# Can you develop intelligence ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 2, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435 "2010-09-02T22:09:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/41 "2010-09-03T16:55:16Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > TriPolar, let me make sure that I understand what you are asserting. Please let me know if these statements are accurate represenations of what you believe. > > 1. You don’t believe that we have a good definination of what intelligence is. I know so. Even within the IQ community there is not a consistent definition. When we know how brains work, we might have such a definition. But we don’t now. > [@](#): > > 1. You believe that intelligence can be increased through some activities. I believe that. I can’t prove it because of item 1. > [@](#): > > 1. You don’t believe that IQ tests measure intelligence well, in part because we do not have a good definition of intelligence. I know that. You can’t accurately measure something you can’t define. Example: How many akjhad are in a sdlkfij? > [@](#): > > If these statements are an accurate representation of your beliefs, is it not incongruous to be sure that intelligence can be increased without being able to define it while simultaneously being sure that it is impossible to measure intelligence without being able to define it? > > You seem to be aruguing that the lack of understanding of intelligence serves as a barrier to others’ claims about intelligence, but your own assertations face no such hurdle. It would be incongruous if that was what I was saying. I am giving opinions, and identifying them as such, and not making claims of scientific proof. I am reporting on empirical observations. And not claiming that they provide conclusions. If you have a definition of intelligence, state it. If you have an opionion, or facts, that intelligence can or cannot be improved, state it. Otherwise, I have no interest in continuing this inane conversation. There are many inane conversations on this board that are more interesting. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/42 "2010-09-03T16:58:00Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > If your only claim is that people can run faster after exercising, then I agree with you completely. Good, then stop arguing. > [@](#): > > ETA: The reason that there is no evidence of anyone improving their IQ from 100 to 150 is that it is impossible - not because humans cannot have 150 IQs, but because intelligence cannot be increased in that way. Oh gee. Well I guess I’m wrong since you are the authoritative, indisputable source for that information.:rolleyes: Don’t argue with me when I express opinions, and you make claims of fact without the least evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/43 "2010-09-03T17:03:45Z")
As for evidence, there’s the stuff quoted in [this New York article](http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/). It backs up the “encourage effort” method. And perhaps I don’t understand the type of intelligence that the OP is asking about. If performing memory feats doesn’t count, what does? I also know strategies to solve logic puzzles and enhance spacial reasoning. I wasn’t born knowing how to do that; I was trained, and I practiced it. Why does that not count as developing intelligence? Is it not development, or is it not intelligence? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/44 "2010-09-03T17:04:02Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@TriPolar](#): > > > > It directly addressed not\_alice’s claim that I had made contradictory statements. Which in the case cited, I did not. > > But how fast you can run, and what your IQ score are are different. One is just an observation about you and the environment, and one is a score that is normed against the entire population. The latter is more akin to a “percentile” than an absolute value such as miles per hour. > > You might as well be arguing that because your Toyota Camry can go 100 miles an hours, and when you drive it that way you pass a lot of cars, that it is capable of being driven in a NASCAR race. Nothing you can do to your Camry, short of ditching it and building a brand new car, is going to change its relative position among the entire population of cars regarding the measure of performance on the road. > > Oh maybe you can tweak the engine settings, or use a different fuel or something like that, but even then it is a lot of effort for little gain. And in any case, when you do those things, you can measure exactly what it is that is changing, and why it changes the performance. > > When you do so, you realize with the same effort you can do that to most if not all the other cars in the population too, so in a sense, you haven’t really changed the relative position on the population, you only achieved some inherent potential, while the others hold the same potential also. > > So if the original measure was not actual performance, but potential performance, you have changed nothing. Your Camry still has the same potential performance after the tweak as it did before. > > See the difference here? Good, can you apply the argument to people and running speeds for us? Let me make this simple. I might be able to run faster by increasing the strength of my leg muscles. You seem to contend that a brain functioning cannot be analogously improved. Do you have any evidence of that? Since you seem to be claiming expertise in this area, please answer this for me. When one person gets different IQ scores from tests taken at different times, is IQ inaccurate, or has the person’s IQ changed? Or do you claim that has never happened? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/45 "2010-09-03T17:08:08Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > The reason you cannot reach 50 mph is because it exceeds human capacity. This is not the reason that people cannot reach 150 IQ. 150 IQ does not exceed human capacity. Well,it does in the sense that the measure is that people with that score are by definition 3+ standard deviations from the norm, so there can only be so many of them. If it turns out that the distribution shifts over time, then the scores are re-normed, and people are back to where they were. If you want to make the claim that cy changing scores, people are changing their relative position to others, then have at it, because that is what the score is about. It is not some absolute value. > [@](#): > > Therefore implying that being unable to ‘train’ someone to reach 150 IQ is similar to being unable to train someone to reach a 50 mph running speed in that neither provides a logical counterpoint to the idea that someone can be trained at a lower level (from 12 to 13 or from 100 to 105) is logically invalid, since the inability to ‘train’ someone up to those defferent levels are based on completely unrelated reasons - there simply is no relationship and meaningful insights can be drawn from such an irrational comparison. Is there _anyone_ here that understands basic statistics? Anyone? Bueller? ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/46 "2010-09-03T17:10:16Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > As for evidence, there’s the stuff quoted in [this New York article](http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/). It backs up the “encourage effort” method. That article is an echo chamber – the NY journalist cites Daniel T. Willingham who is the author the book **ultrafilter** already mentioned. > [@](#): > > … > Why does that not count as developing intelligence? We can certainly come to some sort of agreement that it’s developing a subset of intelligence. However at the same time, it’s not what the OP was asking about. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/47 "2010-09-03T17:29:43Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > > [@not\_alice](#): > > > > Of course he talked about statistics. What do you think the assessment tests s/he is administering are? > > I don’t know, and neither do you. So ask him. Not me. Well you should know: they are normed statistical instruments. Maybe you are just in the wrong thread if you don’t know what the OP was talking about? > [@](#): > > By finding a definition for intelligence. And developing a test that measures it. **I can measure how fast my car goes without statistics.** I don’t need to know anything about any other car to do it. Bolding mine. OK, really? How are you going to measure how fast your car goes without statistics? You know, you can’t just make up meanings for words and expect to be taken seriously. Especially when you are trying to argue a way to increase intelligence 🙂 > [@](#): > > BTW, I am **extremely interested** to read you r explanation of what temperature is, since you asserted you knew. Let’s not drop that part of it, because it is relevant for the part that is coming soon when you say you know what intelligence is and I ask you to define it. I’d like to see you back up what you say with regarding a measure that is not controversial first, so I have a sense as to how well you might be able to describe the more controversial one. So to you, what is temperature measuring, as commonly used by everyone over the age of 8 or so? [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Please read some physics books for a start. They well tell you what the definition of temperature is. That’s one I use. Cite please? I studied physics for 3 years at a top ranked university. OK, it was a long time ago, but I am quite certain that our physics books did not discuss matters on scales such as the temperature as reported on the weather report. If yours do, then please share. Look, you don’t know the scientific meaning of temperature, and even if you grasp the concept, you don’t know how it relates to the thermostat on your wall that any 8 year old can understand. I am not asking for a fallacious appeal to authority, I am asking you to explain something, anything, that demonstrates you understand basic statistics and the way they are used in daily life. > [@](#): > > What is yours? I didn’t say I know what intelligence is. You are implying that you do. So please tell me your definition. If it is just a statistical result, don’t bother. I’ll say the same thing. Tell me what you are measuring. Yes, you did say you know what intelligence is, and how to change it. Me, I simply said there exists an instrument for what it is not clear or not known what it measures, but for which a lot people seem to have an emotional attachment. There are lots of things we measure but don’t know precisely what they are, and yet can make use fo that data. Temperature is one thing, a kid knows not to wear a winter coat in the summer, and the reason has to do with relative temperatures. We also intuitively know about relative rankings, even if they are somewhat fuzzy. For instance, my Toyota Camry is not a Nascar racing vehicle, and it is not a truck either. It has some qualities of both, but it is better or worse than each at some qualities. For instance, again, even children know that a truck is generally better than a car for carrying large loads, and some cars are better than others for various tasks. Furthermore, we understand “potential” compared to “actual” with comparative qualities. There is nothing I can do to my Camry to make it have the same carrying capacity as a truck. It simply does not have the potential. But it does have the potential to be green instead of its current silver, so the actual color is no statement on the potential color. Again, even children understand these concepts. I can only conclude, since these are concepts that children routinely grasp, and frankly so do adults, that there is something in the particular language, an attachment to the word “intelligent” itself. I can understand that notion - gf wants to test me, and I say no - what could be the value of knowing to me or her? I am comfortable with what intelligence I possess, I don’t find it particularly malleable, and even if it were, so what? OTOH, oh hell yeah I can teach you lots of test taking tricks - I guarantee I can raise your score on SAT or other similar tests by practice of the types of questions, and judicious learning of test taking skills. Finally, I might mention that an IQ test can’t be repeated and found valid in a certain period of time, regardless of what it measures, I forget how long, but I am thinking at least several years. How do you propose to keep taking this test and get a valid 2nd and later score, let alone an accurate one? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/48 "2010-09-03T17:31:39Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > > [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > > > TriPolar, let me make sure that I understand what you are asserting. Please let me know if these statements are accurate represenations of what you believe. > > > > 1. You don’t believe that we have a good definination of what intelligence is. > > I know so. Even within the IQ community there is not a consistent definition. When we know how brains work, we might have such a definition. But we don’t now. > > I agree. > > I believe that. I can’t prove it because of item 1. > > I’m OK with that. > > I know that. You can’t accurately measure something you can’t define. Example: How many akjhad are in a sdlkfij? > > Obviously, a lot of people believe that IQ can measure intelligence. I personally believe that it can do a so-so job of measuring some aspects of intelligence, but that it leaves a lot to be desired. But I do think it’s possible to measure things that we don’t fully understand - gravity, for example. Or anything, really - since I think to say that we understand anything completely is pretty ridiculous. > > > [@](#): > > > > If these statements are an accurate representation of your beliefs, is it not incongruous to be sure that intelligence can be increased without being able to define it while simultaneously being sure that it is impossible to measure intelligence without being able to define it? > > > > You seem to be aruguing that the lack of understanding of intelligence serves as a barrier to others’ claims about intelligence, but your own assertations face no such hurdle. > > It would be incongruous if that was what I was saying. I am giving opinions, and identifying them as such, and not making claims of scientific proof. > > I’m sorry - I thought you were making stronger claims than that. I stand corrected. I put some of my thoughts above in red in response to your statements so that I didn’t have to seperate the quote out a whole bunch. As far as my own thoughts on the matter, in addition to what’s posted above, I believe that people can can increase their reasoning via the study of formal logic, critical thinking, heuristics and so forth. Their is also good evidence that engaging in new types of learning can help prevent alzheimer’s and dementia - [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022252](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022252). But I have never seen evidence that a person can ‘train’ their way from being a person of normal intelligence to someone of extraordinary intelligence. Since intelligence is ‘fuzzy’, and because there are ways to develop a better memory or better math skills and become more educated in general, it is very difficult - maybe impossible - to detect small increases in what is commonly understood to be intelligence. This is similar to the perosn who can ‘study’ for an IQ test and score 5 points higher. They are developing their skills, not their innate ability. And this is basically where the breakdown occurs - some say ‘well, those skills are intelligence’ and others say ‘no, it’s the innate part that’s intelligence.’ What leans many, including myself, into the innate camp is that the skills can only get the 5 or 10 points - it can’t get 50. I say that it’s impossible in the same way that people say unicorns don’t exist. I can’t prove it because it is impossible to prove a negative. But I can indicate that there is no proof to the contrary and state that the burden of proof is on anyone who would like to make the claim that it is possible, and not vice-versa. Finally, I would like to say that I still don’t udnerstand why you included the statement about not being able to run 50 mph if you weren’t trying to imply that it had some relation to training intelligence to a high level. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/49 "2010-09-03T17:46:45Z")
To the OP: Check out [The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong](http://www.amazon.com/Genius-All-Us-Everything-Genetics/dp/0385523653/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I39H0HMDBO7XHK&colid=3J4J8LM4J9LE4). There are a couple of other good ones, I’ll try to find them and give you links later. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/50 "2010-09-03T17:49:05Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > > > The reason you cannot reach 50 mph is because it exceeds human capacity. This is not the reason that people cannot reach 150 IQ. 150 IQ does not exceed human capacity. > > Well,it does in the sense that the measure is that people with that score are by definition 3+ standard deviations from the norm, so there can only be so many of them. > > That is not what exceeds means. > > > [@](#): > > > > to go beyond a limit set by > > [EXCEEDS Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exceeds) > > 0.135% of people are above the 3rd SD, therefore any number in that range does not exceed the limit - you might say that a number could statistically exceed a limit if the population multiplied by (1 minus the cumulative normal distirbution) was less than 1, but that’s not what sigma and mu are really for. > > If it turns out that the distribution shifts over time, then the scores are re-normed, and people are back to where they were. > > Yes. > > If you want to make the claim that cy changing scores, people are changing their relative position to others, then have at it, because that is what the score is about. It is not some absolute value. > > I don’t want to make that claim, it’s irrelevant. > > > [@](#): > > > > Therefore implying that being unable to ‘train’ someone to reach 150 IQ is similar to being unable to train someone to reach a 50 mph running speed in that neither provides a logical counterpoint to the idea that someone can be trained at a lower level (from 12 to 13 or from 100 to 105) is logically invalid, since the inability to ‘train’ someone up to those defferent levels are based on completely unrelated reasons - there simply is no relationship and meaningful insights can be drawn from such an irrational comparison. > > Is there _anyone_ here that understands basic statistics? Anyone? Bueller? > > This statement has nothing to do with statistics… not sure what your thinking here is. As far as anyone here understanding statistics, there’s at least 1, but it doesn’t appear to be you. My responses are in red. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/51 "2010-09-03T17:55:36Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > But I have never seen evidence that a person can ‘train’ their way from being a person of normal intelligence to someone of extraordinary intelligence. I’ve also never seen evidence but I hold out a small sliver of hope that it may be possible. I quit my job to work on it actually. Best-practice teaching methods and encouragement are good ideas but they can only go so far. I’m guessing if scientists discover a way to boost IQ, it will be hardware assisted – computer simulations or elaborately designed stimulus devices for eyes and ears to absorb new patterns. A (fictitious) example could look something like the [Lawnmower Man](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104692) movie. Other possibilities include drugs that change and improve neural pathways or alter electrical activity boosting pattern recognition and complex problem solving. (Obviously it would something more potent than caffeine.) Whatever technology it might be, nobody knows but whatever it is, it’s going to be way more complicated than just backslapping your child with praise or feeding him a box of Wheaties. It’s ironic. I’m simultaneously skeptical of the “nurture” argument while at the same time working on the very thing that would bolster their position. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/52 "2010-09-03T17:59:51Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > > [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > > > But I have never seen evidence that a person can ‘train’ their way from being a person of normal intelligence to someone of extraordinary intelligence. > > I’ve also never seen evidence but I hold out a small sliver of hope that it may be possible. I quit my job to work on it actually. > > Best-practice teaching methods and encouragement are good ideas but they can only go so far. > > I’m guessing if scientists discover a way to boost IQ, it will be hardware assisted – computer simulations or elaborately designed stimulus devices for eyes and ears to absorb new patterns. A (fictitious) example could look something like the [Lawnmower Man](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104692) movie. > > Other possibilities include drugs that change and improve neural pathways or alter electrical activity boosting pattern recognition and complex problem solving. (Obviously it would something more potent than caffeine.) > > Whatever technology it might be, nobody knows but whatever it is, it’s going to be way more complicated than just backslapping your child with praise or feeding him a box of Wheaties. > > It’s ironic. I’m simultaneously skeptical of the “nurture” argument while at the same time working on the very thing that would bolster their position. This I agree with - check out this book, if you haven’t already: > **[How to Defeat Your Own Clone: And Other Tips for Surviving the Biotech...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Defeat-Your-Own-Clone/dp/055338578X)** > > Buy How to Defeat Your Own Clone: And Other Tips for Surviving the Biotech Revolution on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders There’s some cool stuff in it about boosting intelligence via genetic alteration, and it’s a good read in general. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/53 "2010-09-03T18:02:33Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Well you should know: they are normed statistical instruments. > > Maybe you are just in the wrong thread if you don’t know what the OP was talking about? Now you are claiming psychic abilities. > [@](#): > > OK, really? > > How are you going to measure how fast your car goes without statistics? > > You know, you can’t just make up meanings for words and expect to be taken seriously. Especially when you are trying to argue a way to increase intelligence 🙂 I’m not arguing a way to increase intelligence. I don’t even understand your grammer. If you want to apply a single measurement as a statistic, and extend that to the plural definition statistics, go ahead. It doesn’t help your argument. > [@](#): > > Cite please? > > I studied physics for 3 years at a top ranked university. OK, it was a long time ago, but I am quite certain that our physics books did not discuss matters on scales such as the temperature as reported on the weather report. If yours do, then please share. > > Look, you don’t know the scientific meaning of temperature, and even if you grasp the concept, you don’t know how it relates to the thermostat on your wall that any 8 year old can understand. I am not asking for a fallacious appeal to authority, I am asking you to explain something, anything, that demonstrates you understand basic statistics and the way they are used in daily life. Cite what? You don’t think you will find a definition of temperature in a physics book? Temperature is a physical property. You can produce statistics using it. So what? Tell me anything about intelligence. You refuse to address that. > [@](#): > > Yes, you did say you know what intelligence is, and how to change it. Me, I simply said there exists an instrument for what it is not clear or not known what it measures, but for which a lot people seem to have an emotional attachment. My first post was unclear. That was my default, and you can criticize me for it. The rest of my posts have been clear on what I am stating as fact, and what I am stating as opinion. I did not say I know what intelligence is. I don’t have time to reread the posts again, so if I did, following my first post, which I clarified. Then you are right, and I was mistaken. Otherwise retract your claim. There are lots of things we measure but don’t know precisely what they are, and yet can make use fo that data. Temperature is one thing, a kid knows not to wear a winter coat in the summer, and the reason has to do with relative temperatures. We also intuitively know about relative rankings, even if they are somewhat fuzzy. For instance, my Toyota Camry is not a Nascar racing vehicle, and it is not a truck either. It has some qualities of both, but it is better or worse than each at some qualities. For instance, again, even children know that a truck is generally better than a car for carrying large loads, and some cars are better than others for various tasks. Furthermore, we understand “potential” compared to “actual” with comparative qualities. There is nothing I can do to my Camry to make it have the same carrying capacity as a truck. It simply does not have the potential. But it does have the potential to be green instead of its current silver, so the actual color is no statement on the potential color. Again, even children understand these concepts. I can only conclude, since these are concepts that children routinely grasp, and frankly so do adults, that there is something in the particular language, an attachment to the word “intelligent” itself. I can understand that notion - gf wants to test me, and I say no - what could be the value of knowing to me or her? I am comfortable with what intelligence I possess, I don’t find it particularly malleable, and even if it were, so what? OTOH, oh hell yeah I can teach you lots of test taking tricks - I guarantee I can raise your score on SAT or other similar tests by practice of the types of questions, and judicious learning of test taking skills. Finally, I might mention that an IQ test can’t be repeated and found valid in a certain period of time, regardless of what it measures, I forget how long, but I am thinking at least several years. How do you propose to keep taking this test and get a valid 2nd and later score, let alone an accurate one? [/QUOTE] I’m not arguing any of those things. You are imagining that I am, if you hold that belief after my clarification. I don’t propose anything about taking valid IQ tests. This has been fun. If you have something to say about intelligence I’ll address that. Otherwise, please enjoy the holiday weekend. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/54 "2010-09-03T18:07:01Z")
[quote=“Darth\_Panda, post:50, topic:552435”] > [@not\_alice](#): > > Well,it does in the sense that the measure is that people with that score are by definition 3+ standard deviations from the norm, so there can only be so many of them. > > That is not what exceeds means. Are you suggesting that there is room for more people in the subset of \> 3 std devs out than there is now? How does that work? > [@](#): > > If it turns out that the distribution shifts over time, then the scores are re-normed, and people are back to where they were. > > [COLOR=“red”]Yes. Right, and by renormin, only the same number of people as before will be 3 std devs (or whatever distance interests you) out. If someone where to move in, then someone else would have to move out. > [@](#): > > If you want to make the claim that cy changing scores, people are changing their relative position to others, then have at it, because that is what the score is about. It is not some absolute value. > > I don’t want to make that claim, it’s irrelevant. It is at the heart of the very definition of a normed score, which you claim to grasp. Now you are saying that the definition of a normed score is not relevant to the way we interpret it? Hmmm. > [@](#): > > This statement has nothing to do with statistics… not sure what your thinking here is. As far as anyone here understanding statistics, there’s at least 1, but it doesn’t appear to be you. People keep saying statistical things in this thread, that they apparently don’t understand are in fact statistical claims. Yours are approaching the one up above where someone said they can measure the speed of a car without statistics. > [@](#): > > My responses are in red. As someone asked upthread for another to follow the board tradition of separating paragraphs with 2 line feeds, may I ask that you follow board convention regarding quotes please? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/55 "2010-09-03T18:13:03Z")
[QUOTE=Darth Panda;12874639 I put some of my thoughts above in red in response to your statements so that I didn’t have to seperate the quote out a whole bunch. … [/QUOTE] I would like to discuss this with you further, because you are demonstrating that you have studied the subject of intelligence. But I have wasted time arguing with others. So I may not be back to this right away. I don’t have much disagreement with what you are saying, but only have had time for a cursory glance. The 50mph statement was to emphasize that I never argued that I knew of a way to change an IQ score from 100 to 150. Not that it was the same thing. Simply to differentiate the difference between the concepts of ‘increase’ and ‘increase by 50’. I can see you understand that difference. The problem occurs when I say I believe (meaning I have the opinion) that people can increase (or improve) their intelligence, and people immediately respond, ‘No they can’t, nobody can get a jump from 100 to 150 on IQ tests’. I admit I do the same thing sometimes. But once you get down to discussing things in reasonable terms, there is no point to that kind of statement. By the way, in reference to my last statement, I can easily demonstrate how most people can increase their score by 50 points on an IQ test. It isn’t hard to figure out how. It isn’t relevant to our discussion, but it does amuse me. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/56 "2010-09-03T18:16:15Z")
[quote=“not\_alice, post:54, topic:552435”] > [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Are you suggesting that there is room for more people in the subset of \> 3 std devs out than there is now? > > How does that work? > > Right, and by renormin, only the same number of people as before will be 3 std devs (or whatever distance interests you) out. If someone where to move in, then someone else would have to move out. > > It is at the heart of the very definition of a normed score, which you claim to grasp. Now you are saying that the definition of a normed score is not relevant to the way we interpret it? > > Hmmm. > > People keep saying statistical things in this thread, that they apparently don’t understand are in fact statistical claims. Yours are approaching the one up above where someone said they can measure the speed of a car without statistics. > > As someone asked upthread for another to follow the board tradition of separating paragraphs with 2 line feeds, may I ask that you follow board convention regarding quotes please? Sorry about the quoting conventions but things are really starting to fall apart now, so I’ll just respond in text below. I think maybe you are misconstruing what I’m saying somehow. My _ONLY_ claims are: 1. a 150 IQ is not beyond human limits 2. a running speed of 50 mph is beyond human limits 3. they are, therefore, not particularly similar expressions of human ability and not particularly useful for talking about what can or cannot be done I have never made the claim that somone can increase their IQ into the 150 range - I have made the opposite argument. Does this clear things up for you? I think I may understand what you were thinking - that someone couldn’t make their way into a category because there was no more statistical ‘room’ - but this, too, would be unture - it would just be harder than it might initially appear because they would have to push someone out, in effect lowering that persons score -since the scores are relative, not absolute - as you are aware. (statistically possible, not actually possible :)) The second statement does hinge on the first in that it takes as a premise something that is arrived at after a a consideration of statistics, but the premise is sound as I intended it and the second statement is in fact more general, and really about logic more than statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/57 "2010-09-03T18:20:28Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > , I can easily demonstrate how most people can increase their score by 50 points on an IQ test. It isn’t hard to figure out how. It isn’t relevant to our discussion, but it does amuse me. Interesting. Are you talking about increasing the score by +50 on the [WAIS-IV](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale) test professionally administered by a psychologist or the free online IQ tests? If it’s the latter, don’t be offended if some of us don’t take you seriously. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/58 "2010-09-03T18:23:55Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > > [@TriPolar](#): > > > > , I can easily demonstrate how most people can increase their score by 50 points on an IQ test. It isn’t hard to figure out how. It isn’t relevant to our discussion, but it does amuse me. > > Interesting. > > Are you talking about increasing the score by +50 on the [WAIS-IV](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale) test professionally administered by a psychologist or the free online IQ tests? > > If it’s the latter, don’t be offended if some of us don’t take you seriously. Any test that would give results in the range of 50 or less to 100 or more with 100 being the mean. I’m not making a serious assertion of anything relevant to intelligence or IQ testing though. Think about it. BTW: ’ professionally administered by a psychologist’ could make it much harder, but not impossible. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/59 "2010-09-03T18:28:54Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > > [@not\_alice](#): > > > > Well you should know: they are normed statistical instruments. > > > > Maybe you are just in the wrong thread if you don’t know what the OP was talking about? > > Now you are claiming psychic abilities. No, see post 31. You demonstrated a misunderstandng of the OP, who was discussing normed statistical assessments. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing a way to increase intelligence. I don’t even understand your grammer. If you want to apply a single measurement as a statistic, and extend that to the plural definition statistics, go ahead. It doesn’t help your argument. LOL you an be in attack mode, but you are just digging yourself deeper. Tell me exactly about this “statistic” of describing how fast your car is traveling, and how you calculate it, and how it is but one measurement. Come on, it will be fun 🙂 [QUOTE] Cite what? You don’t think you will find a definition of temperature in a physics book? Temperature is a physical property. You can produce statistics using it. So what? Tell me anything about intelligence. You refuse to address that. [QUOTE] You told me to look for it in a physics book. I want to know what physics book to find it in. If you prefer to provide me a web link, I am OK with that too. Whatever definition you want, I am fine with it - you pick it. I jsut want to see if you can relate something that will probably be described as described as related to changes in energy levels of electrons orbiting a nucleus (old physics, memory fuzzy, don’t hold me to the details!), I want to see how you think that relates to the statistic that it is 75 degrees outside today. The reason is, still, I want you to demonstrate mastery of the statistics you are using in your sentences. Apparently you don’t realize they are based on statistics, which could well be. I accept that might wellbe the case. But then, if it turns out to be the case, it is going to affect how I think about our equally statistical claims of intelligence. OTOH, if you show you DO understand the statistical claims you are making outside the realm of intelligence, it will carry a lot of weight in evaluating your intelligence claims too. Its up to you really. I have my suspicions, but like a good scientist, I am just trying to collect data to use to evaluate a hypothesis. > [@](#): > > My first post was unclear. That was my default, and you can criticize me for it. yes, well when being unclear is your default, you can expect a lot of pushback. > [@](#): > > The rest of my posts have been clear on what I am stating as fact, and what I am stating as opinion. And when you mix the two, you need to be prepared to support which ones are fact, and not hidden opinions, and also not to use them improperly to conclude your opinions. > [@](#): > > I did not say I know what intelligence is. I don’t have time to reread the posts again, so if I did, following my first post, which I clarified. Then you are right, and I was mistaken. Otherwise retract your claim. If you don’t know what it is, then how do you measure it? With an IQ test, right? So then why do you dismiss the substantial mathematics around the creation of a population-normed instrument? Because you don’t have a clue what they are about, right? > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing any of those things. You are imagining that I am, if you hold that belief after my clarification. I am not arguing you hold those beliefs. I am asking you to demonstrate your understanding of how routine things in life, that we all grasp intuitively, have statistical underpinnings if they have any underpinnings at all. > [@](#): > > I don’t propose anything about taking valid IQ tests. So people can increase intelligence, and this can be shown by not measuring it in any way. OK. That makes as much sense as anything you have said. May I suggest you practice a lot of the logic problems that the books suggested upthread recommend in your spare time? I won;t take any position on if you will be more intelligent as a result or not, but I do think it will help you construct arguments with fewer fallacies. And then others might perceive you as more intelligent than they do now. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435/60 "2010-09-03T18:33:51Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The problem occurs when I say I believe (meaning I have the opinion) that people can increase (or improve) their intelligence, I am open to your showing you can increase your intelligence even a tiny bit. I would like to know how you measure it, and then we can discuss the appropriateness of that measure, OK? You choose the measure. PS - On an IQ scale, is a person with a score of 120 20% more intelligent than a person with a score of 100? How about temperature? If the temperature is 100 degrees today, is it 25% warmer than yesterday when it was 80? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-develop-intelligence/552435.md?page=4)