Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nowyouseemenowyoudo2 t1_j21h1t9 wrote

You’d be wrong though. As a psychologist who has administered the WAIS and WISC, there’s no way to ‘practice’ to improve fluid intelligence.

The test-retest validity is extremely high because it has to be, any IQ test you can train for is not a real IQ test. Also, any IQ test which you can take without a qualified administrator is not a real IQ test.

I had to study for years to become qualified to administer them, and only then was I able to access the materials and be supervised in their use.

The things you are talking about are not fluid intelligence. Your intuition about this is wrong.

9

WillCode4Cats t1_j21nswx wrote

What are your opinions on the subject of IQ?

My main gripe with the tests (I took a WAIS-IV) is that there are potentially many variables that are not accounted for when taking the test, thus I feel that anyone’s result is just a snapshot of that person’s “intelligence” at that point in time, but the value is not static except for perhaps in the best of conditions where many of the variables have the same values.

What I mean is, what if someone stayed up for 48 hours and took a test? Do you believe this would impact one’s score? How about longer than 48 hours? What if they did not eat properly, are extremely stressed, etc.?

It’s why I have a hard time when psychologist try to warp qualitative data into quantitative results. Take height, for example. In any of the variables I listed above, a full grown adult’s height would remain static. That is because it is a quantitative result — unlike IQ.

I understand how much research has been conducted on IQ and it’s validity, but I would like to see more data and research from neurology than the soft sciences.

5

rumpleforeskins t1_j21xpx5 wrote

I see! Good to know. I'm glad I issued the disclaimer that I don't actually know what I'm talking about.

It's an interesting subject.

4