You misunderstood what the PP who took many tests is saying. You can get better at taking tests by taking more tests, but that doesn't change your intelligence. The reason for limiting the frequency of testing is they don't want the results confounded by familiarity with the test itself.

And sure, if everyone does test prep, everyone will be on equal ground, just as if no one did test prep all would be on the same equal ground. Someone who does test prep before an IQ type test will get a higher score, but the person will not be any smarter. Correctly answering questions you've been taught how to answer is very different from figuring out the process on your own. The person who can figure out solutions on his or her own will always be ahead of the kids who can't figure problems out on heir own.

This is particularly true in households where mommy and daddy encourage voluminous reading in their children, doing puzzles together, building and taking apart art and constructions together, problem solving together, going out to museums and travelling the world wide to learn and experience nature's beauty! Mommy and Daddy spend money for their children to get academic enrichment year round and put their children in wonderful summer camp experiences. These households wring their hands striving for the best neighborhoods, schools, and peer groups for their darling children. This calculated strategic long-term process produces smarter and more intelligent children since smartness and intelligence is measured by AAP, SAT, and variety of other measures well-known to be affected by this formula. Of course, those who create the metrics by which intelligence is measured were marinated by the same upbringing, formula and environment.

You misunderstood what the PP who took many tests is saying. You can get better at taking tests by taking more tests, but that doesn't change your intelligence. The reason for limiting the frequency of testing is they don't want the results confounded by familiarity with the test itself.

And sure, if everyone does test prep, everyone will be on equal ground, just as if no one did test prep all would be on the same equal ground. Someone who does test prep before an IQ type test will get a higher score, but the person will not be any smarter. Correctly answering questions you've been taught how to answer is very different from figuring out the process on your own. The person who can figure out solutions on his or her own will always be ahead of the kids who can't figure problems out on heir own.

Therefore, we all will be equally gifted and smart.

How do you measure and monitor changing intelligence to know who is smarter than the other? Does this barometer still have to do with puzzles and Rubic cubes, or is it about SAT and GoCAT tests?

Exactly, any average person can be trained to do these things. But the person who can figure out the solutions without being taught is smarter than the student who can't figure it out without being taught. Anyone can memorize how to solve a problem, not everyone can analyze and solve a problem without being taught how.

Figuring out the solutions to new problems is very different form being taught how to solve the same categories of problems over and over again. The person who can figure things out is smarter than the person who cannot. How people react when they see a problem unlike any they have ever seen before tells you much more about their intelligence than how many problem solutions they can memorize.

Do you actually believe intelligent children are delivered at birth and live in a pathogen-free, sound-proof, dark room without stimulation or any exposure/experience then ace exams and solve riddles and puzzles despite never having seen a riddle or puzzle?

I have a proposition for you...off line.

Anonymous wrote:

No one is saying you can have intelligence without memory. Intelligent people have good memories, but it is possible to have a great memory but not be very intelligent. Almost anyone can be trained to memorize. Problem solving is a higher order thinking skill and not so easily trained.

A six year old who solves puzzles without being taught how to do them is usually smarter than a kid who can't do the puzzle without being taught how. Learning and memorizing the steps to solve a puzzle is different than figuring out how to solve a puzzle on one's own. Anyone can do the first, not just anyone can do the second.

One can get proficient at multiple choice questions (MCQ) by training and practicing MCQs (e.g., the SAT and College Board)

One can get proficient at puzzle solving and problem solving by training and practicing solving puzzles and problems (e.g., problem solving with AoPS)

This is not a difficult concept to grasp for an average person. I you desire proficiency in a task you practice that task (e.g., MCQ, essay writing, public speaking, problem solving, swimming, piano, violin). There are many examples of this in nature and the world we live in. C'est tout! This is has nothing to do with 6-year-old smarts!

Exactly, any average person can be trained to do these things. But the person who can figure out the solutions without being taught is smarter than the student who can't figure it out without being taught. Anyone can memorize how to solve a problem, not everyone can analyze and solve a problem without being taught how.

Figuring out the solutions to new problems is very different form being taught how to solve the same categories of problems over and over again. The person who can figure things out is smarter than the person who cannot. How people react when they see a problem unlike any they have ever seen before tells you much more about their intelligence than how many problem solutions they can memorize.

You misunderstood what the PP who took many tests is saying. You can get better at taking tests by taking more tests, but that doesn't change your intelligence. The reason for limiting the frequency of testing is they don't want the results confounded by familiarity with the test itself.

Since you know so much about intelligence. Can you educate us on how you monitor and measure change in intelligence?

You misunderstood what the PP who took many tests is saying. You can get better at taking tests by taking more tests, but that doesn't change your intelligence. The reason for limiting the frequency of testing is they don't want the results confounded by familiarity with the test itself. ...

But it does change your intelligence. You are the one who doesn't understand. The latter is related to intelligence.

At least now the publishers of CoGat are being honest. They advocate that schools using their test ensure all test takers be put on an equal footing by providing preparation resources. Traditionally the lack of preparation resources is what put low income families at a disadvantage. Now they all sing the same song - prep before you test. Public has understood and acknowledged this reality with achievement tests like SAT, but it will take time for them to understand that it is also the case with ability tests like Cogat.

This is one of the more reasoned responses. Level the playing field by giving everyone access to preparation resources. Then get out of the way at let the best kid win. Let with most things in life chance and luck will favor the most prepared.

This has nothing to do with smarts in utero or tumbling out of the vaginal vault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Having been given tons of IQ tests throughout my childhood, I will say that being more familiar with the format and types of questions will bump you up a few points, because you get better at those types of questions, at taking the test, and you get calmer about it. I remember they had to limit the frequency of testing me in order not to mess up their results. (Apparently I was a consistently ultra-high-scoring kid, and they had a tiny collection of us they'd test their tests on back in the 60s and 70s.)

Your experience is testament to the biologic concept that intelligence (IQ) is nothing more than an epigenetic phenomenon: repeated and repetitive nurture, experience, exposure, and preparation (prep!!!). The College Board discovered this after half a century of marketing and branding.

At least now the publishers of CoGat are being honest. They advocate that schools using their test ensure all test takers be put on an equal footing by providing preparation resources. Traditionally the lack of preparation resources is what put low income families at a disadvantage. Now they all sing the same song - prep before you test. Public has understood and acknowledged this reality with achievement tests like SAT, but it will take time for them to understand that it is also the case with ability tests like Cogat.

You misunderstood what the PP who took many tests is saying. You can get better at taking tests by taking more tests, but that doesn't change your intelligence. The reason for limiting the frequency of testing is they don't want the results confounded by familiarity with the test itself.

And sure, if everyone does test prep, everyone will be on equal ground, just as if no one did test prep all would be on the same equal ground. Someone who does test prep before an IQ type test will get a higher score, but the person will not be any smarter. Correctly answering questions you've been taught how to answer is very different from figuring out the process on your own. The person who can figure out solutions on his or her own will always be ahead of the kids who can't figure problems out on heir own.

No one is saying you can have intelligence without memory. Intelligent people have good memories, but it is possible to have a great memory but not be very intelligent. Almost anyone can be trained to memorize. Problem solving is a higher order thinking skill and not so easily trained.

A six year old who solves puzzles without being taught how to to them is usually smarter than a kid who can't do the puzzle without being taught how. Learning and memorizing the steps to solve a puzzle is different than figuring out how to solve a puzzle on one's own. Anyone can do the first, not just anyone can do the second.

One can get proficient at multiple choice questions (MCQ) by training and practicing MCQs (e.g., the SAT and College Board)

One can get proficient at puzzle solving and problem solving by training and practicing solving puzzles and problems (e.g., problem solving with AoPS)

This is not a difficult concept to grasp for an average person. I you desire proficiency in a task you practice that task (e.g., MCQ, essay writing, public speaking, problem solving, swimming, piano, violin). There are many examples of this in nature and the world we live in. C'est tout! This is has nothing to do with 6-year-old smarts!

Anonymous wrote:

Having been given tons of IQ tests throughout my childhood, I will say that being more familiar with the format and types of questions will bump you up a few points, because you get better at those types of questions, at taking the test, and you get calmer about it. I remember they had to limit the frequency of testing me in order not to mess up their results. (Apparently I was a consistently ultra-high-scoring kid, and they had a tiny collection of us they'd test their tests on back in the 60s and 70s.)

Your experience is testament to the biologic concept that intelligence (IQ) is nothing more than an epigenetic phenomenon: repeated and repetitive nurture, experience, exposure, and preparation (prep!!!). The College Board discovered this after half a century of marketing and branding.

At least now the publishers of CoGat are being honest. They advocate that schools using their test ensure all test takers be put on an equal footing by providing preparation resources. Traditionally the lack of preparation resources is what put low income families at a disadvantage. Now they all sing the same song - prep before you test. Public has understood and acknowledged this reality with achievement tests like SAT, but it will take time for them to understand that it is also the case with ability tests like Cogat.

Anonymous wrote:

Memorization is a lower level skill. Anyone can be trained to memorize.

So can you be trained to have a photographic memory?

Of course, memory is a lower level skill. We can all be trained to have a photographic memory. If this is the case then we can improve our IQ through training.

Without the ability and capacity for memory there is NO intelligence or smarts...NONE. The only intelligent individuals I have encountered over the decades with poor memory were individuals with early Alzheimer's and dementia roaming naked and absent minded -- intellectual ghosts of their former selves. These formerly intelligent folk do not agree with you that memory is a lower lever skill.

No one is saying you can have intelligence without memory. Intelligent people have good memories, but it is possible to have a great memory but not be very intelligent. Almost anyone can be trained to memorize. Problem solving is a higher order thinking skill and not so easily trained.

A six year old who solves puzzles without being taught how to to them is usually smarter than a kid who can't do the puzzle without being taught how. Learning and memorizing the steps to solve a puzzle is different than figuring out how to solve a puzzle on one's own. Anyone can do the first, not just anyone can do the second.

Your experience is testament to the biologic concept that intelligence (IQ) is nothing more than an epigenetic phenomenon: repeated and repetitive nurture, experience, exposure, and preparation (prep!!!). The College Board discovered this after half a century of false & deceptive marketing and branding.

Having been given tons of IQ tests throughout my childhood, I will say that being more familiar with the format and types of questions will bump you up a few points, because you get better at those types of questions, at taking the test, and you get calmer about it. I remember they had to limit the frequency of testing me in order not to mess up their results. (Apparently I was a consistently ultra-high-scoring kid, and they had a tiny collection of us they'd test their tests on back in the 60s and 70s.)

Your experience is testament to the biologic concept that intelligence (IQ) is nothing more than an epigenetic phenomenon: repeated and repetitive nurture, experience, exposure, and preparation (prep!!!). The College Board discovered this after half a century of marketing and branding.