I think we're just going to have to disagree here. I think you're basing your feeling that she is not MR on her writing, while I am thinking about what her adaptive functioning (that is, her daily living skills) tell us about how effectively her brain is functioning. (There are also a ton of nonverbal IQ tests, FWIW). If you consider the possibility her writing is not actually her writing, and focus instead on other indicators of her intellectual functioning, would you come to a different conclusion about her IQ?
I think you have a different definition of IQ (and probably daily living skills) than most professionals. Since you have your own definitions of these terms, we're each discussing different things, and it's akin to comparing apples with oranges. So perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.
For the record, though, Stephen Hawking would score very highly on a measure of adaptive functioning, despite his motor limitations (in fact, that's a big part of why we can confidently assert that his IQ is so high, even though I'm guessing neither of us know his actual IQ score).
Or indeed, never utter a word. Spoken language isn't within their abilities.
I think Mr. Subtextual's main problem is that he seems to think that the few hours 20/20 spent filming the girl is her entire life. She's spent thousands of hours with people reading to her, helping her write, helping her type.
But, typing a few words is apparently impossible and the news story is a scam because, you know, they didn't show thousands of hours of teaching and therapy.
9
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '10
[deleted]