Poll: autism/IQ/Personality

Post Reply New Topic

ISTP/Gifted/Classic AS

INTP/Above Average/Normal Variant

ISTJ/Gifted/Aspergers

Although it said ISTJ, it was by 1%. So I am also INTJ, I have traits from both actually.

Personality: INTP
IQ: above average (133, assessed by a psychologist, not an online test)
Diagnosis: Aspergers (& depression)

ISTJ/above average/ Asperger's

INTJ/Gifted/Subclinical

Do you have plans for collecting sufficient responses for a statistically viable dataset, or is this more for fun?

I'm not a statistician, but I used to work with one. He used to say a dataset with fewer than 200 points in any given segment was nonviable as a tool for characterizing a human population. That was at a business intelligence shop, though, and I don't know if his assumptions would be accurate in a medical context -- I'm guessing not, because those little fold-out papers that come with prescription drugs cite far smaller populations in the studies which measure frequencies of the drugs' side-effects.

Anyway, this is a cool poll thanks for coming up with it.

What I am confused about is why did they put something "moderately expressed" after the two items that were "slightly expressed". Shouldn't they start with something that is expressed the most, and end with something that is expressed the least? How can "moderately expressed" be less than "slightly expressed"?

INTJ/Gifted/Subclinical

Yes I want to collect enough data for a statistically viable dataset. I'll not draw any conclusion before at least 200-300 replies. Obviously the dataset will be biased:

- Introverted are more common on the net (Ixxx)
- Intuitive are more commone on the net (xNxx)
- Rationals are more common on the net (xNTx)

On wrong planet we will have an higher % of:
- Intelligent people
- High functioning (Subclinical/Asperger) people

- People with low IQ will tend to "not reply" to this post.

So obviously the data gathered will be biased, and I'll need further studies on the general population (I'll need to access to medical reports and probably I'll need to ask some psychologist / psychiatrist to help me in the testing process but I prefer to have some preliminary data, probably with RDOS permission, I'll do an intermediate step putting some question on the Aspie quiz if he wish).

What's the aim?
My gut instinct and anecdotical data suggest me that:
IxTx are more frequent in the spectrum than in the general population.
INTx tend to cluster to the higher end of the spectrum (Aspie/subclinical)
ISxx tend to cluster to the lower end of the spectrum (Kanner's Autism)
High intelligence tend to lower (from a statistical Point of view and while growing up) the impairment.
xxFx tend to have a more "severe" diagnosis than xxTx.

Obviosly that kind of "opinion" can be confuted by the research but I'm pretty sure that there is a relationship between "position in the spectrum" - Intelligence - Personality.

Some hypothetical explanation:
High intelligence people can have less severe impairment (especially at adult age) because they could be better at creating a "theory of mind" from a purely conceptual point of view.
ISxx personality could tend to have more severe DX because their primary imput device is Sensing, but sensing is "mixed-up" in autism (Intense world syndrome), so basically the personality preference tend toward something that doesn't always works properly.
The same hold for IxFx because we tend to have "empathy problems" so using Feeling as our primary output source will tend to give dissonant outcome.

But only with enough data we can build a systematic and coherent theory.

In the Myers-Briggs system, the order is the same regardless of intensity of expression. It's a bit like a four-digit number -- the leftmost digit is always counting thousands, the next digit always counting hundreds, the next always counting tens, and the last always counting ones. You wouldn't re-order "1341" as "4311" just to put the highest-valued digits first. Similarly, ISTP is always ISTP and not STPI or PSIT. The first "digit" is always measuring the position on the introvert/extrovert axis, etc.

One advantage to doing it this way is that there is a more limited vocabulary -- fewer ways in which a MB type may be expressed. As long as they're just [E,I] + [S,N] + [T,F] + [J,P] there are only 16 ways to write it. If the order of the axes were able to be changed, this would increase to 384 different ways to write it, which would make life much harder for people trying to collate and analyze test results.

Thank you for the detailed explanation! This is fascinating stuff, and it's obvious you've thought it out really thoroughly. I hope it goes really well

INTJ/ISTJ depends on the test and my mood.

IQ I was tested at 12 and came out at 129

Aspergers or simular to it.. it display alot of AS symptoms and have been dxed with dyspraxia.

off topic.

i will not participate as IQ is really not that meaningful.

I think the OP aknolleges that, but it is one of the main ways that intellegence is judged rightly or wrongly, also it is interersting to find out others scores andtry to find links and such.

I know that IQ is not the best possible way to misure intelligence, but badly is the only available by now

Not really; there are other ways, other scales developed by people who study intelligence. There are scales that measure everything from musical ability to interpersonal skills. They're just not as well tested and well-established as IQ tests.

Of course you'll still get the same skill scatter that you get on IQ tests. That seems to be universal to the autistic mind--great at one thing, horrible at another. On one such test, I scored very low on interpersonal intelligence, and very high on intrapersonal intelligence (i.e., understanding yourself). You'd think such two related fields would be similar, but for me, they are not. Even weirder, I score very low on any test of gross-motor skills, average on any test of fine-motor skills, and high on any test of mental visual-spatial skills! Those are even more related, and yet...

Autism makes measuring intelligence a very tricky business. It's hard enough with just one learning disability; try the equivalent of several learning disabilities combined with several talents! No wonder we stump the shrinks.