Asperger's and high intelligence-- correlation or not?
Because executive function, multi-tasking, short term memory, seeing the bigger picture etc.
Though I don't think you are worthless. That negative thinking in right amounts is good but bad in too much.
_________________
I want to apologize to the entire forum. I have been a terrible person, very harsh and critical.
I still hold many of my views, but I will tone down my anger and stop being so bigoted and judgmental. I can't possibly know how you see things and will stop thinking I know everything you all think.
-Johnnyh
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
Combining data from all nine sites, the estimated prevalence of ASD with intellectual disability was 4.0 per 1,000 and ranged from 1.8 per 1,000 (in Colorado) to 5.3 per 1,000 (in North Carolina) (Figure 3). The estimated prevalence of ASD without intellectual disability was 8.7 per 1,000 and ranged from 4.2 per 1,000 (in Arkansas) to 12.2 per 1,000 (in New Jersey) (Figure 3). There was a greater male-to-female prevalence ratio for ASD without intellectual disability (PR: 5.1; 95% CI: 4.6–5.7; p<0.001) than for ASD with intellectual disability (PR: 3.7; 95% CI: 3.2–4.3; p<0.001) (Figure 4). The estimated prevalence of ASD with intellectual disability was significantly lower for non-Hispanic white children (3.3 per 1,000) compared with non-Hispanic black children (5.8 per 1,000; PR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5–0.7; p<0.001) (Figure 4).
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
It's impossible to know how valid those estimates are, given confusions affecting diagnosis.
Pyschologists and psychiatrists as diagnosers seem far more likely to misdiagnose Fragile X as autism, than paediatricians who see things from wider perspectives. As the FXS misdiagnosis rate is said by some to be quite high (the FXS is missed and misdiagnosed as autism) and FXS features intellectual impairment, you have to wonder at the reliability of the data.
http://www.intellectualdisability.info/ ... x-syndrome
Biscuitman
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers
Never had my IQ tested but I generally think I am more intelligent than the average person at my work. By that I mean I like to understand how things work, understand politics, finance, history and the world. I sit surrounded by women talking about reality telly programmes etc. 'Oh my God riiiiight, did you see what John did on Towie last night? I know, riiiiight?!'
I want to should at them and tell them they are all brain dead, but instead I sit there saying nothing at all, rarely even uttering a greeting.
I want to should at them and tell them they are all brain dead, but instead I sit there saying nothing at all, rarely even uttering a greeting.
Basing any estimate of their intelligence on a single interest of theirs is short-sighted.
Anyways, you like to understand how history and finance work, they like to understand how the TV show plots and character motivation work. If understanding how things work is your idea of intelligence, they are intelligent.
Biscuitman
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers
I want to should at them and tell them they are all brain dead, but instead I sit there saying nothing at all, rarely even uttering a greeting.
Basing any estimate of their intelligence on a single interest of theirs is short-sighted.
Anyways, you like to understand how history and finance work, they like to understand how the TV show plots and character motivation work. If understanding how things work is your idea of intelligence, they are intelligent.
Basing any estimate of their intelligence on a single post of mine is short sighted
......
My IQ is 103 and sometimes people mistakenly refer to me as smart without having learnt the full story. Overall I would say it is misleading to think their is any correlation between Asperger's and intelligence. I for one am very slow to process information and also suck at learning mathematical concepts and picking up on nuances. Two autistic friends of mine can be mistaken for having a high iq as well yet both have their areas of weakness like me. One understands concepts and scientific theories well but cannot understand novels very well, the other is good at maths but is terrible when it comes to performing on tests.
Whilst I am not an Aspie (my diagnosis was autism), it was my understanding that those on the higher end of the spectrum tend to have rather skewed intellectual abilities.
I do not believe my IQ can be any higher than 100 because I am utterly useless at anything scientifically, artistically or mechanically related. My inability to solve problems is truly quite laughable.
I surmise that most on here, just like neurotypicals frequently do, overestimate their intellect.
_________________
"Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. " - Special Agent Dale Cooper, Twin Peaks
I'm called smart, but my IQ is still high average and I still get upset with the stereotype of a "genius Aspie" all around. It makes me feel unworthy of the title, and in fear of disappointing other people.
An example is on TV tropes when someone theorized that L Lawliet from Death Note was an Aspie, because he was socially awkward and "highly intelligent." Regardless of whether or not you may subscribe to such a theory, (I don't), that is simply a bad argument. And yet, the intelligence was held up as core evidence!
Also. Aspies often have interests that may or may not become a well of information for them and make them appear knowledgeable and "smart" to others. (I love stories and so create information, which is very fantastical and not nearly as practically "impressive".)
So is this stereotype true? I've heard that Aspies have a higher IQ on average due to not including mentally disabled people in their group. This does not, however, mean that Aspies are likely to be above average. Is there a counterargument to this?
Like you said in the last paragraph: the definition of "aspie" includes "having a 70 IQ or above" (average to genius). In contrast a NT can be any IQ (ret*d to genius). So statistically aspies are probably skewed slightly to the high end because the low end is lopped off by definition.
So the statistical "average aspie" probably does have a slightly higher than average IQ. But that doesnt mean that having a high IQ is a "symptom of aspergers".
The "statistically average" American has one boob, and one testicle. But how often do you meet someone with one boob, and one testicle? So if you are an aspie with an average IQ you are like an American who doesnt have one boob and one testicle ( ie you're like most aspies).
I think any correlation might be overstated (media representations play a part); that said I can see how the differences in brain function might manifest as extraordinary intelligence in some aspies.
The thing to remember with IQ is that it's inherent; it shouldn't give you a sense of superiority or inferiority regardless how you score, because you didn't achieve it, you were born that way. I have a genius IQ, but I am hopeless in many non-academic situations. I don't know if there is a link between my IQ and my ASD, but before I knew I was autistic (20 yo) I thought I just didn't fit in because I was too smart
.
IQ is just a test score. I assume you mean that what IQ tests supposedly measure, intelligence, is inherent.
What really interests me about your comment is the implication that inherent qualities are not suitable reasons to feel inferior or superior. Why aren't they? What, if anything, do you consider to be suitable reasons to feel inferior or superior?
IQ is just a test score. I assume you mean that what IQ tests supposedly measure, intelligence, is inherent.
IQ measures a certain type of intelligence; I believe this type is largely inherent. In theory you could train to do better in an IQ test, but the general idea is that they measure the 'raw materials' you've got to work with. IQ intelligence is not the only type of intelligence though; emotional intelligence, for example, is something I struggle with.
What I mean about feeling superior/inferior: I'm not saying you can't take self-esteem from inherent qualities, but it's better to put those qualities into practice and actively achieve something, and then feel good about that. So for example I would feel better about doing well in an exam than I would about my base intelligence, because the exam reflects the work I put in while the intelligence is a constant thing I had no say in. This attitude is essentially to stop me getting arrogant or complacent lol, I'm not prescribing it for everybody else.
It works in the other direction too, I try not to let my inherent negative qualities get me down (easier said than done).
Also I'm saying it doesn't do well to feel superior/inferior in general, because this implies comparing yourself with others. I try not to compare myself with others, it is unhelpful. I am competitive against myself, and that's enough for me!
I take a somewhat different view. I have come to think that most people possess a roughly equivalent degree of "intelligence" i.e. whatever it is that IQ tests measure, unless there is something clearly wrong with their brain such as damage due to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, etc.
I can see how Asperger's Syndrome could lead some people to perform well on certain tasks that are thought to require high intelligence. For example, fascination with and love of detail. In middle school, I was very good at memorizing all the stuff that one is expected to memorize in History, and took great pride in showing off what I could recall. Typical aspie behavior, I suspect. The more "social" pupils were either just not interested in the subject matter or too focused elsewhere to do that, but they were most likely born with the necessary brain capacity.
Likewise math. Aspies can find comfort in being able to recognize rules and being able to predict outcomes accordingly. IRL this tends not to work. For example, a male aspie may have known two different girls with red hair who were nice to him, so he will formulate a rule that redheads can be trusted to be nice to him. This rule will quickly fail, however the rules of math can be trusted to never fail. Thus he develops a love of math and finds comfort in increasing his mastery thereof. He may also tend to speak in a very "pedantic" way and find joy in correctly using the more subtle rules of English grammar (and show obvious contempt for the more casual sort of syntax heard in the conversation of the popular kids). Likewise vocabulary, not only increasing but wanting to show off (but failing to impress anybody especially the pretty girls).
These traits might well lead a person with AS to achieve high scores in exams and go on earn higher level degrees in math or engineering in University. And don't forget computer programming!
For the aspie who does not manifest their traits in this way, I can see how the stereotype might seem oppressive!
But if people possess a roughly equivalent degree of whatever it is that IQ tests measure, then why don't they all get roughly equivalent results? I agree with the rest of what you said, this bit just doesn't make sense to me.
Unless you mean that IQ is not the only measure of intelligence, which is certainly true; intelligence is a broad field and we all have strengths and weaknesses in it.

