/sci/ - Science & Math

Good question op.

I don't know anything about downs syndrome, but I know plenty people with aspergers syndrome, and not a single one of them without an exceptional IQ

>>3344246
Aspergers syndrome isn't any indication of your IQ

OP is racist.

Some geniuses are aspies, but these guys are like the aspie of the aspies.

And no, people with Down's syndrome will never achieve a normal IQ.

>remedial education

No. Perhaps with "brain training" exercises and some drugs that have not yet been developed, but not with remedial education. I think you may be mistaken about the definition of IQ or remedial, can't tell which or whether both.

Remedial education is bad for your intelligence.

>>3344246
Aspergers isn't mental retardation, it's just a part of the autism spectrum

>>3344296
That's like saying whales are not animals, they're mammals.

>>3344246
I want to slaughter that child...

>>3344307
no, that's like saying 'whales are not fish, they are mammals'

Retardation is usually defined by having an IQ under 70 or, more correctly, impaired cognitive functions and the ability to adjust to a situation.

none of this is traits accompanied by aspergers.

Lol, half of /sci/ has Aspergers.

>>3344335
>I came here with the wrong idea, look at my retort

>>3344246
Drugs, the experimental kind that would probably give people cancers or liver failure. Intense nootropics+ intense mental stimulation and motivation would help.
In the far future, perhaps gene therapy (read, viral vectors fixing them).
Until then, abortions if they're caught early and gattaca style gene manipulation for those who can afford it.

>>3344335

No, half of /sci/ had shitty parents that didn't tell them to act normal and go outside.

>>3344383
what's the difference between that and aspergers?

>>3344393

People think Asperger's is an actual disease, and is something that can't be helped.

>>3344383
>implying I didn't spend the majority of my childhood outside
>implying I didn't have great parents but still turned out a wierdo

>>3344393
>what's the difference between that and aspergers?

There's a lot more to aspergers than being socially awkward. Although you wouldn't know it to see how much the term gets thrown around here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

>>3344405

It's a "disability" for now; hopefully the psychiatrists will reclassify it and the current so-called Aspies will have to find something else to feel special about.

According to wikipedia:
The average IQ of children with Down syndrome is around 50
also:
The incidence of Down syndrome is estimated at 1 per 733 (.136%)

0.135% of people have IQs at 50 or below.

Conclusion:
The only retards that dumb have DS.

>>3344459
I don't think anyone is disputing DS people being dumb

>>3344560
I know, the DS has very few good games.

>>3344582
However, the DS IS a very good game.

OP. My mom teaches special ed. She has taught people with down syndrome with near normal IQ (>80) and others with far below 50. There is a huge amount of range there.

Aspies generally have higher than average intelligence.

>>3344591
Meh, DS is so-so as a horror game.

Hey, I have Aspergers. IQ is 122.

>>3344615
>>3344615
What are you talking about? DS isn't a horror game.
It's a rather intricate stat-based RPG

>>3344615
DS is a bad ass horror game,

first game i ever 100% completed.

got the just one gun AND epic tier 3 engineer achievements simultaneously

>>3344699
Unfortunately not very scary considering it's a horror game

Good job derailing your own thread by mentioning Asperger's.

Also, talking about video games on /sci/? What can I tell you that you don't already know? That your lives are failures?

>>3344774
there really isn't an activity shared by more people than video games. So ofcourse once in a while we'll talk about them.
does this make our lives failures? then the vast vast majority of the 1st world is filled with failures, and I guess it's fine for you to have that opinion.

>IQ is a valid way to measure wether someone's mental abilities are subpar or not
>IQ is not a valid measurement of superior intelligence

pick a side mother fuckers

>>3344792

Actually it does. While you are doing your 4234th run through Resident Evil 3, successful people are improving themselves - it just pains me to see such complacency.

Activities that so sorely dispose of our capacity for focus and skew our balance of pain/pleasure toward hedonism should be looked down upon.

>>3344813

It's the best we have thus far.

Of course it isn't accurate at 140+, and various test biases further complicate even the lower results.

But unless you know of a better way to measure cognitive function in a way that can be applied to therapy (for instance) you should keep your comments to yourself.

End of argument.

>>3344821
what if ones goal is to master resident evil 3?
And you are here, on /sci/, arguing with me, which isn't productive at all.
I play a ton of games, but I'm much more successful than some more 'serious' minded individuals. I try to learn like any other intelligent person. I just also like games.

you're probably being hypocritical too, I just don't quite know enough about you.

>>3344324
>Retardation is usually defined by having an IQ under 70
No that's old science. When you look at white people, generally the only people with an IQ 2 std dev under the mean are what we call "retards" however when you look at other races (I'm looking at you Africans), people can score an IQ 2 deviations under the average white and still be functional. They're just really dumb.

>>3344813
it's a way to measure cognitive functions, which is what defines retardation, but it doesn't necessarily define intelligence.

>Is it possible for retards such as those with Down's Syndrome or Asperger's Syndrome to have a normal IQ after intensive remedial education

Before taking such a bold challenge, lets do something less drastic, try to raise an average kid's IQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abecedarian_Early_Intervention_Project

Looks like no, you gain 4 verbal IQ points but we always knew you could train that to some degree, almost no extra IQ on pattern recognition.
Can't take a 60 IQ downs and make them normal even with a dedicated team of experts starting in very early childhood

>>3344861
Which is why I afterwards said 'more correctly' by which I meant 'however, it would be more correct to say', followed by a proper definition - which I should just have said, in hindsight. but my english is terrible.

But I guess you really weren't trying to correct me, you just wanted to spew controversy

define normal

Both are capable of achieving independence if that's what you mean.
A lot of aspies go onto to make significant contributions to society, which are (just barely) enough to make up for the inconvenience and intense irritation they've burdened everyone with since they were born, as well as the many others who did not go on to contribute anything.

>>3344910
90-110 or, if a specific number, 100, is a normal IQ

That's literally what IQ tests are based on. 100 is supposed to be average, if the average is above or below, the value is changed

>>3344930
is you an wizard?

>>3344942
No, I'm a Common-knowledgezard that has troubles explaining shit

>>3344930

then when we see a list that ranks average IQ by country (hong kong 107, france 98, colombia 89, equatorial guinea 69 etc) where does that theorical 100 average come from?

does that mean that a japanese guy that has a 110 IQ in his home country and decides to move to Nicaragua has his IQ boosted from 110 to 124 just because he now lives in a country where the average IQ is lower?

>>3344973
I think they try to make an international average before making a large scale test.

but if the test was developed solely for nicaragua, he'd probably boost his IQ

>>3344973

samefag here

also by looking at the average IQ by nation (something like 10 countries have an above 100 IQ, another 5-10 countries have a 100 average IQ and more than 150 have an average IQ below 100, shouldnt we assume then that the average IQ is not in fact 100 but rather something in the mid 80s?

>Asperger's syndrome
>Low IQ
>NOPE.jpg

Also, I am perfectly aware I've been trolled.

>>3344996
yes. evidently, that is not the case.

>>3344973
It's set so that 100 is the average IQ of Englishmen and 15 (sometimes 16) is the standard deviation of Englishmen.

>>3344986

exactly, my question wasn't as explicit as it looks since I know IQ test administered by psychologists, schools, high IQ organizations etc use a standarized scale that is not affected by the average IQ regardless of where in the world they are located, however as I stated here >>3344996 the theorical average of "100" is not really the world average, and I know that said "100" average is acomodated to fit the average score (if you took an IQ test in 1950 and scored 160 it would be the equivalent (not sure if my flynn effects calculations are correct) to having an 110 IQ score in 2000) but where the hell does the average standarized score come from? since we already know that the people that took the tests to measure the average IQ worldwide used a test based on that 100 average but the results show that said 100 is in fact far from being the real average.

sorry if Im making myself hard to understand, english is not my first language.

>>3345018

then Im gonna assume MENSA has a monopoly over the IQ scale LOL.

thanks for answering my question.

>>3345018
It's this. England seemed like a reasonable place at the time, it was a homogeneous population and the location of most of the early research.

Yes, all of the world outside of the Orient has lower IQs than Englishmen.