The distinction between 150 (barely recognizable as a validated score on current tests) and 180 (NOT a validated score on any test, ever) is less meaningful than many suppose:
"Put into the context of the psychometric movement as a whole, it is clear that positive extreme of the IQ distribution is not as different from other IQ levels as might have been expected. . . . While 180 IQ suggests the ability to do academic work with relative ease, it does not signify a qualitatively different organization of mind. It also does not suggest the presence of ‘genius’ in its common-sense meaning, i.e. transcendent achievement in some field. For these kinds of phenomena, IQ seems at best a crude predictor. For anything more, we will have to look to traditions other than the psychometric and to variables other than IQ."
Feldman, David (1984). A Follow-up of Subjects Scoring above 180 IQ in Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius. Exceptional Children, 50, 6, 518-523.
IQ scores, especially in childhood, vary over the course of a test-taker’s life, sometimes varying radically. Deviation IQ scoring was originally developed to make for more stability of scores over the course of childhood. Nonetheless, deviation IQs for children can also change considerably over the course of childhood (Pinneau 1961; Truch 1993, page 78; Howe 1998; Deary 2000, table 1.3). "Correlation studies of test scores provide actuarial data, applicable to group predictions. . . . Studies of individuals, on the other hand, may reveal large upward or downward shifts in test scores." (Anastasi & Urbina 1997 p. 326).
For example, young people in the famous Lewis Terman longitudinal Genetic Studies of Genius (initial n=1,444 with n=643 in main study group) when tested at high school age (n=503) were found to have dropped 9 IQ points on average in Stanford-Binet IQ. More than two dozen children dropped by 15 IQ points and six by 25 points or more. Parents of those children reported no changes in their children or even that their children were getting brighter (Shurkin 1992, pp. 89-90). Terman observed a similar drop in IQ scores in his study group upon adult IQ testing (Shurkin 1992, pp. 147-150). Samuel R. Pinneau conducted a thorough review of the Berkeley Growth Study (1928-1946; initial n=61, n after eighteen years =40). Alice Moriarty was a Ph.D. researcher at the Menninger Foundation and describes in her book (1966) a number of case studies of longitudinal observations of children's IQ. She observed several subjects whose childhood IQ varied markedly over the course of childhood, and develops hypotheses about why those IQ changes occurred. Anastasi and Urbina (1997, p. 328) point out that childhood IQ scores are poorest at predicting subsequent IQ scores when taken at preschool age. Change in scores over the course of childhood shows that there are powerful environmental effects on IQ (Anastasi & Urbina 1997, p. 327) or perhaps that IQ scores in childhood are not reliable estimates of a child’s scholastic ability.
REFERENCES
Anastasi, Anne & Urbina, Susana (1997). Psychological Testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Deary, Ian J. (2000) Looking Down on Human Intelligence: From Psychometrics to the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howe, Michael J. A. (1998). Can IQ Change?. The Psychologist, February 1998 pages 69-72.
Moriarty, Alice E. (1966). Constancy and IQ Change: A Clinical View of Relationships between Tested IQ and Personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Pinneau, Samuel R. (1961). Changes in Intelligence Quotient Infancy to Maturity: New Insights from the Berkeley Growth Study with Implications for the Stanford-Binet Scales and Applications to Professional Practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shurkin, Joel N. (1992). Terman's Kids: The Groundbreaking Study of How the Gifted Grow Up. Boston: Little, Brown.
Truch, Steve (1993). The WISC-III(R) Companion: A Guide to Interpretation and Educational Intervention. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
It seems like you know a whole lot about this. I once heard a Math professor say that children were able to use more methods for doing basic arithmetic when they first started school than when they'd gone to school for a year, or something of that nature.
I've also been through public school, and I know that the way they teach stuff is not modern in any way. It is almost the same school system that Prussia had, that later was adopted by countires like the USA. A school of compulsion, instituted to teach students the "virtue of obedience" and to make them parts of a bigger machine (like the war machine). So the teaching method of choice naturally became to have the students do simple tasks obediently at their desks. This can be seen in modern American classrooms aswell (yes, I went to one for a year). Think back to American History, what did you do really? Did you copy down, word for word what the teacher said? Was those chores teaching you anything on how to think when it comes to reviewing history? No, it couldn't have, you were just fed words that you didn't even have time to analyze. How could that have taught you anything?
I think the same goes for Math. In Sweden you didn't learn the principles of Math in the first ten years (this is important, since Montessori Schools (atleast those who are run by sane people) are able to teach kids the actual concepts behind Math at a very young age). You had 100 similar problems to solve, and you had the solution on a paper, you just had to do that a 100 times or more and remember long enough to pass the upcoming test, then you could forget about it. This is BAD for problem solving, and I can only thank programming for not stripping of the pleasures of REAL problem solving. So naturally, when a child goes to do an IQ test, which is basically a test in problem solving, he/she wouldn't know how to do it, because he/she would have been used to not having to solve problems.
I think this would explain a lot, I think that IQ can be used to explain a lot of things if the world actually prepared you for them. Am I wrong or do I have a point? Anyway, that's my theory.
I once heard a Math professor say that children were able to use more methods for doing basic arithmetic when they first started school than when they'd gone to school for a year, or something of that nature.
My anecdotal experience correlates with this. First grade, with its required use of "bubble math," was very detrimental to my arithmetic abilities I'd acquired at home and during Montessori-style preschool.
So naturally, when a child goes to do an IQ test, which is basically a test in problem solving, he/she wouldn't know how to do it, because he/she would have been used to not having to solve problems.
Some IQ tests seem to test certain kinds of problem solving, like identifying patterns in a grid. Some few individuals may be able to identify the patterns without any prior experience, but I suspect most who answer such questions correctly do so from knowledge of a general class of problems, not intuition.
Purely subjectively, I feel the busy work in school made me stupider, whereas once I've been out and learning on my own, my mind feels better and sharper, and I'm more interested in learning.
My opinion is that two really big factors are desire and free will. People need desire in order to really excel, and they need to think for themselves to quickly see good solutions. Both of those are hard to capture on an iq test.
"Put into the context of the psychometric movement as a whole, it is clear that positive extreme of the IQ distribution is not as different from other IQ levels as might have been expected. . . . While 180 IQ suggests the ability to do academic work with relative ease, it does not signify a qualitatively different organization of mind. It also does not suggest the presence of ‘genius’ in its common-sense meaning, i.e. transcendent achievement in some field. For these kinds of phenomena, IQ seems at best a crude predictor. For anything more, we will have to look to traditions other than the psychometric and to variables other than IQ."
Feldman, David (1984). A Follow-up of Subjects Scoring above 180 IQ in Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius. Exceptional Children, 50, 6, 518-523.
IQ scores, especially in childhood, vary over the course of a test-taker’s life, sometimes varying radically. Deviation IQ scoring was originally developed to make for more stability of scores over the course of childhood. Nonetheless, deviation IQs for children can also change considerably over the course of childhood (Pinneau 1961; Truch 1993, page 78; Howe 1998; Deary 2000, table 1.3). "Correlation studies of test scores provide actuarial data, applicable to group predictions. . . . Studies of individuals, on the other hand, may reveal large upward or downward shifts in test scores." (Anastasi & Urbina 1997 p. 326).
For example, young people in the famous Lewis Terman longitudinal Genetic Studies of Genius (initial n=1,444 with n=643 in main study group) when tested at high school age (n=503) were found to have dropped 9 IQ points on average in Stanford-Binet IQ. More than two dozen children dropped by 15 IQ points and six by 25 points or more. Parents of those children reported no changes in their children or even that their children were getting brighter (Shurkin 1992, pp. 89-90). Terman observed a similar drop in IQ scores in his study group upon adult IQ testing (Shurkin 1992, pp. 147-150). Samuel R. Pinneau conducted a thorough review of the Berkeley Growth Study (1928-1946; initial n=61, n after eighteen years =40). Alice Moriarty was a Ph.D. researcher at the Menninger Foundation and describes in her book (1966) a number of case studies of longitudinal observations of children's IQ. She observed several subjects whose childhood IQ varied markedly over the course of childhood, and develops hypotheses about why those IQ changes occurred. Anastasi and Urbina (1997, p. 328) point out that childhood IQ scores are poorest at predicting subsequent IQ scores when taken at preschool age. Change in scores over the course of childhood shows that there are powerful environmental effects on IQ (Anastasi & Urbina 1997, p. 327) or perhaps that IQ scores in childhood are not reliable estimates of a child’s scholastic ability.
REFERENCES
Anastasi, Anne & Urbina, Susana (1997). Psychological Testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Deary, Ian J. (2000) Looking Down on Human Intelligence: From Psychometrics to the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howe, Michael J. A. (1998). Can IQ Change?. The Psychologist, February 1998 pages 69-72.
Moriarty, Alice E. (1966). Constancy and IQ Change: A Clinical View of Relationships between Tested IQ and Personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Pinneau, Samuel R. (1961). Changes in Intelligence Quotient Infancy to Maturity: New Insights from the Berkeley Growth Study with Implications for the Stanford-Binet Scales and Applications to Professional Practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shurkin, Joel N. (1992). Terman's Kids: The Groundbreaking Study of How the Gifted Grow Up. Boston: Little, Brown.
Truch, Steve (1993). The WISC-III(R) Companion: A Guide to Interpretation and Educational Intervention. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.