Someone is selling some snake oil here, aka "enrichment centers."

OP here - I just want to clarify, I have no issue with prepping for an ability test like SAT, NNAT, CogAT, but an IQ test is something different. Isn't your IQ, your IQ? How do you prep for that?

You're not supposed to prep for IQ tests; that invalidates the score. You're not even supposed to take them more than once a year because that can lead to spuriously creased scores due to test familiarity. If someone preps for an IQ test, the score isn't valid.

What is an IQ test? Where can you take this IQ test? Who administers and grades this IQ test? How can anyone study or prep for this IQ test? I am confused since I never took an IQ test but I have taken the required prerequisites such as SSAT, ACT, SAT, MCAT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT just to name a few during my formal educational phase. Are any of these tests IQ tests? What is this special test creature you call IQ test?

You're not supposed to prep for IQ tests; that invalidates the score. You're not even supposed to take them more than once a year because that can lead to spuriously creased scores due to test familiarity. If someone preps for an IQ test, the score isn't valid.

Does this include year-round academic tutoring and enrichment summer camps in problem solving activities and critical thinking (paid by mommy and daddy)? Or, is this limited to activities done the week before the IQ test?

Should all children take a 1 year hiatus (before taking any IQ test) from school and the critical thinking and problem solving activities ant tutors their parents have line up for them year-round and on vacation breaks?

But, the nut who introduces all these bogus terms is too chicken to define and tell us how she measures or quantifies this...the whole bedrock of her weak arguments.

S: You have introduced another concept you can't even define or measure. Raw intelligence. What is this in contrast to cooked intelligence?
How do you define this? How do you quantify or measure this?

Thanks

You need a scale to measure raw intelligence. 675 grams is a good score!

Dry or wet weight?

There are two separate issues: Learning makes one smarter. Reading helps. Exercising the brain helps -- it creates more neural pathways. It makes you smarter.

On the other hand, test prep -- learning test taking strategies will only improve the measure of intelligence, but not the raw intellectual problem solving capabilities.

As an example, I can take subject test that is multiple choice in subjects I know very little about, and do well -- not because I know anything about the subject, but I see that there is only one set of answers that can be correct for the questions. In this case, the test might be trying to measure what I know about 16th century chinese history, and I got an A, but I know nothing about 16th century chinese history.

Similarly, knowing how to take a CogAT -- strategies for the specific problems can improve your score, but it will minimally (if any) improve the raw intelligence.

Fools gold. Grade inflation. Your teacher liked you and gave you an A. You are not an expert in Chinese history despite your ribbon .

PS: You have introduced another concept you can't even define or measure. Raw intelligence. What is this in contrast to cooked intelligence?
How do you define this? How do you quantify or measure this?

Thanks

You need a scale to measure raw intelligence. 675 grams is a good score!

There are two separate issues: Learning makes one smarter. Reading helps. Exercising the brain helps -- it creates more neural pathways. It makes you smarter.

On the other hand, test prep -- learning test taking strategies will only improve the measure of intelligence, but not the raw intellectual problem solving capabilities.

As an example, I can take subject test that is multiple choice in subjects I know very little about, and do well -- not because I know anything about the subject, but I see that there is only one set of answers that can be correct for the questions. In this case, the test might be trying to measure what I know about 16th century chinese history, and I got an A, but I know nothing about 16th century chinese history.

Similarly, knowing how to take a CogAT -- strategies for the specific problems can improve your score, but it will minimally (if any) improve the raw intelligence.

Egotistical! Let's see you take the Latin SAT subject test and see your score. Of course, doing well is relative. For some a SAT score in the 400 is doing rather well.

Trust science, intensive test prep does create more neural pathways and thus makes you smarter (by your admission above). Simply measure neuronal activity while one is doing any of these intellectual activities and tasks. Now, we are still waiting for you to tell us how you measure and monitor the ebbs and flow of intelligence? Don't duck.

PS: You have introduced another concept you can't even define or measure. Raw intelligence. What is this in contrast to cooked intelligence?
How do you define this? How do you quantify or measure this?

Thanks

There are two separate issues: Learning makes one smarter. Reading helps. Exercising the brain helps -- it creates more neural pathways. It makes you smarter.

On the other hand, test prep -- learning test taking strategies will only improve the measure of intelligence, but not the raw intellectual problem solving capabilities.

As an example, I can take subject test that is multiple choice in subjects I know very little about, and do well -- not because I know anything about the subject, but I see that there is only one set of answers that can be correct for the questions. In this case, the test might be trying to measure what I know about 16th century chinese history, and I got an A, but I know nothing about 16th century chinese history.

Similarly, knowing how to take a CogAT -- strategies for the specific problems can improve your score, but it will minimally (if any) improve the raw intelligence.

Trust science, intensive test prep does create more neural pathways and thus makes you smarter (by your admission above). Simply measure neuronal activity while one is doing any of these intellectual activities and tasks. Now, we are still waiting for you to tell us how you measure and monitor the ebbs and flow of intelligence? Don't duck.

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I just want to clarify, I have no issue with prepping for an ability test like SAT, NNAT, CogAT, but an IQ test is something different. Isn't your IQ, your IQ? How do you prep for that?

You're not supposed to prep for IQ tests; that invalidates the score. You're not even supposed to take them more than once a year because that can lead to spuriously creased scores due to test familiarity. If someone preps for an IQ test, the score isn't valid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but not all people with good memory capacity are intelligent. Memory is a trainable, lower level skill. It is completely possible for someone to be great at memorizing but not be intelligent. A less intelligent person can be trained to memorize.

Intelligent people have good memories, but not every person with a good memory is intelligent.

To add to this, there is a big difference between being able to figure out the solution to a problem on your own without outside help and being taught how to solve a problem and memorizing the steps. The first takes intelligence, while most people can be trained to do the second. Lots of people can be trained to solve typical problems, but a smaller number have the ability to figure out a solution without being told how to do it.

The example of the young kid who takes apart household items and fixes them an puts them back together is a good example of this. People who can solve problems without being taught how to do it tend to be very intelligent. Sure, they can memorize too, but they can do much more than that.

It's interesting that some do not understand the difference between memorizing and problem solving.

This is the difference between the educational system in Korea, for example, and that in the west.

The Korean educational system is much better than the US system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but not all people with good memory capacity are intelligent. Memory is a trainable, lower level skill. It is completely possible for someone to be great at memorizing but not be intelligent. A less intelligent person can be trained to memorize.

Intelligent people have good memories, but not every person with a good memory is intelligent.

To add to this, there is a big difference between being able to figure out the solution to a problem on your own without outside help and being taught how to solve a problem and memorizing the steps. The first takes intelligence, while most people can be trained to do the second. Lots of people can be trained to solve typical problems, but a smaller number have the ability to figure out a solution without being told how to do it.

The example of the young kid who takes apart household items and fixes them an puts them back together is a good example of this. People who can solve problems without being taught how to do it tend to be very intelligent. Sure, they can memorize too, but they can do much more than that.

It's interesting that some do not understand the difference between memorizing and problem solving.

This is the difference between the educational system in Korea, for example, and that in the west.

There are two separate issues: Learning makes one smarter. Reading helps. Exercising the brain helps -- it creates more neural pathways. It makes you smarter.

On the other hand, test prep -- learning test taking strategies will only improve the measure of intelligence, but not the raw intellectual problem solving capabilities.

As an example, I can take subject test that is multiple choice in subjects I know very little about, and do well -- not because I know anything about the subject, but I see that there is only one set of answers that can be correct for the questions. In this case, the test might be trying to measure what I know about 16th century chinese history, and I got an A, but I know nothing about 16th century chinese history.

Similarly, knowing how to take a CogAT -- strategies for the specific problems can improve your score, but it will minimally (if any) improve the raw intelligence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but not all people with good memory capacity are intelligent. Memory is a trainable, lower level skill. It is completely possible for someone to be great at memorizing but not be intelligent. A less intelligent person can be trained to memorize.

Intelligent people have good memories, but not every person with a good memory is intelligent.

To add to this, there is a big difference between being able to figure out the solution to a problem on your own without outside help and being taught how to solve a problem and memorizing the steps. The first takes intelligence, while most people can be trained to do the second. Lots of people can be trained to solve typical problems, but a smaller number have the ability to figure out a solution without being told how to do it.

The example of the young kid who takes apart household items and fixes them an puts them back together is a good example of this. People who can solve problems without being taught how to do it tend to be very intelligent. Sure, they can memorize too, but they can do much more than that.

It's interesting that some do not understand the difference between memorizing and problem solving.