Did an online one once. I think I got 114 or 116. Either way, nothing that special. I must admit those sorts of tests make my brain fizz a little. I might try one again some other time. It was an online impulse buy.
Ed
Ed
-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
People's I.Q
- Thread starter furkandorum
- Start date
I had a teacher in high school who told the class this story:
He came from Germany as a child. In public school he rarely spoke. When asked a question by an administrator or teacher, he would only look at them with a puzzled face. They put him in ‘Special Ed’ (for children who were basically too slow or dumb to learn normally). He was there for months. One day, an adult at the school said to him “Frankun Ze Deutch” (I know I spelled it wrong, but it means “Do you speak German, in German). He started rambling in his native language of German and it became clear that he wasn’t dumb and they put him in ESL (English Second Language) class and he learned English very quickly. He went on to college and got a teaching degree. Clearly he wasn’t dumb, just didn’t understand the language and was smart enough to stay quiet when he didn’t understand.
Take an I.Q. test in German and see what that number is. I’m guessing it will say that you’re not ‘smart’ at all. Do it in Germany and they’ll put you in a hospital for retarded folks.
He came from Germany as a child. In public school he rarely spoke. When asked a question by an administrator or teacher, he would only look at them with a puzzled face. They put him in ‘Special Ed’ (for children who were basically too slow or dumb to learn normally). He was there for months. One day, an adult at the school said to him “Frankun Ze Deutch” (I know I spelled it wrong, but it means “Do you speak German, in German). He started rambling in his native language of German and it became clear that he wasn’t dumb and they put him in ESL (English Second Language) class and he learned English very quickly. He went on to college and got a teaching degree. Clearly he wasn’t dumb, just didn’t understand the language and was smart enough to stay quiet when he didn’t understand.
Take an I.Q. test in German and see what that number is. I’m guessing it will say that you’re not ‘smart’ at all. Do it in Germany and they’ll put you in a hospital for retarded folks.
Some of the comments from the self-described geniuses make me wish for an eye roll emoji.
Is this a troll post?
We have a genius posting that cant search themself if aspie is related with gifted or not?
Cant you search yourself that, as @Darkkin said, intelligence is a spectrum. Probably a spectrum of spectrums...
And some other genious who is so above others than he cant understand them. Thats being below them in social skills, and social intelligence is also a kind of intelligence...
Cant you check that IQ must be homogenous to be valid? That an heterogeneous IQ is an indicative of Autism rather than an indicative of being a genius...
Having (as an example) a great math brain circuit at the expense of (as an example) the brain face recognition circuit.... Makes you a genius? Makes you superior to others?
Maybe superior at maths and inferior at face recognition.
That you see other people with great skills as inferiors means that you are measuring them by your strengths rather that by your weakness.
An eagle can laugh at a fish because the fish can't fly while the fish laughs at the eagle because it cant reach the bottom of the sea.
The intelectual superiority stuff is a mistake. And the proof of that is that most of humans prefer to live with "retarded" dogs and cats rather than with most of other humans.
Intelligence by itself is (as @Darkkin have said) just tool.
I would expect true genius to learn more about intelligence, about autism, about giftedness and above all about compassion.
That said, I have felt like that as a defensive way when I was being rejected by others at school. Like a way to reject then back instead of learning to be loved by them. A mistake, of course.
We have a genius posting that cant search themself if aspie is related with gifted or not?
Cant you search yourself that, as @Darkkin said, intelligence is a spectrum. Probably a spectrum of spectrums...
And some other genious who is so above others than he cant understand them. Thats being below them in social skills, and social intelligence is also a kind of intelligence...
Cant you check that IQ must be homogenous to be valid? That an heterogeneous IQ is an indicative of Autism rather than an indicative of being a genius...
Homogeneous or Heterogeneous I.Q Profile: Some Clinical Characteristics to Differentiate High Intellectual Potential and Asperger's Syndrome in Children
Homogeneous or Heterogeneous I.Q Profile: Some Clinical Characteristics to Differentiate High Intellectual Potential and Asperger's Syndrome in Children. PubMed, SCI, Scopus, ESCI, PMC indexed
www.fortunejournals.com
Having (as an example) a great math brain circuit at the expense of (as an example) the brain face recognition circuit.... Makes you a genius? Makes you superior to others?
Maybe superior at maths and inferior at face recognition.
That you see other people with great skills as inferiors means that you are measuring them by your strengths rather that by your weakness.
An eagle can laugh at a fish because the fish can't fly while the fish laughs at the eagle because it cant reach the bottom of the sea.
The intelectual superiority stuff is a mistake. And the proof of that is that most of humans prefer to live with "retarded" dogs and cats rather than with most of other humans.
Intelligence by itself is (as @Darkkin have said) just tool.
I would expect true genius to learn more about intelligence, about autism, about giftedness and above all about compassion.
That said, I have felt like that as a defensive way when I was being rejected by others at school. Like a way to reject then back instead of learning to be loved by them. A mistake, of course.
Last edited:
So if I like practicing martial arts and eating healthy I am automatically a stupid vain piece of male meat who just cares about my hair?
Really?
Is that the best our genius can process?
Honestly even this doesn't sound quite right to me when I'm thinking about this stuff.
I process things *really* fast, which is what happens after so many years of gaming, and can process lots of things at once....
....But I will also process my way right into a door frame (complete with comedic thud sound effect), or something embarrassing like that, and I can't do math whatsoever without counting on my fingers (I actually suspect I have discalculia).
Also can't remember if today is like, Monday, or maybe it's Thursday... Saturday? It's like, Friday the 38th of Smarch or some date like that, who knows, I sure don't....
Honestly all these evaluations and scores about intelligence seem like a buncha nonsense to me.
The way I see it, @OP, is that there's there's really only one way to get a sense of how smart someone is: Spend time around them and get to know them. That's really it.
Don't just assume though. You know what they say, assume... uh... something something yada whatever. That old saying.
vergil96
Well-Known Member
Vindiesel
Well-Known Member
"Intelligence is how fast you process stuff" I think were starting to venture into the semantics of it all and I believe this is apart of it but it is deeper than that.
I think above average intelligence means your overall scope of assessing information and the window is dramatically increased and you can efficiently allocate/filter your energy to obtain the perceived information available and interpret it to either data collect probabilities, understand how the stimuli/relationships affect each other or to manipulate your input to obtain the desired result.
What I mean by this is: Your brain has several information filtering ocular devises (metaphorically speaking); a telescope (global), binoculars (regional), eye sight (direct) and a microscope (minuet details). So depending on your intelligence level some of these ocular devices are dulled or even not available. Above average intelligence you can have all these devices to use but if you cant filter to net the desired result you become overstimulated with all this incoming information and you can become paradoxically bogged down. You can eventually understand how to use all these devices and how each filtering affects one another and can isolate the one you need to not take in so much information. Some people get high or drunk to do this and some learn to do this sober.
I believe intelligence is also eradicating useless knowledge/memories. Our brains have the capacity to acquire so much over our lifetime and to keep algebra in your head from high-school unless your a mathematician is essentially useless. Intelligence is a combination of processing speed, thought filtering allocation, deductive reasoning, probability assessment based off prior understandings and the most important one of them all is understanding that you know nothing and can learn from anyone with any intelligence level.
I think above average intelligence means your overall scope of assessing information and the window is dramatically increased and you can efficiently allocate/filter your energy to obtain the perceived information available and interpret it to either data collect probabilities, understand how the stimuli/relationships affect each other or to manipulate your input to obtain the desired result.
What I mean by this is: Your brain has several information filtering ocular devises (metaphorically speaking); a telescope (global), binoculars (regional), eye sight (direct) and a microscope (minuet details). So depending on your intelligence level some of these ocular devices are dulled or even not available. Above average intelligence you can have all these devices to use but if you cant filter to net the desired result you become overstimulated with all this incoming information and you can become paradoxically bogged down. You can eventually understand how to use all these devices and how each filtering affects one another and can isolate the one you need to not take in so much information. Some people get high or drunk to do this and some learn to do this sober.
I believe intelligence is also eradicating useless knowledge/memories. Our brains have the capacity to acquire so much over our lifetime and to keep algebra in your head from high-school unless your a mathematician is essentially useless. Intelligence is a combination of processing speed, thought filtering allocation, deductive reasoning, probability assessment based off prior understandings and the most important one of them all is understanding that you know nothing and can learn from anyone with any intelligence level.
Social, emotional, skill based, and psychological intelligences are inextricably linked to the consciousness as a whole. Being aware of all of the different aspects will have a much greater impact on one's experience than a unilaterally fixed approach.
(e.g. Pete assumes he is the smartest guy in the room and because everyone else is seen as intellectual subpar to Pete, Pete deems them unworthy of his time and/or effort. Flipside of this is the group as a whole collectively senses Pete's contempt and socially, emotionally the group decides that interacting with Pete is not worth their time or effort because of Pete's poor attitude.
If Pete is intellectually 'superior' shouldn't Pete be able to interact effectively within the group? Or is the group at fault for not wanting to tolerate and/or acknowledge Pete's 'superior' mental capacity. From Pete's perspective, the group is in the wrong for failing to accomodate and acclimate to his inherent mental prowess. From the group perspective, Pete is simply too much drama and entitled behaviour to keep pouring effort into.
Brushing off social and emotional acuity to focus solely on an assumed 'intellectual' superiority can result in extreme social isolation, poor mental health, few to no coping skills, and major deficits of self autonomy (the ability to live independently). Ask the 2E Gifted Kids about burnout.
Major imbalances in any single aspect of overall cognitive function will often prove to have an equal corresponding deficit. There are pros and cons to every type of intelligence and their allocation ratios. In short trade offs...e.g. being reasonably smart, but really savvy in a social setting.
(e.g. Pete assumes he is the smartest guy in the room and because everyone else is seen as intellectual subpar to Pete, Pete deems them unworthy of his time and/or effort. Flipside of this is the group as a whole collectively senses Pete's contempt and socially, emotionally the group decides that interacting with Pete is not worth their time or effort because of Pete's poor attitude.
If Pete is intellectually 'superior' shouldn't Pete be able to interact effectively within the group? Or is the group at fault for not wanting to tolerate and/or acknowledge Pete's 'superior' mental capacity. From Pete's perspective, the group is in the wrong for failing to accomodate and acclimate to his inherent mental prowess. From the group perspective, Pete is simply too much drama and entitled behaviour to keep pouring effort into.
Brushing off social and emotional acuity to focus solely on an assumed 'intellectual' superiority can result in extreme social isolation, poor mental health, few to no coping skills, and major deficits of self autonomy (the ability to live independently). Ask the 2E Gifted Kids about burnout.
Major imbalances in any single aspect of overall cognitive function will often prove to have an equal corresponding deficit. There are pros and cons to every type of intelligence and their allocation ratios. In short trade offs...e.g. being reasonably smart, but really savvy in a social setting.
Last edited:
Jordy
Well-Known Member
Mediocre people will always be salty at true geniuses. They consider themselves above most people but aren't clever enough to be genuinely recognized for the supposed superiority they consider themselves to posses. They love to project their salt at people who truly have superior intellect, are fully confident and don't feel the need to fake humbleness to please inferiors.
I’ve had a theory for several years now that intelligence is not a ‘whole’ answer. I mean to say that the human brain goes in several different directions, all at the same time but with different levels of strength. Mine goes very strongly towards math and science but is very limited in the direction of social skills. My wife used to say “how can you be so smart and so stupid?”. She excels at social skills but struggles with numbers and language. Between the two of us we have built a beautiful home and raised an awesome child, all while having great relationships with friends and being very smart with our finances. For us, 1+1 doesn’t equal 2, it equals a very large #1.
Society values math and science because it creates jobs and generates revenue, while assuming the social stuff is a given. That’s why they push calculus in high school but offer basically no classes that teach children how to interact socially. Most I.Q. tests focus primarily on the math and science, so I usually test very high on the scale.
This is why people specialize in their careers (usually). A great automotive mechanic might stink at doing taxes. A doctor might have a horrible time relating to children, it’s why he went to medical school instead of becoming a 2nd grade teacher.
As others have said here, people should be seen a whole person. It’s not accurate to judge intelligence by a small sector of their psychological abilities. I know that I’m generally smarter than average. However…. test me on math and I’m off the chart genius. Test me on my verbal or social skills and I’m a complete idiot.
Society values math and science because it creates jobs and generates revenue, while assuming the social stuff is a given. That’s why they push calculus in high school but offer basically no classes that teach children how to interact socially. Most I.Q. tests focus primarily on the math and science, so I usually test very high on the scale.
This is why people specialize in their careers (usually). A great automotive mechanic might stink at doing taxes. A doctor might have a horrible time relating to children, it’s why he went to medical school instead of becoming a 2nd grade teacher.
As others have said here, people should be seen a whole person. It’s not accurate to judge intelligence by a small sector of their psychological abilities. I know that I’m generally smarter than average. However…. test me on math and I’m off the chart genius. Test me on my verbal or social skills and I’m a complete idiot.
Jordy
Well-Known Member
The classical definition and understanding of intelligence never disputed the fact that brain has many functions other than just abstract reasoning, pattern recognition etc. People are trying to redefine intelligence and are inventing all kinds of new forms like "emotional intelligence" to spare the feelings of people who lack classical intelligence. I think it's also just that some people don't like the reality that we are not all equal in our abilities, and some are without comprise superior in their skills and have a better life because of it. It's political correctness.
Last edited:
Being smart doesn't entitle anyone to superior treatment. Unfortunately it often elicits resentment and envy, but so too can it foster a problematic superiority complex in the individual who believes because of their higher 'intellect' they deserve more, that they are some how special.
I forget who it was that said no one is special, but we are each unique.
Basically it comes down to obsession about highlighting a single aspect of prowess and a failure to acknowledge and have accountability for the accompanying challenges.
The assumption that one's book smarts excuses everything else. Dangerous road, dangerous attitude...that points to a very specific deficit that has the potential to negatively impact countless others.
I forget who it was that said no one is special, but we are each unique.
Basically it comes down to obsession about highlighting a single aspect of prowess and a failure to acknowledge and have accountability for the accompanying challenges.
The assumption that one's book smarts excuses everything else. Dangerous road, dangerous attitude...that points to a very specific deficit that has the potential to negatively impact countless others.
Jordy
Well-Known Member
Define superior treatment. The smartest engineer that contributes most, and does so with less effort, is usually paid more than his less capable peers. Is that superior treatment? At some point society will give you a greater reward for the putting in the same effort, because you are able to contribute more with it.
Last edited:
There is a difference between having a workable skill set (e.g. an engineer or surgeon) intelligence vs the guy boasting about an IQ of 164 and living in his parents basement trolling people on the internet. It also highlights the spectrum of consciousness.
It doesn't matter how high one's IQ is if they have zero social skills. Basic functionality within everyday life is profoundly compromised. It is the working definition of a handicap. It is the difference between the medical and social approaches of the word.
People who use their intellect to create, build, or provide a tangible benefit certainly earn their pay. They have a skill, guy in the basement, despite his IQ score doesn't. He has zero resources because he didn't put in the effort to develop any, yet gets upset when people point this out, defaulting to IQ superiority in defense, as if that arbitrary number absolves the deficits in social and psychological aspects.
It is the incapacitation of imbalance.
Jordy
Well-Known Member
Judging intelligence on its inability to overcome unrelated obstacles is fallacious. Being intelligent only may not get you far without social abilities, but that is no way to do a value judgment. Would you critique a Lamborghini on it's inability drive without fuel? And surely being intellectually superior while having poor socials is better than average intellectual ability plus poor social skills.
Legend In My Own Mind
Member
It was terrified, at first, knowing I was more intelligent than some adults around me. I was around four years old. It was a little secret I carried around, that I was a weird, very smart...thing.
I remain envious of the connection allistics enjoy, even though I perceive myself as MUCH more fortunate. It's like the Jackson Browne song "Doctor My Eyes" except in real life.
I judge each individual on their own merits. If they're cool, who cares if they're "neurotypical"?
That is an illogical comparison. A car is a non-sentient object, not a conscious being. People actively reflect and interact with their environments constantly. A car is static until it is interacted with. A car is merely part of the context, not the consciousness moving through the context.
It is like saying why is a raven like a writing desk. A raven is a sentient being, capable of autonomous decisions. A writing desk is a construct that would not exist without human influence and is still just a piece of furniture.
Jordy
Well-Known Member
The fallacy is committed in both scenarios. About every advantageous trait a human can posses could be judged as not that useful when assigned to a person who is lacking in every other way. It's not exactly something that is worthy of being stated in a discussion on how valuable the trait is.
That more intelligence has a positive effect on what you get for the effort you put in remains.
Last edited:
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
Some phones have such bad quality when you call them
- Started by Misty Avich
- Replies: 8
-
-
-
