can iq...

Post Reply New Topic

be increased without training?i am talking about someone having in the age of 6 an iq of 81 while when he is 17 his iq is now 96 without training but within the enviroment,the growth,the experience what now this person while at 6 was borderline mr now is smarter,find tasks easier and functioning within the normal level of intelligence?

96 is still below average. I'm 142, which is in the top 2% apparently. o.o

As you grow you'd start thinking more laterally which is basically what most IQ questions are. Like "How many sides does these 30 triangles have" etc. So yeah, you could improve.

its still below average but its within normal,not borderline,intelligence

Well yeah, but it's still below average. Never said it was borderline.

Yes it's possible. Actually at 6 the brain is still growing. Without training IQ can go up and down till 20-25 years-old when it finish development. Also it depends on how IQ is computed. Actually only the matrix-language-free used for example by MENSA try to don't take into account language skill / math skill and the like.

People with atypical development tend to almost inevitably get higher IQ scores as they age, given a good environment and appropriate education.

That is because IQ tests are normed to neurotypical development.

Okay, imagine a line graph, with developmental milestones on one axis, and age on the other axis; and have NT development as a straight diagonal line--typical kids, getting their skills at the typical rate. That's the "100 IQ" that you're going to be comparing the atypical kids to. Now take a gifted NT kid. His line is more steep because his development is faster; he does things earlier. The slope of a delayed NT kid doesn't rise as fast. But both the gifted and delayed kids will have straight lines, so that the ratio of where they are compared to the average kid can be used to denote their IQs.

Not so much with autism. Our developmental lines are curved, not straight. Sometimes we develop faster than the NT average kid; sometimes slower. Sometimes the line even goes down instead of up, and they call that "regression" (and give a diagnosis of CDD, in the obvious cases). Sometimes there's a plateau, keeping the same skills for a while. Sometimes we get it all at once, and there's a vertical jump in the line. Autistic development is all over the board, sometimes unpredictable, sometimes just unusual. If you measure an autistic child's IQ, you're assuming that he must have a straight-line developmental path, like a neurotypical child does; but he almost certainly doesn't. For that matter, he probably has separate developmental paths for separate skills; he may be way below average for one skill, way above for another, average in a third; catching up in one while falling behind in another. That is very normal for someone with autism. Quite simply, we don't grow the same way non-autistic people do and our IQs aren't static because they're measured in comparison to people who don't develop the same way we do.

BTW, while I'm referring to kids because it's kids' development that's most obvious, this does continue into adulthood. Even NT adults don't stop developing when they hit 18; autistic ones even more so.

Childhood IQ tests aren't always accurate. IQ tests in general aren't always accurate. Particularly for a child with an ASD, problems in communication are likely to result in IQ test scores far below the actual level. That doesn't necessarily mean that the IQ goes up as they get older; it can simply mean that they weren't able to express their intelligence when they were younger. If someone doesn't understand the question, or can't communicate the answer, how do you measure their intelligence?
The score you get on a test only means that you got that score on a test.

When he was very young, my ex's son was diagnosed as mentally retarded-- they put his IQ at 50. I wouldn't believe any test that didn't put the kid at least in the gifted range. He could kick my butt in most games, and whenever my mom came to visit, she'd teach him math. He was ten, and could pick up on algebra as soon as it was explained to him. He was a whole lot smarter than whatever idiot decided that his IQ was 50.
Of course, he had horrible, nasty parents, and was in a horrible, nasty situation. Which probably hasn't gotten any better. I miss him, he was a really great, intelligent kid.

I'm confused. Since when is 96 considered below average? I'm only curious because that's the exact number I've got, and as far as I'm aware that is in the average range?

I had been said "gifted' when I was a kid. (I only learned it in my late teen though) But a IQ test in my early adulthood along with testing for asperger said I'm not.

If Callista is right it could mean that in some moment when I was a kid I was very smart, but not anymore.
A nature cruel joke for torturing me...

More like, you were ahead of kids your age, and then later they caught up. Having atypical development can do that; kinda like a class of 7th graders who are all different heights for a while, until by the 12th grade they're all pretty much normal adult height. You probably just get a mental growth spurt at a different time than most people.

btw, chances are that just because you're autistic you're probably still gifted in some area, even if your overall IQ isn't, just because weird brains like ours do tend to specialize. This is a big mistake people make, when they look at autistic IQs and assume that everything you can do is near that level, when actually the IQ's just an average.

With an NT, getting 100 is like averaging 96, 105, 98, and 101. With an autistic, you might be averaging 43, 134, 75, and 148. If you expect them to be the same, you're going to be pretty puzzled when the guy busts out the 148 and does as well as the gifted kids, then the next second operates at the 43 and has to be helped to do something "simple".

In the Weshler I scored nothing beyond the 91th percentile, so technicaly I'm not gifted in ANYTHING. Most of the scores was below that of course... I had do better in the Raven (95-100th percentile), but still in 91th percentile for the same kind of test in the Weshler. (Overall: verbal 85th (115IQ) perfomance 61th (103IQ) global 77th (113-114IQ))

I know it's good, but I mostly identify myself from my "smartness" and my intellectual side. And also, I've got the same interests as the "gifteds" (like science, history and a philosophical mindset...) which make me less "smart" that those with my interests. Add to that the vocabulary and a memory good for "random stuff" from being asperger, which make me appear way smarter that what I really am... It's really confusing

Add my perfectionnism to the equation (thanks from being aspie...again ) and I am pretty much screwed up.

This happened to me.

Tested at around 134 at 7, for being a problem child.

Took the Mensa test at 30 something and scored in the top 2% (148+)

A clinicial psychologist recently told me that this was 'normal' and not a significant increase!

This increase despite years of frequent recreational alcohol consumption and a University experience that consisted of little else

I have kept my mind active with continuing professional development and studying for various exams, so perhaps this counts as training?

Maybe helpful?

There are different scales, you are quite right.

Not sure which scale my test at 7 was.

It could have been the one you mentioned in which case...........no change.

Good point.

Maybe I've been stuck at 2% all my life