Government want to look at disability bank accounts to see what we are spending on: this is not good for us autistic.

Don't EVER stop using cash.

DO NOT ADOPT CBDC's "for the convenience". 

FFS stop using direct debits, and paying "interest" on everything you own! The first takes all control away from you under the guise of helping you manage, and the second is financially speaking like voluntarily submitting to having leeches attached to your financial (metaphorcal) body.

Learn the difference between your annual turnover of money and your net cashflow, and (if you can of course, according to some members and people I meet in real life, some concepts I find obvious and "basic" are too difficult to follow) work out just HOW MUCH of you weekly income directly benefits you and your family.

I think you will all find (as I did) how incredibly unselfish with your money you all are. You literally throw it into the hands of rich strangers at every turn, who in exchange enact rules to further restrict and tax your activities, using those taxes to do what exactly?

Once they get you hooked on digital money, it'll be worth whatever (((they))) say it is on any given day, and your access to it will depend on a dazziling variety of ever changing factors completely outside of YOUR control. And the amount of financial fleas will multiply...

Sorry, I'll keep using direct debits and contactless payments because otherwise I would never remember to pay everything and I abhor touching things too many people have touched.

For me increasingly digital systems are a massive benefit, the less I have to interact with people and physical things to do things the better.

To each their own, the option to have the choice is the happy medium.

I can see your reasoning, and for those people who's income exceeds their expenditure by a moderate amount consistently, and who have enough self control to keep a wary eye on their own consumption and expenditure our modern "conveniences" are wonderful.

As to your last line, providing we have the option to have a choice between cash and digital, that will be fine by me.

*Dances*

maths is too big a element in them... most iq tests just seem to be purely maths tests... but not basic maths, super complicated all over the place maths questions.... if i see a maths question in anything id just rip the entire paper up and leave.

basic working maths though i can do as i worked on a old fashioned till that doesnt do any calculating for you so i had to do the quick maths there and then to calculate the change in my head myself while having no gaps in serving the customer. but iq maths tests are unrealistic and not used in the real world anyway.

I now have the Bee Gees playing in the back of my head

I am also concerned with staying alive. Funnily enough.

I have an IQ of 133 and you are probably smarter than me.

Bless. That's a  nice comment  

We will never know the answer. 

Our priorities change as we get older anyway.

I am less concerned nowadays with IQ than with staying alive!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY

I have an IQ of 133 and you are probably smarter than me.

Amerantin (former member) said:

My “full scale IQ” was 138 which they said was greater than 98% of the population.

Out of a max of 155 that's impressive.

I did just find that test online and started it but I got to about question 10 and realised there were another 50 and am too tired.

Also, I wondered if I was doing it under the correct conditions.

Thanks for all this.

Food for thought.

I tried a few online IQ tests before my assessment but they were all 20-30 questions and took minutes. The Wechsler test took nearly two hours and parts of it were timed so I think you’d only be able to get it if it was administered by a psychologist.

It also has a maximum IQ score of 155 so I’m not sure how it relates to tests that tell us people like Newton had IQs of 180 or whatever.

All my numbers were higher than expected with the exception of processing speed for which I got 114, which is still above average I suppose. My “full scale IQ” was 138 which they said was greater than 98% of the population.

I have since tried the Mensa sample tests and got a much higher score <shrugs>

Amerantin (former member) said:

One of the common characteristics of autistic people is a spiky profile - so for example you might be mathematically gifted but have terrible verbal comprehension. This test is apparently quite good at revealing these gifts and deficits.

If that's available online I may take a look.

I was with my autistic friend the other day who told me that he only did a test once, 40 years ago, and has an IQ of 150.

He also told me that he perceives me as highly intelligent - however, I don't think that would show on an ordinary IQ test and, in fact, I find the evaluation of my own intelligence impossible as I am not a high achiever either academically or career wise.

Also, he is mathematically gifted and doesn't have the best verbal comprehension.

You have me intrigued.

The test they did on me was called the Wechsler adult intelligence scale and as well as an overall IQ figure you get other numbers for things like vocabulary, arithmetic, working memory, visual processing and processing speed.

One of the common characteristics of autistic people is a spiky profile - so for example you might be mathematically gifted but have terrible verbal comprehension. This test is apparently quite good at revealing these gifts and deficits.

Amerantin (former member) said:

To rule out any kind of learning or intellectual disability which might otherwise explain my problems, apparently.

Ah. I see.

So not to see if you have a high IQ, but rather to check you don't have a low one.

IQ tests are something that bother me actually.

I think I have dyscalculia and maths is an element of them.

I've tried to do one or two but anything involving figures foxes me.

To rule out any kind of learning or intellectual disability which might otherwise explain my problems, apparently.

Amerantin (former member) said:

I had to do one as part of my autism assessment.

Why?

I'm really surprised by this

im not sure, the company i work at we had a vote on wages as we always do, just a yes no as to accept, ofcourse everyone just selects yes and accepts the very first offer because no one understands what they are voting for and they just see it as vote yes for more money lol mostly all dont speak english... so they dont understand.

but anyway, being a analytical thinker type i took like 30 minutes or so thinking and questioning the union guy and running the figures before i voted lol it turns out just to raise our lowest wage by 10p per hour it would cost the company overall 10 million per year.... and the company only makes around 50 million profit per year. so just 10p extra a hour on our lowest wages wipes out 10 million a year.... 50p extra a hour would mean no profit at all. ofcourse there could be alot in their spending they can cut and it could have been a trick.... either way i said they can do better and voted no because i dont like them anyway lol but it shows things are run close to the bone most of the time.

Yeah but those who live at the edge of the IQ  bellcurve tend to lack EQ so it all evens out...

Unless you believe that having a higher intelligence automatically elevates one, over other people.

That Idea of course is pure racism amongst it's other failures, based on even the most cursory viewing of the IQ statistics by country...  

There’s headlines about record profits in energy companies just now but that comes after many years of truly appalling shareholder returns.

One of the worst buys I ever made was right at the start of my investing career about 15 years ago. I bought shares in Shell and BP because on paper they looked like money printing machines.

But BP shares crashed after the oil spill in the Caribbean so I dumped them. My Shell shares gradually lost value which wasn’t mitigated by the dividends. It’s only in the last year that the Shell shares have yielded a return for me but I’d have done at least as well just putting the money in a bank account for the last 15 years.

But these things are all learning experiences, and you’re right it is at least a useful interest.

Anyway, I’m venturing into the office tomorrow for the first time in a while so I’d better get to bed so I can lie worrying about it all night.

Good debating with you all tonight

Hey, I won't knock it, mine is birds and philosophy. Yours can at least be useful.

There's too many headlines about record profits then, even the energy companies, although perhaps that's multinationals.

Most UK companies really aren’t passing on much in the way of value to shareholders and profits are generally not high. Shareholders won’t invest in companies if there are better rewards elsewhere. These are just financial realities.

(I speak as someone who has the very dull special interest of finance and investing in stocks and funds).

Increasing minimum wage to a living wage could easily be covered by the vast majority of companies without it impacting the cost of the product/service if the higher ups and shareholders didn't expect quite so much in terms of bonuses, dividends and profits. As an example, a friend worked in a local shop that served food and drink, she worked out how much it cost them to make a cup of tea, it was 5p. Take a guess at how much they charged the customers for that cup of tea.

Prices have been inflated by years of companies wringing as much profit as they can out of even the simplest things. That's capitalism that's caused that, not socialism.

You're only looking at what you see as Labour's lies. You're not mentioning the Tory ones at all. And they're just as destructive and targeted, if not more so.

So more education all round will lead to a more informed voter who can make an informed choice. Personally, I'd hope that more people would then vote for policies that support the whole of society rather than just their specific subset but I tend hope for the best in people.

Also, trickle down economics has been categorically proven to be a failure in terms of spreading the wealth through society. Instead it leaves a small number of individuals with a massively disproportionate amount of money. Money which they don't pay tax on because they have ways to completely avoid it. So that's rubbish.

And yes, austerity, and other economic policies are obviously universal, it's the implementation of them that is questionable. As theories they have their uses, but it's how and when that is often the problem.

You're only looking at what you see as Labour's lies. You're not mentioning the Tory ones at all. And they're just as destructive and targeted, if not more so.

So more education all round will lead to a more informed voter who can make an informed choice. Personally, I'd hope that more people would then vote for policies that support the whole of society rather than just their specific subset but I tend hope for the best in people.

Also, trickle down economics has been categorically proven to be a failure in terms of spreading the wealth through society. Instead it leaves a small number of individuals with a massively disproportionate amount of money. Money which they don't pay tax on because they have ways to completely avoid it. So that's rubbish.

And yes, austerity, and other economic policies are obviously universal, it's the implementation of them that is questionable. As theories they have their uses, but it's how and when that is often the problem.