Where nothing is off topic.
Needless to say, reading comprehension questions are not what culturally-neutral IQ tests are made of.Also, no one disputes it's not possible to get higher results on an IQ test through training - which is why Mensa doesn't let you retake their test until a year has passed, and gives you a maximum of 3 attempts.All of that is well known and doesn't overturn anything we know about such things as correlations between IQ and job performance.And you should be one to accuse people of bloviations - with that grandstanding, you're just asking to have the mud thrown back at you.
SAT is not IQ (as Denis says). Moreover, this example shows the exact difference between causation and correlation. Perhaps the early SATs were highly correlated with future performance (college grades, job income). The net effect of Kaplan's studying may simply be to reduce that correlation, and make the SAT a less useful exam, in terms of its predictive value.IQ tests are different. I'm not aware of studying that reliably causes major movement in IQ scores. Again, even if some were to be invented, rather than being a comment on "innate" intelligence vs. environment, it could simply mean that IQ tests are no longer a reliable tool to investigate innate intelligence. Not that it doesn't exist.In any case, since you seem so fond of environmental influences (over genetic) for intelligence, I wonder if you can suggest a reliable methodology for taking an average kid (IQ 100) and turning them into a 140+ IQ kid by high school graduation.If you know of environmental influence that can make that happen, I've certainly got some candidate kids I'd like to try it out on.
Post a Comment