or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Birth Size and IQ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Birth Size and IQ - Page 2

post #21 of 91
For the slower students, could somebody please let me know what they mean by "genius IQ"? I am not asking anyone what their own IQ is, or to reveal that of their child -- just give me a range.

BTW, did you know that the further away from average (100) the score is, the less validity the test is considered to have?
post #22 of 91
I couldn't read the articles because I don't have a password.

But I would certainly hope not. My 33 weekers were about 4 1/2 lbs. each and I would hope that that wouldn't make them fall on the lower scales of intelligence. I don't think it will anyway--already they're smarter than me & their dad combined at times.
post #23 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleu
For the slower students, could somebody please let me know what they mean by "genius IQ"? I am not asking anyone what their own IQ is, or to reveal that of their child -- just give me a range.

BTW, did you know that the further away from average (100) the score is, the less validity the test is considered to have?
Generally, a "gifted" IQ is considered to be at least two standard deviations from normal. For the vast majority of IQ tests this would either 130 or 132 (a 15 or 16 sd w/an average of 100). You'll notice that for a long time the "official" cut-off for "retarded" and other designations was the same difference in the opposite direction (around 70). Mensa accepts over 130-135, I think. Personally, I wouldn't use the term genius at 130 simply because I know so very many people who are well above that range. While it may be the official definition, it is definatley not an Einstein or a Little Man Tate, kwim?
post #24 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamadawg
But I would certainly hope not. My 33 weekers were about 4 1/2 lbs. each and I would hope that that wouldn't make them fall on the lower scales of intelligence. I don't think it will anyway--already they're smarter than me & their dad combined at times.
:LOL It's scary how fast they get smarter than you, huh.

That said, smaller babies could have lower IQs on average than larger birthweight babies and *your* specific babies could still be smarter than any larger baby you know.

Just like bfeeding--- no, not *every* bfed baby is going to be smarter/healthier/etc... than every formula fed baby. It just gives them a statistically better chance (and I would assume the differences they are talking about, if they are talking about babies from healthy pg would be less than for bfeeding).
post #25 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2
There are a couple situations I can see having effects on long term brain development that I can also see being more likely to produce low birth weight (prematurity & drug-use/smoking while pg). BUT, comparing drug-exposed, premature babies to 8 lb babies isn't necessarily pointing out a problem with *size* but what caused the size.

I do not think that the concept, in and of itself is offensive. Probably not terribly accurate, but there can always be a trend. For example, I have read that babies born in April are statistically significantly more likely to become doctors (MDs) than babies born in other months. Just one of those odd thinks. It doesn't say anything about *them* or their parents and it certainly doesn't imply that babies born in other months can not be MDs.
Prematurity and low birth weight can cause problems, but why would that mean that having a very high size at birth would make you smarter? I can definitely see why the OP hopes this is true though :LOL Those are some big babies you had, inezyv! I hope they are quite wonderful in every way.

I was also on the small side at birth and even possibly technically a bit premature (they might have been off with the EDD though) and I test quite well on various IQ tests. I wish I thought they were a more meaningful measure of intelligence so I could remember my actual score. I was also born in April, so I'm wondering whether there are more April MDs is because parents who plan their pregnancies tend to plan April deliveries.

It's all speculation.
post #26 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by stafl
Well, that's just great. Another thread that says there's something wrong with being small. What a load of
I was a tiny baby, and so are my girls, and I'd say each of us has well above average intelligence. When I was a child, I tested at 180 (no joke). Of course, I went to public schools and had my intelligence squashed out of me, but regardless....

NO, birthweight has nothing to do with IQ - what a ridiculous notion! ...not to mention quite offensive. :
*giggles* short people can sometimes have issues. (is 5 foot 2 and one of the tallest women in her family)

Birthweight has nothing to do with adult size anyways. My older sister had the exact same birthweight as Shaquel O'Neil and she is five feet tall.

IMO Brain power has more to do with genetics, upbringing (like being encouraged to read rather than not) and diet.
post #27 of 91
I also couldn't read the linked articles without registering.

I have read in another article that very low weight babies might have slightly lower IQ. The article I read didn't mention nutrition at all. It suggested that they don't really know why in a healthy weight but smaller baby the IQ would be different. It suggested that there were bigger differences in boys.
http://preventdisease.com/news/artic...h_weight.shtml

I think there are a whole bunch of factors that affect a child's IQ. I don't think size at birth really gives as much advantage to IQ as being an AP parent does.
"Most researchers would say that the influence of a person's genetic makeup is stronger but all would agree that the environment a person is brought up in is very important. We now know that a person's IQ is not fixed and innate - it can vary over a lifetime and can be modified by experience. It has been found that the quality and amount of stimulation that a child receives is a major factor in their intellectual development." from http://www.rollercoaster.ie/developm...telligence.asp
post #28 of 91
I couldn't open the articles, either....I would guess that the reason the relationship exists is because the lower birth weight babies, as a group, include so many preemies. Although many preemies do very well....there are large numbers of preemies who have disabilities, including learning disorders and low intelligence overall. I would imagine that the results are skewed because of this. Also, the factors which can lead to low birth weight, like disease, poor nutrition, substance abuse, are the same factors that can lead to lower intelligence in one's offspring. Hard to tease out the connections.

I wanted to add that often when people say "I have such and such IQ," or "I have a genius IQ," they may not be talking about scores on legitimate IQ tests. Some of the scores I've seen thrown around on MDC don't even exist on any real IQ test. IQ tests are not paper-and-pencil tests, they don't require reading or book-knowledge, and they can't be administered on the internet. When studies talk about "IQ," they are referring to scores on the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Scales. These tests are comprised of at least 10 subtests which assess a variety of verbal and nonverbal abilities, and must be administered by a trained professional. I think if you are going to report your high IQ, or any other IQ, it would help to indicate the scale you are using.
post #29 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven67

I wanted to add that often when people say "I have such and such IQ," or "I have a genius IQ," they may not be talking about scores on legitimate IQ tests. Some of the scores I've seen thrown around on MDC don't even exist on any real IQ test. IQ tests are not paper-and-pencil tests, they don't require reading or book-knowledge, and they can't be administered on the internet. When studies talk about "IQ," they are referring to scores on the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Scales. These tests are comprised of at least 10 subtests which assess a variety of verbal and nonverbal abilities, and must be administered by a trained professional. I think if you are going to report your high IQ, or any other IQ, it would help to indicate the scale you are using.
Mine was the Stanford-Binet...I had to take it as part of my training in psychological testing administration. It's a long test!
post #30 of 91
First, I have learned that everyone deems themselves smarter than most people (with occasional exception to those who've been abused).

Second, breastfeeding may have an influence on IQ. BFing increases baby's size healthfully, obviously after birth. But I do not see how birthweight has anything to do with how smart someone is. Birthweight may affect a child's lifetime physical health (referring to premies (sp?) here). Equating birthweight to IQ is like equating height to IQ. Could you imagine if someone proposed that tall people are smarter. egad!


Abimommy, I agree with you on:
IMO Brain power has more to do with genetics, upbringing (like being encouraged to read rather than not) and diet.

I always look forward to using "egad" in a sentence.
post #31 of 91
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stafl

But yes, saying that large babies are superior to smaller babies is quite offensive. All babies are special in their own way. We shouldn't have to put down other's children in order to feel better about our own.
Yipes, I have to admit that I didn't see this coming at all. I certainly did not intend to put down other people's children in order to feel better about my own. I adore my children, and I stumbled across this article while researching the correlation between my younger daughter's birth size and the birth defect she had surgically corrected when she was eight days old.

I don't think the article is saying that bigger babies are "superior" to smaller babies, and I hope that I didn't come across that way, either. If I did, please accept my sincerest apologies. I just thought the article was interesting, especially since those of us with big babies are usually told many "negative" things about babies who are big for their gestational age.

Again, I truly apologize for having offended anyone.
post #32 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by inezyv
I just thought the article was interesting, especially since those of us with big babies are usually told many "negative" things about babies who are big for their gestational age.

Again, I truly apologize for having offended anyone.
I read an article that claimed baby girls who weigh over 9 lbs at birth are 50% more likely to develop breast cancer. The same article talked about other correlations between size and health issues. Babies who weighed less than 5 lbs were more likely to have problems with stroke (I think) and babies of mothers who didn't get enough calories in the first trimester were more likely to be obese later in life. Some of these observations were made in groups born around the time of WWII, so the mothers often did not have proper nutrition.

I hadn't heard of a correlation between low birth weight and IQ, but I could see why there might be one. Low birth weight is linked to other issues, is it not? And I don't mean healthy full term but small babies or preterm babies who are small because they were born earlier, but of in-utero issues that cause development problems so.

In any event, saying that babies with high IQs are superior to those with lower IQs is offensive also. I know higher IQ is often one of the benefits plugged in regards to breastfeeding--I've heard it listed many times in the Advantages of Breastfeeding. People see being smarter as being better and I can agree with that in extremes, but when it comes to average intelligence, is there any evidence that shows that those whose IQs are a few points higher are better off in terms of mental and physical health and wellbeing? Honestly, being told that my daughters are twice as likely to get breast cancer is just as upsetting, but I figure statistics can be useful. At the same time various reports and studies end up contradicting each other or the factors are so limiting that they don't have much use outside the lab. Statistics certainly don't tell the whole story of my child's life.
post #33 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachZ
First, I have learned that everyone deems themselves smarter than most people (with occasional exception to those who've been abused).

I usually think everyone is smarter than I am, and then sometimes I get a glimpse that this may not be the case. I think many people with low self esteem probably think they are stupid to boot. I remember sitting in class one day and the teacher asked a question and one of the "smart" girls got the answer right and was praised. The teacher had made it seem like it was a tricky question, so I assumed my answer would be wrong and I kept quiet. Then it turned out I had the answer right too! Gosh, don't you hate when that happens! :LOL
post #34 of 91
*
post #35 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viola
I usually think everyone is smarter than I am, and then sometimes I get a glimpse that this may not be the case. I think many people with low self esteem probably think they are stupid to boot. I remember sitting in class one day and the teacher asked a question and one of the "smart" girls got the answer right and was praised. The teacher had made it seem like it was a tricky question, so I assumed my answer would be wrong and I kept quiet. Then it turned out I had the answer right too! Gosh, don't you hate when that happens! :LOL
Now here's an interesting question: I had my IQ tested in 8th grade because teachers identified me as a potential student for a gifted and talented program. Does that mean then that some students in my school who would have also done well on the exam never got that confirmation that they were "smart" because they weren't tested?

I think it's not true that everyone thinks they are smart. There are lots of reasons why people might not think so. I'm just not sure that people who don't think they are smart are right. I suspect a lot of people who think they aren't smart think so because others told them so, in a variety of ways.

I think I fall in the camp of the multiple intelligences people. It seems like there is more than one way to be smart. A lot of schools seem to exist for the purpose of persuading children that they are NOT smart.

Anyway, I think that if you eat to hunger and don't smoke and generally take care of yourself during pregnancy, you should have a smart baby. girl: Then you have to act like you have a smart baby, that's step two that you repeat indefinitely for as long as you live...
post #36 of 91
sorry... I'm doubting that birth size has anything to do w/ iq. LOL. My ds was 4lbs 6oz. He's an amazingly bright and agile guy. He is leaps and bounds above other 2yr olds at this point. Not because of his size... but because of my choices in parenting him and his own innate smarts! (ie- bf'ing, ap'ing, etc...)
post #37 of 91
I've read the same thing someone mentioned about low birth weight babies and slightly lower intelligence. There's a difference between low birth weight, as in Small for Gestational Age, and being small due to prematuriity. Preemies can be either small for gestational age (SGA or IUGR) or within an appropriate size range for gest. age. DS was IUGR/SGA, for unknown reasons. He was full term and weighed 3lbs, 5 oz, 16 in. long. Preemies who aren't SGA tend to catch up with their peers at some point (I believe very early, tiny preemies may take a bit longer to do so), but IUGR babies often remain small, like Shankar (DS). He is 5 now, still a little guy and obviously very, very intelligent. DD was 4 weeks early and weighed 5lbs.11oz, which is about average for a 36 weeker, and she's a very bright little girl--she's just over 2 and talks like a 3-yr-old.

I really don't believe the OP was trying to imply that anyone's small babies are less intelligent than her big ones. I didn't read the articles, but just because there is a corrollation between high birth weight and high IQ does not mean lower birth weight in all cases=lower IQ. Low birth weight caused by poor maternal nutrition/drug use/preclampsia/smoking.unknown causes (like DS) is very different from lower birth weight due to genetics (small parent(s) ).
post #38 of 91
I was 6.13 at birth and DP was 10 something. There is quite a difference in our intelligence levels… In my favor. I'm not trying to be disrespectful toward him or anything, but it is true and we both know it. Then again I was breastfed he wasn't. My mom was health/nutrition conscious, his wasn't. I was minimally vaccinated; he had all his shots and then some... I think there are a lot of factors involved with weight being a small one depending on nutrition.

I have known women who stuffed fast food and junk during their pregnancy and went on to have big “healthy” babies and then women who had great nutritional habits but had smaller babies. There are a lot of things to be considered like genetics and lifestyle factors.

Sorry if I am repeating anything. I just woke up and I have yet to read all the posts.
post #39 of 91
DS was 7lbs13oz is barely 5 years old and about to start 2nd grade curriculum (his choice)....he's stayed below the 50th percentile most of his life. He was a slow gainer as a baby....only 20lbs at 2 years old etc. Taught himself to read..... My father was 5lbs 3 oz and has a genius IQ. Both were breastfed though.
post #40 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy
*giggles* short people can sometimes have issues.
*snort* DH calls it "little man syndrome" :LOL I guess maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder.

I still stand by what I said in my second post, that everyone seems to be ignoring. It has been repeatedly shown that IQ tests are skewed in favor of a particular segment of the population, and that they measure how well you take the test rather than how intelligent you are. IQ means nothing, unless you take into consideration lots of other factors. The same people who are more likely to score higher on the IQ tests are genetically more likely to have larger babies. These are the same people those wretched infant growth charts were modeled after. People of anglo-saxon ancestry have bigger babies, and they score higher on IQ tests because those tests are skewed in their favor. Surely those studies controlled for outside factors like smoking and poor nutrition and prematurity??? Now I'm going to have to find them and pick them apart piece by piece. There's no way those studies hold water. None whatsoever. I still think it's a load of rubbish. And it might very well be ethnocentric to boot (I'm betting it is).



edited to add: can someone please tell us the name(s) of the study in question and where it was published? Not the article, but the study the article is about.
the only one I can find is this:
Effect of very low birth weight and subnormal head size on cognitive abilities at school age
Quote:
We tested the hypothesis that very-low-birth-weight (less than 1.5 kg) infants with perinatal growth failure whose head size is not normal by eight months of age (corrected for prematurity) have significantly poorer growth and neurocognitive abilities at school age than very-low-birth-weight children with a normal head size at eight months.
That's a very far cry from what the OP was talking about!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Birth Size and IQ