Can IQ be increased in an adult?

[bluemoonKY]

When I was a senior in high school in 1999, I read a book titled A Complete idiot's guide to increasing your IQ. Of course, you can tell just from the title of the book that the author was claiming that one can increase one's IQ. But, more specifically, the author was claiming that an adult can increase an adult's IQ. The author claimed that when an adult thinks, more synaptic connections were made between the person's neurons. These synaptic connections apparently remain after the person stops thinking about whatever complex material the person was thinking about. The author claimed that synaptic connections are what makes a person intelligent. The author implied not just that an adult can score better on IQ tests, but that g ( Charles Spearman's general mental factor) can actually be increased in adults.

I have also read Charles Murray's and Dick Hernstein's book The Bell Curve. Murray and Hernstein's position is that IQ becomes fixed and stable by the time a person is 18. Murray and Hernstein don't think that IQ can be improved.

What do psychologists think about this? What is the consensus among psychologists as to the answer to the question : can IQ be increased in adults?

When a person thinks about something complex, do new synaptic connections form? Do the new connections remain after the person stops thinking about the complex issue?

 

[phinds]

I think that the consensus is that IQ tests measure how well you do on IQ tests and nothing else, so of course you can improve your score just as you can improve your SAT score by studying for the test.

 

[bluemoonKY]

phinds, that IQ tests measure how well you do on IQ tests and nothing else might be the consensus among the public, but it's definitely not the consensus among psychologists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns - Report issued by a task force acting under the auspices of the American Psychological Association verifies that the consensus among psychologists is that IQ tests measure g.

 

[Evo]

You do realize that the only IQ tests that count are the ones given by trained psychologists, the online ones are just games. IQ tests were originally developed to test for mental retardation.

I have been administered IQ tests at my school's request, and I do believe that the more you study things like what you would find on an SAT, the better you will do on certain parts of the tests, also if you do well on tests, you will do better than those that have a fear of tests. I think that learning to do well on the SAT could increase your IQ score, I have no idea by how much.

You might be interested in reading what different experts have to say on IQ and SAT tests, this also gives background on the tests, how they were made, why they were made and what their purpose was. It's is very interesting and well worth reading.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html

 

[tom aaron]

You do realize that the only IQ tests that count are the ones given by trained psychologists, the online ones are just games. IQ tests were originally developed to test for mental retardation.

I have been administered IQ tests at my school's request, and I do believe that the more you study things like what you would find on an SAT, the better you will do on certain parts of the tests, also if you do well on tests, you will do better than those that have a fear of tests. I think that learning to do well on the SAT could increase your IQ score, I have no idea by how much.

You might be interested in reading what different experts have to say on IQ and SAT tests, this also gives background on the tests, how they were made, why they were made and what their purpose was. It's is very interesting and well worth reading.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html

IQ tests are generally quite reliable.

They trend how children will perform academically in math and language skills.

 

[bluemoonKY]

Phinds, here is an exact quote from the APA's task force report to refute your assertion that the consensus among psychologists is that IQ tests measure how well one does on IQ tests and nothing else:
"The relationship between test scores and school performance

seems to be ubiquitous. Wherever it has been
studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence
tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their
lower-scoring peers."

Evo and phinds, I defy you to present any evidence that shows that this is not the consensus among psychologists.

 

[bluemoonKY]

tom aaron, yes, I agree with what you said on your first post on this thread, but what is your opinion about the questions I asked on my first post on this thread?

 

[Evo]

Evo and phinds, I defy you to present any evidence that shows that this is not the consensus among psychologists.

Why are you asking me? Did you read the information I posted?

As for what Phinds is saying is that people that don't do well on tests in general will not perform well on an IQ test either. The IQ test *can* be an indicator of how well a child will do in school, but it can also be wrong. Sure a high score should equate to being able to understand better, but that doesn't mean that a child with a lower score can't do just as well, they just may not test well and the test may not be a true indicator of their actual IQ.

Here is an article about how IQ doesn't always correlate with grades.

IQ, control and extraversion explains
Rosander controlled against IQs in the three studies for her doctoral dissertation and found a clear, strong association between personality type and academic performance:

It is important for teachers to be aware of pupils who are driven by fear of failure, no matter what grades they get. (Photo: Colourbox)
After IQ, control was the personality dimension giving the best indicator of what kind of grades a pupil would be getting.

The more meticulous, controlled and conscientious a person was, the better their chances of getting good grades on their artium degree.

Extraversion correlated negatively with academic performance – the more extraverted a person was the less chance they had of getting top grades. This is probably because the more socially active pupils spend less time studying than introverts.

Rosander writes that she was surprised that pupils with neurotic personalities are more apt to get goodgrades than some of their more emotionally stable peers.

continued...

http://sciencenordic.com/neurotic-and-anxious-students-do-better-school

 

[Almeisan]

You do realize that the only IQ tests that count are the ones given by trained psychologists, the online ones are just games. IQ tests were originally developed to test for mental retardation.

I have been administered IQ tests at my school's request, and I do believe that the more you study things like what you would find on an SAT, the better you will do on certain parts of the tests, also if you do well on tests, you will do better than those that have a fear of tests. I think that learning to do well on the SAT could increase your IQ score, I have no idea by how much.

You might be interested in reading what different experts have to say on IQ and SAT tests, this also gives background on the tests, how they were made, why they were made and what their purpose was. It's is very interesting and well worth reading.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html

For someone regularily posting just to critizie people for posting 'bad sources' and lecturing them about 'that is not how we do things here'. that interview is quite ironic. One of the people answering the question keeps making insinuations/taking veiled pot shots. At who, I can't tell.

After reading that I can't say I learned anything about IQ tests.Also find the arguments that say that IQ tests can't test for intelligence because there's only week correlation between IQ and academic achievements, ironic

 

[Evo]

For someone regularily posting just to critizie people for posting 'bad sources' and lecturing them about 'that is not how we do things here'. that interview is quite ironic. One of the people answering the question keeps making insinuations/taking veiled pot shots. At who, I can't tell.

After reading that I can't say I learned anything about IQ tests.
.

Frontline on PBS is a highly valued news source. The credentials of each poster is listed after their interview.

Oh, FYI, I am a mentor here and it's my job to advise people of the rules.

 

[tom aaron]

tom aaron, yes, I agree with what you said on your first post on this thread, but what is your opinion about the questions I asked on my first post on this thread?

Increased? Certainly in theory. With current technology I don't know. Perhaps marginally.

There is nothing magical about brain biology. It's all chemistry. In theory that we could experiment with drugs that shut down parts of the brain and hyper sensitize others. New passageways might form...others strengthen. His might lead to higher IQ at the expense of some motor function or social skill.

This is all one of those subjects that teeters on the edge of political correctness. The same people who claim to embrace science put human intelligence, race, etc. in some box marked 'except for', as if intelligence is some great mystery apart from biology. It's not. Natural selection is just as much a part of intelligence as determining the colour of ones eyes. Two high IQ adults are likely to have a child with high IQ. And the reverse.

We aren't that far off from gene manipulation in the human embryo to enhance certain attributes. Perhaps in the next couple of decades there will be demand in China or India for services that increase a child's IQ by 10% or whatever. This could lead to an escalation in some intelligence war between countries or races.

 

[Evo]

I was thinking of just increasing the IQ score, not actually changing a person's brain power/intelligence. I feel the reason I scored so high on IQ is because I self studied so much, and I did well on tests. I was driven to learn everything I could, I was an over achiever and my natural passion for learning was observed by my new teacher, which is why she insisted I be tested when I was 11. She disagreed with the route my other teachers had taken "just take her books away so she can't get ahead of the rest of the class".

 

[tom aaron]

I was thinking of just increasing the IQ score, not actually changing a person's brain power/intelligence. I feel the reason I scored so high on IQ is because I self studied so much, and I did well on tests. I was driven to learn everything I could, I was an over achiever and my natural passion for learning was observed by my new teacher, which is why she insisted I be tested when I was 11. She disagreed with the route my other teachers had taken "just take her books away so she can't get ahead of the rest of the class".

Fortunately, I never had a teacher discourage learning.

A higher IQ is not the result of what has been learned. It's more the capacity to learn. Like the size of a hard drive on a computer. It might be full of information or empty.

A higher IQ might make learning easier and thus a feeling of accomplishment. Being special. What are called overachievers likely get reward and increased self esteem. They like the 'A' or gold star. Not a lot different from a good athlete getting satisfaction from success in sports.

 

[Evo]

Fortunately, I never had a teacher discourage learning.

A higher IQ is not the result of what has been learned. It's more the capacity to learn. Like the size of a hard drive on a computer. It might be full of information or empty.

A higher IQ might make learning easier and thus a feeling of accomplishment. Being special. What are called overachievers likely get reward and increased self esteem. They like the 'A' or gold star. Not a lot different from a good athlete getting satisfaction from success in sports.

Have you been given an IQ test by a certified psychologist? There are different tests Weschler, Stanford-Binet, Raven Matrices, part of the tests are directly related to learned knowledge.

IQ tests are not infallible.

if the purpose of the IQ score is to forecast future learning, it is hard to do better than measures of past learning. Knowledge tests are among the most robust predictors of performance that we have.

3. What does a person’s global IQ score mean? If a person’s IQ score is low, do you think that means they are necessarily dumb?

IQ is an imperfect predictor of many outcomes. A person who scores very low on a competently administered IQ test is likely to struggle in many domains. However, an IQ score will miss the mark in many individuals, in both directions.

4. Can a person be highly intelligent and still score poorly on IQ tests? If so, in what ways is that situation possible?

There are countless ways in which this can happen.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...interview-with-psychologist-w-joel-schneider/

Of course they are, as you said, good indicators of someone getting a high score to be more capable, but that misses the point of when a low score doesn't indicate low capability.

 

[Drakkith]

A higher IQ is not the result of what has been learned. It's more the capacity to learn. Like the size of a hard drive on a computer. It might be full of information or empty.

Kind of. An IQ test measures various cognitive abilities. It's true that the better your cognitive abilities, the more capable you are of learning new things, in general, but it is entirely possible to have an good IQ and yet be abysmal at certain things. An IQ test is much better at finding specific deficiencies than at predicting how 'smart' any particular person is.

 

[Student100]

Agree with Evo and Phinds on this one. IQ tests are meaningless outside of the tests designated role- of identifying learning disabilities. Even then, there are those who debate the validity: http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/22/8/469.short

There is no difference between a person with an IQ of 100 or one with an IQ of 200, both people are capable and free of learning disability.

Can you actually define intelligence? Is it a good short term memory? A good long term memory? An ability to readily identify heuristics? The ability to survive in the Amazon in a tribal setting or the ability to programming a computer? Can it be increased through training or hard work? I've never myself seen a satisfactory explanation of what intelligence is. If you can't define it, how are we measuring it?

If IQ tests measure intelligence, why do socioeconomic and culture values play a role in how one does on the tests?

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/28/1/1/

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1997-30052-010

My personal opinion on all this? Psychologists who advocate these test for general use are quacks. They have zero predictive power, just like so many of the social sciences that shape policy.

 

[Nidum]

Part of the infamous 11+ exam for 11 year olds in the 1960's was essentially an intelligence test .

We did many practice papers before the actual exam . The scores returned by the same pupils on different practice papers showed so much variation that they were meaningless .

A good part of the total exam marks came from the actual test on exam day .

 

[William White]

IQ tests are bunkum

I can score exceptionally well in IQ tests; because I am good at IQ tests.

I tried to learn Japanese, got past GCSE level and stalled. I'm rubbish at languages (even my native tongue). I can't play a musical instrument. I can't climb mountains. I'm very average (for an engineer) at maths.
A footballer has intelligence. Try to get an AI to play virtual football as well as Lionel Messi plays real football. Messi's brain is doing some amazing things - spatial awareness, predicting the future (trajectory of the ball, movement and thoughts of his opponents), controlling his limbs. Amazing.So yeah, peformance in an IQ test can be improved in some people with practice, just like football skills can be improved, or painting, or language, or music, or dexterity or all other things that the human (and animal) mind is involved in. Learning difficulties are when the person has below expected improvement: and depending upon the task, that expectation can be quite arbritary. We set standards on children's learning - should be able to read this book at age 11; do these maths problems at 13 etc. We don't set standards for things like hunting down and killing prey, because that is not what is required in our schools; but would be important if you grew up in the jungle.

 

[tom aaron]

IQ tests are bunkum

I can score exceptionally well in IQ tests; because I am good at IQ tests.

I tried to learn Japanese, got past GCSE level and stalled. I'm rubbish at languages (even my native tongue). I can't play a musical instrument. I can't climb mountains. I'm very average (for an engineer) at maths.
A footballer has intelligence. Try to get an AI to play virtual football as well as Lionel Messi plays real football. Messi's brain is doing some amazing things - spatial awareness, predicting the future (trajectory of the ball, movement and thoughts of his opponents), controlling his limbs. Amazing.So yeah, peformance in an IQ test can be improved in some people with practice, just like football skills can be improved, or painting, or language, or music, or dexterity or all other things that the human (and animal) mind is involved in. Learning difficulties are when the person has below expected improvement: and depending upon the task, that expectation can be quite arbritary. We set standards on children's learning - should be able to read this book at age 11; do these maths problems at 13 etc. We don't set standards for things like hunting down and killing prey, because that is not what is required in our schools; but would be important if you grew up in the jungle.

Intelligence isn't bunk. Its a product of evolution like any other feature. A human is more intelligent than a gorilla and a gorilla is more intelligent than a mouse.

Intelligence isn't bestowed upon us by a god.

And no, it is not environmental. It is part of our physical biology. No matter how you teach a squirrel or a chickadee, they are not capable of doing calculus.

 

[Student100]

Intelligence isn't bunk. Its a product of evolution like any other feature. A human is more intelligent than a gorilla and a gorilla is more intelligent than a mouse.

Intelligence isn't bestowed upon us by a god.

And no, it is not environmental. It is part of our physical biology. No matter how you teach a squirrel or a chickadee, they are not capable of doing calculus.

What is intelligence?

By the way, you basically didn't even reply to his post and instead made up this red herring about god and evolution.

 

[William White]

Intelligence isn't bunk. Its a product of evolution like any other feature. A human is more intelligent than a gorilla and a gorilla is more intelligent than a mouse.

Intelligence isn't bestowed upon us by a god.

And no, it is not environmental. It is part of our physical biology. No matter how you teach a squirrel or a chickadee, they are not capable of doing calculus.

Huh?

I said IQ tests are bunk.

 

[Drakkith]

Part of the infamous 11+ exam for 11 year olds in the 1960's was essentially an intelligence test .

We did many practice papers before the actual exam . The scores returned by the same pupils on different practice papers showed so much variation that they were meaningless .

A good part of the total exam marks came from the actual test on exam day .

What you took was NOT an actual IQ test. You cannot study for a real IQ test. Each individual test tends to measure fundamental cognitive functions, not the memorization of certain problems. Below is a list of the categories in the 4th edition of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, WAIS-IV, from the wikipedia article. Note that the first part of each sentence is the name of the category, and the following part of the sentence is the cognitive process that it supposedly measures. Also note that it is possible to measure the same functions of some categories with a completely different test.

Verbal Comprehension Core Proposed abilities measured
Similarities - Abstract verbal reasoning
Vocabulary - The degree to which one has learned, been able to comprehend and verbally express vocabulary
Information - Degree of general information acquired from culture
Comprehension - Ability to deal with abstract social conventions, rules and expressions

Perceptual Reasoning Core Proposed abilities measured
Block Design - Spatial perception, visual abstract processing, and problem solving
Matrix Reasoning - Nonverbal abstract problem solving, inductive reasoning, spatial reasoning
Visual Puzzles - Spatial reasoning
Picture Completion - Ability to quickly perceive visual details
Figure Weights - Quantitative and analogical reasoning

Working Memory Core Proposed abilities measured
Digit span - Attention, concentration, mental control
Arithmetic - Concentration while manipulating mental mathematical problems
Letter-Number Sequencing - Attention, concentration, mental control

Processing Speed Core Proposed abilities measured
Symbol Search - Visual perception/analysis, scanning speed
Coding - Visual-motor coordination, motor and mental speed, visual working memory
Cancellation - Visual-perceptual speed

Note that most of these do not depend upon the short-term buildup of knowledge in a specific area, aka 'studying'. Instead, they test the fundamental processes that you use in your everyday life, in or out of school and work. Each category will typically have several different tests within it, so even if it seems like you can study for something like the "Arithmetic" section, the actual tests may be very different than simply solving a few math problems on paper like you would usually practice. It's certainly true that someone who has never done math in their life will not do well on the math portions of the test, but the average person who takes this test is not like that. If you were to test concentration, mental control, and attention by using a different test that doesn't involve digits, then you would likely find that the person who's never done math will not be very different from anyone of us in those areas.

So yeah, peformance in an IQ test can be improved in some people with practice, just like football skills can be improved, or painting, or language, or music, or dexterity or all other things that the human (and animal) mind is involved in. Learning difficulties are when the person has below expected improvement: and depending upon the task, that expectation can be quite arbritary.

It is, generally, not possible to gain large improvements in specific areas measured on a real IQ test without an extreme amount of time, effort, and practice (And many times not even then). Far more than the time and effort put into most tasks. Everything you just mentioned depends mostly upon how well your brain works at the above mentioned fundamental tasks. Most improvements in painting, football, language, music, and other things is a result of learning how to use your innate abilities to perform those actions, not a result of improving you actual fundamental cognitive abilities. There's a very good reason that you rarely/never hear of anyone practicing enough to reach the level of performance of most 'prodigies' and 'geniuses'. People are fundamentally limited in a way that is not easily improved upon.

It's important to understand that these fundamental cognitive abilities are things you already use every day, whether or not you're painting, playing sports, or doing math. Those things are just specific applications of your abilities. Just having a casual conversation requires extensive use of working memory, attention, concentration, verbal skills, reasoning, and many other areas listed above.

 

[Student100]

I would disagree with some of what you posted Drakkith, it is quite possible to increase cognitive functioning- in much the same way as knowledge. That is, if these papers are to be taken whole heartily:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02167.x/abstract
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1360786031000101175#.VbLvl_ldWpo

I'm sure you could find more. These improvements take no more dedication or time than studying something like calculus.

Further, in an attempt to measure fundamental cognitive functions, the tests always inadvertently measure knowledge. Were this not the case, then I would expect cultural knowledge and socioeconomic factors to not play a significant role in testing. This is not the case, as admitted in many papers.

There's a very good reason that you rarely/never hear of anyone practicing enough to reach the level of performance of most 'prodigies' and 'geniuses'. People are fundamentally limited in a way that is not easily improved upon.

I would also disagree here. Prodigies and geniuses are often created, not born. Take for example Leonardo da Vincis legacy-often cited as a polymath or genius-the majority of the work recovered in his journals can be traced back to earlier works from the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Work in which he and his mentor had access to. Modern culture made him the polymath/and or genius he is now known as.

This is also a fascinating read: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/17/oliver-james-child-prodigies

 

[Drakkith]

I would disagree with some of what you posted Drakkith, it is quite possible to increase cognitive functioning- in much the same way as knowledge. That is, if these papers are to be taken whole heartily:

I'm not sure I agree with those papers. I know I've read something somewhere that cast serious doubt on the 3rd one, and I've read more than one article or paper about how poor most of the studies like these actually are. I don't have a reference at the moment but if I find one I'll post it.

 

[Evo]

From the IQ tests I was given, prior knowledge played a large role, indirectly, but if you did not have a large vocabulary, you would really sink, math is a part of it, logic and reasoning is the greater part, like I said, I. don't know how these are graded. Cognitive impairment tests are not the same as IQ tests.

 

[Student100]

I'm not sure I agree with those papers. I know I've read something somewhere that cast serious doubt on the 3rd one, and I've read more than one article or paper about how poor most of the studies like these actually are. I don't have a reference at the moment but if I find one I'll post it.

I certainly believe you, I don't know if I agree with those papers. Therein I believe lies the problem, it's quite easy to Google scholar keywords that support your position and find research in well regarded journals within these fields and pass them off as fact. I certainly have no real knowledge of these fields to make a claim one way or another, but I don't believe the researchers in these fields themselves have enough empirical evidence to make these claims, either.

Unfortunately, these fields aren't like physics. It's hard to separate bias and isolate variables to test. The scary part is these softer sciences can actually alter people lives and social policy within their governments-far more than physics or the harder sciences.

That's just my opinion, if we have trouble defining intelligence and cognitive ability, how are they measuring it accurately? If they can't agree on a workable framework with predictive power, how is it science? That's why I hold the position that IQ tests are meaningless outside their ability to diagnose mental deficits.

Maybe I just don't understand it enough.

 

[Drakkith]

Therein I believe lies the problem, it's quite easy to Google scholar keywords that support your position and find research in well regarded journals within these fields and pass them off as fact.

I'd upvote this a dozen and a third times if I could!

 

[Nidum]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleven_plus_exam

 

[Stephanus]

You do realize that the only IQ tests that count are the ones given by trained psychologists, the online ones are just games. IQ tests were originally developed to test for mental retardation.

Yeah, I once took an online IQ test, it took about 30 minutes. They said my IQ was high. Then, I clicked the link for detailed result, it shows advertisings.
Hmmmh, I must be so dumb. . 30 minutes for nothing.

 

[PWiz]

Yeah, I once took an online IQ test, it took about 30 minutes. They said my IQ was high. Then, I clicked the link for detailed result, it shows advertisings.
Hmmmh, I must be so dumb. . 30 minutes for nothing.

Agreed. They are just a bunch of BS; I've gotten scores in the range of 110-180. They'd have me believe that I magically, and quite arbitrarily, 'trip' between discrete states of intelligence

 

[Stephanus]

Agreed. They are just a bunch of BS; I've gotten scores in the range of 110-180. They'd have me believe that I magically, and quite arbitrarily, 'trip' between discrete states of intelligence

But what use is IQ?? I have a friend, which I believe he is in the range of superior. 140? He can calculate chess position, very fast. Can play blindfold chess easily. I know there people out there that can do, too. Can play memory 4 x 13, 52 cards easily. Everything. But his job is really mediocre. They say that EQ too is important. And also SQ (spiritual quotient). But what I like most is BBQ.

 

[Stephanus]

Agreed. They are just a bunch of BS; I've gotten scores in the range of 110-180. They'd have me believe that I magically, and quite arbitrarily, 'trip' between discrete states of intelligence

Sorry, not that I underestimate someone with high IQ. . My wife often scolds me. I can calulate special relativity, understand space expansion. But can't fix fan, refrigerator even changing bulb.

 

[PWiz]

Sorry, not that I underestimate someone with high IQ. . My wife often scolds me. I can calulate special relativity, understand space expansion. But can't fix fan, refrigerator even changing bulb.

Just another proof about limitedness of IQ tests. In my case, my mom often scolds me. I too can understand a little bit of undergrad physics and math, but I have trouble finding food in the fridge

 

[rootone]

... also SQ (spiritual quotient). ...

That's a new one to me, Have you been visited by Scientologists or Jehova witnesses?

 

[Stephanus]

Jehova witnesses, Yes!. Three times, once by the Chinese branch, and twice by the local branch.
Scientologist, no. .
It's just that I recalled my friend once told me, that his son's IQ is high (good for him). Now (then) he decreased the milk budget, (his son is smart anyway). And he focused to enhance his son EQ and SQ. When I tought, I just want to have BBQ. And I have had enough with this IQ thing .
I remembered once in Stephen Hawking interview, didn't watch the video, but read the script. I wonder if that was true or not. Anyway, when asked, how high is his IQ. Hawking replied, something like. IQ is not important, and the person who relies on IQ usually a loser.