IQ measures your potential to perform and learn in various areas. Per wikipedia, one of the standard suite of tests includes, "Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-Te

IQ measures your potential to perform and learn in various areas. Per wikipedia, one of the standard suite of tests includes, "Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-Term Retrieval, Visual-Spatial Thinking, Auditory Processing, Fluid Reasoning, Processing Speed, Short-Term Memory and Quantitative Knowledge and Reading-Writing Ability" The argument that James Flynn makes, is that your potential can increase, through your environment. That is - your IQ isn't simply a function of your genetics, but also of what you are exposed to. To put it in concrete terms - someone who worked every day, from dawn to dusk, in very manual labor - let's say cutting wood, chopping it up, and stacking it, will develop their potential for abstract thinking very differently than if they had instead gone and gotten their PHD in some abstract field like Logic. Same person, same genetics - very different IQ. What you are referring to, is closer to the "Potential for Potential" - I don't know if there is any way, or anyone who measures something like that. But I think that everyone will agree, that IQ is _not_ a measure of your "Potential for Potential" - simply a measurement of your potential - and that is malleable.