What does IDIOT really mean?

[tjack]

I've just been informed that one of my ancestors 'appeared' in a Census for 1881 as follows....
JACKSON, Robert Lodger Married (M) 39 1812 Labourer: Idiot - Upwell (Cambs)
Civil Parish: West Rudham Municipal Borough: Address: Dukes Head, Lynn Road, West Rudham County:Norfolk
Piece: 1827 Folio: 582 Page: 10 Registration District: Docking
If he just happened to be working away from home, because his name was absent from the family home census return for 1881, why would he be classed as IDIOT? Is it because he was thought to be by the POWELL Family under who's roof he resided or was it a popular word to use back then?
Any (constructive) comments welcome. tjack.

[GR2]

It was a technical term, now obsolete. That column in the census allows you to enter lunatic, imbecile or idiot. An idiot was supposed to have an IQ of under 20. An imbecile had a greater IQ, but was considered incapable of managing his own affairs. None of these terms would be used nowadays, and I'm sure  very little robust science went into the decision making process then.

Graham.

[Gadget]

It was a technical term, now obsolete. That column in the census allows you to enter lunatic, imbecile or idiot. An idiot was supposed to have an IQ of under 20. An imbecile had a greater IQ, but was considered incapable of managing his own affairs. None of these terms would be used nowadays, and I'm sure  very little robust science went into the decision making process then.

Graham.

Hi Graham 

Not sure that  IQ was used in the definition as the the concept/tests weren't developed until the early 1900s

http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/intelligence.htm

and ,specifically:

http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/int-history.htm


gnu

[nanny jan]

Hi,

Can't see Robert in 1881 but there is a Robert Jackson at that address in 1851; not sure what is written in the final column but not sure that he is an "idiot".      


HO107   1827   582   10



Nanny Jan

[tjack]

Thanks nanny jan,
Entirely my fault I did mean to say 1851 not 1881.
You clearly have 'access' to something I don't when you refer to the 'final column'.  Would you (or another person) look further at this column and speculate on what is written if it isn't idiot please? Could be worse I suppose.Ha!Ha! Await any further input. tjack.

[sillgen]

So glad that someone realised it was not 1881.  I was starting to worry as I simply could not find him!
I am sure it does not say idiot - the person two down has the same remark.   Not sure what it is though.
Andrea

[danuslave]

Thanks nanny jan,
Entirely my fault I did mean to say 1851 not 1881.
You clearly have 'access' to something I don't when you refer to the 'final column'.  Would you (or another person) look further at this column and speculate on what is written if it isn't idiot please? Could be worse I suppose.Ha!Ha! Await any further input. tjack.

Hi tjack

When you look up a person on the census records you get transcribed data plus the option to look at the original image.  It's this image that shows the column mentioned in previous posts (after place of birth)

Added - and no, I can't read it either!

[stanmapstone]

This subject has been covered many times on RootsChat. These are the entries in the RootsChat Lexicon
Idiot / Imbecile / Lunatic / Feeble Mind   
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,124975.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,127137.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,213471.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,234610.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,252923.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,292500.0.html


Stan

[Spidermonkey]

A small note, but in the 1851 census, the final column is actually querying whether a person is deaf, dumb or blind.


And, no, I can't work out what it says either