Challenge Match: Irish M1ck vs skeptic1: Dissin' An Ability?, page 1

Thanks MemoryShock for setting this up for Skeptic1 and me. Also, Skeptic1, thanks for accepting this debate, though I should have probably chosen someone whose rhetorical skills are less daunting for my graceful return to the ring.

---

Opening Statements

I will keep this short and sweet. The topic on hand is, “A Very High IQ Should Be Considered A Disability.” Indeed.

The question that should pop into everyone’s mind is, “What kind of disability?” Do I think they should get to park in handicap spots and get disability checks from the government every two weeks? No. That is not the kind of disability I am thinking of.

It really does appear that the higher the IQ, the more sacrifice there is on cognitive social skills. There are a variety of different “disorders” that come with high IQs: schizophrenia, Asperger’s, ADHD, insomnia, non-verbal learning disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and more. Later on I will cite specific examples of famous geniuses who suffered from these diseases, how the diseases went untreated, and how it affected their lives.

Of course, being a genius has its benefits also. Generally there is some sort of job security and high salaries – the person’s intelligence basically takes care of them. Often times, however, the psychological disorders that geniuses suffer from go untreated and cause extreme emotional pain. People fail to realize that you cannot expect these savants to think on the same level of consciousnesses as the rest of us.

Even those with just above average IQs tend to fall into a category that separates them from the average person. In fact, many people with above average intelligence end up falling through the cracks of society – failing to be properly acknowledged or challenged. How many kids get through high school without ever being challenged?

It is my contention that this is a serious problem in the United States today. We treat all kids as a blank slate – as though they are synonymous to each other. This could not be further from the truth, as each child needs different teaching styles, different levels of difficulty, and different kinds of attention.

I believe we need to begin testing our children’s IQs at a young age , and based off of that decide where that specific kid should be placed. Apart from that, the child should be placed with children just like him/her, so as to avoid awkward social situations with kids who cannot understand him/her.

There is no doubt in my mind that having anything over an average IQ can be, and usually is, a social disability. Three years ago, in India, was the year of child prodigies for them. There was an abundance of geniuses born, and psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar had this to say about them:

Teased by peers, persecuted by the press, prodded by pushy parents and dogged by expectations of greatness, prodigies are still seen as wondrous curiosities

1

I believe that hits the nail on the head. These kids get picked on by other children their age, and unnecessarily so. Much like the training kids receive when they have a speech impediment or difficultly reading, I believe that those with above-average IQs and low social skills should receive training for their disability.

The article about India’s prodigies goes on to discuss the different types of intelligences. Shelja Sen, a clinical psychologist, says children are born with at least eight different intelligences. Some think there are more, as Howard Gardner lists nine different types 2:

1. Naturlist
   
2. Musical
   
3. Logical-Math
   
4. Existential
   
5. Interpersonal
   
6. Kinesthetic
   
7. Linguistic
   
8. Intra-Personal
   
9. Spatial
   

Unfortunately, no one can be a genius in all of these categories. In fact, usually prodigies are strong in one of the categories, and lacking in the others. That, of course, is why are they are the spazz of the class, the guy who cannot catch a basketball for the life of him, or the person who fails to read the body language of fellow peers and often ends up making social blunders.

With that, I will pass the torch to my esteemed opponent. In my next post, I hope to elaborate further on known geniuses who suffered from these disabilities.

Many thanks to MemoryShock for setting this up. Thanks to my opponent, Irish M1ck, and thanks in advance to the readers and judges.

---

“A Very High IQ Should Be Considered A Disability"

Let's start off with some definitions in order to clarify things for all of us. (all definitions come from here )

IQ:
noun
a measure of a person's intelligence as indicated by an intelligence test; the ratio of a person's mental age to their chronological age (multiplied by 100) [syn: intelligence quotient]

Intelligence Quotient:
–noun Psychology.
an intelligence test score that is obtained by dividing mental age, which reflects the age-graded level of performance as derived from population norms, by chronological age and multiplying by 100: a score of 100 thus indicates a performance at exactly the normal level for that age group. Abbreviation: IQ

Disability:
–noun, plural -ties for 2.
1. lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity.
2. a physical or mental handicap, esp. one that prevents a person from living a full, normal life or from holding a gainful job.
3. anything that disables or puts one at a disadvantage: His mere six-foot height will be a disability in professional basketball.
4. the state or condition of being disabled.
5. legal incapacity; legal disqualification.

Ok, now we know what IQ is and what a disability is. Now, what constitutes a very high IQ? [2]

Well, the "average" IQ falls between 90 and 109. This means that a person is of normal or average intelligence. 50% of IQ scores fall in this range.

Then we come to what constitutes "very high". Well, 110 to 119 is defined as "superior intelligence". 120 to 140 is considered "very superior intelligence". 141 and above is considered "near genius to genius".

I'll work with "very superior intelligence" for my side of the debate. I mean, a lot of people can be described as having superior intelligence and few can be described as being a "genius". Middle ground works for me.

Where does IQ come from?

Good question and not many agree on an answer. Does nature determine IQ or does nurture/environment/experience?

Since IQ seems to remain stable no matter the education level of a person, I would tend to think that nature has a lot more to do with IQ than nurture.

Basically, with a little wiggle room, your IQ is determined at an early age and isn't apt to change much, no matter what education level one reaches, no matter what one learns, and no matter how much one studies throughout life.

What does IQ measure?

IQ describes a score on a test that rates the subject's cognitive ability as compared to the general population. IQ tests use a standardized scale, with 100 as the median score. On most tests, a score between 90 and 110, or the median plus or minus 10, indicates average intelligence. A score above 130 indicates exceptional intelligence and a score below 70 may indicate mental retardation.

IQ tests can measure spatial ability, mathematical ability, language ability, and memory ability. Normally, most people perform better on one type of question than on others, but experts have determined that for the most part, people who excel in one category do similarly well in the other categories, and if someone does poorly in any one category, he also does poorly in the others.

Ok....definitions and clarifications out of the way, for now.

High IQ is a disability? No.
Those with a very high IQ should be seen as having a disability? No.

Why not? Lack of social skills is not a disability. Being a nerd is not a disability. Being a geek is not a disability. Being smart is not a disability. Being different is not a disability.

That is the problem these days. If someone is different, a lot of people automatically think they should get special treatment from society or should be treated different by society.

High IQ is not a disability. It is a gift that comes with responsibilities. But, choices are also associated with a higher IQ. A person with a higher IQ is more apt to be an introvert. Does that mean that introversion is now a disability? No; a person can make an effort to not let that introversion rule their lives and become a part of society instead of separate from it.

A person's personality has more to do with their social skills than their IQ. And, personality has a more to do with nurture than nature.....unlike a person's IQ.

People with high IQs don't need "special training". They don't have disabilities. They are more apt to solve problems and have better memories than "average" people. What special training do they need? Do they need to be taught to be more average to fit in with society?

Is there a correlation between higher IQs and mental illness? Apparently not:

Intelligent people are at less risk of suffering severe mental illness, according to a new study by psychiatrists in the UK. This substantiates the conclusions of previous research on the same topic. Of course, what this suggests also is that some of the same genetic and brain differences that lead to mental illness may also cause lower IQ (again, in some but not all people) - which is a more logical explanation of the correlation of low IQ and mental illness.

A high IQ can lessen the severity of disorders such as depression and schizophrenia, say researchers from Cambridge University.

"It has been known for some time that intelligence can protect you against dementia and the consequences of head injury," said a university spokeswoman.

[3]

Seems to be just the opposite with a little bit of protection against injury thrown in to boot.

People with higher IQs do not lack mental abilities.
People with higher IQs do not have a mental handicap that keeps them from living a normal life or holding down a job.
People with higher IQs do not mental problems that put them at a disadvantage....quite the opposite.
People with higher IQs do not have recognized disabilities due to IQ alone.
People with higher IQs are not legally incapable or legally disqualified from anything based on IQ alone.

So, why should high IQs be considered a disability, again?

Oh, right. They shouldn't.

Rebuttal

Do not let my opponent's superior rhetoric to fool you; those with high IQs need just as much attention as the rest of the children. Unfortunately, the attention they need is different from the rest of the kids, but usually they do not receive it.

A study was done showing the relationship between high IQ and low IQ who had trouble reading. What the study ended up showing was that high IQ kids have trouble with phonetics, while low IQ children were fine with phonetics, but just filtered the words slower. This is a prime example of why high IQ people need different training and attention than those with average or lower intelligence. 1

Instead, what happens? The kids who are above average get mixed in with those who are just slower at reading, and they teach the same style of reading to both. This is not beneficial for anyone, and it certainly does not serve to benefit our more gifted children. Instead, you end up with someone who’s brain works so fast that he/she suffers from dyslexia because their eyes do not keep up with their brain.

But hey, keep teaching them phonetics; they’ll just be really good at sounding out the wrong words.

---

I guess my opponent feels like those who are blessed with certain abilities at birth are not due any excess treatment or help. She says those with high IQs do not lack mental abilities. Well which mental abilities is she referring to? Remember, I listed nine different types of mental abilities. Is she really claiming that these people are above average in all of them?

She says they do not have any disabilities that stop them from holding down a job or have a normal life. What does she base this off of? I know plenty of highly intelligent people who never received any stimulation or training – other than the training that those who are average or below receive – and ended up not utilizing any of those talents. Some lack in the interpersonal department. Is my opponent suggesting that these people can live normal lives?

Most of her statements of “fact” after that were fairly synonymous, but also leave a lot of room for speculation. According to the Harvard Gazette, creativity and schizophrenia are linked. You read that right. The more creative you get, the higher the chance you have of being schizophrenic. Also, creativity and IQ seem to go up with each other; that is, as you get smarter, you get more creative – up to an IQ of 120. So yes, if you have a high IQ of 120, and are considered creative, be sure to make sure that the people you talk to and live with are not figments of your imagination.

But we are not just talking about serious mental disorders, like my opponent would like you to believe. If there is one thing that connects almost all gifted people it is isolation and loneliness. In fact, it is now recommended that these kids be placed around each other so that they have people who they can relate to, but of course, this is rare. There is not much funding for the growth of intelligent children since, like my opponent, people assume that just because they are intelligent, that they are already at an advantage.

Creative, talented and gifted children, broadly defined as the top 16% of the bell curve (Silverman, 2002a), often find few programs, elusive funding and few specially-trained professionals. One reason gifted children have special needs is that they develop asynchronously, or unevenly. A child may soar in his or her ability to intellectually comprehend matters far exceeding their chronological age, while the necessary development has yet to occur as to enable them to process the same matter emotionally.2

It seems that the best idea that we have come up with so far is to put kids in a class of peers who are older than they are, so that the subjects are more challenging to the gifted student. That way, the child can learn more difficult subjects at the same tedious slow pace as they would the next year. Not only that, but since these intelligent kids probably have an emotional intelligence of someone two or three grades lower than them, they get to deal with the awkwardness of being the immature, socially inept person.

Another unfortunate result is that by the time we realize kids are gifted, they have already been living with it for so long that they have adapted to their peers. Many even try to hide their abilities to “fit in”.

It is exacerbated by the fact that, in most school systems, identification of the gifted, and for that matter, learning disabilities, does not occur until third grade... many gifted children have learned that, in order to gain social acceptance, it is best to hide their gifts or to “dumb down”.

So maybe my opponent is correct. They do not need any help. They can just dumb themselves down, and then society will accept them. Or, if they cannot dumb themselves down because of extreme talents, they can do just the opposite of my opponent’s suggestion and never find a permanent career or stable life.

William James Sidis had an IQ of 250-300. This guy was a serious genius. At age two he taught himself Latin. Unfortunately, because he was not properly understood, he never quite found a home for himself and his talents were squandered (I am going to quote the entire paragraph because I could not put it any better):

Of all the prodigies for which there are records, his was probably the most powerful intellect of all. And yet it all came to nothing. He soon gave up his position as a professor, and for the rest of his life wandered from one menial job to another. His experiences as a child prodigy had proven so painful that he decided for the rest of his life to shun public exposure at all costs. Henceforth, he denied his gifts, refused to think about mathematics, and above all refused to perform as he had been made to do as a child. 3

What a waste. He even vowed at fifteen to be abstinent for the rest of his life because he could not comprehend sex. It is just too bad that people feel like this:

Originally posted by skeptic1
People with higher IQs do not lack mental abilities.
People with higher IQs do not have a mental handicap that keeps them from living a normal life or holding down a job.
People with higher IQs do not mental problems that put them at a disadvantage....quite the opposite.
People with higher IQs do not have recognized disabilities due to IQ alone.
People with higher IQs are not legally incapable or legally disqualified from anything based on IQ alone.

You are right; being so smart that no one understands you and you cannot understand them is not a problem that should be dealt with at all.

A man named Lewis M. Terman, a PH.D. in psychology, performed a study in 1922 that monitored those gifted with an IQ over 140. He set out to disprove some popular myths about geniuses and did so accordingly. However, his data did suggest that “there is a definite connection between measured intelligence and mental and social maladjustment.” 3

---

Personally, I would call having a tendency to end up having mental and/or social maladjustments to be quite a disability. However, if my opponent feels that being socially awkward is not a problem, then I guess we could take her at her word.

Socratic Questions

Question 1: Does having poor social skills put you at a disadvantage in life?

Question 2: Would you want to marry someone who could not properly express themselves or reciprocate feelings?

Question 3: Considering Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs*, do you believe that people of high IQs can simply skip the “Friendship, family, sexual intimacy” step and move up the pyramid?

*Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

First off, my opponent's Socratic Questions:

Question 1: Does having poor social skills put you at a disadvantage in life?

In some aspects of life, yes.

In other aspects of life, no.

Prove to me that IQ has majority effect on social skills and maybe that argument can hold more than a few drops of water.

Question 2: Would you want to marry someone who could not properly express themselves or reciprocate feelings?

No.

Prove to me that IQ has majority effect on emotions and maybe that argument has a place in this debate.

Question 3: Considering Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs*, do you believe that people of high IQs can simply skip the “Friendship, family, sexual intimacy” step and move up the pyramid?

They don't need to.

Prove to me that IQ has majority effect and impact on friendship, family, and sexual intimacy and that argument may find a place in this debate.

---

I never stated that those with higher IQs don't need as much attention as others. I argue against the position that said attention constitutes a disability.

Once more, here is the definition in question:

Disability:
–noun, plural -ties for 2.
1. lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity.
2. a physical or mental handicap, esp. one that prevents a person from living a full, normal life or from holding a gainful job.
3. anything that disables or puts one at a disadvantage: His mere six-foot height will be a disability in professional basketball.
4. the state or condition of being disabled.
5. legal incapacity; legal disqualification.

My opponent seems to have gone from arguing disability to arguing gifted. So, let's look at that definition (all definitions come from here:

Gifted:
–adjective
1. having great special talent or ability: the debut of a gifted artist.
2. having exceptionally high intelligence: gifted children.

Does anyone other than me see the gaping difference between "disability" and "gifted"? They are opposite extremes, just like IQ ranges.

A disability indicates a lack of something; a gift indicates the addition of something extra, something special, something more.



Above is a graph representing the normal curve of scores on standardized IQ tests. As you can see, each group shares roughly the same number.....there are about as many geniuses as there are mentally retarded. There are about as many above average intelligence as there are below average intelligence. There are about as many very superior intelligence as there are very below average intelligence.

This debate is not about the extremes. In my eyes, this debate is about the roughly 16% of people that score between "above average" intelligence and "genius". This is about the gifted among us.

Who are not disabled, in any way, by their IQ scores alone.

---

Emotional development is tied to social ineptness more than IQ. In fact, it is tied to emotional intelligence, or EQ, which is totally separate and distinct from IQ.

Research shows that emotional intelligence may actually be significantly more important than cognitive ability and technical expertise combined. In fact, some studies indicate that EQ is more than twice as important as standard IQ abilities.

[3]

Your IQ is something you are born with and that does not change over time with any real significance.

Your social skills, emotional IQ (EQ), and emotional responses are something that are learned over a lifetime. They come from nurture. Just because one didn't learn them does not have anything to do with their IQ alone.

---

What do gifted children need?

They need a social circle of friends.
They need a loving and nurturing family.
They need training in social skills.
They need training in emotional displays and responses.
They need the chance to learn and grow and express their gifts.

They need what every other child needs. They are gifted.....not disabled.

I am not going to debate a genius who had an IQ of 300+. That is an extreme. A very rare extreme. So rare, in fact, that a good argument cannot be made on either side because of lack of comparisons to him.

Extremes are not what this debate is about.

Being smart is not a disability. My opponent stated that. IQ alone is not a disability.

Socratic Questions

1. Is being smart, in and of itself, enough of a reason to consider someone disabled?

2. Is being socially inept, in and of itself, enough of a reason to consider someone disabled?

3. Does personality or IQ play more of a role in social awkwardness?

4. What exactly is the disability you are arguing for in relation to IQ alone?

Response to Socratic Questions

1. Is being smart, in and of itself, enough of a reason to consider someone disabled?

No. Being smart also is not what we are discussing here. Being smart can be indicative of a few things:

1) Above average intelligence
2) A hard work ethic

There are many smart kids out there that do not fall into the category of having a “high IQ”.

2. Is being socially inept, in and of itself, enough of a reason to consider someone disabled?

I believe so. It makes it difficult to meet new people. Think of all the situations where social skills are necessary to achieve a certain goal: work, dating, family, friends, networking, and even going to the mall.

Social awkwardness can have devastating effects on a person’s life.

3. Does personality or IQ play more of a role in social awkwardness?

I would say both, largely because IQ plays a large role in personality, and for a multitude of reasons. Those with high IQs obviously use a large portion of their brain for their specific skill trait. Again, these are many different types of intelligent people out there – it is not enough to just call them “smart”.

With so much of the brain occupied with their specific skill, it only makes sense that other areas of intelligence would be lacking. Some have poor motor skills (it could be said that those with excellent motor skills are geniuses in their respected fields), or a low EQ, etc.

4. What exactly is the disability you are arguing for in relation to IQ alone?

Easy. I am arguing that those with high IQs, like those with low IQs, also need special attention in certain respective fields. Every person is different, but as your IQ climbs, you will be lacking in other forms of intelligence.

---

It is unfortunate that there is not more work done to promote these people. People like Einstein, for instance, came up with so many ideas that were not even understood until 50 years later. There were those who came up with “crazy” scientific theories that were mocked and laughed at who turned out to be absolutely correct.

From the same source as earlier:

1
Dr. Leta Hollingsworth wrote a book about children she observed, all of whom had IQs above 180. The author of this article was quick to point out that even though their IQs were high as children, by the time they reached adulthood, many of them were probably no more than above average. This is simply due to adjustment to the level of intelligence of the society one is within. So, yes, eventually these children catch up in EQ, but at the expense of their IQ.

She also came up with a theory about a communication range. To sum it up, she believed that those with high IQs could not be effective leaders because they were not able to communicate properly with ordinary individuals.

… generally speaking, a leadership pattern will not form--or it will break up--when a discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ comes to exist between leader and led.

Fortunately, Dr. Hollingsworth has done much work in this field, since so many others feel that geniuses have it too good as it is. Her findings of what the typical above-average person has to deal with is shocking, but not unexpected.

First, those gifted with abilities have a difficult time focusing. I think almost anyone who is gifted or knows someone who is can vouch for that theory. There are so many different options, so many different thoughts being processed, and so many different abilities that finding a route and taking it can be nearly impossible.

Children who rise above 170 IQ are liable to regard school with indifference or with positive dislike, for they find nothing in the work to absorb their interest.

Along with the previous problems I mentioned, because of the wide range of options these people have, many gifted people end up never performing any great tasks because they cannot focus on one thing long enough to accomplish it:

Some of them are lost to usefulness through spreading their available time and energy over such a wide array of projects that nothing can be finished or done perfectly.

Another trend she noticed is that gifted people often try to relate to the average person in vein. This goes along with the whole EQ, leadership, and relationship failures that many high IQ people have. They either accept that people cannot understand them, or they dumb themselves down so that people can.

Of course, those who do NOT dumb themselves down may end up lonely and bitter:

At the extremely high levels of 180 or 190 IQ, the problem of friendships is difficult indeed, and the younger the person the more difficult it is.

Again, with age, these problems become less evident due to joining societies of like-minded individuals, the tendency to lose IQ, and the fact that people are always gaining EQ. This is the exact reason why those children with high IQs need to be viewed as having a social disability. We do not want them dumbing themselves down, hiding their gift, or isolating themselves from society simply because we failed to recognize their intelligence and inability to relate.

Even more shocking is what eventually happens to the child. Children cannot relate to them, older kids view them as too young, and adults view them as children. They literally have no group to belong to. Because of this, they often isolate themselves, and of course, have to find ways to keep themselves busy and “happy”. They form habits, often weird habits that will then carry into their adult life.

Well, they can do that, or the other typical thing children do: rebel. They feel rejected by everyone, so they reject authority right back. This is why almost every group of rebellious kids has one extremely smart kid who has no business being there. It is a way of indentifying with peers, and it works.

So, what is Hollington’s theory about EQ vs IQ? Those with above-average intelligence can get along fine. Possibly with some difficulty, but they are not so far away from their peers that they cannot earn respect. However, once the IQ level of around 155 is crossed, the gap of intelligence becomes too far and problems begin to arise.

But those of 170 IQ and beyond are too intelligent to be understood by the general run of persons with whom they make contact. They are too infrequent to find congenial companions. They have to contend with loneliness and personal isolation from their contemporaries throughout the period of their immaturity. To what extent these patterns become fixed, we cannot yet tell.

I cannot speak for my opponent, nor the judges or readers, but I would say that not being able to find true companions due to over-intelligence, which then in turn leads to loneliness and the forming of unusual habits, is definitely a disability.

---

This leads me to my opponent’s argument that those with high intelligence are just on the other side of a coin flip from those with low intelligence. I beg to differ.

You will not find many with low intelligence who find it difficult to concentrate on one task because they are too good at too many things. You will not find many with low intelligence who cannot find companions because no one can relate to the things that they think about. You will not find many with low intelligence who are forced to live in solitude as children and find ways to entertain themselves.

My opponent says:

Originally posted by skeptic1
They need a social circle of friends.
They need a loving and nurturing family.
They need training in social skills.
They need training in emotional displays and responses.
They need the chance to learn and grow and express their gifts.

They need what every other child needs. They are gifted.....not disabled.

I am glad my opponent and I agree. They do need a social circle of friends. How can they do this if we do not recognize their disability to relate to other ordinary kids? Do not let my opponent define disability either:

2

1. lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity.

These kids do not have the mental ability or capacity to form bonds with other kids because they are simply not on the same plane of thinking.

My opponent was also quick to point out that EQ changes with time, but IQ does not. I believe that to be completely false with respect to the IQ:

1


What this image shows is what happens to the average IQ with age. For instance, those with an average IQ of 170 or above as a child generally end up scoring around 155.8 on the CMT-T at age 41. This occurs with all levels of IQ.

This is why, as adults, most with high IQs can begin to assimilate into society. If they can lose the previous habits they formed while in isolation, raise their EQ up to levels close to normal, and work hard on relationships, their lowered IQ will permit them to begin having some relationships. Again, however, their IQ may still be a bit too high for them to lead or for others to really understand them.

Socratic Question #1: Would you say that the natural inability to think on the same level as most other people is a disability?

---

With this, I pass the ball to skeptic1. On my next post, I may dive into some of the more famous intellects and their quirkiness and awkwardness.

First, my opponent's Socratic Question:

Socratic Question #1: Would you say that the natural inability to think on the same level as most other people is a disability?

No. And, I give that answer in the context of this debate. IQ does not test for nor measure communication skills. It has little to nothing to do with that.

Thought provide no problem for people until they are communicated. Communication is taught......IQ is not. IQ is relative stable and unchanging throughout one's life.

Most individuals' I.Q. scores will change little over time, indicating that the test has managed to pinpoint some aspects of a person's "fixed" intelligence -- mind-brain abilities that are inherently a part of that individual and are unlikely to be significantly improved or degraded over time. These basic skills include apprehending, scanning, retrieving and responding to stimuli. The faster one's brain can perform these tasks, the higher one's I.Q. score will be.

I.Q. stability merely means that, among children who are exposed to roughly equal educational resources, overall rankings of academic intelligence (and academic success) are unlikely to change much over time. If we rank 100 people in 3rd grade according to academic performance, and then wait eight years and rank that same group in 11th grade, the rankings won't be exactly the same but will strongly resemble one another.

[1]

Communication skills, verbal skills, language skills, writing skills can be taught all through life with degrees of strengthening as time goes on and learning goes deeper. IQ has little or no effect on communication. One is simply there as part of a person, while the other can be taught to varying degrees.

---

Personality and IQ

IQ and personality are loosely connected. But, not to the point where high IQ makes adjustment for very high IQ people to adjust to life, society, work, etc.

Freeman (1979) contrasted a "High IQ" group (IQs of 141-170, mean 155) with a "Moderate IQ" group (IQs of 97-140, mean 120) on both parent- and child-report measures of adjustment. Results were generally favorable in both groups, and there was little indication that the High IQ group was less well adjusted.

Janos (1983) compared 32 "highly gifted" children (IQs above 164) and 49 "moderately gifted" (IQs of 120-140) on several standard adjustment measures. On Achenbach and Edelbrock's Child Behavior Checklist, there were not significant differences between groups. Interestingly, even within the highly gifted group, higher IQs were associated with better adjustment on the Behavior Problems subscale (r = -.518).

[2]

Yet more proof that gifted children are not socially disabled and unable to adjust to normal life simply due to their giftedness.

---

I am going to take a minute to relate my personal story. Throughout my life, I've been tested and placed regularly in the 130 - 140 range (very superior intelligence). I did all the things the "smart" kids did in school:

* Beta Club
* National Honors Society
* Yearbook Staff
* Class Officer
* Debate Team
* Literary Team
* Tutoring/Mentoring
* Started my Freshman year of College during my Senior year of High school

I did not do the stuff like sports or cheerleading. Not my style. I am shy, painfully so. I am an introvert who does not particularly like human beings as a species. I prefer a good book to a big party.....a handful of friends at home to a night out at the bar. I prefer my company to that of all others.

Is this due to my high IQ?

Or, is it due more in part to how I grew up??

* Only child
* Divorced parents by the time I was 5 (both remarried several times)
* Constant moving from place to place
* Living out in the middle of no where
* Overprotective mother (we lived in Florida when Adam Walsh was kidnapped and from that point forward, I was smothered to within an inch of my life)
* Worked from the time I was 15 until today

So, with me and my high IQ and my social introvertedness, is it more to blame on my IQ or the personality that developed due to what I was exposed to growing up?

I think for me, like for most other people, it is due to the personality that developed due to what I was exposed to growing up.

---

Once again, this debate is not about people who are geniuses or people of "above average intelligence". This is about those with an IQ ranging from 120 to 140. There are not enough true geniuses who have been studied and compared over their lives to have a good base for debating them. But, high IQ gifted people have been studied throughout the ages.

These gifted people do not need to be dumbed down, and they do not need to be treated like they have a disability. They are not lacking (disabled); they have something more (gifted). And, they should be treated as gifted and shown how to use their "more".

Gifted and disabled are not the same thing, as I have shown earlier in this debate.

---

You will not find many with low intelligence who find it difficult to concentrate on one task because they are too good at too many things. You will not find many with low intelligence who cannot find companions because no one can relate to the things that they think about. You will not find many with low intelligence who are forced to live in solitude as children and find ways to entertain themselves.

No, but you will find many with low intelligence who have difficulty concentrating. Kind of like with those who are gifted.

Yes, you will find many with low intelligence who cannot find companions because no one can relate to the things they think about. Kind of like with those that are gifted.

Yes, you will find many with low intelligence who are forced to live in solitude as children and find ways to entertain themselves. Just look at foster homes and group homes.......that is reality. Kind of like with those that are gifted.

But, whereas that looks awful similar, it isn't. People with low intelligence are disabled because they lack intellect. People with high IQs aren't disabled because they have more. They can choose to lack social skills. They can choose to lack social ties, family ties, and a group of friends.

But, for them, it is a choice. Not a side-effect of something within them that is lacking.

I am glad my opponent has set the terms of the debate up for us. We could have been in trouble. According to her, we are talking about just above average people… not people with a very high IQ. Well, wait, let’s look at the debate topic, once again:

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The topic for this debate is “A Very High IQ Should Be Considered A Disability."

Now my opponent says this debate is only about those who range from 120-140 in IQ, but I beg to differ. Those people are above average, but they are not so far above average that others cannot relate to them. Remember, it is about a 30-point difference in IQ that makes it difficult for people to communicate effectively. Let us examine my opponent’s chart once again:

Those with an IQ of 120-140 represent around 15% of the population. So, if you have a 140 IQ, you not only fit in with those around your intelligence level, but you also fit in with those of around 110 and up. They are not so far out of your range.

That is why we are discussing people whose IQs are above 155. That really, from the studies I have shown, seems to be the cutoff point where communication becomes difficult. It makes sense that it would since, if you have a 170 IQ, only those with a 140 IQ and above would generally be thinking anything close to the same as you. What percent of the population is that?

.13%

According to my opponent’s chart, and the research I present, .13% of the population can communicate correctly with people who have an IQ of 170 or above.

---

My opponent also conveniently dodged the Socratic Question. I did not ask it in the context of the debate question. All I asked, again, was, “would you say that the natural inability to think on the same level as most other people is a disability?”

I can understand why she would feel uncomfortable answering that question, though the answer is obvious. Yes, the inability to think on the same level as everyone else is a disability. It is also interesting that to back it up, my opponent chose this quote:

Freeman (1979) contrasted a "High IQ" group (IQs of 141-170, mean 155) with a "Moderate IQ" group (IQs of 97-140, mean 120) on both parent- and child-report measures of adjustment. Results were generally favorable in both groups, and there was little indication that the High IQ group was less well adjusted.

According to my opponent’s idea of what IQ range we are discussing, and then the source she chose to use, we are only discussing those with a “Moderate IQ”. In fact, those between 140-170 are considered having “High IQs”. I have already clarified it once, and I will do it again:

We are discussing people with a “Very High IQ”. That puts it by my standards and my opponents own standards to be above 170. That also renders her source invalid since they did not do any studies on those with IQs above 170.

I also am a bit confused by my opponent’s quote:

Originally posted by skeptic1
These gifted people do not need to be dumbed down, and they do not need to be treated like they have a disability.

Now, I am not sure that I ever said they need to be “treated” like they have a disability. What does that even mean? Do we treat people with disabilities like they have a disability, or do we treat them like humans who need help in a certain area?

Again, no one said anything about a handicap parking sticker, disability checks, wheelchairs, or some sort of special identification marker they should wear. I simply mean that they should be assimilated into groups of people like them, trained further on EQ than most students, be challenged in the correct areas, and given the ability to focus.

---

All famous geniuses show some sort of “disability” during childhood.

1

He took his time to ponder and his speech was not fluent. His learning disabilities may have been linked to dyslexia. The Einsteins had even feared that their son was retarded.

That is right. They thought Einstein was retarded. The man who has an estimated IQ of over 170 was thought of as retarded as a child. Was it because he was not yet an intellectual? Absolutely not. It was simply because he processed information in a different way than he was being taught. People could not relate to him.

Steven Hawking, who has an IQ of 160, also was not considered to be a genius as a student:

2

Through his schooling, Hawking was a good, but not exceptionally brilliant, student.

He was not challenged. He was not treated as special. People did not notice his talents, which was a disability for him because it clearly held him back from performing.

3
Sir Isaac Newton, with an estimated IQ of 190, also had trouble in childhood:

Newton's childhood was anything but happy, and throughout his life he verged on emotional collapse, occasionally falling into violent and vindictive attacks against friend and foe alike.

None of this should be surprising, nor is it uncommon for those with very high IQs to have trouble adjusting to society, nor for society to have trouble adjusting to them. This is, of course, why we have the creation of high IQ societies.

4

In the late 1930s, Dr. Leta Hollingworth's groundbreaking research, which led to the publication of Children Above 180 IQ (1942), suggested that there is a group of people with extremely high intelligence who also have much in common and who are as different from people at the 98th percentile in IQ as people at that level are from the norm.

The Prometheus Society was created, as you can read above, because they were too different from the members in Mensa, those with IQs in the 98th percentile. That is correct. These people cannot even relate to those with IQs that high, but my opponent would have you think that their lives are easy.

One more notable item is the qualification for entry:

Entry test scores are 1 in 30,000 (Mensa test entry is 1 in 50).

1 in 30,000 people fit into this group. 1 in 50 is bad enough, but even then, at least you have a few others in your respected area that you can fit in with. Imagine being in a group where only 1 in 30,000 people could understand why you are who you are, why you think the way you do, and why you say the things you say.

It would be incredibly frustrating.

Before I am finished, I would like to point to my opponent’s statement:

Originally posted by skeptic1
People with high IQs aren't disabled because they have more. They can choose to lack social skills. They can choose to lack social ties, family ties, and a group of friends.

For anyone out there who has social issues, high IQ or not, I want you to remember that my opponent believes that it was your choice to not be liked by people. It was your choice and your failure to learn that caused you to not be accepted.

Is she right? Perhaps, but it was not your fault. Society let you down, just like they are letting down those with high IQs who cannot relate to others.

Did I dictate what "very superior intelligence" is? Did I dictate what "very high IQ" is? My opponent seems to be confused.

* Over 140 - Genius or near genius
* 120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
* 110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
* 90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
* 80 - 89 - Dullness
* 70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
* Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness

Source

This was my initial determination of what we were debating. Notice, "average intelligence" is 30-50 points beneath "very superior intelligence", which I decided to debate.

To take it a little further....

* 115-124 - Above average (e.g., university students)
* 125-134 - Gifted (e.g., post-graduate students)
* 135-144 - Highly gifted (e.g., intellectuals)
* 145-154 - Genius (e.g., professors)
* 155-164 - Genius (e.g., Nobel Prize winners)
* 165-179 - High genius
* 180-200 - Highest genius
* >200 - "Unmeasurable genius"

Source

Notice, I did not define this as about "just above average" people. Either my opponent is greatly confused or just isn't paying attention to what I am saying.

I am not debating geniuses. The .13% of people who have been rated by IQ tests are not a good representation of the gifted in society. There are so few in relation to the rest of the "gifted" range that comparisons, research, studies, and results are small, narrow, and too poor (due to adequate comparison) to have a decent debate over. There are too few true geniuses compared to the rest of the "gifted" range to have been studied properly and compared properly to the rest of the "gifted" population.

One or two examples does not a debate make.

However, 16% who have rated as "very superior intelligence" is a good representation of the gifted in society.

---

My opponent also conveniently dodged the Socratic Question. I did not ask it in the context of the debate question. All I asked, again, was, “would you say that the natural inability to think on the same level as most other people is a disability?”

Did I dodge or did I actually answer? Again, I have to wonder if you are reading what I am actually saying or just skimming and picking your spots.

You basically asked if the inability to think on the same level as others is a disability. I said "no" due to the fact that IQ has little to nothing to do with communication.

A person's thoughts are their own and affect basically nothing outside themselves until they are communicated. Communication is taught......people can be taught to communicate whereas their IQ is basically born into them.

Thinking and communicating are two different things that often go hand in hand. People can be taught to communicate their thoughts, no matter their IQ.....low or high. Thoughts are internal, therefore do not disable a person unless they are not taught to communicate externally.

---

I simply mean that they should be assimilated into groups of people like them, trained further on EQ than most students, be challenged in the correct areas, and given the ability to focus.

Sure, keep them isolated and with people like them so that they are never assimilated into society as a whole.

Intelligence is a gift, not a burden to be carried throughout life that separates. Yes, the gifted need to be challenged but they don't need to be treated as if they are so different from everyone else that they feel isolated and alone.

People can be incredibly smart and social. They can be incredibly smart and fit in with society. They can be incredibly smart and have friends, families, jobs, and normal lives.

They are gifted. They should treasure those gifts and not be made to feel like they are "lacking". Gifted means they have something more. Disabled means they are lacking.

Isolating them and keeping them only among others like them does nothing to assimilate them into society and make them understand that their gifts do not make them "less" in other areas.

---

For anyone out there who has social issues, high IQ or not, I want you to remember that my opponent believes that it was your choice to not be liked by people. It was your choice and your failure to learn that caused you to not be accepted.

Is she right? Perhaps, but it was not your fault. Society let you down, just like they are letting down those with high IQs who cannot relate to others.

Is that what I believe? In a way, yes. As an adult, if one with superior intelligence does not take the steps needed to live a normal life, that is their choice. As an adult, if one with superior intelligence does not take the steps needed to create social ties and familial ties, that is their choice. As an adult, if one with superior intelligence does not take the steps needed to hold down a job or raise a family, that is their choice.

As a child, if one with superior intelligence is not taught by those around them, that is the fault of the parents and the teachers, not the child.

But, that child grows up. That child grows up around people. That child is exposed to society. That child is exposed to life. That child grows up into an adult who has personal responsibility over their lives.

That child grows up to make choices. That child can choose to be a functioning member of society with friends and family and a job and a life. If they choose not to do so, that is their fault, not the fault of their IQ.

They are indeed disabled, but it is not the fault of their intelligence level or their IQ.