06-04-2007, 06:25 PM
06-04-2007, 09:57 PM
Well, being the aforementioned skeptic, I wonder what the purpose of this post is. Why drag a discussion on another forum in a language most users here don't understand here?
Now that you've done it, I suppose I might as well answer. The two main claims erkolos made (you can read them here if you read Norwegian) were that the average IQ of people with Kanner's syndrome is 120 - 150 and that above average intelligence is a diagnostic criteria of Asperger's. I've not managed to find any definition that supports the latter, and erkolos didn't provide any research to support the former. He did however direct me to a thread on this forum in which some people gave their IQs. I don't consider that to be adequate evidence of that claim. There is a reason why forum-based surveys aren't allowed in scientific journals.
If you guys have some sources that could confirm any of this, I'd be happy to hear it. The burden of proof doesn't rest on the skeptic, so there is no need for me to provide informative counterarguments until there are some real arguments to counter.
This one-sided representation isn't fair in my eyes, and I guess most of you won't be able to read the original thread, so it's kind of pointless to drag this over here, but I'd like to respond. I'd be happy to hear these claims are true, but I won't accept them without evidence.
Now that you've done it, I suppose I might as well answer. The two main claims erkolos made (you can read them here if you read Norwegian) were that the average IQ of people with Kanner's syndrome is 120 - 150 and that above average intelligence is a diagnostic criteria of Asperger's. I've not managed to find any definition that supports the latter, and erkolos didn't provide any research to support the former. He did however direct me to a thread on this forum in which some people gave their IQs. I don't consider that to be adequate evidence of that claim. There is a reason why forum-based surveys aren't allowed in scientific journals.
If you guys have some sources that could confirm any of this, I'd be happy to hear it. The burden of proof doesn't rest on the skeptic, so there is no need for me to provide informative counterarguments until there are some real arguments to counter.
This one-sided representation isn't fair in my eyes, and I guess most of you won't be able to read the original thread, so it's kind of pointless to drag this over here, but I'd like to respond. I'd be happy to hear these claims are true, but I won't accept them without evidence.
06-05-2007, 12:48 PM
Neither of your links support the claim that autists on average have IQs above the population at large.
Quote:
Since people with AS have normal or above normal IQs, this is a good place to start.
Quote:
Overall, the findings indicate that more empirical evidence is needed before conclusions can be made about the percentages of children with autism who are mentally ***.
06-05-2007, 01:27 PM
That's not support. One included "average or above", where you claimed "above", and other concluded that more research was needed.
Do I believe anything? I believe that intelligence ranges from mental retardation to profound giftedness, as it does in the general population. I don't believe that the average IQ of autistics is any higher than the general population. I would be happy to believe it if you'd come up with something that supports your claims.
Do I believe anything? I believe that intelligence ranges from mental retardation to profound giftedness, as it does in the general population. I don't believe that the average IQ of autistics is any higher than the general population. I would be happy to believe it if you'd come up with something that supports your claims.
06-05-2007, 01:47 PM
erkolos Wrote:
100 is avarage
130 is high
(100 + 130) / 2 = 115
... above avarage
130 is high
(100 + 130) / 2 = 115
... above avarage
So? Where are you getting your data from?
06-05-2007, 05:16 PM
I've looked, and I never found anything to support what you say. Ergo, I don't believe you.
06-05-2007, 07:59 PM
Go to:
http://autism.about.com/b/a/250822.htm
The above link briefly explains how it was determined in one study that clinicians undervalue the value of HFA's and AS's IQ by some 30 points on average. It also provides another link outlining the study.
It also describes the correct IQ test to use (a new one) with AS/HFA kids, but I can't recall the name.
My daughter tested at 105 about 3 years ago, but I think she is the smartest in our family and our family does pretty well on IQ tests. Her real IQ I tell teachers is probably 125-130.
http://autism.about.com/b/a/250822.htm
The above link briefly explains how it was determined in one study that clinicians undervalue the value of HFA's and AS's IQ by some 30 points on average. It also provides another link outlining the study.
It also describes the correct IQ test to use (a new one) with AS/HFA kids, but I can't recall the name.
My daughter tested at 105 about 3 years ago, but I think she is the smartest in our family and our family does pretty well on IQ tests. Her real IQ I tell teachers is probably 125-130.
06-05-2007, 08:52 PM
Hi,
I am Norwegian and have read the norwegian discussion and I feel that things refered here is not entirely correct.
I have read a lot of information about Asperger lately, and all Simen has said is correct according to this information.
So maybe there is some misunderstandings here?
I am Norwegian and have read the norwegian discussion and I feel that things refered here is not entirely correct.
I have read a lot of information about Asperger lately, and all Simen has said is correct according to this information.
So maybe there is some misunderstandings here?
06-05-2007, 09:44 PM
Ellen Wrote:
Go to:
http://autism.about.com/b/a/250822.htm
The above link briefly explains how it was determined in one study that clinicians undervalue the value of HFA's and AS's IQ by some 30 points on average. It also provides another link outlining the study.
http://autism.about.com/b/a/250822.htm
The above link briefly explains how it was determined in one study that clinicians undervalue the value of HFA's and AS's IQ by some 30 points on average. It also provides another link outlining the study.
From my reading of that, all I could gather was that one test produced far higher scores than another. Clearly one of them is wrong. How do we know which one?
Quote:
It also describes the correct IQ test to use (a new one) with AS/HFA kids, but I can't recall the name.
How is that determined? I don't want to be all negative here, but choosing one over the other because it will produce a higher score instead of producing a score that is closer to the truth is just as bad.
Quote:
My daughter tested at 105 about 3 years ago, but I think she is the smartest in our family and our family does pretty well on IQ tests. Her real IQ I tell teachers is probably 125-130.
If she had a test and got one result, why do you believe it to be higher? If she'd scored 140, would you be saying the real IQ is probably 160-165? You know your child a lot better than I do, but I don't see why you'd mistrust the IQ test.
Klara Wrote:
Hi,
I am Norwegian and have read the norwegian discussion and I feel that things refered here is not entirely correct.
I have read a lot of information about Asperger lately, and all Simen has said is correct according to this information.
So maybe there is some misunderstandings here?
I am Norwegian and have read the norwegian discussion and I feel that things refered here is not entirely correct.
I have read a lot of information about Asperger lately, and all Simen has said is correct according to this information.
So maybe there is some misunderstandings here?
That's why I don't think continuing a discussion when most participants won't have access to the beginning in general is a bad idea. I'd be wary to join a discussion where some of the participants had already started in e.g. Russian or some other language I don't know.
06-06-2007, 10:28 AM
erkolos Wrote:
Kind of funny that Simen says I continued the discussion at this site. What I did was to show him this thread, then he presented himself here for some unknown reason.
Yes I am one-sided in my presentation of Simen, that was actually the point. It was an aspect of his attitude I wanted to discuss WITHOUT Simen. I never intended to attack Simen as a person, I never gave people at AFF his username, but now he pretty much does exactly that to me.
Yes, I am not perfect. I will learn from this incident to use more of the "correct me if I'm wrong" sentence.
Yes I am one-sided in my presentation of Simen, that was actually the point. It was an aspect of his attitude I wanted to discuss WITHOUT Simen. I never intended to attack Simen as a person, I never gave people at AFF his username, but now he pretty much does exactly that to me.
Yes, I am not perfect. I will learn from this incident to use more of the "correct me if I'm wrong" sentence.
Oh, please. Talking behind people's backs is never fun. This thread is specifically about me and my attitude, so I have everything to do with it. If you wanted to talk behind my back, you shouldn't have presented me this thread. Obviosuly I'm going to want to defend my views! To the extent that this has become an incident (I must say your use of the word leaves me curious as to what you consider an incident), it is because continuing a discussion where one part is hidden is a bad idea.
Do you want to know the unknown reason? Because I disagree with you, and I disagree with your one-sided portrayal of me, my attitude, and the discussion we had. I would have preferred that you didn't run over here, because as I have said repeatedly, this is an English language forum, and most of the members here have no clue about Norwegian and so they won't be able to read the original discussion. This leaves only your word for what it was really like. As I said, you got it wrong. I challenged your points, and you never produced any real evidence for them.
This is what you wrote, linking to this thread, with a translation:
Quote:
Startet en tråd på AFF:
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthre...#pid117142
Det blir jo min måte å se det på, du har sikkert en litt mer positiv synsvinkel for din karakter.
Synes dette har gått ned på et nivå av krangling om hvem som er den mest gyldige, da føler jeg at ting har gått for langt. Folk kan selv få sjekke hvor mye noe stemmer istedenfor at noen skal skape endeløse krangler som jeg ærlig talt bare blir utslitt av.
---
Started a thread on AFF:
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthre...#pid117142
This is my way of looking at this, you have probably got a more positive view for your character [What did you even mean here?].
I feel this has degenerated to a level of arguing about who's the most valid, [that's when] I feel that this has gone too far. People can see for themselves how much is correct instead of someone creating endless arguments that honestly only tire me.
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthre...#pid117142
Det blir jo min måte å se det på, du har sikkert en litt mer positiv synsvinkel for din karakter.
Synes dette har gått ned på et nivå av krangling om hvem som er den mest gyldige, da føler jeg at ting har gått for langt. Folk kan selv få sjekke hvor mye noe stemmer istedenfor at noen skal skape endeløse krangler som jeg ærlig talt bare blir utslitt av.
---
Started a thread on AFF:
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthre...#pid117142
This is my way of looking at this, you have probably got a more positive view for your character [What did you even mean here?].
I feel this has degenerated to a level of arguing about who's the most valid, [that's when] I feel that this has gone too far. People can see for themselves how much is correct instead of someone creating endless arguments that honestly only tire me.
Well, obviously people can't see for themselves when they don't understand the original discussion.
I've looked over my posts in this thread. None of them contain any personal attacks, on you or anyone else. I think your opinions are wrong; I don't think you as a person necessarily is wrong.
Conducting your own private hearing in absentia is unfair, and that's what I've been criticizing, along with your opinions. I disagree with your original claims, and I think it's unfair to have a bunch of your friends from another forum judge me and my actions without them having access to either the original source material or my version. How would you like it if I went to some other forum and said negative things about you, then pointed it out to you and said, "please don't go over there, because I want to discuss your attitude without you?"
I'm not a troll. I'm a person. I disagreed with you, and I thought you could handle it. Perhaps you can. If you do, you can point out the sources of your original claims, or admit that you have none. If not, I hope you'll stop speculating about me as a person. Your original post asks, "what is it with this guy?" That's not really relevant. A trial before a jury may ask, "what is it with this person?", trying to establish the character of the person on trial. A discussion should rather ask, "what is it with this person's opinions?"
You say that the point was to present me in a one-sided way. Why is that? Shouldn't people strive to relate events in an accurate way, taking into account varying perspectives?
I have a profound dislike for irrelevant discussions about person rather than opinion. Especially so when the person in question is me.
06-06-2007, 10:50 AM
You want to have it both ways? You want to talk behind my back, but you want me to know about it, too? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
06-06-2007, 12:09 PM
erkolos Wrote:
I might choose to take more of the one then.
S1men Wrote:
Og er det virkelig tilfelle at de fleste med Kanners har normal IQ?
This was what aggroed me and resulted in me telling the abit impulsive statement of 120-150 IQ in LFA's.
It means:
"Is it really the case that people with Kanners have normal IQ?"
... like in not below normal IQ.
You find it offensive that I ask? Whoa.
I asked, because that's not what I've read and heard.
By the way, I might be wrong, but I think anything within a standard deviation of the average is considered in the normal range for IQ. That means 85-115 with SD 15.
06-06-2007, 12:12 PM
Sorry, I just have to comment here again.
If this thread was not intended to be linked to a specific person, why did you post it to a specific person and telling him and all other norwegian people reading the forum that it was him?
It was that who made me read this, and to comment it.
You disagre and have a discussion whitch is intressting, but please keep it on the level of the discussion itself.
And to all other, we Norwegian have the same litterature as the rest of the world about asperger. So I think we're like the rest of you in the opinion of the subject.
If this thread was not intended to be linked to a specific person, why did you post it to a specific person and telling him and all other norwegian people reading the forum that it was him?
It was that who made me read this, and to comment it.
You disagre and have a discussion whitch is intressting, but please keep it on the level of the discussion itself.
And to all other, we Norwegian have the same litterature as the rest of the world about asperger. So I think we're like the rest of you in the opinion of the subject.
06-06-2007, 04:02 PM
Simen Wrote:
erkolos Wrote:
I might choose to take more of the one then.
S1men Wrote:
Og er det virkelig tilfelle at de fleste med Kanners har normal IQ?
This was what aggroed me and resulted in me telling the abit impulsive statement of 120-150 IQ in LFA's.
It means:
"Is it really the case that people with Kanners have normal IQ?"
... like in not below normal IQ.
You find it offensive that I ask? Whoa.
I asked, because that's not what I've read and heard.
By the way, I might be wrong, but I think anything within a standard deviation of the average is considered in the normal range for IQ. That means 85-115 with SD 15.
It seems tha normal range IQ is a term that is not entirely agreed upon, most use it like you said, but some talk about 1 SD of 10 (90-110) and others of 2 SD of 15 (70-130) anyone except the MR and the gifted or whatever they call it.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/182/1/37
"For those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, 26 (70%) had IQ scores within the normal range (70-130)"
06-06-2007, 05:07 PM
Simen Wrote:
It means:
"Is it really the case that people with Kanners have normal IQ?"
... like in not below normal IQ.
You find it offensive that I ask? Whoa.
I asked, because that's not what I've read and heard.
By the way, I might be wrong, but I think anything within a standard deviation of the average is considered in the normal range for IQ. That means 85-115 with SD 15.
[/quote]
I am not good at debating, or confrontation. This is just my very humble opinion Ok..
When erkolos asked "What is it with this guy?" I took it to mean
that he was questioning your opinions-not you as a person, Simen.
Of course I have no DATA to support that, but it does FEEL correct based on what I understand of erkolos and his many intelligent, insightful posts here at AFF. I haven't read a post of his that ever attacked a person for what they did or didn't believe.
I can respect both Simen's and Erkolos view points...
"Is it really the case that people with Kanners have normal IQ?"
... like in not below normal IQ.
Simen wants proof, statistics, and then he will believe. Erkolos believes it to be true but that perhaps it hasn't been proven.. yet.
Personally, I once was told that I failed an IQ test. Is that even possible?
and Welcome to AFF, Simen. You write well.