Nice study. Aside from children having varying abilities to focus at any given time, IQ tests have questions on material that is completely 100% teachable. That means a year from now, a child who did poorly can raise his or her score significantly through education.

It's not so much a test of "intelligence" as it is a test of knowledge, even the spatial logic sections to an extent.

natmar_76: It's not so much a test of "intelligence" as it is a test of knowledge, even the spatial logic sections to an extent

Completely untrue.

hitchking: Completely untrue.

Your argument has convinced me!

natmar_76: hitchking: Completely untrue.

Your argument has convinced me!

Hey, you're the one making the claim that IQ tests are just tests of knowledge. Citation needed! Until then, I remain unconvinced.

RexTalionis: A number of the most popular IQ tests used (for example, the Wechsler scale, the Stanford-Binet test, or the Woodcock-Johnson test (ha ha, I said Woodcock-Johnson)) use verbal reasoning questions as part of the test. While the questions themselves are designed to test logical reasoning, the verbal reasoning sections are necessarily dependent on knowledge of the individual.

For example, a question that asks about analogies, or a question that asks you to pick the one that doesn't belong would necessarily require knowledge (specifically vocabulary) in order to answer.

They're certainly partly dependent on knowledge. For instance, about half of the Wechsler is administered verbally. But even there, you don't really need much knowledge to answer a lot of the questions ("How are a fly and a tree alike?"). Also, the accumulation of that knowledge is itself associated with particular cognitive skills. For instance, a simple test of vocabulary size is a surprisingly good predictor of non-verbal intelligence.

And the other half of the Wechsler doesn't really test 'knowledge' in any significant way at all.

RexTalionis: Personally, I think IQ tests are bunkum and anyone who trots out his IQ (especially from a test he took when he was a child) is an attention whore and moron.

It's definitely in poor taste to trot out your IQ score, though there aren't very many people who have actually taken a supervised test.

Why would you think the tests are bunkum, though? The results are pretty highly heritable, and they correlate with educational attainment, job performance, and income.

RexTalionis: Right, assuming that your subject is a native speaker of the language. But for non-native speakers, or speakers with idiosyncratic knowledge and use of the language, they are disadvantaged.

Of course, yeah. I don't think anyone would disagree that non-native speakers are at a disadvantage on most IQ tests. They can be administered in other languages, though.

RexTalionis: I think what generally puts me off are the MENSA types - you know, the self-proclaimed super-geniuses whose contribution to humanity is sitting around doing Sodoku puzzles.

I don't think I've ever met anyone like that in real life. Not to say they don't exist, but it seems to be more of an internet forum phenomenon.

Calmamity: RexTalionis: I think IQ tests are bunkum and anyone who trots out his IQ (especially from a test he took when he was a child) is an attention whore and moron.

I totally agree.

Wow. That was vile

I'm drinking mercury out of lead cup right now so I'm really times weasel slibbbluuuuuuuuuuh.

Argh, so much fail in that article.

FTFA: Psychologists have long believed that intelligence was fixed, and parents and educators often use IQ scores to determine whether children are "gifted" or need extra help at school. But the study suggests things are a bit more complicated.

Umm, NO. Psychologists do NOT believe that intelligence is fixed, and haven't for effing decades. The incremental vs. entity theory of intelligence is at this point a well-established part of the psychology of learning. It's well known in psychology that nearly every aspect of what we call intelligence is not just variable from individual to individual but also within the individual based on practice and beliefs about how likely that practice is to be successful. In fact there are all kinds of ideas about how to promote a mastery orientation that treats intelligence as something that is flexible, skill-based and increases with practice as opposed to a performance orientation that treats intelligence as inflexible, trait-based and based in inherently unchangeable qualities - simply because people with a mastery orientation in general do better!

Yes, you have a baseline based on your biology. But it is very flexible and there is always large room for improvement, and that's mainstream psychology taught to undergrads in their intro to learning classes, not some obscure or radical fringe position in psychology!

And IQ tests in general are always related to a particular cultural context, and are a subjective measure anyhow. An IQ of 100 is always the average score for any given population group, because that is the whole point. It's the defined average and median score. When the population group as a whole gets smarter, the 'value' of an IQ of 100 goes up, because that way the intelligence distribution still fits the bell curve properly. IQ is almost useless as a means to compare the cognitive abilities of disparate cultures due to differences in language, worldview and education standards, and an IQ test is at best a snapshot of some of the cognitive reasoning abilities of a given person at a given time, which does not account for any changes in cognitive ability, either past or current.

Fark, reading stuff like this just pisses me off.

Calmamity: RexTalionis: I think IQ tests are bunkum and anyone who trots out his IQ (especially from a test he took when he was a child) is an attention whore and moron.

I totally agree.

From Lord Zorch's profile:

48-year old engineer, karate black belt and scuba diver. Married, despise kids...

I, for one, would like to thank you for not taking a dump in the gene pool by reproducing yourself.

I've always thought that people who complain about the inaccuracy of IQ tests are probably people who tend to score poorly.

I took an IQ test once.

I failed.

32oz High Life: I've always thought that people who complain about the inaccuracy of IQ tests are probably people who tend to score poorly.

IQ tests have that in common with the SAT.

all the good names are gone: I thought Tea Baggers had universally low scores...

Let's not exaggerate and call what you're doing, "thinking".

NetOwl: 32oz High Life: I've always thought that people who complain about the inaccuracy of IQ tests are probably people who tend to score poorly.

IQ tests have that in common with the SAT.

Similar to how it's usually fatties decrying the worthlessness of the BMI scale.

I scored very highly on an IQ test as a child (they were actually trying to figure out if I had ADHD), but I personally feel that my IQ has gone downhill. I once felt like it was possible to know everything, but now the amount of knowledge that it is possible to have seems out of my grasp. I figure that I'm either losing it, or I'm experiencing the Socrates effect. The wise man knows that his knowledge is finite in an infinite world.

RexTalionis:
IQ, in my opinion, is only an indication of potential, which, for many high IQ people, they never fully realize. I think what generally puts me off are the MENSA types - you know, the self-proclaimed super-geniuses whose contribution to humanity is sitting around doing Sodoku puzzles. A genius who never use his potential for anything useful is no different to me than a guy who had the misfortune of being born with some sort of debilitating mental retardation.

Well, MENSA is more of a scam preying on ego than a real organization. It exists solely so that members can say they're in it (and donate/pay dues, obviously), it has no actual purpose. I mean, it serves a valuable role as a demonstration that being smart doesn't make you immune to being tricked into money-making schemes, but beyond that it's basically a less-aggressive version of what scientology is to charismatic people.

That's not to say it's evil or anything, it's a fairly low-grade scam on par with the old "Who's Who" trick and some groups manage to turn it into a kind of nerd social club, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Still a scam preying on an ego-shaped hole in human psychology, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a point at which higher IQ no longer correlates to higher levels of "real world success"? (However that's defined - I can't even find the paper/article I'm thinking about after all...)

Point being, up until an IQ of 115-120 or so, one's IQ does reasonably well at predicting success but has little predictive power beyond that?

This was a study of 33 children.

One fifth of which had a significant change in their IQ level.

yes i totally trust this study don't you too i can't think of a single thing that could be an issue

Jim_Callahan: That's not to say it's evil or anything, it's a fairly low-grade scam on par with the old "Who's Who" trick and some groups manage to turn it into a kind of nerd social club, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

?

It's a non-profit organization.

RexTalionis: hitchking: Jim_Callahan: That's not to say it's evil or anything, it's a fairly low-grade scam on par with the old "Who's Who" trick and some groups manage to turn it into a kind of nerd social club, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

?

It's a non-profit organization.

Just because something is a non-profit doesn't mean it's not making money for somebody.

Okay, fair enough, so who is it making money for? Is there any evidence of this?

I'm not saying there isn't, but I'm not aware of any.

The liberals have been using IQ tests for 35 years to change what used to be a world class education. Secularism and academia have destroyed public schools and have forced parents into both paying for everyone else's children to go to school as well as having to pay for a private education just to learn something of value.

RandomExcess: The liberals have been using IQ tests for 35 years to change what used to be a world class education. Secularism and academia have destroyed public schools and have forced parents into both paying for everyone else's children to go to school as well as having to pay for a private education just to learn something of value.

Those damn liberals. You just never know what they're going to do next.

Something just doesn't smell right with this study. What is more likely, that there is high variability of IQ scores within individuals, but no one has stumbled upon it yet despite a mountain of research on the subject, or, that these results, based on just 33 people, is unusual and outside the norm? As much as those with pedestrian IQ scores would like to believe it is the former, it has to be the latter. EIther the researchers pulled a quirky sample, which is possible with such a small n, or they somehow farked up when measuring IQ. It takes great skill and considerable training to proplerly administer one of those tests. What if they had two different individuals administering the tests at the two times, where one tended to be lenient, unconscioulsy giving clues, while the other was a hardass that wouldn't give any benefit of the doubt to the test taker.

RexTalionis: MENSA types - you know, the self-proclaimed super-geniuses whose contribution to humanity is sitting around doing Sodoku puzzles

Really, been a member for 30 years and never met one of these. It's a social club, nothing more.

Triple-9 is where the genius starts. member of that, too.

jso2897: Amazing, isn't it? IQ tests designed by successful, upwardly mobile, affluent, educated white people tend to indicate that those are the smartest people!
Amaaaaaazing!
How well do you think you'd do on an intelligence test designed by a Kalihari Bushman?
Assuming you even survived it?

Hmmm... so you are agreeing that IQ tests have real-world validity in first world countries, but that they were designed that way simply as an ego boost for psychologists?

Or are you saying that because people living in extremely different cultures would design a different test, the idea of usefully measuring any kind of cognitive aptitude is impossible?

I really don't get this hatred of the very idea of IQ tests, especially because it's usually based on such obviously silly arguments.

iq measures a type of intelligence

It's called 'U-Shaped Learning'
Link (new window)

/dnrtfa

natmar_76: Nice study. Aside from children having varying abilities to focus at any given time, IQ tests have questions on material that is completely 100% teachable. That means a year from now, a child who did poorly can raise his or her score significantly through education.

It's not so much a test of "intelligence" as it is a test of knowledge, even the spatial logic sections to an extent.

Bullshiat, my wife will never know her way around town without the GPS

Anyone who has dealt with a teenager (especially boys) knows they are completely brain damaged.

Ask a teenage boy any question and you'll recognize this simple fact:

Q. What is the capital of Italy?
A. Boobies

Q. How do you calculate the area of a circle?
A. Boobies

Noticing a trend?
Boobies

FunkOut: I remember they gave a group of us a lot of tests in elementary school. There was talk of skipping some of us ahead or giving special classes but nothing came of it. Strangely, the testing said we all were quite clever but one of the kids still ate glue and the rest still had trouble getting 100% on a spelling test. And I spent the rest of elementary school reading novels meant for adults while putting in very little effort.

Advanced programs in elementary school are a joke. The sole reason I was put in one in 6th grade was because I got into a fight on the playground (I apparently used big words when I had to explain to the principal explained how the fight started. But come on, my dad is a lawyer and mom is a librarian).

Anyway, my honors and AP courses in middle/high school were of value but I seem to remember the elementary version was some sort of self-guided study thing (or the teacher was spectacularly lazy). Dude. I was 11. I spent the semester playing with toys or drawing.

My first born started talking in complete sentences around the age of one and was reading starter chapter books around 2-3. I didn't have to teach him much about reading, I really believe he was born with the understanding of language and I wished I knew more than English to have broadened his horizons at the time his mind was growing.

When he was taking his tests around age 3 (I forget what they are called) the instructor had to remember to cover her answers because she knew he could also read upside down.

His IQ scores in 1st grade were around 156

The problem is now that his ADD has started to take over and it's becoming harder and harder for him to learn stuff. I really hope he didn't bloom that early.

/his 3 year old brother is now reading simple books on his own