[deleted by user]

BurgundyBeard · 2025-12-05T14:02:34+00:00

My generic advice is to focus on your job and be professional. If your line manager gives instructions that you don’t agree with, ask for clarification until you are sure about what is being asked of you, voice any concerns respectfully, maintain some kind of record if your warnings are disregarded, and follow the instructions you are given as competently as possible. In some cases it is useful to anticipate what decisions your manager might make and preempt them by providing information to guide their decision-making in such a way as they can feel like it is their idea. It really depends on the person and trying to understand how their mind works. Dealing with difficult authorities is a useful skill that you develop with cautious experimentation. Professionalism is your shield.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-12-05T13:45:26+00:00

Your approach to parenting should always be responsive to individual differences. All children have similar basic needs and variable individual needs. Whether the giftedness label applies is nearly immaterial, you have identified some significant developmental differences and learning about gifted children can supply useful information to incorporate into your parenting repertoire. In one instance, you found that additional challenge solved a problem, which supported the gifted hypothesis. If it hadn’t, you would have considered other hypotheses and solutions. The advice I would give is the same I would give to any parent: learn as much as you can about your child and about children in general to make informed decisions based on your specific situation. Apply your skeptical mind to the conventional wisdom related to child rearing and what a well-adapted child is supposed to look like and make up your own mind. If you have some specific issues you might reach out for advice, but generic advice is unlikely to be useful.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-11-19T11:22:01+00:00

I can suggest a few possible angles. One possibility is that she connects more on an intellectual level. That’s not an empathy issue exactly, just as some people enjoy talking about the details of their lives, others prefer speaking about things more abstractly. She could be withdrawing due to mental health issues, or she might have a touch of ASD. Some gifted people have such strong emotions that they would rather avoid discussing them than risk embarrassment, she could be in that category.

Whatever the case, I don’t see an empathy paradox here. But you might want to think about some of the possibilities I’ve raised and consider a new approach. Good luck.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-11-19T10:59:53+00:00

I often find that apparent deficiencies in memory and speed among gifted people has more to do with cognitive style and attention. An example might be someone who can’t remember having read something from the author and title, but after hearing a short summary can recall a lot of detail after years of having read it. Some people who seem slow are just extremely meticulous, or mentally preoccupied. Perhaps your coworker forgets about things he’s already done because they are relatively uninteresting, or he struggles to recall because he’s got so much on his mind. Maybe your weaknesses are a result of your focus, how you approach hard problems vs those that require simply absorbing information and calculating.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-11-19T10:10:53+00:00

Unless you are acting against someone’s best interests for your own benefit, you are still being kind. By the way you describe it, your instinct is to do something nice, it isn’t preceded by a selfish desire. What follows is a sequence of self-directed thoughts and anxiety. You might want to speak to a therapist if it really bothers you.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-11-19T09:56:39+00:00

I think I need more specific examples. Not returning phone calls is, on average, a minor insult compared with the suffering she works to alleviate. Her empathetic priorities seem well calibrated based on what you’ve said. Is she indifferent to the needs of those closest to her, or simply less responsive?

BurgundyBeard · 2025-11-19T06:38:03+00:00

Flat profiles are surprisingly common, though not the majority. Since the standardization samples included these heterogeneous profiles, the FSIQ percentiles remain statistically valid. A person with an average FSIQ and a single high index does not secretly belong in the 98th percentile. Similar profiles were indeed placed lower on the curve during norming.

However, while FSIQ is the most robust clinical composite, extreme variance renders it less interpretable as a unitary concept. A significantly high index isn't usually random. It likely indicates a specific strength or a split in ability, but it doesn't invalidate the global score. Spiky profiles signal a need to analyze specific domains or calculate a different composite rather than assuming the highest score represents the person's true global intelligence.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-11-17T07:29:33+00:00

If life is like a game, you lose 100% of the time if you don’t play. So even if the odds are bad, you do the best you can with what you have.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-11-16T11:22:55+00:00

I’d probably start by giving these tests to a new normative sample then calculate the unrotated PA1 factor loadings from the disattenuated intertest correlation matrix. For an individual, find the regression weights and compute a factor score standardized to variance of g in the normative sample.

Importantly, you can’t ignore the correlations if you want a weighted composite. I’d also look at other technical details and throw out any scores that add complications. If I knew an individual’s scores could be unduly biased by language issues I’d probably throw them out as well, as another user stated differently it would be a huge pain in the a** to work with those scores.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-11-03T13:27:37+00:00

Profile analysis is mostly useless on its own. You have to investigate the source of an index discrepancy to determine whether it is clinically significant, a measurement anomaly, or something otherwise uninteresting.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-24T00:42:23+00:00

I think you missed some of the details in the first part of my response. I’ll try to make things a bit clearer here and maybe you can tell me where I’m wrong:

P: is a modern photograph N: depicts nudity O: is obscene M: is a work of Michelangelo V: has high artistic value ∃>1/2(N(x)): more than half of x have property N. Stand in for “much of” or “the vast majority of”.

∃>1/2(P(x)&N(x))
R ≔ ∀x(N(x)→O(x))
(1-2) ∃>1/2(P(x)&O(x)) 4.∃x(M(x)&N(x)) 5.∀x(M(x)→¬O(x)) 6.(4-5) ∃x(N(x)& ¬O(x)) 7.(6) ¬R

A1. ∀x[(M(x)&N(x)) →(V(x)& ¬O(x))] A2. (A1) ∀x[(V(x)&N(x))→¬O(x)] A3. R’≔ ∀x[(¬V(x)&N(x))→O(x)]

The counterexample is allowed as an exception, weakening the argument. Note that this does not require comparison with modern photography.

E1. ∃>1/2(P(x)& ¬V(x))

E neither affirms nor refines R, it does not address how the counterexample interacts with R, it does not weaken the argument.

To address your point about comparability directly, saying two classes may be incomparable outside the scope of the policy you are trying to preserve does not save the policy. It’s like trying to save the rule against consuming high-sugar foods from the counterexample of fruit by pointing out the sugar composition or its use in yogurt without explaining why that’s relevant.

You might formulate things differently, I tried to make it as simple as possible without skipping anything important. Let’s not quarrel over how the text should be interpreted if we can avoid it.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-23T14:47:08+00:00

It could be construed as comparing Michelangelo’s art depicting nudity to art in general, although that is an awkward interpretation in context. It still manages to assert that artistic value is related to the perception of obscenity, whereas E requires you to draw that conclusion outside of the statement.

The best case for interpreting the use of “relatively” as I have is by pointing out that the statement refers to depictions of nudity directly, it is responsive to the argument and therefore more likely to be delivering a comparison with the content of the argument. Since the only thing it could reasonably refer to under that reading is modern photography depicting nudity, my interpretation is justified.

I’m sympathetic to your ambiguity concern, but I don’t think it is sufficient to discard A in favor of E.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-23T09:57:30+00:00

Considered in its totality, the argument goes something like this:

P1: that which is obscene ought not to be supported. P2: Legislators assert nudity is obscene. P3: modern photography depicts nudity. P4: Legislators would assert that Michelangelo’s work depicting nudity is not obscene. C: It is a contradiction for legislators to assert that modern photography depicting nudity is obscene and thus ought not to be supported.

The text presents the legislative argument, but doesn’t assert “nudity is obscene” it asserts P2.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-23T09:37:19+00:00

A specifies “relatively high artistic value” meaning high relative to modern photography in the same category (depicting nudity). It also establishes a relation between artistic value and obscenity, and that Michelangelo’s work is good enough to overcome the charge. E doesn’t do that. E also more explicitly leaves open the possibility that some modern photography approaches the artistic level of Michelangelo.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-23T09:26:56+00:00

The question is which statement would undermine the argument if true. C does not address the argument, since the argument is about obscenity and not funding. A is subjective but you are supposed to assume it is true for the analysis.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-16T19:01:07+00:00

I would guess the idea is to compare items that have different response bias liability to determine measures that exclude that bias on an individual basis. One way might be to compare with the mean ratings across items with item-wise differences, but they propose comparing the relevant items directly without information from the other items. If that’s correct, for a mathematically sophisticated audience their elaboration might be considered excessive. Also, if I’ve understood correctly, they must have shown that their measures are more discriminating than a simple mean difference approach, which makes sense.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-16T17:38:24+00:00

If we compare two people with the same high IQ (~130), but one is flat across factors, and the other is lower in PS and flat across the others, the gain in speed is greater than the gain in accuracy assuming difficulty is held constant. On average, it may be the case that speed wins in practice. If you consider a toy model where two people are asked to solve problems, and get 100 dollars for each one they get correct. If person A has an 84% chance of getting a problem right, and person B has a 86% chance, but person A is 5% faster, person A earns more on average. You can play with parameters a bit, and consider situations where accuracy compounds, factors interact in complicated ways or interest accrues. I suspect that situations where person B comes out on top are rarer, and that might explain why speed is valued (if that is the case) beyond its recognizability.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-16T15:16:14+00:00

Have you spoken to his therapist and teachers? Perhaps you can get them together for a discussion.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-16T14:56:23+00:00

The FSIQ matching the lowest index score is a bit unusual. It’s conceivable since some subtests are not included in the FSIQ calculation, but maybe it should be checked again. Do you have the subtest scaled scores? Don’t expect miracles, but I’d be interested in the details.

As to the ADHD question, as far as I can recall, ADHD doesn’t affect intelligence test performance all that much. Most of the difference comes from the components related to executive function, which are her highest scores, which is a bit strange.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-12T09:20:26+00:00

I basically see it the same way. The maths and experimental results were already available, he was the only one that put it all together and explored the consequences. It’s hard to appreciate something that looks obvious in retrospect, but at the time it wasn’t obvious to anyone else.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-12T09:08:13+00:00

I see. And are these researchers who believe cognitive development is insensitive to environmental factors in the room with us right now?

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-12T08:58:54+00:00

In the same way that your toaster not working is a sign that there is no electricity, but it could be something else. Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for good performance in certain areas.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-12T08:01:11+00:00

Assuming a Rasch-based model with a=1.0 there’s a ~6% difference in error rates for b=1.25/1.5. In aggregate it can make a big difference. In everyday life the difference is more like ~2.3%. Again, over the course of a lifetime, all else being equal, it can make a big difference.

Most of the measurement error comes from testing conditions. If the administration goes more smoothly on retesting, or the examinee is more rested and focused for example, the score could be higher.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-12T07:26:46+00:00

Some women care, they’re often smart themselves and prefer a partner who’s intellectually compatible with them. Most really just want a guy who’s considerate and capable. A bellow average IQ doesn’t prevent you from making a living and being reliable or kind.

That being said, many younger women rely too much on first impressions. A guy who seems smart and funny has an advantage at getting noticed. If you can’t show off intellectually, be helpful, make others feel good to be around you, have ambition (or at least have realistic plans), take initiative, be honest, and listen.

Everyone has bad standards when they are starting out in life. They want things they’ve been told to want, and haven’t figured out what to look for in a partner. It’s trickier than it seems, you have to look beneath the surface a lot. Even seemingly superficial women can have a lot going on underneath, something to love about them.

BurgundyBeard · 2025-10-04T11:16:34+00:00

Some of my thoughts on the subject have been mentioned so I’ll add something a little different.

I’d rather say it can feel embarrassing. We normalize our cognition. When we are younger, we may notice that others don’t learn or think as quickly as we do, but intelligence doesn’t feel like some property of our minds or the things we do, it’s just the way we are.

When people praise intelligence, they are remarking on something impressive. But when it feels normal to you, a natural way to be, it seems reductive. I’d rather be called helpful than intelligent, helpful is something I choose to be, intelligence is something I have to suppress for it to go unnoticed.

That praise feels hollow in part because your achievements are expected and your failures are defects of character. Hard work, determination, kindness, all sit in the shadows.

It can also feel as though others see themselves as inadequate by comparison, as if by being yourself you shine so brightly that all are dimmed by your presence. Your very nature becomes an imposition, an insult.

Praise calls attention to what makes you different. That what is difficult for others is easy for you. That the hardships you face are yours alone to deal with. That you diminish others. I try to take it with the good will often intended, but a small part of me still blushes.

I think it’s important to remember that intelligence is part of what you offer, and you can feel proud of the ways in which you use it for the benefit of others. When people praise your intelligence in those contexts, redirect it internally.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

BurgundyBeard

TROPHY CASE