I figure I’ll probably reference this later, which makes no sense if nobody here can read it. Plus, this will remind me to do the parts about integration of major lobes.
Most of what we call IQ in the modern day sits in the frontal lobe as verbal IQ: a combination of nuance in literal communication (that is, fluidity of associative recall with respect to words in reading, writing, listening, and speaking), and executive function. Think of these as two parts of a whole- the executive function is like the logical breadboard and the “literalism” bit is the sensors and actuators which interpret incoming signals into “meaning” and transform “meanings” from the breadboard into words that seem likely to communicate the correct idea to another person (according to shared associations- “Holocaust” has denotative association “German genocide of Jews, etc., circa 1940-1945” and various connotative associations like “bad”, “immoral”, “hate”, mental pictures of boxcars from shared education system, etc.).
Now it is hopefully obvious why I have begun to describe measured 130 IQ as the ballpark lowest value for “the ability to understand and follow directions”. Without strong function in the ability to read, understand, and follow the directions of an IQ test, the probability that someone will score above 130 is virtually nil and practically negligible. This is even more true if the test is timed, because all else being equal someone who can quickly read and understand a nonverbal test item will have longer to complete it and make fewer mistakes due to reading comprehension errors, and therefore score higher on the nonverbal portions.
This must be distinguished from nonverbal communication, which requires common instinctual responses. Aspies excel at literal communication from an early age and, contrary to popular conception, have excellent associative faculties in the frontal lobe for communicating nuance via connotative associations. But many such connotative associations are formed with respect to instinctive responses, and if these responses are different then the association will not be shared. An NT might see this picture and feel a positive response:
In fact, we have to assume the instinctive NT response is positive because if the instincts agreed with the verbal consensus (“dreadful behavior!”) these shock culture folks wouldn’t be making so much money. So even though we hear people lamenting this behavior, the fact that it sells implies that people want to see this sort of thing. (I would guess that, given plausible deniability, they would also emulate this behavior because these pop icons are considered “successful” and people emulate behaviors of perceived successful people. But that is speculation because I am very different from most people and therefore cannot trust my emotional projections.)
So in practice we have aspies and NTs verbally agreeing that the behavior of pop stars is reprehensible, but aspies are stating their instinctive response to the behavior whereas NTs are misrepresenting their true feelings in order to avoid social stigma. This happens often enough that an effective cultural divide is created between the connotations favored by aspies and those favored by NTs. It is readily observed that STEM folks have predictable tastes in entertainment: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. Whereas NTs consider these particular things as niche.
Everything for which NTs lack an instictive response, like STEM subjects, aspies find understandable because they are using the same vocabulary as everyone else. But every subject for which NTs have instinctive interest, and therefore different connotations, will be couched in terms that mean different things to the two sets of people. It just so happens that NTs care a great deal about how people behave. Thus after a while, aspies will tend to conclude that “people just don’t make sense”. It is because NTs seem to approach the subject senselessly. This belief is a local maximum in terms of adaptiveness because it is simple, socially acceptable, and generally doesn’t cause unbearable trouble; most aspies get stuck here. But people do make sense- it’s just harder if you’re taking NTs according to what they say, as you understand it.
Hence the “red pill” movement of “realtalkers” like Roissy. These people are simply talking about people science in terms that aspies can understand.