/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9749339
>psychiatrist says yes everyone else no
It's a psychiatric test, so...

Anyone who says "no" is an idiot, and probably has never had an IQ test, and thus doesn't realize how simple they really are.

You can get better at memorizing number sequences, no one denies this. You can get better at organizing patterns on a timer - no one denies you get better at Tetris with practice. In the end, that's all the test ultimately covers, So... Who is this "everyone", other than a few IQ /pol/ fags who would never call psychology "science" in any other circumstance?

Whether you can raise your actual intelligence is another thing, but you can certainly get better at any task that involves intelligence with practice. The brain specializes itself for certain tasks, that's just how learning works.

>>9749402
>Is there a study proving this or is it just a general assumption?
Yes, it's specifically why IQ tests are only valid when taken once a year. You can actually expect a steady rise of ~10 points per day of repeating the test. Granted, you can also expect your IQ results to vary by +/-30pts, even when taken annually. (In my case, personally, I actually have a 41 point spread between three tests over 20 years.)

Goes further than that though, individual IQ varies pretty wildly with what time of day the test is taken, how long since you last ate, what you last ate, and even with who gives the tests. Younger female test givers, for instance, get consistently higher results from their subjects than do older male test givers. (Maybe a matter of intimidation or enthusiasm.)

IQ is just a shit metric in general, and really only useful when comparing huge swaths of population and detecting specific learning disabilities - also for boosting the ego of behaviorally troubled students, which is what they were originally used for in anycase.

>>9340580
Same as Tetris score. What does your Tetris score tell you? How good you are at playing Tetris. IQ tests tell you how good you are at taking IQ tests.

But some people will always be better at Tetris than others - just like IQ tests.

Like Tetris, IQ tests involve sticking a lot of blocks together in the right way in a predetermined period of time. Like Tetris, your score will improve the more often you perform this test. Unlike Tetris scores, this is why IQ scores are only valid if you haven't had someone watch you take the test in at least a year.

And oddly, playing a lot of Tetris, does tend to make you score better at IQ.

Now, IQ also involves number memory, and yes, you're timed, so there's your processing speed. It does not, however, in anyway test learning capacity - it instead is assumed, much like if you suck at Tetris, you're are going to suck at other things that arranging blocks quickly. If you can't memorize too many numbers, you're memory probably isn't all that good. In either case, this may affect your ability to learn, insomuch as sucking at Tetris, affects your ability to be an architect under a strict deadline.

Is your Tetis score gonna suffer if you've not eaten in awhile, or if you just got up, or if some hairy old man is breathing of your shoulder while you are playing? Probably. And so will your IQ score.

Now, if you're great at arranging blocks, but suck at number memory, that's a sign of a specific learning disability - and another, should the case be reversed.

BECAUSE THIS IS PSYCHOLOGY!

t. Psychologist who regularly gives high school students IQ tests, to decide if they are going to go into SE or SED.

>>9324532
The two most popular standard IQ tests are the Stanford–Binet and the Cattell. Both have evolved quite a bit over the years. They used to ask racial and even religious questions, but these days they've been boiled down to pattern recognition and number memory. The spatial pattern recognition involves matching blocks (pic related) to an image under a timer, while the number memory just involves reciting back increasingly larger set of random numbers. There's some variations with cards with objects and story sequences, but that's about it.

It is useful for detecting learning disabilities (SE and SED needs), and for tracking the effectiveness of large scale educational institutions. It is not useful for detecting differences between nominal individuals or between people of radically different cultures. In twin studies, IQ can vary radically with profession, and certain professions that involve a lot of number memory or puzzle solving tend to have much higher IQ than others. There was, for instance, a study on phone operators in the 70's, and they all scored 98th percentile or higher - even the black ones from lower class families. At what time of day the test is taken, how long since the subject last ate, the age and sex of the person administering the test, or simply playing a puzzle solving video game just before the test, can all have drastic effects on end results. So, while it has some potential uses, it isn't real reliable.

Core problem being it's psychology. Not surprisingly, this is the only situation where /sci/ will try to sell psychology as a real science, because, well, /pol/ is among the most popular boards in the domain, and they like to use various studies (most often flawed ones) to prove that niggers are stupid.

As if you need a test for that... There's plenty of more objective methods and statistics to prove that, but, well, these kids will use any evidence they can, and they rarely look real closely at the validity of any of it.

>>9181438
The only IQ test we have, only tests for simple pattern recognition and number memory. Taking it multiple times in a row increases the score, hence why you can only take one such valid test a year. In twins studies, the educated twin always scores better than the uneducated twin, because education entails nothing but pattern recognition and memory. Similarly, those that play puzzle games score better than those who do not. Of course, as more and more of the population have occupations that depend on pattern recognition and memory, and as more and more of the population is more thoroughly educated, and as more and more of the population plays games centering around pattern recognition in memory, IQ test scores are going to go up.

That's all because IQ tests don't actually test intelligence. They only test how quickly you can shuffle red and white marked boxes into set patterns and how many numbers you can recite. Psychometry is psychology, and psychology is not science.

We can revisit this when we have a neurological based test that remains consistent, rather than a Myers-Briggs tier test that was originally designed to make emotionally troubled students feel better about themselves that's expected to vary by as much as fifty points each year, by who administers it, and by how long it was since the test subject ate something and what they ate.

>>9101227
IQ isn't a real good gauge for individuals nor over time. A point drift like that is fairly typical.

Learning problem solving skills will increase your results. An educated person will invariably do better than an uneducated one. In twin studies, if one twin is a laborer and the other an office worker, the difference is rather drastic. Similarly, if you play puzzle solving games all day, your IQ will go up (if not your actual intelligence.)

It can also vary rather wildly with when you took it, what you ate that day, or who administered it. Among groups who do a lot of IQ tests (and I actually work for one - we assign kids between SED or LD based on IQ test results), some test administrators will consistently gather scores higher or lower than others, even when testing siblings in the same family. (And we see that here.) Generally, the less imposing the tester, the better the average scores.

That said, it's not useless... You can detect specific learning disabilities based on which areas the individual struggles or excels with. It's also somewhat useful for judging large groups of individuals, particularly over time.

To gauge base potential more objectively, you'd really need something more neurological, rather than "how fast can you put these blocks together and how many numbers can you recite correctly." Psychometry is psychology, and thus not really science.

>>8989618
>From what I've gathered, IQ can be largely improved through education
>You've gathered wrong.
He's gathered right. Education has a radical effect on IQ tests, pretty much more radical than any other factor, as has been demonstrated over and over again in twin studies, where it's often a 50+pt difference.

Education involves pretty much nothing but repetitious memorisation and pattern recognition. Like anything else, the more time your brain spends repeating a task at rote, the more specialized it becomes towards said task and tasks like it. IQ tests are no exception.

Just about the only thing that has a more drastic effect on IQ, is repeatedly taking IQ tests, which is why you require a year between tests for them to be considered valid.

Whether it has an effect on actual potential intelligence, that's another question, but as there is currently no other real test for that, it's a philosophical question, rather than a scientific one. But for IQ, education correlates stronger than nearly anything.

>>8708700
Assuming you aren't completely fucked in the head already (as most high IQ outliers are) and that you didn't receive too much trauma just from being raised in a destitute family (as much such individuals experience), and assuming you don't have any incredible chance encounters with someone who can make use of your potential (most people don't)...

You'd probably do about as well as most folks in your camp... Maybe slightly better, but probably still be lower or middle class by the end of your life, with some odd nerd hobbies.

All it really means is that you can memorize numbers and recognize patterns better than most. Nearly all switchboard operators in the 70's had IQ's over 130, just as a result of practicing those same two operations so often, yet they weren't exactly known for becoming millionaires.

You'd be surprised how many homeless folks there are with MENSA level IQ's.

On the other hand, you'd probably be pretty good at coding, and assuming you managed to get a computer at a young age, and the interest stuck, you could probably work your way up to a middle class income that way.

>>8654384
>>8654369
>There are progrmas that can increase your score on the test by a few points.
Yeah, it's called taking the test twice. If your score doesn't improve significantly after repeatedly taking the same IQ test, regardless of your score, you have a learning deficiency.

It's expected that IQ test results will rapidly improve with each test taken in quick succession, which is why the standard procedure is to put a year between administered IQ tests. Even then, they are expected to vary by as many as 30 points, in either direction, with each application.

IQ tests are not magic. They aren't even science - they are psychometrics - which is PSYCHOLOGY. They don't mean much on an individual level beyond, mayhaps, detecting very specific learning disabilities, as they can very wildly just by what you had for breakfast, whether the person administering the test is a man or a woman, young or old, and are only really useful for sociological trends over a large sampling.

t. A psychologist who, to date, has given well over 100 IQ tests, and has never scored within 20 points twice, of any of the six he's taken himself.

So yeah, improving your IQ is pretty damned simple.

Improving your actual *intelligence* that's another thing, and it requires both practice and discipline. In the end, it's just a matter of choosing what sort of intellectual task you wish to improve your performance at, practicing that, and dutifully watching your diet and sleep cycles.

>>8467715
The average IQ among Fortune 500 executives is 120. Which, given that they are mostly wealthy Jews, is about average for that population group.

I've an IQ of 174, can I be president now? (Even though I don't even make six figures?)

IQ only tests pattern recognition and numerical memory. That's it. It doesn't mean dick. Anyone who has ever been given an IQ test, and has any brain at all, should know this.