Do ALL people with AS have above average intelligence?

Post Reply New Topic

And psychologists can be wrong too. Aspies have been told they can't possibly have it because they have a job or because they are married, and some have even been told aspies can't live on their own, can't have a job, never will get married and have kids, etc so therefore they never will either.
Even a few MR people have been diagnosed with AS.


Why should aspies have to have above average IQ to be considered an aspie?

Speaking with a psycho at Attwood's today (we were speaking of personality and its detachment from the disorder itself): she said they see "aspies" who're normal and "aspies" who're above-average; both are just as equally "aspie" to them. All it shows is that Asperger's disorder can manifest in many types of cognitive patterns.

Ha, I find it amusing when I see a professional use the acronym "NT"; they use it there.

Because that was the key difference between Aspergers subjects in 1944 and Kanner's subjects in 1943, Spokane Girl.

And I should also re-quote something I said earlier in this thread;


(snip)


When two sources of information match, and one of them is recent, the time I was at school becomes an irrelevant question.

And one more general point - the IQ IS a part of the DSM-IV, in interpretation. That's why the DSM-V will address it because as an interpretation (as it stands) it's causing a lot of problems with correct DXing. The apparent fact that more testing is moving to 100 as a mid point isn't helping, and hopefully the DSM-V will force it back to 90 where it belongs. Not directly of course (it can't change external tools) but indirectly because the focus will be on the IQ itself rather than fudging averages to push the mid point up when averages shouldn't be touching it. "Average Intelligence" does not emphasis "average". It emphasises "intelligence".

Or at least it should!!

Except we're not talking about the haze of diagnosis and classification right now. Telling my mom that IQs are standardized with a mean of 90 is like telling a mathematician that 2 and 2 are 5. He's disputing a very basic fact about intelligence testing. Moreover, he's refusing to acknowledge any sources that I give him, responding basically, "But my science teacher told me something different." Is that a good argument in your opinion? *That's* what the argument is about. So no, I don't expect she is wrong about this.

Umm, the mean has always been at 100. From the very first IQ test ever designed. You realized that if the standard had ever been 90, that you should be able to find some evidence of this, right? Ah, well, to quote A.E. Houseman:

"Three minutes thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time."

If two people say A, and a thousand people say B, does two still seem that impressive? No journal would accept an article with only two sources of information, especially if one of them was a science teacher.

Last edited by LostInSpace on 15 Jan 2008, 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

TLPG,

One of Kanner's subjects had an IQ of 140 (one had 108 too); I'm not sure, but I don't think Asperger originally had an IQ threshold for his disorder.

Does anyone have any data on the IQ of Asperger's children?

Right - and if I had my science text book handy I'd bloody well QUOTE IT!! !!



It is when they are right, and the rest are wrong because they are working off a false premise. Remember that two people said the world was round and a thousand said it was flat some time ago.

The mid point is 90.

End of that discussion.



If I recall correctly, Daniel, the IQ testing of Aspergers subjects came much later. And probably not reliable either - it was a more general feel. Remember that Kanner's subjects were more wide ranging (HFA to LFA - although I'm not sure about the LFA).

I'm not calling you a liar. I think you are ignorant and stubborn. But not a liar. I don't doubt you believe what you say. In fact, I find your tenacity impressive. Not admirable, but impressive. Go ahead. Defy the evidence. After all, don't they say, "Ignorance is bliss?" And honestly, who likes to admit they are wrong?

If someone told you that 2 and 2 equal 5, and then said, "That's what my science teacher told me. And I think a mathematician told me that once," would you accept that 2 and 2 in fact equal 5 (using traditional arithmetic) and believe that anyone who tells you it's 4 is wrong? "Arithmetic has clearly gone up an inaccurate cul-de-sac," this person says. "I don't need any other evidence than my own experience to tell me that 2 and 2 are 5." Well? Do 2 and 2 equal 5? That is how ridiculous your argument sounds to me.

The sky is green,
The grass is blue,
Four's not the sum of two and two,
And you know more, my dear, you do
Than all who disagree with you.

You realize the Internet contains rather a lot of information, right? If your science text is the only source of information which supports you, and there is *nothing* online which does, I think you might want to do a bit of thinking. If 90 was in fact the standard, there should be tons of sources which cite this, only a google search away. Guess what? I've already done that search. Days ago. Care to give it a shot? You won't be happy.

Except that IQ tests are *designed* to have a particular mean. They could have chosen any mean they wanted. 5. 50. 1000. Pi. But they chose 100, and that is the standard mean. There is no comparison between observations of the Earth made before flight or easy overland transportation was possible, and statements by the very people who created IQ tests and designed them with a particular mean.

I guess it's a good thing your science teacher didn't tell you that world was flat- otherwise we might have been having that discussion.

By the way, I *love* the comparison between yourself and Columbus- a brave pioneer proclaiming your revolutionary ideas to the people. Except in your case, Columbus fell off the edge of the Earth.

I referred to midpoint = 90. I didn't refer to LostInSpace or the conversation between you and her.

Now I take it I should be the one insulted. You claim that I don't make sense, then you suddenly understand what you first thought doesn't make sense and then you're offended by the fact that I said nothing incorrect in reference to semantics and science? You even first said I'm not making sense, then you say it's more than impolite of me to say that you don't make sense.

I presented the currently official scientific opinion and you're offended by this explanation that claims that what you said about the midpoint doesn't make sense, but instead you are insulted by me and make me responsible for what science says. I cannot understand this reasoning.

And where in the DSM-IV does it mention above average IQ TLGP?


When you mentioned Kanner, were you saying autistics have above average IQ too?


Kanner discovered autism in 1943, Asperger discovered a form of it a year later and described it.

It doesn't actually SAY IQ, Spokane Girl. I'm talking about the way an aspect is interpreted.



No, Kanner had some LFA's amongst his subjects. Asperger didn't.



Kanner named Autism officially in 1943. The discoverer was actually Emil Kraepolin, except he called it youth dementia. It was then named unofficially by Eugene Bleuler as a part of his work on schizophrenia.

And my last word to LostInSpace;

There are PLENTY of examples of information pre Internet that can not and will not be found by a Google search.

And "stubborn and ignorant" = "liar". The mid point is 90. You (LostInSpace) are being fed a lot of nonsense, and if anyone is stubborn and over reliant on the Internet it's you.

That's it - my last post on this thread.

Geez. I didn't know that people initially believed Autism to be schizophrenia and dementia. Ye gods, imagine if neurotypicals read such things nowadays, what kind of crap would we have to put up with then? Also, to clarify - the debate about whether or not 90 or 100 IQ is the midpoint is useless. Remember; all information is supplied by other people - therefore applicable to others beliefs and ideas. Not every professional is innately qualified, even if they are on paper.

Every one of Kanner's subjects who was actually tested had a normal or above-normal IQ, though (including the non-speaking girl, who was the only one out of any of them who didn't speak).