LAUSR

In the world of design and decision making, perfect or optimal solutions typically only work in simplified worlds. In the complex constraint-driven nature of reality, satisfactory and sufficient (satisficing) designs and decisions are the norm (Leahey, 2003; Simon, 1956). Cleary a manual produced with input from a large and diverse committee of experts and stakeholders, when committees have been characterized as ‘‘a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled’’ (Barnett Cocks, 1973), will not be perfect. Given this context, the opinions expressed here are based on the author’s 45þ years of experience, including 12 years as a practicing school psychologist, an intelligence researcher and scholar, a university professor, an author of a major intelligence test (Woodcock-Johnson IV [WJ IV]), and a frequent expert regarding the intelligence quotient (IQ) prong in intellectual disability (ID) death penalty cases following Atkins v. Virginia. This author offers opinions on whether the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) 12 edition of Intellectual Disability: Definition, Diagnosis, Classification, and Systems of Support (Schalock et al., 2021; hereafter referred to as the purple manual) provides satisficing treatment on a handful of select issues. The complex and unresolved issue of using part scores for proxies of general intelligence (g) receives the largest discussion.