2 interesting articles about functioning

For me it's that IQ is still used to categorise people in terms of the help and support they need,and that that is counterproductive . I agree that  the  point where we differ  is  on how many psychologists rely on IQ as the primary tool to judge functioning levels.

You have more rose tinted glasses as to the approach of psychologists and I am more cynical  as to their approach.

Anyway, I think from very early on, we already have a consensus that IQ does not equate to better long-term outcomes of the individual. And that's what's important.

The disagreement is mainly whether we think most psychologists think that way. 

Are you happy with this conclusion? 

The bit in bold does not show that IQ is used in clinical circles to judge a person's general functional abilities, it just implies the term can lead to misinterpretation. 

According to your article, "High functioning autism’ is a term often used for individuals with autism spectrum disorder without an intellectual disability. Over time, this term has become synonymous with expectations of greater functional skills and better long-term outcomes, despite contradictory clinical observations."

(1) Clinical psychologists are clear what the term means - ASD without intellectual disability
(2) Clinical psychologists know from clinical observations that high-functioning do not mean greater functional skills and better long-term outcomes

But for some weird reason, "over time" the term has become synonymous with expectations of greater functional skills and better long-term outcomes --> this means that the original definition of functioning does not imply adaptive functioning, but because people misinterpret the term, it has been misunderstood as the layman's definition.

These data indicate that estimates from intelligence quotient alone are an imprecise proxy for functional abilities when diagnosing autism spectrum disorder, particularly for those without intellectual disability. We argue that ‘high functioning autism’ is an inaccurate clinical descriptor when based solely on intelligence quotient demarcations and this term should be abandoned in research and clinical practice.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362361319852831?journalCode=auta

The bit in bold clearly shows that IQ is still used in clinical circles to judge a person's functional abilities . The problem being that, for high IQ people on the spectrum,adaptive functioning can lag considerably behind what might be expected based on a person's  IQ.

I think you are the one who is not grasping what I am saying and you are not capable of understanding what I'm saying. You keep thinking that psychologists use cognitive functioning to determine someone's adaptive functioning, but psychologists aren't doing that. 

Post-doctoral researcher Dr Gail Alvares said while 'high functioning' is used to describe people diagnosed with autism who have IQs in the normal range, it does not indicate their functional status.

Every psychologist see it the way sees Dr Gail Alvares it, but somehow you agree with her, yet you keep insisting that psychologists are using IQ to indicate someone's functional status. No psychologist is doing that.

You are not grasping what I am saying. I'm going to leave this thread as it's frustrating that you are not capable  of understanding what I'm saying .

You are not understanding the meaning between scientific jargon vs. layman's terms.

This is like explaining what "theory" means in science to a layperson. The scientific jargon "theory" and the layman word "theory" mean contradictory things. But neither is incorrect.

It's like (I'll use simile): I keep telling you that theory in science means a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verified—has stood up against attempts to prove it false". Yet you keep saying "theory is just a hinch or idea that's not tested. And that scientists are wrong to say a theory is true. Scientists should not be seen as judges to define the word theory". 

You cannot get over the layman's definition of "functioning". Whereas in psychology, that word has nothing to do with the layman's word "functioning". It also has nothing to do with autism either. It's a term used in cognitive studies of all people (neurotypical included).

Psychologists are not ignoring other aspects of support that people need, nor is IQ used in determining whether someones gets the ASD diagnosis. The word has a different meaning in psychology versus in everyday life. But you keep thinking that psychologists use cognitive functioning to determine someone's adaptive functioning, but psychologists aren't doing that.

There are even more definitions of the word functioning than you might know. For example the word "functional" in "functional imaging" has nothing to do with how "functional" a person is in in life. Another example, the word "functional" in "functional connectivity" is yet another meaning, and is calculated as a correlation measure in contrast to "effective connectivity".

Psychologists should not be seen  as the judges of what a word means. .Most people on the spectrum  know that IQ is not used to diagnose a person. However it is used to  say what the level of support needed is when a diagnosis of ASD has been made.

Psychologists may very strongly see functioning as 'cognitive functioning' but that does not mean they are right in doing so, or that that is the best way to ensure people get the help and support they need.

Plastic said:

just because a high IQ means you're quick enough to be a fake NT for a little while, doesn't mean you can keep it up or experience the same world as NTs

Not sure if you have read the thread carefully, but IQ is not what psychologists use to determine whether or not you're ASD or NT, in fact, in both DSM5 and ICD. But intellectual disability in its own is a diagnosis, it's an additional diagnostic label, just like ASD + ADHD, or ASD + dyslexia. "Functioning" does not mean "how well someone functions in society", but it only means "cognitive functioning", so low-cognitive-fucntioning means ASD + intellectual impairment. I feel the main issue is that people get confused with the jargon, and keep thinking that "functioning" means "how well someone functions in society"...

I am understanding perfectly well. How psychologists categorise people is one thing.

I'm not sure you understand. You keep going back thinking that psychologists use IQ to categorise people according to "adaptive functioning", but they are NOT. They are only using IQ to categorise people according to "cognitive functioning".

Diagnosing someone with intellectual disability (https://www.mentalhelp.net/intellectual-disabilities/dsm-5-criteria/), is the same as diagnosing someone with ASD, ADHD, dyslexia, etc. It's an additional diagnostic description of the person, and has NOTHING to do with categorising people according to "general adaptive functioning" or "whether you need support". 

I agree - just because a high IQ means you're quick enough to be a fake NT for a little while, doesn't mean you can keep it up or experience the same world as NTs.   High IQ means you don't appear to need any support during the 10 minutes they assess you..

I am understanding perfectly well. How psychologists categorise people is one thing. Whether that  is the best method to ensure people get the help and support they need is quite another. 

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../aur.2081

I think you are still not understanding that the scientific jargon "functioning" is a synonym of IQ. Only the layperson's word "functioning" means adaptive functioning. I've already explained this from the very beginning. When psychologists and scientist say "high/low functioning" it is NOT categorising people by adaptive functioning, but it's a specification of their IQ.

People's functioning should not be  categorised solely by IQ re ASD as there can be a gap between adaptive functioning and IQ.   It's not a case of dismissing IQ , but saying there should be more to the process of saying how well a person on the spectrum functions than just basing it on IQ.

In the ASD case, I think the IQ part is an "additional specification", rather than diagnosis category, it's always ASD + extra specification in either DSM or ICD, but anyway

(1) Could you explain the ASD versus NT categorisation? It's also a categorisation flaw where NT people are missed out on need for help and support.

(2) And according to your logic that people should not be categorised by IQ, then the DSM and ICD diagnoses of intellectual disability should be removed. But they are diagnostic categories, https://www.mentalhelp.net/intellectual-disabilities/dsm-5-criteria/
https://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online2004/fr-icd.htm?gf70.htm+ 

(3) Categorisation helps make support more specific for each group. Most low-functioning ASD will need speech therapy whereas most high-functioning ASD will not. However, all ASD will need extra social communication support where's most NTs will not. 

You're still missing the point  re the flaw as to how people are categorised in terms of functioning, and the need for help and support.

IQ does not equal coping, neither does the term functioning mean coping.

it's just an extra description in addition to the ASD phenotype of communication and repetitive behaviour in both manuals. 

I'm fine with anything as long as it's all logically consistent. If no there is no categorisation of ASD and NT, and no categorisation of cognitive functioning, then that's logically consistent. 

For example, there are many NT people who have minor social difficulties but do not reach diagnosis criteria, and they should be able to get help too. But because of the diagnostic categorisation of ASD vs NT, NTs with social communication difficulties are expected by society to deal with it without any reasonable adjustments, and I think that's quite unfair to those NTs.

All diagnosis labels have this flaw of categorising people. For example, the dyslexia diagnosis is one of the most unfair ones. If a native English speaker at university has a dyslexia diagnosis they can get extra time on exams; however, a foreign student who does not speak English as a first language but does not have dyslexia cannot require extra exam time (yet they are possibly more disadvantaged than the native dyslexic person).

Categorisation is useful to generally describe the phenotype differences between groups of people, but of course, there are differences within each group that are irrelevant to the category. For example, when categorising someone as ASD vs NT, one will immediately know whether that person has social difficulties if they are ASD. Categorising someone as ASD + intellectual impairment vs ASD + without intellectual impairment, you will immediately know whether they might need intervention on IQ or speech therapy. Other factors unrelated to the category can vary, such that low IQ people may have more family support and thus coping better with life, but family support is not the category's dimension. Similarly, someone with ASD may have been fortunate enough to be allowed to pursue their special interest whereas some NT may end up doing a job they dislike, which may lead to the ASD person coping better than NT. 

Yes, think high IQ can be a liability to coping for auties.