Intelligence as the great equalizer

Post Reply New Topic

Relevant to what?

Edit: oh, you mean that having lots of interests and being a bookaholic is relevant to being smart?

Relevant to things that will matter in 50 years

ex political problems
medical health issues
human suffering
languages
(On top of learning various skills)

as opposed to small talk about Kylie Jenners boob job.

I can do small talk now. Ive learned to leave "relevant" stuff for online forums. I learned to keep a lot of stuff in to be honest. I call it playing dumb.

Oh lordie, no, I didn't think btbnnyr was calling me a dumbass. I thought there was some anger/frustration vibes in the response. (And honestly, I am not a dumbass, so I wouldn't take it to heart even if someone did call me that -- the joys of getting older, and wiser, lol). I think (though who knows -- this is the problem with the limited and slippery nature of language) that we were thinking about the concept of taking things 'literally' differently (which, in itself, raises interesting questions) -- and/or we were looking at different pieces of the original sentence -- I was stuck on the literalness of the phrase 'Totally Intelligent' because in my mind, that phrase has no meaning, and was also trying to point out that there's multiple ways of interpreting how one might fight a stereotype. Classic overthinking, perhaps? In any case, it is all good. Thanks for asking.

Thank you, kraftiekortie. And yeah, the marriage thing -- definitely a bummer.

IA. I think it's a defense mechanism.
I had a friend who was diagnosed with adhd as a child. He's smart, but he's also very impulsive. His impulsive nature has canceled out any gains in success. I'm not saying this is true all the time, but it was true in his case.

I was about to post this also.

Someone once mentioned her concerns about a friend's behavior, which sounded to me like the friend might be on the autism spectrum.

When I mentioned that possibility, the person replied about this 3rd party "Oh, no, no, she's perfectly intelligent, it won't be that."

This illustrates the lack of knowledge much of Joe Public has about the nature of the autism spectrum. Some people actually think that autism automatically means the person is intellectually challenged/disabled, of below average intelligence, and thus someone who displays "normal" intelligence can not be on the spectrum. And all those on the spectrum cannot be of "normal" intelligence.

We know that this is not true and that, as the OP points out, intelligence levels are in fact distributed across the spectrum in a range of variation similar to that of the general population.

So all this "Totally intelligent" stuff was probably initially an attempt to enlighten people regarding the notion that autism equals low intelligence in every case, and to remove the mistaken idea that there is no possibility of anyone being average or above average intelligence yet also autistic.

Why do people on the spectrum automatically believe in the applied validity of instruments (like IQ tests) that are standardised on NT populations when these are used to measure people from different populations?

There is no test standardised on/for ASD populations as far as I know, so test outcomes operate "as if" your intelligence functioned as if you were neurotypical, and if you are not, it lacks validity and reliability to a greater or lesser degree.

So many other things, standardised on NT populations, seem to trusted by ASD people and applied to themselves without a second thought as to why this might not be appropriate, without caution or discrimination; I am sure if ASD intelligences could be measured - if someone bothered to develop a valid and reliable measure - you would find the usual Bell curve distribution, though the intelligence levels at the two tails may be quite different from the NT distribution.

Intelligence isn't a great equalizer, so far as I can see; it seems more of a great divider, in many instances, and measurements poorly reflect potential and aptitude for unmeasured capabilities.

The core question is, "what does the word 'intelligence' even mean? For NTs, for Aspies, for whomever. Thus my (failed-to-be-made) point in an earlier post that the phrase 'Totally Intelligent' is an inane one. Empty, meaningless. And, in my view, an insult to AS/ASD peeps because this kind of watered down claims toward social validity only reduces the seriousness of the discrimination people live with every day. Its a catchy phrase meant to get people's attention, but does it do anything, for real, to reduce the otherness the stereotype perpetuates in the first place?

Not to mention the question, "equalizer" in what context? What would 'equal' look like if intelligence were to somehow be so? For which peoples in which countries? Are we talking the global population -- all 7+ billion people -- or are there parameters?

Words make little sense. And yet, they are the limited medium we have available to bumble through life with.

Very true, B19. I too am not at all sure the conventional IQ tests are entirely accurate for ASD people.

I can say that is this my experience as well. It took me until my 30s to get the things most people get at a younger age. I have the same kind of wife as Cookieman does, and it was worth the wait. I also would up with a job that values my intellect and lets me for the most part be the odd person I am. I am learning how truly blessed I am to have those things. NTs might not value them as much because they get them much easier.

Your time will come, I am sure. I didn't believe it either when people told that to me.

I guess I interpreted "Totally Intelligent" to mean very intelligent. I guess I associate the word "Intelligent" to mean high in intelligence. I don't see low intelligent people being labelled "intelligent" even though they must have some level of intelligence, unless they are totally comatose.

Depending on the context, I would either interpret "totally intelligent" as being either:

1. Totally intelligent

2. A sarcastic phrase describing someone who thinks he/she is intelligent

3. A sarcastic phrase describing someone who is seen as being totally "stupid."

Why would an IQ test be valid for NTs but not for ASD persons? Is there something about Autism that would make people with it take (not perform on) the test differently?

Precisely because I'm a smartass, I often must work the dumbass out of my system. Good thing I'm an adrenaline junkie. Every brain is bifurcated you know.

Validity and different kinds of validity in psychometrics is very complex in a scientific sense; however this link very briefly outlines some of the issues issues which would introduce bias and therefore affect the overall validity of test scores applied to a different population than the one it was standardised on.

http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/?pageId=363

Validity has no meaning unless the parameter with respect to which it is measured is specified. One such parameter is the purpose of IQ tests.

The whole purpose of IQ testing is to assess if and how the tested do or do not differ from the population on which the test was normed. Insofar as they lend themselves to this goal, existing IQ tests are valid. Testing autistic people with tests that have been normed on autistic people would defeat this purpose and would therefore be invalid with respect to the same parameter.