A request for a social intelligence tabell?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi! I would strongly appreciate a tabell containing characteristics off an autistic person within a scale off social skills. forexample:

Very high-functioning: Social skills (65-75) 'A specific description off the persons function and characteristics'

Moderate high-functioning: Social skills (60-70) 'A specific description off the persons function and characteristics'

Low high-functioning: Social skills (50-60) 'A specific description off the persons function and characteristics'

Please be specific and acccurate, and please correct me if i have been misleading or inaccurate. Thanks.

High functioning for an NT or someone with autism? Sorry for not being able to contribute to this thread or provide you with an accurate tabell of social intelligence. Social intelligence is of great importance, but theres no accurate tools of measurement nor is there a complete agreement about what social intelligence is and how it's measured. I don't like to think of autism as social retardation or low SQ (social quotient) there are many factors involved that impairs someone with autism in social settings, like anxiety, unpredictability ++ Also social intelligence tests aren't very accurate and does not take non-verbal communication into account. I think there is a pretty strong link between VIQ and SQ. I've only taken a few social intelligence tests myself, and I score in the 115-125 range on social intelligence, about 20 points less than my IQ. Yet those numbers certainly does not reflect how I function in social settings which is alot more than just the words that are being said. Judging by my score on those tests I should be high functioning (even for an nt), but there are so many other factors like lack of interest or motivation to pursue friendships or engage in social conversations, social anxiety, lack of empathy and difficulty reading non verbal cues that comes into play.

It might also be a problem in that social skills aren't one set of skills, but a number of sets, where an autistic person can be great at some and terrible at others. Taking an average wouldn't give you an accurate assessment of them, although certainly people always try to do that.

For instance, one social skill is approaching people. Lorna Wing has a sort of set of classifications of "aloof" (makes no approaches, resists approach), "passive" (allows approach but doesn't approach), "active but odd" (approaches but does so very strangely", and "formal" (approaches but does so in an extremely formal manner). And even that's oversimplified, and none of them is more or less severe than the other necessarily. (Passive is apparently the rarest, and that's the one that I mostly am, with little bits of the others. Passive is correlated with a movement disorder I also have.)

But that's only one social skill. You can get someone who never ever approaches people (so is terrible at approaching of all kinds), but who is excellent at understanding people. You can get someone who is terrible at understanding people but approaches them all the time. You can get someone who is good at understanding people but bad at imitation. All kinds of things go into social skills and there's not one flat level you have for all of them generally.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. People don't really appreciate high or low functioning labels around here anyway, not to even mention the subjectivity, the environment a person is in, issues besides social etc. that would render it completely useless. Also, it is rather useless, because what are you going to get out of labeling yourself or someone with such highly subjective terminology?

Social intelligence is an offshoot of Gardner's theory of mulitple intelligences. It's just a theory...not been proven and little in the way of substantial studies. Even the definition is up in the air.

Therefore, as it has already been said...if you do find anything...be wary of what it supposedly states. Many things 'social' have to be taken in context...ie. location, time of day, relationship of others with whom you're interacting, how you feel physically. There are lots of variables.

Im not labeling anybody, keep in mind it's a good thing reading through stuff. And if you don't like people making stats and facts and theories about things, you are than welcome to leave. I mainly came here to talk about statisticly things over feelings and issues, about being diffrent and that stuff like that, and if that makes you feel inferior or anything that's not my problem.

How is making such a chart not labeling people? I have been here a lot longer than you, so I know the people here better than you. People here don't really care for level of functioning labels. I don't understand how something so subjective could be of any statistical use, or at all factual. It wouldn't be fact. There isn't anyway for this to be accurate.

You're not even doing this on your own, you're asking for us to do it-- and it doesn't even have a purpose. This has nothing to do with me feeling inferior in anyway, I'm merely informing you.

It's not that you couldn't make such a chart; it's that if you did, it'd be irrelevant and have very little basis in reality or application to actual people. We have so many different combinations of skills and so many different levels of expertise in all of them that you couldn't say anything about a person based on one number, no matter how well you calibrated the test.

If you want to test people's skill levels in something-or-other, you can't just say "social skills". You have to use a very specific criterion; for example, you could test a group of autistic people's ability to read emotions in faces, compared to a large group of NTs for the baseline measurement. And then you could compare each group's guesses with what the people in your photographs report they were actually feeling at the time. That would be much more valid, and it would actually mean something if you said, "This autistic person is at the 2nd percentile for the general population and the 73rd percentile for autistics in correctly identifying the emotion on the face of a person in a photograph."

Thanks for being accurate and not a jerk. I don't care about testing anybody, if you read through my description you would see there's no place where it's implicating anybody in particullary. I just wanna know how the theory off social skills works, i saw a description for it on mental retardation, but none on anything related to social skills. I actually made a chart myself, but i don't know much about cognition and psychology, im mainly interested in charts and statistics, and if someone else on this site made a chart i think it would be easier for me to get an insight on how it works. If you a place better to talk about stats and stuff like that i would be glad hear about it.

What is a tabell?

I'd also like to find such a table.

Even testing each autistic person's ability to read emotions in faces isn't as easy as some people make it sound. For one thing, most tests require a person to be understanding or using language around the same time they're looking at faces. For another thing, they often use actors rather than regular people in genuine situations, thereby testing things like stage conventions as much as they're testing actual ability to read faces. Then there's the difference between reading deliberate facial expressions and involuntary ones, culturally learned ones and universal ones, and lots of other things, and autistic people can be better at one than another. Plus people often use still photos to do so instead of moving ones. And there is so much more than I've even written here that can interfere with an accurate result.

I've been involved in trying to design experiments to genuinely test such things and they're way harder to design than the usual experiments that exist already. What frightens me is that I can notice these things as someone with no formal education about autism, and people who are supposedly experts (not to mention peer reviewers, etc.) often don't notice it.

That is something that has always bothered me about "what's this expression?" tests. The ones people have posted here have looked like faces taken from movie stills. What's actually being asked is "what emotion is this actor trying to convey?" Candid photos taken of random people on the street would be a lot more accurate. But also possibly a violation of those peoples' privacy to be used without permission in a test. So that leaves people who have given permission but then are acting on instruction rather than actual emotion.







The study of autism by people who don't have it seems to be more anthropology than medicine. Your role, as best as I can make out from posts, has been that of the local hired as an interpreter. A paradigm shift towards seeing this as anthropological research might go farther towards explaining autistic people to non-autistic people, which is what they are trying to do.