The Intelligence Question

[Matt88360]

Undoubtedly most of the people on here have heard of the belief that people with Asperger syndrome are generally very intelligent. However, it is my understanding that this is not necessarily the case, and that Aspies typically don't fall higher on the intelligence spectrum than the general population.

This makes sense to me, considering intense fascination can lead to exhaustive knowledge of a given subject, which can appear to be a sign of high intelligence when this doesn't necessarily have to be there. Likewise, exceptional skills in certain areas can lead to the appearance of intellectual brilliance when it may not actually be present.

Assuming this is true, does anyone have any reliable (preferably scholarly) sources that explain this?

Also, if this topic has come up here before, I apologize for being redundant. Likewise if this topic exhausts people from having to repeatedly hear about it. I checked all the different fora and didn't see anything that covered it, so that's why I decided to make this one.

 

[tryingtoregister]

I think people can be smart or dumb whether they have aspergers or autism or are just NT doesn't really matter.. I for one was lucky enough to be blessed with very high intelligence but I'm not sure that's typical (I have HFA not aspergers), I think people only got that stereotype because of Rain Man (and oddly enough, the real rain man didn't even have autism at all Kim Peek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

I've seen a lot of people who had more debilitating versions of autism in this world as well which is probably why most people assume that you either are going to be some crazy savant genius or severely handicapped. I think its really safe to say though that people can fall between as well. After all you don't base humanity's physical abilities by assuming people will either be elite athletes or morbidly obese with no in between right?

 

[WildCat]

I've tested out as being on the high average to gifted range of "intelligence" (yet another person here with HFA speaking), but that's the due result of having very uneven skills and that in itself may just be my genetic luck...HFA, as far as I know, isn't exactly associated with high "intelligence". Having strong aptitude in one or more areas, i.e. encyclopedic memory or a talent for abstract mathematics, can definitely mask issues in another area so as to give off the illusion of genius. That tends to be a common trait amongst people on the autism spectrum as I've found out - I don't know of any sources or studies that dig deeper into the matter, but from reading accounts and watching video of a few people on the autism spectrum I've noticed the disparity between areas of strength and weakness that other people seem to ignore.

We're not all prodigious savants or incredibly stupid despite what Hollywood might assume - some of us are undoubtedly gifted when it comes to our special interests, but there's almost always a price to be paid for "specialized thinking" as Temple Grandin once put it. It's akin to an unbalanced scale that tips either too much to the left or to the right.

 

[Sparticus]

Holy smashed eggs night before Halloween. The Aspie males I've come to know [since I've gotten closer to Aspie males than Aspie females] generally are more intelligent than the non-Aspies dumbed down brainwashed MASSES. It's too much of a joke for me to comment further. Yeah the apathetic SHEEPLE are smarter than us.

Us creative Aspies types [like myself] are allowed to verbally avoid certain logical [or illogical/uncreative] debates via the United Nations "Why Creative Aspies are allowed to avoid debating generally known & accepted info."


[moderators please feel free to moderate this if it includes objectional material]

 

[Arashi222]

There are many kinds or types of intelligence. Not all of those on the spectrum are savants or genuis level people. Not all NT's are genuis level people either. That being said from what I heard from the neuropsych that did my reevaluation is that often those on the spectrum have average above average in some areas on IQ tests but have low or below average on other parts of the IQ tests. Most people on the spectrum are not mentally disablied its more that we don't understand. I have been told often that I am smart and dumb. Well its true. I am wonderful at memorzing and echoing tv shows and movies and stupid stuff like my social work textbooks but yet I cannot do a simple math problem and an can barely make change without the aid of a computer or calculator.

 

[Banquo]

My colleagues at work introduce me to new starters as a 'quirky genius' who is generally harmless unless prodded. Do I perceive myself as such? No, I merely have an aptitude for things that they don't. By the same token they have aptitudes for things that are beyond my comprehension, the social intelligence of the average 10 year old leaves me in awe.

I think genius is a perception beholden from your own experience - a sloth might perceive a tortoise to be fast, but a cheetah would not. I am a mathematical cheetah and social sloth. Trying to encompass these opposing facets of my 'intelligence' into a single index feels somewhat futile and disrespectful to the variety of Humans that make up our society.

 

[Matt88360]

Wow, these are some excellent responses. Thanks for your contributions; it's definitely given me some things to consider.

The main consideration that I like is how intelligence is perhaps too broad to be considered as one category. I know this myself from my own experience. I took the Wechsler IQ test in psychotherapy in 2009, and scored in the 97th percentile for verbal, but in the 82nd percentile on math. This placed me in about the 93rd percentile. Everything was uniformly high except for the math score, which showed a huge drop from everything else. Yet ironically, I am terrific at formal logic, and math is basically logic with numbers, which is strange. My psychotherapist said there was definitely some kind of "issue" there that caused such a low math score relative to the other scores.

This also reminds me of a 60 Minutes story I saw one time about a blind, mentally retarded teenager who could play any piano composition perfectly after having only heard it briefly before he started playing. For basic cognition, this fellow was arrested at the level of a child; but for musical ability and memory, he was up there with the finest composers. You might be able to say that these exceptional cases, and even normal people to some degree, are simultaneously brilliant and slow in different respects.

In any case, I've recently realized that intelligence in general, even if it can be considered monolithic, is not nearly as important as people make it. True, it's a critical characteristic in human beings, but it is just one of many. And from an ethical perspective, it's not necessary to be brilliant. Some brilliant people are horrible, like Ted Kaczynski, for example; while other simple people are the best disposed and most virtuous out there. Intelligence formally considered is merely potential. The will is what turns the potential of the intellect into actual things.

 

[total-recoil]

This is a very profound and deep issue. You see, what we have is people like us on the spectrum and also people who are gifted. At some point the two classifications may merge.
If a child is extremely gifted, it is simply not the case the said child will shine at school. It's the very opposite. Gifted childen appear to be slow. Their teachers consider them backward as they daydream in class and disconnect. Often they also have visual learning requirements. And it's important to understand the gifted child isn't usually accepted in a way he (or she can make friends as normal children). So they can grow up with depressive, neurotic issues in some cases.
As I posted before the star student who has lots of friends and gets lots of "As" isn't normally gifted. Highly intelligent, maybe, but gifted people tend to always be outcasts.
So, the connection here between gifted and aspergers is close.
Moreover, giftedness can be very unbalanced. It's often manifested by obsessive drive to find answers to problems, as opposed to a pure high I.Q. score. I always figured the fictional figure Lieutenant Columbo was clearly based on someone like that. There is one episode I love where Columbo investigates a murder at a Mensa Society. You always find while the detective team may be busy looking at all the obvious stuff, Columbo gets bogged down by some tiny little detail like a chair facing the wrong way. From that tiny irregularity, he solves the whole crime. And we're always told he doesn't sleep all night as he's bothered by some tiny detail. Added to that he's socially awkward, leaving cigar ashes all over the place and looking like a tramp in his raincoat. Normally people like Columbo can barely hold down a job as they do everything wrong but fortunately the LAPD realise he's the best they have.
I really believe it's a tragedy thousands of gifted kids have never been diagnosed and put out of mainstream schools so they can develop in their own way.
Of course, I never want to give out the idea aspergers is some kind of easy ride ticket to giftedness. Sometimes it is but always at the expense of huge amounts of work and effort.

Undoubtedly most of the people on here have heard of the belief that people with Asperger syndrome are generally very intelligent. However, it is my understanding that this is not necessarily the case, and that Aspies typically don't fall higher on the intelligence spectrum than the general population.

This makes sense to me, considering intense fascination can lead to exhaustive knowledge of a given subject, which can appear to be a sign of high intelligence when this doesn't necessarily have to be there. Likewise, exceptional skills in certain areas can lead to the appearance of intellectual brilliance when it may not actually be present.

Assuming this is true, does anyone have any reliable (preferably scholarly) sources that explain this?

Also, if this topic has come up here before, I apologize for being redundant. Likewise if this topic exhausts people from having to repeatedly hear about it. I checked all the different fora and didn't see anything that covered it, so that's why I decided to make this one.

 

[total-recoil]

"In any case, I've recently realized that intelligence in general, even if it can be considered monolithic, is not nearly as important as people make it."

I think many many people have the ability to be brilliant in a chosen field. The problem is most of us don't tap into our potential. The more you watch T.V., engage in social chit chat all day and be kind of passive, the less your cognitive abilities develop. Just the same as muscle. That is, if you do progressive resistance exercise with weights, your muscles get stronger. The USSR had their astronauts do weights for that very reason due to zero gravity in space. Same applies to the brain. Exercise it hard and it will develop. It has vast resources, at conscious and subconscious level. True, there will be a tiny percentage of people who respond far more to that kind of stimulation but I'm sure the average individual can make massive strides if they engage their brain.
I'm sure there have been experiments relating to cultural environment and intelligence but, yes, I believe a child who grows up listening to Beethoven, doing maths and reading poetry and what have you is going to develop intelligence far beyond the average. Just as if the same child did weight training and developed into an adult with far greater muscle mass than average.

Wow, these are some excellent responses. Thanks for your contributions; it's definitely given me some things to consider.

The main consideration that I like is how intelligence is perhaps too broad to be considered as one category. I know this myself from my own experience. I took the Wechsler IQ test in psychotherapy in 2009, and scored in the 97th percentile for verbal, but in the 82nd percentile on math. This placed me in about the 93rd percentile. Everything was uniformly high except for the math score, which showed a huge drop from everything else. Yet ironically, I am terrific at formal logic, and math is basically logic with numbers, which is strange. My psychotherapist said there was definitely some kind of "issue" there that caused such a low math score relative to the other scores.

This also reminds me of a 60 Minutes story I saw one time about a blind, mentally retarded teenager who could play any piano composition perfectly after having only heard it briefly before he started playing. For basic cognition, this fellow was arrested at the level of a child; but for musical ability and memory, he was up there with the finest composers. You might be able to say that these exceptional cases, and even normal people to some degree, are simultaneously brilliant and slow in different respects.

In any case, I've recently realized that intelligence in general, even if it can be considered monolithic, is not nearly as important as people make it. True, it's a critical characteristic in human beings, but it is just one of many. And from an ethical perspective, it's not necessary to be brilliant. Some brilliant people are horrible, like Ted Kaczynski, for example; while other simple people are the best disposed and most virtuous out there. Intelligence formally considered is merely potential. The will is what turns the potential of the intellect into actual things.

 

[Matt88360]

Yes, it's definitely true that genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration, as the old saying goes. I get ideas all the time that could potentially give rise to incredible things, but lack the time, commitment, or interest to develop them further. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this regard either.

I've also seen the employment phenomenon firsthand, including having experienced it somewhat myself. Ever the idealist, for a long time I wanted to find a career where I could use my intelligence to the fullest. Then I realized that there is no real career like that out there for me, partly because of my limited social skills and partly because of the depressing dynamic of even the most intellectual professions. Academia, for example, is a total wasteland of room temperature intellects; and I vehemently disagree with the principle that research is a good way to learn anything at all. Since research is all that academia does nowadays, that completely ruled out any serious academic career.

Adrian Monk is another example of a famous fictional neurotic whose brilliance largely cripples him. And I heard Sherlock Holmes was the same way. Perhaps we should all become detectives, ha ha!

 

[Ste11aeres]

Tony Atwood said that 10% of aspies are savants. That means most of us aren't. But 10% is a higher percentage than is found among the human population as a whole.

 

[tryingtoregister]

If a child is extremely gifted, it is simply not the case the said child will shine at school. It's the very opposite. Gifted childen appear to be slow. Their teachers consider them backward as they daydream in class and disconnect. Often they also have visual learning requirements. And it's important to understand the gifted child isn't usually accepted in a way he (or she can make friends as normal children). So they can grow up with depressive, neurotic issues in some cases.
As I posted before the star student who has lots of friends and gets lots of "As" isn't normally gifted. Highly intelligent, maybe, but gifted people tend to always be outcasts.
So, the connection here between gifted and aspergers is close.
Moreover, giftedness can be very unbalanced. It's often manifested by obsessive drive to find answers to problems, as opposed to a pure high I.Q. score. QUOTE]

100% this man. Seriously, I was tested no less then a dozen times for intelligence between ages of 4-10 for this reason above (that and I changed schools in 4th grade lol). Even from my original diagnosis as autistic my mother was told I'd never be able to go to school, never be able to hold a job, probably would never even be able to live without lifetime care from parents or social workers.. meanwhile I already had taught myself to read by the time I was 4! (that according to my mom and psychology records I've seen about me). Year after year my teachers would complain I was never paying attention and send home notes that I was disruptive or didn't fit in, then the test would come and I'd be the first one done with a perfect score. In fact I was put on a track to finish high school by the time I was 14 but then had to stop it because when I changed grades mid year I was so rattled by the change in social environment that I didn't speak to anyone for 6 weeks save my parents.. I've taken the IQ or state aptitude tests and always scored off the charts, save one category (visual puzzle solving, I couldn't even solve the test just to show me what I was supposed to be doing, something that an average person would solve in .5 seconds took me a minute haha). That plus my god-awful social skills just makes me totally unbalanced.. And to stop talking about myself I think the point is that the truly gifted kids need to be nurtured a certain way. The school system as constituted leads to depression and confusion from these types because we are driven to constantly solve problems and conquer questions, but when everything is so easy save for the social factor, which is an unsolvable puzzle (at least it feels that way to me) it just leaves these types of people totally unfulfilled.

 

[Matt88360]

Yes, the education system is dreadful for any number of reasons. Not to sound arrogant, but it's very pedestrian. There's very little room within the education world, from elementary school to graduate school, for real brilliance to work its magic.

This reminds me of a quote from Edward Gibbon: "Education is seldom of much efficacy except in those happy dispositions when it is almost superfluous."

 

[total-recoil]

I met a lot of serious academics at uni. Actually, many of them were definitely very intelligent and I think in science maybe there is more scope at uni that with arts. I mean, science works one way and mostly there is right or wrong. I did think in the arts there was too much bias because when I was taught about the Red Revolution in Russia I never got the Marxist view, only a western view and you need 2 or 3 sides of historical analysis to reach a valid conclusion. Never did I get any Russian Marxist books on my reading lists, just educated writers but, all in all people, who had never been involved in the circumstances that led to the collapse of the Tsarist regime.
As to your second, point I can see a serious problem at the moment with companies. What I see is people in management who should not be in management. People with little idea over people management and good organisation. As I said before I met a girl with a psychiatry phd and also doing another phd and far from being swiped up by management they seemed to make greater efforts to get rid of her.

Yes, it's definitely true that genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration, as the old saying goes. I get ideas all the time that could potentially give rise to incredible things, but lack the time, commitment, or interest to develop them further. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this regard either.

I've also seen the employment phenomenon firsthand, including having experienced it somewhat myself. Ever the idealist, for a long time I wanted to find a career where I could use my intelligence to the fullest. Then I realized that there is no real career like that out there for me, partly because of my limited social skills and partly because of the depressing dynamic of even the most intellectual professions. Academia, for example, is a total wasteland of room temperature intellects; and I vehemently disagree with the principle that research is a good way to learn anything at all. Since research is all that academia does nowadays, that completely ruled out any serious academic career.

Adrian Monk is another example of a famous fictional neurotic whose brilliance largely cripples him. And I heard Sherlock Holmes was the same way. Perhaps we should all become detectives, ha ha!

 

[aspieworldcitizen]

I don't know about stats or other Aspies - can only speak for myself. The one time I've had my IQ tested, I was on the very high end for verbal, logical, and mathematical reasoning. However, I scored on the low end for spatial. So yes, I'm totally with the people who say there are different kinds of intelligence. Unlike many of the gifted kids people have talked about, however, I actually had very good grades in school. I did have problems with procrastination and what not, but once I managed to turn stuff in, I was among the top of my class.

As for the employment issue, I remember arguing with people at my work about how I thought personality shouldn't matter when, say, hiring an accountant. I mean, I didn't know I was an Aspie then, but I was like, we should hire the best person for the job. If you're looking for a sales rep, then personality matters, but if you're hiring someone in back office, who cares? Unfortunately most people disagreed with me.

 

[Biblio-Love]

Like most here, I have an above average IQ and unbalanced intelligence. When those IQ tests give long and complicated math questions, I get them right but I can't do simple multiplication or division. Don't really know how I get the questions right - I guess I just see patterns. I failed high school math and nearly science and English. It wasn't until grade 11 that I tried because I decided I wanted to go to university. I really excelled in university though. Have a couple useless degrees now. I like structure and can be disciplined when I want. I was fired by many employers or I quit before I was fired. So I started my own business. I would consider myself a creative thinker.

 

[Laughingowl1975]

I was tested a few years ago and came out in the 63rd percentile for people of my age (average), the test showed I had good language skills but poor spatial ones. My maths and handwriting were poor but my grasp of science and English comprehension was excellent, I never did well at high school as I was bullied into submission by some so-called teachers who saw me as their punching bag.
All aspies have areas of expertise where their intelligence and skill shows, even if they are not marketable skills or the aspie does not actually realize they have a skill, very few of the aspies I know are math wizards but they excel in their field of interest(s) and can hold fascinating and intelligent debates, far better than the idiotic chit-chat I hear at work.

 

[MoCoffee]

I might have a high IQ, but it doesn't do much for me. What use is it if you can't go to university because of Social Anxiety Disorder, I am extremely disorganized and never kept proper notes, so I couldn't study for exams. Yes, it's great to have to be "gifted", and it allowed my to get excellent marks, but I'm so socially backward and unsure of myself that a lot of interesting fields of work are closed to me. A high IQ does not necessarily mean success and the worst of it is knowing you are smart enough to do amazing things, but not doing them.

 

[total-recoil]

I think maybe I can give you some helpful advice on this. I myself am highly disorganised but I'm totally convinced the fact I take in information without filing notes and being organised isn't a big issue. It really doesn't matter. I did go to university and I did graduate with an average grade but I radically flunked year one because I was hopeless at taking notes. They basically wanted to kick me out of the institution but my former teachers persuaded me to appeal and I got another chance. I now know the fact I did finally graduate was a miracle in itself because this kind of systematic, classroom, organised approach is pretty useless for me. Now that I study music and science outside of the system the way I want and how I want means I'm progressing 10 times as fast as when I was at uni. I don't take notes, I don't "organise" how I learn information but I do place huge emphasis on asking questions, searching net forums for specific info and going over and over the material. Neither am I bothered how fast or slowly I may learn but just go at my own pace (which is a steady plod).
I do take your point that becoming specialised in a field without actual endorsement of an institution or a certificate will make employers highly skeptical. However, Bill Gates was a uni drop-out and I think he proved you can contribute to a given field in an unorthodox way.
These days I don't do the same material I did at uni and have switched to electronics. I've never attended a class but get all my information from books that I order and talking with experts online and asking questions. Obviously, in the beginning, I did have to go progressively through a book from chaper to chapter but now I just swat up on whatever I may fancy doing on a given day (or late night). I specialise in audio tubes.
My advice is don't run yourself down and focus on your assumed shortcomings. Many many scientific discoveries were made by outsiders who weren't credited by the system so if you are quite smart, find out what your interest is and go for it in a way that works for you.

I might have a high IQ, but it doesn't do much for me. What use is it if you can't go to university because of Social Anxiety Disorder, I am extremely disorganized and never kept proper notes, so I couldn't study for exams. Yes, it's great to have to be "gifted", and it allowed my to get excellent marks, but I'm so socially backward and unsure of myself that a lot of interesting fields of work are closed to me. A high IQ does not necessarily mean success and the worst of it is knowing you are smart enough to do amazing things, but not doing them.