IQ and intelligence

[The Return]

Intelligent Quotient (IQ) testing is a gauge of mental capacity and an important method of testing mental retardation by professionals in today's society.

The following ranges, based on Standard Scores of intelligence tests, reflect the categories of the American Association of Mental Retardation, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV-TR, and the International Classification of Diseases-10:

Profound mental retardation Below 20
Severe mental retardation 20–34
Moderate mental retardation 35–49
Mild mental retardation 50–69
Borderline intellectual functioning 70–79

As you can gather from the quote above, IQ testing is accepted by all major medical associations and organizations as a gauge of one's intelligence and intellectual functioning. The lower one scores on an IQ test, the closer one is to mental retardation, and vice-versa.

The above is fact and cannot be argued. No one with an ounce of common sense would suggest that reality was anything to the contrary. There have certainly been historical cases of misuse and abuse of Intelligence Quotient in the past, in order to dehumanize ethnic groups particularly in a time of hardship or war, or ignorance; but by modern standards this is no longer the case. Citizens living in the same nation and speaking the same language are fairly tested and gauged side-by-side. Is there anyone dumb enough to disagree with this?

People with "high IQ's" tend to denounce the IQ test as a true gauge of intelligence.

This feels like some kind of crazy troll.

[KikoSanchez]

There is no true test of intelligence when you can teach people to score 10-20 points higher on it in just a few weeks. It's not like the person is actually getting that much smarter.

[T-zone]

IQ is a test for mental retardation. The reason this works is because if you actually do score 69 or below on an IQ test, it means you have trouble performing mental aerobics that most people do all the time.

Now, just like any broad test, it's not perfect. There are some people who score low and aren't mentally retarded. BIG DEAL. Statistical outliers are EVERYWHERE. Stop using a freak occurrence as your only argument against the test.

However, a high score on an IQ test doesn't really mean anything. I know people with high IQ scores who are idiots. Maybe they are really good at imagining the way knots are tied inside their heads, but they are idiots, seriously.

I don't think IQ is a good way of measuring "intelligence", because you can't really measure something as arbitrary as "intelligence", but it's a good way of telling whether or not someone is mentally retarded.

One of the most widely renowned physicists, Richard Feynman, painter and author; An undeniable genius, had an IQ of 124.

Make of that what you will.

[DerDrache]

I've written extensively about IQ, so I don't think I'll be contributing too much to this thread.

I will point out a few things, however:

1) You should be aware that IQ scores are based on the population norm. The average score is arbitrarily set as "100", and then you tend to have relatively even distributions above and below it. To illustrate, if the majority was mentally handicapped (ie. by our current standards), then an "average" score (100) would indicate that you were mentally retarded. My point being: Nothing in an IQ score "calculates" whether someone is truly mentally handicapped, and to generalize, it does not offer any concrete indicator of someone's intelligence. Rather, an IQ of 70 was set as the legal and medical criterion for mental retardation, based on the norm, and based on how mentally handicapped people tended to perform on these tests. A score of 70 tends to be a good indicator of whether or not someone is retarded, but the score itself has no innate correlation with someone's cognitive ability.

2) IQ is not a static, determined number. This seems to be the most common misconception of laymen who discuss IQ, and ANY scientist will tell you that IQ is dynamic and can be influenced by a number of factors.

3) Living in the same nation and speaking the same language does not eliminate cultural bias in IQ testing. Within this nation, lifestyles and cultures can be completely incomparable, and although pidgin forms of English can be recognized as English, that does not mean that its speakers know the same level of English as those who speak "standard English".

Now, if you don't understand the implications of all of this information in regard to your original post...you should not be discussing IQ or intelligence at all.

There are several examples of folks with outrageously high IQs (150+) who amount to nothing in life, often taking menial jobs and having severe difficulty communicating with other people. "Intelligence" is itself vague. An IQ test is more a measure of one's ability to follow directions. True, it involves thinking, but, as other posters have pointed out, you can be "coached" to a higher IQ score in a week or two. Is a violin virtuoso "intelligent" in the same way that a master architect is? Or a great sculptor? Or a mathematician? Clearly not.

Mental retardation is the failure of a brain to function at a level which facilitates survival and communication with other humans. Thus, pegging it to a population average makes sense. In a world of Einsteins, you and I could be termed "mentally retarded." However, there is an argument to be made for a "floor value" of sorts; namely, mental retardation is when one does not have the mental capacity to take care of himself. I am on the fence between these viewpoints.

IQ test's don't work

[Zay]

Too many things affect IQ for it to be relevant to anything.

Iodized salt levels affect IQ:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/op...stof.html?_r=2

The IQ scores of most nations have been rising over the century. Humans don't evolve that fast, thus destroying the notion that IQ isn't heavily reliant on environment.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...books_gladwell

also, stress makes you dumber:
http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...-thinking.html

I could go on and on.

[DerDrache]

Originally Posted by Zay

also, stress makes you dumber:
http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...-thinking.html

I could go on and on.

Haha, yep. Exercise has been shown to grow (or regenerate, I can't remember which) brain cells, too.

I am a firm believer in IQ tests.
Can you train yourself to learn how to do the test better? Yes. Does that make you more intelligent? No. It means you have learned to cheat on the test and just like any other test learning to cheat doesn't make you know more.

The tests are meant to measures someone ability for complex problem solving and when you introduce someone to the test for the very first time some people simply score higher than others.

Is it true it can be affected by other things? Well, yes, but ask yourself how that is possible if IQ is not a measure of intellectual functions. What is it measuring that gets affected by things such as salt deficiency and being overstressed? It's obviously measuring some function in a humans thought process to be affected by such things.

I never got the whole "the average IQ is rising" argument. What's the point of even putting forward such an argument? Does it prove anything other than the average IQ is rising?

Does that even matter?
Everyone here has come in contact with people who they know are not as smart as them or as intelligent as them. Do you really need the IQ test to do what can be done within 5 minutes of speaking with a person? Some people are smarter than others. Get used to it.

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

Everyone here has come in contact with people who they know are not as smart as them or as intelligent as them. Do you really need the IQ test to do what can be done within 5 minutes of speaking with a person? Some people are smarter than others. Get used to it.

Everyone I've ever talked to in real life has found me to be pretty smart, for reasons I don't know, but in reality I'm a fucking moron. I also have a very pathetic IQ score.

[DerDrache]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

The tests are meant to measures someone ability for complex problem solving and when you introduce someone to the test for the very first time some people simply score higher than others.

You really should avoid talking out of your ass so much. The Wechsler test (the most common IQ test nowadays) tests the following categories:

1. a Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
2. a Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
3. a Working Memory Index (WMI)
4. a Processing Speed Index (PSI)
5. a composite, single full-scale IQ (FSIQ) score based on the combined scores
6. a General Ability Index (GAI) to identify general cognitive ability

A concise, correct description of the test would have been "It attempts to measure a subset of cognitive abilities."

Is it true it can be affected by other things? Well, yes, but ask yourself how that is possible if IQ is not a measure of intellectual functions. What is it measuring that gets affected by things such as salt deficiency and being overstressed? It's obviously measuring some function in a humans thought process to be affected by such things.

It is not measuring "some function". It attempts to quantify several cognitive functions.

I never got the whole "the average IQ is rising" argument. What's the point of even putting forward such an argument? Does it prove anything other than the average IQ is rising?

And this confirms that you don't know a thing about IQ or IQ tests. Simply put, it means that "average" people from past decades would have scored lower than average people of today, if they took our IQ tests. While you could qualify that as "lawl we're smarter", the reason we are "smarter" is because of the constantly progressing intellectual environment of our society. In other words, rising IQ scores is just yet another demonstration of the fact that IQ is not static or determined.

Does that even matter?
Everyone here has come in contact with people who they know are not as smart as them or as intelligent as them. Do you really need the IQ test to do what can be done within 5 minutes of speaking with a person? Some people are smarter than others. Get used to it.

In 5 minutes of speaking with someone you could determine whether they are more intelligent than you? Jesus...the nonsense just never stops with you, does it? As Sentinel put it "Is a violin virtuoso "intelligent" in the same way that a master architect is? Or a great sculptor? Or a mathematician? Clearly not."

You can't narrow down intelligence to one quality (or even two, three, or four), and you certainly can't thoroughly evaluate someone's intellectual abilities simply in a 5 minute chat. If, during one of your 5 minute judgement chats, someone showed that they did math at a 4th grade level, you would ignorantly think "He's dumb.". If you met this same person while he was engaged in an activity he was skilled at, you would think "He's really smart." Point being: If you think that "intelligence" is one thing, if you think it can be evaluated in a 5 minute conversation, or from an IQ test for that matter, then you should simply stop posting and let the knowledgeable people talk.

--

On that note, I'll finish with this: IQ only measures IQ. It is not equivalent to "intelligence", and although it definitely has predictive power of one's performance in our society, that correlation is not written in stone.

Originally Posted by DerDrache

You really should avoid talking out of your ass so much. The Wechsler test (the most common IQ test nowadays) tests the following categories:

1. a Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
2. a Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
3. a Working Memory Index (WMI)
4. a Processing Speed Index (PSI)
5. a composite, single full-scale IQ (FSIQ) score based on the combined scores
6. a General Ability Index (GAI) to identify general cognitive ability

A concise, correct description of the test would have been "It attempts to measure a subset of cognitive abilities."

Oh my, how little we understand from simply getting our answers from Wikipedia.
I specifically say complex problem solving for a reason. I kind of like that you don't have any clue what I was talking about. What are the virtues of intelligence itself according to tests? I'll give you a hint, complex problem solving is one of them.

It is not measuring "some function". It attempts to quantify several cognitive functions.

But it is.

And this confirms that you don't know a thing about IQ or IQ tests. Simply put, it means that "average" people from past decades would have scored lower than average people of today, if they took our IQ tests. While you could qualify that as "lawl we're smarter", the reason we are "smarter" is because of the constantly progressing intellectual environment of our society. In other words, rising IQ scores is just yet another demonstration of the fact that IQ is not static or determined.

So then there should be a larger than average raise to IQ levels since the internet came in to existence, according to you, correct?
Oh and I was going to wait to drop this hammer but I do know what the Flynn effect is and it doesn't state that IQ scores rise over time. It states that just as it can rise it can also drop over time.

In 5 minutes of speaking with someone you could determine whether they are more intelligent than you? Jesus...the nonsense just never stops with you, does it? As Sentinel put it "Is a violin virtuoso "intelligent" in the same way that a master architect is? Or a great sculptor? Or a mathematician? Clearly not."

A persons job placement does not represent their intellectual capabilities.

You can't narrow down intelligence to one quality (or even two, three, or four), and you certainly can't thoroughly evaluate someone's intellectual abilities simply in a 5 minute chat. If, during one of your 5 minute judgement chats, someone showed that they did math at a 4th grade level, you would ignorantly think "He's dumb.". If you met this same person while he was engaged in an activity he was skilled at, you would think "He's really smart." Point being: If you think that "intelligence" is one thing, if you think it can be evaluated in a 5 minute conversation, or from an IQ test for that matter, then you should simply stop posting and let the knowledgeable people talk.

You have the part about there being virtues to intelligence (4, by the way) but the rest is ridiculous. Again, job does not represent intellectual capability. Neither does skill. Intelligence is a hell of a lot different than educated. I agree with you to an extent, however. 5 minutes is not exactly how long it would take me, or anyone, to measure someone intellectually.

[Zay]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

A persons job placement does not represent their intellectual capabilities.

*wooooooooooooooosh*

Originally Posted by Zay

*wooooooooooooooosh*

I don't get it.
Is the wooosh the sound of what I said going right over your head?

[DerDrache]

As I tell your companions all the time: You don't know what you're talking about, you know you don't know what you're talking about, so stop trying to argue about it. Arguing isn't going to change the basic facts of what an IQ test is, what they measure, what they tend to be correlated with, and what intelligence is (or rather, what intelligence is not).

In any case, I've already written all of the important facts there are to know about IQ tests, that being: it is not equivalent to intelligence, it isn't a determined and unchanging number, and it has some predictive value, but nothing about its predictive power is written in stone. Period.

Protip: If you don't jump to ignorant conclusions, you won't get hit over the head by reality every time you're faced with actual scientific information.

EDIT: And as Zay pointed out...you really, really misinterpreted the comments about "mathematician, violin virtuoso, architect", given that you thought we were talking about job placement. Either way, I give up. These arguments go nowhere.

Originally Posted by DerDrache

As I tell your companions all the time: You don't know what you're talking about, you know you don't know what you're talking about, so stop trying to argue about it. Arguing isn't going to change the basic facts of what an IQ test is, what they measure, what they tend to be correlated with, and what intelligence is (or rather, what intelligence is not).

More like you don't know what I am talking about.

In any case, I've already written all of the important facts there are to know about IQ tests, that being: it is not equivalent to intelligence, it isn't a determined and unchanging number, and it has some predictive value, but nothing about its predictive power is written in stone. Period.

Nothing about it's predictive power is written in stone is a long way off off from "it is not equivalent to intelligence".
You have copy and pasted from wikipedia, btw. That does not mean you comprehend. What's more you have not described intelligence and by not doing so you cannot take what you have pasted and claim it is an indication of intelligence or not. I guess you didn't pick up on that did you.

EDIT: And as Zay pointed out...you really, really misinterpreted the comments about "mathematician, violin virtuoso, architect", given that you thought we were talking about job placement.

You were attempting to change the definition of intelligence to suit your needs rather than actually argue based on the actual meaning of the word. All those people have intelligence but what you describe is actually their title based on what they choose to do in life. Also known as a job. Intelligence is the precursor to gaining knowledge, not knowledge itself.
I answered correctly, your failed to comprehend.

Perhaps there is a meaning in what you wrote that I didn't grasp but that's what I have gathered from reading it.

[DerDrache]

1) I copied the 6 scoring indices of the WAIS exam, nothing else. Anything else I've written is based on what I've learned from paying attention in classes and reading science journals or textbooks.

2) I'll illustrate the point about "mathematicians, violinists, etc." another way: Although some would judge you as unintelligent, stupid, moronic, or borderline-retarded based on what you've written in this thread, you might have (just maybe) made a much better impression if you were judged in another setting. It was merely an illustration of how complicated and generally unreliable (social) judgements of intelligence are.

3)

Perhaps there is a meaning in what you wrote that I didn't grasp but that's what I have gathered from reading it.

Yeah, yeah...recurring theme.

Originally Posted by DerDrache

1) I copied the 6 scoring indices of the WAIS exam, nothing else. Anything else I've written is based on what I've learned from paying attention in classes and reading science journals or textbooks.

2) I'll illustrate the point about "mathematicians, violinists, etc." another way: Although some would judge you as unintelligent, stupid, moronic, or borderline-retarded based on what you've written in this thread, you might have (just maybe) made a much better impression if you were judged in another setting. It was merely an illustration of how complicated and generally unreliable (social) judgements of intelligence are.

3)

Yeah, yeah...recurring theme.

1. But you failed to comprehend why. If I had only said that you copied and pasted everything in your argument then what you just said would make sense. I did not say that and you have again failed to comprehend what I said.

2. I will, yet again, point out that there are not different types of intelligence.
No matter what they do they still have the same virtues of intelligence. Some more than others.

3. With you, yes it is.

IQ testing is true and tried.

They have not yet been able to put a number on mine as I answered all of the questions correct.

[RAOVQ]

some people have been trying to state the reality. IQ tests were designed to diagnose retardation in army recruits in the early 1900's. the definition of intelligence used is "The global capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his/her environment.".

this is the point, the tests are excellent of quantifying how ill equiped someone is to handle thier enviroment. the lower the score, the more assistance will be required for the person to cope.

however, the inverse is not true. obviously, a higher score does not mean that someone is able to cope better. if you want a test of how well someone can manage thier enviroment, look at money (making the assumption all actions are done to maximise happiness -> wealth). (i would love to see a correlation between wealth and iq)

academics score highly, but so do under achievers. once average intelligence is reached, the test is no longer valid. any results obtained are outside the scope of the purpose of the test. it is like using a standard ruler to measure a football field. estimations can be made, and the results will have _some_ meaning, but at the end of the day it is just pissing in the wind and you would be far better off using an instrument designed for the job.

Originally Posted by RAOVQ

some people have been trying to state the reality. IQ tests were designed to diagnose retardation in army recruits in the early 1900's. the definition of intelligence used is "The global capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his/her environment.".

this is the point, the tests are excellent of quantifying how ill equiped someone is to handle thier enviroment. the lower the score, the more assistance will be required for the person to cope.

however, the inverse is not true. obviously, a higher score does not mean that someone is able to cope better. if you want a test of how well someone can manage thier enviroment, look at money (making the assumption all actions are done to maximise happiness -> wealth). (i would love to see a correlation between wealth and iq)

academics score highly, but so do under achievers. once average intelligence is reached, the test is no longer valid. any results obtained are outside the scope of the purpose of the test. it is like using a standard ruler to measure a football field. estimations can be made, and the results will have _some_ meaning, but at the end of the day it is just pissing in the wind and you would be far better off using an instrument designed for the job.

Okay but....
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq01.htm
http://www.iqtest-center.com/history.php

You're sort of correct but History is larger than just American history. The IQ test has changed a lot since then.

And this:
http://monkeynostrils.blogspot.com/2...underpaid.html
and this:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100...on&btnG=Search

All of this FIGHTING! FUCK! Listen to each other people! I can see some of you arguing the same or similar points without even realizing it in your insane I-have-to-be-right state of egos!

Intelligence is defined differently by everyone, IQ tests are no different. They are a tool that can be very useful for showing cognitive abilities which IMO is part of what I call intelligence. Though no test could ever measure actual "intelligence" IMHO because it would have to take into account creativity, artistic thought, emotions, and so much more.

Does that mean I think IQ is useless? No of course not, but it sure as hell isn't the end all be all test of how smart you are...

[killallthewhiteman]

the interwebz says i have an IQ of 106; i thought i would do a bit better than that- mind you they were mostly mathematical questions and i fucking hate maths.

I don't think too many people are worried about the people who score below 80 on IQ tests taking over the world.

I would also bet that most of the people who score in the top 5% have noticed that they are out numbered by people in the NORMAL range by 10 to 1.

But a person with an IQ score of 110 can stil hide important information from someone with a score of 150. The person with the 150 score may not necessarily find out that the information is being hidden.

Are economists with PhDs intelligent? If so should they be able to figure out that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for decades? When have you ever heard economists discuss it on television? So if you never hear about it what does that say about intelligence and information in this society? Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they know what the hell is going on.

Are we bombarded with bullshit so we can't use what intelligence we have?

DT

- Everyone thinks they're a genius
- This is actually healthy
- Everyone will rationalize why IQ tests don't relate at all to intelligence and a retard is just as possible of becoming president as anyone else
- This is actually healthy
(by "everyone" I mean &T in general)

I really think a lot of people don't want to face the fact that they're stupid as fuck compared to some people.

Personally, even though I know I'm not "uber elite 10x mega huge penis" (IQ score), I know that for me it is still worthwhile to pursue knowledge because while the uber-iq's are taking backhoes to the rubble I'm clearing it out with my hands -- and it's better to do the work than to not try.

Face it &T, you're not the smartest person in the world, regardless of your IQ score, hell, even because of your IQ score. You're not all Artimus Fowl. IQ scores do correlate to a lot of things, and sorry to say many people consider them good -- grades, jobs, colleges. They also don't because there are uber geniuses which turn out to be bouncers, or strip-club owners, or dealers of cannabis and LSD.

Some people with high intelligence can have low self-esteem, some can score low on novelty seeking, some can have other traits which aren't "good". Personality, temperment, and IQ are all different things and even though you're not a genius you still are a really good person.

[DerDrache]

Originally Posted by raohiwaq

- Everyone thinks they're a genius
- This is actually healthy
- Everyone will rationalize why IQ tests don't relate at all to intelligence and a retard is just as possible of becoming president as anyone else
- This is actually healthy
(by "everyone" I mean &T in general)

I really think a lot of people don't want to face the fact that they're stupid as fuck compared to some people.

Personally, even though I know I'm not "uber elite 10x mega huge penis" (IQ score), I know that for me it is still worthwhile to pursue knowledge because while the uber-iq's are taking backhoes to the rubble I'm clearing it out with my hands -- and it's better to do the work than to not try.

Face it &T, you're not the smartest person in the world, regardless of your IQ score, hell, even because of your IQ score. You're not all Artimus Fowl. IQ scores do correlate to a lot of things, and sorry to say many people consider them good -- grades, jobs, colleges. They also don't because there are uber geniuses which turn out to be bouncers, or strip-club owners, or dealers of cannabis and LSD.

Some people with high intelligence can have low self-esteem, some can score low on novelty seeking, some can have other traits which aren't "good". Personality, temperment, and IQ are all different things and even though you're not a genius you still are a really good person.

This is honestly the best post I've ever seen a New Arrival make. Good job.

And you're definitely right about "everyone thinks they're a genius". It's amusing...the same person who talks about how valuable IQ tests are will almost always have to rationalize why he didn't score so well on it. "I'm smart, but..." Then they tend to revert to bullshit about average IQs, and how they think the average IQ of their ethnic group has something to do with them.

Ahh...idiocy.

[Martian Luger King]

It's funny how you generalize all racists and IQ-proponents as having low IQ's, as if anyone has ever acted like that towards you.

IQ sucks ass. Autistic people (mainly "lower functioning") get the stigma of being 'retarded'. The IQ test is bullshit perpetuated by neurotypicals
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28489

Originally Posted by Star Wars Fan

IQ sucks ass. Autistic people (mainly "lower functioning") get the stigma of being 'retarded'. The IQ test is bullshit perpetuated by neurotypicals
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28489

So you're brilliant idea is to try prove one mental functions test wrong by using another mental functions test? Genius.

Call me crazy but the fact that autism is caused by having a fucked up brain tends to give people the impression that autism is to blame rather than the IQ tests.

Oh, btw, both tests in your article are actually IQ tests.

[DerDrache]

A little tidbit that slipped my mind:

The Black/White (and White/Asian) gap can be erased by controlling for "stereotype threat" (the fear of confirming a negative stereotype that subsequently hurts cognitive abilities while test-taking). In terms of experimental variables, this includes the ethnicity of the experimenter, the purported purpose of the test (ie. intelligence test versus a generalized test), and the knowledge of a future comparison with another group.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.10.13.html (look for the page headers for pages 192 through 194)

This article provides a summary, though particular attention should be paid to Steele and Aronson's 1995 experiment, which you can find more about on google.

Originally Posted by DerDrache

A little tidbit that slipped my mind:

The Black/White (and White/Asian) gap can be erased by controlling for "stereotype threat" (the fear of confirming a negative stereotype that subsequently hurts cognitive abilities while test-taking). In terms of experimental variables, this includes the ethnicity of the experimenter, the purported purpose of the test (ie. intelligence test versus a generalized test), and the knowledge of a future comparison with another group.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.10.13.html (look for the page headers for pages 192 through 194)

This article provides a summary, though particular attention should be paid to Steele and Aronson's 1995 experiment, which you can find more about on google.

I'll read it since you read some of mine although I did mention already that I agree that external factors can have a biological influence. Right now I am reading an evil racist propaganda book called A Distant Thunder and then I gotta go cook up some baby Jews for supper so I have energy for all the lynchings we got to get done tonight.

[taoskin99]

There is no such thing as a good intelligence test because intelligence hasn't been properly defined yet. How can we measure intelligence if psychologists everywhere disagree on it's definition?

IQ tests don't test objective intelligence, they test knowledge of the cultural perception of intelligence. You can learn intelligence tests and become good at them. A true intelligence test would give the same results to a person no matter how many times he or she would do it.

They are highly discriminatory and jugements based on the results of an intelligence test should be avoided at all costs.

Originally Posted by taoskin99

There is no such thing as a good intelligence test because intelligence hasn't been properly defined yet. How can we measure intelligence if psychologists everywhere disagree on it's definition?

My 1969 psychology book said, "Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure."

Psychologists can talk circular logic with the best of them.

Dumb ass psychologists. LOL

DT

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

So you're brilliant idea is to try prove one mental functions test wrong by using another mental functions test? Genius.

yes, given it is more fitting with the autistic mindset, raher than neurotypicals forcing their stuff on neurodiverse people.

Call me crazy but the fact that autism is caused by having a fucked up brain tends to give people the impression that autism is to blame rather than the IQ tests.

it's a neurological condition. Lol @ 'fucked up brain'

Oh, btw, both tests in your article are actually IQ tests.

yeah...that still points out how those tests tend to suck because it's designed for certain people...

Originally Posted by Star Wars Fan

yes, given it is more fitting with the autistic mindset, raher than neurotypicals forcing their stuff on neurodiverse people.

Ok.

it's a neurological condition. Lol @ 'fucked up brain'

Yes lets all be pc about it. A neurological condition caused by fucked up brain functions & actually physically fucked up brains. That's what causes it. It can be caused by a car accident.

yeah...that still points out how those tests tend to suck because it's designed for certain people...

Actually it doesn't prove anything other than autistic children needing different tests because they have problems communicating like normal children because of their fucked up brains.