PDA

View Full Version : Two-year-old 'Matilda' becomes youngest ever girl in Mensa



Celtkin
06-23-2007, 07:12 AM
She was crawling at five months and walking at nine months.

By 14 months, she was getting herself dressed.

"She spoke really early - by 18 months she was having proper conversations," Mrs Brown said.

"She would say, 'Hello I'm Georgia, I'm one'. She was also putting her shoes on and putting them on the right feet."

Georgia was so perceptive that after one outing to the theatre to see Beauty and the Beast she solemnly informed her parents: "I didn't like Gaston (the villain). He was mean and arrogant."


To the amazement of the family, who live in Aldershot, Hampshire, Georgia scored 152 points on the IQ test, putting her in the top 0.2 per cent of the population. Those with an average IQ would score around 100 points in the same test.
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/06/GeorgiaMEN2106_468x592-1.jpg

CharlestonPhan
06-23-2007, 11:54 AM
yes! now i can finally have those "my two year old kicked your two year old mensa members ***" bumper stickers printed up! :goof:


or as Samuel L. Jackson would say;

"check out the big brain on Georgia!"

finswin56
06-24-2007, 08:17 AM
I'm not too sure I'd want a kid that smart. She'd own me by 5.

ckb2001
06-24-2007, 01:52 PM
It's interesting to note that it is RARE a child prodigy actually becomes a leading researcher in science later in life, even assuming that child prodigy enters science and tries to make important contributions to it.

One of the very rare cases where it did happen was with Gauss, possibly the greatest mathematician in history (and if not, then one of the top 3, at least as considered by most mathematicians).

And there are examples of just the opposite happening, such as with William James Sidis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis


In any case, Sidis in an exception too (at the other extreme), but the point is most end up being relatively similar in ability to other researchers (just speaking in science here) once they are adults. It's one reason not to feel too "inferior" to them :wink:

Miamian
06-24-2007, 02:19 PM
It's interesting to note that it is RARE a child prodigy actually becomes a leading researcher in science later in life, even assuming that child prodigy enters science and tries to make important contributions to it.

One of the very rare cases where it did happen was with Gauss, possibly the greatest mathematician in history (and if not, then one of the top 3, at least as considered by most mathematicians).

And there are examples of just the opposite happening, such as with William James Sidis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis


In any case, Sidis in an exception too (at the other extreme), but the point is most end up being relatively similar in ability to other researchers (just speaking in science here) once they are adults. It's one reason not to feel too "inferior" to them :wink:Why would she necessarily go into science? There's no doubt that she would do well in any subject. She should do whatever interests her the most.

ckb2001
06-24-2007, 02:35 PM
Why would she necessarily go into science? There's no doubt that she would do well in any subject. She should do whatever interests her the most.

Where did I imply she should go into science? Where did I say she shouldn't do what interests her most?

Miamian
06-24-2007, 02:49 PM
Where did I imply she should go into science? Where did I say she shouldn't do what interests her most?
Because you brought it up to begin with, that "it's rare for the prodigy to become a leading researcher in science later in life." Your whole post dealt with scientific researchers.

ckb2001
06-24-2007, 02:55 PM
Because you brought it up to begin with, that "it's rare for the prodigy to become a leading researcher in science later in life." Your whole post dealt with scientific researchers.

That still doesn't justify any of the implications you made. I spoke of science because that's where I can justify what I said.

Really, this is how many of our "debates" begin. You imply I made implications I never made.

Miamian
06-24-2007, 03:42 PM
That still doesn't justify any of the implications you made. I spoke of science because that's where I can justify what I said.

Really, this is how many of our "debates" begin. You imply I made implications I never made.
Because it's very easy to infer from what you state.

ckb2001
06-24-2007, 03:58 PM
Because it's very easy to infer from what you state.

There you go again..

No, it's not easy to infer.

Let me spell this out for you. You said:

QUOTE:
"Why would she necessarily go into science? There's no doubt that she would do well in any subject. She should do whatever interests her the most."
------------------------

The key implication you're making here is that I implied she should go into science.

So, let's take a look at what I wrote. I said this:

QUOTE:
"It's interesting to note that it is RARE a child prodigy actually becomes a leading researcher in science later in life, even assuming that child prodigy enters science and tries to make important contributions to it."
------------

That starts off with "It's interesting to note.." That means I'm just providing what I think is interesting data. So, the entire sentence is NOT suggesting the girl go into science.

Furthermore, I say "even assuming that child prodigy enters science". That means that even IF they try to become leading researchers, it's rare that they do. Do you understand the meaning of "IF"?

And at the end, I say this:

QUOTE:
"It's one reason not to feel too "inferior" to them"
-----------------

It's ONE reason. Do you understand what "ONE" means?

NO, it is NOT easy to infer that I was suggesting she should go into science. WHY? Because I didn't!!!!

Now, please go on with your baseless accusation and start another useless debate!

Miamian
06-24-2007, 04:10 PM
There you go again..

No, it's not easy to infer.

Let me spell this out for you. You said:

QUOTE:
"Why would she necessarily go into science? There's no doubt that she would do well in any subject. She should do whatever interests her the most."
------------------------

The key implication you're making here is that I implied she should go into science.

So, let's take a look at what I wrote. I said this:

QUOTE:
"It's interesting to note that it is RARE a child prodigy actually becomes a leading researcher in science later in life, even assuming that child prodigy enters science and tries to make important contributions to it."
------------

That starts off with "It's interesting to note.." That means I'm just providing what I think is interesting data. So, the entire sentence is NOT suggesting the girl go into science.

Furthermore, I say "even assuming that child prodigy enters science". That means that even IF they try to become leading researchers, it's rare that they do. Do you understand the meaning of "IF"?

And at the end, I say this:

QUOTE:
"It's one reason not to feel too "inferior" to them"
-----------------

It's ONE reason. Do you understand what "ONE" means?

NO, it is NOT easy to infer that I was suggesting she should go into science. WHY? Because I didn't!!!!

Now, please go on with your baseless accusation and start another useless debate!Look, I'm not interested in any pointless debates, we've had enough of them. It's interesting to note that I don't get into this with any of this nitpicking with any other poster in FinHeaven. Most don't get as defensive as you do.

ckb2001
06-24-2007, 04:15 PM
Look, I'm not interested in any pointless debates, we've had enough of them. It's interesting to note that I don't get into this with any of this nitpicking with any other poster in FinHeaven. Most don't get as defensive as you do.

They're not as interested in precision as I am. When I didn't make an implication and someone claims I made one, I WILL defend myself. What else do you expect of anyone in academia? That they won't???

Either way, thanks for not continuing with this particular accusation. As you see, I didn't imply she should go into science or that she would.

Miamian
06-24-2007, 04:22 PM
They're not as interested in precision as I am. When I didn't make an implication and someone claims I made one, I WILL defend myself. What else do you expect of anyone in academia? That they won't???

Either way, thanks for not continuing with this particular accusation. As you see, I didn't imply she should go into science or that she would.Please, please, don't take it as an accusation. It's simply not intended that way. I don't mean any aggression.

ckb2001
06-24-2007, 04:23 PM
Please, please, don't take it as an accusation. It's simply not intended that way. I don't mean any aggression.

No problem.. let's move on :cooldude:

DonShula84
06-24-2007, 04:28 PM
Must be a lot of pressure on a person to be told basically they're entire life that they're a genius and some kind of prodigy. How do you live up to that? Matt Damon had a tough go at for a while their in Good Will Hunting, though he pulled through alright it seems ;)