Agree with 19:00. In fact I'd hope most people would agree there can be small temporary gains with effort. That would be entirely consistent with the sports analogy that the plasticity poster keeps pushing. But those gains are limited.

Sam2

Any gain is limited if preparation is brief and temporary ... if one stops training. Are you an athlete? Have you lifted weights? Ever swam or run? If your preparation is brief and halting of course all gains are limited. If your training and preparation are steady and continuous gains in these areas are significant. Try the experiment someday you'll see what I mean. The same can be said for mental exercise. It's rather simple. It's not rocket science. Do the experiment if you can't read the scientific literature in exercise physiology or neuroscience and IQ plasticity. Lest you immediately dart behind the preposterous conclusion I am stating these physical or IQ gains are infinite and unlimited. For the record, I am not and the scientific and medical literature does not support this.

Who ever said intellectual gains and IQ were unlimited? Do you think athletic performance gains are unlimited? But, I'm quite sure you dimwits agree...athletic performance is significantly improved with preparation and training? Therefore, what is difficult to grasp that the same can't be said for IQ and intellectual performance? Neuronal and neuromuscular circuitry are similar from the standpoint of plasticity with significant improved processing and performance with training. Quite simple. Please don't delude yourselves by thinking athletes that train and prepare have unlimited capacity. The same can be said for mental and intellectual training. I'll repeat again for you. It's quite simple. Like strength, IQ is not fixed. It can be improved with preparation and training. Don't confuse this with unlimited muscular or intellectual power. Einstein would agree.

Agree with 19:00. In fact I'd hope most people would agree there can be small temporary gains with effort. That would be entirely consistent with the sports analogy that the plasticity poster keeps pushing. But those gains are limited.

Sam2

19:00 again. I should probably explain that I'm hoping to engage the more serious posters on this thread, who seem to have done a lot of thinking about this. And OP, too, if she would stop banging that drum and engage in a little nuance.

Anonymous wrote:As Einstein has said "it's simple": IQ is not fixed in the least. It's plastic. I don't see what's so complicated about this subject for you to comprehend.

I'm another poster who thinks IQ may be variable, under the right circumstances. But a big problem for you is that you always, always, always overstate the case, and this undermines anything you say and makes ridicule inevitable.

First, there are clearly limits to our ability to influence IQ. We don't know how to turn an IQ of 70 into an IQ of 140. Nor, for that matter, do we know how to turn an IQ of 120 into an IQ of 140, or at least the study you cited didn't show that. Second, some of the change seems to be temporary not permanent, as shown in the study. Let me quote: "The gains tend to fade after practice stops" although music training and some other experiences seem to be exceptions. Third, only 9% of the 33 kids in the study (that's about 3 of the kids in the study) had a "significant" (15 points) change in IQ, and one kid's IQ actually fell from 114 to 96.

Here are some tips:
(1) If you quote Einstein when he was talking about something totally unrelated to your point, it doesn't make you right.
(2) If you repeat your point over and over, it doesn't make you right. It just makes you ... repetitive.
(3) If you link to an article but then you fail to acknowledge some of the caveats in the article (temporary nature of IQ changes, limited results of the study, et cetera), it doesn't make you right, it actually undermines anything you say.

No, I don't want to debate anything with you because I know you're a rubbish debator. I just wanted to point out that your representation of the state of research is seriously over-simplified, and then I want to go read a book or something. So I'm out of here, because that was my only point. Have a great evening!

As Einstein has said "it's simple": IQ is not fixed in the least. It's plastic. I don't see what's so complicated about this subject for you to comprehend.

I think she might be an Asian tiger mom, probably Korean (don't ask me to explain). She's said her kids are too old for the WPPSI, which makes me wonder why she's so obsessed, and then I start to wonder if her kid got burned on entry to a Big 3 and she's still fighting that fight. When I think this, then I feel guilty for teasing her. But who really knows?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW: Preparation does improve IQ and IQ is not fixed at birth or teenage years according to accumulating data exploding longstanding myths still held by many including the previous posters and joksters. Just an opinion from synthesis of the scientific literature.

I've got to ask -- why? Over and over again you post about this -- why?

I've speculated before that this person probably has a test prep consultancy, and this is some form of misguided attempt to generate interest. I'd say interest is generated, but as even average IQ kids realize, not all attention is good attention.

BTW, I'm one of the "jokesters", and I have no doubt that IQ (as subjective a measure as it is), can and does change; sometimes related to preparation, sometimes related to emotional development, sometimes related to physical environment. I just joke because I enjoy watching your abusive debating style, and your complete lack of self-awareness.

Now that is the real issue, 22:26

Anonymous wrote:FWIW: Preparation does improve IQ and IQ is not fixed at birth or teenage years according to accumulating data exploding longstanding myths still held by many including the previous posters and joksters. Just an opinion from synthesis of the scientific literature.

I've got to ask -- why? Over and over again you post about this -- why?

Anonymous wrote:LOL. It is obvious any discussion on this subject with this lay woman is futile. Her double digit IQ is fixed. The process -- fibrosis.

Seriously?! Fibrosis? And you've got a PhD in the subject?

No, I don't want to debate anything with you because I know you're a rubbish debator. I just wanted to point out that your representation of the state of research is seriously over-simplified, and then I want to go read a book or something. So I'm out of here, because that was my only point. Have a great evening!

LOL. It is obvious any discussion on this subject with this lay woman is futile. Her double digit IQ is fixed. The process -- fibrosis.

Alternative view:

Preparation can improve how you perform on the specific tasks that make up the subparts of IQ tests. Although the improvement may be temporary.

It's an interesting field, 17:53, and there may be some merit in both views. Your "synthesis" is way too shallow and facile, however. If you're trying for intellectual honesty, you need to add a lot of qualifications to your gross over-simplification in 17:53.

FWIW: Preparation does improve IQ and IQ is not fixed at birth or teenage years according to accumulating data exploding longstanding myths still held by many including the previous posters and joksters. Just an opinion from synthesis of the scientific literature.

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I look at this thread optimistically as proof of the indomitability of the human spirit. No matter that s/he posts the same links over and over again. No matter that s/he always follows up the initial post with short-tempered hostility and personal attacks against anybody who questions or tries to debate the thesis. No matter that s/he repeatedly gets called out for being a nakedly obvious sock puppet. S/he keeps coming back again and again, doing the same thing over and over, and still apparently hopes for a different result.

Magnificent! :thumbup:

LOL !