14 ms·

It is very hard to increase your own IQ score meaningfully by prepping to the test. That is why its a good measure.

by cm2012 11mo ago

lern_too_spel 11mo ago
On the contrary, it is so easy to increase your IQ score by prepping that test administrators ask the test takers not to do it because it invalidates the results.
goku12 11mo ago
The area where I see IQ failing miserably is in accounting for different types of intelligences. Like the parent commenter said, people solve the same problem differently. I'm keenly aware of this because I'm neurodivergent and I was continuously judged as poor in subjects that I liked the most and was very good at. I had to reformulate every problem and solution in a way that I understood (mostly based on spatial intelligence), leaving me at a significant disadvantage of time. And even then, those solutions were sometimes rejected, despite being objectively correct and clear in the dumbest possible way - just because it didn't follow the textbook pattern. That continued until we were in a situation where we had to solve the problems ourselves. The reason I mention this is because I see the exact same problem with IQ tests. It emphasizes certain types of intelligences and ignores others. Human intelligence is extremely multidimensional and a single number is simply incapable of representing its overall quality. For example, there are people who score poorly in IQ, but are superhuman in remembering places and navigating their way around complex routes. Meanwhile, many high scoring ones become hopelessly lost, failing to institute or follow even simple mitigation strategies for that problem. There are situations where this determines whether you live or die, and your IQ score becomes worthless indicator of even your survival.
- theragra 11mo ago
  Afaik iq correlates highly with g-factor (scientific name for general intelligence). We don't have much better ways to measure it. Overall, afaik, again, problem solving often needed in our society correlates with this: "general intelligence". When people say: "But there are many ways to approach a problem, many types of intelligence". This very well may be, but data consistently shows that people having high IQ scores solve different problems better. So, contrary to popular belief, people having higher iq in general have better talent for languages, same with understanding others emotions and using it to your advantage ("emotional intelligence"). As for reframing an issue and solving it in a different way. This may be valid approach (to teach people etc). But IQ is also time-measured. If your new approach does not help you to solve previously unseen problems quickly, it is not noticably increase your intelligence. Thus, we see consistently that people cannot really prepare for iq tests much. You only get a few points more if you prepare. Same difference as if you are sleep-deprived.
  - tptacek 11mo ago
    G isn't so much the "scientific name for general intelligence" so much as one explanation for the positive manifold of intelligence. There are others: mutualism and sampling. I'm not sure you're right about the trainability of tests, either.
- naasking 11mo ago
  > The area where I see IQ failing miserably is in accounting for different types of intelligences. We don't have any real evidence of "different types of intelligences". People with high IQ just tend to be better at all cognitive tasks than people with lower IQ. That's why it's considered a reasonably good measure of the g factor. People with higher IQ also have better memory recall. While you're right that that IQ isn't the full story of a person's abilities, it's use for diagnosing people that may face challenges in a traditional learning environment well motivated. All of the examples you mention of people scoring poorly on IQ and facing challenges in school supports the use of IQ, it doesn't discount it.
  - goku12 11mo ago
    > We don't have any real evidence of "different types of intelligences". People with high IQ just tend to be better at all cognitive tasks than people with lower IQ. That would imply that a person with a high IQ score is uniformly better at every task compared to a person of lower IQ. But that's absolutely not what's observed. People show better skill levels at different tasks. A person who's bad at math may instead be a natural-born singing sensation. This is why I said that a single number is just incapable of representing intelligence. The mathematical dimensionality of the quantity called intelligence is just too high. You'll need a bunch of numbers - a vector, at the minimum. And even that can't be used for comparing people's intelligence. It can only be used for assessing someone's suitability for a particular task. Basically, IQ score is a scalar that is used to represent a vector, discarding very important information in the process. > People with higher IQ also have better memory recall. There are people who recite entire Shakespeare plays without understanding a sentence in it. I have also seen people who recall long derivation sequences using Maxwell's equations exactly and score well on exams, without having any clue as to what the del (∇) operator even means in practice. Needless to say, they have difficulty adapting that information to a novel situation. Memory recall is just one aspect of intelligence. There are other cognitive skills required to make that memory useful. This again goes back to my previous conclusion. A single number is quite meaningless at best and utterly misleading at worst. > it's use for diagnosing people that may face challenges in a traditional learning environment well motivated. All of the examples you mention of people scoring poorly on IQ and facing challenges in school supports the use of IQ, it doesn't discount it. On the contrary, it just misleads the educators to the student's real abilities. It ignores and hides the atypical talents that students possess. All it can do is to predict if the student will do well or not in generalized education and standardized testing, because they follow the equally illogical concept of using standardized pedagogy on everyone, neglecting their uniqueness. So, even if we accept your claim that the IQ score predicts their performance in schools, it means that the score has the very narrow scope of testing someone's capability to learn under a standardized curriculum. That's far too narrow to be identified as an indicator of intelligence. And even after identifying the students who are going to struggle, IQ gives no clue as to how to remedy that. All it does is put a dunce label on these students who might otherwise have done better. It does more harm than good.
notepad0x90 11mo ago
even if you prepped since you were 5 years old? and what if you're unprepared, will the decrease be significant? I mean of course, even with weight lifting, you can't prepare even a year in advance and show a significant difference over professional competitors. But people do peak. Are you saying Einstien's IQ would be the same if he was tested at 50 yo, and he was working in the coal mines in virginia his since 5 yo? If so, that's indeed enlightening, I'd love to see any research that backs up that claim.
zipy124 11mo ago
This just isn't true. It's definitely possible to train for them if you want.

It is very hard to increase your own IQ score meaningfully by prepping to the test. That is why its a good measure.

by cm2012 11mo ago

It is very hard to increase your own IQ score meaningfully by prepping to the test. That is why its a good measure.

On the contrary, it is so easy to increase your IQ score by prepping that test administrators ask the test takers not to do it because it invalidates the results.

goku12 11mo ago

The area where I see IQ failing miserably is in accounting for different types of intelligences. Like the parent commenter said, people solve the same problem differently. I'm keenly aware of this because I'm neurodivergent and I was continuously judged as poor in subjects that I liked the most and was very good at. I had to reformulate every problem and solution in a way that I understood (mostly based on spatial intelligence), leaving me at a significant disadvantage of time. And even then, those solutions were sometimes rejected, despite being objectively correct and clear in the dumbest possible way - just because it didn't follow the textbook pattern. That continued until we were in a situation where we had to solve the problems ourselves. The reason I mention this is because I see the exact same problem with IQ tests. It emphasizes certain types of intelligences and ignores others. Human intelligence is extremely multidimensional and a single number is simply incapable of representing its overall quality. For example, there are people who score poorly in IQ, but are superhuman in remembering places and navigating their way around complex routes. Meanwhile, many high scoring ones become hopelessly lost, failing to institute or follow even simple mitigation strategies for that problem. There are situations where this determines whether you live or die, and your IQ score becomes worthless indicator of even your survival.

theragra 11mo ago
Afaik iq correlates highly with g-factor (scientific name for general intelligence). We don't have much better ways to measure it. Overall, afaik, again, problem solving often needed in our society correlates with this: "general intelligence". When people say: "But there are many ways to approach a problem, many types of intelligence". This very well may be, but data consistently shows that people having high IQ scores solve different problems better. So, contrary to popular belief, people having higher iq in general have better talent for languages, same with understanding others emotions and using it to your advantage ("emotional intelligence"). As for reframing an issue and solving it in a different way. This may be valid approach (to teach people etc). But IQ is also time-measured. If your new approach does not help you to solve previously unseen problems quickly, it is not noticably increase your intelligence. Thus, we see consistently that people cannot really prepare for iq tests much. You only get a few points more if you prepare. Same difference as if you are sleep-deprived.
- tptacek 11mo ago
  G isn't so much the "scientific name for general intelligence" so much as one explanation for the positive manifold of intelligence. There are others: mutualism and sampling. I'm not sure you're right about the trainability of tests, either.
naasking 11mo ago
> The area where I see IQ failing miserably is in accounting for different types of intelligences. We don't have any real evidence of "different types of intelligences". People with high IQ just tend to be better at all cognitive tasks than people with lower IQ. That's why it's considered a reasonably good measure of the g factor. People with higher IQ also have better memory recall. While you're right that that IQ isn't the full story of a person's abilities, it's use for diagnosing people that may face challenges in a traditional learning environment well motivated. All of the examples you mention of people scoring poorly on IQ and facing challenges in school supports the use of IQ, it doesn't discount it.
- goku12 11mo ago
  > We don't have any real evidence of "different types of intelligences". People with high IQ just tend to be better at all cognitive tasks than people with lower IQ. That would imply that a person with a high IQ score is uniformly better at every task compared to a person of lower IQ. But that's absolutely not what's observed. People show better skill levels at different tasks. A person who's bad at math may instead be a natural-born singing sensation. This is why I said that a single number is just incapable of representing intelligence. The mathematical dimensionality of the quantity called intelligence is just too high. You'll need a bunch of numbers - a vector, at the minimum. And even that can't be used for comparing people's intelligence. It can only be used for assessing someone's suitability for a particular task. Basically, IQ score is a scalar that is used to represent a vector, discarding very important information in the process. > People with higher IQ also have better memory recall. There are people who recite entire Shakespeare plays without understanding a sentence in it. I have also seen people who recall long derivation sequences using Maxwell's equations exactly and score well on exams, without having any clue as to what the del (∇) operator even means in practice. Needless to say, they have difficulty adapting that information to a novel situation. Memory recall is just one aspect of intelligence. There are other cognitive skills required to make that memory useful. This again goes back to my previous conclusion. A single number is quite meaningless at best and utterly misleading at worst. > it's use for diagnosing people that may face challenges in a traditional learning environment well motivated. All of the examples you mention of people scoring poorly on IQ and facing challenges in school supports the use of IQ, it doesn't discount it. On the contrary, it just misleads the educators to the student's real abilities. It ignores and hides the atypical talents that students possess. All it can do is to predict if the student will do well or not in generalized education and standardized testing, because they follow the equally illogical concept of using standardized pedagogy on everyone, neglecting their uniqueness. So, even if we accept your claim that the IQ score predicts their performance in schools, it means that the score has the very narrow scope of testing someone's capability to learn under a standardized curriculum. That's far too narrow to be identified as an indicator of intelligence. And even after identifying the students who are going to struggle, IQ gives no clue as to how to remedy that. All it does is put a dunce label on these students who might otherwise have done better. It does more harm than good.

notepad0x90 11mo ago

even if you prepped since you were 5 years old? and what if you're unprepared, will the decrease be significant? I mean of course, even with weight lifting, you can't prepare even a year in advance and show a significant difference over professional competitors. But people do peak. Are you saying Einstien's IQ would be the same if he was tested at 50 yo, and he was working in the coal mines in virginia his since 5 yo? If so, that's indeed enlightening, I'd love to see any research that backs up that claim.

zipy124 11mo ago

This just isn't true. It's definitely possible to train for them if you want.