Page 1 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Maggiedoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,126
Location: Maryland

19 Dec 2009, 12:17 pm

b9's post is not completely off-base. That scale and terminology is how IQ and intelligence were originally understood. That's what certain IQ scores have been considered to mean, and while it's a bit old and not particularly well-formulated, it's still to a large extent the basis of how intelligence is seen.
The problem is everything that it doesn't take into account. The comments about what people of certain intelligence levels enjoy and appreciate is one place where that thinking starts to go wrong-- it assumes that just because you can't observe something, it's not there. That just because somebody can't communicate something, they're not thinking it. It's a bit like saying that if you can't see the molecules of something, that it can't be made up of molecules.
Also, all of those comments about what someone is able to do on their own are quite bothersome and inaccurate, especially in regard to ASDs. Many very intelligent people don't notice things outside of that which interests them. This creates horrible problems in everyday life, trouble caring for oneself, getting on in the world, but doesn't indicate low intelligence.

However.. in regard to people of typical neurology (I want to distinguish here.. we use NT to describe people who don't have ASDs, but here I'm trying to use it to mean people who actually are neurologically "normal") many of those descriptions are surprisingly accurate. Such people have interests that coincide with their intelligence level and have fairly similar intelligences in the different categories. There are people who will proudly frame and hang their Walmart cashier of the week certificate in their bedroom. There are people who will scoff at people who use "fancy" gadgets, who care about nothing that they can't see and touch.

The problem with that entire scale just comes when you're dealing with anybody who does not have typical neurology. Not only ASDs, but also AD(H)D, or plenty of other mental or neurological conditions.. anything that changes how someone thinks.
How do you describe someone's interests when you can't tell when they're interested in something?
How can you figure out how intelligent they are if they can't communicate what they think?

This is even a problem in dealing with brain trauma.. There was a guy recently who they thought was in a vegetative state, and it turned out that he was completely alert mentally throughout the several decades in which they thought he was brain-dead. For all we know, the proverbial tree that falls in the forest where nobody is there to hear it may have some thought process of its own.

Callista wrote:
They no longer use the "mental age" variant of IQ, though that is how it was initially measured. Nowadays, they put you on a normal curve (Bell curve) with 100 in the middle of the curve and a standard deviation of 15 or so (depending on the test). If you're exactly average for your age, you get a score of 100. If you're two standard deviations behind the average for your age, you get a 70. Two ahead, and you're at 130. Most people will be within one standard deviation of 100, which is what is termed "the normal range". However, because the vast majority will score within two standard deviations (70 to 130), there aren't very many people outside of that range for norming the tests; and the higher or lower you are outside that range, the less the IQ test means. Of course, that's not the only way the overall IQ score can mean very little; there are many obstacles to getting a proper measurement (expressive/receptive language difficulty, so common among autistics, is one such obstacle), and even if you can get a valid measurement, the overall IQ score won't mean much if your subtests are scattered within a wide range.

I didn't know that they'd changed that.. although I'm not totally sure if it's much better. Is there a way to tell the difference between an unintelligent 5-year-old and a 5-year-old who is on the level of a gifted 3-year-old? And what about the one who just isn't good at expressing what they know?
Well, you already made the point about expression problems, so I think we're already agreed on that.. the other question is about development. Just because they get to it later doesn't mean that there isn't just as much, or more, that's actually there.



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

19 Dec 2009, 12:21 pm

Well, that's why IQ doesn't mean much. You can't tell when somebody's IQ is going to change, and when it's going to stay the same. You can't tell whether their IQ reflects their ability to take care of themselves. You can't tell whether they have lots of scatter or very little. You can't tell anything about the many things the IQ test doesn't measure.

Anyway, there are lots of high-IQ people who don't care about learning, and low-IQ people who do. I know, as I've met otherwise-typical people in both categories. Don't stereotype; it isn't accurate. You simply cannot tell anything about anybody based on their IQ tests (with the possible exception of how good they are at taking IQ tests).


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


Almandite
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 98

19 Dec 2009, 12:26 pm

b9 wrote:
i am sorry i am not in the spirit of the thread but:

my psych(iatrist/ologist) discussed with me, the basic attributes of the "levels of intelligence" when i was young, and i remember her descriptions.

she started at "genius"
she said genius was when someone knew without any external tuition, a completely valid and correct set of realities. some of these realities may never have been seen by other people, and the genius person is a pioneer of experience that they may communicate to the rest of the world that never thought of it.

under "genius" is "gifted", and gifted people have an almost instantaneous appreciation of whatever they see or hear. they can recreate in alternative ways what they see, and they can explain their observations in a way that many people can benefit from. they are creative of solutions in a way that makes others transfixed.

under "gifted" is "superior". "superior" people are extremely efficient in thought, and they consider nothing that is not facilitative to their mental aim.
they voraciously learn all that they need to know to be very efficient in managing their thoughts and actions.

under "superior" is "bright".

"bright" people (110-120) are enthusiastic listeners, and are also very keen to learn. they are curious about things, and they are very grateful for instruction.


Well, to start off, this is all wrong. There is no evidence to support these characterizations. I'm gifted, and I've done a lot of reading about it (Hoagie's Gifted is a good place to start) and the first thing to strike out at me, beyond the characterizations which I will get to later, is that the labels are wrong. Giftedness and genius are both different words for roughly the same spectrum. Levels of Giftedness

The characterizations are extremely problematic. Not all gifted people are good at school. You can be good at school and not be gifted. The traits she fixates on may help magnify intelligence, but they do not cause or characterize it. There is no research to support her characterizations. It's a nice way of describing some people, but that's all--and it's problematic when extended to entire groups, or when it is implied that intelligence is connected to these traits, or when you presume to be able to look inside a person's head and know not only how they think, but why they are able to think that way. It is sheer hubris to then extrapolate that this invented experience must be true of an entire group.

Quote:
under "bright" is "high normal, and normal, and low normal" . they are average people who consider things mainly from a perspective of self maintenance. they seek entertainment and other products of society that they can not really contribute to. they pay for what they get.

under "low normal" is "dull". "dull" people are concerned primarily with their own desires.
if they had a chance to listen to einstein talking and they were also very hungry, they would go and eat instead. they usually relegate all the technology that they use to the "inventions of boffins" that are like aliens to them.

they have many opinions about things that affect their lives like taxes, but their protests are simple gutteral rebuttals to a circumstance, rather than a dissemination of it.


These characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

Quote:
under "dull" is "moron" and that is 60-80 iq. a "moron" is in the realm of retardation, but many are never detected. they seem impulsive and ebullient sometimes, and they cut across the grain of expectation. they can garner support from others because of their "simple straight forward" thinking. their impulse however is based upon a foundation of extreme mediocrity.

mostly, "morons" have jobs like laborers or store men.
they can be expected to perform instructions adequately, but they can not formulate a successful plan of action on their own.

under "moron" is what was termed "imbecile".

"imbeciles" have an IQ of 40-60.
they can be taught repetitive tasks and can work in sheltered workshops. they remain living with their parents or in group care. they are not able to live by themselves.

"imbeciles" seem happy and even excited about things that are very mundane to people with average intelligence.
they can help with domestic duties like setting the table etc.
they still perceive reality, although only the simplest aspects of it.

under "imbecile" is "cretin" (i know "cretinism is a disease, but at that time "cretinism" was still used as a description of the second lowest level of intelligence).

"cretins" have an IQ of 30-40.
they must be managed, and they can not contribute meaningfully to any process. they can sometimes walk and eat and toilet themselves, but they can not talk in a way that is decipherable except with extreme effort (on the part of the listener). they report no observations, but just react to stimulus in physical ways.

under "cretin" is "idiot".
"idiots" are between 5-29 IQ.

idiots can not eat without help, and they can not toilet themselves, and they can not walk. they do not control the direction their eyes point in because they have no curiosity even on a crude scale.

a 29 IQ person may be able to follow your finger motion with their eyes for a small while, but if you point at something for them to look at, they will not look there no matter how much you try to tempt them.

under 20, there is no evidence of any attachment to outer reality, and they will not look at anything you thrust in their face.


Much of this has been flat-out disproven.

Quote:
i hope they are not alive inside because it would be torture to be a normal person in the brain of an idiot for life.


Nice ableism there!

In fact, the whole thing is highly ableist. That's probably why people object to it. :wink:



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

19 Dec 2009, 12:30 pm

...yeah, that.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,231

19 Dec 2009, 12:58 pm

B9,

Don't state those views openly! A lot of laborers, etc... AREN'T morons, but may take great offense. And that description of genius, etc... ALSO leaves a LOT to be desired.

BTW the idea that IQs don't change is really STUPID! an IQ is a QUOTIENT!! !! Since the divisor ALWAYS changes, WHO is to say that the MA has to change in a 100% consistant way. They HAVE to change because if a person has an IQ of 100 when he is 2, the MA is 2! If the MA does not change by the time he is 4, his IQ will be 50!! !! !! 2/4*100=50 so the AVERAGE MA of a 4 year old is 4. 4/4*100=100. LETS say it ended up being 5.... 5/4*100=125!



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

19 Dec 2009, 5:35 pm

I have a coworker is is diagnosed with mild mental retardation (IQ between 70 and 50) and she sees of perfectly average intelligence to me.

IMO the use of IQ tests to diagnosed intellectual disability is flawed simply because intelligence is not a unitary thing. You could bomb an IQ test because you have poor Logical-Mathematical and Visual-Spatial intelligence and still be quite smart in other areas. Or the low scores could be from a non-intellectual learning disability like Dyslexia or Dyscalculia.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


19 Dec 2009, 5:48 pm

Odin wrote:
I have a coworker is is diagnosed with mild mental retardation (IQ between 70 and 50) and she sees of perfectly average intelligence to me.

IMO the use of IQ tests to diagnosed intellectual disability is flawed simply because intelligence is not a unitary thing. You could bomb an IQ test because you have poor Logical-Mathematical and Visual-Spatial intelligence and still be quite smart in other areas. Or the low scores could be from a non-intellectual learning disability like Dyslexia or Dyscalculia.



I knew a lady in her mid twenties when I was 20 and she said her doctor told her she had a mind of a fifth grader when he gave her the IQ test. I questioned her intelligence because she said she has difficulty with her memory so she was unable to hold down a job because of it (the other reason was due to her back) so I thought maybe it would effect her score. She didn't seem ret*d.



Maggiedoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,126
Location: Maryland

19 Dec 2009, 6:26 pm

Odin wrote:
I have a coworker is is diagnosed with mild mental retardation (IQ between 70 and 50) and she sees of perfectly average intelligence to me.

When was she diagnosed as having mental retardation? I mean, that was of my major points.. that if someone develops more slowly, they'll seem "slow" as a child, but not as an adult. A nine-year-old with the mind of a six-year-old might seem unintelligent. But there's not a really a difference between the mind of a twenty-seven-year-old and an eighteen-year-old.. (Well, not intellectually, anyway.)

Not to mention that what's tested isn't always something that indicates intelligence. Frequently, it's just stuff that indicates test-taking ability. And sometimes people skills...



bhetti
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 May 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 874

19 Dec 2009, 6:40 pm

2ukenkerl wrote:
B9,

Don't state those views openly! A lot of laborers, etc... AREN'T morons, but may take great offense. And that description of genius, etc... ALSO leaves a LOT to be desired.
b9 said those views weren't personally held but were explained by a professional at some point in the past. can't change history just because it isn't politically correct or based on sound science. that scale WAS the standard for labeling patients. I bet a lot of us were told things years or decades ago that now are considered outright crap. doesn't mean the things weren't said.



19 Dec 2009, 7:05 pm

All those labels b9 mentioned were used in the past for mentally ret*d people. I know, offensive. Moron and idiot used to be medical words, now they aren't anymore. ret*d is no longer be a medical word in parts of the world but it is still where I live. But my school didn't use that word when I was in my teens. I don't remember what word they used and every time I said ret*d, teachers get on my back about it. Why not correct me instead? :roll: Obviously I wasn't being insulting. Could they not see that?



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

20 Dec 2009, 6:56 am

i am not going to reply directly to anyone because i feel too sick.
i am unable (it seems) to keep my head above water on this website.

i did not say "all laborers are morons" or... oh i am too sick to defend myself at the moment. i have a severe respiratory infection. i can not defend myself on this site even if i am not sick.

i will just say that i am aware that on WP i am seen as a bigoted, ignorant, racist, homophobic, uneducated jerk.

i know that i have been seen that way from the beginning. i have received pm's from people asking me to find another site to pollute.

maybe you all should take a poll and say if you want me to go away.
if the result of the poll is that i am not welcome on WP i will go. i am not a troll

i am not playing my own violin, but i have had many comments that WP is a friendly close knit community, and that i contribute only sourness and negativity and spoil it for the rest.

well i do not need this site as much as many others, so i am not a greedy ignoramus who will remain and spoil your atmosphere.

i can not respond for a while because i may have to go to hospital again because i have no breath.

whatever.



bdhkhsfgk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,450

20 Dec 2009, 8:30 am

A child's mind in an adult body.



Maggiedoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,126
Location: Maryland

20 Dec 2009, 9:07 am

b9 wrote:
i did not say "all laborers are morons" or... oh i am too sick to defend myself at the moment. i have a severe respiratory infection. i can not defend myself on this site even if i am not sick.

i will just say that i am aware that on WP i am seen as a bigoted, ignorant, racist, homophobic, uneducated jerk.

i know that i have been seen that way from the beginning. i have received pm's from people asking me to find another site to pollute.

maybe you all should take a poll and say if you want me to go away.
if the result of the poll is that i am not welcome on WP i will go. i am not a troll

i am not playing my own violin, but i have had many comments that WP is a friendly close knit community, and that i contribute only sourness and negativity and spoil it for the rest.

well i do not need this site as much as many others, so i am not a greedy ignoramus who will remain and spoil your atmosphere.

Huh? Personally, I thought that what you said contributed to the discussion and didn't think that you did anything wrong by saying what you said.. And they weren't even your views, but just what you learned from someone else. It was information relevant to the topic, especially as definitions of things are as much dependent on how people, especially professionals, see those things, as the realities of what those things are. A large part of my point in this thread is that for many people who are diagnosed as mentally ret*d, the distinction and difference isn't in what the person can do and think about, but what the professional can do and think about. It's a judgment that says at least as much about the person doing the judging as it does about the person being judged. Your explanation of how professionals (one in particular, but there are certainly others with the same beliefs) view intelligence levels is totally relevant and appropriate to the topic..



bhetti
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 May 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 874

20 Dec 2009, 2:45 pm

Maggiedoll wrote:
b9 wrote:
i did not say "all laborers are morons" or... oh i am too sick to defend myself at the moment. i have a severe respiratory infection. i can not defend myself on this site even if i am not sick.

i will just say that i am aware that on WP i am seen as a bigoted, ignorant, racist, homophobic, uneducated jerk.

i know that i have been seen that way from the beginning. i have received pm's from people asking me to find another site to pollute.

maybe you all should take a poll and say if you want me to go away.
if the result of the poll is that i am not welcome on WP i will go. i am not a troll

i am not playing my own violin, but i have had many comments that WP is a friendly close knit community, and that i contribute only sourness and negativity and spoil it for the rest.

well i do not need this site as much as many others, so i am not a greedy ignoramus who will remain and spoil your atmosphere.

Huh? Personally, I thought that what you said contributed to the discussion and didn't think that you did anything wrong by saying what you said.. And they weren't even your views, but just what you learned from someone else. It was information relevant to the topic, especially as definitions of things are as much dependent on how people, especially professionals, see those things, as the realities of what those things are.
my point of view as well.



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

20 Dec 2009, 9:22 pm

Maggiedoll wrote:
Odin wrote:
I have a coworker is is diagnosed with mild mental retardation (IQ between 70 and 50) and she sees of perfectly average intelligence to me.

When was she diagnosed as having mental retardation? I mean, that was of my major points.. that if someone develops more slowly, they'll seem "slow" as a child, but not as an adult. A nine-year-old with the mind of a six-year-old might seem unintelligent. But there's not a really a difference between the mind of a twenty-seven-year-old and an eighteen-year-old.. (Well, not intellectually, anyway.)

Not to mention that what's tested isn't always something that indicates intelligence. Frequently, it's just stuff that indicates test-taking ability. And sometimes people skills...
No clue when she was diagnosed. I do know she also has Bipolar, was diagnosed with ODD when she was a kid (she says because of her behavior in her manic phases), and has epilepsy.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Age1600
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,028
Location: New Jersey

20 Dec 2009, 11:34 pm

bdhkhsfgk wrote:
A child's mind in an adult body.
i have that. and u know what somebody actually refered to that as mental retardation also, i hope not, i know im not mentally ret*d i may appear slow in some things but far from ret*d.


_________________
Being Normal Is Vastly Overrated :wall: