Is social IQ a reliable indicator of overall IQ?

Post Reply New Topic

In my experience, the average NT tends to assume that if a person has low social skills it means that the person is unintelligent. I have seen this happen so many times I can't help but wonder how good of an indicator of overall IQ social IQ is. What if the NTs are right and 99 times out of 100 social IQ accurately reflects overall IQ?

I personally think it boils down to faulty logic. NTs start with the premise that if a person has a high social IQ, the person has a high overall IQ; and then deny the premise and incorrectly conclude that if a person has a low social IQ, it means the person has a low overall IQ.

It hasn't been my experience that people think that way. If anything, if someone is really awkward, sometimes people think they are extremely intelligent- too smart to relate to others.

But anyway, I don't think social IQ has anything to do with traditionally measured IQ scores.

since they take SQ for granted, the lack of it makes people seem 'stupid'. Often it's 'how can you be so smart, and so stupid?'

The missus hasn't had the education I've had, and is probably not as intelligent, but give her 5 minutes of talking (to total strangers), and they're best buds...go figure...

I observe girls from my group in college and those with excellent social skills in more than half of the cases don't show any other interests than socialising. They don't read books and have lacks in vocabulary.

I can't agree with the statement that average people tend to assume that people not endowed with good social skills are not endowed with any special intellectual capabilities as well - on the opposite, a popular (and in many cases having many in common with real life facts) stereotype is that people with good social skills may be cute and charming but one shouldn't expect any special scientific knowledge from them while those who don't have friends and are still sitting home don't waste time for taking part in parties and read books instead which results in increasing knowledge.

Behaviour of people in whom great social skills and an exuberant need for socializing combined (those two are not the same, appearances are misleading) may be compared to behaviour of those who took a narcotic that in turn made them concentrated only on looking for new ways of satisfying their hunger for this drug. In other words, they waste their intellectual potential exchanging it for empty pleasures of socializing which as such is pleasurable to them but doesn't contribute to intellectual development if it's the only thing they devote your time to.

Those ones in whom great social skills prevail over need for socializing are not lost yet because they are active also in other spheres of life - acquiring new knowledge, reading, visiting art galleries and stuff like that.

They can't be related. I just recently made both an IQ test and an EQ test (Is the Emotional intelligence the same as the Social intelligence?) My IQ was above average but my emotional intelligence was barely above retardation. So that means that on average, my intelligence is just average (Anyone know a synonymous for average? Using the same word twice in a sentence looks ugly.)

Absolutely not - in fact if anything they are inversely proportional!

The point is we should have the opportunities to have a normal life even thou we can't fit in the "normal" quotient.

NO, it most certainly, absolutely is NOT. In a lot of case, quite the opposite, in fact.

I agree with the "inversely proportional" idea, to a point. The NT brain is specialized to socialize: They are hard-wired to learn language, to recognize faces, the judge facial expression, and to recognize the human figure. However, they aren't hard-wired to do mathematics, or to learn to read, or to solve puzzles. The hardware's there; but the software has to be built up through practice.

Now take someone who isn't as good at those IQ-test type tasks as most people. Let's say he scores an 80 on an IQ test. He's not all that good at math or reading or puzzle-solving... but his brain is still hard-wired, like most NT brains are, to learn to socialize. And that means he will specialize in socializing, unless he is forced to or greatly desires to specialize in something else, because socializing has by default become his strength. If his IQ were average--if he were as good at the abstract tasks as most people--he might be more of a generalist; but with an IQ of 80, he gravitates towards his strengths and learns more than most people... ending up with a "social IQ" of maybe 120.

That effect only holds true up to a certain point, of course, because there are abstract-reasoning aspects to socializing--remembering names, understanding pop-culture references, having a serviceable vocabulary. But still, in people who are across-the-board delayed in abstract, logical, IQ test type tasks, the socializing "wiring" of the brain is not necessarily delayed by nearly as much... resulting in things like a charming Down Syndrome child with social skills hardly delayed at all. (I do think this is where some of the acceptance of people with mental retardation has lately come from--that they have social skills enough to communicate to other people that they are undeniably human. The other part is of course the impulse to protect a child who is more vulnerable than other children, and it doesn't apply as much to adults.)

Are people with very high IQs socially delayed even without autism? They can be, but only through lack of practice. A very high IQ isolates a child from his peers because he is interested in more complex things than they are interested in. And a high IQ can be seen as intimidating. Many gifted children hide their giftedness just for that reason--they want to be accepted, seen as normal. However, many gifted people are also highly social; these people often make good leaders because they are not just socially perceptive but have a good grasp of problem-solving as well.

Id say no, a person can be smart on so many levels. I dont think IQ tests are accurate either. To fully measure how smart a person is in every area you would need a whole bunch of tests, and even then they probably wouldnt be 100% accurate.

I agree, it is faulty logic. People tend to assume that someone's intelligence will be constant across all areas, so if you lack social intelligence (and if you do, it is rather obvious to most people) , people will assume that you are lacking in all areas of intelligence, unless you show them otherwise.

I believe I have heard they correlate positively in the population in general.

I shall see if I can't track down any sources...

The Vineland, a test used to diagnose Aspergers/ASD's, tests for social deficits and functional skills. If child is low in any area scoring below average--good indicator that he/she is autistic combined with other IQ tests and checklists (of course).

This particular test was used primarly to test level of functioning in MR kids.

My son scored deficiently in the social area of the test as compared to his cognitive functioning IQ scores. I'm assuming a MR person would score deficiently in all areas.

equinn