To think everyone's children can't be "very bright"(240 Posts)
Because a good 80% or posters/people in RL seem to refer to their kids as "very bright", surely 80% of kids can't be above average?
As the proud mother of a three month old I'm not fussed if my DS is "bright" or not, if he isn't academic I'm sure he will have other talents!
I hereby declare I shan't constantly boast about how bright he is unless he is a full in genius . As my mother always said, there is nothing wrong with being average.
I think it is great if kids are gifted or very bright but however hard I try I just can't bring myself to care. I care about my own kids but hearing about others is usually very dull.
I am impressed when friends kids get a zillion A*'s or go to Cambridge or invent something or climb Mount Everest with a sack of potatoes on their back -- but its a fleeting moment and I go back to NOT CARING.
On the other hand I am a sucker for stories about kids who have 'achieved' things against the odds, even if they are more modest achievements
This subject makes me LOL very hard - in my family there are at least 2 primary age DC who are supposedly genius level.
No they're not, you just taught them the basics earlier than their peers/before they went to school, so they have a head start for a while.
Telling a child they are 'bright' when really you have just given them a head start IMHO fosters an initial over-confidence in the DC, that can translate into later laziness, followed by esteem issues if they don't continue to be ahead of the curve. I saw it loads at school (a pushy parent paradise).
Do you have to pay for IQ tests? Doesn't seem a very 'bright' plan to me.
My Dad used to love winding up a guy in the pub who bleated on about being a member of MENSA.
'How much did that cost you pal? - Very clever!'
Nothing passive aggressive about what I wrote Mrs deVere. Sorry I made you react, control your projections. Simple straightforward English.
There is a certain extent that "brightness", as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
My grandparents left school with no qualifications at age 14. So my df who went to university was pure genius.
Dm had a friend who used to boast about her brilliant ds. He was outstanding in maths. She used to say things like "I don't expect there's anyone who understands maths as well as him". One time in the conversation it got mentioned that he was in set 3 out of 8. But because she had always struggled in any maths, to her that was outstanding.
Equally well I know someone who regards herself as not very clever. Lets just say she has a first in Chemistry from Durham and got 5 As at Alevel back in the days where 3 was typical. Her three siblings got 6-7 As at Alevel and went to Oxbridge.
She nearly didn't apply to university as she thought she wouldn't get in, because she clearly (compared to siblings) wasn't clever enough. I wouldn't say she suffers from low confidence and low self-esteme either.
So when we see our baby, who not very long ago was only pooing, sleeping and burping draw a scribble on the paper and say "dog", they are clever in our eyes and we can be proud of them.
<He can read cvc words though, and was only 3 last month>
validates existance on mumsnet
DH and I met at Oxford, His grandparents met at Cambridge, 5 PhDs in the immediate family, including DH. DS could be expected to be bright.
Actually he is a nice little lad. Enthusiastic, funny, loving, confident but not exceeding expectations academically. I don't think it's going to hold him back.
intelligence and who is or isn't, is always the big pink elephant in the corner of the room. Everyone tries to be kind and pretend it's not really there.
Thelight - that's a good substitute. I'll try and remember that.
that should say 'never a good substitute*
My previous post is a downright lie.
So often is it used as an substitute for wit on MN.
Passive aggression is never a substitute for wit well.
So glad he found his niche TUF.
agree with you Wellwobbly.
My db is extremely intelligent but has always struggled to stay in a job. He's a terrible employee because he's quickly bored, quickly masters every task given him then spends his time arguing that the jobs could be done in a better (his) way. And before anyone knows where they are db is questioning company policy and
arguing debating with senior managers and getting incredibly frustrated with everything.
He has no empathy with people who can't process concepts as quickly as him or follow his ideas. he's impatient and intolerant.
we all breathed a sigh of relief when he decided to work for himself as a consultant. And he's very successful now
for the vast majority of jobs people really don't need an IQ of higher than 100.
Mrs deVere, sorry if I pushed some of your buttons, but do try and control the projection somewhat. Thanks for those who provided some dispassionate and unemotional back up.
BTW I didn't say anything about IQ. But now it has been brought up, people really shouldn't get exercised about it. 'IQ' (the ability to understand concepts) is only a small facet of ability and is only relevant if someone wants to be, say, a nuclear physicist or work with very complex mathematical or scientific problems.
Previously it was thought that high IQ = successful. This is simply not so. There is so much more to ability than thinking, and also to personality, which is how a person applies their way of working.
For instance, an employer would very often be far better off hiring people with 'less' IQ, because 'clever' people get bored easily. Indeed, people thought of as not at all clever make brilliant workers. Providing they are not asked to think about problems or come up with a new way of doing things, and providing they are well trained, they make better employees!
In my opinion tenacity (not giving up in application) is far, far more important. What you put into life, is what you get out.
I know you weren't setting out to offend gunz, but it's still an upsetting word for many. I suppose in the MN context,you could substitute "doomed to a life of academic underachievement"?
I'm always amazed by children (not just mine) and how their minds work. I love the. Way they work things out and question the things that don't make sense...
Thelight- Im sure the mners you refer to can see the context in which it was used, it wasnt used to insult anybody but rather to show how unkind and dismissive people have been be in real life and on here, it has been said to me and by the way i am one of those mners you refer to.
It rattles my cage also but i dont know how you refer to that word without actually saying it, how does anyone know what you are on about about? Maybe we can have a glossary of pseudonyms to replace nasty words, but that will just become the new nasty word, Anyone here with an IQ of 150 to help us out?
Gunz, I agree with Fanjo do think that use of the "r" word was rather insensitive, particularly in this context, where some MNetters' experience of IQ tests will have been for looking at a child's learning difficulties.
That word tends to make my face go
IMO IQ tests test people who are good at IQ tests.
Fanjo - im simply discussing what i have heard, this is the actual word that was used, you can report something without necessarily agreeing with it.
..and your second line ^ "especially when you clerarly aren't and its an average score'^ please read my post again, i was referring to another poster, and quite surprised as i thought 100 was supposed to be the average score.
why the face?
Gunz..it is a horrible word...so why use it
Especially when you clearly aren't and it's an average score
Sub, then that's fair enough. And I'm pretty sure the responses are all 'I don't think that's related to his eating vegetables/ swearing at the dinner lady'. But there seems to be a bit of a thing on mn that if anyone mentions their kid is above average academically, or appears noticeably quicker than their peer group, it's a free for all and everyone automatically dismisses the consideration that sometimes, there is an effect, and they are not being given the support they need.
Socially, for example. Was dd2 ostracised by her peer group because she drooled and looked like a drunk? Or because she had nothing in common with them in a classroom situation? Six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Exactly, Alis. I remember sitting in French and German lessons and being unable to learn a single thing. Not because I was in any way learning disabled, but because there were a small number of children in the classroom whose sole aim for the lesson was to make the teacher cry. Which usually happened within the first twenty minutes, causing them to flee the room, and us to all to sigh, and sit and wait for whichever deputy was sent along to give us all a bollocking.
An entire year group where every single student's ability to learn was compromised and their needs not met. And yet, most of the kids were too well behaved (even the brainy ones) to throw their toys well out of the cot and cause a fuss. We sat and sucked it up. And got piss poor exam results as a result. If, however, a child with a high iq lost it and started yelling and shouting, and was really rude to the ht, as they had finally lost their patience with a system where their needs (and the rest of the class) were not being met, and their sense of the injustice had finally overtaken them, I bet the usual crew on mn would just see the 'bright' comment by the op, and dismiss the context. <cue sucking of teeth and lots of 'pfb, he deserves expulsion, it doesn't matter how clever you think he is' etc etc.
Pisses me right off, so it does.
the only ones I can really do are the language ones.
food is to mouth as car is to garage, that sort of thing.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.