is "late bloomer" something that can happen or is it another term genetically irresponsible parents use to convince themselves this inferior low IQ child is going to be a worthwhile investment?
are autism and delayed development a common occurrence among the children of older parents?
seeing as the breeding age among whites is increasing will this be a problem down the line?
>genetically irresponsible parents
>projecting this hard
It's a known fact that men develop slower than women. Asians and white people also develop slower than blacks. Arthur Schopenhauer (not exactly the most credible source ever, I know) said that the greater someone is, the longer it takes for them to develop. Geniuses by his reckoning weren't at their prime until near-thirty.
I don't know about late blooming, but I do know that i had absolutely no motivation for academics until I had a proper math teacher. That took until I was 16, now I'm all set to graduate with my math B.S. at age 20.
Live your dreams, sci
but what about neuroplasticity?
Hey man I know you don't feel smart but the more you work at it the better you get. If you think you are limited in intelligence you will be. Just work and work and work on what you want to know and if you are obsessive enough you will be considered "smart". Hell I'm pretty average, really, but cause I devote absurd amounts of time to information gathering and learning it makes me seem really smart. Just practice and practice.
Can't it be both?
Can't late-bloomers be a real thing that stupid people use as an excuse?
Why the fuck are you getting your images from tumblr?
i think OP was asking more about the plausibility of wide scale late bloomers vs. just dumb kids being passed off as late bloomers.
I get that, and both could be a possibility.
Kinda like how a lot of fat people say it's genetic.
While there are people who are genetically predisposed to be fat, there are a lot more people who CLAIM to be genetically predisposed.
...
>now I'm all set to graduate with my math B.S. at age 20.
ye but which University?
I am doing much better in my master's than in my bachelor. I understand more, I care more, things actually seem easy, I get much better results.
Maybe it's because I find the material more interesting though.
The current schooling system in most places means there can be a significant age gap between the oldest and youngest child in a class.
In the UK for example, the cutoff date for each school year is the 1st of September and schooling starts at four, so you go to school if you're four years old on September the first - regardless of whether your birthday is the 31st of August or the 2nd of September. The youngest in a class may therefore be almost an entire year younger than the oldest, which at that point is a 25% increase in age during a time of massive development. Younger children are simply less equipped to deal with the educational demands being made of them, and this early disparity lasts all through early schooling - often manifesting as 'ADHD-like' symptoms and lower test scores. A similar, even worse effect is seen in premature babies, especially those born around August. Instead of being the oldest of one year, they're now the youngest of the previous on top of being born prematurely, which carries with it its own associated age-associated developmental problems.
Anecdotal evidence as it may be, my friend has his birthday in July and he told me that up to year six (5th grade for Americans) he was as dumb as a bag of rocks, couldn't concentrate in class, the teachers thought he was an idiot, etc. Then he moved up to secondary school (at which point the age difference was not so much) and with the fresh start he suddenly started doing well in classes. Now he's in the second year of his BSc. So late bloomers are definitely a thing, although it's less individuals suddenly having an unprompted burst of intellectual development and more people who always could have been intelligent suddenly breaking past their disadvantages.
Who's that above Newton and Langan?
John Von Neumann.
List is kind of bad, memes aside.
I was diagnosed when I was fifteen with IQ 215, but sadly, I am lazy.
I'm 119 , damn :C
Better try your luck again.
Maybe you'll draw a 140, who knows?
IQ is a retard test, literally. It's there to assess if you have brain problems. Being autistically good at pattern recognition doesn't mean your really really intelligent. More likely you're an edge case the retard test can't pick up on and fail you.
...
IQ and more specifically G factor is the single most accurate determining factor of future success and happiness. please stop perpetuating this nigger meme.
It's both.
Schooling in this society is more about "Who can do the most busywork" or "Who can provide the most consistent effort across an entire term" as opposed to, "Who's the best naturally at this?"
Like that time I went to uni at 16 and was forced to take participation grade classes that required busywork to make up 1/3rd to 1/2 of my credit count.
IQ test determines whether or not you're good at school, but good in school =/= likely to succeed in life.
In the US you can be a UPS driver and make literally 100k a year. You can cut that job if you have an IQ of 58.
All you have to do to get there is stay around and rank up in their union for 5-8 years making peanuts.
Whereas if you go to uni for 8 years to get a super fancy Physics Ph.D there's no guarantees of getting a job. And if you do it's not likely to be 100k a year or more.
Higher standard of living leads to lower quality of life.
Vaguely. Past a thresh hold of high IQ, exactly where you fall doesn't matter.
>"some individuals with high IQ's can be depressed and low achieving sometimes!"
no shit.
verywell.com
pumpkinperson.com
the problem lies with the fact that IQ scores are not statistically translatable between tests, and most tests have no actual standards for intelligence.
the common problem with almost all IQ tests is that they exist to boost the ego, ie they are "feel good" tests.
unless you specifically go out of your way to take a test designed to measure IQ in the 160 range, chances are you took a feel-good online test.
people score 140s on online tests and think that actually means they have genius or near genius level of intelligence, but they dont consider what those numbers were actually being compared to.
how many people who have taken "IQ tests" have actually done so in a proctored environment set by a legitimate genius-tier IQ society (mega, mensa, prometheus etc)?
probably less than 1%, i'd wager.
therein lies the problem. IQ scores do not translate between tests. an IQ of 140 on iqtest.com does not equal an IQ of 140 on a true proctored test.
and then how many people actually took a mensa-level test or greater?
a few thousand?
does a few thousand accurately represent 7 billion people?
does a 140 IQ on a test measured from 10,000 people mean you have a genius level IQ compared to 7,400,000,000?
if you think so, you might want to reconsider that "140 IQ"
and what about the tests themselves? the hardest IQ tests arent even timed, you're given upwards of a month to solve them. but online tests are usually 15-25 minutes. and the material? usually 140 IQ tier tests are just matrices, but the harder IQ society tests are all word problems with virtually no pattern recognition involved.
there's really no actual coordination or consistency involved in IQ testing, so there is no reason to assume the tests are good for anything other than an ego boost unless you specifically take a "real" IQ test to join a real genius tier IQ society
Obviously the state in which your brain remains plastic lasts longer if you are developing more slowly as a whole
I've never heard "late bloomer" used in this context. I always thought it referred to physical development/maturation.
>Calling me a retard
Big words from someone with the reading comprehension of a dingleberry
the trend generally is that higher iq people are happier and have a higher mean income. this is factual. you can pick all the cherries you want freindo.
>It's a known fact that men develop slower than women.
s/fact/lie
fixed it for you
>how many people who have taken "IQ tests" have actually done so in a proctored environment set by a legitimate genius-tier IQ society (mega, mensa, prometheus etc)?
i have taken a WAIS IV
no one is talking about online tests, everyone knows they aren't real.
,
It doesn't sound amazing if you say it like that.
Repeat after me: "You all are brainlets"
Does the children's version carry over to adults? I took as part of an ADHD diagnosis.
Then why am I lazy and a failure if they tested me and got 135?
Nobody needs an IQ test to tell that you're a dumbass
Am i smart enough Veeky Forums?
>getting less than 140 on that shitty meme test
I really hope you didn't put any effort into it
can we name even one genius (IQ 160+) who wasnt depressed af and lonely?
maybe when they say high IQ they mean 130s (IQtest.com high) and not actually high (markedly intelligent).
>>tfw 139 iq but too much of a faggot to get straight A's in upper level math and physics classes.
>is "late bloomer" something that can happen
It's possible when a talented person gets screwed over early in life enough to hinder them, but not so badly that they're permanently damaged.
If a parent is using it as an excuse for their kid, it should be seen as an admission that they fucked up somehow.
>he runs faster than everyone else. he's fast!
Veeky Forums is okay with this
>he lifts more weight than everyone else. he's strong!
Veeky Forums is okay with this
>he solved all the problems correctly, and faster than everyone else who also solved them all correctly. he's smart!
WOOOOAH WOAHHH WOAH. Hold up man. IQ IS NOT an OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE. EASY THERE BUDDY. SOME PEOPLE CAN BE DEPRESSED and HAVE IQ, therefore IQ is not a good measurement for ALL PEOPLE. Check yourself man- IQ is just about ego not intelligence.
Take your pedophile cartoons back to .
why would a 135 IQ person need the concept of outliers explained to them.
>there aren't enough asians on the NBA, we need more affirimative action.
false analogy, brainlet. you're conflating performance in an IQ test with intelligence in general.
What you're saying:
>he runs faster than everyone : therefore he's faster than everyone else at everything