Effect of intelligence on autism...

Post Reply New Topic

I'm the complete opposite I find Marx's work challenging. I don't know why that is, though. Maybe ADD.

Thanks for the link, but I meant I'd want to read the actual study itself, not a report of the study's findings. I often find that results that sound good when reported in the media are actually way less impressive when you read the actual study. Off the bat, the the n-sizes are fairly small in the studies mentioned. I am also not talking about IQ, but rather the construct of "intelligence" which may not be measurable in some people. Just because someone has a low measurable IQ does not necessarily mean they are not intelligent.

That notwithstanding, it does not contradict the interaction that I previously suggested.

Say you have a "functioning scale" ranging from 0 to 100. And say that the degree of someone's autism constrains them to a certain range in the scale. Meaning their top possible level of functioning and their lowest possible level of functioning.

You could have both person A and person B with an inborn "constraint" between 15 and 50, say. Person C and person D with a range of 40 to 70, and Person E and person F with a range of 65 to 90. (I realize the ranges are not equal, but no one says they need to be equal; that is not the point)

If person A has a higher IQ and person B has a lower IQ, it could be that person A's "functioning level" could be at 50 and person B's could be at 30. Now, say that person C has a range from 40 to 70 and has lower IQ. They could actually be functioning at 55, which is higher than person A who has a higher IQ. Person D (range of 40 to 70) with a higher IQ could be at 65, which is in the upper limit to their range, whereas person E (range of 65-90), who has a lower IQ than person D, could actually be functioning at a 70, which is higher than person D.

Lined in a row, you would have B(L) A(H) C(L) D(H) E(L). You have one person with "low" intelligence who is functioning higher than 2 people with "high" intelligence. That doesn't mean, however, that the two people with "high" intelligence are not functioning at a higher level than they would be if they were of low intelligence (their counterparts B and C).

Does that make sense? I'm tired, so if it doesn't, I probably failed to explain myself properly.

Take two people with "equal" autism and compare this with unequal cognitive ability via IQ. On average, would the higher performing group have a stronger showing or have any advantage vs the weaker? Say with a WAIS score of 160 vs 85?

I think more what I am trying to say is this:

Take two people with autism.

Let's take the assumption that the autism affects the information processing aspect of the brain, through the thalamus pathways.

So both people have the same area being disrupted (and yes, I am generalising highly here ^^)

Let's take another assumption here that the brain will try to utilise other areas to do the tasks that the disrupted area is struggling with.

If someone is more intelligent than another, perhaps their other areas are more efficient. I am not necessarily going by IQ here - IQ measure certain aspects of intelligence, not all.

Hence, the more intelligent person can perhaps "fake it" better than someone with a lower intelligence. It is, however "faking it" - it is not natural. Others consider this person to be a bit "odd" because, although they are kind of doing the right things, there is something strange about the way they are doing it - robotic-like (as if an unnatural part of the brain is being used rather than the natural part).

Hence, the more intelligent person can kind of hide their autism better than less intelligent people. This, in no way suggests that people with a higher intelligence have it easier, not at all!

There are many drawbacks to this too (this wasn't my point though, but anyway). Someone who is like this, because their brain is utlising other unnatural areas so much it is mentally EXHAUSTING!! (maybe even more mentally exhausting than someone who may not use these other areas?). They are still indeed affected by their sensory sensitivities (the filtering system is still affected). They have the issue that was mentioned a bit in that people expect more of you because you are so good at hiding it, hence there is way more pressure and more "you just need to try harder" comments which can lead to all sorts of anxiety, burn out, and depression.

One of my biggest issues in Life has been how tired I get. I have so much I want to do, yet I get constantly tired and overloaded and I never understood why until my diagnosis. In this sense, I see a huge "disabling" effect because I cannot actually do as much in my Life as a neurotypical can and this frustrates me - on top of the fact that no one understands and just thinks I am being lazy/overreacting, etc.
Just because I may be able to "hide" my AS fairly well to the general public (not at home, nooo way) does NOT mean that it doesn't take 100% effort in the moment to do so, nor a lifetime of study and effort to learn.

I was wondering whether this could account for the "mild AS" end.

It is just a thought though, my brain is always coming up with theories for everything (another cause of exhaustion lol)

If apples to apples then it certainly is a factor.

As we know there is a large modularity of the human mind in the ways of cognition. Some have poorer executive functioning, along with a "high IQ " but with much more performance difficulty, as one example.

If it's "apples to apples" then any more of "cognition" in any other department would compensate to a degree.

Someone with poor EF has a trashed "working memory." Working memory is one component of cognition - or a certain "intelligence." If you were highly verbal but couldn't hold anything in your head; this greater ability would be meaningless.

That's the calculus.

Last edited by Mdyar on 12 Sep 2012, 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, I think this is what I am saying.

Well, the studies are cited at the end of the article. Feel free to track them down.



Thus reveals the problem with discussing "intelligence." We have to define what we mean by "intelligence" first.



Once we've settled on a definition of what intelligence IS, we should probably define what "intelligence" is NOT.

Namely, I'm speaking of "cognitive inhibitors" such as anxiety, attention, memory, emotional regulation issues, mental and physical trauma, ect.

All of these can have a net negative effect of "functioning" in an otherwise "intelligent" person. Speaking from my observations of this site, we have many people who are very "intelligent," but who also require varying levels of support. Speaking for myself, my supervisors are on notice that I need certain accommodations when it comes to communication that my 141 verbal IQ cannot "compensate" for.

But do you not feel you have advantages that you would not have if your verbal IQ were 90? Or, more appropriately to my point, if your actual verbal intelligence (whether we could accurately measure it or not) were in the average range?

Not particularly.

It's a lot like having a high-powered laser gun and no way to aim it.

Fair enough.