New evidence that IQ is not set in stone | Hacker News Reader

New evidence that IQ is not set in stone

cbsnews.com

13 pointscwan13 comments

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

[1] http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/Role%20of%20test%2...

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

Have you done much n-back training? Notice a difference? I've spent a little time and can see how it could help, but haven't spent enough time yet.

I haven't spent that much time on n-back training either, though I am planning on doing a before-and-after comparison with a run of at least a month doing it daily, I'll start that in a couple weeks once things settle down here. I do think what I've done sporadically though helped with a recent C design involving lots of linked lists.

http://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ.html is the best reference/about I know of for the subject. Some people report improvements in daily life like grokking math better, others report nothing even after months of training.

>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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where is the evidence that it ever was?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com