My apologies.

Anonymous wrote:
I will not even comment on your NFL analogy and spare you.

Is it even possible to debate with you without your constant attempts to belittle those you're debating with?

You say "THere is nothing sacred, unique or distinct about an IQ test that can't be taught to children." But no one's disagreeing that you can "prep" a child with the same type of questions as are found on the test, so that he will have an artificially high score. The problem is that score will no longer be indicative of the child's natural abilities, but rather will be "performance-enhanced." If you give the same child a different IQ test the next week, with questions that aren't of the same type the child has been practicing, his IQ scores will drop back down to normal numbers. That's not plasticity -- it's the "practice effect."

Since you're so enamored with the athletic analogy, here's an extension of that analogy for you. Are you familiar with the term "workout warrior" in connection with the NFL Combine? It refers to average college football players who train like mad for many months to perform well on the very specific drills used at the Combine (40-yard dash, bench press, three-cone drill, etc). A workout warrior often will significantly improve his scores on these specific drills, and boost his NFL draft position as a result. But because their skill is limited to only doing those very specific drills, they often are unsuccessful in the NFL because simply are not as good at football as they are at the drills. This sort of disparity is exactly why many people warn against prepping a child for an IQ test; if the child ends up at a school beyond his abilities because of the performance-enhanced IQ score, the child will eventually be unable to keep up with his classmates.

I don't understand. Kids that prep like mad for the SAT entrance exams and even jack their scores up 200 points and get into Harvard will end up at this school and not be able to keep up with classmates? Kids who prep for their magnet entrance exams, Catholic school exams, SSAT with outstanding results will have artificial (unnatural and performance-enhanced) scores and will be doomed when they attend their favorite Big 3 school? Kids who play with puzzles, analogy word games, number sense, puzzles and raven-like exercises will fall on their faces in your fine private schools loaded with the brightest of the intelligensia due to artificial and performance-enhanced scores? Many performance-enhanced Asian Americans and other immigrants are stilling kicking much butt in our fancy private schools. On the contrary, I don't see these kids failing to keep. It is your kids that can't keep up. the ones with natural intelligence and no performance. Those are my observations.

I will not even comment on your NFL analogy and spare you.

Anonymous wrote:Well said in parts. We are probably all born with a potential having an upper and lower bound. That potential is probably not infinite. Steady exercise and training can significantly push one to the upper bound of potential -- both intellectual/mental and physical. For the overwhelming bulk of mankind there is tremendous overlap of that potential at the outset. This is consistent with steady and continuous work in the gym improving athletic performance as well as a similar effort improving intellectual performance as measured by any IQ test. THere is nothing sacred, unique or distinct about an IQ test that can't be taught to children. They'll probably pick up these intellectual tasks up much quicker than you or I at our late maturation stage!

You say "THere is nothing sacred, unique or distinct about an IQ test that can't be taught to children." But no one's disagreeing that you can "prep" a child with the same type of questions as are found on the test, so that he will have an artificially high score. The problem is that score will no longer be indicative of the child's natural abilities, but rather will be "performance-enhanced." If you give the same child a different IQ test the next week, with questions that aren't of the same type the child has been practicing, his IQ scores will drop back down to normal numbers. That's not plasticity -- it's the "practice effect."

Since you're so enamored with the athletic analogy, here's an extension of that analogy for you. Are you familiar with the term "workout warrior" in connection with the NFL Combine? It refers to average college football players who train like mad for many months to perform well on the very specific drills used at the Combine (40-yard dash, bench press, three-cone drill, etc). A workout warrior often will significantly improve his scores on these specific drills, and boost his NFL draft position as a result. But because their skill is limited to only doing those very specific drills, they often are unsuccessful in the NFL because simply are not as good at football as they are at the drills. This sort of disparity is exactly why many people warn against prepping a child for an IQ test; if the child ends up at a school beyond his abilities because of the performance-enhanced IQ score, the child will eventually be unable to keep up with his classmates.

There's nothing you can do to raise your child's IQ. There's nothing you can do about anything else for that matter. The universe is set upon its course, and any illusion we might have about free will is just that: an illusion.

So drill your child on IQ tests. Or don't. Either way, you're going to do what you would be doing anyway, and nothing we say, or you decide will be any different from what it was destined to be.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the hypotheses (Ho):

1. IQ is not fixed

2. Children can improve IQ scores significantly by training

3. Improving IQ scores is not associated with flunking out of private school. On the contrary, this habit it's good for your child in the long run.

Anonymous wrote:I think I would have to agree with the above thesis. Developing children are so plastic and really can be taught virtually anything much easier than adults (multiple languages and tongues, music are examples). I don't see why the developing child's mind and brain can't be taught the tasks on any IQ test and have this reflected in improving scores over time. This seems credible to me and makes sense though I'm not any expert.

You can actually develop your child's executive function. And that has a lot more to do with how a child's potential IQ is expressed than the base IQ itself.

There's nothing you can do to raise your child's IQ. There's nothing you can do about anything else for that matter. The universe is set upon its course, and any illusion we might have about free will is just that: an illusion.

So drill your child on IQ tests. Or don't. Either way, you're going to do what you would be doing anyway, and nothing we say, or you decide will be any different from what it was destined to be.

I think I would have to agree with the above thesis. Developing children are so plastic and really can be taught virtually anything much easier than adults (multiple languages and tongues, music are examples). I don't see why the developing child's mind and brain can't be taught the tasks on any IQ test and have this reflected in improving scores over time. This seems credible to me and makes sense though I'm not any expert.

Well said in parts. We are probably all born with a potential having an upper and lower bound. That potential is probably not infinite. Steady exercise and training can significantly push one to the upper bound of potential -- both intellectual/mental and physical. For the overwhelming bulk of mankind there is tremendous overlap of that potential at the outset. This is consistent with steady and continuous work in the gym improving athletic performance as well as a similar effort improving intellectual performance as measured by any IQ test. THere is nothing sacred, unique or distinct about an IQ test that can't be taught to children. They'll probably pick up these intellectual tasks up much quicker than you or I at our late maturation stage!

I may be missing something, but I don't see anybody on this forum saying that preparing for a test doesn't help the person taking that test. That simply stands to reason. But some people also question whether there is a permanent and meaningful improvement to a child's IQ through the use of flashcards, musical training, linguistic training, etc. Using the sports metaphor brought up earlier, athletes no doubt develop skills and endurance through practice. However, if they cease to practice, eventually they will return to near their original baseline. The question then becomes, to what end are you training? If you are training to better develop your intellect and to develop better studying skills, I don't see anybody arguing that this isn't a positive thing, and the argument the OP has repeatedly made that others are arguing against practical mental exercises is simply a straw man. On the other hand, if you are training to simply improve your child's IQ as some testing service is measuring it, then I think a few people have expressed their doubts. For whatever it's worth, my own opinion from what I have observed and read, every person functions within a band of ability that they are born with. With work they can stretch themselves to the upper end of the band, while without work they may sag to the lower end of the band. However, on average they will tend to bounce around within that band depending on various stimuli acting on them during the course of their lives.

I don't have a dog in this hunt as I frankly don't hold any stock in IQ tests as a true measure of a child's intellectual ability. However, it is possible to have a constructive conversation on the subject without people waving around their persecution complexes like a bloody shirt if others only agree with their thesis partially instead of 100%.

No one is worshipping these silly tests but gate keepers use this nonsense to track and exclude children from certain schools and classrooms. Such tactics may have a longterm subtle effects on your child's trajectory. I advise families to simply prepare their children for these exercises (doesn't take much effort -- slow and steady -- to prepare for ERBs, SSATs and the like -- only foresight and planning). It's a simple matter to get rid of these "perfunctory" entrance prerequisites and dispense with them in order to get on with the real education. Many high SES households understand this. Many from other stations do not. There are no adverse sequelae from this strategy. And I will share my own personal experience with others not necessarily up to speed in this arena so they do not listen to the lies on this board from those bragging about their geniuses who never study or prepare for entrance examinations. If you are one of those families not part of the club and without the private school pedigree do not believe the hogwash. Get your kids familiar and prepared for the entrance tests. It does not take much effort or angst for you or the child. School administrators use this information to exclude your children from honors classes, the best teachers and the opportunity for a better education. The info comes in handy when they look for evidence to counsel you out. This may impact your child's options later in high school and college.

What's the point of this discussion? Would you stop giving your brain regular workouts, so to speak, if you were convinced it would not increase your IQ? Would you start if you were convinced it would?

Or is this about whether people should start (keep?) drilling their preschoolers on various components of different IQ tests (e.g. repeating a string of numbers in reverse order) in hopes of making them smarter and/or convincing some school that such well-prepped kids are smarter than they really are?

None of these scenarios really make any sense to me. There are better ways to encourage kids (or people generally) to use their brains -- both because the activities involved are more engaging and because the learning involved has some long-term utility.

I see parents all over the D.C. region drilling their preschoolers with footballs, soccer balls and baseballs. No one is up in arms. What's so damn sacred about reading, writing and mathematics drilling? Everyone is up in arms. If there is nothing wrong with becoming a better athlete what's wrong with becoming smarter with such task specific exercise? What's all the fuss about? You will surely improve your SAT, ACT, WPSSI, IQ test, AP or any other man created mental exercise with steady and longterm task specific training just as your lacrosse, swimming and soccer play. There's nothing complicated here in the least. Don't delude yourselves with the marketing of aptitude tests as such, and not simply tests of achievement. Familiarity and preparation of the content will and does improve scores significantly. It does not matter what the mental test.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You misunderstand. The part I most agree with 19:00 about is her description of you and your unwillingness to engage in a constructive exchange ...

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.

I've read enough of your posts to know that engaging with you is a worthless exercise, and I'm not interested in wasting my time that way. If you will start demonstrating a more constructive approach, then I'll exchange ideas with you. Until then, best of luck to you.

Sam2

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm curious, why did you fail to mention these "limitations" in anything you said earlier? Why is it necessary to call people "dimwits" for pointing out limitations that you yourself failed to acknowledge in your earlier posts?

What's the point of this discussion? Would you stop giving your brain regular workouts, so to speak, if you were convinced it would not increase your IQ? Would you start if you were convinced it would?

Or is this about whether people should start (keep?) drilling their preschoolers on various components of different IQ tests (e.g. repeating a string of numbers in reverse order) in hopes of making them smarter and/or convincing some school that such well-prepped kids are smarter than they really are?

None of these scenarios really make any sense to me. There are better ways to encourage kids (or people generally) to use their brains -- both because the activities involved are more engaging and because the learning involved has some long-term utility.