Any unintelligent aspies here?

Post Reply New Topic

Hmmm.....for me, hard work is futile without due diligence, and it's interesting how many politicians, employers etc. sing the praises of hard work without including this caveat. I'm also rather fond of the adage "don't work harder, work smarter." I agree that hard work tends to be an essential part of the recipe for getting things done, but I don't think the human race has put enough effort into solving that sad state of affairs. Who wants their working lives always to be hard? Considering the advances in technology that we've had over the centuries, why aren't we all living the leisured life of Riley by now? Why do we always allow work to expand into the time available to it?

I think Chronos' IQ-test number puzzle may point to something........even at my age I immediately floundered on that one, and would never have solved it without the explanation. What interests me is that once I saw the explanation, I felt that if only I'd known that a scheme of that form was a common feature of these IQ tests, I could have done better. I was assuming the sequence of numbers followed some straightforward mathematical progression like the ones I was taught at school, such as 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 etc. So it seems a person could learn to do better at IQ tests by studying the form of the questions - rather like cryptic crosswords, where the uninitiated might never guess what the heck they were about, but once they'd seen a few worked examples, they might get the point and be able to solve some of them. Thing is, last time I looked, IQ tests were supposed to measure the absolute ability of the brain to find patterns and solve problems - practice and being privy to "inside information" wasn't supposed to affect the results. In other words, IQ is supposed to be independent of education. Still, I suppose it's understandable that if one insists that a thing is real when it's only a hypothetical construct, and designs a test for it, one will end up with a flawed mess that can be discredited pretty easily.

Being an ''Aspie'' never meant being intelligent. Our I.Q just had to be above 70 to be diagnosed. We could have an I.Q of 71 or 131 is what I am getting at.

I am not an intelligent person by any means. I was never book smart and struggled terribly in school. I don't think there was a single subject I excelled at academically.

Which brings into question the so called "Flynn effect". Are successive generations that much brighter or have we just become more adept at doing IQ tests? With tending to practise more at such things being part of the process.

Some questions on IQ tests are biased towards urban dwellers.

Others are biased towards older people (e.g., I believe a picture of a typewriter is still included in the Wechsler's test for Children. Kids in their teens or younger wouldn't know what a typewriter looks like).

Our generations have always been bright, it's just eclipsed in social contracts that undermine that potential. If I am wrong, why is it that history proves me right? What was so special about the renaissance? How did it happen so suddenly? Apparently it has nothing to do with intelligence because it happened so suddenly. An event.

I suspect we're just getting better at doing the tests. I've wondered a lot about why anybody would want to determine the "general intelligence" of individuals, and apart from doctors wanting to assess the degree of brain damage in their patients, I can't thing of a reason that I would approve of. If it's to choose who gets the best-paid, brainy jobs, test them for the aptitudes that the job requires. And why should the brainiest jobs attract the highest pay anyway?

IQ scores don't determine how intelligent you are.

Supposedly, ASD people learn though memorization of details, so we have lower "whole picture" performance, and superior rote recall of details.

So, generally we're considered dumb ("lacks common sense") for most of our lives, then with enough memorization and tieing together of details, we can demonstrate superior or even genius intelligence.

I wonder if some of my IQ results could have been lowered simply because my mind tend to lack flexibility in seen other ways to solve such problems; not that I have the working memory and arithmetic skills to solve that one problem.
Of course it could be that being intelligent mean that one mind is flexible enough to see such problems in the right perspective, thus my lack of flexibility could mean I have a rather low intelligence, only compensated somewhat by my curiosity and some scattered skills, making me appear much smarter that I really am.

I believe I am not all that bright and it wasn't just with my IQ score but life skills as well. My most recent IQ test was last year and My Full scale IQ score was a measly 89. Previous to that was 82. I've had numerous IQ tests and it has been relatively consistent. As for classes it was wildly different class to class. For some I was top of my class, such as weather class but there is a history of why. Previous to the college weather class I studied to become a pilot and we had to learn weather as well, and previous to that one of my obsessions as a child was weather as well. So I came prepared. Others I was near the bottom of my class such as German and Oceanography.

I had to be in special ed 90% of the time during my schooling. My parents claim it was for the smaller class size, but that is so obviously false it blows me away that people actually believe it. I had to ride the short bus most of my life. When I had some testing in 7th / 8th grade in a private special school I scored incredibly high, for the word decoding especially. It was tested at approximately 14th grade (yes, this test went into college level), but word comprehension was significantly lower. To me this indicates Hyperlexia. But my previous school said to my face that I was stupid many times before and didn't believe the test score and even thought that the teachers gave me the answers or helped me in some way. No one believed that I actually scored decently but Hyperlexia is not automatically genius level IQ. There are some that are, but it isn't all. It is very common with an autism spectrum disorder as well as the opposite issue, dyslexia. One of my many schools that I was in kept tearing me down to the point of no self-esteem.

My ability to follow instructions is lacking. My activities of daily living is that of a small child and even after being shown many times how to do simple tasks, I fail time and time again. I have no understanding of basic things and people get shocked when I am able to do something intelligent. It is because it is rare. Too rare.

During 2016 when i had the testing, the tester mentioned how low I was with my ADL (activities of daily living) and if I didn't move I would have been with something known as DDD. It is for developmental disabilities, but mainly targeted for intellectual disabilities although they do have a lot of autistic clients as well.

My parents for the longest time claimed over and over again that I had an IQ of 140 but when I asked for the evidence they couldn't produce it. It was simply to raise my pathetic self-esteem even though it was lies. All my other tests were in the upper 70's to 80's. There was one test that showed 101 but that turned out fake because in the vocabulary section you are not supposed to just simply use the word in a sentence, but give the definition instead. I was extremely anxious so I blanked out on the definitions so I used the words in sentences. Yes, this does demonstrate that I do understand the word but that is not what the test asks for. But the tester still gave me full points. It boosted my score and other sections were equally as fake.

I do have test anxiety and people said over and over that it could lower the score. Problem being is I also was tested before I knew what an IQ test is. It was part of my autism testing when I was a young child. No anxiety for that.

When people first meet me, they say "Wow! You are one of the most intelligent people I have ever talked to based on the way you speak (especially when talking about my special interests such as psychology)" that quickly changes once the person gets to know me more. They see the repetitive thoughts and just simple rote memorization is all I truly have. It is different that actual intelligence.

My IQ is all over the place. Depending on the test, the conditions, how I feel, the weather, the room environment... etc... etc...... I can get anywhere between 125 to170.

The mantra I always heard while growing up was if the work is too easy, you’re doing it wrong. Even though the work was to my satisfaction, the person supervising the work would make me do it again and again, until they were satisfied I was doing it the hard way. Their reasoning was nothing in life is supposed to come easily, therefore, you must be either cheating or taking shortcuts. Never mind your way is more efficient...

Yep....I've had the above happen to me, too.

Sometimes, efficiency is ease, and vice versa.

They did that with Willie Mays when he did the "basket catch" in the 1950s.

The mantra I always heard while growing up was if the work is too easy, you’re doing it wrong. Even though the work was to my satisfaction, the person supervising the work would make me do it again and again, until they were satisfied I was doing it the hard way. Their reasoning was nothing in life is supposed to come easily, therefore, you must be either cheating or taking shortcuts. Never mind my way is more efficient...

There was an article published some years ago that IQ tests are extremely discrimitory, especially when given to people from different cultural/educational backgrounds. Not to sound racist, but give me a verbal test where it is written in jive or Ebonics or even Klingon, and i’ll score as an idiot savant every time. Ditto both visual tests where they test for logical reasoning by showing you graphics, and you need to choose what comes next in the sequence. I would not be surprised if there are psychologists out there that are still arguing what constitutes intelligence.

I once had an IQ tested at 150 but have no evidence in my life to show how that can be true. I think intelligence is doing the best with what you've got as much as, um, what you've got.

Me neither. The word has multiple definitions, so there's likely to be this "my definition is better than your definition" wrangle. I think there have been a lot of attempts to refine the definition and the test (same thing really) to render it more universal, but I don't think they've got there yet, and that doesn't surprise me either. That's why I much prefer the concept of aptitudes over "general intelligence" - how else can we adequately describe a person who can lead the world in atomic theory but can't tie his shoelaces? Pinning a simple number on a human being as a measure of their mental worth tells us almost nothing about the matter.