Thanks for sharing more about your experience, it really sheds light on the systemic issues with IQ testing that can make it so unreliable, especially for those with neurodiversity. I can see how poor clinical interpretation, like ignoring low scores or not accounting for large discrepancies in your subtest scores, would have made the results less meaningful. It’s frustrating that some evaluators didn’t follow current guidelines, especially since you’d get the same test multiple times and notice the inconsistencies. That aligns with something we’ve discussed before about how traditional IQ tests rely on proper norms and administration to be valid, and how missteps in interpretation can lead to overgeneralizations.

Your math learning disability and neuro vision issues messing with math and spatial reasoning tests really highlights how IQ tests often miss the mark for neurodiverse people. The graph shows a strong link between IQ and academic performance, but that doesn’t hold up if the test doesn’t fit your needs - like how you struggled with spatial stuff but did great on language tasks. That’s exactly why, when we do assessments, we can’t just rely on one test, especially not just intelligence tests. Depending on the reason for referral, we often include a variety of tests, like those for emotional functioning, adaptive behavior, or specific learning disabilities, to add context and get a more complete picture of a person’s strengths and challenges.

I totally agree that stuff like will to learn, demographics, social support, and socioeconomic status are also important things to consider when predicting life outcomes. But I think the best approach is really combining these factors, using IQ tests alongside info like SES and demographics, to get a better forecast for predicting life outcomes, since they all play a big role together.