4 ms·

Everyone does better at IQ tests if they repeatedly practice IQ tests. A lot of those rely on you being fast at identifying a repeating pattern but there's only

Everyone does better at IQ tests if they repeatedly practice IQ tests. A lot of those rely on you being fast at identifying a repeating pattern but there's only a finite amount of them. You can learn a few of the complex ones that are harder for you and bruteforce a sequence into fitting it, and anyone can do that.

BurningFrog 6y ago
OK, I'm sure people will have better results on their 10th test than the first. So I admit you can "game" the test somewhat, but I expect the effect to be minor, and largest for the more intelligent. If there is real data on this I'd enjoy seeing it. > You can learn a few of the complex ones that are harder for you and bruteforce a sequence into fitting it, and anyone can do that. Anyone smart can do that :)
- wahern 6y ago
  Here's an interesting randomized controlled study that shows nominal improvements when retaking the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV after 3 months and 6 months. https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/13854046.2012.659219 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/13854046.2012.659219 There's a long discussion of how significant, if at all, those improvements were, which I only quickly glanced over. Apparently practice effects are well established, at least in principle, and there are some well known analytical and examination methods (albeit contended--part of the discussion compares and contrasts them) that attempt to correct for them. People in this thread talk alot about gaming multiple-choice tests, but when I was given the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children at age 11 I mostly remember alot of pictorial and physical work (puzzles, blocks), mental arithmetic (e.g. 2, 3, 4+ digit sums), verbal memorization, and other visual and oral interaction, not much written material. And it was administered by a developmental psychologist in a 1:1 setting. I have no doubt such an examination might be susceptible to practice effects, but I'd be surprised if it were as significant as for common written examinations. In the county (state?) I went to school the gifted programs required a formal Wechsler or Stanford-Binet exam, which I gather was a far more common requirement than today. Perhaps that's too expensive of a gateway when you have legions of parents knocking down the door to get their child tested for specialized programs, or when concerned about bias--test every kid, rather than relying on teachers identifying a small number of children for additional screening and examination.

BurningFrog 6y ago

OK, I'm sure people will have better results on their 10th test than the first. So I admit you can "game" the test somewhat, but I expect the effect to be minor, and largest for the more intelligent. If there is real data on this I'd enjoy seeing it. > You can learn a few of the complex ones that are harder for you and bruteforce a sequence into fitting it, and anyone can do that. Anyone smart can do that :)

wahern 6y ago
Here's an interesting randomized controlled study that shows nominal improvements when retaking the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV after 3 months and 6 months. https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/13854046.2012.659219 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/13854046.2012.659219 There's a long discussion of how significant, if at all, those improvements were, which I only quickly glanced over. Apparently practice effects are well established, at least in principle, and there are some well known analytical and examination methods (albeit contended--part of the discussion compares and contrasts them) that attempt to correct for them. People in this thread talk alot about gaming multiple-choice tests, but when I was given the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children at age 11 I mostly remember alot of pictorial and physical work (puzzles, blocks), mental arithmetic (e.g. 2, 3, 4+ digit sums), verbal memorization, and other visual and oral interaction, not much written material. And it was administered by a developmental psychologist in a 1:1 setting. I have no doubt such an examination might be susceptible to practice effects, but I'd be surprised if it were as significant as for common written examinations. In the county (state?) I went to school the gifted programs required a formal Wechsler or Stanford-Binet exam, which I gather was a far more common requirement than today. Perhaps that's too expensive of a gateway when you have legions of parents knocking down the door to get their child tested for specialized programs, or when concerned about bias--test every kid, rather than relying on teachers identifying a small number of children for additional screening and examination.