Well, I wouldn't want my child to be too intelligent, because it can be very isolating. As a child, I mean early childhood, I was critically evaluating behavior, considering medical solutions, early talker, and anytime I would tell anyone what I was thinking, adults, the people at a high angle upward, it would frighten them. One of the first lessons I learned in life was not to share thoughts and ideas, and I basically played stupid to create a comfort level. Fitting in was out of the question, I tried so hard, and the harder I tried, the harder it was to fit in. This is not something to wish on any child. Never do I take childhood for granted or what level of thinking some little child may be at. I have wondered if it may be common for very young children to be functioning at a high level of intelligence that cannot be expressed, so isn't realized or identified, because communication skills haven't developed. As a child ages, and noise from the world increases, it interferes with some kind of reception "out there" that the child is connected to. Of course, this is a shot into darkness on my end, but it is what seems to happen. Being solely intuitive at birth, babies may have access to all knowledge in the universe, while not in a state to use it. To me, the key would be to keep the intuitive state at birth alive while acquiring knowledge and the ability to communicate. If I could pick a goal for our species, that would be in, in the hopes that connection to universal knowledge through intuition would allow access to advanced solutions that is not accessible to us as dulled adults. I would want my child to fit in, first and foremost, to have the best chance of fitting in. Considering the alternative of all children being of high intelligence (which they may be initially) AND holding on to intelligence with an intuitive connection, if everyone grew up in this state, different home environments and problems could lead to high stakes battles between formiddable adversaries. I'm not sure that I want every person out there in the world to have extraordinary intelligence.
Which of these would you prefer for your child: unhealthy, healthy, healthiest? Well, if someone is extremely healthy, they might not fit in. Also, it's not health that determines how far you get in life, but ambition and the drive to succeed.There's a bit of faulty logic in what I just used, and a bit of faulty logic in what most of you are saying when you support lower than maximum IQs.
I picked IQ as a surrogate for intelligence- presumably whatever an IQ test measures has some correlation with problem solving abilities. I'd like my kid to be as good as possible at solving problems. Hence 180 in hopes an IQ like that would mean they were good as solving problems
Bingo, IQ is a bell curve. OK I have 3 children, the oldest is considered gifted and my guess is the younger two are as well. For example, my youngest could recite the alphabet by 2. Critics will say that proves nothing, but my point here is that bright children are a lot of work. Possibly as much work - or more - than intellectually challenged children. I, as a parent, am definitely NOT WORTHY of having a genius child. And that's all I want to say ;.)
IQ is not a scale of intelligence. IQ is a scale of comparison. According to the mathematics of IQ, for instance, it's impossible for a population with 1 million people to have an IQ above a certain level (perhaps 170), and that's only possible if every single person in that population is tested. For someone to have an IQ of 180, you would need virtually every single person in the United States to take an IQ test, and the very smartest person would have an IQ of 180. There is probably some hyperbole in this claim, I didn't bother to verify the exact numbers. However, an IQ in that range is not possible to measure right now, and would be so rare that a word for it wouldn't be useful.
if all the kids are 160+ iq then none of them will not fit in.. for they will all have the same social dysfunctionalities... yay! and then it will be the 'cool' kids who dont kit in, and the pocket protector will be the new cigarette for standard of 'cool' i dont know.. im only 17, leave me alone
Those of you with higher IQ levels are making good arguments (j/k) however; I can't justify the social alienation of a child simply because a higher IQ value is deemed "superior". It's my understanding that an IQ value is a good baseline for comprehension while the ability to learn references that baseline. I would select 160 and be very curious about the "childs" baseline IQ in twenty years.... as a high school dropout who hasn't taken an IQ test I have learned that you never stop learning.
In a child development course, we were reviewing levels of intelligence along with the standard labels given to each catagory. The book didn't list any labels for groups over 180. Someone asked, "So, what do you call somone over 180?" Being the jokester that I am, I responded, "Easy, ....... Freak!" Why did I say that? I should know, that's what I was called growing up. Still, in spite of the general level of contempt that others have for highly intelligent people, I would choose for my chile to have at least a 185 I.Q. Why? My mind was always my best toy while I was growing up.
I chose 160. I'm about 140 and my older brother is about 180. I'm also about 50 times happier than he is, in general. And I'm still getting a PhD from an Ivy League despite my lower points (he's got one too).
IQ doesn't guarantee success or happiness. But at the very least -- all else being equal -- it's an advantage. I would want as much advantage as possible for my kids.
It's disheartening to see people choose lower than the maximum, and infuriating to see them try to justify it. Please go watch the movie "Idiocracy", this is you.
remember EVERY child under these circumstances would have their IQ chosen for them,so the higher the better. a couple of generations on maybe they will be clever enough to stop all wars and put the world right.(If we are still all around!)
The kindest fate I could wish for any child would be to be as normal and average as possible. Our society today does not reward intelligence or any other virtue; it rewards the ones who are most aggressive and have the strongest sense of entitlement. Actually, it's probably a good thing that I have no children.
I would tend to select the highest IQ listed here, simply because I think this child would have the ability to change the world, to see hidden connections, to invent…. All the while, I would give the child as much love as I could in an attempt to foster a happy child. I would expose the child to books and ideas in a fun way and not put too much pressure on the child. I would introduce the child to science-fiction novels, music, museums, and mazes –- while at the same time teaching the child that “kindness” is the most important human trait. Other things I would expose the child to at age-appropriate times: fractals, Robert Heinlein, parallel universes, anatomical models of the human brain, and dimethyltryptamine elves.
That seems to be the healthiest IQ. I don't really trust IQ, and the measuring of it seems naive at best. If I could choose anything, I'd choose high artistic ability, or musical ear, or emotional intelligence.
Well, I wouldn't want my child to be too intelligent, because it can be very isolating. As a child, I mean early childhood, I was critically evaluating behavior, considering medical solutions, early talker, and anytime I would tell anyone what I was thinking, adults, the people at a high angle upward, it would frighten them. One of the first lessons I learned in life was not to share thoughts and ideas, and I basically played stupid to create a comfort level. Fitting in was out of the question, I tried so hard, and the harder I tried, the harder it was to fit in. This is not something to wish on any child. Never do I take childhood for granted or what level of thinking some little child may be at. I have wondered if it may be common for very young children to be functioning at a high level of intelligence that cannot be expressed, so isn't realized or identified, because communication skills haven't developed. As a child ages, and noise from the world increases, it interferes with some kind of reception "out there" that the child is connected to. Of course, this is a shot into darkness on my end, but it is what seems to happen. Being solely intuitive at birth, babies may have access to all knowledge in the universe, while not in a state to use it. To me, the key would be to keep the intuitive state at birth alive while acquiring knowledge and the ability to communicate. If I could pick a goal for our species, that would be in, in the hopes that connection to universal knowledge through intuition would allow access to advanced solutions that is not accessible to us as dulled adults. I would want my child to fit in, first and foremost, to have the best chance of fitting in. Considering the alternative of all children being of high intelligence (which they may be initially) AND holding on to intelligence with an intuitive connection, if everyone grew up in this state, different home environments and problems could lead to high stakes battles between formiddable adversaries. I'm not sure that I want every person out there in the world to have extraordinary intelligence.
Which of these would you prefer for your child: unhealthy, healthy, healthiest? Well, if someone is extremely healthy, they might not fit in. Also, it's not health that determines how far you get in life, but ambition and the drive to succeed.There's a bit of faulty logic in what I just used, and a bit of faulty logic in what most of you are saying when you support lower than maximum IQs.
I picked IQ as a surrogate for intelligence- presumably whatever an IQ test measures has some correlation with problem solving abilities. I'd like my kid to be as good as possible at solving problems. Hence 180 in hopes an IQ like that would mean they were good as solving problems
Bingo, IQ is a bell curve. OK I have 3 children, the oldest is considered gifted and my guess is the younger two are as well. For example, my youngest could recite the alphabet by 2. Critics will say that proves nothing, but my point here is that bright children are a lot of work. Possibly as much work - or more - than intellectually challenged children. I, as a parent, am definitely NOT WORTHY of having a genius child. And that's all I want to say ;.)
IQ is not a scale of intelligence. IQ is a scale of comparison. According to the mathematics of IQ, for instance, it's impossible for a population with 1 million people to have an IQ above a certain level (perhaps 170), and that's only possible if every single person in that population is tested. For someone to have an IQ of 180, you would need virtually every single person in the United States to take an IQ test, and the very smartest person would have an IQ of 180. There is probably some hyperbole in this claim, I didn't bother to verify the exact numbers. However, an IQ in that range is not possible to measure right now, and would be so rare that a word for it wouldn't be useful.
if all the kids are 160+ iq then none of them will not fit in.. for they will all have the same social dysfunctionalities... yay! and then it will be the 'cool' kids who dont kit in, and the pocket protector will be the new cigarette for standard of 'cool' i dont know.. im only 17, leave me alone
Those of you with higher IQ levels are making good arguments (j/k) however; I can't justify the social alienation of a child simply because a higher IQ value is deemed "superior". It's my understanding that an IQ value is a good baseline for comprehension while the ability to learn references that baseline. I would select 160 and be very curious about the "childs" baseline IQ in twenty years.... as a high school dropout who hasn't taken an IQ test I have learned that you never stop learning.
"Mommy, why did you make me dumber than I could have been?""Well, see, honey, it's because blah blah blah blah..." Unreal.
In a child development course, we were reviewing levels of intelligence along with the standard labels given to each catagory. The book didn't list any labels for groups over 180. Someone asked, "So, what do you call somone over 180?" Being the jokester that I am, I responded, "Easy, ....... Freak!" Why did I say that? I should know, that's what I was called growing up. Still, in spite of the general level of contempt that others have for highly intelligent people, I would choose for my chile to have at least a 185 I.Q. Why? My mind was always my best toy while I was growing up.
I chose 160. I'm about 140 and my older brother is about 180. I'm also about 50 times happier than he is, in general. And I'm still getting a PhD from an Ivy League despite my lower points (he's got one too).
IQ doesn't guarantee success or happiness. But at the very least -- all else being equal -- it's an advantage. I would want as much advantage as possible for my kids.
It's disheartening to see people choose lower than the maximum, and infuriating to see them try to justify it. Please go watch the movie "Idiocracy", this is you.
remember EVERY child under these circumstances would have their IQ chosen for them,so the higher the better. a couple of generations on maybe they will be clever enough to stop all wars and put the world right.(If we are still all around!)
The kindest fate I could wish for any child would be to be as normal and average as possible. Our society today does not reward intelligence or any other virtue; it rewards the ones who are most aggressive and have the strongest sense of entitlement. Actually, it's probably a good thing that I have no children.
There are often many issues that come with extreme intelligence. I figure 140 would give our kid an advantage while still allowing him/her to fit in.
140 - I was rated once at 141 - if the kid is going to out smart me I wannum to have to WORK at it! (At least a little)
I would tend to select the highest IQ listed here, simply because I think this child would have the ability to change the world, to see hidden connections, to invent…. All the while, I would give the child as much love as I could in an attempt to foster a happy child. I would expose the child to books and ideas in a fun way and not put too much pressure on the child. I would introduce the child to science-fiction novels, music, museums, and mazes –- while at the same time teaching the child that “kindness” is the most important human trait. Other things I would expose the child to at age-appropriate times: fractals, Robert Heinlein, parallel universes, anatomical models of the human brain, and dimethyltryptamine elves.
That seems to be the healthiest IQ. I don't really trust IQ, and the measuring of it seems naive at best. If I could choose anything, I'd choose high artistic ability, or musical ear, or emotional intelligence.