Jump to content

Do you think there is any correlation between asexuality and intelligence?


WhatEverDontCare

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Lichley said:

You have to be "smart enough" to support the community and be open minded enough to accept your own Asexuality.

I don't think that really correlates to IQ score though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lotta_Biscotti

I feel like if there's any link, it's not between being ace and having higher aptitude. However, I do posit the following possibilities:

 

(Disclaimer and clarification: I don't think asexuals as a group, including the people who are, but don't realize they're asexual, hold different innate intelligence than other people. I do think that people who apply themselves more, and people who ask more questions, build up better skills and education, which is different, but related to intelligence, and I think they do this with equal aptitude for improvement.)

 

1) That people who identify (read: not are, but come to a conclusion) as ace are more likely to have higher intrapersonal intelligence as awareness (a sense of discerning about the self, self-reflection). I suggest this because a lot of ace people seem to grow up going "huh, what's wrong with me" or thinking that they haven't found the right person, and because other people feed them these same assumptions; so while asexuality is something that is -not- widely recognized or embraced, it takes a certain level of self-awareness and reflection to ask yourself if there is a secret 'none of the above' option, and determine that it is you. Especially if you've had your family, peers, and figures of authority grind into you that you -are- something, you get some XP for shaking off the illusion. Even people who have 'known' they're ace for a long time might find their inner voice lost in the noise of everything else. Questions tend to lead to more questions, and sometimes answers; so I'd guess that people who come to identify as ace spend more time getting to know themselves, compared to people who've always assumed. But you could say similar of some other folks! Basically, the people who put the science of their minds together, who go through the testing, and find it important enough to draw a conclusion, are just going to have more questioning experience than someone who doesn't question themselves. This doesn't apply solely to sexuality. I think you can get the same benefit by questioning any number of deep assumptions you may have. That's just an exercise in mental fitness (though not indicative of growth).

 

2) That people who identify as ace are much more likely to spend time on hobbies, skills, and other personal interests, providing more time-opportunity to be educated. They may be less distracted in school as well. Basically, all that time you don't spend dating or whatever is being poured into something. You don't just go home and stare at the wall for three hours. However, there's nothing to say that someone can't be ace and just have hobbies that are either mindless or don't provide any mental challenge. On the other hand, if your hobby or interest is the equivalent of going to a mental gym of some kind, and you have more free nights, or less time spent pining over other people... Sure, that's more hours invested. Who's going to seem more intelligent: the person who's decently good at problem-solving, but only donates one hour a week to it, or the person who is just average, but spends a night a week on it? That said, nothing prevents allo people from investing the same amount of time as anyone ace; it's just a matter of focus, dedication, and interest.

 

That's my two cents, anyway. Just thoughts. Would love to see studies.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of want to take the time to clarify my previous answer. It reads short and irritable, but that wasn't really what I was going for. 

 

Intelligence has a pretty weak operational definition. In psychology, particularly, it's hard to nail down specific skills and traits that make up qualities we sort of take for granted. Like, what's "empathy"? We've got a definition for it that we can use in everyday English, but how do you measure empathy in an experiment, how do you know you're measuring empathy and not something else? In some ways, intelligence is a lot harder than empathy because, well, what does doing badly or doing well on an IQ test mean? You could argue that all it means is that they did badly or they did well.

 

If we're talking IQ tests, those can be studied for. So as an example, level of preparation might be a more relevant thing to consider than the test itself. Driven, motivated people will prepare. Those that don't particularly care about the test (ex. those who were forced to take it rather than electing to do so themselves) will be less inclined to pour time into something they don't value. There are a lot of possible factors beyond the IQ test that a researcher would have to look at and consider. Not to mention that there are a lot of socioeconomic factors that go into IQ test results that would have to be looked into before any scientist worth their salt could try to suggest any causalities. 

 

So the reason I shut down the possibility of a correlation so rudely is because:

 

1) You initially said intelligence, not IQ test, and I've already put forward why that's hard to measure and operationally define. There's a plethora of data on IQ tests across gender, race, etc., and none of those empirical articles are going to say in the conclusion that one group is "more (innately) intelligent" than the other. Correlations might be found, but finding the reason behind a correlation is far more important. It's also much, much harder to do. Any clown can find a correlation. 

 

2) People take a view of intelligence that's limited. I get the impression some people here think an intelligent person must be perpetually logical, cold, and socially distant... these are just stereotypes.

 

3) There could well be a correlation between asexuality and IQ scores - it may show asexuals get lower IQ scores! Nobody knows, no good data.  But it will likely not be because of asexuality. Correlations on their own are kind of useless, so I assumed in my original post the real question you were getting at is "is there a link?".

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remembered we had a similar conversation before and also a poll with ranges of this community's IQs and somehow I managed to find it. Keep in mind it's now closed and takes into account only those members who voted there back then (Still, there were over 200 votes, I believe); here's the link.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 6:06 AM, Lotta_Biscotti said:

2) That people who identify as ace are much more likely to spend time on hobbies, skills, and other personal interests, providing more time-opportunity to be educated. They may be less distracted in school as well. Basically, all that time you don't spend dating or whatever is being poured into something

 

That's assuming that asexuals never have relationships, or children, or have to work long hours, or spend a lot of time with friends.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lotta_Biscotti
9 hours ago, Sally said:

That's assuming that asexuals never have relationships, or children, or have to work long hours, or spend a lot of time with friends.   

Not at all. I'm saying, of the time that people would normally pour into these things, aces may be less distracted by them, may be less likely to engage. I have no data whatsoever on aces who have kids while in school and can't comment on that whatsoever, except that I'd speculate, growing up, they're prooobably not the teens getting pregnant.

 

I'd also argue that spending time doing things with friends is something that might involve hobbies, or some type of mental/interpersonal growth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

And being in a relationship doesn't do those things? 

Nope, sexuals never do anything at all except fuck every chance they get. :P

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexuality can also be a drive towards something. 

 

If I was not interested in sex, then I wouldnt write philosophy or cure cancer. I think I would just use my sparetime/energy in the sofa, playing ps4!

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MrDane said:

Sexuality can also be a drive towards something. 

 

If I was not interested in sex, then I wouldnt write philosophy or cure cancer. I think I would just use my sparetime/energy in the sofa, playing ps4!

I can see how sexuality might inform philosophy but what does it have to do with curing cancer? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, m4rble said:

I can see how sexuality might inform philosophy but what does it have to do with curing cancer? 

It has to do with “what to do when you have more time on your hands”. In theory one could be devoted to doing good deeds, but practically: not so much! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MrDane said:

It has to do with “what to do when you have more time on your hands”. In theory one could be devoted to doing good deeds, but practically: not so much! 

 

Yeah, I realize I misinterpreted your post. I see what you're saying now. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...