IQ threads always miss this important distinction

Post Reply New Topic

I think the IQ threads always miss this important distinction:

ASD people are said to be superior at rote memorization of details
NT people are said to be superior at "big picture" synergy among that information

We have two distinct types of intelligence.

For example
NT people often tell us, "you lack common sense", because they perceive deficiencies in "big picture" synergy.
While we mock NT people because they miss critical details.

I don't agree with many of these IQ threads. At times, my IQ rates high, and at other times it rates low.

Here is another distinction:
ASD people use intellect and logic to communicate with the outside world instead of instinctive social intelligence.
Because we don't have much of that instinct.

This is one of the missed distinctions.
IQ, as it's used, is a flawed and outdated concept; i am of the opinion that we, as a society, should get rid of this term entirely, as even if the definitions were accurate (that is, *if*), it is still useless in everyday life.

Every IQ thread misses the point. IQ testing itself, as said above, is incredibly flawed to the point of being completely useless. I've commented on this before - they measure education, not intelligence, which immediately discounts people of poor backgrounds who have not had exposure to education.

I have banned myself from undertaking any more IQ tests. On some I have scored over 140, yet on others I have registered sub-90 scores.

It's really what you do with your intellect that counts. Just ask Christopher Langan.

To me, intelligence is much like a mental toolbox, filled with skills that must be used to be useful. IQ scores just give a value of the possible dimensions of the toolbox. Too many get caught up in comparing sizes that they miss the big picture. It is not the size of the toolbox that matters. As JakeASD pointed out above, what you actually do with what you have counts the most in life.

Some of the laziest people I have ever known had IQs above 140. Because they were always told that they are great, they expect greatness without having to do something to earn it. Their mental skills became rusty with non-usage and it shows when they actually have to use them. On the other hand, some of the most creative/inventive people that I have known had IQs at or below normal range. They wanted something done and worked on it until it got done. Since they are constantly using their mental skills, they have remained sharp. Just because one has less mental tools to use does not mean that they cannot do a good job with what they have.

The spark of ingenuity can strike when one seeks to use it properly. It can push one to greatness if they are willing to work at it. This is something that I have taught my chemistry classes year after year. You have to decide where you want to be in life on what you do and what you need to achieve it.

I don't think IQ is entirely useless, it gives a general idea of one's cognitive abilities.
But it shouldn't define one's intelligence entirely or one's potential achievements.

Technically, the classic definition of IQ is the level of ability to solve a very specific set of problem types, nothing more. And while it is possible (and indeed a test creation goal) to create IQ tests that minimize the impact of education, economic privilege, etc., ...rote memorization (other than say, pattern matching) for the most part is not even considered.

IMO, at best it should be a measure of one specific aspect of a person's abilities. One of *many* abilities. However, because the testing in the past was fairly strongly biased toward white, middle class or higher, educated men it gained a certain...aura of prestige that outstripped it's actual predictive ability if you weren't part of that select group. And if you were, it was merely a bragging point. Luckily as a tool much of that past is behind us now & it's just one assessment of many.

IMO the greatest trait for high intelligence is a desire to learn.

A LOT of people don't have that trait.

i'm a big picture person. some of us aspies are. it's the N in meyers-briggs.

IQ tests are made by intellectuals, and intellectuals seem to subscribe to preconceived notions and view the world through those biased glasses, of course, since institutionalized knowledge is standardized.

Creative and abstract thinking is not so systematically defined, and autistic people tend to have a different kind of creativity than neuro-typicals.

Therefore, both perspectives are valuable in science, because they complement each other. I think a research team of a range of neurotypes from autistic to more neuro-typical would work nicely together complimenting each others strengths and weaknesses.

IQ tests work within a way of thinking that can be learned and practiced, because they are constructed within a limited spectrum and you can't methodically develop a measurement for thinking outside the box. I.e you can not use "the known" to measure "the unknown". Don't know if that makes sense(?).

I have no idea what IQ tests are about. I have taken a few online. They seem all over the place. Have taken the Mensa test a while back. Curiosity and not desire to join. Scored in the top 3% on those. So, still all over the place.

Depending on the type of test, I range from 111 to 147. it of a range there to make me question what is really being tested and how.

The ones I bomb on are asking me to do things like word problems. Haven't done those in 40 years.

The ones I do well on don't dwell on things like that.

I would like an official IQ test out of curiosity.

But, I think I do need to take aptitude tests. I think that would be better at describing strengths and weaknesses as I go through all of this (Self diagnosis to proper diagnosis to life plan as it seems fit)