/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9750741
>The study found IQ "increases" that are negligible enough to be attributable to test subjects being slightly luckier and more focused during the testing.
You didn't even read the study and you're trying to dismiss it as insignificant?
The study found, via fMRI, an increase in grey matter in the area of the brain responsible for spatial processing. Only the ones who studied enough to pass the test showed the increase.

>It doesn´t restructure itself enough to raise make morons average or average folk smart
Now you're introducing some arbitrary degree to the discussion? Leave the goalposts where they started, please. Everyone who participated in the study started at the same place: an average IQ of about 100.

The facts are what they are. What we have is physically observable, causally-linked, reproducible evidence of the malleability of the device responsible for intelligence. Are you going to now argue that brain structure is not correlated with intelligence? Perhaps you are the desperate one here.

>>9710993
>The "increases" (in a group of under 100 people, if I´m not mistaken) in IQ reported by that paper were low enough to be attributed to chance or better concentration on the part of the test-takers.
They didn't measure any IQ increases anon. You clearly didn't even glance at the study. They were measuring the physical changes in grey matter volume in the posterior hippocampus.

>Yes, I know that you scored in the double digits
All that ad hom. Ok then, you're trying desperately to blame your average IQ for your inability to succeed.
>Take your crusade elsewhere
When someone posts physically observable, reproducible evidence that you can develop your talents despite your meme IQ being low, you have to invoke a "crusading" boogeyman.
Also if your "logic" ITT is any indicator, it's highly likely I outscore you on every single IQ test or IQ test analogue.

>>9700868
>Nah, got pruned, as always happens when I post about IQ.
Strange. These thread usually last until the bump limit. Unless I get involved, then they slide or disappear pretty quick. Funny that.

>That study you cite is wishful thinking btw.
Yeah, fMRI results showing reproducible, physically observable results are just nothing but wishes, unlike IQ """"statistics"""".

>>9699693
>implying that any number of confirmation bias IQ-statistics "studies" carries anywhere near the same weight as even a single study based on PHYSICALLY-OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE results
Biologists took the IQ """""""science"""""" field and shitted all over it in a single study. No amount of mental contortions can change this fact.