There is nothing wrong with bias. Bias is nothing more than the prism through which we formulate our opinions. But I think to a degree we have been talking past each other, or at least that the goalposts keep moving. Are we talking about training for the purpose of IQ testing? Are we talking about training for the purpose of improving cognitive development? Are we talking about training to improve chances for being admitted into a top school? At various points in this overly long thread, all three of these elements have been brought up, however these elements may or may not actually be complementary - or even be related. What may help in some areas may have limited impact, or even be an impediment, in others.

I am talking about whether preparation increases IQ scores or whether IQ is fixed (see OP)? I am not talking about entrance into schools, success in life, happiness, proper fit, tigers and tigresses, improving chances of admission, adverse effects of prepping for IQ tests, or the other digressions. You are correct about the various meanderings of others who spend their waking hours looking for sock puppets and guessing or presupposing the motives of a very simple and plain question.

You'd think/hope that someone with a background in medicine would realize that sometimes treating/modifying the indicator doesn't eliminate (or even ameliorate) the underlying condition.

Practicing something like evaluating verbal analogies or repeating a string of numbers backward will increase scores on tests that measure those particular abilities (treating them as an index of intelligence) without having much impact, if any, on a person's intelligence.

If we lived in a world where rating the quality of verbal analogies or reordering numbers helped us do something more than raise our scores on standardized tests (e.g. in some bizarre alternative universe where doing such tasks well would enable us to solve problems, cure cancer, make money, invent technologies, live together in peace and harmony, etc.), then repetitive training to help our kids do these things as quickly and accurately as possible would make sense. But in this world, it's just a waste of time that could be devoted to a myriad of more intellectually worthwhile activities.

Can you translate this purple passage in plain and simple English?

Stimulation and training results in remarkable changes at the molecular, cellular, organ and system levels (my observations in all types of cells -- e.g., neurons and myoctyes). Some scientists are demonstrating this with biomarker studies, molecular studies, bioenergetic studies and imaging studies (e.g., recent Nature paper on plasticity of brain and significant changes in measured IQ posted by one of the discussants on this board). These findings neither surprise me or many colleagues. They do surprise most individuals thus your reaction is of no surprise to me. I remained biased from my longstanding observations and the scientific data.

Anonymous wrote:
My admittedly biased training in biology, physiology and medicine would assert training most definitely has a positive effect on cellular, organ and systemic function regardless of whether you are looking for a philosophical definition of intelligence or a tool to measure it. I disclose my bias.

There is nothing wrong with bias. Bias is nothing more than the prism through which we formulate our opinions. But I think to a degree we have been talking past each other, or at least that the goalposts keep moving. Are we talking about training for the purpose of IQ testing? Are we talking about training for the purpose of improving cognitive development? Are we talking about training to improve chances for being admitted into a top school? At various points in this overly long thread, all three of these elements have been brought up, however these elements may or may not actually be complementary - or even be related. What may help in some areas may have limited impact, or even be an impediment, in others.

You'd think/hope that someone with a background in medicine would realize that sometimes treating/modifying the indicator doesn't eliminate (or even ameliorate) the underlying condition.

Practicing something like evaluating verbal analogies or repeating a string of numbers backward will increase scores on tests that measure those particular abilities (treating them as an index of intelligence) without having much impact, if any, on a person's intelligence.

If we lived in a world where rating the quality of verbal analogies or reordering numbers helped us do something more than raise our scores on standardized tests (e.g. in some bizarre alternative universe where doing such tasks well would enable us to solve problems, cure cancer, make money, invent technologies, live together in peace and harmony, etc.), then repetitive training to help our kids do these things as quickly and accurately as possible would make sense. But in this world, it's just a waste of time that could be devoted to a myriad of more intellectually worthwhile activities.

Then I apologize, because that is not what I meant to indicate at all. Rather, I call into question the whole premise of trying to measure intelligence in the first place. First, as evidenced by both this discussion and the "Asians" discussion going on simultaneously, nobody seems to be able to even agree on a common definition of what intelligence is. Second, if something cannot even be defined, how can it possibly be quantified in any sort of meaningful way?

I do not doubt that people can be trained to perform better on a test than they would without training. However, whether that training actually has any actual effect on intelligence is highly debatable. Is the training improving intelligence or is it merely improving performance? The two may overlap, but they are by no means the same thing. If the goal is to achieve a higher score on an IQ test, by all means train for the test. If the goal is to increase intelligence in a more abstract sense, then I cannot say with any certainty whether training will have any positive effect or not.

My admittedly biased training in biology, physiology and medicine would assert training most definitely has a positive effect on cellular, organ and systemic function regardless of whether you are looking for a philosophical definition of intelligence or a tool to measure it. I disclose my bias.

The map is not the territory.

Anonymous wrote:I take your response to indicate that IQ is not fixed and exposure, preparation and training can significantly improve scores. Afterall, as you hint, IQ tests are nothing more than achievement tests and performance on achievement tests are not fixed and can significantly improve with exposure, preparation and training. Hard work and preserverance may explain to a large degree why Asian Americans score higher than all the rest on tests and exams -- including IQ tests.

Then I apologize, because that is not what I meant to indicate at all. Rather, I call into question the whole premise of trying to measure intelligence in the first place. First, as evidenced by both this discussion and the "Asians" discussion going on simultaneously, nobody seems to be able to even agree on a common definition of what intelligence is. Second, if something cannot even be defined, how can it possibly be quantified in any sort of meaningful way?

I do not doubt that people can be trained to perform better on a test than they would without training. However, whether that training actually has any actual effect on intelligence is highly debatable. Is the training improving intelligence or is it merely improving performance? The two may overlap, but they are by no means the same thing. If the goal is to achieve a higher score on an IQ test, by all means train for the test. If the goal is to increase intelligence in a more abstract sense, then I cannot say with any certainty whether training will have any positive effect or not.

Perhaps the answer to this question is that there is no existing test that actually reflects intelligence (as opposed to achievement as manifested through things such as linguistic competence, abstract computational abilities, etc.). Many intelligent people can't even agree on what intelligence is, never mind how to reliably measure it. I'm not sure why you think there must be an absolute be all and end all test of intelligence, however that term is being defined.

In a vastly complex world, some things can't be boiled down into a simple number. I understand that some people struggle with complexity, but that doesn't mean that we just have to slavishly adhere to the demonstrably imperfect model that already exists.

Thanks for getting us back on track to the question of the OP. I take your response to indicate that IQ is not fixed and exposure, preparation and training can significantly improve scores. Afterall, as you hint, IQ tests are nothing more than achievement tests and performance on achievement tests are not fixed and can significantly improve with exposure, preparation and training. Hard work and preserverance may explain to a large degree why Asian Americans score higher than all the rest on tests and exams -- including IQ tests. They are smarter than us -- at least that's what my kids tell me.

Anonymous wrote: I'm not sure how everyone gets to the last conclusion if IQ and intellignce are different animals and the IQ tests don't reflect intelligence. If this is the case, what reflects intelligence (is this data in someone's bible)?

Perhaps the answer to this question is that there is no existing test that actually reflects intelligence (as opposed to achievement as manifested through things such as linguistic competence, abstract computational abilities, etc.). Many intelligent people can't even agree on what intelligence is, never mind how to reliably measure it. I'm not sure why you think there must be an absolute be all and end all test of intelligence, however that term is being defined.

In a vastly complex world, some things can't be boiled down into a simple number. I understand that some people struggle with complexity, but that doesn't mean that we just have to slavishly adhere to the demonstrably imperfect model that already exists.

Gotta love racial theories of intelligence.

Why are people so threatened by Asians?

They are smarter. Just get over it.

Because they have higher scores on IQ tests and just about every other test tracked in K-12 and college (at least in my States of MD and VA). This was not an issue in America 50 years ago. It's now become and issue hence the chant that IQ and intelligence are different, IQ doesn't measure intelligence and Asian Americans are not more intelligent than others in our country. I'm not sure how everyone gets to the last conclusion if IQ and intellignce are different animals and the IQ tests don't reflect intelligence. If this is the case, what reflects intelligence (is this data in someone's bible)? Let's change the rules when our buttocks are handed back to us by some other group.

How does this group perform (intellectual and academic) in the greater diaspora (Britain, Europe, Africa and Asia)? My bet ... kicking much butt.

What kind of lunatic sniffs sock puppets?

Rats on Ritalin scurrying the dcum maze.

What kind of lunatic sniffs sock puppets?

Anonymous wrote:Is it just me, or do many of the posts from last night smell like sock puppets?

What is a sock puppet?

I responded to this thread and another thread. Does that make me a sock puppet?

Is it just me, or do many of the posts from last night smell like sock puppets?