Do ALL people with AS have above average intelligence?
What people need to understand; it's not really greater intelligence that is gained, though it is highly probable. No, what is truly the "trade-off" in Aspergers (trading social understanding) is the ability to think logical and technically. The ability to interpret or apply such is dependant upon the person. Aspergers affects the way in which you think - not how well you do it.
That said, I am, technically, a genius. So is my youngest sibling. I have the ability to exploit my Aspergers. Not everyone can, and not everyone has a high level of logical understanding.
A good example, people with Aspergers or Autism are far more likely to be computer literate than neurotypicals. That said, again, not always the case.
You make a good point there. The only thing is that, from my experience, NT's seem to think that us Aspie's have our own logic. In other words, our logic is not logic by their definition. That doesn't mean that we don't have that quality though. We just tend to think "out of the box" imo (or perhaps in a completely different 'box' altogether

_________________
Q: "Humans are such commonplace little creatures."
--"Deja Q"
Myboys - PDD-NOS is Autism + average IQ, not low IQ. So it wasn't me saying that - and I don't think anyone was.
But it isn't. PDD-NOS is having some of the features of autism, but not enough to earn a full diagnosis. Check your DSM. It has nothing to do with IQ. I'm so curious where you got this bogus information?
If 90 were the midpoint (= 50 percentile rating) and nothing else would be changed about the difficulty of the test, then the majority of the whole world's population that is now alive, is dead and will live someday would be above average. And since the majority always indicates that something is normal - the majority of people are not autistic, so autism isn't normal - then above average would be average, despite that it is called 'above average'. And average would not be average, since fewer people would score in the range of average. And that seriously doesn't make sense, since average, normal = always the majority.
Mathematical speaking, if all people that ever set and will set a foot on earth would be tested with an IQ test, this would be the result:

(I wish I'd have found this graphic earlier, it would have saved me the trouble of dealing with the maths myself. So unfair)
That is the current idea about intelligence and can't be separated from the definition of the IQ. If we're speaking about the IQ used in medical matters, then we speak about this. If we'd change IQ tests and leave the definition of the IQ as it is, then there'll be problems.
But I think I have an idea where you got this 90 = midpoint from. I once read about how there are or were few non-standardised tests that set the midpoint lower. Which would make these tests useless today.
(The tests I named are the tests with which people are tested today. Officially recognised tests that are used by psychologists and psychiatrists.)
Thanks for clearing this up, I was always wondering what tests were used in the US. I knew about the WISC/WAIS being used, but by how many, that I didn't know.
I have no idea what tests were used that had an sd of 24, but I know a lot of people who claim their tests were like this. Maybe they're really some silly tests like online tests or other not officially recognised tests, which would explain just nicely why most of these people have top scores. It always confused the hell out of me and I wasn't sure what they're talking about.
Look, TLPG. Both my parents are psychologists. They agree with me. My mom gives probably a hundred IQ tests a year. I think she knows what she is talking about. I considered psychology and one of my interests is neuropsychological testing. I've been given lots of standardized tests, including IQ tests, and I know how to interpret the results. I've read books about the interpretation of the WISC. I've *administered* standardized tests (albeit speech and language ones, but the standardization works the same). I've mocked up IQ tests results for graduate school projects. I've taken three college or graduate level statistics courses, one specifically for psychology students. The mean for IQ tests is 100 and always has been.
Let me give you a couple of sources. Please, just give me one example of a commonly used standardized IQ test with a mean of 90. It's true that certain populations may have a mean IQ of 90, but IQ tests are designed with a mean score of 100.
About the Wechsler tests (the most commonly administered in schools in the US):
http://www.psychology.ilstu.edu/aehouse/wisciv.htm
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm
MMMM TLPG sure never answered me when I asked him to explain this and showed him the quote from the WP homepage where it said aspies have average to above average and said it says it in books too and on web pages. No answer so that must mean I'm right and I proved him wrong. I am good with ending arguments because he didn't answer me but will continue arguing with other people. They just have to pull the same method I use and he will shut up by not responding in this thread anymore to argue.
Spokane Girl, I answered your question at the same time as I answered someone else's (can't remember who off the top of my head). Look further back into this thread.
Well I'm sorry, but she doesn't. The tests she had applied must be based on Binet (judging by your previous comment) and they have the wrong mid point.
I'll give you a source - experience. Firstly at school - in science we did a piece on IQ testing, and I vividly remember the 90 because I got tested at the time (I don't remember what I actually got, but it shut a lot of mouths, because every other boy in the class was certain I would be below 90 - as in below average AKA the mid point, and I was way past it). I was actually the highest IQ in the class on the boys side!
So are you calling my science teacher a liar?
Secondly, the plethora of information I gathered while learning about my AS and how it affected me. The person that did my last testing (where I got my IQ of 131) also mentioned 90 as the mid point. So is he a liar as well?
Seems to me that Australia is better at psychiatrics than the US!



That makes no sense at all, Sora! Especially that first sentence.
But I will say that the majority are NOT normal, because there is no such thing. Every human being has some glitch about them, whether it be psychological or simple. When we cease looking for "normal" the Spectrum will be more readily accepted.



That makes no sense at all, Sora! Especially that first sentence.
But I will say that the majority are NOT normal, because there is no such thing. Every human being has some glitch about them, whether it be psychological or simple. When we cease looking for "normal" the Spectrum will be more readily accepted.
Well, it was supposed to not make sense, but I guess we have a different understanding of what of it made sense. It's exactly about the majority and the claim of science that the majority represents what is normal. Whatever the majority does - like scoring between 85 and 115 - it's what is normal, average, healthy, good and what people should want. (Not saying I'd want that.)
I wanted to show what your idea did to the IQ testing. Going with your claim, the majority of all people would be very bright, because they would all have an IQ that is above average. Setting the midpoint to 90 won't make any person score different from how they score now. They'd have the same IQ. Just the results would be interpreted differently - mainly that the majority would be brighter than average.
The point is, IQ testing is currently based on 'what is normal', hence midpoint = 100. If you say, hey man, the majority isn't normal - then you can say midpoint = 90. But then the majority would be 'better than normal'.
I rather stick to the idea that the majority of people are not super bright, because really, I don't see how the majority can be called super bright.
Well, the midpoint of a particular group of people can be lower than 100. That much is true. If I'd go to a lower secondary school in my country, the people there would probably score around 90-95 or so whereas people on my current school would score around 105-110. There exist scores in tests that say that 'people from this and this school usually score XY'.
The 100 = midpoint goes for the whole population though, maths do say so. It's not like anyone can change what maths say and it's not like anyone can check whether they're true or not (maybe someone like Einstein could?).
Well I'm sorry, but she doesn't. The tests she had applied must be based on Binet (judging by your previous comment) and they have the wrong mid point.
I'll give you a source - experience. Firstly at school - in science we did a piece on IQ testing, and I vividly remember the 90 because I got tested at the time (I don't remember what I actually got, but it shut a lot of mouths, because every other boy in the class was certain I would be below 90 - as in below average AKA the mid point, and I was way past it). I was actually the highest IQ in the class on the boys side!
So are you calling my science teacher a liar?
Secondly, the plethora of information I gathered while learning about my AS and how it affected me. The person that did my last testing (where I got my IQ of 131) also mentioned 90 as the mid point. So is he a liar as well?
I'm not sure what you mean by "based on the Binet." Do you mean the Stanford-Binet, which is a particular IQ test rarely used? I'm talking about pretty much every standardized test, whether IQ or otherwise, that is commonly given.
Also, clearly my background is much stronger than yours (I have multiple recent graduate-level classes backing me up- you have a "science" class from apparently a while ago plus a memory of what one professional said to you), plus I have two experts directly corroborating what I am saying. How about a source for your information? If you're correct, then that should be easy enough. Just give me one commonly administered (by professionals) IQ test with a mean designed to be at 90. Just one. Maybe there is one used in Australia with a mean at 90. That would be really stupid, given that you couldn't compare it to pretty much any other IQ test given, but I suppose it's possible. Did you even look at my sources? How about the part where it says "The average IQ is by *definition* 100."
Neuropsychological testing is my special interest. You telling me the mean of IQ tests is 90 is the equivalent of telling someone whose special interest is astronomy that Jupiter is the third planet from the sun. Not only is it ridiculous for you to compare your knowledge base to mine (not to mention my *mom's* knowledge base- you're a dabbler, but this is what she does on a daily basis), but you're getting a fact wrong that is so basic to IQ testing that I can't believe the discussion has gone on this long. Seriously, just look for a source that backs you up. Sorry if the "piece" you did on IQ testing as a kid doesn't reflect current conditions of IQ testing- get over it. God, this argument is ridiculous.
Edit: I found an article which discusses IQ testing in Australia. The most commonly administered IQ tests in AUSTRALIA? The Wechlser tests. Mean? 100. The most commonly used quick tests are the Picture Peabody Vocabulary Test and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence test. The means? 100 of course.
Links to info on IQ testing in Australia:
http://www.helendowland.fasthit.net/Tes ... ildren.htm
"The "standard" tests used for children in Australia, the US and elsewhere... are the Wechsler Pre-school & Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revision Three (WISC-III)."
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/t ... 1/art00009
"A sample of 313 Australian psychologists responded to a survey about their use of brief intelligence tests. Among those administering intelligence tests, approximately one in four used shortened versions of longer scales and just under half used a published test specifically constructed to provide quick information about intellectual functioning. Wechsler subtest short forms were the most frequent abbreviation while the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn & Dunn, 1981, 1997) and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1990) were the most often used quick tests."
Link to info on Wechsler tests:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:In ... =firefox-a
"Scaled scores for 10 core tests are summed to yield a composite Full Scale IQ score (Mean 100, SD 15)."
Link to info on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test:
http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/group ... oID=a12010
"Age-based standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15), percentiles, NCEs, stanines, and age equivalents. "
Link to info on Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test:
http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/group ... foID=a3350
"Provides scores on a familiar scale, where mean = 100 and standard deviation = 15."
So even if "Australia is better at psychiatrics than the US", you are still using the same tests. Of course, if your knowledge of neuropsychological testing is anything to judge the rest of Australia by (I'm not sure what you're judging the US by), I doubt it.
Got it now? The sky is blue, 2 and 2 are 4, and IQ tests are standardized with a mean of 100.
Lost In Space I'm not going to argue with you. Your information is at complete odds with what I've been taught and know, and such is the magnitude of your contradiction I just can not accept it.
It's bunk - pure and simple. 90 is the mid point, the average range is 80 to 100. About the only thing I can think of is those tests that you are thinking of is based on the assumption that the mid point is based on the rising majority IQ levels (which have gone up - and I never said they haven't). If so, then that has to be reversed because it's giving a false impression. IQ is IQ. Just because the practical average has gone up doesn't mean the mid point should be changed. It falsifies the base test.
So don't bother arguing when all you know is the current status of IQ testing (if I'm right that is and I think I am re the mid point being raised for the WRONG reasons).
Sora - I found your explanation of the "no sense post" to be insulting. To me and to those who taught me what I know and what I know myself.
It's bunk - pure and simple. 90 is the mid point, the average range is 80 to 100. About the only thing I can think of is those tests that you are thinking of is based on the assumption that the mid point is based on the rising majority IQ levels (which have gone up - and I never said they haven't). If so, then that has to be reversed because it's giving a false impression. IQ is IQ. Just because the practical average has gone up doesn't mean the mid point should be changed. It falsifies the base test.
So don't bother arguing when all you know is the current status of IQ testing (if I'm right that is and I think I am re the mid point being raised for the WRONG reasons).
Once again, you've failed to provide any sources to back up your claims, and clearly you didn't look at mine- including the ones stating that the major IQ tests used in Australia were designed with a mean of 100. That has nothing to do with rising IQ levels by the way- some populations will have higher mean scores and some will have lower, but the tests were *designed* (standardized) with a mean of 100 (and they have been since the very first ever IQ test). I think you don't understand the concept of standardization.
So I'm done arguing until you do your research. An argument of "but my science teacher told me something different" just doesn't cut it, not in the face of statements by EXPERTS.
You are not an expert. Your science teacher was not an expert. You have provided no direct information from experts (just second hand knowledge recalled from someone who evaluated you years ago).
My mom is an expert. She has spent decades administering the most commonly used IQ tests (the most common in the US and Australia). The other people I cited are experts. Give me some evidence from an EXPERT and I will consider it. Are you so arrogant that you think your pittance of knowledge is more accurate than the knowledge and EXPERTISE of all the people I cited?
All I'm asking for is one reputable source. If you can't provide it, then I think you need to reconsider your position.
Aren't Aspies supposed to be logical? Prove it, and show me that you've based your argument on verified fact.
I understand that what I've told you does not agree with what you were taught. Are you so close-minded though that you won't consider the possibility that perhaps the information you were given was either incorrect, or at least not representative of IQ testing as a whole? Do you believe everything you were taught as a child? Any amount of time spent on this board should disabuse you of that philosophy. I will accept the possibility that there have been IQ tests designed with a mean of 90. Hey, anything's possible. But that is not standard in neuropsychological testing.
ONE SOURCE. Is it that hard?
I am truley sorry that I insulted either you or anyone who taught you. If it helps any, I had no intention to offence you in any way, but rather enjoyed the discussion. I don't know what it is I wrote that has the effect of an insult, so in order to get a full grasp of the situation and to know what I did wrong, I'd ask that you point out to me what you perceived as an insult.
I am truley sorry that I insulted either you or anyone who taught you. If it helps any, I had no intention to offence you in any way, but rather enjoyed the discussion. I don't know what it is I wrote that has the effect of an insult, so in order to get a full grasp of the situation and to know what I did wrong, I'd ask that you point out to me what you perceived as an insult.
Maybe he didn't go to a good school, and was insulted by your comment that the average IQ would probably be lower in those schools- obviously not meant as an insult, but it's the only thing I can think of that he might be reacting to. I don't know why he should be insulted by your correction of his misconception about IQ standardization. It's clear that he's not open to the idea though. Otherwise, a simple google search would have sorted this out.
Myboys - PDD-NOS is Autism + average IQ, not low IQ. So it wasn't me saying that - and I don't think anyone was.
But it isn't. PDD-NOS is having some of the features of autism, but not enough to earn a full diagnosis. Check your DSM. It has nothing to do with IQ. I'm so curious where you got this bogus information?
MYBOYS is RIGHT!
PDD-NOS means PDD-NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED!! !! ! It is not REALLY a valid diagnosis, but a COP OUT! Saying a person has PDD-NOS is like saying an OAK is a TREE!! !! ! TREE is a MAJOR classification of plants, and OAK, PINE, FIR are some examples. PDD is a MAJOR classification of disorders, and autism and aspergers are some examples. If you don't know what a tree is, but know it fits in that group, you say it is a TREE. If you don't know what a PDD is, but it looks enough like a PDD, you say it is PDD-NOS! BTW Autism + average IQ is basically HFA, if it isn't AS!
FURTHER, the Autism society of america says:
This category should be used when there is a severe and pervasive impairment in the development of reciprocal social interaction or verbal and nonverbal communication skills, or when stereotyped behavior, interests, and activities are present, but the criteria are not met for a specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, Schizotypical Personality Disorder, or Avoidant Personality Disorder. For example, this category includes "atypical autism"-- presentations that do not meet the criteria for Autistic Disorder because of late age of onset, atypical symptomatology, or sub threshold symptomatology, or all of these.
I gave my reasons for not bothering to look. Can you read?
I obviously went to one better than yours.
No it wouldn't have, and again I explained why already. The IQ process has clearly gone up an inaccurate cul-de-sac.
All you want is sources. You have no respect for my personal experience - which of course is impossible to source. You won't accept my word - so why don't you just call me a liar and be done with it?
You don't know. I have stated my case and I hold to it.
Sora, you insulted me by demonstrating my explanation to LostInSpace was lacking in sense. It was not, and I take extreme offence to it.
Well, the question in my mind is; When did you go to school? If it's been more than a few years, you should stay up to date. Things change remarkably quickly these days, and what was fact when we first learned it isn't always the same after some time has passed. I saw some interesting commercials on television recently; For the World Wildlife Foundation, I think. The commercial showed a lot of stuff that was commonly practiced and thought to be perfectly acceptable; A secretary brought her boss a glass of booze, and he patted her butt as she left, a driver threw a styrofoam container out the window, and so on. All kinds of stuff that today gets you fired, criminally charged, fined, and more.
Point I'm trying to make is, what once was taught, is not always immovable fact.
But as far as this discussion went, I still maintain my position.
A diagnostic criteria which would require an IQ test is apparently in the upcoming DSM-V, according to TLPG, who's telling us what was said by a source whom he won't reveal, yet has access to a document being made by the WHO, and other top organizations. This IQ test would determine a diagnosis on basis of IQ. Yet TLPG has argued that IQ tests don't accurately represent those with ASDs. Isn't this a direct contradiction? This would invalidate such a diagnostic requirement, would it not?
_________________
1234
FOUR
Four is the only number which is itself has the same number of letters as it itself is.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Antidepressants and intelligence
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
31 May 2025, 3:32 pm |
How old do people think I am? |
07 Jul 2025, 1:27 am |
Why won't people just admit it? |
17 Jul 2025, 5:50 pm |
Is it all about networking with people? |
27 May 2025, 1:24 pm |