Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

On this whole AS="genius" thing...

Page 4 of 7 [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

23 Jan 2012, 9:30 pm

dalurker wrote:
Choices are limited with lack of resources, and can be guided into by constraints. Sometimes they don't do much with it at all. I think doing something benefiting society would be meaningful. It'd be nice to have some standards for the sake of justice.


Why should there be standards for the sake of justice? Why should people be obligated to do something benefiting society simply because of an arbitrary score on a test? Who decides what counts as "benefiting society?"



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

23 Jan 2012, 9:55 pm

Verdandi wrote:
dalurker wrote:
Choices are limited with lack of resources, and can be guided into by constraints. Sometimes they don't do much with it at all. I think doing something benefiting society would be meaningful. It'd be nice to have some standards for the sake of justice.


Why should there be standards for the sake of justice? Why should people be obligated to do something benefiting society simply because of an arbitrary score on a test? Who decides what counts as "benefiting society?"


Perhaps my not "doing something" like designing weapons has prevented world catastrophe. But then again I might have prevented American Idol...



cooldryplace
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 84

23 Jan 2012, 11:11 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Christopher Langan, the person with the second highest IQ (between 195 and 210) who has long held the title of the most intelligent man alive, is a former bouncer who now operates a horse ranch. Several other people with an IQ of 170 and above are chess players, i.e. one trick ponies who don't do anything to advance humanity. So much for IQ tests.

In comparison, Stephen Hawking "only" has an IQ of 160. Personally, I would consider him vastly more intelligent than a bouncer (or actress Sharon Stone, who has about the same IQ as Hawking).


It doesn't matter if you found a few high-IQ people who haven't "advanced humanity," that's not what IQ measures, and it remains the best predictor for success in life.

Fern wrote:
I heard about a long-term set of case studies in which very young children's IQ and creativity index were measured using standard tests. These kids were checked in upon years later, in their 20s, 30s and up into middle-age.

As it turns out, IQ measured at all of these points had no correlation with "success in life" (measured as highness of position held in workplace, salary and satisfaction with job). On the other hand, children who showed higher creativity scores often times met more success in whatever fields they entered. Defining creativity is an interesting thing. To create something new, be it forming a business model or painting a masterpiece, it helps to have a different perspective. I believe that uncontestedly Aspergers provides us with that.


Really? Zero correlation? It was either a flawed study, or you remember incorrectly.

Phonic wrote:
Aspies are pretty quick to explain how IQ tests don't work properly on them when the study or theory shows them in an unfovorable light, but when something or someone suggests aspies have high IQ's they're pretty quick to jump on the bandwagon and say aspies use their massive intellects and egos to become masters in any field they're in.


Agreed.

abacacus wrote:
IQ is essentially a meaningless number. It's a bragging right.


No. In the fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience there may not be 100% agreement of what intelligence is (although the definitions you'll come across sound quite similar), but there is much more agreement of what IQ measures and how useful it is as a predictor in life.

This is part of a released statement called Mainstream Science on Intelligence from 1994.

Quote:
1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -- "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).


More on point 3:
Quote:
IQ tests come in different forms, but they typically assess visuospatial, deductive, semantic, and symbolic reasoning ability. Specific subtests may evaluate a subject’s ability to perform inferences, to detect similarities and differences in geometrical patterns or word patterns, and to process complex information quickly and accurately

(Toga, A & Thompson, P 2005, Genetics of Brain Structure and Intelligence)

abacacus wrote:
The more important factors are drive and creativity. Someone can be amazingly brilliant and just not care enough to do anything with it.


They are in no way more important.



dalurker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 514
Location: NY

23 Jan 2012, 11:21 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Zur-Darkstar wrote:
I think a large part of the reason people with AS are often tagged as "highly intelligent" has more to do with the way we measure and identify "intelligence" in children and less to do with any actual correlation. The typical tests I took as a child involved rote memorization, logical word relationships, and such. I have always had an extremely accurate visual memory, so memorizing the meanings to made up words was about the duh easiest test I could have imagined. I also had a huge vocabulary for my age so I was automatically at a tremendous advantage in any sort of word logic. I have also had a talent for seeing similarities, differences, relationships in words, objects, situations, etc. Further, I had an extremely logical unemotional way of thinking. Add to this the fact I have never experienced test anxiety, and the situation becomes clear. All these things are common in aspies, and all these things give one an unnatural advantage in the sort of tests used to measure intelligence. My IQ on tests when I was a child was, I believe, somewhere between 120-140.

The simple truth is that, if you measure intelligence by memory, vocabulary, and reasoning ability, then aspies will automatically be more intelligent because we possess those traits. I think the confusion is likely because people with AS don't achieve as highly as those without. Many of us are unemployed, unmarried, have few friends, are poor, etc. By most of the typical measures of life success, we are underachievers. The logical conclusion is that the traits measuring "intelligence" are not as important as others in determining financial and social outcomes in our society. In my experience, our society invariably rewards conformity, social skill, outward appearance, and class status, above all other factors.

Or, to put those paragraphs into one sentence. Yeah, we're more intelligent, but so what; it doesn't seem to make very much difference one way or the other.


Yes, we can be more "intelligence" by defining "intelligence" as "whatever Aspies are good at."

Personally, I don't think IQ is a particularly good at predicting "success" in life, nor is it a particularly good measure of....well..."intelligence." Actually, "intelligence" itself isn't a particularly good predictor of "success" as "intelligence" means whatever we think it means at any given time. Heck, "success" means whatever we say it means at any given time.

My point is no one should feel bummed because they don't meet any of these ill-defined, fuzzy-headed, arbitrary standards. Most of it is just a bunch of cultural nonsense, not empirical truth, and I make "ignoring culture" an art form.


You shouldn't make a mess of real concepts. I've had enough with this ignoring of the actual world.



camelCase
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 128

23 Jan 2012, 11:23 pm

Every time I've tried to contribute to my society, I've ended up feeling like I've been s**t on. So, I've come to not give a s**t about anyone. Oh well. I used to want to help heal the world and all that...



dalurker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 514
Location: NY

23 Jan 2012, 11:28 pm

Verdandi wrote:
dalurker wrote:
Choices are limited with lack of resources, and can be guided into by constraints. Sometimes they don't do much with it at all. I think doing something benefiting society would be meaningful. It'd be nice to have some standards for the sake of justice.


Why should there be standards for the sake of justice? Why should people be obligated to do something benefiting society simply because of an arbitrary score on a test? Who decides what counts as "benefiting society?"


Because they have disproportionate access to the aptitudes needed for important things. If none of this matters to you, why do you feel strongly about your opinions? And the scores aren't arbitrary,



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

23 Jan 2012, 11:52 pm

dalurker wrote:
Because they have disproportionate access to the aptitudes needed for important things. If none of this matters to you, why do you feel strongly about your opinions? And the scores aren't arbitrary,


I don't know what you're talking about when you say "If none of this matters to you," as I don't recall saying "none of this matters to me."

I feel strongly about my opinions because I do not believe that people are obligated to do something as vague as "benefiting society" just because of a score on a test. I believe people should be able to do what they want to do, what they're interested in. I don't see any purpose in assigning "great work" in a utilitarian fashion, instrumentalized to the needs of ... who decides what their great work should be? Governments? Corporations? ... instrumentalized to the needs of an agency that is unlikely to have their interests at heart.

Your answer doesn't explain or justify what you're saying. You don't have a reason, you simply say "because they have aptitudes needed for important things they should do them." But that's not a reason. Or rather, not a very well thought out reason. Which unmet needs do they fill? Why does their neurology demand that they be deprived of self-determination? Please explain.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

24 Jan 2012, 12:16 am

cooldryplace wrote:

abacacus wrote:
IQ is essentially a meaningless number. It's a bragging right.


No. In the fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience there may not be 100% agreement of what intelligence is (although the definitions you'll come across sound quite similar), but there is much more agreement of what IQ measures and how useful it is as a predictor in life.

This is part of a released statement called Mainstream Science on Intelligence from 1994.

Quote:
1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -- "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).


More on point 3:
Quote:
IQ tests come in different forms, but they typically assess visuospatial, deductive, semantic, and symbolic reasoning ability. Specific subtests may evaluate a subject’s ability to perform inferences, to detect similarities and differences in geometrical patterns or word patterns, and to process complex information quickly and accurately

(Toga, A & Thompson, P 2005, Genetics of Brain Structure and Intelligence)

abacacus wrote:
The more important factors are drive and creativity. Someone can be amazingly brilliant and just not care enough to do anything with it.


They are in no way more important.


Is that so? When they performed IQ tests on me, they didn't believe the number (they thought it was way too high) and repeated the tests several times. Does this mean I'm going to be very successful? I can essentially guarantee that I won't, for one reason:

I'm not interested in being all that successful. All it brings is attention. My mother is much the same way, she's even more intelligent than I am and yet by most peoples reckoning she is a total failure. IQ predictions didn't work too well for her now did they? :lol:

Also, IQ means nothing if you lack the drive to use it and make something of it, or the creativity to come up with an idea to develop.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Zur-Darkstar
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 332

24 Jan 2012, 12:24 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
Zur-Darkstar wrote:
I think a large part of the reason people with AS are often tagged as "highly intelligent" has more to do with the way we measure and identify "intelligence" in children and less to do with any actual correlation. The typical tests I took as a child involved rote memorization, logical word relationships, and such. I have always had an extremely accurate visual memory, so memorizing the meanings to made up words was about the duh easiest test I could have imagined. I also had a huge vocabulary for my age so I was automatically at a tremendous advantage in any sort of word logic. I have also had a talent for seeing similarities, differences, relationships in words, objects, situations, etc. Further, I had an extremely logical unemotional way of thinking. Add to this the fact I have never experienced test anxiety, and the situation becomes clear. All these things are common in aspies, and all these things give one an unnatural advantage in the sort of tests used to measure intelligence. My IQ on tests when I was a child was, I believe, somewhere between 120-140.

The simple truth is that, if you measure intelligence by memory, vocabulary, and reasoning ability, then aspies will automatically be more intelligent because we possess those traits. I think the confusion is likely because people with AS don't achieve as highly as those without. Many of us are unemployed, unmarried, have few friends, are poor, etc. By most of the typical measures of life success, we are underachievers. The logical conclusion is that the traits measuring "intelligence" are not as important as others in determining financial and social outcomes in our society. In my experience, our society invariably rewards conformity, social skill, outward appearance, and class status, above all other factors.

Or, to put those paragraphs into one sentence. Yeah, we're more intelligent, but so what; it doesn't seem to make very much difference one way or the other.


Yes, we can be more "intelligence" by defining "intelligence" as "whatever Aspies are good at."

Personally, I don't think IQ is a particularly good at predicting "success" in life, nor is it a particularly good measure of....well..."intelligence." Actually, "intelligence" itself isn't a particularly good predictor of "success" as "intelligence" means whatever we think it means at any given time. Heck, "success" means whatever we say it means at any given time.

My point is no one should feel bummed because they don't meet any of these ill-defined, fuzzy-headed, arbitrary standards. Most of it is just a bunch of cultural nonsense, not empirical truth, and I make "ignoring culture" an art form.


Indeed, that's sort of the point I was trying to make. The measures of intelligence simply happen to be things aspies are naturally good at. The problem is those traits make very little difference in the real world. We are admired for our "intelligence", though it gives us little, if any, comparative advantage in most areas of life. Why are verbal logic and long-term memory more indicative of intelligence than artistic talent, or creativity? Why not include other mental capacities which are arguably more complicated such as empathy, motor coordination, strategic thinking? I could go on.

I never cease to be amazed how NTs become trapped by their tendency to define things based on their perception of what "everyone else thinks". There are several words like "intelligence", that, as far as I can tell, have no definition empirical or otherwise. They mean whatever people think they mean, and are highly dependent on context, culture, setting, and even the number and type of people in the general area of the person defining them. Words like normal, freedom, equality, justice, fairness, character, etc.


_________________
Self-Diagnosed Dec. 2010
135 Aspie, 65 NT--Aspie Quiz
AQ 40
BAPD--124 aloof, 88 rigid, 83 pragmatic
EQ/SQ--21/78--Extreme systematizing


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

24 Jan 2012, 1:33 pm

Zur-Darkstar wrote:


Indeed, that's sort of the point I was trying to make. The measures of intelligence simply happen to be things aspies are naturally good at. The problem is those traits make very little difference in the real world. We are admired for our "intelligence", though it gives us little, if any, comparative advantage in most areas of life. Why are verbal logic and long-term memory more indicative of intelligence than artistic talent, or creativity? Why not include other mental capacities which are arguably more complicated such as empathy, motor coordination, strategic thinking? I could go on.

I never cease to be amazed how NTs become trapped by their tendency to define things based on their perception of what "everyone else thinks". There are several words like "intelligence", that, as far as I can tell, have no definition empirical or otherwise. They mean whatever people think they mean, and are highly dependent on context, culture, setting, and even the number and type of people in the general area of the person defining them. Words like normal, freedom, equality, justice, fairness, character, etc.


Precisely. I'm so glad to finally be able to have an "intelligent" conversation about "intelligence." :wink:

I googled "success and IQ" and it didn't take me long to locate several dissenting voices that IQ = success. Other factors, such as emotional competence, personality, resources, and, most importantly, MOTIVATION are just as, if not more, important. That's not even taking into account the many, many factors that can negatively impact life performance, such as ADHD, bad parents, substance addiction, ect. Despite what some seem to think, "intelligence" is not sufficient to overcome everything life can throw at you.

Besides, all we're really doing is arbitrarily deciding that certain cognitive traits comprise "intelligence," and other cognitive traits, such as "motivation" or "social skills" are not. I can't keep a jar of "intelligence" on my shelf.

Furthermore, what's "success," anyway? Making a lot of money and marrying someone hot? There's no empirical definition of "success." That's undeniably cultural.

Take care.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Mdyar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,516

24 Jan 2012, 1:50 pm

shrox wrote:
Phonic wrote:
...i think intelligence - high intelligence - actually causes impairment, I think highly intelligent people are significantly more prone to depression, over qualification and general lack of satisfaction in life...


I would say that is true.



A older but decent web article on the subject: http://prometheussociety.com/?page_id=33



Rascal77s
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

24 Jan 2012, 1:50 pm

In the real world a pair of fake tits will get you farther than a high IQ.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

24 Jan 2012, 3:02 pm

Zur-Darkstar wrote:

Why are verbal logic and long-term memory more indicative of intelligence than artistic talent, or creativity? Why not include other mental capacities which are arguably more complicated such as empathy, motor coordination, strategic thinking? I could go on.


Why are some traits used as a proxy for intelligence and not others? I honestly think it's nothing more profound than the ease of making an (almost) objective and (almost) culture-blind set of tasks and questions to measure the one set as opposed to the other set. Tests for empathy and creativity have been created, but they are hampered by not being very objective and also culture-bound. There have been a number of threads here arguing pretty persuasively that the tests for empathy are so culture-bound that they falsely give the impression that autistic people don't have empathy because of cultural differences between AS and NT people. I know I'm using the phrase "cultural differences" a little oddly here but hopefully you understand my meaning. And an objective, culture-blind test for artistic talent would probably be impossible. Professional art critics sometimes don't agree on what constitutes talent and what constitutes art.


Interestingly, although motor coordination is on your "not measured for arbitrary reasons" list, I have read (in various "history of IQ testing" books) that it was the very first semi-formal test. Apparently there was a 19th century IQ test that used the ability to do fine motor tasks as a proxy for intelligence. But it didn't become the standard because it's so labor intensive- you have to hover over the person taking the test and the test materials take up a fair bit of room. A test was needed that could be given to a room full of 100 people all at once so a paper test won out over the fine motor task test.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

24 Jan 2012, 3:18 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
[Precisely. I'm so glad to finally be able to have an "intelligent" conversation about "intelligence." :wink:

I googled "success and IQ" and it didn't take me long to locate several dissenting voices that IQ = success. Other factors, such as emotional competence, personality, resources, and, most importantly, MOTIVATION are just as, if not more, important. .


In a similar google, I found The Marshmallow Test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_m ... experiment


In this test, preschoolers were measured on their ability to delay gratification of eating marshallows. They got one marshmallow if they ate immediately, two marshmallows if they delayed. (Of course the test only works on kids who like marshmallows.) On a follow-up years later, they found that the ability to delay gratification (as measured by delaying eating marshmallows as a preschooler) correlated very strongly with success (as measured by employability).

It makes sense to me that success could be strongly correlated with the ability to delay gratification. If you can delay gratification, you can plug away at something diligently even when the rewards are very distant. I'm thinking of Edison making several dozen lightbulb protoypes and not giving up even though the reward of a working lightbulb was far off in his future. He had to be intelligent to think up any of the prototypes in the first place, but an intelligent man without the ability to delay gratification would have given up and moved on to another project.



dianthus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,138

24 Jan 2012, 3:36 pm

Janissy wrote:
There have been a number of threads here arguing pretty persuasively that the tests for empathy are so culture-bound that they falsely give the impression that autistic people don't have empathy because of cultural differences between AS and NT people. I know I'm using the phrase "cultural differences" a little oddly here but hopefully you understand my meaning.


That makes perfect sense, and I think it's a very good way to describe it.

Janissy wrote:
I'm thinking of Edison making several dozen lightbulb protoypes and not giving up even though the reward of a working lightbulb was far off in his future. He had to be intelligent to think up any of the prototypes in the first place, but an intelligent man without the ability to delay gratification would have given up and moved on to another project.


And a far more intelligent man than Edison, wouldn't have needed to create so many prototypes to get it right. Later he had Tesla around to do a lot of his work for him. What Edison had to doggedly plug away at, doing experiement after experiment, Tesla could figure out in a flash. (puns intended)

And of course Edison took all the credit, and ripped Tesla off at every opportunity. Edison was a con artist, and a crook. He was great at using other people for his gratification, and discarding them when he had no further use.



R83
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 38
Location: London, UK

24 Jan 2012, 3:53 pm

IQ tests are obviously not very objective; if they include verbal components they will be biased because there will probably be children who are taking the test in a second language or even just who do not come from a home where standard English (or whatever) is spoken. If they are not middle class they will not have the advantage of parroting what they regularly hear in their environment during the test. If the test has no verbal components it will be biased against children whose verbal aptitude is greater than their spatial pattern recognition, for example. Children who are interested in areas where they frequently exercise these skills will get an inflated score on those test areas through this familiarity. Any child who has done a few of these tests before will have probably improved a little over their baseline score. Children who are comfortable taking tests and have had positive experiences before with them (private school, anyone?) will have greater confidence, the opposite is true for children who lack this.

I know I should really provide a source for this but I can't find a reference online right now... There was a study done on groups of Afro-American and European American kids, one set took an IQ test having been told it was a test and another took a test having been told it was to entertain them (I don't know how believable this was given the content, but anyway..) When the groups knew it was a test, the Black kids got a lower score. When they thought it was for fun they did not. I think that says a lot about emotional involvement in testing interfering with the results.

Some more of these issues are discussed here: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html