

New evidence that IQ is not set in stone - cwan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/26/scitech/main20057536.shtml

======
Locke1689
The actual PNAS article[1]. Worth a read.

[1]
[http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/Role%20of%20test%2...](http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/Role%20of%20test%20motivation%20in%20intelligence%20testing.full.pdf)

------
Jach
Interesting paper (even if it has gratuitous references), perhaps a suggestion
to make IQ tests higher-stakes without changing the tests is to make the
results publicly announced in front of a peer group.

Nevertheless IQ isn't useless and I'm still skeptical that the underlying
g-factor, crystallized intelligence, and fluid intelligence can be changed
very much--N-back training is always fun to read about. To quote Dr. Rob:
"There are countless criticisms of I.Q. testing, some valid and some asinine,
and it’s more important to think of I.Q. as a scoring range rather than a
specific number. That said, few could reasonably argue against the notion that
a score of 51 suggests severe intellectual impairment."
<http://shrinktalk.net/?p=515>

~~~
xiaoma
> _Nevertheless IQ isn't useless and I'm still skeptical that the underlying
> g-factor, crystallized intelligence, and fluid intelligence can be changed
> very much_

Haven't you ever seen video of a former professional boxer who didn't retire
soon enough? Or met a chronic alcoholic? Fluid intelligence can definitely be
changed. It's just a lot easier to do harm than good.

~~~
Jach
Touché. I'll just pretend I said "changed upward". ;)

~~~
xiaoma
Actually there are a few things that have a measurable upward effect. One of
the better documented ones is running an hour a day. Not only does it show
measurable improvements on intelligence tests (for both rats and humans!), but
it increases the rate of neurogenesis. Slightly less certain, but still very
compelling is the research related to taking up a musical instrument as a
child. I'm confident that it's just a matter of time before we have more
targeted training regimens and smart drugs that are both powerful and safe.

------
yters
I believe IQ is fairly static, at least it's hard to improve the fluid part.

But, there is a very important variable that both sides of the debate always
miss: free will. If someone refuses to exercise their free will, then a high
IQ is unimportant. On the other hand, if someone is less inhibited about using
their free will, they can come up with more insightful ideas than a high IQ
person. Case in point is Feynman. He's known to not have a surprising IQ, but
his willingness to think outside of the box and do outrageous things allowed
him to come up with much better insights than his smarter, but more timid,
colleagues.

------
fauigerzigerk
A study I would like to see would be one that asks successful people who have
scored badly on an IQ as kids to take the test again 20 years later.

------
AndrewDucker
Of course IQ isn't set in stone - otherwise the Flynn Effect wouldn't exist.

From my general reading it looks like we all have a potential that's set
fairly in stone, but how closely we approach that potential is down to the
society we're born into, the way our parents raise us, the teachers we
encounter, the attitudes of our friends, and how much effort we put in.

------
bendmorris
On an unrelated note, that comment section (The Narrow, Red Section At The
Bottom Where Every Word Is A Proper Noun) is the most annoying I've ever tried
to read.

~~~
arethuza
The Fact That Writing Like This Is Really Annoying Is Actually More
Interesting Than The Contents Of The Article.

It's also slightly amusing how _wrong_ it feels to type a sentence like that.

------
FreshCode
Where is the evidence that it ever was?

