Indeed.

>>16985871
yeah you can cheat any test.
if you study for the iq test it loses validity.

>>16985877
But that means that someone working as an engineer or scientist also cheats for it since many skills carry over.

This is insane.

Stop judging people by IQ and instead judge them by how many award winning patents they own or sold for money, lol.

File: Kansas_City_School_Experiment.png (557 KB, 808x823)

557 KB PNG

>>16985871
>You can literally train for all the WAIS subtests and improve your score.

Maybe, IQ is strongly related to genetics.

>>16985880
Which skills are those? Please be exact.

>>16986017
In current dollars, that's $36,211. And we still hear endlessly that poor education outcomes is due to too little spending.

>>16985871
Also take drugs to speed up the metabolism to quick fire results. I did the opposite and smoked weed and lost points.

>>16985871
Do people with higher IQ see greater improvements when training for IQ tests?

File: pepesuit.gif (40 KB, 1080x800)

40 KB GIF

>>16985871
Wrong. The fact some people can improve their scores is absolutely irrelevant because such people need to score high enough in conscientiousness to have the diligence to study for the test, and conscientiousness is a better predictor of success than I.Q., in fact is only second to being rich.
I.Q. test are an excellent way to measure minimum intellectual aptitude for any job that requires such a thing. In my country I am not legally allowed to discriminate using I.Q. tests, so I make candidates play a "silly space game" to filter out people who are either mentally weak or don't like to follow orders. Neither of them are good candidates.

>>16985877
No it doesn't lose validity. You can't make an 80 go up to 120 just like that, maybe +10 or +15 points at most and only if they took their time to study. In practice it allows to filter out elements loved by the left, and that is a really good thing.

>>16986017
>Maybe, IQ is strongly related to genetics.
Which can developed.
You can better your genetics if you desire to (like hominids have done since milleniums).
If populations recognize there is a need to develop intelectual skills, they will, and they will evolve them.

>>16986119
In our country we do much the same thing by making candidates invent a little dance to the song I'm a little teapot and perform it in front of the group.

by what i understand you to mean by "bullshit" your post is also bullshit and most of what people consider work is bullshit

>>16985871
You know this because it’s a fact, thereby

>>16986119
More info on the silly space game.

The ability to scam an IQ test to obtain a high score is an indicator of high IQ, thoughbeit.

>>16985871
I never cared about intelligence quotient tests. It might be useful for statistical purposes relating to sociology and psychology, but not as a bragging right for people that make a pretense about it. My senior year at university, two suits stopped me on my way to my car and asked my name. I told them. They encouraged me to take an IQ test with them on campus as soon as possible. I told them I didn't have time because I had to go to work. I'm glad I did.

>>16985880
No, you're just stating something incorrect. There is no far transfer for cognitive training.

"Model 1 showed that working-memory training does induce near transfer, and that the size of this effect is moderated by the type of population. By contrast, Models 2 and 3 highlighted that far-transfer effects are small or null. Crucially, when placebo effects and publication bias were controlled for, the overall effect size and true variance equaled zero. That is, no impact on far-transfer measures was observed regardless of the type of population and cognitive-training program. The lack of generalization of skills acquired by training is thus an invariant of human cognition."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324784521_Near_and_Far_Transfer_in_Cognitive_Training_A_Second-Order_Meta-Analysis

"No evidence of near or far transfer effects after WM training."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825008121

"Our meta-analysis included an impressive number of studies from the burgeoning working memory training literature, but the pattern of results is consistent with an earlier review (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013). Although there is evidence for near transfer to similar verbal and visuospatial working memory tasks, all immediate and delayed comparisons of nonverbal ability, verbal ability, reading comprehension, word decoding, and arithmetic were not significantly different from zero when compared against treated controls and eliminating outlier studies. Using mediation analyses, we showed that the size of working memory gains was not related to the size of gains on measures of “far transfer.” We conclude that there is no evidence that working memory training yields improvements in so-called far-transfer abilities."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691616635612

File: 45e.jpg (78 KB, 680x733)

78 KB JPG

>>16985871
>if you train to get smarter, it invalidates the test that shows you got smarter
truly a genius
someone give this overtrained frog a nobel

>>16986623
It's supposed to measure something you can't train. But if you train for the test, it can't do that anymore.

>>16985871
But can you train Tabula Rasa chimpanzees to draft blueprints and build skyscrapers?

>>16986623
Retest effect gains are not g-loaded.

"I analyze two studies who provide the necessary data for studying the test-retest effects, namely, Watkins (2007), Schellenberg (2004, 2006). Both used the Wechsler’s subtests, and the correlations between the IQ changes among those subtests with g-loadings are negative, in line with earlier studies on this topic.

Introduction. For instance, Skuy et al. (2002), Coyle (2006), Nijenhuis et al. (2001, 2007) as well as Reeve & Lam (2005, 2007), Lievens et al. (2007), Matton et al. (2009, 2011), Freund & Holling (2011), Arendasy & Sommer (2013), were able to demonstrate that test-retest effects (or experiences) through educational meanings are not related to the g factor."

https://humanvarieties.org/2013/08/28/test-retest-effects-no-g-gains-in-two-independent-samples/

>>16985877
you're indian. no, you cannot cheat every test

>>16986124
>No it doesn't lose validity. You can't make an 80 go up to 120 just like that, maybe +10 or +15 points at most and only if they took their time to study.
IQ tests are literally testing your responses to novel problems. Studying for them will completely destroy their validity.
>>16986654
>no, you cannot cheat every test
you can pretty much cheat any verbal or written test.

>>16986637
If you're smart enough to outwit the test, then it does not disprove the validation.

>>16986639
Yes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwRaBvDIL2c

>>16986156
This post is the best conclusion to IQ being soley genetic and cant be improved

>>16985871
They test problem-solving, but not creativity :)

I don't need an IQ test to know I'm retarded.

>>16986642
But how do you measure g gains.

>>16986677
But engineers and scientists already do that, so you can't IQ test them.

>>16987060
Nvm, it just showed negligable increases in "g loaded" tests.

>>16987060
That's in the link, but you can look at the magnitude of test/subtest g-loadings and observe their correlation with retest effect gains, or you can look at whether individuals higher or lower in g had a larger retest effect gain. You can also prove/disprove far-transfer (gains on one test translating to gains on others) since a property of g is that it's highly generalizable (i.e individuals with high g tend to score above average on all cognitive tests).

The correlation of musical ability with pitch discrimination is lower than the correlation of musical ability with g (source: https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf page 24).

i'll never tire of hearing average iq white retards on /sci/ speak about how iq is genetic as a way to dismiss others with an iq lower than theirs lol

>>16987095
First of all I.Q. is heritable, not "genetic", heritability has a specific definition and it's a populace/large N calculation and varies by region. It's .85 heritable in Sweden but like .45 heritable in Pakistan.

>>16987092
Sure but you can drill g loaded tests as well. Not to mention the carry over, they include XOR operators which you learn in school.

>>16987118
/Whoosh/

>>16985877
>yeah you can cheat any test.
Not in the arts.

>>16987118
>you can drill g loaded tests
Of course, but this decreases the g-loading of that test.
>the carry over
There isn't any.

>>16987146
>reddit

>>16987095
>argh we're all interchangeable carbon-copy replicas of each other!
>argh I hate IQ!
>argh I hate White people!
Amazing post. You really provided a lot of value with that.

>>16987156
But how can you prove anything then. How do you know you can't increase g by doing g loaded exercises if those exercises then get dimished automatically. It's an a priori claim.

>>16987159
Not even close to what that post was communicating. You're obviously at least 20 points below him.

>>16987239
Just read this post again: >>16987092

>>16987241
Kek. Why are you sucking him off so hard?