even take creative ability into account, but you’re right; it would be interesting to learn more about that! Creative plasticity… :]</p>

<p><a href=“I%20read%20a%20lot%20in%20elementary%20and%20middle%20school,%20for%20the%20record.%20I%20guess%20I%20%22learned%20more%22%20and%20had%20an%20unfair%20advantage%20in%20taking%20the%20SAT…%20sorry.%20You’re%20right;%20my%20score%20is%20far%20less%20impressive%20than%20that%20of%20someone%20who%20is%20illiterate.”>quote</a>

[/quote]
umm… i didn’t say that. What I meant was people who took classes didn’t … cheat for their 800s. After the classes, they learned the material just like any other 800 who didn’t take the classes. It’s just that what they learned is mostly limited to SAT and the people who didn’t take classes learned other things besides the SAT stuff. </p>

<p>I don’t like languages, and I rarely read. However, I love mathematics, and it comes very naturally to me. Does that make me less intelligent because I don’t read a lot and thus didn’t pick up that many words? Am I stupid and illiterate because I have to take classes to learn some grammar and words? ( Chinese grammar is different from english… so it’s probably easier for you because I’m assuming you were born here). I have never learned any math in school because it was too easy and I’m lazy so I don’t pay attention in school. However, I still score higher than everyone else and top 1% in math competitions. But ofcourse, I’m very stupid because I can’t pick up on words that I never seen or ever will.</p>

<p>Question: How does a learning disability play into I.Q. test results? Will it still give an accurate reflection of a person’s true I.Q. or will it prevent a person from displaying their I.Q. to its full potential?</p>