Intelligence can be a disability as well.

Post Reply New Topic

A boy has an IQ of 150, he is proud of it. In so much that he may flaunt it. When he goes to school: he is a nuisance to teachers. He raises his hand every chance he can, at the same time: he has had three detentions since the beginning of the school year. (This is an example)

My hypothesis is that children with an above average IQ, should be cataloged as having a disability. Since an IQ is based on how well a child performs: we Autistics may be intelligent, but score very low on an IQ test. High IQ students may act pompous; they may be very intelligent but dumb to apply their knowledge. This catalogs them with an inability. They will do very poorly in artwork, like ceramics, painting, drawing etc. Another thing is seeing the world too literally. They may not understand metaphors, but be a genius in physics. Social skills will also be poor.
The matter is: IQ is a paradox, and the world needs to realize this. Schools do not have the necessary funds to realize, or they will use their financial status as a means of hiding behind the fact. We are not intelligent by how we perform, but how we retrieve data and apply the imformation. You can't be a bookworm and be a genius.

Are you saying that everyone with an IQ score above a certain upper limit should unconditionally be catalogued as disabled? That's... kinda dumb. Not everyone with a genius-level IQ score is an inept social klutz.

Agreed, i know some very smart people who are very good socially. b**tards. :p

Meh... IQ is merely a measurement. given a lot of (the tests') use of largely subjective 'pick-it-up-off-the-street' things like language, I see no reason for it to be the basis of any official condition, disorder or not.

That said, I've met several people who've scored high on such things. Some are nice, some are fellow nutjobs... 1 was a literal antisocial with complete NT social skills; emotionally competent but a jerk.

I've met two very high IQ geniuses in my lifetime (at the very least), one female and one male. Each of them had remarkable talent. I would not be surprised if they went on to serve in high government office or make some outstanding cultural achievement. However, they both struck me as narcissistic, unrealistic, and impractical.

I don't think intelligence is a good thing or a bad thing on it's own; it depends on the qualities that go with it. If a person has poor social skills or a lack of empathy along with their intelligence, they can be rather smug, rude, and arrogant, although they can still accomplish great things. If a person is narcissistic and lacking in emotional attachment, then they can be downright dangerous. If a person has wisdom and a good heart along with their intelligence, then it can be a very good and beneficial thing. Similarly, if someone has average or below average intelligence, it is not a bad or good thing in and of itself; it depends on their other characteristics. It's really different for each person. I definitely don't like the way the IQ scale (or any isolated trait for that matter) is looked on by our society as some sort of heirarchy of a person's worth, and, as the original poster pointed out, it can sometimes be a paradox.

Thing is, if someone said they are intelligent, people get upset and automatically compare themselves to this person. Maybe the truth is they are simply intelligent and dont have any 'narcassistic' feeling behind it. If I state 'I'm 6 feet tall' I'm not boasting about my height, I'm merely stating a fact. Imagine saying you do something well because you simply do it 'well.'

My friend often says I'm high on myself. Mainly after discussions which include statements that 'I think for myself.' My point is that applying feeling to my words is, essentially, wrong. I've no meaning in my words when I say them - they are merely thoughts spoken outloud. Regardless if I say them or not, I still HAVE them. If i said 'Whoa, I'm the best at hockey' then can't prove it, then yes, we have a problem.

Now, I dont run around boasting about myself, but when I truely feel I do something well, I feel that if I mention that, I'll be cursed and tested because of all the lying others do about themselves. People think I suck because I don't boast about my abilities but when I do I'm full of myself - you can't win.

Now, back on topic, high intelligence, I believe one cannot generalize everyone into one category. I dont consider these people as having a "learning disability" but simply that they "learn DIFFERENTLY." Everyone can LEARN, we're aren't rocks. I think we should spend less time making people feel stupid with the label 'disability,' which may even put a mental block on them preventing any progression in their learning, but rather direct them to a proper way of learning that works for them.

Labels often disable

This is exactly what my signature is referring too. It was said by an autistic on their perception of the world and how having a better idea of how the world functions is actually a disability.

However, I think that it also depends on what kind of intelligence you're talking about. Some people have good memory, we call them smart. Some people are gifted in linguistics, such as poets and writers, and we call them smart. Some people are able to manipulate numerical calculations and we call them smart.

But, mostly it comes down to the common denominator of what intelligence is, and that is, that most times intelligence is a perception. Its a way of seeing a problem thats different from everyone else. A way of seeing a problem differently that solves the problem the best. Hence, intelligence could be classified as the most useful perception that gets the job done. Thus, we see that intelligence and madness are closely related, as intelligence is a different way of seeing things that is usefull to society, while madness is a different way of seeing things that is useless to society. And, sometimes, someones perceptions are so foriegn to the time that they are living in, that they are recognized as a genius only after the rest of the world has caught up with them (i.e Nietzche). Thus, we hear the phrase, "ahead of his time" when describing geniuses who were not appreciated in their lifetime. Their perceptions haven't changed, it was the rest of society who has gained a new perspective.

Both perceptions (madness & intelligence) are equally different to the way that other people would go about solving a problem, but one perception has a use for the advancement of society. So, that may be why we tolerate the genius but shun the madman when they both percieve the solution to the problem in such an obtuse manner.

Thus, the intelligent person who has such a radical perception is often very isolated, as no one else sees the world the way that he does. If intelligence is a perception, then it is unlike a skill, where someone can just apply it whenever they feel like it (i.e. athleticism), it is an inescapable way of percieving the world.

By consensus, I'm called smart-but I don't do much with that intelligence. Having smarts of whichever sort is separate from ability to apply one's skills, physically or emotionally. Intellect can be useful, but doesn't preclude additional limitations & conditions that modify usage of that intellect. I opt out from possible opportunities in many ways-most situations are too risky "feeling" (I'm agoraphobic) & my intelligence idles away inside my head. I'm not a productive member of society but I'm not a destructive one, either. Suppose both "mad" & "clever" describe me, try to avoid being observed or judged so I'm not confronted w/which label someone's using.

For whatever reasons (whether dx or personality) I've a pessimistic outlook-and I've read that pessimists are more realistic than optimists. I'd like to be happy, but am unable to delude myself into believing things (people, life, etc.) are better than they are. I get depressed about being smart, because it means I'm more aware of things that upset me, and have more ability to ruminate on those things. Can't press delete key to erase stuff in my brain, in order to return to previous state of ignorance, before I had that thought or perception. You don't know which info. you want to know it until you know what it is, but then it's too late-once you know it, you can't un-know it.

Thinking too much is definitely a handicap sometimes.

I wish I could "switch off" and just DO things without worrying. Especially when over-analysis prevents more direct, sensory pleasure e.g. dancing, laughter.

Sometimes it is very difficult to enjoy simple things.

I feel sorry for kids that get advanced into classes above their age group. I think they have a hard time socialising.

I think I actually did better for getting to college at twelve. Though that comes from contrasting what happened against my assumptions about being graduated 'on time'. I'm sure it helped that I was tall for my age [I suppose I still am, now being about 6'5"] and already known for a casual, browfurrowing contemplation regarding anything anyone ever said.

There were and are detrimental aspects of my intellect, of course. I'm not actually narcissistic [I'd never be anything so pedestrian], though I do have a certain frustrated intolerance for those who can't keep up on my preferred level. I of course can't keep up on their emotional, unsorted levels; they just seem less frustrated and more spooked by my reactions. I'm sure a neutral third party would view me as the badguy. At this point, I've accepted that, however subjectively, I'm pretty much a villain by nature.

I'm not sure I'd view intelligence as any sort of handicap. At least, not in dealing with other people. Comparing H.sapiens to dumb animals who aren't pushing R&D toward exterminating the whole species, intellect might be nothing to brag about.

Don't get me wrong: I'm okay with the extermination of the species; I just consider it slightly less clever than swimming upstream to mate, overall.

I certainly wouldn't call smart people 'differentlyabled'; it might be accurate, but it's a stupid, empty symbol of a term. At least call us something more logical, like 'alloverted', or something--something with some etymology behind it, maybe. But only if it gets us good parking spots.

It's a cheap excuse, but I keep remembering back to teachers telling me that, however senseless something seemed, I should be able to rise above it and remain at least average. It's not the perfect solution, but it probably works better than expecting everyone average and beneath to regard smart people as cripples.