Is the IQ improvable? If yes, how can one improve his IQ?

Is the IQ improvable? If yes, how can one improve his IQ?

Right now, I have an IQ of 130 and I want to improve, at least, 10 points, since I feel like a brainlet with just 130. Any advices?

Other urls found in this thread:

aaidd.org/
iqscorner.com/2011/01/iq-test-effects.html
speechandlanguage.com/clinical-cafe/practice-effects
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

xD you're already beyond fucked if you need to rely on a number. This is coming from your Senpai with an IQ of 145.

There are progrmas that can increase your score on the test by a few points.

However, this increase in score is even less likely to actually reflect general intelligence at other tasks. IQ can correlate with success in intellectual tasks but small difference such as between 130 and 140, the power of the prediction is small. Yet here you're just boosting your score by learning tricks to the particular questions on this test. It will mean nothing.

get better at taking IQ tests? no reason to think you can't just practice that.

>b-b-b-but that's not actually getting more intelligent!

well, that makes IQ tests sound like a problematic assessment tool, doesn't it?

I don't think he means being able to solve IQ tests better, but actually improving his intelligence.

I wish I had an IQ of 130. I wouldn't bother to try to increase that. It's smart enough.

he asked if 'IQ' is approveable. if you can get better at the IQ test without actually getting more intelligent, then maybe you should realize that there's no point in being so fixated on it.

how to get more intelligent? that's a different question.

OP here:

I want to entry to Mensa organization, that's why I want to improve my IQ, but also, if I can improve my intelligence, that's cool

>he asked if 'IQ' is approveable
You are just playing dumb now. He obviously meant a better IQ without being better at solving IQ tests but being smarter.
Just because IQ tests are flawed, doesn't mean that they are completely useless to measure intelligence.
People that do IQ tests without prior training and score high are mostly if not all more intelligent than average.
Furthermore, I guess that unless you train a real lot, doing multiple IQ tests will not improve your score by much. A person with a 110 IQ will not get to 130 just by doing a few tests, specially if they are spaced.

And deciding to pick your butt instead of answering questions will lead to a lower score.
This is why no real science branch uses personal surveys as scientific data.

>Furthermore, I guess that unless you train a real lot, doing multiple IQ tests will not improve your score by much. A person with a 110 IQ will not get to 130 just by doing a few tests, specially if they are spaced.

Hehe nope.

>A paper published in a 1929 issue of the American Journal of Psychology by Pauline Martin and Samuel Fernberger, two psychologists at the University of Pennsylvania. Martin and Fernberger reported that two undergraduate subjects had been able, with four months of practice, to increase the number of digits they could remember when given the digits at a rate of about one per second. One of the students had improved from an average of nine digits to 13, while the other had gone from 11 to 15.

Author of the piece tried his hand at improving a test-subjects score at the digit-memory battery and got his subject to memorize 20 digits consistently. Sound ridiculous? Hard to believe? Can't handle the TRUTH?? Not sure why you wouldn't think that the brain would get better at performing psychological assessments, anyways.

>You are just playing dumb now. He obviously meant a better IQ without being better at solving IQ tests but being smarter.

I believe you want me to be dumb, since I clearly showed that I understand what 'he' (assuming 'he' is not you) wants. I just said that if he wants to get more 'intelligent' he ought to divorce that from the notion of an IQ test.

Memorizing digits is far from what an IQ test measures. Anyone who trains memorizing digits will get better at just memorizing digits, not at pattern recognition, which is what IQ tests measure.
B
ut assuming that memorizing digits is actually what is evaluated by IQ tests, you only proved my point:
>Furthermore, I guess that unless you train a real lot, doing multiple IQ tests will not improve your score by much.
They trained a lot and got better at solving that kind of problem, different from most people, who will not spend their time trying to improve their score.

Mensa is a meme
130 pts is plenty enough
Don't waste your time on iq tests

make sure to get sleep if you're not getting that

>There are progrmas that can increase your score on the test by a few points.
Yeah, it's called taking the test twice. If your score doesn't improve significantly after repeatedly taking the same IQ test, regardless of your score, you have a learning deficiency.

It's expected that IQ test results will rapidly improve with each test taken in quick succession, which is why the standard procedure is to put a year between administered IQ tests. Even then, they are expected to vary by as many as 30 points, in either direction, with each application.

IQ tests are not magic. They aren't even science - they are psychometrics - which is PSYCHOLOGY. They don't mean much on an individual level beyond, mayhaps, detecting very specific learning disabilities, as they can very wildly just by what you had for breakfast, whether the person administering the test is a man or a woman, young or old, and are only really useful for sociological trends over a large sampling.

t. A psychologist who, to date, has given well over 100 IQ tests, and has never scored within 20 points twice, of any of the six he's taken himself.

So yeah, improving your IQ is pretty damned simple.

Improving your actual *intelligence* that's another thing, and it requires both practice and discipline. In the end, it's just a matter of choosing what sort of intellectual task you wish to improve your performance at, practicing that, and dutifully watching your diet and sleep cycles.

>t. never been given a proper IQ test
Both the standard Stanford–Binet and Cattell (those used for the MENSA standard), include both pattern recognition *and* number memorization. In both cases, any IQ tests taken within a year of one another are invalid, for the very reason that, yes, you will see a dramatic improvement between repeated applications of the same test. If you don't, then there's something wrong with you.

Similarly, if you practice number memorization and/or pattern recognition in your daily employment, you will score dramatically better on an IQ test than anyone else in your standard group. For instance, middle aged, low income background, African-American phone switchboard operators in the 70's, scored, on average, well beyond MENSA level IQ's, while direct relatives in other professions averaged closer to 90. It's not that they were any smarter than their close relatives - it's simply that the tasks they did all day, everyday, were very closely related to the sort of tasks IQ tests measure against.

And neither Stanford–Binet nor Cattell were ever really designed to test "general intelligence" insomuch as they were to detect specific deficiencies as well as trends within specific groups. Unsurprisingly, that's about the only thing they do at all well. They are alright in weeding between the learning disabled and those with SED, and in the end, can tell you more about folks with specific learning deficiencies than they can tell you about geniuses.

IQ doesnt matter at fucking all. Its about work ethic and sociability. Im supossed to be a genius but im at the point of dropping out of first semester college. Im decently sure I could pass it if I worked for it, but ive grown lazy.

Dont let your life be ruled by an imaginary number user, just do your best,

If you are a genius you can pass even slacking. I know people who are even less than geniuses who are like that.

Yes you can raise your IQ. Chess is known to do that, not sure how much weight that holds but I play chess and my IQ went up by a whopping 2 points.

>IQ doesn't matter at fucking all.
So you would be ok with having an IQ of 40, right? Because it doesn't matter at all.

Every so often, a post comes along on Veeky Forums that I really would like to ask for citations for. I hater internet flame wars, so I will try to use language that will avoid having this exchange into a mud slinging match.

>It's expected that IQ test results will rapidly improve with each test taken in quick succession, which is why the standard procedure is to put a year between administered IQ tests. Even then, they are expected to vary by as many as 30 points, in either direction, with each application.

Claims like this are what I'm talking about. This runs counter to virtually everything I've ever read on the subject. IQ tests are the most reliable and accurate of any test in psychometrics. Some have made the claim that measurement of IQ is as accurate as measuring height.

>IQ tests are not magic. They aren't even science

How can I say this simply isn't true without making it seem overly aggressive from my end? I don't know how. Say what you like about them, but yes they are science. They were developed by a French school teacher Alfred Binet, published in peer reviewed journals and eventually reified by factor analysis (see "The Mismeasure of Man", by Stephen J Gould).

Some online IQ tests cap at 130 or even 160.

Whoever finds a way to genuinely improve IQ will become a Nobel prize winner.

Jesus fuck...
>It's expected that IQ test results will rapidly improve with each test taken in quick succession, which is why the standard procedure is to put a year between administered IQ tests.
>Claims like this are what I'm talking about. This runs counter to virtually everything I've ever read on the subject.
Then you clearly ain't read dick about the subject.

aaidd.org/ "The practice effect refers to gains in IQ scores on test of intelligence that result from a person being retested on the same instrument" (p. 38)

>"..established clinical practice is to avoid administering the same intelligence test within the same year to the same individual because it will often lead to an overestimate of the examinee's true intelligence" (p. 38).

iqscorner.com/2011/01/iq-test-effects.html

speechandlanguage.com/clinical-cafe/practice-effects

Do you really think that you won't get better at memorizing numbers and rearranging blocks to fit a pattern, if you simply practice it? That an individual's performance at Tetris or Bejeweled or Luminosity doesn't improve any between the first time they play and the 10,000th time in a row?

An IQ test doesn't test anything static nor objective. It doesn't count how many neurons and neural connections you have or any such. It's simply testing how well you can perform at what's essentially a puzzle and memorization game, and that performance can be affected dramatically by any number of factors, including practice, just as your performance at any other such game would be. It isn't expected, even by Binet, to be consistent in the same individual in repeated application OR even particularly so a year apart. It's only expected to reveal the nature of specific deficits in individuals and trends among large groups.

practice the test until you get a good score.

Are you mentally challenged? I already said that it doesn't matter if by training you can improve your score. IQ tests are designed for doing it at only the first time. Obviously taking it multiple times invalidates its purpose. Just because you can be better at solving IQ tests by practicing it doesn't make them useless. If you are better at solving IQ tests you are not actually increasing your IQ (which I obviously mean the score proportionally given acccording to one's intelligence, not just the score itself).
That being said, I now should remind you that people who score high on IQ tests are usually (if not always) very intelligent. Having an IQ of 130 or so actually means something. It's not just an arbitrary number that means you are good at taking that test only, specially because that test is supposed to measure one's general intelligence, not just the ability to solve that very few set of puzzles.

meant to quote

This
I've been doing the online tests for 2 years and my IQ is well over 180

>I already said that it doesn't matter if by training you can improve your score
No, you said that it "counters everything you've read on the subject", clearly indicating you've either not read jack, or you're just lying to defend stuff you have no understanding of.

>Having an IQ of 130 or so actually means something.
It means you don't have any major deficiencies, and might mean something as it relates to the group you're in.

But the next result may very well be 115 or 160, and it might vary that much just based on the time of day you took it, what you ate, or who administered it to you. (Indeed, there's often a greater trend between test administrators than there are from group categories, being one of the many criticisms of the current methodology.)

It's not an absolutely worthless test, but on the individual level, it's ballpark, at best. And no, it's not anything like measuring height. You aren't measuring anything physical or consistently objective here, just performance at a few specific tasks at a given moment. So when someone wants to "increase their IQ by 10 points" - it's a meaningless proposition as it relates to that test.

If you wanted something objective, you'd have to measure something physical and relatively static (like height), rather than a task where performance can vary so radically at any given moment. Measuring the only such good indicators we seem to have in that department, namely neural density and interconnections, is expensive (and fatal, if you wanna be through about it). It's also more difficult to test large swaths of people that way, so isn't as useful for social statistics. Which, again, in addition to revealing learning disabilities, is what IQ is really for. It's about telling you how broken your learning processes is, in what way, and how it relates to others of your group. It's not intended to be an accurate measurement of an individual's general intelligence as people not involved in psychology tend to believe.

>No, you said that it "counters everything you've read on the subject"
I'm not that guy m8. You're replying to two people thinking it's one.

First off no more anime
Stick strictly to nova and cspan
Second read textbooks
Finally get off the internet

Why no more anime?

No matter which way you twist it, pigging out on anime isn't going to improve your IQ. If you're going to actually try to get a better IQ, follow the directions. If you're not going to follow the directions, quietly ignore the post and don't be one of those cuck weeaboos that scream bloody murder every time someone takes a shot at anime. It's not an argument you're going to win on Veeky Forums

Why people still think that IQ works

Because people with high IQs are actually very intelligent.

well according to memesters in Veeky Forums IQ is an esoteric measure that does not correlate with intelligence and you can get better at it by taking tests so why not take test after test until your brain learns how to solve IQ tests and score 200 points?

I'm sure the know-it-alls of this board can't be wrong on that one!

Everyone has intelligence limited by the genes, so no matter how hard you try you will never be as intelligent as the samrtest man alive (Donald "The D' man" Trump)

This is a fact.

Langan is a moron tho

>Langan says he spent the last years of high school mostly in independent study, teaching himself "advanced math, physics, philosophy, Latin, and Greek."
>He earned a perfect score on the SAT (pre-1995 scale) despite taking a nap during the test.
>He began talking at six months, taught himself to read before he was four, and was repeatedly skipped ahead in school.
Yep. Definitely a moron.

> Langan says
user says I studied Ancient Greek and Latin in the womb. Translated Principia at 3, and proved the non-existence of a general form of Navier-Stokes at 10.

> Langan attended Reed College and later Montana State University
> believing that he could teach his professors more than they could teach him, he dropped out.
> by his mid-40s had been a construction worker, cowboy, Forest Service Ranger, farmhand, and, for over twenty years, a bouncer on Long Island.
> In a 2014 radio interview, Langan said that he has worked on the P versus NP problem and thinks he can prove that P does not equal NP.[14]
watagenius

The only actual achievements he has are vague as fuck.
He probably just has severe autismo and is a major exam baby.

I'm not talking about achievements, I'm talking about intelligence itself. Obviously he's a huge underachiever, but that doesn't disprove my point, which is that high IQ people are highly intelligent, and he does have a high IQ and is very intelligent.

>One single line on the post (which is just one of three examples) invalidates everything