From gifted to extremely average reasoning

Post Reply New Topic

I have been asking myself this frequently because it is precisely my case, apparently.

When I was 10 y/o, I was considered a kind of prodigy child cuz my IQ was measured and I got 132. But then at age 14 a neuropsychologist measure my IQ again and I got 106.
I mean, is that possible? because if so then it's funny as f**k lmao

Is it possible that my psychological conditions influenced by a null self-esteem, also adding excessive anxiety, suicidal behaviors, a suspected ADHD, insomnia and fasting have directly affected my second measurement?
I remember that neuropsychologist had to stop me a couple of times because she noticed me very anxious during the test; she advised me to take a brief moment and take a deep breath.

In contrast, when I was 10 I had much more confidence in myself and I wasn't yet close to falling into the devastating state of depression despite having been in the midst of my parents' divorce and their constant fights and arguments. At that time many students also made fun of me but it didn't lead to bullying
Strong bullying did start in high school.

My personal psychologist didn't know what to think about these somewhat disproportionate results. Then she started talking to me about multiple intelligences and sent me several articles about it.
I'm honestly a supporter of Howard Gardner and not of traditional "intelligence" measurement methods. It even seems terrible to me that people are stigmatized and reduced to a stupid number.

My other point is: perhaps I got those disproportionate results in different time contexts simply because IQ tests were created for neurotypical people and not neurodivergent people?

Still, I have my doubts about the milestone that happened to me.

Does anyone else identify with this?

Btw, I apologize for my writing. English is not my native language.

Your text results certainly could have been affected by your anxiety.

I don't have much faith in IQ tests. The whole idea of something as complex as the human mind having some fixed horsepower that can be reduced to a "stupid number" (as you neatly put it) seems absurd to me, and I would question the motives of people who push the view that IQ tests are a good thing and want everybody to get measured for it. The only use I can see for it is as a quick and dirty method for assessing some kinds of brain damage, and I think the changes would need to be pretty huge before I'd take the result seriously on its own. I don't know what my IQ is and I don't especially want to know. I'm more comfortable with aptitude tests because they define the kind of task and might give useful insights into which horses are a good match for which courses.

I think stress, depression, and numerous other mental states can markedly affect performance in a lot of mental tests, and that many tests are especially unsuitable for people with ASD, because as you suspect, those tests were never designed for us. I got strange results for a "working memory" test where I scored badly on my first attempt, fair on my second, and excellent on my third. And that test was supposed to distill out a single, absolute score that shouldn't have bounced around as a result of factors the test designer neither knew about nor made allowances for. I think what happened was that I somehow limbered up and got used to the remit as I proceeded, that my mind adapted gradually to the challenge.

I don't know specifically why your background experiences affected your IQ test the way it did. Superficially it looks rather paradoxical, but I don't think the mind responds all that simply to circumstances. One person can be weakened by a particular challenge while another can be galvanised by it, then as time goes by you might see the weakened one overtake the galvanised one. Plus of course, the entire IQ concept seems dodgy in the first place.

My IQ tested at 145 in fourth grade. Later, my SAT score qualified me for MENSA. I'm sticking with those numbers.

By the way, I never joined MENSA because it lacked diversity, or as I put it back then, "It's a lousy place to meet girls."

paper.alien, no need to apologise for your English. It's very, very good.

I had my IQ tested for the first time when I was having my autism assessment. It was 118. I'll stick by that and won't have any more testing unless I have another assessment.

Whether you took the same test both times is important.

A lot of factors can mess with IQ test results, such as the ones you listed. Serious testers know this. I'd go with the childhood one. You can't really get significantly higher results accidentally on these tests. A few points, yes, but not this kind of discrepancy.

When I could really focus on my work, I was operating at savant-level. Then I had to try to figure out people, which took up so much brain power that it took me years to notice which screens fit which windows on my house, and do other simple repairs. I still can't maintain computer programs that I once wrote, but I do understand people better now.

I've always done well on written exams. I think it is because I've learned to block out distractions and instantly drop into a flow state. l think most people can't do that.

I can relate to your story.

Same words that I told my psychiatrist. (Didn't get an IQ test though.)
She put on risperdale btw.

I used to be the type of kid that dreams about solving puzzles. I had this game once, god of war.
Between all the kids that were playing the game I was the only to solve the puzzles.
Depression is associated with distractability.
I feel like what you're experiencing is normal.

Jesus, for a moment I thought I was the only one. I even dared to discern that my brain was managed by faulty algorithms

IQ is a relative score, averaged against ones peers. At 10 you were likely precocious and you were competing against your fellow 10 year olds and crushing them, by fourteen many of them had caught up.

The stressors you point to might explain why your growth in that period was limited compared to your peers, although it might not be the entirety of it. Early intellectual maturity might be just as much of a factor, but I'm certainly not an expert.

Were the sections on both IQ tests the same? (Were they testing for the same kinds of abilities?)
I heard there are different sections, such as language, verbal, etc.
Some people can be wildly disproportionate

Yes, indeed, the sections were the same

The final number you're given is an average of those sections. Some people have very large splits between those scores, mine's split by more than a standard deviation and some folks on here have even more dramatic splits.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/10 ... nage-brain