<p>Being twice-exceptional (2e) myself I can tell you what I know. As another reply indicated the appearance of "slowness" is an effect of the observer's perception. This is true because of a fundamental difference with the mental processing techniques adopted by twice exceptional, gifted people and people described by the autism spectrum. </p>

<p>For most people mental processing inclinations involve a bottom-up orientation, which is like stacking Lego blocks to build up coherent thought. While 2e people, and their like, are inclined towards a top-down mental processing orientation. </p>

<p>Bottom-up processing is immediately productive because each block added builds the resulting product. Top-down processing is not particularly productive because it doesn't really make things--instead organizes things logically so results are arrived by removing irrelevant or senseless aspects of structural relationships (basically reclassifying info sets towards task relevancy, i.e., grouping and ordering things). (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543213" rel="nofollow">Catron &amp; Wingenbach, 1986</a>)</p>

<p>So basically 2e kids design systems when needing to produce results. Mainstream western culture places greater value on products (visual materiality) than processes (incremental materiality) in terms successful activity, particularly since we are addicted to immediate gratification. Therefore our value system allows the appearance of "doing nothing", thus organizing information for systemic comprehension is not valued do to its lack of visual materiality (you can not see it) which is attributed to being unproductive or slow. </p>

<p>Furthermore, to specifically answer your question: 
A high IQ does not specifically indicate lightning fast thinking abilities; instead it shows a person's aptitude. The tests original intention was not to sort people by levels of intelligence but instead identify those who are generally less informed than their age peers. The association  is referred to as aptitude which can be described as their intellectual attitude or their inclinations towards being apt to learn (apt-attitude, aptitude). Speedy thinking is in this way an accidental symptom.</p>

<p><sub>
Catron, Rena M., and Nancy Wingenbach. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543213" rel="nofollow">"Developing the potential of the gifted reader."</a> Theory into Practice 25.2 (1986): 134-140. [<a href="http://idmforgifted.pbworks.com/f/DevelopingGT%2BRdrPotential.pdf" rel="nofollow">PDF</a>]
</sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-30T19:24:48.260Z
Welcome to Cognitive Sciences SE and thanks for your answer. It would be great if you could add some references!
huh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-01T07:48:19.540Z
@huh if you would describe where your confusion lies I will gladly clarify my position
user3302435
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-01T10:03:12.700Z
– there isn't any confusion about your position or your writing. I was only asking if you could maybe give references to the scientific literature for some of the facts you're giving.
huh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-08T06:11:00.990Z
Thank you for the literature on the top-down processing. Do you also have one to back up your remark on differences between 2e, gifted and autism? If such a direct comparison does not exist, could you explain some more about the three separately with some literature?
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-08T11:56:50.610Z
@RobinKramer I'm not trying to differentiate the three, instead relate them since giftedness resembles autism in many idiosyncratic ways which at times appear to overlap enough that many are incline the place giftedness on the autistic spectrum often using asbergers or 2e as a working model, theses papers do a better job at it then me --> http://www2.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/pdfs/pip.pdf , https://www.potentialplusuk.org/file_upload/factsheets/671P64%20Autism%20and%20Giftedness.pdf
user3302435
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-08T12:33:44.083Z
Sorry my bad. I read the sentence a little different. Thank you for the references though, I've upvoted your answer now. You could also edit the references in your post btw :)
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-30T16:53:49.597Z
2016-08-01T01:05:33.500Z
2016-08-01T01:05:33.500Z
user3302435
<p>How come some twice exceptional children (i.e., intellectually gifted children who have some form of disability) have high iq, but low processing speed? Isn't processing speed a factor of intelligence? If not, why do iq tests have a time limit?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-30T17:35:56.117Z
Can you give us any references about what you mean by twice exceptional children?
Krysta
<cognitive-psychology><intelligence><iq>
Relationship between processing speed and IQ in twice exceptional children
user281270
# Relationship between processing speed and IQ in twice exceptional children

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-11-06)

How come some twice exceptional children (i.e., intellectually gifted children who have some form of disability) have high iq, but low processing speed? Isn't processing speed a factor of intelligence? If not, why do iq tests have a time limit?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, intelligence, iq

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you give us any references about what you mean by twice exceptional children?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-06-30. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Being twice-exceptional (2e) myself I can tell you what I know. As another reply indicated the appearance of "slowness" is an effect of the observer's perception. This is true because of a fundamental difference with the mental processing techniques adopted by twice exceptional, gifted people and people described by the autism spectrum.

For most people mental processing inclinations involve a bottom-up orientation, which is like stacking Lego blocks to build up coherent thought. While 2e people, and their like, are inclined towards a top-down mental processing orientation.

Bottom-up processing is immediately productive because each block added builds the resulting product. Top-down processing is not particularly productive because it doesn't really make things--instead organizes things logically so results are arrived by removing irrelevant or senseless aspects of structural relationships (basically reclassifying info sets towards task relevancy, i.e., grouping and ordering things). ([Catron & Wingenbach, 1986](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543213))

So basically 2e kids design systems when needing to produce results. Mainstream western culture places greater value on products (visual materiality) than processes (incremental materiality) in terms successful activity, particularly since we are addicted to immediate gratification. Therefore our value system allows the appearance of "doing nothing", thus organizing information for systemic comprehension is not valued do to its lack of visual materiality (you can not see it) which is attributed to being unproductive or slow.

Furthermore, to specifically answer your question:
A high IQ does not specifically indicate lightning fast thinking abilities; instead it shows a person's aptitude. The tests original intention was not to sort people by levels of intelligence but instead identify those who are generally less informed than their age peers. The association is referred to as aptitude which can be described as their intellectual attitude or their inclinations towards being apt to learn (apt-attitude, aptitude). Speedy thinking is in this way an accidental symptom.

Catron, Rena M., and Nancy Wingenbach. ["Developing the potential of the gifted reader."](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543213) Theory into Practice 25.2 (1986): 134-140. [[PDF](http://idmforgifted.pbworks.com/f/DevelopingGT%2BRdrPotential.pdf)]

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Welcome to Cognitive Sciences SE and thanks for your answer. It would be great if you could add some references!  
> **username_2**: @username_3 if you would describe where your confusion lies I will gladly clarify my position  
> **username_3**: – there isn't any confusion about your position or your writing. I was only asking if you could maybe give references to the scientific literature for some of the facts you're giving.  
> **username_4**: Thank you for the literature on the top-down processing. Do you also have one to back up your remark on differences between 2e, gifted and autism? If such a direct comparison does not exist, could you explain some more about the three separately with some literature?  
> **username_2**: @RobinKramer I'm not trying to differentiate the three, instead relate them since giftedness resembles autism in many idiosyncratic ways which at times appear to overlap enough that many are incline the place giftedness on the autistic spectrum often using asbergers or 2e as a working model, theses papers do a better job at it then me --> http://www2.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/pdfs/pip.pdf , https://www.potentialplusuk.org/file_upload/factsheets/671P64%20Autism%20and%20Giftedness.pdf  
> **username_4**: Sorry my bad. I read the sentence a little different. Thank you for the references though, I've upvoted your answer now. You could also edit the references in your post btw :)  

---

