2 ms·

>Anyway, if there was such a unique quantity, actual data shows a progression of IQ scores in time - therefore if the tests are considered accurate and unbiased

>Anyway, if there was such a unique quantity, actual data shows a progression of IQ scores in time - therefore if the tests are considered accurate and unbiased, it must be a "quantity" that can evolve based on the society a person lives it. It should then be considered not as a value, but as a function depending on a variable called society. Seriously? Couldn't it just be the subjects getting used to the tests? That's not the point though. It doesn't mean subjects are getting smarter. It just means they are learning, which is natural. However if we have two subjects and subject A gets 115 IQ points the first time while subject B gets 104, 111, 113, 115 IQ points after four consecutive test respectively, it's clear that subject A is superior intellectually in that they can achieve more in less time.

guylhem 14y ago
That's not exactly the idea. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect Maybe a full society is getting used to the tests, or maybe the tests are biased. Even with you example (considering repetitive test at the same time on 2 person from the same society), it could show many things: a) that the measurement is flawed b) that you should retest A to see if he also get better scores c) failing that, A has a fixed IQ score while B can improve d) if A improves too what's the limit? Finally, "it's clear that subject A is superior intellectually " - even if B would get say 120 on its final test while A ends with 118??