looked it up and an IQ below 50 means you probably can’t ever live independently, and below 25 means you’re pretty much a vegetable.
Nah man, not even close…
Besides, at the extremes if either side of the scale the overall number becomes pretty meaningless because the individual scores are going to have high variance.
I did an internship working with people with learning disabilities from “passable” to me having to change adult diapers for clients who were completely nonverbal and thought it was game.
I don’t know where you looked it up, but you’re way off.
But for this:
much less take an IQ test.
A normal test only covers 3 standard deviations. So if you’re over 145 or below 65, on a normal you take a specialized test if you want to actually know. There’s just not enough outliers to make the normal test able to cover everyone
I sometimes wonder what the kids iq would be… He is 12 physically but I would put at 3 max mentally. Not saying anything negative but being honest.
He can use the bathroom but can’t put his underwear on. He knocks on the door till someone comes put his underwear back on.
Eating a bowl of cereal is 50/50 if he can do it himself.
He likes watching blues clues, Thomas and friends, paw patrol. He yells the answer to most questions but I don’t know if he knows the answer or just knows they say this so I should say that.
He is severely autistic and epileptic among other problems. He is sweet and loving but how to measure what his actual intelligence I have no idea.
IQ testes only test logic puzzle solving skills (& memory sometimes), so there is no way for you to measure your own actual intelligence, let alone your autistic kid’s
IQ tests don’t define IQ, they’re a tool to measure IQ. Standard tests have a “floor” (say 70 or 50) below which they don’t give an accurate number, just a general “below the floor” indication. Similarly, they would have a ceiling.
A professionally administered test can maybe identify a more specific IQ at low levels, and would be used for someone who maybe can’t function at the level of taking a standard test.
I mean that if you participated in a test at all, even if your result wasn’t accurate, then you’re not vegetative, even if you required assistance.
I know that the test score isn’t your IQ, because the IQ is relative to the scores of the other participants.
But surely to score at all you need to be responsive, even if you need a special test with special assistance. So surely an IQ of 25 couldn’t be vegetative? Although I truly have no idea how such an IQ would present itself.
People with a severe learning disability or profound and multiple learning disability (PMLD) will need more care and support with areas such as mobility, care and communication.
And from Wikipedia:
People with Severe ID (IQ 20–34), accounting for 3.5% of persons with ID, or Profound ID (IQ 19 or below), accounting for 1.5% of people with ID, need more intensive support and supervision for their entire lives. They may learn some [activities of daily living], but an intellectual disability is considered severe or profound when individuals are unable to independently care for themselves without ongoing significant assistance from a caregiver throughout adulthood.
I think that could qualify as “pretty much a vegetable”, if a bit crass.
It kinda depends on what kinds of daily activity they can learn and what the nature of the support is.
Like, reading the description, I’m thinking of elderly dementia patients, and I wouldn’t call them “pretty much vegetables”, even if they need very intensive assistance.
But I suppose “pretty much” can cover a very wide range for different people.
I would think a room temperature IQ in °C would mean virtually unable to function, much less take an IQ test.
Edit: looked it up and an IQ below 50 means you probably can’t ever live independently, and below 25 means you’re pretty much a vegetable.
Which s perfect for an insult. Insult is better when it’s caricature like.
Nah man, not even close…
Besides, at the extremes if either side of the scale the overall number becomes pretty meaningless because the individual scores are going to have high variance.
I did an internship working with people with learning disabilities from “passable” to me having to change adult diapers for clients who were completely nonverbal and thought it was game.
I don’t know where you looked it up, but you’re way off.
But for this:
A normal test only covers 3 standard deviations. So if you’re over 145 or below 65, on a normal you take a specialized test if you want to actually know. There’s just not enough outliers to make the normal test able to cover everyone
I sometimes wonder what the kids iq would be… He is 12 physically but I would put at 3 max mentally. Not saying anything negative but being honest.
He can use the bathroom but can’t put his underwear on. He knocks on the door till someone comes put his underwear back on.
Eating a bowl of cereal is 50/50 if he can do it himself.
He likes watching blues clues, Thomas and friends, paw patrol. He yells the answer to most questions but I don’t know if he knows the answer or just knows they say this so I should say that.
He is severely autistic and epileptic among other problems. He is sweet and loving but how to measure what his actual intelligence I have no idea.
Huh?
IQ testes only test logic puzzle solving skills (& memory sometimes), so there is no way for you to measure your own actual intelligence, let alone your autistic kid’s
So you are saying you have a future in goverment.
It seems to me like if you got 25, you were able to answer some questions at all, some of which you actually got correct
So not vegetative, I don’t think.
But I suppose I’m not exactly an expert on how the tests are administered, so maybe just showing up is enough to get 25.
IQ tests don’t define IQ, they’re a tool to measure IQ. Standard tests have a “floor” (say 70 or 50) below which they don’t give an accurate number, just a general “below the floor” indication. Similarly, they would have a ceiling.
A professionally administered test can maybe identify a more specific IQ at low levels, and would be used for someone who maybe can’t function at the level of taking a standard test.
I mean that if you participated in a test at all, even if your result wasn’t accurate, then you’re not vegetative, even if you required assistance.
I know that the test score isn’t your IQ, because the IQ is relative to the scores of the other participants.
But surely to score at all you need to be responsive, even if you need a special test with special assistance. So surely an IQ of 25 couldn’t be vegetative? Although I truly have no idea how such an IQ would present itself.
They didn’t say vegetative. They said “pretty much a vegetable” fun is a more colloquial term.
From https://paulriddfoundation.org/lessons/iq-table/#%3A~%3Atext=Severe+&+Profound+LD+*+Approximate+IQ%2Careas+such+as+mobility%2C+care+and+communication=.
And from Wikipedia:
I think that could qualify as “pretty much a vegetable”, if a bit crass.
It kinda depends on what kinds of daily activity they can learn and what the nature of the support is.
Like, reading the description, I’m thinking of elderly dementia patients, and I wouldn’t call them “pretty much vegetables”, even if they need very intensive assistance.
But I suppose “pretty much” can cover a very wide range for different people.